Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.700 E Main St.50B-(87)88boo E.I��in��vE,�r��-L ��3�-��-��ooZ � C��'i�i �ur����C�'%%'U� .��l�fi�� �.� � psi 'Ke 4 : -t 0 Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A cont'd. More Fully Described As Follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Block 21 East Aspen Additional Townsite, Thence N 14° 50' 49"E 120.00 Ft., Thence S 75° 09' 11"E 150 Ft. along the South Line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, said Block 21, Thence departing from said line N 14050'49"E 100.00 Ft., Thence S 59°18' 00"E 56.37 Ft., Thence S 50'14'11"E 118.32 Ft., Thence S 52057'39"W 47.02 Ft., Thence S 49°58'47"W 21.71 Ft., Thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 Ft., to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75009'11W 2.31 Ft., Along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 Ft. Along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 Ft. (The chord of which bear N 5102712711W 141.60 Ft.) to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N75*09'11'W 164.75 Ft. Along the said South line to the point of the begining. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, East Aspen Additional Township City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Formerly Known As: Lots A, B, C, D & E, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO A Schedule -Page -No. 035-1-999.0040/2 lawyers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia SCHEDULE B—Section 1 Requirements The following are the requirements to be complied with Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit. (1) Deed from : DOROTHY MARM MIMLSEN, ARDITH LOUISE WARE and ALICE JUANITA GALLEGOS to : ME ASSOCIATES, A hIINNESO TA ORAL PARTNERSHIP (2) Trade Name Affidavit or Partnership Agreement of FINE ASSOCIATES, disclosing the names of the partners, and the other information required by '73 CRS 7-71-101 (1) (1) evidencing the existence of said partnership prior to its acquisticn of title to the land herein. (3) Deed from ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. to FINE ASSOCIATES, A MRZ ESOTA ORAL PARTNERSHIP (4) Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. (5) Certificate of Nonforeign Status, signed by DORC7IHY MARIE IvIIKKELSEN, ARDITH LOUISE WARE, ALICE AJANITA GALLEGOS, and ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. This commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule B-Section 1 -Page 1 -Commitment No. 1232-87 ules A and B are attached. Form No 91-BA 18 - 11 Lawyers te InsuranceCorporatiot NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE B—Section 2 Exceptions The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the some ore disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im- posed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69 as follows: Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. 8. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Letter relating to the use of driveway from William R. Tiedt to Dorothty Marie Mikkelsen, Ardith Louise Ware and Alice Juanita Gallegos as set forth in instrument recorded November 4, 1982 in Book 435 at Page 189. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Short Form Options by and between Albert W. Bevan, Jr., and Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership as set forth in instrument recorded September 29, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 919; and Short Form Option by and between Ardith Ware, Dorothy M. Mikkelsen and Alice J. Mikkelsen and Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership as set forth in instrument recorded September 29, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 921. Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B—Section 1, Item (b). (2) Unpotented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. (3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—No. Form 91 -88 B2 Rocky Mt. Wyers Title Insurance Orporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof jy the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to bec( valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extentthe Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. Lawwrs T & Insu a Or ffation President Attest: Secretary. Alpine Surveys, Inc. J EXHIBIT 414 North Mill Street ��� Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 November 19, 1987 87-140 To Whom it May Concern: I have conducted a slope study of the property associated with Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite. The results: Total Lot Area 60016 Sq. Ft. Slope Area Multiplyer Net Area 0-20 49776 1.00 49776 20-30 700 0.50 350 30-40 1485 0.25 371 * 40+ 8055 0 0 * Includes Area Under Water Net Developable Area 50497 Sincerely Yo.uxs, Reser JFR/ml Suite 1416 IDS Center %linneapolu. MN ;;402 Telepheme t, l'_ 332 2;61 EXHIM „3A FINE ASSOCIATES November 25, 1987 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Land Use Applications by Fine Associates for 700 Main Project Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We hereby authorize submission of the Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review applications to the City of Aspen. These application submittals, on behalf of Fine Associates, are for the "700 Main" project. Fine Associates is the holder of an option to purchase the subject property. Sincerely, FINE ASSOCIATES, a Minnesota GE as Managing General Partner WIF:rd uhie T ..3„ CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being the sole record owner of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the / day of November, 1987. OWNER: ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. EXHIBIT "A" Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; containing 15,000 square feet more or less. Formerly known as: Lots A,B,C,D and E, Block 21, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. D(NISIT ..3„ CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being all of the record owners of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the � — day of November, 1987. OWNERS: ARDITH LOUISE WARE DOROTHY MARIE MIKKELSEN ALICEWJANITA GALLEGOS (now known as Alice Juanita Mikkelsen) • 0 EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, thence N 14050149" E 120.00 feet, thence S 75009111" E 150.00 feet along the South line of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, said Block 21, thence departing from said line N 14050149" E 100.00 feet, thence S 59°18'00" E 56.37 feet, thence S 50014111" E 118.32 feet, thence S 52°57'39" W 47.02 feet, thence S 49058'47" W 21.71 feet, thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 feet to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75009111" W 2.31 feet along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 feet (the chord of which bears S 10018'25" E 62.87 feet), thence 145.72 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 176.18 feet (the chord of which bears N 51027'27" W 141.60 feet) to the South line of said Block 21, thence N 75009'11" W 164.75 feet along the said South line to the Point of Beginning, containing 45,016 square feet more or less. CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being all of the record owners of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the ��day of November, 1987. OWNERS: ARDITH LOUISE WARE DOROTHY MARIE MIKKELSEN ALICE JUANITA GALLEGOS (now known as Alice Juanita Mikkelsen) • • EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, thence N 14°50'49" E 120.00 feet, thence S 75009111" E 150.00 feet along the South line of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, said Block 21, thence departing from said line N 14*50149" E 100.00 feet, thence S 59018100" E 56.37 feet, thence S 50114111" E 118.32 feet, thence S 52°57'39" W 47.02 feet, thence S 49058'47" W 21.71 feet, thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 feet to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75109111" W 2.31 feet along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 feet (the chord of which bears S 10018125" E 62.87 feet), thence 145.72 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 176.18 feet (the chord of which bears N 51027'27" W 141.60 feet) to the South line of said Block 21, thence N 75009111" W 164.75 feet along the said South line to the Point of Beginning, containing 45,016 square feet more or less. Hagman & Yaw Architects 210 S. Galena Aspen, Co. 81611 ATTN: Mike Thompson To Whom It May Concern: EXHIBIT 14 November 25, 1987 The City of Aspen owns the electric facilities in the 700 block on the North side of East Main St. At the present time there is 120/240 single phase power at this location. Any upgrading of present facilities such as a transformer size increase or change to 120/208 Three Phase will be at owners expense. The City of Aspen Electric Department will do all hookups in the transformer and charge owner for material and labor. The City of Aspen also furnishes the Current Transformers and Meter Housing and will wire up same at no charge to owner after inspection by City Building inspector. C Donald K. Gilbert Electric Superintendent cc/Jay Hammond DG/ch • P. O. Box 220 Glenwood Springs, OD 81602 November 17, 1987 Hagman & Yaw ATIN: Michael Thcnpson 210 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Thomson: Mountain Bell A USWEST COMPANY EXHIBIT ., C Vl Pursuant to your request concerning the provision of telephone facilities for the Original Curve Town Homes, located in Aspen, Colorado. I submit the following information. Mountain Bell is the serving telephone comany in this area and will provide telephone service to this project. However, the developer could be required to enter into a Land Developers Contract with Mountain Bell and be required to provide front end money prior to Mountain Bell's placement of telephone facilities within this project. Sincerely, RAYMOND L. CARPENTER Assistant Manager RLC/sw 0 I`_ J cable t v Mr. Michael Thompson Hagman -Yaw Architects 210 S. Galena St. Suite Aspen, CO 81611 November 19, 1987 EXHIBIT Re: Serviceability Confirmation Pursuant to our telephone conversation on November 17, this letter will confirm that cable television service will be made available to the proposed 18 Townhomes in the vicinity of 700 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611. Such service availability will be subject to our published rate schedule then in effect. Please see that we are listed on your utility companies mailing list to insure that we receive liberal, advance notice of the progress of this project. We will be happy to assist you in the utility/CATV installation coordination to assure of a smooth process. Since ely, J el y Bloomer Division Of United Artists Cablesystems Corp. 201 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado • 81611 • 303/925-4098 APPLICATION FOR CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/P.U.D. December 1, 1987 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2020 Applicant: Fine Associates IDS Center, Suite 1916 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2561 Architects: Leonard Parker & Associates 430 Oak Grove Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 871-6864 Landscape Architect: Civil Engineers: Planner: Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2867 Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8354 Rea-Cassens & Associates, Inc. 4388 South Windermere Englewood, Colorado 80110 789-4428 Joe Wells 608 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 925-6866 Attorneys: Gideon Kaufman Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. Project Description 1 II. Project Site 2 III. Application Requirements 3 IV. Conceptual Subdivision 3 V. Conceptual P.U.D. 5 VI. Stream Margin Review 6 VII. Mandatory P.U.D. Review 7 VIII. Common Park and Recreation Areas 10 IX. Architectural Review 10 X. Landscaping Plan 10 XI. Off -Street Parking 10 XII. Reduction for Slope 10 XIII. Open Space and Common Facility Maintenance 10 XIV. Special Approval of Deed Restricted Employee Housing Units 11 MAPS AND EXHIBITS Vicinity/Location/Zoning Map # I Conceptual Subdivision/P.U.D./Site Map #14 Landscaping Plan Map #15 Conceptual Grading Plan Map #13 Special Review Conditions Map #13 Title Commitment (Ownership) Exhibit 1 Letter on Density Reduction Exhibit 2 Joint Application Consent Exhibit 3 i EXHIBITS (continued) Utility Letters not addressed in GMP section: (a) Electric (b) Telephone (c) Cable T.V. ii Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR 700 MAIN PROJECT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The Applicant is proposing seventeen (17) free-market residential units, plus one (1) employee unit. Three (3) of the free-market units will be replacement units. The property is located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Spring Street, and is bordered on the west by the Concept 600 Building, on the north by the Eagles Club, on the east by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the Original Curve Condominiums. The land is located within the RMF PUD Zone on a total of 60,016 sq. ft. The multi -family units are being configured into three (3) separate building clusters. The majority of the units are located near the northern perimeter of the site, away from Main Street. The multi -family project is in conformity with its underlying zoning. It seeks no variations through the4_ P.U.D. process, and its size and scope fits nicely in the neighborhood, which is a mix of multi -family and commercial. Great care has been given to the organization of the site plan to complement the development in the area, and to provide a graceful transition between this project, the surrounding projects and the river and park. Involved in the design of the project are several significant beneficial features: (1) Applicant is providing two isolation valves, extending a deadend water line, providing interconnect and looping, all of which will enhance the City of Aspen water system. (2) Applicant is providing one new fire hydrant, and upgrading a second fire hydrant. This along with improving the City water system will enhance fire protection for the neighborhood. (3) Applicant is slip lining a portion of the off -site sewer line to correct an existing infiltration problem and, in effect, enhance capacity. (4) The Applicant is initiating storm drainage techniques that will upgrade storm drainage in the area, and will eliminate some direct flows to the Roaring Fork River. (5) The project is undergrounding almost all of the parking, eliminating the visual impact of cars, and providing all required parking. (6) Responding to the tremendous challenge that the community faces with pollution, the project is eliminating all woodburning devices. • (7) The Applicant is providing park -like settings for the public on the corner of Spring and Main, and on Original Curve. (8) Applicant is providing new sidewalk links (� off -site to the south side of Neal Street for pedestrian crossing at the No Problem Bridge. (9) Applicant will move, at its expense, electrical transformer boxes which prominently sit in the �- City ROW to a new screened location. Applicant believes this project, with its many beneficial components, and with its thoughtful site planning and architectural design, meets the c l tArfor PUD and suL.d sion approval II. PROJECT SITE. The site is located on the corner of Main Street and Spring Street, bordered by the Concept 600 Building, the Eagles Club, across the street from the Original Curve Condominiums, and across the river from Herron Park. Comprised of seventeen free-market (17) units, the site plan has been configured using three (3) separate building clusters of attached multi -family units. The majority of units are located in the northern perimeter of the site, away from Main Street, thereby reducing visual impact, and creating views to Aspen Mountain. An interesting large, open space design with an interior courtyard separating the housing clusters and a generous amount of open space along Main Street is being provided. The building cluster located nearest to Main Street is designed to create a scaled -down building transition from the Concept 600 Building which is over four (4) stories high. This site design preserves the tall, existing Cottonwood trees at the corner of Spring and Main, and creates a park -like open space setting for pedestrian use at the corner. In order to preserve the natural qualities of the embankment of the Roaring Fork River, development has been kept back from the river's edge. The landscaped, pedestrian quality of the project's open space has been made possible by placing required parking in a below -grade parking garage. The only exception to below -grade parking is the provision of four (4) on grade guest/service parking spaces located off Spring Street. Access to the pool and recreational areas is provided directly from the subgrade garage by stair and elevator as well as by pedestrian access from the courtyard. A small, public rest and conversation area will be provided by the Applicant as discussed with the Parks Department on the City right-of-way, in a landscaped environment near Original Curve. This vest pocket park will be located in a landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk, with good solar orientation and excellent views of the Roaring Fork River and Independence Pass. - 2 - A unique design for.garbage has been incorporated into the site design. Two (2) two---y-a-r-d capacity dumpsters will be located in a below -grade Qarage location, and will be lifted by an elevator to an accessible paved area during the actual time of gar e collection. The existioxes presently situated in a visually prominent location on the L public right-of-way on Spring Street will be relocated to a landscaped site. A dominant feature of the site design is the landscaped open space which connects the Main Street open space frontage to the interior of the site and through to Spring Street. Only thirty-two percent (32%) of the actual site is covered with building envelopes. The open space between the building clusters approximates seventy feet (70') in width, which allows solar orientation and views, as well as internal landscaped space. A project featured amenity is the pool and recreation :pace. The pool deck and enclosed recreational space have b=gin partially sunken a ow gra e or Pr protection. e p o area development has neen set back rom t e river embankment to preserve the natural quality of the edge, and is seen as an open space extension of the Herron Park vista. III. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. The Applicant seeks simultaneous approval of the following submissions: Conceptual Subdivision pursuant to Section 20-10; Conceptual P.U.D. pursuant to Section 24-8.7; Mandatory P.U.D. pursuant to Section 24-8.13; Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 24-6.3; GMP Approval, Special Review for Deed Restricting Employee Housing Un-ts and special review for two (2) four -bedroom units in the RMF Zone. The proposed employee dwelling unit may be exempt from GMP pursuant to Section 24-11.2(f) subject to approval by Council based upon recommendations by the Planning Commission. In order to facilitate Planning Commission and Council review, the remainder of this Application is organized according to submittal requirements of the various applications. IV. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION. A. As stated in Section 20-7, the purpose of conceptual review is to authorize further study on the project. The information that we have submitted justifies an approval in the conceptual stage. The suitability of the land for subdivision required in Section 20-9 has been proven for this first stage, and if additional information is needed - 3 - we will be happy to provide it. The land being used for development is basically flat and easily accessible, both from the street and for utility purposes. All parking will be provided on -site at one (1) space per bedroom with the majority of the parking underground. B. A vicinity map of a scale of 1-400 is found in the application. The map shows the project's location with respect to the downtown core and public support facilities. The project's proximity to the commercial core, neighborhood commercial centers, and the base lifts of Aspen Mountain will encourage more pedestrian and fewer auto trips. Public safety support has easy access to the site. C. A sketch plan of the proposed development is included. Relevant subdivision considerations are illustrated on the plan which shows access to the property off Spring Street. Parking of one (1) space per bedroom is provided almost entirely underground, with no parking on Main or Spring Street required. The multi -family units are oriented to maximize views, open space, privacy and solar gain. The natural Cottonwood trees are being preserved, and existing trees over 6" caliper on the site are being relocated to complement a detailed landscaping plan. All utilities are readily available to the site. D. Tabulation of Data. (a) The project's proposed name is 700 Main. The land mass of the project is 60,016 sq. ft., all within the City of Aspen. (b) Density calculation formulas show a total of O 50,497 square feet of developable land, when slope and land C under water are deducted. (c) The number of free-market units will be seventeen (17), including three (3) reconstructed units. (d) One (1) employee structure of one (1) bedroom will be constructed. (e) Total FAR calculated from Section 24-3.4 allowed is 50,497 square feet. Less than that square footage will be built. (f) Total projected population is approximately 45 people. E. Disclosure of Ownership. See Exhibit "1". - 4 - V. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. A. RMF P.U.D. zoning requires a project to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process. This process allows flexibility in the strict application of zoning district requirements, encourages appropriate design for the site's topography and unique qualities. This process also encourages site and architectural design which enhances the site's existing assets. Because of this, three (3) cluster buildings are being constructed, each taking advantage of the site's unique qualities, and each sensitive to the site's �. limitations. The Main Street cluster has been purposely staggered at the ends so that, from movement patterns along Main Street, the massing of only three (3) units can usually be seen at the same time. Additionally, the height of this cluster where possible has been lowered 2-3 feet below allowable height. The majority of the units have been placed at the north edge of the site away from Main Street. At the portion of the site conti uous to Original Curve, the units oca e approximatel 165 feet fr _-Street cu�,�._. The exis ;ng cur cut on Main Street will be elimina,�ed with access coming from the safer and less utilized Spring Street. A sidewalk which will link the No Problem Bridge is being proposed to create a trail linkage in the area. All utilities will be underground. In addition, an existing group of electrical transformer boxes presently situated in a visually prominent location on the public right-of-way on Spring Street will be relocated to a landscaped site in a less prominent location. The site will be landscaped and will enhance the appearance of the site. Solar orientation is being utilized. All but four (4) parking spaces will be underground. B. Ownership of the P.U.D. The Developer plans to sell the free-market units being built. A total of seventeen (17) free-market units will be sold. The employee unit will be rented by the developer to qualified employees. Su iO, .Aqt C. Variation. Q While the PUD allows for variations from the regulations governing open space, maximum height, trash area, external and internal floor areas, and the number of off-street parking and set backs, this project is not requesting any variations. The PUD plan utilizes clustering techniques. The clustering technique being used enables open space between the buildings to approximate 70 feet. This provides solar orientation and views, as well as internal landscaped space, and a continuum of the open space from Main Street to Spring Street. - 5 - 0 D. Site and Landscape Plan. See Map #15. The Site Plan for 700 Main reflects a layout that is responsive to the terrain and the unique nature of the site. The buildings are carefully sited with respect to general setting, orientation, and surrounding development. The Main Street buildings are set back, staggered, and of lower profile than neighboring developments. The majority of the buildings are placed in the back, away from the Main Street view corridor. Development has been kept away from the river's edge to protect the views from the park, as well as protect the riparian vegetation. E. Elevations. Elevations have been included on Map "7". These show the Main Street and Spring Street elevations, and are of sufficient detail to appraise the commission of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to the terrain, as well as neighboring projects. VI. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW. The intention of Stream Margin Review is to guide, develop and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses. To promote safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water flow, and insure provisions for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. While the project is totally outside of any floodplain, review is required because some development will fall within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Enclosed is Map #13 which shows a boundary of the property including 2 foot contours at 5 foot intervals for grades over ten percent (10%). Proposed building locations and existing trees are shown. Review Criteria #1. No development will be located within any flood. hazard area as designated by U.S. Corp of Engineers. This is shown on Map #13. Review Criteria #2 There is no trail designated by an approved trail plan within the development site. Review Criteria #3 The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan is being complied with. - 6 - Review Criteria #4. Since our project does not approach the stream bed or floodplain, no slope grade changes will be made that will produce erosion of the stream bank. Review Criteria #5. Even though no construction will take place in the floodplain or within 50 feet of the river, temporary construction barriers will be required between disturbed sites and the river along the project line. No developed flows from paving will be allowed to directly enter the river. VII. MANDATORY P.U.D. REVIEW. 1. Utilities. The utilities required to serve this project include sewage, water, telephone, gas, cable T.V., and electric. All of the utilities are available to the site. All of the utility companies indicate that there is sufficient capacity available to service this project from the adjacent facilities, as shown on Exhibits "4" through "6". This project lies within the service area of the respective utilities, and does not present any significant off -site cost to any of the utility companies. 2. Roadway System. There exists adequate public roadway system to the project boundaries. The Fire Department has indicated a response time of three minutes or under. Most parking will be underground. Fire and emergency vehicles can easily respond to any emergencies in the project. The homeowners will be in charge of all snow removal and maintenance of the internal paved areas. 3. Suitability of the Site for Development. Chen & Associates has completed a subsurface analysis of the site, and finds the soil and ground stability suitable ,or development. There are no rock fall or avalanche dangers associated with the site. The steep slope areas will not be developed. The soil condition will support the proposed development. 4. Effects of the Development on the Natural Watershed, Runoff and Drainage. Rea, Cassens & Associates has prepared a drainage plan according to City of Aspen regulations, and historic flow - 7 - patterns and runoff amounts are maintained on -site in such a manner as to have no adverse impact on neighboring landowners or on the Roaring Fork River. 5. Air Quality. The location of the project, within easy access to major facilities, the commercial core and public transportation, will encourage walking and discourage automobile use. The close proximity of the project to bicycle trails will encourage bicycle use. No woodburning fireplaces will be utilized in the project. Any driveways will be paved. During construction, fugitive dust will be controlled, and revegetation of disturbed areas will be done after construction. 6. Site Design and Terrain. The site is located on the corner of Main Street and Spring Street, bordered by the Concept 600 Building, the Eagles Club, across the street from the Original Curve Condominiums, and across the river from Herron Park. Comprised of seventeen free-market (17) units, and one (1) employee unit, the site plan has been configured using three (3) separate building clusters of attached multi -family units. The majority of units are located in the northern perimeter of the site, away from Main Street, thereby reducing visual impact, creating views to Aspen Mountain, and creating an interesting large, open space design. The building cluster located nearest to Main Street is designed to create a scaled -down building transition from the Concept 600 Building which is over four (4) stories high. This site design preserves the tall, existing Cottonwood trees at the corner of Spring and Main, and creates a park -like open space setting f nPdP-tri,&n-use--at that orner. In order to preserve the natural qualities of the embankment of the Roaring Fork River, development has been kept back from the river's edge. The landscaped, pedestrian quality of the project's open space has been made possible by placing required parking in a below -grade parking garage. The only exception to below -grade parking is the provision of four (4) spaces for guest/service parking located off Spring Street. Access to the pool and recreational areas is provided directly from the subgrade enclosure of the garage by both stair and elevator as well as pedestrian access from the internal courtyard. A small, public rest and conversation area will be provided by the Applicant as discussed with the Parks Department, on the City right-of-way in a landscaped environment near Original Curve. This vest pocket park will be located in a landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk, with good solar orientation and excellent views of the Roaring Fork River and Independence Pass. • • A unique design for garbage has been incorporated into the site design. Tw located in a below -grade garage location, and will be lifted by an elevator to an accessible paved area during the actual time of garbage collection. The existing group of electrical transformer boxes presently situated in a visually prominent location on the public right-of-way on Spring Street will be relocated to a landscaped site. A dominant feature of the site design is the landscaped open space which connects the Main Street open space frontage to the interior of the site and through to Spring Street. Only thirty-two percent (32%) of the actual site is covered with building envelopes. The open space between the building clusters approximates seventy feet (701) in width, which allows for solar orientation and views, as well as internal landscaped space. A project amenity is the pool and recreation room. The pool deck and enclosed recreational space have been sunken 4 partially below grade for privacy and wind protection. The pool area development has been located to preserve the natural quality of the river embankment, and is seen as an open space extension of the Herron Park vista. 7. Grading. The site plan for 700 Main reflects a layout that is responsive to the terrain. Buildings are carefully sited with respect to general aspects, orientation, and soil conditions. The proposed grading takes into account the terrain and other land features. This is demonstrated on the Conceptual Grading Plan shown onlap #13� 8. Placement of Building Height and Scale. Three (3) separate, clustered structures are proposed for the site. The building cluster closest to Main Street has been reduced in height and scale from the neighboring multi -family building in order to minimize its visual impact from Main Street. This enables an open space feeling to be magnified, both to the Spring Street side, as well as the Herron Park side. Cottonwood trees will be preserved. A parklike setting will be created at the corner of Spring and Main, and additional landscaping and planting is contemplated on Original Curve which will continue the landscaped open space feeling from Herron Park. Even though the Mandatory P.U.D. allows variations, no variations are being sought in any of the bulk requirements of the Code. The project respects the integrity of the Roaring Fork River, and no development is being undertaken which will step down to the river. - 9 - VIII. COMMON PARK AND RECREATION AREAS. Extensive open areas will be provided. This common area will be maintained by the homeowners. The developer will make extensive landscape improvements within the project, at its entrance and along the right-of-ways. In addition to 40 specific improvements which are for the use and enjoyment of project residents, it is envisioned that the pocket park in the City right-of-way will enhance the view and usability of the right-of-way for City residents. IX. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. Architectural drawings and sketches indicating mass and height are included within this Application, and will be supplemented pursuant to Section 24-8.9(c) at the time of preliminary P.U.D. We feel there is harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and with surrounding buildings. Building design has minimized disturbances to the natural terrain and maximized the preservation of the positive natural qualities of the site. X. LANDSCAPING PLAN. A more detailed landscaping plan will be provided at Final P.U.D. See Map #15 for conceptual landscaping. XI. OFF-STREET PARKING. Off-street parking will conform with that required by the Code, and no decrease in off-street parking will be requested for free-market or employee units. In addition, the majority of parking will be placed underground, and four (4) spaces will be placed on grade to accommodate service and Guest parking. There is good public transportation available _n the area, and the proximity of the P.U.D. to the commercial core, and recreational facilities of the City will further reduce the need for cars. XII. REDUCTION FOR SLOPE. Reduction in density for slope, as well as land under water has been taken into consideration in our density calculation. Based on this calculation, 50,497 square feet of net developable area is allowed as shown on the Conceptual P.U.D. Map and letter from -Alpine Surveys. • XIII. OPEN SPACE AND COMMON FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. The Applicant will be working with the City Attorney and Planning Office to develop a formula to satisfy both parties on the oD� e� space and common facility maint_ anc - 10 - It is anticipated that this document will be prepared between the preliminary and final phases of P.U.D. XIV. SPECIAL APPROVAL OF DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS. One (1) one -bedroom employee unit will be constructed in conjunction with the project. This unit will provide housing for up to two (2) employees. By deed restricting this unit to low-income --neatal guidelines, the City will gain additional low-income housing, and the project will receive housing for its employees. We believe that there is a community need for this type of unit, especially in this location. The number of bedrooms and size of the unit is necessary for the City of Aspen at this particular time and, therefore, an exemption from the GMP is appropriate. /land2/finepud.agr h > m r r • U I i r < < IL h < ii fr i j 1 1 00 10 00 p 10 i 1 10' to �d' I to I I I o t lol, 4� lol t 11 r 1 1°10 I , 001 ol . I I b 1 < I -I-- 1------ ! -_ -_ = �- - - -- - o a'�3o"b'6 d U'6 6 >So3� o 0 0 t o o u u I o o '- z 1 1 0 ° I Tl ol 1 , o t p' • i i o coj a 1►----�� ^ -� r—I-I-------- -�I I r---i r-- p I at LUJ 1.4 — f ,a,..e� �.: - a• Y MAIN STREET /��/ \a \N \\\ \ \\\\\\\ LEGEND --n.o-- EXISTING CONTOUR \ PROPOSED CONTOUR 1 -"' TOP OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAN \vI ------ STREAM MARGIN REVIEW BOUNDARY \ W E NOTE. ALL CONTOURS ABOVE 7900 \ •' ARE AT A ONE FOOT VERTICAL INTERVAL. ALL OTHER CONTOURS ARE AT A TWO FOOT VERTICAL S INTERVAL 700 MAIN CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW CONDITIONS - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES -ARCHITECTS DESIGN WORKSHOP INC• LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Map 13 -- _ _ • - - --------- ------ EAGLES CLUB Oft ENRAGE CREEKTREE CONDOMINIUMS .�� �} -..y, =+f _ ENTRANCE'T - �..� 3BR J 8R 3BR CT L 2 OR i 2 BR j v. l A BR 3 5 Cy ({y0 rtE P AND$CAPE ART L •, . ARRI AL PARKING _ c OPEN SPACE ° Pa 2 BR RECREATION BUILDING 4 2 BR OC1 3 OR F. A BR r) I J J;�." \1 - -~•i_ a - HERRON PARK ? 2BR 2BR • • me 0. 1 y POOL Z._. of k � r L PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/ �� '! = .. .:�..c.• • � b SEATING AREA �'�� 7 lam• MAIN STREET � RrvER OVERLOOK/ - PUBLIC SEATING AREA \ N W 5 700 MAIN ILLUS I RATIVF SITF PI AN CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES -ARCHITECTS DESIGN WORKSHOP INC.•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS _r •1 ii yl Hr MI Mli I!r Hr RU !al ?AI ��r a Map 14 •7y a m iy '� � �� _ r Y ` s• STONE 'CON CRETE1, - PAVING — r • f _ i _ ce .1. . ram. CONCRETE SIDEWALK 4 - • , — CONCRETE/STONE SEATING CUBES yy----�� 1 '! l �' MAIN srKEEr CONCRETE/STONE SEATING CUBES A LEGEND - TYPICAL PLANT & PAVING MATERIALS -� On EXISTING VEGETATION ICOTTONWOOO) NATURALISTIC GROUNDCOVER I I GAL. CONT I ®i LARGE TREES ]';.+1 968� T EESCKM 3 CADS 8, 'S.ONErSMbtLF LONCERA,MPOECA STM+ PAA6INA MVRSNPLS CGTE SwE" w00p GALAM 00]RATMA O ORNAMENTAL TREES -2CAL 918. ENGELE ,NV PARnENOG55Ui Cf+( 'o_ -SKI POP1ILVS+REMVLO s ® FORMALIZED GROUNOCOVER �2 wCCrr .A•4 MAor ACE^]LABWA ^-RFERwG MUOMA MA YaA REPENS S�ER'--E_ffRo. �S LP —"A SrMBE 1 MONILI. RT LVSMAC—MIMAARu O EVERGREEN TREES 2 s..R FERIwFrLF INGA MfNLR _,F rP Ams CCIw LOR RM+.ISAh APCTOSTA ILOS VIA LRSI &L PR SLCE PCEA PLWE'IS CREEPING POTENTLLA POTENTLLA VERNA NANA SNRUBS S CAL C]r+T. PERENNIAL FLOWERS/ACCENT ' ' COIL CONT. K I.K1 DO 00L CORMLS SlO,Cr FRA COLORAOE4SI$ TURFGRASS PG*FN'l, RC'Erl'4A rq,.rKOSA LRAG -' SUMAC R S A.p AII<A -- REVEGETATION PLANTINGS GRASSES / GROUNDCOVERS .GODS ROSE ROSA.O: MODULAR PAVING ]SF x SA.1111CSA A- —111RBF, ALPPAXA ' EXPOSED AGGREGATE PAVING 'pIf tA5TNG lvER; R hI. B[MOVLO AS ROG. SiML 700 MAIN CONDIT1GrLS AU J—10 NL aW fNf AST AREA W 'M Fitt THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES- ARCHITECTS L I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 10 LANDSCAPE PLAN DESIGN WORKSHOP INC -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS _. r� .i r. ..� �.� ..� I. i• ins .. .i .rAi Map 15 t 3 a 6 7 IF 9 t0 t2 to 0 0 p tt 1] T R M M M M Ld U) Yers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1, Effective Date October 9, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. 7 Policy or policies to be issued (a) 0 ALTA Owner's Policy —Form B - 1970 (Rev. 10-1 7-70 & Rev. 10.17-84) :1 ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 Proposed insured: FINE ASSOCIATES, A MIMNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP b) ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & Rev. 10-17-84) Proposed insured: c) 'roposedinsured. Case No _PCEJ232_87_ (A) Amount S (B)Amount$ Amount S Amount S TAX CERT MCAM 3 Title to the in fee simple estate or interest in the land lescribed or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: • • •iM71 1 • • 1•515 1 • 1 • `Iiiiii • 11 • 1 7!•. PARIM (B)-ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. 4. -he land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Form No. 91.88 1SCH. AI ni . PI*Jn County Title, Inc. W E. Hopkins Asp*n, Colorado 81611 Commitment No. PCT-1 37-R7 Schedule A —Page 1 This commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Sched- ules A and B are attached. • Lawyers Title Insurance &rpordtion NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMONO, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A cont'd. PARCEL A: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE M, OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLARADO. SAID PARCEL, IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN; THENCE NORTH 75*09'11" WEST 44.10 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TOT 18 AND 17 OF SAID BLOQC 21; THEME NORTH 36022'00" EAST 26.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°35'00" WEST 85.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50'14'11" EAST 118.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY EDGE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 52057'39" WEST 47.02 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE OF SAID RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 49°58'47" WEST 21.71 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE OF SAID RIVER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ALL OF LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (FORMERLY LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S) OF BLACK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THE ALLEY OF BLOCK 21 OF TIE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH ALL GE LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 (FaR ERLY F, G, H, AND I) OF BLOCK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION EXCEPT A PORTION THEREOF LOCATED NORTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6, THENCE SOUTH 59018'00" EAST 56.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50014' 1 1" EAST TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST SIDE LINE GE LOT 9, WHICH NORTHERLY PORTION OF SAID LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 WERE CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 311 AT PACE 11 OF THE PITKIN CUJNIY RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH A TRACT OF LAND LYING IN MAIN STREET 100 FEET IN WIDTH 50 FEET WILE ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SCTTIH LINE OF BLOCK 21 WHENCE THE SCUIHEA.ST CORNER OF Lor 18 BEARS SOUTH 75 °09' 1 1 " EAST 59 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE ON A 70 CURVE TO THE RIGHF TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAT 9, BLOCK 28 EAST ASPEN BEARS SOUTH 75°09'11" EAST 12 FEET, MORE OR LESS, EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ASPEN BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 223 AT PACE 152 OF THE PITKIN COLZM RECORDS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE-, OF THE SW, OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANKS 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POLW FRCM WHICH THE NW CORNER OF BLOCK 28, OF THE EAST ASPEN TOWNSITE BEARS NORTH 75 009 ' WEST A DISTANCE OF 186.3 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11039' WEST A DISTANICE OF 111.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75009' EAST A DISTANCE OF 28.3 FEET; THENCE AROUND A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55000' AND A RADIUS OF 176.18 FEET A DISTANCE OF 168.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75009' WEST A DISTANCE OF 142.8 FEET, TO PLACE OF BEGIIZMC. PARCEL B: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, Continued... O35-1.999-OO40/2 Schedule -Page -No. U 7 GAS-GaLAno/./ 2 �y> `� ° �. /52 935 q4/170 0 �b �/�l -� o/z = yl 3 — 3�c :5 92Z 3(oo + o/z = ------------- 2 8 7yZ ? oho y57 rt / = ys7 Iz- /087 /05-7 ('o, o09 �z = 25715Z S`-t' 270 --3% 257 T. 290 Z 9� /o Z �057 35?0 2. 2� Z 7, �/� Cow iy :' Iz � /`�?o 6. 770/% �o Z"l i 3�� s �� & .7 7o am 33 Z = 9 9 yCr+1 Co 17 Z f6- COZ t Zz�7 -rrlra �. s uns,7s No7-Si�NFD A2EQ� 5low�/ A.cF .assct.uEp 3cc�E,�-s y�i 3G2- ,yvv 2 4 - G. �'• 2. NPT- 7'77 lNGGU,d� PCX�L_ 6C//�'�'1C�S �_ ,vor7- /.�.r�..cica�� �,s�gfvyrictisvr ,B��w cossntx�i4 �ce� C/ O 4- • O�Jvorvv�srre — 7�r� �/"T� � � 60, a/6 2 • Sc�rvA��p ,B / . s�t.sn,� �s st ✓� max ' • rzwn�rvR = srTZ-- /A� -lcrra�v r-Sv, g 9 7 ) srrr� i570, 4-7-7 3 O�N �fY►c� /NGL.C/,p�� dN ��a'''G sdA� � 4• ��/ 0,2 4 �.46Gi•�' O`Lsv �O/tG� ���CGUG's SC1f�P�i'� 7A�lc�/6 157• �CIM G�R� S �D•.J may 1�Ns l � • �/�yWNDc-r�. —-7zTr�tG �.-,%may (C �I� ��6 s�'J O, O / SAiv+4=- ,off 114�45F /---X C Txc11 / PD�L /N GAS /T" / 5 Ta F 7-V rcl0, O/ 6, 700 EAST MAIN SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY P.U.D./SUBDIVISION March 7, 1988 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office c/o Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2020 Applicant: Fine Associates IDS Center, Suite 1916 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2561 Architects: The Leonard Parker Associates 430 Oak Grove Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 871-6864 Landscape Architects: Civil Engineers: Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2867 Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8354 Rea-Cassens & Associates, Inc. 4388 South Windermere Englewood, Colorado 80110 789-4428 Planners: Doremus & Wells 608 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8080 Attorneys: Martha C. Pickett Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw & Harring 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 839-3702 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Project Description ......................... 1 II. Project Site ................................ 3 l III. Application Requirements .................... 6 IV. Preliminary Subdivision ..................... 7 A. Preliminary Plat Contents (Code ........ 7 Requirements) B. Utilities .............................. 15 C. Roadway System ......................... 15 D. Suitability of Site for Development .... 16 E. Storm Drainage ......................... 16 F. Air Quality ............................ 21 G. Landscape Plan ......................... 22 H. Grading ................................ 23 I. Public Improvements Agreement .......... 23 J. Architectural Review ................... 23 K. Off-street Parking ..................... 24 L. Condominiumization ..................... 24 V. Preliminary P.U.D. .......................... 26 VI. Stream Margin Review ........................ 28 VII. Special Review Approval of Four Bedroom ..... 31 Units VIII. i Conditions of Conceptual Review Approval .... 32 IX. Clarifications Regarding GMP Approval ....... 33 DRAWINGS AND EXHIBITS Subdivison Plat Cover Sheet (including Drawing #1 vicinity map) Existing Conditions/Stream Margin Review Plat Drawing #2 Site Plan Drawing #3 Landscape Plan Drawing #4 Parking Level Plan Drawing #5 I LJ Dwelling Unit Plans Architectural Elevations DRAWINGS AND EXHIBITS (Continued) Title Commitment (Ownership) Joint Application Consent U.S. Corps. of Engineers' Letter Proposed Development Schedule Waiver of Option to Purchase Letter from Jim Reser Regarding Slope Reductions Memorandum from Design Workshop, Inc., Regarding Trees over Parking Structure Soils Report GMP Illustrative Site Plan Letter to Roaring Fork Energy Center Utility Letters (a) Electric (b) Telephone (c) Cable T.V. • J; Drawing #6 (6 sheets) Drawing #7 (3 sheets) Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M • • PRELIMI_NA_RY P.U.D._ A_N_D_SUBDIV_I_SION APPLICATION FOR 700 EAST MAIN PROJECT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant is proposing seventeen (17) free-market residential units, plus one (1) employee unit. Three (3) of the free-market units will be replacement units. The property is located on the northeast corner of Main Street and Spring Street, and is bordered on the west by the Concept 600 Building, on the north by the Eagles Club, on the east by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the Original Curve Condominiums. The land is located within the RMF (P.U.D.) Zone on a total of 60,016 square feet. The multi -family units are being configured into three (3) separate building clusters. The majority of the units are located near the northern perimeter of the site, away from Main Street. The multi -family project is in conformity with its underlying zoning. It seeks no variations through the P.U.D. process, and its size and scope are in character with the neighborhood, which is a mix of multi -family and commercial. Great care has been given to the organization of the site plan to complement the development in the area and to provide a graceful transition between this project, the surrounding projects and the river and park. Involved in the design of the project are several significant beneficial features: A. The Applicant is extending a deadend water line, providing an interconnect through the site and providing 1 two isolation valves, all of which will enhance the City of Aspen water system. B. The Applicant is providing one new fire hydrant and upgrading a second fire hydrant. This, along with the improvements to the City water system, will enhance fire protection for the neighborhood. C. The Applicant is slip -lining approximately 300 feet of the off -site sewer line to correct an existing infiltration problem and, in effect, enhance capacity. D. The Applicant is initiating storm drainage improvements that will upgrade storm drainage in the area and will eliminate some direct flows to the Roaring Fork River, as discussed in IV(E), below. E. The project is undergrounding almost all of the parking, eliminating the visual impact of cars while providing all required parking, including a handicapped parking space. The ramp into the parking garage will be snowmelted. F. Responding to the tremendous challenge that the community faces with air pollution, all woodburning devices are being eliminated in the project. E-G_ Applicant is providing open space with seating in the City right-of-way on the corner of Spring and Main, and on Original Curve. Extensive common open areas for the 2 residents will be provided and maintained by the homeowners. H. Applicant is providing new sidewalk links off -site on the north side of Main Street along Original Curve and on the south side of Neal Street to the pedestrian crossing at the No Problem Bridge. I. Applicant will move, at its expense, electrical transformer boxes which prominently sit in the City right-of-way to a new landscaped location on the northwest edge of the site, adjacent to the parking garage ramp. J. Extensive landscaping improvements within the project, at the entrance, and along the City rights -of -way will be provided. Applicant believes this project, with its many beneficial components, and with its thoughtful site planning and architectural design, meets the criteria for preliminary PUD and subdivision approval. II. PROJECT SITE The site is located on the corner of Main Street and Spring Street, bordered by the Concept 600 building, the Eagles Club, across the street from the Original Curve Condominiums and across the river from Herron Park. Comprised of seventeen (17) free-market units, 3 1] and one (1) employee housing unit, the site plan has been configured using three (3) separate building clusters of attached multi -family units. The majority of units are located in the northern perimeter of the site, away from Main Street, thereby reducing visual impact and creating views to Aspen Mountain. The interesting open space design features a large interior courtyard separating the housing clusters and a generous amount of open space along Main Street is being provided. The building cluster located nearest to Main Street is designed to create a scaled -down building transition from the Concept 600 Building which is over four (4) stories high. This site design preserves the existing mature Cottonwood trees at the corner of Spring and Main and creates open space at the corner. Public seating is proposed for the landscaped public right-of-way to provide visual orientation to Aspen Mountain as well as the open space area. In order to preserve the natural qualities of the embankment of the Roaring Fork River, development has been kept back from the river's edge. The landscaped, pedestrian quality of the project's open space has been made possible by placing required parking in a below -grade parking garage. The only exception to below -grade parking is the provision of four (4) on -grade guest/service parking spaces located off Spring Street. Access to the pool and recreational areas is provided directly from the subgrade garage and from the courtyard. A patio area surrounds the pool area, snowmelted between the pool and recreation building. 4 f' A small public rest and conversation area will be provided -by the Applicant as discussed with the Parks Department on the City right- of-way near Original Curve. The Original Curve vest pocket park will be located in a landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk with good solar orientation and excellent views of the Roaring Fork River and Independence Pass. A special design for trash pick-up has been incorporated into the site design. Two (2) two -yard capacity dumpsters will be located in a below -grade garage location, and will be lifted by an elevator to an accessible paved area during the actual time of trash collection. The existing group of electrical transformer boxes presently situated in a visually prominent location on the public right-of- way on Spring Street will be relocated to a landscaped site on the northwest edge of the site adjacent to the parking ramp, as shown on the Site Plan. A dominant feature of the site design is the landscaped open space which connects the Main Street open space frontage to the interior of the site and through to Spring Street. Only thirty-two percent (32%) of the actual site is covered with building envelopes. The open space between the building clusters approximates seventy feet i f (70') in width, which allows solar orientation and views, as well as internal landscaped space. 5 A project featured amenity is the pool and recreation building. The pool deck and enclosed recreational space have been partially sunken below grade for privacy and wind protection. The pool area development has been set back from the river to preserve the natural quality of the edge, and is seen as an open space extension of the Herron Park vista. III. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Based upon the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, City Council approved Conceptual P.U.D. and Subdivision of 700 East Main, and awarded a GMP allotment of fourteen (14) free-market units. The Applicant now seeks simultaneous approval of the following submissions: Preliminary Subdivision pursuant to Sections 20-11, 12 and 13, including Condominiumization pursuant to Section 20-22; Preliminary P.U.D. pursuant to Section 24-8.9 and 8.10; Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 24-6.3; Special Review for two (2) four -bedroom units pursuant to Section 24-3.4. The proposed employee dwelling unit was exempted from GMP pursuant to Section 24-11.2(f)by City Council, subject to approval of the employee unit plan_ b.y__tlie..._Housin.g__Authority. In order to facilitate Planning & Zoning Commission review, the remainder of the application is organized according to submittal requirements of the various applications. C IV. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION As stated in Section 20-7, the purpose of preliminary review is to authorize further study on the project. The information submitted with this application justifies approval of the preliminary subdivision plat and P.U.D. plan. The suitability of the land for subdivision as required in Section 20-9 has been provided for this preliminary stage. If additional information is needed, we will be happy to supply it. A. Code_ Requirements The following items are included in accordance with Section 20-12 (a) - (q) . 1. 20-12 (a) Preliminary plat requirements are met in the submittal of Drawings numbered 1-7. 2. 20-12 (b ) The project's proposed name is 700 East Main Subdivision. The land mass of the project is 60,016 sq. ft., all within the City of Aspen. 7 • • 3 . 20-12 (c ) a. Owners: 1. Albert W. Bevan, Jr. c/o William R. Tiedt 350 W. Henrietta P.O. Box 791 Woodland Park, Colorado 80863 2. Ardith Louise Ware c/o John Doremus Carol Ann Jacobson Realty 608 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3. Alice Juanita Gallegos c/o Joseph P. Rader Rader & Sandblom Exeter Building, Suite 401 1050 Walnut Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 4. Dorothy Marie Mikkelsen c/o Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. Jerome Professional Building 201 North Mill, Suite 109 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (See Consents to Land Use Applications, Exhibit B) b. Subdivider• Fine Associates IDS Center, Suite 1916 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2561 C. Designers of Subdivision: Architects: The Leonard Parker Associates 430 Oak Grove Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (6 12 ) 871-6864 Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (3 03 ) 925-2867 Landscape_ Architects: Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 j (303) 925-8354 Civil-En.ineers: Rea-Cassens & Associates, Inc. 2902 State Hwy. #74, Suite 101 Evergreen, CO 80439 (303 ) 670-1406 Licensed Surveyor: Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (3 03 ) 925-2688 4. 20-12(d) The proposed subdivision is not part of a larger tract. 5. 20-12 (e) The preliminary plat drawings include the date of preparation, scale and north sign. 6. 20-12 (f ) The Existing Conditions Drawing (Drawing #2) illustrates existing contours at two -foot intervals and the designation of all areas with slope greater than thirty percent (30%). The Site Plan, (Drawing #3) illustrates proposed contours or' the site. w 7. 20-12 (g) Location and dimensions of all existing streets, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, public and private utilities and other features are shown on the Existing Conditions Drawing, (Drawing #2). 8. 20-12(h) Location and dimensions of all proposed streets, alleys, easements, drainage improvements, utilities, lot lines and areas or structures reserved or dedicated for public or common use are shown on the Site Plan, (Drawing #3). 9. 20-12 (i) Location, size and type of existing vegetation, other natural landscape features and the location of trees with a trunk diameter of six inches (6") or more measured four and one-half feet (4 1/2') above the ground are shown on the Existing Conditions Drawing .(Drawing #2). The proposed limits of any excavation or regrading are shown on the Site Plan (Drawing #3). 10. 20-12 (i) The floodplain and floodway areas are shown on the existing conditions drawing. Also, attached as Exhibit C, is a letter from Grady L. McNure, Chief of Regulatory Unit 4, Corps of Engineers, verifying that no permit is needed from the Corps, provided no dredged or fill materials will be discharged into the narrow riparian area around the cottonwood trees adjacent to the river. 10 11. 20-12(k) The City has made no request for additional information regarding geological or soils stability, traffic, air quality or similar matters under this provision. 12. 20-12(1) The City Planning Office has requested that additional 1 information be provided to the Roaring Fork Energy Center. This information has been provided (Exhibit J). 13. 20-12(m) Tabulation of Data i ' (a) Land _area _reguirement for_the_project: The 700 East Main site is 60,016 sq. ft. Net site square footage after slope reduction is 50,497 sq. ft. Under current area and bulk requirements, the land area requirement for 4-bedroom units is to be established by special review (see Section VII, below). However, a reference to Section 24-3.7(k) is included as a guide to maximum density. That section establishes a maximum buildout of 1 bedroom per 1,000 square feet of land area, or 50 bedrooms. Further, under the most recent code proposal, the land requirement for units with more than 3 bedrooms is 1,000 square feet per bedroom. 11 The application has been based upon the assumption that the land requirement for 4-bedroom units will soon be 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit, as follows: 2 4-BR units @ 4,000 S.F. = 8,000 (8BRs) 6 3-BR units @ 3,630 S.F. = 21,780 (18 BRs) 9 2-BR units @ 2,100 S.F. = 18,900 (18 BRs) 1 1-BR unit @ 1,250 S.F. = 1,250 (1 BR) 49,930 (45 BRs) ��'.` �• (b) Density calculation formulae show a total of 50,497 sq. ft. of developable land, when slope and land under water are deducted (See Exhibit F). (c) Calculation of Unit Sizes_ and Building Size The structure to be built includes the residential units, and common building areas consisting of the subterranean parking level (garage, storage, ramps and service areas), and the recreation building. The tables below show the total size of units and common building areas. 12 • 1] Units Free Market Units Employee One Two Three Four Project BR BR BR BR Total Quantity of each unit type 1 Tot_al_BRs/unit type 1_ 9 18 6 18 2 18 18 45 A -Avg. Sq footage 1,114 2,599 3,048 3,523 49,869 floors 1, 2 & 3 B-Avg. Sq. footage 0 829 991.5 1,248 15,906 in parking level space+ _______ C-Total Sq. footage 1,114 3,428 4,039.5 4,771 65,775 in the U_nit (A&B) �2,682 D-Ava. FAR sq. — 1,114 2,195 2,422 40,795 footage calculated per Code__ ________ E-Avg Non -FAR sq. 0 1,233 1,617.5 2,089 24,980 f ootage_ (C- D)-- ------ - - - ------ - Build i—gCommon _Areas Recreation building A - Sq. footage at parking level B - Sq. footage at pool level C - Total Sq. footage (A+B) D - FAR Sq. footage E - Non -FAR Sq. footage (C-D) Parking structure Sq. footage All Non -FAR, totally below grade (d) FAR Square Footage 1,088 1,027 2,115 534 1,581 15,109 The RMF/PUD zone allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1 to 1 for the net site after slope reduction. 50,497 Sq. Ft. of buildable FAR is attributable to the 50,497 Sq. Ft. of buildable site. 13 (A) (B) (A-B) Total FAR Non -FAR Sq. Sq. Sq. Footage Footage Footage In Units 65,775 40,795 24,980 Parking Structure 15,109 ------ 15,109 Recreation Bldg. 2,115 534 1,581 Pro3ect Total 82,999 41,329 41,670 While the total proposed FAR to be built is thus 41,329 Sq. Ft. anticipated technical changes may increase total FAR, not to exceed 42,000 Sq. Ft. as stated in the GMP application, 17% less than the permitted 50,497 Sq. Ft. of buildable r*AR. (e) Total projected population is approximately 46 people, calculated using the standards of Section 24- 11.4 (b) (4) (bb) . (f) The building footprint area consists of approximately 19,600 sq. ft., approximately 32% of the total site area. There are 29,000 sq. ft, of green surfaces and approximately 6,400 Sq. Ft. of hard surfaces, totaling 35,400 sq. ft. of open space, 59% of the total site area. 14. 20-12(n) Location of proposed condominium units, parking and areas for common use are shown on Drawings #3 & #5. 14 • 0 15. 20-12 (o) There are no proposed changes to existing zoning boundaries. 16. 20-12(p) Names and addresses, with preaddressed, stamped envelopes, of adjacent property owners have been provided. 17. 20-12 (q) The Applicant holds no property adjacent to this project. B. Utilities The utilities required to serve this project include sewage, water, telephone, gas, cable T.V. and electric. All of the utilities are available to the site. All of the utility companies indicate that there is sufficient capacity available to service this project from the adjacent facilities, as shown on Exhibits K thhr ugb__U._ This project lies within the service 'I area of the respective utilities and does not present any significant off -site cost to any of the utility companies. C . Roadway System There exists adequate public roadway system to the project'^ boundaries. The Fire Department has indicated a response time of three minutes or under. Most parking will be underground. 15 Fire and emergency vehicles can easily respond to any emergencies in the project. The homeowners will be in charge of all snow removal and maintenance of the internal paved areas. D. Suitabilit�of Site for Development Chen & Associates has completed a subsurface analysis of the site and finds the soil and ground stability suitable for development. There are no rock fall or avalanche dangers associated with the site. The steep slope areas will not be developed. The soil condition will support the proposed development. E. Storm Drainage Rea-Cassens & Associates has prepared a drainage plan according to City of Aspen regulations, and historic flow patterns and runoff amounts are maintained on -site in such a manner as to have no adverse impact on neighboring landowners or on the Roaring Fork River. 1. Existing Conditions The site topography presently directs surface drainage to two major watershed areas. The western two-thirds of the site generally drains to the southwest, west and northwest at slopes of 4% to 8%. Grasses and weeds cover a significant portion of the area. Four structures 16 (along with associated yard landscaping and paved or gravel driveways) are also found on this end of the site. Surface flow is collected along the curb and gutter on Main Street and Spring Street, with concentration of run- off occurring at the northwest corner of the site. This drainage presently flows across Bleeker Street, down an embankment adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and into the Roaring Fork River. On -site erosion appears negligible, but erosion is occurring off -site as the water flows to the river. The 36" storm sewer line located under Spring Street is undersized for current city storm loading requirements. The eastern one-third of the site is characterized by surface flows to the northeast and east at slopes in excess of 25%. Existing vegetation consists mainly of cottonwood trees and small riparian shrubs and grasses, with areas of the embankment showing erosion. A major portion of drainage from this watershed flows directly into the Roaring Fork River, although a small amount flows towards the northeast before ultimately emptying into the river. River levels for a 100-year storm event vary in elevation from approximately 7,884 feet to 7,893 feet along the eastern edge of the site, which is a difference of 24 feet to 15 feet from the flood elevation to the top of 17 the embankment. Preliminary calculation for storm water detention volumes generated on -site during a 100-year storm event show a range of 1,500-2,500 cubic feet. In summary, the existing negative drainage factors in the area presently include: (1) off -site erosion adjacent to the northwest corner of the site and on -site erosion along the river embankment; (2) an orientation of site drainage toward street sewer systems which are under capacity; (3) an existing storm sewer line adjacent to the site which is undersized for current city storm water loading; (4) a lack of curb and gutter along Main Street adjacent to the southeast corner of the site which allows some street surface flow direct access to the river. 2. Proposed -Drainage -System The major drainage concept intends to: (1) accommodate City of Aspen regulations on drainage and correct site and area drainage problems. This will be accomplished by providing on -site detention for a]] site drainage within the developable portion of the site; (2) re -orient the drainage pattern of the site so that water is effectively collected and routed to the east, thereby eliminating the negative impacts in the Spring Street area; (3) slowly release detained storm water at a predetermined acceptable rate, allowing the run-off to enter the water table and river with a minimum of erosion or pollution potential; (4) eliminate the use of the Spring Street storm drainage system so that the burden on an already undersized system would decrease, and (5) provide for approved techniques and considerations to minimize the erosion potential during construction, especially as it relates to the flow of pollutants or sediment into the river. The proposed system will rely on an integration of several elements to effectively address the present negative drainage issues summarized previously and the complex drainage requirements related to site development. Specific elements include: (1) surface j drainage; (2) shallow subsurface drainage; (3) deep j I subsurface drainage; and (4) gutter flow modifications. I a. Surface Drainage Surface drainage will be directed, channeled and collected through surface grading. Collected water will be picked up in hard surfaced areas and in sodded or planted areas with area drain inlets. The collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to detention structures located at the east edge of the developed area (refer to the Site Plan for proposed locations). These locations provide the necessary proximity to the river for the slow 19 release of run-off without encroaching on the steep river bank and causing additional impacts in undeveloped areas. If future scheduled stream bank studies identify a conflict with one of the structure locations, adjustments will be made to detain all site run-off in one structure on the site. Overflow capacities will be designed to meet 100-year storm event volumes, and will be piped directly to the river. Run-off from all building roofs will also be collected in this system. b. Subsurface Drainage(3-5' depth) A common system will be used to drain all recessed patio areas and the area above the parking garage roof. Area drains will be located in the patio areas while a layered drainage system will be integrated into the design of the roof structure directly above the slab to direct water away from the structure. Drainage from this system will be collected and piped to the detention structure described previously. C. Subsurface Drainage _(10-15'depth) Drainage within the parking structure will be collected in a drain at the west end of the floor area, routed through a sand and oil trap and will flow to the detention structure at the east end of 20 the site. In the event that the parking garage floods from extremely high water on Spring Street, an overflow pipe will provide direct drainage access to the river from the garage. Footing and foundation drainage for the garage floor and basements will be collected in a system of piping and gravel underlying those areas. If t studies indicate that the presence of a high water table will conflict with lower level collection and storage or that water volumes will be significant, pumps will be utilized to elevate the water to underground structures above the water table. d. Gutter Flow Modifications Curb and gutter will be added along Main Street where direct flows of water froDi street surface access the river. The curb cut at the garage entrance on Spring Street will also be carefully designed so as to limit the potential flooding of the garage by on -street water flows during peak storm events when the existing undersized storm sewer will not contain all run-off. F. Air Quality The location of the project, within easy access to major facilities, the commercial. core and public 21 • C7 transportation, will encourage walking and discourage automobile use. The close proximity of the project to bicycle trails will encourage bicycle use. No woodburning fireplaces will be utilized in the project. t Any driveways will be paved. During construction, fugitive dust will be controlled and revegetation of disturbed areas will be provided after construction. 11, � y G. Landscape -Plan Native landscape materials (including cottonwoods, aspen, sumac, potentilla and buttercup) have been used along the north, east and south edges of the site to enhance the concept of the extended river green space. Plantings of these indigenous trees, shrubs and groundcovers have been located to selectively buffer and screen the buildings and pool area from Main Street, driveway and for revegetation of the eroded slope along the river. Hardy ornamental trees and conifers provide summer shade and winter interest in the courtyard, and define the area as a formal space with an urban scale in contrast to the natural areas. A combination of native plants and ornamentals have been used to accent the pool space and resident gathering and seating areas. Turfgrass and groundcovers dominate the ground plane of the open space areas, while flowers are used to highlight special locations. Paved courtyard and walkway surfaces provide a strong visual link to the building facade treatments 22 0 • and to emphasize pedestrian circulation patterns. The random stone pattern on the pool deck helps to integrate the pool area to the adjacent natural area. H. Grading The Site Plan for 700 East Main reflects a layout that is responsive to the terrain. Buildings are carefully sited with respect to general aspects, orientation and soil conditions. The proposed grading taker into account the terrain and other land features. (Drawing #3) I. Public_Improvements Agreement The Applicant will provide a public improvements agreement to the City. It is anticipated that this document will be prepared between the preliminary and final phases of P.U.D. J. Architectural Review Three (3) separate, clustered structures are proposed for the site. The building cluster closest to Main Street has been reduced in height and scale from the neighboring multi -family building in order to minimize its visual impact from Main Street. This enables an open space feeling to be magnified, both to the Spring Street side, as well as the Herron Park side. Architectural drawings 23 • 0 indicating mass and height are supplied with this application (Drawings #6 & #7). There is harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and with surrounding buildings. Building design has minimized disturbances to the natural terrain and maximized, I preservation of positive natural qualities of the site. r The project respects the integrity of the Roaring Forks River, and no development is being undertaken which will step down to the river edge. K. Off-Street-Parking Off-street parking will conform with that required by the Code, and no decrease in off-street parking will be requested for free-market or employee units. In addition, the majority of parking will be placed underground and four (4) spaces will be placed on grade to accommodate service and guest parking. There is good public transportation available in the area and the proximity of the project to the commercial core and recreation facilities of the City will further reduce the need for cars. L. Condominiumization As part of subdivision, Applicant seeks approval of Condominiumization pursuant to Section 20-22. 24 • r� 1. 20-22(a) The only tenants being displaced are existing month - to -month tenants in the single family dwelling located at 120 North Spring Street, who have waived their ninety -day nonassignable option to purchase a condominium unit (See Exhibit E). 2cl, 20-22 (b) {` 'Applicant seeks a waiver of the six (6) month i �i minimum lease requirement. 700 East Main is located in a neighborhood containing similar condominium _developments without lease term deed restrictions. I 3. 20-22 (c ) The Code requirement for employee housing was mitigated by Applicant in the GMP process. An on - site employee unit plus a cash -in -lieu dedication j fee have been approved. 25 • • V. PRELIMINARY P.U.D. RMF (P.U.D.) zoning requires a project to proceed through the Planned Unit Development process. This process allows flexibility in the strict application of zoning district requirements, encourages appropriate design for the site's topography and unique qualities. This process also encourages site and architectural design which enhances the site's existing assets. Because of this, three (3) cluster buildings are being constructed, each taking advantage of the site's unique qualities and each sensitive to the site's limitations. The clustering technique being used enables a large open space between the buildings. This provides solar orientation and views, as well as internal landscaped space, and a continuum of the open space from Main Street to Spring Street. The Main Street cluster has been staggered and the height of this cluster is below allowable height. The majority of the units have been placed at the north edge of the site away from Main Street. At the portion of the site contiguous to Original Curve, the units are located approximately 165 feet from the Main Street curb. The existing curb cut on Main street will be eliminated and access will be from the safer and less utilized Spring Street. A sidewalk which will link the No Problem Bridge is being proposed to create a trail linkage in the area. All utilities will be underground. In addition, an existing group of electrical 26 • 9 transformer boxes presently situated in a visually prominent location on the public right-of-way on Spring Street will be relocated to a landscaped site on the northwest edge of the property, greatly enhancing the appearance of the site. Solar orientation is being utilized. All but four (4) parking spaces will be underground. The Applicant plans to sell the free-market units being built. A total of seventeen (17) free-market units will be sold. The employee unit will be deed restricted as a low income housing unit and it is anticipated that it will be rented to an employee of the project. At Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision, City Council approved rental of the unit to employees of the project without f limitation of employee's salary or assets. Section 24-8.9(a) The Preliminary P.U.D./Subdivision plat for 700 East Main reflects a layout that is responsive to the terrain and the unique nature of the site. The buildings are carefully sited with respect to general setting, orientation and surrounding l development. The Main Street buildings are set back, staggered and have a lower profile than neighboring developments. The ' majority of the buildings are placed in the back, away from the Main Street view corridor. Development has been kept away from the river's edge to protect the views from the park, as well as protect the riparian vegetation. 27 Elevations have been included on Drawing V . These show all elevations and are of sufficient detail to appraise the k commission of the exterior design, bulk and mass of the development and its relationship to the terrain, as well as neighboring pr03ects. Section 24-8.9(b) A proposed development schedule for the project is included as Exhibit D. VI. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW The intention of Section 24-6.3, Stream Margin Review, is to guide development and encourage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water flow and to insure provisions for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. While the project is totally outside of any floodplain, review is required because some development will fall within 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The Stream Margin Review Plat, Drawing #2, contains additional information required under Section 24-6.3(d), including the boundary of the property, 2 foot contours, existing improvements, existing vegetation and 100-year floodplain. W. • • The Stream Margin Review Plat, Drawing #2, contains additional information required under Section 24-6.3(d), including the boundary of the property, 2 foot contours, existing improvements, existing vegetation and 100-year floodplain. The riverbank along the east boundary of the site is one of the project's most important natural assets. From Herron Park, it forms a backdrop for the Roaring Fork River. From the proposed development above the bank, it forms a natural, undisturbed extension of the courtyard as it drops away to the river. The Applicant's intention is to protect the riverbank. "Protection" has two elements, as agreed upon by both the engineering department and the development team. The first element is protection from construction activities, and the second is protection from erosion. A. Protection from Construction: In order to minimize disturbance of the bank, it will be shored during excavation, according to professional recommendations by a soils engineer. Snow cover prevents completion of the soils engineer's study until spring. A temporary construction fence along the top of the bank will be provided, to limit any infringement onto tr,e steep slope. Regrading will be accomplished to allow revegetation to occur. 29 B. Protection from Erosion: The Roaring Fork River makes a sharp turn from west to north as it passes the project site. The force of the ,- water in this turn tends to erode the bank and expose the roots of trees, especially during high spring runoff. A soils engineer's completed study will �. provide measures to mitigate such erosion which will be �r presented to the City Engineer for review. Additional review criteria for Stream Margin Review are as follows: 1. No development will be located within any flood hazard area as designated by U.S. Corps of Engineers. 2. No trails are designated under an approved trail plan within the development site. 3. The proposal is in compliance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. One of the recommendations of the plan is that trash along the river bank in this area should be cleaned up. As a result of this proposal, a clean- up of the property will be accomplished following construction. 4. Although the project does not approach the stream bed or floodplain, there will be some disturbance of the 30 • • upper part of the bank during construction which will require mitigation measures to minimize erosion of the stream bank as discussed above. 5. Even though no construction will take place in the floodplain or within 35-40 feet of the river, temporary construction barriers will be required between disturbed areas and the river. No developed flows from paved areas will be allowed to directly enter the river. VII. SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF FOUR -BEDROOM UNITS ! Special review of the proposed four -bedroom units was applied for at GMP. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Planning Office deferred approval of this special review until this preliminary stage. Under the proposed Code revisions, a four - bedroom unit requires 4,000 sq. ft. of land. The P.U.D./Subdivision application is based upon this requirement, as described in Section IV (A) (13), above. 31 VI1I. CONDITIONS OF CONCEPTUAL REVIEW APPROVAL A. Employee Unit Plan Detailed information regarding the size, layout and features of the employee housing unit, Unit #18, is provided on Drawing #6. .k.l_.101— B. Deed Restriction of_Employee Unit One employee unit will be deed -restricted as a low income housing unit. It is anticipated that the unit will be rented to an employee of the project. At Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision, City Council approved rental of the unit to employees of the project without limitation of employee's salary �or assets. C. Landscape_ Plan A detailed Landscape Plan is submitted showing commitments for mature trees on site (Drawing #4). A memorandum from Design Workshop, Inc., verifying that the site can sustain proposed plantings is provided (Exhibit G). D. Spring a nd_Mair._Street Open Space Applicant has committed to providing a public seating area in the City right-of-way to allow public enjoyment of the landscaped open space area and views of Aspen Mountain. E. Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter l All sidewalks and curb and gutter designs conform to Engineering Department specifications. 32 I I 1 F. Energy � l Detailed energy -related information has been provided to th City and the Roaring Fork Energy Center for completion of a energy audit. G. Stabilization of Riverbank The Applicant has met with the City Engineer to address stabilization of the river bank, as discussed above in Section VI. H. Stream Margin Review Plat A Stream Margin Review Plat (Drawing #2) has been submitted to include items requested by the City Engineer (see Section VI, above). Imo. N-4 IX. CLARIFICATIONS_ REGARDING GMP APPROVAL I., Subsequent to GMP approval and upon further design study, several issues have arisen which require clarification during preliminary review. Pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b), the Applicant does not believe these changes constitute "substantial deviation from an essential element of the GMP proposal". They include the following: 33 A. The Applicant's prior proposal in the Conceptual Submission to create an open space and to provide public seating within the City right-of-way at the southwest corner of the site. B. The Applicant's addition of hot tubs to the patio areas for each of the free-market condominium units. C. Snowmelting in a portion of the pool patio area. If the Planning and Zoning Commission feels a GMP amendment is necessary for any of the above items and rescoring of the points previously awarded to the project is required, the Applicant hereby requests that this clarification section serve as its formal application for GMP amendment. A. The Applicant's Prior_ commitments for Landscaping at Spring and Main Streets Through recent discussion with Cindy Houben, it is clear that there is a misunderstanding regarding the Applicant's landscaping commitments for the area at Spring and Main Streets. The Applicant committed to keeping the proposed structures away from the corner of the property at Spring and Main Streets to create open space in the area and to \ provide. -public seating within the public right-of-way. This commitment was in addition to the Applicant's commitment to provide a pocket park within the City right-of-way at the 34 southeast corner of the site and the sidewalk linkage to the No Problem Bridge. Attached for your review, as Exhibit I, is a copy of Applicant's GMP Illustrative Site Plan, indicating the Applicant's proposal to place public seating in the right- of-way. B. Addition of Hot Tubs to the Condominium Unit Patios As a result of more detailed marketing analysis, the Applicant wishes to install a hot tub in each individual patio. Because the patios are several feet below grade, the addition of a hot tub unit has a minimal visual impact upon the site. C. Snowmelting In Applicant's GMP submission, sn.owmelting for the ramp to underground parking was provided. As a result of further design study, the Applicant has discovered that snowmelting is appropriate in the pool patio between the recreation building and pool. 35 L-1 .oic.orml.�.sa AtlO u K ro uwcuttf DOL 'wT se[R t _swim ri)f I tlDfo`Tm � f`� cIR LovtlfcrL a rit nR or A{Ill ri Tor { IT. nu[•x zTlul.o, xAroL �_ tlor Leer Ic. DA{.frcla 8:u >� o�ve�`[u::�� em af3wV.S�R �1 r �\ _ — _ .. 1 � I ire J _ _. _,� Anon. / uritri a. roctl. cm cuu •'� ', . f'� IroY,�xiKf"fi tr Ieov3DCD n rie ow[t III LacoeweLe roLx oroxf mLOLAm. DYx �. T Or . Ifef AT _ --Z _ F . xlx��;a;•'D`[uLAL .ALrit.6LI. �� _ ,__ � � � xAILfuOlxc`cn[PAL I•LTtls{ V f.L r� 1.I�s ..` r.r ... AXPUTM1Xc MlwvAl room! rlutt Yu atloxL[Dcm urou / D P xcD cm=Pwti X•f A{IKUx 7.._� [3luoI o fee IMYO�O¢tAL [ATLSLLI•x I. nxt — .I _ _ I tutor TxIDf __. If{{. Y[ric xA[IO AMD On SCIAL 5GL I �I I (u - c[Rtn GTc Or T— rirTC Orn`POlxc lsre. I xc.. A LI<[xE[0 T Or co— D. Or .. n eXL,KK "IT TITLI U III vezTeo n rtL Or I[rilX. RAtt or co rOruu, n urn„ I—. muRr Tln.e. Ixc. {, STATc or rolntA 19.f. mURr Or rlttlx I C.Mn GTc Or r— X• KT M Or IILrT[�x COUxrxsf K. [xc. LewL DcscLlnlox i ie 11 Lucifia.[ rlriu rnuxrx, roLouro. r elaa } X ols•m•u•ti LIIIe Or 1.}. 1, a 0 1I6 Sf•le'DO• [f e!flS�i .OI rf tRI}'xff`f f raft riALO.cOfTLL WT1I41II { O M 19 q x0 ED m IFET xiSLL r•}Po fLrvexoe s cELnrtGTe PAL. s AvvinvAL f �a Icu an or AzrK. s,o x O[.•Arxe Isle. ' wxrtf[n� sI. Aw — "..o. r1 PUT AccooTLv uv we67--LI D[nvs SAID DucrTOA tlLOca III SUw[x. St. )lOrfRl E SI•Sl'lf• x �SD'ff• x JAY[f I Kcer L. f f[et Ylricif xi tAxO AxO Orr ILIA xT COxxI{{Iql Galt Ksi r rtR AIAtlr 01 etr.51 fKT ��r'}s- [ tlsS`tlfn'faf lv11I.A. ff �tSil1 K OI tf It �•SYl -A.F .le Km. I[Oti OL Yl{. IMe ri[ fgRtl L eLocL l 'prtAlYli Stttt Or rom CL[u AYO A[roeOCA s C.- COORI Or Ilnir If f ri . 1 MD IIw9 uwtlOL'Y c mnGri Y LlgtlLrOOiD 0/`Tx 4 I um. COIfuOyppCeri fII OKf[wf _ uu. _ ofclaat xT rota[{slO+ Knu{, c[u uvLlnrxaT AOLTtYsn ficcow— _ r tlmuT ru{Lu r[riltl LaDtlrr euu I tewtut DRAWING t 1 • r-7 L MAIN �J FA gpnpdAswane ', � 1 2 3 44ASSqP*ENU�,w� 7 B, n s>,.q :,. u•aKe :eTr nA.,we q+1 , I1 K BLOCK 21 EASAQDITIONAL TOWN PARCEL A ► j I� 11+ 17 1 14 � 15 4 7 16 I ;� 18 "J �� I d a STREET r K <nm K[co K ry� CS Alpine Surveys, Inc. ter C am ,rw 3w m e,eu ]I tl SO IT 944E I' 2e `+ e+bPG[M[Ne•NW'9d<+•E eefw[fn TUE 9D/KMStnNpir[NORrnrENr to amrxzl, w,r Asren vw+e�rz t�r PARCEL A — -- _ 4] A71 A AK4 a v+r0 xKArzD Kr TI! x Vi YN yf O XTpr 7, TONAU✓ q 9[VrU, .r MgcsTa Tree �rm+�MUmL In[RrPN+, ntrw taw+ty [GD•ADo, I,aRG ruLr IE9DefEp M 1hluM • OE4MareG tt TIK +g1TL+VLiT CDRKR P °LD[Ua 21. —IT .\MEI+ A T_ ItN .. TLRKG rl WDM•G ISOOD rT. rap[L Q L[ s W TlC +WTHWLST[1{L+ fpp.ICIC of IOI I xY+ eKt;K Si TpYL e Ti•OT II' G ifoDD rt ut9R[ of LL» nIL[K. M YVR. LwL O LO,'! �; i11 S A hIL +Q1TI/A9rGt (%Rill P LP 4, SAID OLIXX L, ilf.ID[l TIK. rWN S+ID 4K N N'4l<TL IQ][V ITr-L [L LR IGY+ Kd-W UL UY[LRLY I q YN[M LII+L CT eND LCR 7 W M NOCTYUbTLRL+ CPVL1t Q S4D tR f iAly lv rxtcra V. TiZKL 4xle•me sfT R, TNence esv W'Ire Knsi rt. TtE1+L SfY51"lt•W {T CE rt. TLILIY[E sM'feYl•W 2111 R FORC Ol LC+7 WlrORtIKMYTLRLY C(iP,GI Q 10! b, 9WD 4laK 1, 1Kn(L. SMlDK+•w ICDWOo rT .'tllaG as LCYJ W TlX f[ fTE LY CG/`G1l OI LOT le }4D G+- nLCYK 11, T4LKL N TIDI'rf W 25. rT TIT 9OUTu LrK G NrD AQK ir. TKK.L [.C(NCnW 11 LIK. 41M IT KQG A (lRVi W M . A UDNJJ d Nesl R (TUL CnCRD a wurcN rXARS S b• b' U' L G1.01 Rl, TIIUCL NS.T1 IT .�LI.f A eLRK lD M LCIT IZLN'E WYIr-IG n 14\DI(!1 O I]° ID IT CK 41DRD v WWtCU EC/Jl7 N y11 tT•W IW M +CUTu L.11-lL P SAID r'ILL,CK 21. TtK .CL N �P rl' W TS IT 1[L LL» ALOIY. M'Y.ID'AUTN LIK A TLL IpNT p I-" rXtINaW, CDNrNNM4 KAIG n IT MCRC at LL`Jl CKsO oLXR14LD ,wT nvcc.0 ar w�[nm w r.rnRwuvr RLrawtxD .r _ _ - __ L.vo nDorc +te , rnG<. sec . d M I+rrAc» w TUL cRKln cnl.m uGRil lco Rtt1H[DEIc. �N Ku PARCEL B '' evt(f V L�/+D eRW LD u M St MfW/a P SGLTKM 1 WwUiarb •;S,T4 1s1 RANLL el WL+T AM GTU �M. rRKIN [Q1M+. Cn(1rKA. r'a^.RL NLIi LLYRIr IDG+TIriY+L r. Q M= %l Cm Or le L (LtM1 P ?IT4 STATL P A. ft C. CarTsr•+IK If, CYV •<i It r+'!r[[ Q LL�4 FOR+[IeLY RN9WN A7 LDI�+ A. 4 C.O < °, \ nLQI[ 11. UK AY[lU ADOTTK.T+ W M GR+ P Abe[ CNNTY P �ITRIN. „� l 1 xATc a ECLDRAtn SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE E, DANQL r, o-+Ku aC11L19+ GLlerm ro. l me Ass°cuT•ra nwew seR. 3 K/�UR W-9LW'1 JR, SLLLUI P MRCLL Q N.KL JI.W.IITA WLLCEOa (wv raVOW++ro N.Ics J. coRarN+ wwc .nrUCLLSLN E j M 111 .w nwlTn LGux r+aa, fcunls Rvca A. s nTK<Y CPnrr•I rR[E r' nc. rua Tun Nw /CCIANTEY+ O[JICT7 A su[.-t ..+.Lc LSE .n suneR- vMON M OCTDeUI. 11/T d IARLFL`f n a O M C[YJ[I4EEl ArpL, LOGVLD IN M fnY OI /rfrW, nTwN U1NT( cotnl[n[+> M T1W /2RY WCLO r+'i.OL. TK Or2 9rP[T iMRtK Aap M d'C elol NCO w ll= r4i-A W eL LD[ATm CNTIRCLY WTW 1{C eAJNPMt+ LIr.LS Ofe4e:.tt A MO TK C?C !tU[•1 W JL HrM KMD W °G 11XIRm LNTIRLLY R+ LIrCy 1 1 WRWN TNL a rnl[rLL A M 1LCATtlN <r0 De'CN;`IpJS d ALL 4uLI1KA M+'FOrTjHUE19, UXKX19, R tf1�i-d-WM r . \\ LVIt>LNCC GR IteQNU W r•C MD E!-Cltp•Lrwttlt7 dl OR ON TN[JE \ n[EI.,eSL's IQ AELU4[T[L+ ?lOWH. • \ \ KrrK 'JI-RK�4 �c 7Y PN-[Ell MKO3rL ___. DlCi1TXEl �. I+eT L'E. ]aSI .. WTt W10/I[MM Tlaaeri Flaw CR+ MV'S OCKL W I— A[larAL � , M1IOn1eI+MN UEDATLD e+ C[DRR ALIIW. 1RvT.1 fA d �>v. ARIZLIIA, /I I+T+. °afire ly 7Nile s ���°7 .Irn w•e, rnrt vu l0rb. u PeT i1N e<N IMPROVEMENT SURVEY Oiie " DRAWING *2 EAGLES CLUB 1 CREEKTREE CaJDOMM MS PRIVATE l CREEKTREE CONO OURS i RELOCAPT UT' S TRASH 0 / B B �••' /i ' / T 3 j B { RECIRBAT N ' 11 13 EKJ{.PING IS }� 12 tT T �I a° a 1E POOL` ti MAN STREET I AND ON WEAL STREET LEGEND ............. LAKTS OF EXCAVATION . ASI SPOT ELEVATION MFMYdF EXISTING CONTOUR aTMTo d� y^°V'F PROPOSED CONTOUR RiwFNpa111. tP...sI —LI— EXISTING WATER LINE --� - - PROPOSED WATER LINE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT • o PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ISOLATION VALVE PROPOSED SURFACE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM D DRAIN INLET PIPING SrM PLAN DETENTION STRUCTURE PRELIMMMY PW SUBDf VISION NOTES: 1) ALL CONTOURS ABOVE TOM FEET ARE AT A ONE FOOT VERTCAA. 700 EAST 1. -M NTERVAL All OTHER OONTOLRS ARE AT A TWO FOOT VERTICALASPEN, C��A , INTERVAL 2) ALL SURFACE DRAINAGE WITHIN PATIO AREAS SHALL BE NCpRPpRATED INTO THE SLeSLff ACE ORNUOE STSTEEI OVER THE ROOF SUB OF THE PARING STRUCTIRE. RI.�bPr FM ANOC&%TU NIFIAR.Ir M LISOMAI D PAMIN ASSOC AIIIFYb AwARIIM NAOLANFYAW ARMISCR7l1 LN wd A AFttARIIr Daum WmOEO►Will ....�(...RI t n/IINr cA11` 1L-iLG'ALLOL'* tlNAU. KONUIL A RrAll CM.IwIIF PEA CASSON A ASSC C. NC. NORTH ORt.: *IS,** MOOItt nNAIONM NI SCALE..'.2Qd' 0 IO 20 LO w l00 FT. MINI n mbor UTLRY PAD TRASH ACC ♦.tu •no•• � I.t I• b•ul.• son.. •s.P..., ..e.e.l u..te. •.w,ocwse 1 I EAGLES CLUB CREEKTREE CONDOMMAAS PRIVATE DRIVE co••on.em u• s a.wn ,.. Y 0. f• C.V. Y. 1. ,wn•.in A.n t• cu uo is e.wo u.• pros. to-auo to :...c t . cu.. c,n•. nH s wL. con.. st ptr•. BOULDERS FOR SEATING t CONOOMNJUMS I. NEAL STREET LEGEND SEATING BOULDER EXISTING COTTONWOODS O Tn• l.d.v0 H•.r A.•orY•• COTTONWOOD tNORWAY MAPLE ® COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (NEW PLANTINGS) ® COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE (RELOCATED) LAMSCAPE PLAN ® EUROPEAN MOUNTAIN ASN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 0 ASPEN W FRAGRANT SUMAC 700 EAST MAN ASPEN, COLORADO POTENTILLA FROEBEL SPWEA 0 Soo a..r.. ®POE A IOCIATEB CREEPING BUTTERCUP M•A�•ab CREEPING BUTTERCUP MIXED WITH PERENNIALS THE LEOMA10 PMBmt AatBOC. A•••arr A.Wb•r WILDFLOWER SOD HAOMAM-YAW ARp2TOC,. LV& PERENNIALS DE21011 WOWSHOF MC. t••oa••12M•••. NOTES: 1) ORIGINAL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING TREES ARE BAKKE ROM BALLOU A DENOTED BY6 T14E ORIGINAL LOCATIONS OF MdARLM W' TREES WHICH ARE TO BE MOVED TO TIL! �Er'M°'1 A'M•�•� PLANTING AREA ALONG MAIN STREET ARE MPFAU ROM(= "IMBALL DENOTED BYE. CM 2•�..w 2) ALL AREAS ALONG THE RIVERBANK AND ANY REA CASSEM A ASSOC- 21C OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE SITE SMALL BE • REVEGETATED WITH NATIVE GRASSES AND GROUNDCOVERS AS SLOPE AND SOIL CONDITIONS PERMIT. NORTH A.t•: 21216E scA�f +' zoo' woNct nlotl.r. 2N $- o ,o To .o eo ,00 IT •n••1 nw0.t DRAWING f4 NNI 11 PARKING LEVEL PLAN ------------ A. -�i _.711 0 700 EAST MAIN THE LlON... I...1. AS— .A A. IA. AnCwiECTS Ll. SASE SOH -ALLOI A —Alt -FALL A A K—Al —ASSIAS A ASSOC Cl 6 • HAGMAN YAW 4 March 1988 ARCHITECTS IFD 210 SO UTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORAW 81011 303/925-28h7 Mr. Steve Standiford Roaring Fork Energy Center 242 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Re: 700 East Main Street Dear Steve: We are submitting our project for the process now, and I would like to take exactly how we addressed your energ conceptual PUD. EXHIBIT J y Preliminary PUD/Subdivision this opportunity to tell you concerns expressed during I am including prints of our building elevations so you can see how the glazing works. In addition, I have attached a copy of our glazing area survey for all East, North and West facing glass. Our current design has 3,141 SF of actual glass area on these faces, which is 6.17% of our floor area for the top three levels of all build- ings. As you know, we are also providing Low-E glass in all Non - South facing windows, which will further reduce energy consumption. The combination of Low-E glazing and half of the allowable non - south glass will make this project an exemplary one with respect to energy conservation. *The calculation sheet shows a possible future increase in non -south glass, which is currently on the boards. As you can see, the impact of this increase still has our total under 7% of floor area. With regard to water consumption, it is important to note, in response to your conceptual PUD comments, that our toilets will all be maximum 32 gallon tank sizes, and that our showers will all have maximum 3 GMP restrictions on them. Please call me if you have any questions on this or on the Preliminary PUD Application, when you receive it. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Michael Thompson AIA Partner MT:aa Enclosures EXHIBIT K Hagman & Yaw Architects 210 S. Galena .Aspen, Co. 81611 ATTN: Mike Thompson November 25, 1987 To Whom It May Concern: The City of Aspen owns the electric facilities in the 700 block on the North side of East Main St. .At the present time there is 120/2,10 single phase power at this location. Any upgrading of present facilities such as a transformer size increase or chap-e to 120/208 Three Phase will be at owners expense. The City of Aspen Electric Department will do all hookups in the l transformer and charge owner for material and labor. The City of Aspen also furnishes the Current Transformers and Meter Housing and will wire up same at no charge to owner aftet- inspection by City Building inspector. /a, - Donald K. Gilbert Electric Superintendent cc/Jay Hammond DG/ch I 0@ EXHIBIT L Mountain Bell P. O. Box 220 A USWEST COMPANY Glenwood Springs, CC) 81602 November 17, 1987 Hagman & Yaw ATM: Michael Thompson 210 S. Galena Aspen, 00 81611 Dear Mr. Thompson: Pursuant to your request concerning the provision of telephone facilities for the Original Curve Town Homes, located in Aspen, Colorado. I submit the following information. Mountain Bell is the serving telephone company in this area and will provide telephone service to this project. However, the developer could be required to enter into a Land Developers Contract with Mountain Bell and be required to provide front end money prior to Mountain Bell's placement of telephone facilities within this project. Sincerely, RAND L. CARPEW= Assistant Manager RLC/sw • canyon cable tv EXHIBIT M November 19, 1987 Mr. Michael Thompson Hagman -Yaw Architects 210 S. Galena St. Suite 24 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Serviceability Confirmation Dear Sir: Pursuant to our telephone conversation on November 17, this letter will confirm that cable television service will be made available to the proposed 18 Townhomes in the vicinity of 700 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611. Such service availability will be subject to our published rate schedule then in effect. Please see that we are listed on your utility companies mailing list to insure that we receive liberal, advance notice of the progress of this project. We will be happy to assist you in the utility/CATV installation coordination to assure of a smooth process. Thank you. JKB/ar Since ely, J el y Bloomer Division Of United Artists Cables stems Corp. 201 Aspen Airport Business Center Aspen, Colorado • 81611 • 303/925-4098 Lawyem Title Insurance Corporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIR©INIA SCHEDULE B—Section 2 Exceptions The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im- posed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69 as follows: Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States. 8. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Letter relating to the use of driveway from William R. Tiedt to Dorothty Marie Mikkelsen, Ardith Louise Ware and Alice Juanita Gallegos as set forth in instrument recorded Novenber 4, 1982 in Book 435 at Page 189. 9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Short Form Options by and between Albert W. Bevan, Jr., and Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership as set forth in instrument recorded September 29, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 919; and Short Form Option by and between Ardith Ware, Dorothy M. Mikkelsen and Alice J. Mikkelsen and Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership as set forth in instrument recorded September 29, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 921. Exceptions numbered N(>NF are hereby omitted. The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1, Item (b). (2) Unpotented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. (3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales. Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—No. Form 91-88 B2 Rocky Mt. n74 - 1 _nq(i.n4ln • 0 Lawyers Title Insurance Orpordtion National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia SCHEDULE B—Section 1 Requirements to following are the requirements to be complied with. em (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest r be insured. ern (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, )-wit. (1) Deed from DOROTHY MARIE MIIQ�, ARDITH LOUISE WARE and ALICE JUANITA CAUZOOS to FINE ASSOCIATES, A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (2) Trade Name Affidavit or Partnership Agreement of FINE ASSOCIATES, disclosing the names of the partners, and the other information required by '73 CRS 7-71-101 (1) (1) evidencing the existence of said partnership prior to its acquistion of title to the land herein. (3) Deed from : ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. to : FINE ASSOCIATES, A MINNESOITA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP (4) Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted. (5) Certificate of Nonforeign Status, signed by DOR011HY MARIE MLKFELSEN, ARDITH LCNISE WARE, ALICE JUANITA GALLEGOS, and ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. his commitment is invalid unless 1e Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule B-Section 1 -Page 1 -Commitment No. PCT 1232-87 les A and B are attached. xmNo. 91-88(B-1) 0 Lawyers Title Insurance Cprporetion NATIONAL H@ADQUARTP-RS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A cont'd. More Fully Described As Follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Block 21 East Aspen Additional Townsite, Thence N 14° 50' 49"E 120.00 Ft., Thence S 75' 09' 11"E 150 Ft. along the South Line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5, said Block 21, Thence departing from said line N 14050'49"E 100.00 Ft., Thence S 59'18' 00"E 56.37 Ft., Thence S 50'14'11"E 118.32 Ft., Thence S 52°57'39"W 47.02 Ft., Thence S 49'58'47"W 21.71 Ft., Thence S 14*50'49" W 100.00 Ft., to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75009111W 2.31 Ft., Along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 Ft. Along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 Ft. (The chord of which bear N 51°27'27"W 141.60 Ft.) to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N75'09'11'W 164.75 Ft. Along the said South line to the point of the begining. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, East Aspen Additional Township City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, Formerly Known As: 1 Lots A, B, C, D & E, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO A Schedule Page No. 055-1-999-0040/2 • LawyersTitle Insurance Cprporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A cont'd. I917621-1wiv A PARCEL, OF LAID SITUATED IN THE SE -,SW, OF SECTION 7, MWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANG 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, C MADO. SAID PARCEL, IS MDRE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN; THENCE NORTH 75*09'11" WEST 44.10 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE C>F LOT 18 AND 17 OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE NORTH 36022'00" EAST 26.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°35'00" WEST 85.92 FEET; THENCE SCUM 50°14'11" EAST 118.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY EDGE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 52057'39" WEST 47.02 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE OF SAID RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 49058'47" WEST 21.71 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE OF SAID RIVER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGTHER WITH ALL OF LOTS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (FORMERLY LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S) OF BLOCK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, TOGTHLER WITH ALL OF THE ALLEY G BLOCK 21 OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH ALL OF LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 (FORMERLY F, G, H, AND I) OF BLOCK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION EXCEPT A PORTION THEREff LOCATED NORTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT' 6, THENCE SOUTH 59018100" EAST 56.37 FEET; THENCE SCUM 50'14'11" EAST' TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST SIDE LINE CIF LOT 9, WHICH NORTHERLY PORTION OF SAID LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 WERE CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 311 AT PACE 11 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH A TRACT CE LAND LYING IN MAIN STREET 100 FEET IN WIDTH 50 FEET WIDE ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINF ON THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 21 WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 18 BEARS SOUTH 75009'11" EAST 59 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE ON A 7° CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO A POINT OF INIERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF MAIN STREET WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 9, BLOCK 28 EAST ASPEN BEARS SOUTH 75°09'11" EAST 12 FEET, MORE OR LESS, EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ASPEN BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 223 AT PAGE 152 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAID LOCATED IN THE SE-, OF THE SW`-, OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANG 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT FROM WHICH THE NW CORNER OF BLOCK 28, OF THE EAST ASPEN TOWTNSITE BEARS NORTH 75009' WEST A DISTANCE OF 186.3 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11039' WEST A DISTANCE OF 111.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75009' EAST A DISTANCE OF 28.3 FEET; THENCE AROUND A CURVE TO THE RICHF WITH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55000' AND A RADIUS OF 176.18 FEET A DISTANCE OF 168.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75009' WEST A DISTANCE OF 142.8 FEET, TO PLACE OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: LOTS I, 2, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, Continued... 035-1-999-0040/2 Schedule -Page -No. hers Title Insurance Corporation National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia EXHIBIT A COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE - SCHEDULE A Effective Date October 9, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. 2 Policy or policies to be issued (a) W ALTA Owner's Policy —Form B- 1970 (Rev. 10. 1 7.70 & Rev. 10-17-84) ❑ ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 Proposed insured: FINE ASSOCIATES, A MIMESOQA GENERAL PAIMERSHIP (b) ALTA Loan Policy, 1970 (Rev. 10-17-70 & Rev. 10-17-84) ,Proposed insured: I 1 (c) Proposed insured Casa No _ PCT-1232 -87 (A) Amount s (B)Amounts Amount $ Amount $ TAX CERTIFICATES 1 (Title to the in fee simple estate or interest in the land Idescribed or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: PARCEL (A)-DOROM HARM MI100 SEN, ARDTIN LagSE WARE, AND ALICE XANITA GUIEGOS PARCEL (B)-ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. �The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF a Authorized Officer or Agent Fo.m No. 91-88 ($CH. AI 035• t -088 0001 /♦ $ 5.00 PitMn County Title, Inc. 601 E. Hopkins AsW, Colorado 81611 Commitment No. PCT-1737-87 Schedule A —Page 1 This commitment is invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Sched- ules A and B are attached. Ctl;'• W.'' . � � • s at o g�. yang;�' jr9e 3 PT- I� � I I I �I I i � r I I I I {�II I i.L-1►�4J I S W W cc 1— N z Q z 0 a W J W F- O N 0 rNrot- Ch w 0 all 0 i r t 3 I d` f�1 � y gs►;�t�Yl��� 9 �i 0 z 0 ¢ z O F w w W I i a {� Pj ^ate fil It?l i I tllif • -jr. rY �s W 3 0 -&- O .0 -1� i m s LLI .r W a i z�-� �e Z a t a :3a.� s 1 -17. 1p I^ 2 LLJ U a,a 1M-E-t� F- i M vac N y� O d W a z � Ii � �Fz '1 s ILDaa t x s 0 z 0 J_ m z Q H in U Ix ¢ • • E X H I b i i I EAGLES CLUB CREEKTREE CONDOIMMlN1S GARA ENTRANCE �'^ '},'f ,%✓F+ iryf .r �_.��-'�"'..'^Tii'.> • - 2 BR 2 BR ...) 3 BR OR S BR � t L C.7. 3 2 OR 2 BR > ys 2 OR 2 BR rF-. w •lSl i 1 ; Y BR Ei + ART.. AL PARKING OPEN SVA4E • Z � j , 2 BR .i_ RECREATION BULOIIG [,•1 4" -i % / 2 OR i ad 3 SR * = HERRON PARK 2 BR 2 BR • i T .� ll vai / PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/�Q'_,I'. 4� 5+ SEATING AREA \. MAIN STREET RIVER OVERLOOK/A PUBLIC SEATING AREA � '• � I N W - Ic I I 700 MAIN ILLUS 'I RATIVF SITF PLAN CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES • ARCHITECTS DESIGN WORKSHOP "C.•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS . +i -r. +.,n� MN Idl IJy I3N Ld) d•I �•I �y Map 11 IDS Center �I, 612112 1,61 EXHIBIT H FINE ASSOCIATES March 3, 1988 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Land Use Applications by Fine Associates for 700 East Main Project Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We hereby authorize submission of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, Stream Margin Review and Four Bed- room Special Review applications to the City of Aspen. These application submittals, on behalf of Fine Associates, are for the "700 East Main" project. Fine Associates is the holder of an option to purchase the subject property. Sincerely, FINE ASSOCIATES, a Minnesota Gf _ By: Managing General Partner WIF:rd TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 700 MAIN March 3, 1988 page 2 Several projects in the Aspen area serve to demonstrate the viability of placing plantings over a structure. The Snowmass Conference Center is a typical example of the successful use of plants in a confined rooftop situation. Based on the attention given each of the factors previously discussed and DWI's professional experience with similar projects the health of the plants used over the parking structure will not be adversely affected. • J1 • DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC. ILANDS(:APF ArC•4�TE�IUAE9 LAND PLANN'N3 • URBAN DESIGN TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM - 700 MAIN TO: City Staff FROM: Design Workshop, Inc. DATE: March 3, 1988 RE: Rooftop Plantings EXHIBIT G A combination of paving, turf, groundcover and trees has been proposed in plaza areas above the underground parking garage on the 700 Main Townhouse project. This memo serves to address the concerns voiced during the GMP submittal process in regard to the successful use of deciduous and coniferous trees over the garage. Several factors are critical to the success of the proposed planting scheme. Each is summarized below. Plant Varieties The following trees are proposed for use in the rooftop plaza area: Norway Maple Blue Spruce All plants proposed for use are considered hardy to Zone 3, and are native to the intermountain region. All have been used previously in the Aspen area and are well -suited to the elevation and climate. Soil Depth A minimum of 4' of soil will be provided in areas where trees are proposed. A lightweight soil mix will be used where applicable to decrease weight (by up to 50%) and provide a well -drained medium for enhanced root development. Standards set by the American Association of Nurserymen for rootball height dimensions relative to proposed tree sizes require no more than 24" for any type listed. A minimum of 12" of soil below the rootball is normally specified for all plantings, and this standard would also be easily met. Irrigation An irrigation system is proposed for all planted areas. This system will help to alleviate the accelerated drying of soils in rooftop situations and will greatly enhance the initial establishment and long-term health of the proposed trees and other planting stock. 710 EAST DURANT STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925.8354 DENVER ASPEN PHOENIX I� • Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 November 19, 1987 To Whom it May Concern: EXHIBIT F 87-140 I have conducted a slope study of the property associated with Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite. The results: j Total Lot Area 60016 Sq. Ft. Slope Area Multiplyer Net Area 0-20 49776 1.00 49776 20-30 700 0.50 350 30-40 1485 0.25 371 * 40+ 8055 0 0 * Includes Area Under Water Net Developable Area 50497 Sincerely Yours, FReser JFR/ml EXHIBIT E2 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 31611 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Members: I Tom Hines, am currently a tenant at 120 North Spring Street, property presently owned by Mr. Albert W. Bevan, Jr. I understand that Fine Associates has an option to P»rnhasx� the property and intends to construct new condominium units on the property. I understand that 120 North Spring Street will no longer be availa)le for rental to me, and I do not wish to purchase one of the units to be constructed. I hereby waive my right to a 90--day nonassignable option to purchase any of the units to be constructed. Respectfully yours, Tom Hines L'I�7 Date • �J City of Aspen 130 South Galena :street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Members: EXHIBIT E1 I Carolyn Dougherty, am currently a tenant at 120 North Spring Street, property presently owned by Mr. Albert W. Bevan, Jr. I understand that Fine Associates has an option to purchase the property and intends to construct new condominium units on the property. I understand that 120 North Spring Street will no longer be available for rental to me, and I do not wish to purchase one of the units to be constructed. I hereby waive my right to a 90-day nonassignable option to purchase any of the units to be constructed. Respectfully yours, vt �, 4 Carolyn Doug erty go Date EXHIBIT D PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Applicant anticipates that the several components of the 700 East Main Subdivision will be constructed generally in accordance with the following time frames, which time frames are not binding representations or schedules: Development Component Phase I ° Units 4-10 ° Subgrade Parking Garage ° Recreation Building Phase II ° Units 1-3, 18 Phase I I I ° Units 11-17 ° Swimming Pool and Courtyard Common Area ° Public Improvements Involved Commencement Date Substantial Completion Date (on or after) (on or before) 8/1/88 3/31/88 '. 1/1/89 6/30/89 5/1/89 10/30/89 4 r -I LJ • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY I� SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 650 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814-4794 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 17, 1988 Regulatory Section Ms. Martha C. Pickett Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw and Harring One United Bank Center Suite 3800 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Ms. Pickett: EXHIBIT C RECEIVED F [- 8 1 9 IM I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at 700 East Main Street in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The proposed residential development would be located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. On February 16, 1988, Mr. Gary Davis of this office conducted an on -site field investigation to determine whether wetlands were present on this site. Based upon this field review, we have determined that the only wetlands present occupy a very narrow (approximately five (5) feet) band of riparian cottonwood trees (Populus angustifolia) immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Provided you do not discharge dredged or fill material into this area of riparian cottonwood trees, a Department of the Army permit would not be required. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Davis at telephone (303) 243-1199. S'nQerely, Grady-L. cNure ,Chief, Re ulatory Unit 4 (--764 Ho ' on Drive, Room 211 Ga rnd Junction, Colorado 81506-8719 Copy Furnished: Mr. Gideon Kaufman, 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305, Aspen, Colorado 81611i EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, thence N 14*50149" E 120.00 feet, thence S 75009'11" E 150.00 feet along the South line of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, said Block 21, thence departing from said line N 14*50149" E 100.00 feet, thence S 59°18'00" E 56.37 feet, thence S 50014'11" E 118.32 feet, thence S 52057'39" W 47.02 feet, thence S 49058'47" W 21.71 feet, thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 feet to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75109111" W 2.31 feet along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 feet (the chord of which bears S 10°18'25" E 62.87 feet), thence 145.72 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 176.18 feet (the chord of which bears N 51°27'27" W 141.60 feet) to the South line of said Block 21, thence N 75°09'11" W 164.75 feet along the said South line to the Point of Beginning, containing 45,016 square feet more or less. EXHIBIT B3 CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being all of the record owners of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the _=—day of November, 1987. OWNERS: ZO ARDITH LOUISE WARE r. DOROTHY MARIE MIKKELSEN ALICE JUANITA GALLEGOS (now known as Alice Juanita Mikkelsen) • A parcel of land situated Township 10 South, Range Pitkin County, Colorado, EXHIBIT "A" in the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 7, 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, thence N 14*50149" E 120.00 feet, thence S 75009'11" E 150.00 feet along the South line of Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, said Block 21, thence departing from said line N 14°50'49" E 100.00 feet, thence S 59018100" E 56.37 feet, thence S 50°14'11" E 118.32 feet, thence S 52°57'39" W 47.02 feet, thence S 49058'47" W 21.71 feet, thence S 14°50'49" W 100.00 feet to the South line of said Block 21, Thence N 75°09'11" W 2.31 feet along the said South line, thence departing said line, 62.88 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 868.51 feet (the chord of which bears S 10*18125" E 62.87 feet), thence 145.72 feet along a curve to the left having a radius of 176.18 feet (the chord of which bears N 51127'27" W 141.60 feet) to the South line of said Block 21, thence N 75009'11" W 164.75 feet along the said South line to the Point of Beginning, containing 45,016 square feet more or less. EXHIBIT B2 CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being all of the record owners of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the 4 S- day of November, 1987. OWNERS: ARDITH LOUISE WARE DOROTHY MARIE MIKKELSEN ALICE ANITA GALLEGOS (now known as Alice Juanita Mikkelsen) • • EXHIBIT "A" Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5, Block 21, East Aspen Additional Townsite, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; containing 15,000 square feet more or less. Formerly known as: Lots A,B,C,D and E, Block 21, East Aspen Addition to the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. • EXHIBIT B1 CONSENT TO LAND USE APPLICATIONS KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: THAT the undersigned, being the sole record owner of that certain real property situated in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Subject Property"), hereby consent to the submission to the City of Aspen by Fine Associates, of Growth Management Plan, Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, and Stream Margin Review Applications for the Subject Property. EXECUTED as of the / ? day of November, 1987. OWNER: ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. LewyeOPTitle Insurance CorP oition. National Headquarters Richmond, Virginia COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date." CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1 . The term "mortgage," when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or(b)toeliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. Lawyers Title Jnsu a C9rporetion President Attest: Secretary. • • APPLICATION FOR GMP RESIDENTIAL ALLOTMENT December 1, 1987 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2020 Applicant: Fine Associates IDS Center, Suite 1916 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-2561 Attorneys: Gideon Kaufman Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 E. Hyman Avenue, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8166 Architect: Leonard Parker & Associates 430 Oak Grove Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 871-6864 Landscape Architect: Civil Engineers: Planner: Hagman Yaw Architects Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-2867 Design Workshop, Inc. 710 East Durant Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-8354 Rea-Cassens & Associates, Inc. 4388 South Windermere Englewood, Colorado 80110 789-4428 Joe Wells 608 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 925-6866 • �J 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # A. BASIC INFORMATION 1 Project Information 1 aa. Water System 2 bb. Sewage Treatment System 2 CC. Storm Drainage 3 dd. Fire Protection System 5 ee. Total Development Area - Type of Units - Proximity to Schools 5 ff. Traffic 6 gg. Location 7 hh. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets 7 ii. Adjacent Uses 7 jj. Construction Schedule 8 Site Utilization Maps 8 aa. Energy 8 bb. Landscaping and Open Space 9 CC. Zoning District 10 B. REVIEW CRITERIA 10 Availability of Public Facilities and Services 10 aa. Water 10 bb. Sewer 10 CC. Storm Drainage 11 dd. Fire Protection 13 ee. Parking Design 13 ff.. Traffic Analysis and Road System 14 i • • 2. Quality of Design aa. Neighborhood Compatability bb. Site Design CC. Energy dd. Trails ee. Green Space 3. Proximity to Support Services aa. Public Transportation bb. Community Commercial Facilities 4. Provisions for Employee Housing 5. Bonus Points MAPS Vicinity Map Zoning Map Location Map Transportation/Circulation Map Existing Conditions/Survey Utilities Map Context Map Site Concept Garage Level Plan Main and Spring Building Elevation Site Sections Preliminary Unit Floor Plans ii Page # 15 15 17 20 21 22 23 23 23 23 24 Map #1 Map #1 Map #1 Map #2 Map #3 Map #3 Map #4 Map #5 Map #6 Map #7 Map #8 Map #9 and 10 0 • Illustrative Site Plan Landscape Plan Fire Marshall Letter VVUTRTTC iii Map #11 Map #12 Exhibit 1 • E A. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Project Information. This application for GMP allotment under Section 24-11.4 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "the Code") seeks an allotment for fourteen (14) free-market residential units to be built in conjunction with one (1) one -bedroom low income restricted employee unit on the northeast corner of Main Street and Spring Street. Three units have existed on site and will be reconstructed pursuant to Applicant's plan for improving the Property and per Section 24-11.2(a). The property is bordered by the Concept 600 Building and is across the street from Original Curve Condominiums. This land is located within the RMF PUD zone on a total area of 60,016 square feet. The multi -family units are being configured into three (3) separate buildings connected by a common underground parking structure. The majority of the units are located near the northern perimeter of the site, back from Main Street. This siting enables the project to reduce its visual impact, to create views of Aspen Mountain, and to permit a large landscaped open space area within the interior portions of the site. The cottonwood trees at the corner of Spring and Main are being preserved, and a park -like open space area is being created at that corner. In order to preserve the natural quality of the embankment of the Roaring Fork River, none of the units step down to the river. Almost all required parking is being placed underground. The building cluster closest to Main Street has been positioned to create a scaled down transition from the Concept 600 Building, and to enhance the open space experience of the site. By staggering the units at the corner of Spri:.; Street and Main Street, the park -like quality of the corner which has been historically defined by the tall cottonwood trees has been preserved. Similarly, the stepped back configuration on the east side of the property opens the Main Street view towards Herron Park and the mountains beyond. Great care was taken in our site plan to blend with the l existing development in this transitional neighborhood. The € total FAR for the project will be less than what is currently permitted by the Code, and while fifty (50) bedrooms are permitted, only forty-five (45) are being requested. A tremendous amount of work has gone into the open space and landscaping concept of the project and, as a result, approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the site will be covered with buildings. The site plan has been configured to create a significant and continuous landscaped interior open space between buildings. A swimming pool and recreational building highlight project amenities. The applicant is - 1 - E 0 concurrently applying for Conceptual P.U.D., Conceptual / Subdivision, Mandatory P.U.D., Stream Margin Review, and Special Review for Exempting Employee Housing from the GMP Process. aa. 24-11.4(a)(laa) Water System. The existing water system in the vicinity of the site includes a 6" cast iron main in the south side of Main Street, an 8" cast iron main in the east side of Spring Street, an 8" ductile iron line on the north side of the site which serves the Creektree condominiums and a 6" cast iron main located in the north side of Main Street which presently dead -ends approximately fifty (50) feet east of Spring Street. The Director of the Aspen Water Department estimates that the water pressure in the 6" mains is approximately 100 P.S.I., and in the 8" main is approximately 110 P.S.I. The Director has confirmed that more than adequate capacity, including storage treatment and delivery capacity, remains in the existing system to serve the eighteen (18) residential units proposed. Based on discussions with the Director, and as calculated below, the demand at the project has been estimated as approximately 6,2.50 gallons per day (g.p.d.). The system capacity at this location is in excess of 50,000 g.p.d. Residential Units Population 2 4-bedroom units @ 5/unit = 10.0 6 3-bedroom units @ 4/unit = 24.0 9 2-bedroom units @ 3/unit = 27.0 1 1-bedroom unit @ 1.5/unit = 1.5 62.5 The estimated water usage is 100 gallons per person per day (g.p.d.); estimated peak water usage is therefore 6,250 per day. bb. 24-11.4(a)(lbb) Sewage Treatment System. The site is serviced by the Rio Grande collection system of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. An 8" line dead ends in the site from Spring Street generally opposite the alley behind the Concept 600 Building. The collection line extends north to the end of Spring Street, and then northeast through the park, connecting to the main trunk line to the sewer plant on the opposite side of the river. Conversations with District personnel have confirmed that there are very few service connections to this line, and that there is more than enough capacity remaining in the - 2 - • • system to service the project. The peak demand generated by the project is expected to equal water usage, calculated in paragraph aa. above, or 6,250 gallons per day (g.p.d.) CC. 24-11.4(a) (lcc) Storm Drainaqe. 1. Existing Conditions. The site topography presently directs surface drainage to two major watershed areas. The western two-thirds of the site generally drains to the southwest, west, and northwest at slopes of 4% to 8%. Grasses and weeds cover a significant portion of the area. Four structures (along with associated yard landscaping and paved or gravel driveways) are also found on this end of the site. Surface flow is collected along the curb and gutter on Main Street and Spring Street, with a concentration of run-off occurring at the northwest corner of the site. This drainage presently flows across Bleeker Street, down an embankment adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and into the Roaring Fork River. On -site erosion appears negligible, but erosion is occurring off -site as the water flows to the river. The 36" storm sewer line located under Spring Street is undersized for current city storm loading requirements. The eastern one-third of the site is characterized by surface flows to the northeast and east at slopes in excess of 25%. Existing vegetation consists mainly of cottonwood trees and small riparian shrubs and grasses, with many areas of the embankment showing erosion. A major portion of drainage from this watershed flows directly into the Roaring Fork River, although a small amount flows towards the northeast before ultimately emptying into the river. River levels for a 100-year storm event vary in elevation from approximately 7,884 feet to 7,893 feet along the eastern edge of the site, which is a difference of 24 feet to 15 feet from the flood elevation to the top of the embankment. Preliminary calculations for storm water detention volumes generated on -site during a 100-year storm event show a range of 1,500-2,500 cubic feet. In summary, the existing negative drainage factors in the area presently include: (1) off -site erosion adjacent to the northwest corner of the site and on -site erosion along the river embankment; (2) an orientation of site drainage toward street sewer systems which are under capacity; (3) an existing storm sewer line adjacent to the site which is undersized for current city storm water loading; and (4) a lack of curb and gutter along Main Street adjacent to the southeast corner of the site which allows some street surface flow direct access to the river. 2. Proposed Drainage System. The major drainage concept intends to: (1) accommodate City of Aspen - 3 - regulations on drainage and correct site and area drainage problems. This will be accomplished by providing on -site detention for all site drainage within the developable portion of the site; (2) re -orient the drainage pattern of the site so that water is effectively collected and routed to the east, thereby eliminating the negative impacts in the Spring Street area; (3) release detained storm water through a percolation system which would allow indirect access back into the river and provide sediment removal through filtration; (4) eliminate the use of the Spring Street storm drainage system so that the burden on an already undersized system would decrease, and (5) provide for approved techniques and considerations to minimize the erosion potential during construction, especially as it relates to the flow of pollutants or sediment into the river. The proposed system will rely on an integration of several elements to effectively address the present negative drainage issues summarized previously and the complex drainage requirements related to site development. Specific elements include: (1) surface drainage; (2) shallow subsurface drainage; (3) deep subsurface drainage; and (4) gutter flow modifications. A. Surface Drainage. Surface drainage will be directed, channeled and collected through surface grading. Collected water will be picked up in hard surfaced areas and in sodded or planted areas with area drain inlets. The collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to detention structures at the east end of the developed area. The structures will allow percolation of the stored water down to the water table and subsequently into the river. Capacities will be designed to meet 100-year storm event volumes. Underground detention structures will allow overflow volumes (in excess of 100 year levels) to be piped directly to the river. Run-off from all building roofs will also be collected in this system. B. Subsurface Drainage (3-5' depth). A common system will be used to drain all recessed patio areas and the area above the parking garage roof. Area drains will be located in the patio areas while a layered drainage system will be integrated into the design of the roof structure directly above the slab to direct water away from the structure. Drainage from this system will be collected and piped to the underground detention structures described previously. ` C. Subsurface Drainage (10-15' depth). Drainage i within the parking structure will be collected in a trench drain at the west end of the floor area, routed through a sand and oil trap, and stored in a dry well structure at the west end of the site. Stored water will be fed to the detention structure at the east end of the site, and overflow 4 - will be piped to the river (in the event of possible flooding from high water on Spring Street). Footing and foundation drainage for the garage floor and basements will be collected in a system of piping and gravel underlying those areas. Water will be ultimately detained on the east side of the site in a similar fashion to the upper level subsurface and surface drainage. If studies indicate that the presence of a high water table will conflict with lower level collection and storage, pumps will be utilized to elevate the water to underground structures above the water table. D. Gutter Flow Modifications. Curb and gutter will be added along Main Street where direct flows of water from street surface access the river. The curb cut at the garage entrance on Spring Street will also be carefully designed so as to limit the potential flooding of the garage by on -street water flows during peak storm events when the existing undersized storm sewer will not contain all run-off. dd. 24-11(a) (ldd) Fire Protection System. There are presently three (3) fire hydrants around the perimeter of the site. They are located at the southwest, northwest and northeast corners of the property. The fire hydrant locations are delineated on the Improvement Survey. The parking garage will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkling system. The project is within four blocks of the downtown Aspen fire station. Response time is expected to be less than five minutes. The district has the ability to service the project without establishing a new station or the addition of any new major firefighting equipment. ee. 24-11(lee) Total Development Area - Type of Units - Proximity to Schools. Total development FAR area permitted is 50,497 square feet. Project will utilize less than permitted square footage. Employee Housing: One one -bedroom low income restricted unit will be built. While low income rent will be charged, employees of the project will be given occupancy priority even if their income exceeds the low income guidelines. A parking space will be provided for the employee unit. Cash -in -lieu payments for fifty percent (50%) low income employees in the amount of $685,000 will be made on a pro -rated basis as building permits are issued. - 5 - 0 L-] Free-market housing will be 17 multi -family units. The sale price will be market, and the rental price will be market. There will be on -site parking for each bedroom of free-market units. mile. The upper and lower elementary schools are within one Distance to the middle and high school is 2 miles. The nearest school bus pick-up point is located on the corner of Hyman Avenue and Original Street. ff. Section 24-11.4(a) (lff) Traffic. The project location at the corner of East Main Street and South Spring Street provides excellent access on existing paved streets with adequate capacity. Vehicular access to the site will be from two locations on Spring Street. The entry for short-term parking, drop-off, pick-up and service vehicles is 100 feet from the intersection of Main and Spring to avoid turning movement conflicts. The parking garage entry is located approximately 200 feet from the Main and Spring intersection. An existing potentially hazardous curb cut on Main Street will be eliminated. The daily vehicular one-way trips generated by the development on an average winter weekday (February -March) is projected to be 47, or 0.50 of the 1986 annual average daily traffic (AADT) as projected for Main Street by the Colorado Division of Highways. The peak hours would coincide with the morning and afternoon ski traffic peaks, and would be expected to occur primarily on Main Street. The peak hour volume from the project is projected to be 7 vehicles per hour. None of the above projections include any credit for traffic currently being generated by existing uses. Therefore, net increases will be still smaller. Parking will be provided in the ratio of one space per bedroom with 41 spaces in a below grade parking structure and 4 surface spaces. (1) Parking. The project will accommodate all parking on -site, and will not add parking on Main Street. Site location will encourage bicycle and pedestrian rather than automobile traffic. The site is within easy walking or bicycling distance of all essential neighborhood commercial, and retail services, as well as skiing. Bus routes are adjacent to the site. No reduction in the off-street parking requirement is proposed. All but four (4) parking spaces will be accommodated underground. The caretaker/manager residence will have parking for its vehicles. Parking will be available for visitors and/or service vehicles. No parking - 6 - • • on open space areas will be allowed. This, along with underground parking, will minimize any visual impact of parking. (2) Auto Disincentive. The Applicant proposes to provide a shuttle service for early morning and late afternoon operations during the ski season for the purpose of providing skier and shopping access to the core areas of town. The Applicant proposes no summer shuttle service due to heavy pedestrian activity in the City, close proximity to the town, and use of bicycles. The project's close proximity to the downtown will serve as additional auto disincentive. The site is only four blocks from the Hyman Avenue Mall, and the majority of the commercial core is within reasonable walking distance. Both the Snowbunny and Highlands bus routes provide service twice an hour each from the intersection of Spring and Main to City Market, Little Nell and the Rubey Park bus depot. The shuttle van will be available to complement public bus service. These auto disincentives indicate a relatively low auto use factor. gg. 24-11.4(a) (lgg) Location. The site is two miles from Aspen Valley Hospital, and five miles from Sardy Field, the airport. The property is only a few blocks from the Aspen Mountain Ski Area, and is across the street from a bus stop. The site abuts Herron Park. The estimated increase on public facilities is minimal, and the capacity of these facilities is more than sufficient to absorb any minimal increase. hh. 24-11.4(a) (lhh) Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets. The proposed development is within easy walking distance to the downtown core, and retail outlets including City Market. Existing commercial facilities are one block away. Because public transportion is so accessible to this project, as well as bike trails, automobile use for retail trips will be less frequent than it would be for other areas. The proposed development will cause little impact and will not increase the demands on existing retail and service outlets. ii. 24-114(a) (lii) Adjacent Uses. The proposed development is fully compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses in the neighborhood, and will compliment the existing uses. Its multi -family character fits in nicely with the other multi -family and commercial development in the neighborhood. The development pattern blends with the existing development patterns of the neighborhood. - 7 - 0 • jj. 24-11.4(a) (ljj) Construction Schedule. It is estimated that the improvements will begin in the summer of 1988, and that construction will be completed in 1989. 2. Site Utilization Maps. The information contained in this section supplements the maps and plans submitted within this application. aa. 24-11(a) (2aa) Energy. The Applicant is committed to minimize energy consumption. In the 700 Main project, energy provisions have been carefully evaluated and integrated in order to insure that expenditures of energy are minimal and benefits gained are optimal. An example of the energy saving techniques that will be utilized are as follows: (1) Building Orientation and Solar Utilization. The majority of building units have major view and glass orientation to the south. Special glazing will minimize heat loss, as described below, during the colder months. Operable windows will provide ample cooling and through -ventilation from north to south during the warmer months. (2) Glazing. Non -south glazing will be low E double -glazed insulating units in order to minimize both long wave radiation and conductive heat loss. Significant amounts of glazing will be placed on the southern face of the units to insure maximum solar gain and daylight. (3) Insulation. Insulation values for exterior walls and surfaces are designed to significant'y exceed minimum energy standards. The project will provide R-38 or better in the roof assembly, and R-25 or better in the exterior walls. In addition, rigid insulation will be used to insulate the perimeter foundation walls of the townhouse units at a value of R-12 or better. (4) Mechanical Systems. Each unit will employ state of the art mechanical systems, including ninety percent (90%) efficiency or equivalent hot water boilers for both domestic hot water and space heat at the building perimeters. This will be done even though this type of system is more expensive to install than a conventional space heating system. This system will, however, use substantially less energy. The need for cooling on this project is minimal, and operable windows to maximize through ventilation is contemplated. 1 (5) Fixtures. Low consumption water closets and shower heads will be installed throughout the project. The - 8 - • swimming pool and hot tub will be heated by high efficiency boilers, and will be insulated by roll -out pool covers employed during periods of non-use. (6) Infiltration. Vapor barriers will be provided at all exterior walls and roofs on the indoor side of insulation to help prevent air infiltration and humidity loss. All doors, windows, electrical outlets, and penetrations at the vapor barriers will be sealed and insulated. (7) Party Walls. Great care has been taken to maximize the extent of party wall sharing, thereby reducing all forms of heat loss. This has been accomplished by tight clustering of the units, and is deemed a major contribution in securing optimal energy performance for each unit. (8) Fireplaces. There will be no woodburning fireplaces in the project. This is a strong commitment by the developer to address Aspen's No. 1 problem - air pollution. (9) Parking Garage Exhaust. Exhaust fumes from the parking garage will be mechanically removed through a ventilation duct which will exhaust at the roof level of the north building cluster. bb. 24-11(a) (2bb) Landscaping and Open Space. Proposed landscaping and screening attempts to preserve natural terrain and open space. All utilities will be underground. Approximately thirty-two percent (32%) of the site is covered with building footprints, which means the remaining sixty-eight percent (68%) of the site will have an open feeling. Proposed open space exceeds the present Code requirement, and under proposed regulations, open space could be as high as 55%. The green space is divided into two major categories. (1) The interior courtyard and swimming pool area. This area is primarily for resident use. (2) The extension of the river park environment along the south edge of the site adjoining Main Street. This is designed for both resident and public use. The large cottonwoods, which are unique to the site, will be saved. All but four (4) of the forty-five (45) required parking spaces will be underground. This design feature will enhance the feeling of open space. The interior courtyard will provide .for informal activities and access to the pool area. Plantings will be used to accentuate green space qualities and provide visual interest. Most existing trees on site with caliper exceeding 6" will be relocated and integrated - 9 - into the landscaping plan. The south side of the site along Main Street will serve as an extension of the river corridor park area. The existing cottonwoods at the corner of Spring and Main Street, together with cottonwoods along the river, will be supplemented with additional trees, and native plantings. A new sidewalk will be constructed which, along with adjacent landscaping, will visually buffer the building from the street and increase the usable public space. CC. 24-11(a) (2cc) Zoning District. The project is in the RMF P.U.D. District. The surrounding uses are multi -family and commercial. B. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services. aa. 24-11.4 (b) (1) Water. Based on discussions with the Director of the Aspen Water Department, the capacity of the existing water supply system is more than adequate to service the project. The most significant problem in the water system in this area is the absence of adequate isolation valves. Isolation valves enable the Water Department to avoid interruption of service to other properties in the event of a problem in the system adjacent to the site. In order to improve the quality of water service in the area, the Applicant proposes to add an isolation valve -in the Main Street line adjacent to the hydrant at Spring and Main. A second isolation valve will be added in the Spring Street main. Another improvement to the water system proposed By the Applicant is to extend the 6" deadend line on the north side of Main t to e eas in order to rovide a at the so east corner of the site. An �nterc-onne t wi e installed un er Main Street to the 6" line on the south side of the street in order to -L, this segment of line. All of these improvements will significantly improve the quality of water service in the area. bb. 24-11.4 (b) (1) Sewer. An 8" line of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's Rio Grande Collection System is located on site. This line extends north in Spring Street and then northeast to the District trunk line north of the river. The capacity of the sewer system is more than adequate to accommodate the demand from the project, estimated to be 6,250 g.p.d. Approximately 300 feet of the system north of the site is plagued by infiltration resulting from broken pipe and root intrusion problems. In order to improve sewer service in the area, the Applicant, based on discussions with the Sanitation - 10 - District, will slip line with plastic pipe the last segment of the Rio Grande Collection System leading to the trunk line (approximately 300 feet). This will eliminate infiltration which has been a problem in the past, and will also have a positive effect on capacity of the line because of the smooth surface of the new lining. CC. 24-11.4(b)(1) Storm Drainage. 1. Existing Conditions. The site topography presently directs surface drainage to two major watershed areas. The western two-thirds of the site generally drains to the southwest, west, and northwest at slopes of 4% to 8%. Grasses and weeds cover a significant portion of the area. Four structures (along with associated yard landscaping and paved or gravel driveways) are also found on this end of the site. Surface flow is collected along the curb and gutter on Main Street and Spring Street, with a concentration of run-off occurring at the northwest corner of the site. This drainage presently flows across Bleeker Street, down an embankment adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and into the Roaring Fork River. On -site erosion appears negligible, but erosion is occurring off -site as the water flows to the river. The 36" storm sewer line located under Spring Stree� is undersized for current city storm loading requirements. The eastern one-third of the site is characterized by surface flows to the northeast and east at slopes in excess of 25%. Existing vegetation consists mainly of cottonwood trees and small riparian shrubs and grasses, with areas of the embankment showing erosion. A major portion of drainage from this watershed flows directly into the Roaring Fork River, although a small amount flows towards the northeast before ultimately emptying into the river. River levels for a 100-year storm event vary in elevation from approximately 7,884 feet to 7,893 feet along the eastern edge of the site, which is a difference of 24 feet to 15 feet from the flood elevation to the top of the embankment. Preliminary calculations for storm water detention volumes generated on -site during a 100-year storm event show a range of 1,500-2,500 cubic feet. In summary, the existing negative drainage factors in the area presently include: (1) off -site erosion adjacent to the northwest corner of the site and on -site erosion along the river embankment; (2) an orientation of site drainage toward street sewer systems which are under capacity; (3) an existing storm sewer line adjacent to the site which is undersized for current city storm water loading; and (4) a lack of curb and gutter along Main Street adjacent to the southeast corner of the site which allows some street surface flow direct access to the river. 2. Proposed Drainage System. The major drainage concept intends to: (1) accommodate City of Aspen regulations on drainage and correct site and area drainage problems. This will be accomplished by providing on -site detention for all site drainage within the developable portion of the site; (2) re -orient the drainage pattern of the site so that water is effectively collected and routed to the east, thereby eliminating the negative impacts in the Spring Street area; (3) release detained storm water through a percolation system which would allow indirect access back into the river and provide sediment removal through filtration; (4) eliminate the use of the Spring Street storm drainage system so that the burden on an already undersized system would decrease, and (5) provide for approved techniques and considerations to minimize the erosion potential during construction, especially as it relates to the flow of pollutants or sediment into the river. The proposed system will rely on an integration of several elements to effectively address the present negative drainage issues summarized previously and the complex drainage requirements related to site development. Specific elements include: (1) surface drainage; (2) shallow subsurface drainage; (3) deep subsurface drainage; and (4) gutter flow modifications. A. Surface Drainage. Surface drainage will be directed, channeled and collected through surface grading. Collected water will be picked up in hard surfaced areas and in sodded or planted areas with area drain inlets. The collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to detention structures at the east end of the developed area. The structures will allow percolation of the stored water down to the water table and subsequently into the river. Overflow capacities will be designed to meet 100-year storm event volumes, and will be piped directly to the river. Run-off from all building roofs will also be collected in this system. B. Subsurface Drainage (3-5' depth). A common system will be used to drain all recessed patio areas and the area above the parking garage roof. Area drains will be located in the patio areas while a layered drainage system will be integrated into the design of the roof structure directly above the slab to direct water away from the structure. Drainage from this system will be collected and piped to the detention structures described previously. 1 C. Subsurface Drainage (10-15' depth). Drainage within the parking structure will he collected in a trench drain at the west end of the floor area, routed through a I sand and oil trap, and stored in a dry well structure at the west end of the site. Stored water will be fed to the detention structure at the east end of the site, and overflow will be piped to the river (in the event of possible flooding - 12 - from high water on Spring Street). Footing and foundation drainage for the garage floor and basements will be collected in a system of piping and gravel underlying those areas. Water will be ultimately detained on the east side of the site in a similar fashion to the upper level subsurface and surface drainage. If studies indicate that the presence of a high water table will conflict with lower level collection and storage, pumps will be utilized to elevate the water to underground structures above the water table. D. Gutter Flow Modifications. Curb and gutter will be added along Main Street where direct flows of water from street surface access the river. The curb cut at the garage entrance on Spring Street will also be carefully designed so as to limit the potential flooding of the garage by on -street water flows during peak storm events when the existing undersized storm sewer will not contain all run. -off. dd. 24-11.4(b)(1) Fire Protection. There are three fire hydrants around the site's boundary - one at each corner with the exception of the southeast corner. The Fire Marshall has confirmed that water pressure in the area is more than adequate to provide fire flows to the site. Fire flow capacity is estimated to be in excess of 3,000 g.p.m. In order to improve fire protection in the area, the 6" water line in the north side of Main Street, presently a deadend line, will be extended to the east enabling a new hydrant to be put in by the Applicant. An interconnect will be installed under Main Street to the 6" line on the south side of the street in order to loop this segment of the line. The nearest existing hydrant to the east of the site is located at the southwest corner of Hopkins and Original. Therefore, the new hydrant provides improved protection to other projects in the area such as Original Curve Condominiums and Larkspur Condominiums. In addition, the hydrant at Spring and Main, which is substandard, will be replaced by a 3-nozzle 5" VO hydrant. The nearest hydrant to the west of the site on Main is at Galena, so the increased dependability resulting from the replacement hydrant at Spring and Main will improve service for the area. The parking garage will be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. ee. 24-11.4(b)(1) Parking Design. This project has accepted the challenge of parking. Understanding that the City of Aspen has major parking problems, this project has chosen to provide all required parking. In order to elimin to e the visual impacts of - 13 - parking, almost all required parking will be placed underground. Only a few spaces will be located on grade in order to accommodate guest and service vehicle parking. No reduction in parking requirements is requested either for the free-market or the employee unit. Great care has been taken to insure ease of access to the underground parking by its location and a snow melted ramp. The entrance to the underground parking garage has been placed off Spring Street to minimize traffic impacts, and for clarity of location. The access ramp is snow melted for winter safety. Even though this project has close walking proximity to the downtown and skiing, as well as a shuttle service, the Applicant is providing all required parking, demonstrating a �7 sensitivity to Aspen's need to relieve parking congestion .__/ ff. 24-11.4(b)(1) Traffic Analysis and Road System. The project location at the corner of East Main Street and South Spring Street provides excellent access on existing paved streets with adequate capacity. Vehicular access to the site will be from two locations on Spring Street. The entry for short-term parking, drop-off, pick-up and service vehicles is 100 feet from the intersection of Main and Spring to avoid turning movement conflicts. The parking garage entry is located approximately 200 feet from the intersection. An existing potentially hazardous curb cut on Main Street will be eliminated. The daily vehicular one-way trips generated by the development on an average winter weekday (February -March) is projected to be 47, or 0.5% of the 1986 annual average daily traffic (AADT) as projected by the Colorado Division of Highways. The peak hours would coincide with the morning and afternoon ski traffic peaks, and would be expected to occur primarily on Main Street. The peak hour volume is projected to be 7 vehicles per hour. None of the above projections include any credit for traffic currently being generated by existing uses. Therefore, net increases will be still smaller. Parking will be provided in the ratio of one space per bedroom with 41 spaces in a below grade parking structure and 4 surface spaces. The Applicant�roposes to provide a shuttle service .for early morni�rCd___late afternoon operat-ions during the _ski season for the purpose o� provid-in--s-lcie-r-arid shopping access to the core ar n. The Applicant proposes no summer shuttle service due to heavy pedestrian activity in the City, close proximity to the town, and use of bicycles. The site is only four blocks from the Hyman Avenue Mall and the majority o t e commercial core is wit in reasonable walking distance. Both the Snowbunny and Highlands bus routes provide service twice an hour each from the intersection of - 14 - • .7 Spring and Main to City Market, Little Nell and the Rubey Park bus depot. The shuttle van will be available to complement public bus service. These auto disincentives indicate a relatively low auto use factor. The project site is optimally located to take advantage of existing major streets without subs�-Antially altering existing traffic patterns, overloading available capacity, or creating increased maintenance. 2. 24-11.4(b)(2) Quality of Design. aa. Neighborhood Compatibility. The existing buildings and development which surround the project site form a highly dissimilar neighborhood context. Individual structures have a diverse architectural character, scale and use, a condition which results in little or no fundamental cohesion and no sense of a harmonious neighborhood character. The Concept 600 Building, Eagles Club and Original Curve Condominiums exemplify the divergent nature of the surrounding architecture. The project site, however, has traditionally formed an important open space node which, from the viewpoint of movement along Main Street, demarks a perceived break in the fabric of surrounding development. The unique nature of this site is essentially a function of its open space configuration. The site provides visual relief to building development along the Main Street corri o -h-d -siffilarly from the multi -family development which characterizes the Original Street (Highway 82) approach from the east. The site's open space along Main Street follows the abrupt and monolithic profile of the Concept 600 Building, but then flows pleasantly to the natural embankment of the river and Herron Park. In terms of Neighborhood Compatibility, a primary development objective is to preserve the best qualities of this open space for users, pedestrians and motorists alike, rather than to simply extract an architectural character from the divergent nature of its built surroundings. The development of the 700 Main Project seeks neighborhood compatibility of a higher order - that of being a responsible, concerned urban design element. An important factor in this approach is to enhance the transition from the built environment of the Main Street corridor to the more natural, riparian qualities of the Herron Park environment. Because the project site neighbors Herron Park to the east, the sensitive treatment of the embankment edge condition is an objective of the site development in the context of neighborhood compatibility. - 15 - 0 To reduce project massing and building scale, the units are configured in three separate building clusters, with the majority of units located at the north edge of the site away from Main Street. At the portion of the site contiguous to original Curve, the units are located approximately 165 feet away from the Main Street curb. The building cluster closest to Main Street has been positioned to create a scaled down transition from the Concept 600 Building, and to enhance the open space experience of the site. By staggering the units at the corner of Spring Street and Main Street, the park -like quality of the corner which has been historically defined by tall cottonwood trees has been preserved. Similarly, the stepped back unit configuration of the east side of the cluster opens the Main Street view to Herron Park and beyond. The swimming pool deck and one story recreation building have been lowered partially below grade and, together with the existing earth form, provide an open space vista from Main Street. A large City right-of-way bordering the site along Main Street, keeps the closest building over 35 feet from the curb, with the average building distance 48 feet. With over 300 feet of site frontage on Main Street, building development has been kept to only 110 feet, or about 1/3 of the site frontage. The building cluster along Main Street has been purposefully staggered at the ends so that from movement patterns along Main Street, generally, the massing of only three units can be seen at the same time. Additionally, the height of this cluster has been lowered 2 to 3 feet below allowable height, in most instances. To further re uce apparent massing, and to extend open space from Spring Street continuously through the project site, the front and rear building clusters have been separated by approximately 70 feet. To preserve the integrity of the natural river embankment which perceptually defines the westerly view from Herron Park, all units have been positioned back from the river's edge. The project has an approximate building coverage of only 32% of the site with the remaining 68% of the site undeveloped. To enhance the landscaped pedestrian quality of open space, all required parking, except 4 guest/service spaces, has been located underground. The exterior character of the project has been developed in an architectural context closely related to Aspen's Victorian heritage. The articulation of building surfaces is designed to re ate to the sense of permanence, materials and period forms which characterize Aspen's central core. Individualized unit scale, roof forms and residential detailing of exterior forms create a scale and visual relationship to the residential character of nearby - 16 - neighborhoods. The gable roof forms characterize and give identifiable scale to each building cluster. Paned windows in varied opening shapes are employed to create visual interest, but within a cohesive design idiom. In addition to a site plan which architecturally staggers and delineates each unit with individualized expression, the building massing is further scaled down by provision of the following: (1) contrasting flat and gable roof forms to provide visual interest; (2) minimizing Main Street frontage and placing building footprints significantly back from the Main Street setback; (3) reducing vertical building surfaces 2 to 3 feet below allowable height, in many instances; (4) using offsetting vertical building surfaces; (5) using partially subgrade lower levels; and (6) articulating window, balcony and exterior design elements. The building surfaces which face Spring Street are reduced in scale. Similarly, the unit closest to Herron Park employs a projecting dormer element to articulate and reduce apparent facade size. The site plan has been configured to create a significant and continuous landscaped interior open space between buildings so that each unit has a spacious individual guest entry located at mid -level from the common open space courtyard. Each unit also has a convenient individual entry from the subgrade parking garage. The multi -family approach utilized for this project is ideally suited for this unique site, providing a convenient option for pedestrian oriented, close -in living. While appropriate in both appearance and scale to its built surroundings, the project not only provides a compatible prototype, but greatly enhances an important Aspen location. bb. 24-11.4(b)(2) Site Design. The site plan has been configured to maximize open space for the use and benefit of project residents as well as to create a public open space amenity in the context of urban design. Comprised of 17 free-market units and 1 employee unit, the site plan has been configured using three separate building clusters of attached units. The majority of units are located in the northern perimeter of the site away from Main Street, thereby reducing visual impact, creating views to Aspen Mountain, and creating an interesting, large open space design. The building cluster located nearest Main Street is designed to: (1) create a scaled down building transition from the Concept 600 Building (41 stories); (2) preserve the tall existing cottonwood trees at the corner of Spring and Main Streets, and create a park -like open space setting for - 17 - • • pedestrian use at that corner; and (3) preserve the open space and view from Original Curve to the river embankment Herron Park and beyond. In order to preserve the natural quality of the embankment of the Roaring Fork River, development has been kept back from the edge. The landscaped pedestrian quality of the project's open space has been made possible by placing required parking in a below grade parking garage. The only exception to below grade parking is the provision of four (4) spaces for guest/service use located off Spring Street. The project provides all required parking spaces internal to the site. The vehicular entry to the subgrade parking is located at the northwest corner of the site, and is accessed from Spring Street to m-nimize traffic impact on existing streets and for clarity of orientation. The access ramp is snowmelted for winter safety, and screened from public view by landscaping, as well as being located under a unit. The parking garage is designed so that individual dwelling units may be entered directly from their parking locations in the garage. Access to the pool and recreation area is provided directly from the enclosure of the garage by both stair and elevator. In inclement weather, residents and guests alike may walk to the pool or other units in a totally protected environment. The employee unit has been located near the formal entry and parking garage entrance off Spring Street for purposes of visual control and convenience. This location will help to provide for receipt of mail delivery, guest services, and information. The site perimeter has been carefully treated to enhance the quality and public amenity of the project. A new 5 foot wide sidewalk and curb will be provided along Spring and Main Street. This conventional sidewalk will extend along Original Curve, beyond the project property, across Neal Street, then down the south side of Neal Street to create a pedestrian connection to the No Problem Bridge. This sidewalk will greatly improve the safety and quality of pedestrian and bicycle movement from Herron Park to Main Street and other downtown locations. A small public rest and conversation area will be provided by the Applicant in a landscaped environment on the City right-of-way near Original Curve, as discussed with Bill Ness of the Parks Department. This "vest pocket park" will be located in a landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk with good solar orientation and excellent views of both the Roaring Fork River and Independence Pass. Similarly, public seating and upgraded landscaping will enhance the public enjoyment and park -like quality of the existing "cottonwood • • grove" at the corner of Main and Spring Streets. To reduce apparent building height along Main Street, and to deflect street noises from the interior of the site, the existing natural earth form will be landscaped and extended along Main Street in front of the adjacent building cluster. It has been determined from meetings with BFI Waste Systems that two (2) 2-yard capacity dumpsters will adequately serve refuse generated by the project. With the approval of BFI, the dumpsters will be located in a below grade garage location, and will be lifted by a sidewalk elevator device to an accessible paved area during the actual time of garbage collection. In addition to providing a dry and manageable refuse collection system to project owners, this system will virtually eliminate the visual presence of on site refuse. The garbage collection point is positioned on Spring Street so that the garbage collection vehicle can park and not block traffic. Structures located on site will be made available through timely agreement with Applicant for removal and reconstruction. An existing group of electrical transformer boxes are presently situated in a visually prominent location in the public R.O.W. on Spring Street. Because they are visually unattractive and constitute a physical obstruction to the proposed Spring Street sidewalk, the Applicant proposes relocation of the transformers at its own expense to a landscaped site location agreeable to the City Engineering Office, and in accordance with City design standards. A dominant feature of the site design is the landscaped open space which connects the Main Street landscaped parkway through the interior of the site to Spring Street. After deducting actual building footprint coverage, the remaining undeveloped space is 68% of the site area. The open space calculation by present zoning calculation methods exceeds the ` 35% requirement for the RMF zone. Calculated under proposed standards, the open space factor for the site is approximately 55%. The open space between building clusters is approximately 70 feet wide to provide solar orientation and views and to provide an internal landscaped courtyard. The interior portions of the site have been restricted to pedestrians use only, and a landscaped pathway system has been provided to link individual units with other units, the Spring Street entry, pool and recreational building, and to the sub -grade garage. - 19 - Located at the southeast corner of the site, a pool and common recreation space provide an excellent site amenity to the project. The pool deck and enclosed recreational space (1 story) have been sunken partially below grade for privacy and wind protection. This design allows for views of the open space from Main Street and Original Curve. Pool area development has been setback from the embankment edge to preserve the natural quality of the edge as seen from Herron Park. The pool area is set in a generously landscaped environment and located for optimum solar exposure. Native landscape materials have been used throughout the site to enhance the concept of the extended river green space. Plantings of indigenous trees and shrubs have been located to selectively buffer and screen the buildings and pool area from Main Street, to screen the north side of the site adjacent to the private driveway. Hardy ornamental trees and shrubs provide summer shade and winter interest in the interior courtyard area, and are used to accent the pool space and resident gathering and seating areas. Most existing trees over 6" caliper will be relocated on site. Turfgrass and groundcovers dominate the ground plane of the open space areas, while flowers will be used to highlight special locations. Paved courtyard and walkways will be incorporated into the landscape design. CC. 24-11(a) (2aa) Energy. The Applicant is committed to minimize energy consumption. In the 700 Main project, energy provisions have been carefully evaluated and integrated in order to insure that expenditures of energy are minimal and benefits gained are optimal. An example of the energy saving techniques that will be utilized are as follows: (1) _Building Orientation and Solar Utilization. The majority of building units have major view and glass orientation to the south. Special glazing will minimize heat loss, as described below, during the colder months. Operable windows will provide ample cooling and through -ventilation from north to south during the warmer months.' (2) Glazing. Non -south glazing will be low E double -glazed insulating units in order to minimize both long ] wave radiation and conductive heat loss. Significant amounts j of glazing will be placed on the southern face of the units to insure maximum solar gain and daylight, and to minimize heat loss on the other sides. (3) Insulation. Insulation values for exterior walls and surfaces are designed to significantly exceed minimum energy standards. The project will provide R-38 or - 20 - better in the roof assembly, and R-25 or better in the exterior walls. In addition, rigid insulation will be used to insulate the perimeter foundation walls of the townhouse units at a value of R-12 or better. (4) Mechanical Systems. Each unit will employ state of the art mechanical systems, including ninety percent (90%) efficiency or equivalent hot water boilers for both domestic hot water and space heat at the building perimeters. This will be done even though this type of system is more expensive to install than a conventional space heating system. This system will, however, use substantially less energy. The need for cooling on this project is minimal, and operable windows to maximize through ventilation is contemplated. (5) Fixtures. Low consumption water closets and shower heads will be installed throughout the project. The swimming pool and hot tub will be heated by high efficiency boilers, and will be insulated by roll -out pool covers employed during all periods of non-use. (6) Infiltration. Vapor barriers will be provided at all exterior walls and roofs on the indoor side of insulation to help prevent air infiltration and humidity loss. All doors, windows, electrical outlets, and penetrations at the vapor barriers will be sealed and insulated. (7) Party Walls. Great care has been taken to maximize the extent of party wall sharing, thereby reducing all forms of heat loss. This has been accomplished by tight clustering of the units, and is deemed a major contribution in securing optimal energy performance for each unit. (8) Fireplaces. There will be no woodburning fireplaces in the project. This is a strong statement by the developer to address Aspen's No. 1 problem - air pollution. (8) Parking Garage Exhaust. Exhaust fumes from the parking garage will be mechanically removed through a ventilation duct which will exhaust at the roof level of the north building cluster. dd. 24-11.4(b)(2) Trails. The project site presents an opportunity to provide a sidewalk link to the pedestrian crossing at No Problem Bridge, and thus achieve a new and safe pedestrian access to Herron Park from the project site, as well as from downtown Aspen. To benefit the public trail (sidewalks) system, the Applicant commits to not only extend a sidewalk and gutter - 21 - along the Original Curve portion of Main Street beyond the project, but to create further extension of sidewalk curb and gutter along the south side of Neal Street to the pedestrian crossing at No Problem Bridge. This will be built in accordance with City of Aspen Design Standards. The City Engineering Department recommended the Neal Street portion of sidewalk connection in conjunction with bridge reconstruction several years ago, but was unable to fund the project due to budget constraints. The Engineering Department continues to feel that providing this sidewalk will be a benefit to public safety, is an excellent design, and agrees that public interest would be served by the Applicant's construction of the sidewalk. ee. 24-11.4(b)(2) Green Space. Under the plan and proposed Code changes, approximately 55% of the site will be open space. The project's green space is divided into two major categories: (1) the interior courtyard area and the swimming pool area which are for resident use; and (2) an extension of the river/park environment along the south edge of the site designed for both resident and public enjoyment. The interior courtyard will provide for informal activities, access the pool area and will include pedestrian circulation. It will have an inward orientation for privacy, but with some views to the mountains and the park. Plantings are used to accentuate green space qualities and provide visual interest from upper floors. These plantings will be carefully located to preserve the view corridors outside the site. The landscape design extending along Main Street derives from the naturalistic open space of the river and park. The area will capture views to the river and park, provide a natural setting, and permit the visual extension of open space to the park. The existing cottonwoods at the corner of Spring Street and Main Street, together with the cottonwoods along the river, will be supplemented with additional trees, native plantings and berms along Main Street frontage. A new sidewalk, in conjunction with the landscaping, will visually buffer the buildings from the street and increase the usable public space. The new sidewalk, will provide safe access to Neal Street and Herron Park. A small river view sitting area will be built on the road ROW at the southeast corner of the site along the new walk. Benches will be built for public use of the green space at the corner of Spring Street and Main Street as well as at Original Curve. - 22 - 3. Proximity to Support Services. aa. 24-11.4(b)(3) Public Transportation. The project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of an existing City or County bus route. bb. 24-11.4(b)(3) Community Commercial Facilities. The project is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in town. 4. 24-11.4(b)(4) Provision for Employee Housing. The employee housing commitment for the project is as follows: Resident Generation: 9 2-bedrooms @ 2.25 people/unit = 20.25 people 6 3-bedrooms @ 3.00 people/unit = 18 people 2 4-bedrooms @ 3.00 people/unit = 6 people 44.25 Credit for existing "replacement units" 2 3-bedrooms @ 3.00 people/unit = 6 people credit 1 2-bedrooms @ 2.25 people/unit = 2.25 people credit 8.25 people credit Net new free market residents is 44.25 less 8.25 or = 36 To qualify for 10 GMP points: Net New Residents 36.00 -50% Employee Commitment 36.00 -50% 72.00 100% The employee housing commitment in each case will be satisfied in part by building on -site one employee unit of one -bedroom size for a credit of 1.75 employees. Employee Commitment 36.00 less credit -1.75 Cash -in -Lieu employees 34.25 Cost @ $20,000/employee: $685,000 Applicant shall construct one (1) 1-bedroom low-income employee unit on -site as shown on the plan. -he 1-bedroom unit shall be restricted to the low-income re-. -al or sales guidelines, and shall be at least 500 square feet. Applicant reserves the right to give employees of the project first priority to occupy the unit even if their income exceeds the guidelines. Occupants shall be selected by the developer or - 23 - Ll • successor in interest of the project. The rental or sales price guideline for the unit shall be adjusted to the low-income guidelines in effect at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the unit. The cash -in -lieu payment for 36.00 employees at the low-income guidelines of $20,000.00 per employee totals $685,000.00. A payment of $48,929.00 per free-market unit shall be made at the time of issuance of a building permit for construction of each residential unit, excluding the three (3) reconstructed units. The payment amount shall be adjusted to the low-income cash -in -lieu guideline in effect at the time of payment. Applicant reserves the right to continue conversations with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority to explore other alternatives allowed by the Aspen Municipal Code to fulfill his employee housing commitment. In the event there should be a disagreement with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority over the employee housing proposal, the Applicant commits to fulfill his 50% employee housing commitment for the GMP scoring in a manner acceptable to the Housing Authority. 5. 24-11.4(b)(5) Bonus Points. This residential site is unique, and the project has responded to the challenge of the unique site. This project has created improvements which benefit not only the residents of the project, the neighborhood, but the City in general. The Applicant should be granted maximum bonus points for its outstanding overall design meriting special recognition. The project has incorporated the criteria of Section 24-11.4(b)(1)(2)(3) and (4). The project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, it is situated in a neighborhood with diverse architectural character and scale, and rather than follow the monolithic definition of the Concept 600 Building, it has chosen to set new standards for the neighborhood in architecture, scale, open space and size. The following items are being provided to benefit the community and demonstrate an outstanding overall design meriting recognition and bonus points: (1) Applicant is providing two isolation valves extending a deadend water line, providing an interconnect and looping, all of which will enhance the City of Aspen water system. (2) Applicant is providing one new fire hydrant, and modernizing a second fire hydrant. This, along with improving the City water system, will enhance fire protection for the neighborhood. - 24 - 0 0 (3) Applicant is slip lining a portion of the off -site sewer line to correct an existing infiltration problem and, in effect, enhance capacity. (4) The Applicant is initiating storm drainage techniques that will enhance storm drainage in the area, and will eliminate some direct flows to the Roaring Fork River. (5) The project is undergrounding almost all of the parking, eliminating the visual impact of cars, and providing all required parking. (6) Responding to the tremendous challenge that the community faces with pollution, the project is eliminating all woodburning devices. (7) The Applicant is providing park -like settings and seating for the public on the corner of Spring and Main, and on Original Curve. (8) Applicant is providing new sidewalk links off -site to the south side of Neal Street for pedestrian crossing at the No Problem Bridge. (9) Applicant will move, at its expense, electrical transformer boxes which now sit prominently in the City ROW to a new screened location. These nine examples typify a project that has been very carefully thought out, and successfully balances the needs of the developer and benefits to the neighborhood and the City. This project is unique and is truly able to improve the neighborhood, as well as the City, in these nine concrete ways as well as others, and is, therefore, deserving of maximum bonus points. /LAND2/finegmp.app - 25 - a ¢ W u >> ¢> o u¢ ma ¢p .2 02 2 wo io mo oa Im Hm I r > m r m W r a o > > > a I J < < a 0 I a ■ 2 2 W 2 ■ 2 a a m i o F i 3 i u o It IT CL �• ' r I : ,�aJi � 2 .aaa.on.auoTa_a0.GB-O-II-A O— L—�• i z w �`• 11 ■ I: a 0I I %r• r II ; I o r 10 I 2 +... lo 01 col a 101i 10 IOI lof. 01 pF- --. - t --' ° r - -- I pl I I. L tool. f C ° 101 OCL Icj 2 I 101 ��---10L--------- -0-1- - 3 -- --- •=J - 'I—bm'n''Mo—o-6(rO—J3 cTo000700�--- 1 O O II 0 0 ° a ' 1 0 0 1 I t- a 1 1 0 0 i I i O i O r r—_— I� L.. L-=� I IL m Irt I 01 .0 it II I I 11 o iJ I0000i---rr---I r------ m I I o I Y I II I I IL w I 0 I ■x H J I I` o m I i 0 1 J a r r o nn c 2 Z ^i 40 z Qo w dQ 0 0 m� ° ou m I[ o ¢n m > • m Y ° f < ! W t • ° z w Z a � w a t J V VA I i I � v i / r {{laalll - liz ND IL 1411............. - � � � ----� I ----- - _. � ■ - !dIIIIIjJL.1111niii . I � 1 j � Y � - 1 �.� % �<:I I ,'[ I� - •�`y�.9igllllll11111 i t t l o ' '.IVLdI J tJ" - -- — �� � III Illlllll��lllllllllflllllllllllllll lllllll p 6 ° a �I r 0[ I Ia w I z II m W � u y� ¢ E • a II z F w / > m 1 r Iw Z Q� �ILZj, o m Z _0 Q J U cc A Map 2 JIX21 L AMS cn z Lij 2 uj 0 cc (L 2 cli z 0 z 0 0 z_ C/) ;z ui Map 3 a> �, -:: ;a.,,Ill Itlw �`�` r Illn_ _ __ '/III— "'I •_-! ��, � � _• � % �. �.— iry1J AIN S�IFFi 4e ff , 441*, NEAt STREET SUN ORIENTATION ! / � ❑ W —6 —E VIEW TO SKI AREA SITE CONCEPTS 20 40 AO IUU I6U 120 400 460 520 5BU MaQ 5 l ------------------ — --- -------- ---------- — ----- — -- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --- - ------ — ----------------------------- 3 go LJMT LMT sa BR ------- INOT U3 Bit LNT 2 BE 4T CARBACI CT UPHT COLLECTION PONT I ABOVE _47 L"T A T ----------- RAW up to 41 PARKING STALLS ----------- ---- SPQINC sTItj4T Lj I T RF BREXINCS1 L"T k 2 Bit 2 1 BR LNT OOIA STARE 1INA104 TO POOL AREA ABOVE 3 OR 2 OR 2 SR --------------- ---------- -------------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ------ ----------------------------------- Al -------------- ----------------------------------------------------- : L ------------------------------------------------ - - 700 MAIN GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 1 10 20 30 10 so w so IN 120 140 ISO 210 260 300 Im) Umn A • • AALLTEBIEPLACES SHALL BE CAS APPLIANCES COMMUNITY ROOM / POOL PLAN 700 MAIN = �ILEN 110-i L� _2' �! ! N 1 5 10 20 to Jo SB tb W \\ -E T S PRELIMINARY UNIT FLOOR PLANS 110 Ptit IL - .ti y::, •►- '..( ' N' \'1,��t5.T*:.� t� • i {�' A. i+9• ,.-tom _ '•' :✓fi'�r � � /'%`�ll.�/iZ�� a��I-.%y'ai:G ,,.. `..',,. __ ' �!�:`; � I .\ �^ /y" �. 7Y.�' ,i _r Lj �n� �"�� �f� / `/rJ'f��s� "\-C ��f���,� �%/ .-,.L �\ _ l ,�; �\ ��''�-�� .ly� � � •.;tf �: - f ' ./r. / rG�i/' - _ t,.. F v -��• �� ' � � I -- _��.`-�•�M 1.�`3a,�'1� — (x �•.-,_^T� I'�j Jam: �'� J .'c- _ - _,(� � _ _ . • I _ 33 �� T --------------------------------------------- 'PRIVATE DRIVE' RAMP TO TO CREFKTREE SUBGRADE PARKNG -_: - -------------------- 77 IVY bEF tj hmH CONCEPT 600 BUILDING SPRING STREET 700 MAIN 0 s 10 :0 IDO ,s0 ."o 30• HEIGHT LMT _ 1S HEIGHT LKO ti I? i MAW STREFT SPRING STREET ELEVATION J '4� K.� � . I l 6r • MAIN STREET ELEVATION - - -- Map 7 SPRWC STMET 700 MAIN c/ A —30' K)04T [NIT ----25'wIGHTLl"f ---- -- -------- u SECTION THRU COURTYARD 0 5 10 20 40 eU IDO 150 Map 8 • 6 FIRST FLU THIRD I 700 MAIN 0 s 10 70 JO 40 So .NL"T PRELIMINARY UNIT FLOOR PLANS _.- -- -- -- - _ - ---- .. eo ifo _ _ 170 EAGLES CLUS ter{ '7►A / CREEK TREE CONDOMM1N1M5 GARAGE Z ENTRANCE3 BA 3 BR 3 BR '. 2 BR y i C.T 3 BR 2 BR \ 6 iF 2 BR � >,/ - (�-' •~� 2BR ..'•/! l . BR i.' ITE F LANDSCAPE (` t ifs' ART •. ARRIVAL PARNMIO �✓�•�'1--' 4r J+�_.. -i! / ~�_ OPEN SPrGEI QCV LJ-�Y. /1�;�__ 2BR 2 BR 2 BR J x4VjV} , 3 SR N BR i� ♦, - U 4f7-� �v �`!• �'- - ; I MERRON PARK z 2BR 211 a _ ce !SA • Y e �N, r'xRyk ., �u •r i.� 77 (\ PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/ \ SEATWG AREA MAIN STREET i RIVER OVERL PIS I- SEATMIG A A I II \ N S 700 MAIN ILLUS'I RA.TIVF SITF PLAN CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION/PUD THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES -ARCHITECTS DESIGN WORKSHOP INC.- LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Map 11 WA RT FO AL PONT F. L STONE/CONCRETE, VI PAVING — I. l < O CL In _ 1 CONCRETE SIDEWALK' •`Y - ._ CONCRETE/STONE SEATING CUBES - Q Y • MAIN STREET �, � oG c CONCRETE/STONE SEATING CUBES — .. LEGEND - TYPICAL PLANT & PAVING MATERIALS EXISTING VEGETATION ICOTTONW0001 p NATURALISTIC GROUNOCOVER I: GAL. r.ONT LY1..J .® LARGE TREES X' AL ace: COTTONWOOC PDP,IL'..S iPP +LL S-41S"KLE LO[CERA ;APONGA Ar4rAlA PAA4TMAMYASINTES O ORNAMENTAL TREES i'.+L a.0 nwFEr /iLkNKU['[ GALEM')DGRP liAA ['nELYr+:H n'• �aRr[ENJC45u5 ONp4FOLIA +SPEN P[AAAUS iREMLK JGF; HM Kr MIN NAPUE +.EP y+QRIJM M FORMALIZED GROUNDCOVER 1 i•A Pn - V + IBEPr �r✓A•E_nEPR• P ,�5 vFff.+:�A SnuBFur rREEPeIC NARUaA :AArXNaA REPENS O EVERGREEN TREES a•.B :,[ENE vw(Mi L�SY/A(•WA NUM[AA aRb+ PERAVNKLE vNc+reATR x TE[A aWS'JNC'�LWT n N " AnrOSTAPw GSuv Ai51/�.L SPW,CE PICA P•AvGE.NS:REE_P POTEN'4A - P ENr4A vER •11NA TIN E +,� ', SHRUBS 5 :AL :';e!•.l L y PERENNIAL FLOWERS/ACCENT 1I GAL 1LWI REOrwK; DtrJx00,^, - RruS S:^L i1.EPA :'1L'HAGEN54 POTENTLLA r !E'4rl o,�irY SSA ILA—J--1 IVRFCRA55 [RAGP NT SwAr. R 5+Rc.AA:+,A REVEGETATKNd PLANTINGS GRASSES / GROUNDCOVERS WOODS ROSE ROSA .V0005i ROSE _ . _ . MODULAR PAVINGRGrA)5A � ti ALPINE GVAMrI RElEs A.P.�AAA EXPOSED AGGREGATE PAVING :Arr PrA -NUS wE+¢ Ir.rF: A;EVERLlKEN IREES'wAI BE MOVED AS ROC,11 `Y 700 MAIN .:AIfA f•Jr:S ALLi1W. TO 11 iOufMAS! aH[A IN TIE vrE LANDSCAPE PLAN THE LEONARD PARKER ASSOCIATES -ARCHITECTS DESIGN VVORKSHOP INC -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Map 12 EXHIBIT N` November 20, 1987 Mr. Michael Thompson Hagman Yaw, Architects 210 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Original Curve Project Dear Mr. Thompson: I have reviewed the site plan of this project and find it well within a three minute response time for fire department operations. The addition of a new hydrant as you suggested, would enhance fire protection East and South of the project. The closest hydrant South of the project is at Hyman and Original. Have a Fire Safe Day, Wayne L. Vandemark Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Prot. Dist. r ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 GMP/CONCEPTUAL - 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY - 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL - 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL - 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY - 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL - 63727 - 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63728 - 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47380 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING 00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47431 GMP/GENERAL - 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED - 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL - 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL - 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED - 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL - 63717 - 47450 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS - 63718 - 47460 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 - 63730 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING 00113 - 63731 - 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. 00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE - 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN - 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES - 63069 - 09000 OTHER Name: Ie 14_S_vocla 1�S Address: / l hI F U 0C/ Check # ' Additional Billing: SUB -TOTAL SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: 0� EAS n/ F't/ Nrl /C7/ l%Ifs 'lln+rn',lr. Date: 107 FX _ # of Hours: 112 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: DATE COMPLETE: PROJECT NAME : --1 Project Address APPLICANT;�� Applicant\\ dress: REPRESENTATIVE- if Representative dress/Phone: PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 2) IF 1 TEP APPLICATION GOES TO: P&Z CC 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE: y%P&Z CC DATE REFERRED: -/ 1l 0A J r l 11 Q d 0 P CEL ID AND CAS NO. �ZZ1 -O0B�a'7 eg' STAFF MEMBER: G. 9 u p �mc-fact /Y(aei�( PUBLIC HEARING DATE: N2A \ "� N/A ( INITIALS: %u REFERRALS: S : City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer arks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas using Dir. Holy Cross ---],-,State Hwy Dept(GW) �spen Water ire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric e Envir. Hlth. �-Roaring Fork =dg;_Zon/Inspect offing Fork Aspen consol. Transit Energy Center S.D. Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Bldg. Dept. 16I'a-9 r_-_rz_ FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: • 0 PLA_N_NED UNIT DEVELOPMENTjSOBDIVISION AGREEMENT PUD/SUBDIVISION AT 700 EAST MAIN THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1988, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation and home -rule city ("City"), and FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership ("Owner"). WITNESSETH• WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation a Final Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plat ("Plat") pertaining to the development of a residential project at 700 East Main PUD/Subdivision ("Project"), situated within the City of Aspen, Colorado, legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, all development elements of the Project have received the requisite conceptual, preliminary and final approvals from the City; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Plat, the proposed development and improvement of the land therein and the anticipated benefits and burdens to other adjoining or neighboring properties and the downtown area in general by reason of the proposed development and improvement of the land included in the -Plat; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute, and accept for recordation the Plat upon agreement of Owner to the matters hereinafter described, subject to all the requirements, terms and conditions of the City of Aspen Subdivision and PUD Regulations and other laws, rules and regulations as are applicable to the Project; and WHEREAS, the City and Owner mutually acknowledge and agree that the matters hereinafter set forth are reasonable conditions and requirements to be imposed by the City in connection with its approval, execution, and acceptance for recordation of the Plat; and that such matters are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, under the authority of §20-16(c) and §24-8.1 et sea. of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be performed by Owner and Owner's successors and assigns; and WHEREAS, Owner is willing to enter into such agreements with, and to provide such assurances to, the City. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: - 1 - j• i A. Project Construction Schedule. Owner and City mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be submitted at this time. Owner anticipates that the Project will be constructed generally in accordance with the following time frames, which shall not constitute binding representations or schedules. However, in no case shall construction be commenced later than three (3) years from the effective date of Owner's vested property rights in this Project. Substantial Development Commencement Date Completion Date Component (on or after) (on or before) * Units 11-17 7/1/88 3/31/89 * Subgrade Parking Garage 7/1/88 3/31/89 * Recreation Building 7/1/88 3/31/89 * Units 4-10 4/1/89 9/30/89 * Units 1-3, 18 7/1/89 12/31/89 * Swimming Pool and 7/1/88 12/31/89 Courtyard Common Area * Public Improvements 7/1/88 12/31/89 described in Paragraph B, below All construction shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with applicable City standards, rules and regulations. B. Site Improvements. Owner hereby agrees to accomplish the following improvements in the Project area, commensurate with the schedule in paragraph A above. 1. Fire Hydrants. A new fire hydrant will be installed at the southeast corner of the Project site and the existing hydrant at the southwest corner of the site will be upgraded to provide an additional nozzle, as required by the Aspen Fire Marshall. 2. Sidewalk. A sidewalk constructed according to plans and specifications in Exhibit "I" will be provided adjacent to the property along the east side of Spring Street between Main Street and the Creektree private driveway; along the north side of Main Street to Neal Street, and along the south side of Neal Street to the No Problem Bridge (see Exhibit "B"). 3. Relocate Utility Transformers. Existing utility transformers will be relocated to a landscaped site as legally - 2 - described in Exhibit "C," on the northwest portion of the Project site. A utility easement shall be dedicated to the public. 4. Water. Owner will extend a dead end water line, L providing an interconnect through the site with two (2) isolation valves. (See Exhibit "B".) 5. Sewer. Owner will slip line with plastic pipe the last segment of the Rio Grande Collection System leading to the trunk line (approximately 300 feet). 6. Open Space. Public seating will be provided in the public right-of-way at the corner of Spring and Main (2 benches) and along Original Curve (1 bench and boulders)(see Exhibit "B"). 7. Bank Stabilization. Owner and City acknowledge that the Roaring Fork River embankment Areas 1 and 2, as shown on Exhibit "G" attached hereto, need to be stabilized. Owner and City agree to cooperate to stabilize the embankment areas to protect them from further undercutting according to the Erosion Control Recommendations, pages 4-6 of the May 20, 1988, report by Chen Associates (attached as Exhibit "H"). The City agrees to provide, transport and place near Area 1 boulders sufficient for the required rip -rap repair of Area 1. The City agrees to provide, transport and place near Area 2 any additional boulders available to City for the required rip -rap repair of Area 2. The City further agrees to submit an application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers Office for any necessary permits for Area 1. The Owner agrees to submit an application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers Office for any necessary permits for Area 2, and to provide any additional labor and materials required for the rock rip -rap for Areas 1 and 2, including boulders necessary for Area 2 if the City does not have sufficient boulders available. 8. Landscaping Improvements. In accordance with §24-8.16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, all required landscaping for the Project shall substantially conform to the Landscape Plan (see Exhibit "E"). The Landscape Plan shows plant material, proposed treatment of ground surfaces and other landscape features. Such landscaping shall be completed in a logical sequence commensurate with the construction schedule and planting seasons. It is understood that labor disputes, fire, unusual delay in transportation, unavoidable casualties, causes beyond Owner's control or any other cause which the City may determine justifies the delay shall extend the time period for completion of the Site Improvements identified in this paragraph B. C. Employee Housing. 1. One on -site employee unit of one (1) bedroom shall be built. This unit shall be restricted to low-income rental or sale guidelines. The Employee unit occupant shall be selected by Owner, with priority given to employees or caretakers of the Project. There shall be no income or asset limitations placed upon the - 3 - employee unit occupant if the occupant is an employee of the Project (see Exhibit "F"). 2. Requirements for employee housing relating to the remaining seventeen (17) free-market units shall be satisfied by either: (i) Exemption from the Growth Management Process; or (ii) Low-income "cash -in -lieu," payments; as the case may be. 3. Except for those units for which there is an exemption from the Growth Management Process available to the developer, the low-income, "cash -in -lieu" payments for such remaining units shall be made to the City at the time that building permits are issued for such units. 4. As to those units for which there is no exemption from the Growth Management Process available to the developer, low-income, "cash -in -lieu" payments shall be in accordance with the following schedule for a: t (i) two -bedroom unit $37,027.02; (ii) three -bedroom unit $55,540.53; and (iii) four -bedroom unit $74,054.04. D. On -Bite Parking. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Units 11-17, Owner shall have constructed forty-one (41) subsurface parking spaces; the four (4) surface parking spaces will be provided upon completion of Units 1-3 and 18. The total of forty-five (45) parking spaces represent the aggregate number of on -site parking spaces which Owner is required to provide. E. Financial Assurances. Owner agrees to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the Site and Landscaping Improvements described in paragraph B above, and to guarantee one hundred percent (100%) of the current estimated cost of such Site Improvements, which estimated cost is approved by the City Engineer to be $183,223.25. Owner shall guarantee by irrevocable bond, letter of credit from a financially responsible lender, or other guaranty satisfactory to the City Attorney that funds in the amount of such estimated costs are available for the account of Owner for the construction and installation of the above -described Site Improvements. Such guaranty shall be delivered to the City prior to the issuance to Owner of a Building Permit for the Project, and shall give the City the right, upon clear and unequivocal default by Owner,[to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such Site Improvements, or pay undisputed, outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to additional - 4 - administrative or legal costs associated with any such default before the unused remainder (if any) of such guaranty is released tc Owner Provided, however, that Owner shall be given fourteen (14) days written notice of default prior to City's ability to make a call under the guaranty. LAs portions of the required Site Improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release from the guaranty delivered by Owner of the agreed estimated cost for that portion of the Site Improvements,]except the guaranty for Landscaping Improvements which shall be withheld by the City for one growing season after Landscaping Improvements are completed, and except that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost of each Site Improvement shall be withheld until all proposed Site Improvements other than Landscaping Improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Provided, that the withheld ten percent (100) which relates to the Site Improvements other than Landscaping Improvements described in paragraph B above shall be released by City upon completion and approval by the City Engineer of all such paragraph B Site Improvements, except for and regardless of the stage of completion of Landscaping Improvements described in paragraph B above. The Owner also agrees to deliver to the City, upon demand therefor by the City Engineer, a maintenance bond or other suitable guaranty for the repair or replacement of any existing municipal improvements damaged during construction of new Site Improvements. Furthermore, Owner hereby agrees to and does hereby warranty all Site Improvements described in paragraph B to accepted standards of good workmanship for a period of one (1) year from and after acceptance thereof in writing by the City. In addition to this warranty, Owner shall obtain from its contractors customary warranties of good workmanship with the City as beneficiary, with respect to all Site Improvements required by paragraph B. F. Use and Maintenance of Open Space and other Common Facilities. Owner shall occupy the Project open space for such uses as may from time to time be deemed appropriate by Owner, provided that such occupancy and uses shall at all times be in compliance with the Aspen Municipal Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Code §24-8.19 (as applicable), Owner agrees that it shall be the perpetual responsibility of the Owner or Owners from time to time of the Project property to maintain, in a clean and attractive condition and in a good state of repair, all open space located within said property. Responsibility of the Homeowners' Association in this respect may be contractually delegated to a private property management company or to an employee of the Homeowners' Association. The following shall apply to the Homeowners' Association: 1. Formation. The Homeowners' Association shall be formed and established prior to the closing of a sale of any unit within the Project. - 5 - 2. Documentation. Documents for the Homeowners' Association shall include declaration, articles of incorporation and bylaws. 3. Membership. Membership in the Homeowners' Association shall be mandatory for each free-market unit owner and shall be automatic upon the recordation of any instrument transferring a legal ownership interest (excluding standard security interests) in or to any unit. 4. Board of Directors. The board of directors of the Homeowners' Association shall consist of at least five (5) members who shall be owners, or representatives of owners, of the subject property. G. Reconstruction of Units. It is mutually acknowledged and verified that pursuant to Code §24-11.2(a), Owner has the right to reconstruct within the subject PUD/Subdivision three (3) residential units identified below. These units are exempt from employee housing and park dedication fee requirements: 1. 700 East Main Street (existing Ware residence); 2. 700 East Main Street (demolished in 1986 pursuant to Permit No. 9758); 3. 120 North Spring Street. H. Non -Compliance and ReQuest for Amendments or Extensions by Owner. In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council may issue and serve upon the Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring Owner to remedy the same within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than forty-five (45) days. If City Council determines that Owner has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring Owner to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, the Owner may file with the City Council either.a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine any one or both of the following matters: 1. Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or 2. Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval granted herein shall be issued without a finding of the City Council that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording owner a reasonable time to remedy such non-compliance. A final determination of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for which no variance has been granted may, at the option of the City Council, and upon written notice to Owner, terminate any of the approvals contained herein which are reasonably related to the requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply. Alternatively, the City Council may grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council for a variance or an amendment to this Agreement. The City Council, or its designee, may grant such variances or amendments to this Agreement pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. I. Park Development Impact Fees. The City Council has elected to receive from Owner cash payments (in lieu of land dedications) in satisfaction of Owner's park development impact fee requirements arising from this Project. The employee housing unit (Unit 18) constitutes a bona fide low-income housing unit and Owner and City hereby agree to the exemption of Unit 18 from the application of the fee. The two three (3) three -bedroom and the one one -bedroom reconstruction units are not subject to the park development impact fees. The City and Owner have calculated the total park development impact fees for the Project as follows: Eight 2-bedroom units (at $2,340.00 each) $18,720.00 One 2-bedroom unit (increase from 1-bedroom at $1,820.00) $ 1,820.00 Four 3-bedroom units (at $3,120.00 each) $12,480.00 Two 4-bedroom units ($3,120.00 each) $ 6,240.00 (See Exhibit "D") $39,260.00 Owner shall pay the fees in increments prior to issuance of a building permit for each free-market unit, according to the fee required for each unit as set forth above. J. Woodburning Devices. Developer shall not install any woodburning device within the Project. - 7 - K. Condominiumization. Condominiumization of the Project has been approved by the City subject to the following conditions: 1. A Housing Impact Fee of $4,700.00 shall be paid by Owner for the one -bedroom reconstruction unit, due and payable at the time the Condominium Map is filed. 2. The condominium units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases, with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. 3. Owner shall record with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder a declaration of the condominium Project, as approved by the City Attorney. L. FAR. The Project shall consist of no more than 43,000 sq. ft., as calculated under the current FAR regulations. M. General Provisions. 1. Notice. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be deemed given if personally delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or at such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Owner: Fine/Aspen Limited Partnership c/o Fine Associates 1916 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Copy to: Martha C. Pickett Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. 315 East Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, Colorado 81611 2. Binding Clause. The provisions hereof shall run with and constitute a burden upon the title to the subject property, and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Owner and the City and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Mu. W • • 3. applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. 4. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section, or the application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 5. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder, and may be altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument executed by each of the parties hereto. 7. Acceptance of Plat; Ratification by Owner. The City Council has approved the Final Plat for the PUD/Subdivision at 700 East Main, and accepted the same for recordation in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fee and costs to the City by Owner and contingent upon execution of this Agreement. For its part, Owner hereby ratifies and confirms each and every representation and public dedication made and set forth by Owner on said Plat. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation By William L. Stirling, Mayor OWNER: FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By William I. Fine, Managing Partner of Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, General Partner (NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ON PAGE 10) • • STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by WILLIAM L. STIRLING as Mayor and KATHRYN S. KOCH as City Clerk on behalf of the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by William I. Fine, Managing Partner of Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, general partner of FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Owner, and on behalf of said partnership. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: \land\finepud.agr Notary Public - 10 - 6-- Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street EXHIBIT "A" Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 October 27, 1987 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 87-140 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S. E. 1/4 S. W. 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE N. W. CORNER OF BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE; THENCE S 75009'11" E 150.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE S 59018'00" E 56.37 FEET; THENCE S 50014'11" E 118.32 FEET; THENCE S 52057'39" W 47.02 FEET; THENCE S 49058'47" W 21.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE S 14050'49" W 100.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE N 75009'11" W 2.31 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE 62.88 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 868.51 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 10018'25" E 62.87 FEET); THENCE 145.72 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 176.18 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 51027'27" W 141.60 FEET); THENCE N 75009'11" W 164.75 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE N 14050'49" E 220.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 60.016 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. lip 1 I jam/ Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 April 29, 1988 0 EXHIBIT "C" UTILITY EASEMENT 87-140 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNINT AT A POINT WHENCE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 21 BEARS N 14050'49" E 38.00 FEET; THENCE S 75009'11" E 6.75 FEET; THENCE S 14050'49" W 22.33 FEET; THENCE N 75009'11" W 6.75 FEET; THENCE N 14050'49" E 22.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 150.7 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 0 • GIDEON 1. KAUFMAN MARTHA C. PICKETT EXHIBIT I'D" LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Jun HAND DELIVERY Mr. Alan Richman, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 RE: Park Dedication Fees Owed for 700 East Main Subdivision Dear Alan and Bill: Please confirm the park development impact fee for 700 East Main Subdivision as follows: " ight 2-bedroom units (at $2,340.00 each) $18,720.00 �1 ne 2-bedroom unit (increase from 1-bedroom at $1,820.00) $ 1,820.00 our 3-bedroom units (at $3,120.00 each) $12,480.00 Two 4-bedroom units (at $3,120.00 each) $ 6,240.00 $39,260.00 As you know, the 700 East Main Subdivision was caught in the midst -of the Land Use Code revision, and provisions from both the old and new Land Use Code have been applied to the project. The applicants hereby request that the park development impact fee from Section 5-603 of the revised Land Use Code be approved. The employee unit shall be exempt from the fee, and the two replacement units which do not create any additional bedrooms shall be exempt. One replacement unit increases the number of bedrooms from one to two bedrooms. Therefore, the total sum of fees, $39,260.00, shall • 7.y,m /.4e /J.4 MARTHA C. PICKETT 5 - 3 f312 un� �C� lam. 5 • 0 EXHIBIT "D" (page 2) Mr. Alan Richman, Director Mr. Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer June 28, 1988 Page -2- be payable prior to receiving a buildin corresponding units. 9' permit for the Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, p.C. BY: a ha C p-ckett APPROVED AND ACCEPTED this o1� day of June, 1988. MCP/ems Alan Richman =I 8>� S U W Q o i � n i O t ¢ N W 7 O a a < ¢ O O01 O H o O O 7 O O 7 ` e 'w ` N O < 0 O O O O O w �n W 0u z oc) u u Z 0 so < io W4�< Op<U UOy <<W joo: iMMuoi <Wi0 w�o< tNW< 7 W W rp�e0 t�"O L Qr < 0o ��f u. sz ,?.- ". o;�W u tR0 QLaaW<Z .,x` o0F.0 i>O0i0► vi W Q Z t 11 'flail 3 [ S 7 _ s .. 2 21 EXHIBIT "F" DEDICATION OF REAL PROPERTY TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR UNIT 18, SUBDIVISION AT 700 EAST MAIN THIS DEDICATION, made and entered into this day of , 1988, by FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") and the CITY OF ASPEN, Pitkin County, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"). W I T N E S S E T H• WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, and the improvements located thereon situate in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of that certain P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Subdivision at 700 East Main, recorded in Book at Page in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, Owner is required to dedicate Unit 18 to specific employee housing restrictions and guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen on May 1988, approved the use of Unit 18, upon the filing of this dedication and declaration, to satisfy employee housing requirements of the Subdivision at 700 East Main, as reflected in the P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement therefor recorded in Book at Page in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, which agreement is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Owner represents and warrants that it is the sole owner of the property, with full authorization from any and all persons, corporations of entities which in any way may have an encumbrance, lien or other interest in or with regard to the property, to enter into this dedication and declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the execution and recording by the City of Aspen, Colorado of the above referenced P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for the Subdivision at 700 East Main, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The use and occupancy of the employee housing unit, Unit 18, shall be and is hereby restricted exclusively to City of Aspen "low-income" employee housing use; occupancy and - 1 - rental guidelines and qualifications as may be in effect from time to time. Verification of any employee's income and employment qualifications shall be accomplished by the City of Aspen or its employee housing designee prior to and as a condition of occupancy. Owner reserves the right to give employees and caretakers of the project first priority to occupy the unit. Occupants shall be selected by Owner. Owner shall charge low-income rent, but occupants' income and assets may exceed low-income qualifications. The rental or sale price guidelines for the unit shall be indexed to the annually adopted employee housing guidelines approved by City. 2. The dedication and covenants contained herein shall be deemed a burden upon and to run with the title to Unit 18, shall be binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns, and upon all persons or entities having any right, title or interest in or to Unit 18, or any part thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by the City of Aspen or its designee by any appropriate legal action including injunction, abatement or eviction of non -complying tenancies, all for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County real property records. 3. Neither this dedication nor any of the covenants contained herein shall be modified, released or waived in any respect except by written instrument executed by both Owner or its successors and assigns and the City of Aspen, Colorado and duly recorded in the Pitkin County real property records. 4. Owner hereby warrants and represents that any and all persons, firms or entities having any lien, encumbrance or interest in Unit 18 have consented to this dedication and, further, that this dedication shall not be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, without consent of any such person. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. OWNER: FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By William I. Fine Managing partner of Fine Associates, General Partner APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASPEN CITY ATTORNEY By Paul J. Taddune - 2 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY By Director STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by William I. Fine, Managing Partner of Fine Associates, a Minnesota general partnership, general partner of FINE/ASPEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership, Owner and on behalf of said partnership. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: land\fine.ded 4/26/88 Notary Public - 3 - • 3 \ \ J P F- b „9„ ZIfiIHX2[ • T N C N W O W F < WG o� J O y� m a O t WZ w Y pppp 2 Y J u 0 Q^ J O w W W a w W N~ Y � u W l7 H N W O H 2 Q N 1'- O I O w (C I d I I J 2 K O O W W Q m {C L w X O W s W O J &w a u3 0 m W / _ U O saw S _F w a d [ W m O °L K U Z W 12 C Q X w < W m LL J O W < Z Q w W O F K J < fph 7 J W i K 2 W F 7 � Cl. y C7rn� p ` < W LU F uLL1y1 YF` •.1 W C U m m 00 N W A Q w W O ¢ to Q OC J -• 1- � O OK N g�< W W ep �so W to W Nam.. W a0 W P . a Fd o T. LL m J W < O ¢! � W CJ N• 2 O 1SN i Sw Gc O w z oW W In rn p w a •- cos o�J WoCK N > W to •^ ¢ ¢ < OG < xp� w W W WOF- o cc oc22 �V7 (Q� r� M py i C U < TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY SITE AND SURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS River Conditions 700 East Main Property Site Conditions Surface Soils City Property Site Conditions Surface Soils DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS EROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS POST -CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS LIMITATIONS FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EROSIONAL SCARPS FIGURE 2 - CROSS-SECTION RIP RAP SLOPE PROTECTION, 700 MAIN PROJECT FIGURE 3 - CROSS-SECTION EROSIONAL SCARP CITY PROPERTY FIGURE 4 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 7 7 Chen &Associates 190 SITE AND SURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS River Conditions: The river at the time of the field reconnaissance appeared to be at a relatively low flow condition, as the water surface was about 1 112 to 2 feet below a slight bench adjacent to the channel. Natural armor- ing of the lower part of the river bank has occurred, exposing gravel, cobble and occasional boulder size materials. Based on our observations, it appears the average size of materials exposed in this zone is on the order of 8 to 10 inches. Boulders in the area range up to about 3 to 4 feet in diameter, but are fairly widely spaced. The bottom of the river channel appears to have armored itself with small boulder size material with an approximate average size on the order of 12 to 24 inches. All of the materials are fairly well rounded. Site Conditions: The overall site conditions of the property were described in the preliminary subsoil study performed by Chen & Associates, Inc. A description of the conditions at the erosion area are presented herein. The area of significant erosion of the river bank adjacent to the 700 East Main project is shown on Fig. 1. The generalized profile of the slope conditions at this location is shown on Fig. 2. At this location, some undercutting of the toe of the slope has been experienced and slope materials have sloughed into the river. The ground surface slopes up from the river at an approximate 310 angle to an approximate 4-foot diameter boulder located at the head of the erosion scarp. The boulder has resulted in an approximate 4-foot high vertical slope on the boulder face. Above the boulder, the ground surface slopes up to the west at an approximate 210 slope to the relatively flat ground surface of the remaining site. Chen & Associates -4- based on floodway widths of 30 and 52 feet, respectively. Slightly wider channel widths occur along this reach of the river. 2) Flow depth during the 100-year flood is on the order of 6 and 7 feet. The site plan prepared for the property by Alpine Surveys, Inc., shows the 100-year flood plain for the 700 East Main property. The flood plain in the area of the erosion scarp on City property was estimated based on the FEMA study. These criteria were considered in development of the recommendations contained herein. EROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS In order to reduce the potential for future erosion problems, and subsequent slope degradation at these areas, it will be necessary to implement erosion control measures. It is our understanding that for aesthetic pur- poses, a rock riprap remedial design if feasible is preferred. We have evaluated the feasibility of using rock riprap as a means of controlling erosion in this area. Due to the relative steepness of the existing slope, rather large riprap will be required. The Corps of Engineers design method was used to evaluate the riprap requirements. Other means of slope protection such as retaining walls are considered feasible, but are not addressed here. Our recommendations for rock riprap are as follows: 1) The areas affected by erosion should be protected by placement of a rock riprap blanket. The riprap should extend a distance of at least 5 feet on either side of the erosional scarp and should be blended into the adjacent ground surface such that an abrupt change in the ground surface does not occur. The general slope erosion areas requiring rock riprap protection are shown on Fig. 1. To reduce the impacts on channel charac- Chen &Associates teriztics, the riprap layer should be constructed by partial excavation, rather than surface placement to prevent encroachment on the flow path. 2) Rock riprap at the erosion scarp on the 700 East Main project should be placed as shown on the section presented on Fig. 2. The riprap should meet the following criteria: Maximum size of 48 inches D of 30 to 36 inches D15 of 14 to 18 inches 3) Rock riprap at the erosion scarp on City property should be placed as shown on the section presented on Fig. 3. The riprap should meet the following criteria: Maximum size of 66 inches D of 30 to 36 inches D15 of 20 to 24 inches 4) A minimum 6-inch layer of bedding material should be placed beneath the riprap. The bedding layer should consist of material meeting the follow- in- criteria: Sieve Percentage By Size Weight Passing 4-inch 100 No. 4 20-50 No. 16 10-30 No. 50 0-10 No. 200 0-5 5) All bedding material should be placed in one layer and tamped to provide a uniform surface on which the riprap can be placed. Due to the steep- ness of the slope, staged placement of the bedding may be required. 6) Rock used for riprap shall be predominantly angular in shape and should be a hard, durable material similar to granite or other igneous rock indigenous to the area. The use of sedimentary rock or concrete debris Chen & Associates • -7- POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS Repair of the erosion scarps as recommended in this report should provide protection of these areas to within the limits of the 100-year flood. Floods of lower frequency or changes in the Roaring Fork River channel that affect flow characteristics could result in future problems. Periodic inspection and maintenance of these and other areas along the channel may be necessary. Construction of the erosion protection as shown at the 700 East Main property should return the slope to stable conditions within the parameters discussed in our previous study. The slope conditions at the City property are such that the erosion protection measures will only provide protection from further undercutting. The slope grade above the riprap repair section is presently over -steepened and continued sloughing of this part of the slope should be expected. The subsurface conditions in the City property are unknown, but considering the exposed man -placed fill, we expect a stable slope could be 1 112 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Additional study is recommended to evaluate possible fill slope repair configurations. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our field reconnaissance and published data. The nature and extent of subsurface variations at the erosion areas may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations Chen & Associates n may be made. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and riprap placement by a representative of the soil engineer. CHEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. • = By 15222 at�r Ro r L. Barker � y `O E OF CU�� Reviewed By Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. RLB/rrb cc: Leonard Parker & Associates Attn: Mr. Gary Mahaffey Design Workshop, Inc. Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. ----- Attn: Ms. Heidi Hoffmann Chen & Associates IN O ou 00 DO I0 0 o 0 �0 \<�. O If housing is provided off -site. 5. Recent employee housing proposals such as the Benedict -Larkin development and the Hunter Creek conversion have failed for a variety of reasons. One possible explanation is that with the limited amount of vacant land in the community, applicants are forced to bring forward compromise solutions which look upon employee housing as an afterthought, and not as the principal issue being addressed. Providing a new option, payment of cash - in -lieu of employee housing, may help to address this problem, by putting the Housing Authority or a similar entity in the position of being able to take the lead on a project. This option may provide the community with the means to respond to needs such as music student/winter employee dorm housing, senior housing, or simply insure that the proper mix or units is built (i.e., not the most economical unit for the developer, the 2-3 bedroom unit, but that demanded by the employees, the studio or one bedroom unit), and that the problem is addressed holistically, rather than on a project responsive basis. The concept behind the cash -in -lieu formula is a simple one. Essentially, the subsidy per employee reflects the difference between the cost of producing housing for a low, moderate or middle income employee, and the rental or sale price which an employee could afford to pay for that housing under our guide- lines. The Planning Commission did not support this approach for the following reasons: 1. The cash -in -lieu option is an "easy way out" for the developer, by passing the problem of new construction on to the public sector. Therefore, the impacts of growth may not be met until after the new free market project has been brought on line. 2. The Castle Ridge and Centennial projects give the Commission little sense that the public sector can do a better job of providing housing than the private sector. Despite these arguments, we feel that the option for permitting cash -in -lieu of production or conversion should be provided, giving you a choice as to how the current housing need can best be met. The Planning Office and Housing Authority therefore recommend that the following language (Section 24-11.10(i) (3)) be included as Section 5 of the Ordinance: "(3) Payment of an employee housing dedication fee, based on the formula for such fees identified within the guidelines approved by the City Council's housing designee and adopted by the Aspen City Council. Payment shall be made to the City of Aspen prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the non -deed -restricted units 5 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN LAW OFFIC98 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ■ox 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE ]OS ASPEN, COLORADO 41611 April 12, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Subdivision - FAR Calculations Dear Cindy: TELEPHONE AREA CODE 203 Y2S-S1SS The following calculations represent the required Park Dedication Fee for the 700 East Main Subdivision approval. Purchase Price ($2,205,000) X.OI - o SO = 1,297 x net new population (32.5) $42,154.00 Number of proposed units (17) Please note that we are requesting exemption of the employee unit from the Park Dedication Fee requirements. I will appreciate your review of the above calculation and verification of the fee owed. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By ar a C. ckett MCP/bw cc: Bob Kueppers TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office-"� RE: 700 East Main/Final Plat and Request for Vested Rights DATE: May 23, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office and Planning Commission are recommending approval of the Final Plat for 700 East Main, condominiumization and approval of the first reading for an ordinance approving vesting the rights of the project. REQUEST: The applicants are requesting Final Plat approval for the 700 East Main project, vesting the rights of the project and condominiumization of the project (see attached site plan). The applicants are requesting that the development rights for the project be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. This is a new provision which requires that City Council pass an ordinance vesting the right for the project. Tonight is intended to be the 1st reading of the vested rights ordinance (see attached ordinance). A public hearing will be set for the 2nd reading at your first reading in June. Then the ordinance will be published within 14 days of City Council approval of 2nd reading. The vesting procedure is expected to become a standard procedure for most projects at the final plat stage. The staff is recommending approval. of the 1st reading tonight and also recommending that the City Council not take any final action on final plat until the June public hearing in order to incorporate more specific comments from the City Attorney's office regarding the PUD agreement and to allow the applicant more time to tighten confirmation of specific conditions. We are, however, requesting your input on several final plat issues tonight, so that the plat and agreement can be finalized by the time of your next meeting. APPLICANTS: Fine Associates, a Minnesota General Partnership. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved this project's conceptual submission in January of this year. The Planning Commission approved preliminary submission with conditions on April 19, 1988. The application process for this project was initiated under the 0 old Code, however, we have given the applicants the ability to apply aspects of the new Code which meet the needs of the project and do not adversely affect the public (as permitted by Article 1 of the Code). The applicants have chosen to submit the final plat documents pursuant to Section 20-12 and 20-15 of the old Code. The applicants have chosen to apply for condominiumization (Section 7-1008) and vested rights under (Section 6-208) of the new Code. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1) Engineering Department: All Engineering Department comments are incorporated in the following staff comments section. STAFF COMMENTS: The preliminary plat was approved with the conditions as listed below. The applicant's response to these conditions are also listed. 1. Condition: All representations of the applicants shall become conditions of approval, unless herein modified by these conditions. Response: The applicants agree to this condition. 2. Condition: The on -site unit shall be deed restricted as a low income rental unit with priority given to an on -site employee of the project who is not required to meet the low income guidelines. Response: In Exhibit "A", PUD/Subdivision agreement the applicants state that "the unit shall be restricted to low income rental or sale guidelines. The employee unit occupant shall be selected by the owner, with priority given to employees of the project. There shall be no income or asset limitations placed upon the employee unit occupant if the occupant is an employee of the project" This language is generally acceptable to the Planning Office if the intent is that if the unit sells that it must be sold to an individual who meets the low income guidelines. 3. Condition: The corner park at Spring and Main is not required to be accessible to the public and two benches shall be provided in the public right-of-way as shown on the preliminary plat. This condition was imposed by the Planning Commission at preliminary plat. At conceptual approval the City Council required the following condition which was eliminated by the Planning Commission. 0a "The corner park at Spring and Main shall be accessible to the public and shall include two benches." The public accessibility of the park was a representation at conceptual stage that was approved by the City Council and has since been waived by the Planning Commission. The Planning Office feels strongly that this representation lead to the high points which were awarded the site design of the project in the Growth Management process and that the elimination of the accessibility of the park area to the public is undesirable. The Planning Commission did not feel that the accessibility of the area to the public was significant and, therefore, allowed the benches to be placed in the public right-of-way rather than on private property. The Planning Office represented at conceptual that this area would be public and now is recommending that the council uphold that position. Response: The applicants agree to the condition imposed by the Planning Commission at preliminary plat and have depicted the two benches on the public right-of-way on the landscape plan. 4. Condition: Prior to final plat approval, the Engineering Department shall verify that the applicant has adequately provided the following information: A. The plat shall conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20-21 of the Municipal Code. Response: This has been accomplished, according to the Engineering Department with the following exceptions: a. The existing guardrail should be labled on the existing conditions report, and b. It is suggested that the plat include a mortgage certificate. B. The proposed 5 foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets shall be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. Response: This has been accomplished by the applicants. C. The sidewalks, curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street shall be designed parallel to the property line for approximately 150 feet from the Spring Street curb, then dogleg to the Original Curve curb. This is to • maximize the available on -street parking without reducing the safety of Original Curve under slippery conditions. The design is subject to the approval of the Engineering Department. At conceptual approval the City Council imposed a condition that the applicants determine the number of parking spaces which have been eliminated along the streets due to the development of the project. The applicants brought this information before the Planning Commission who then, after consideration determined that the above condition was the best solution. In the opinion of the Planning Office the above condition speaks to a safety concern and not a parking concern which was initially expressed by the City Council. There will be approximately 2-3 streetside parking spaces eliminated by this condition. Response: The applicants are pursuing this design with the Engineering Department and the State Highway Dept. and have adequately addressed the above condition of approval on the final plat. The applicants wish to continue to work on the issue in order to obtain the most desirable solution with regard to providing the maximum number of safe street side parking spaces. D. The easement for the transformer/utility pad shall be at least 10x 7 feet. Response: The applicants have adequately addressed this condition. E. The applicants shall have a guardrail installed on the North side along the area where the bank drops off to the river: Response: The applicants have adequately addressed this condition, however, the Engineering Department is requesting that there be an amendment to the condition which states that the applicants shall provide a handrail rather than a guardrail. The Engineering Department recommends that the handrail be constructed with a horizontal rail, 42 inches in height, another 21 inches in height and vertical posts every 5 feet. The location and length of the handrail should be determined upon an agreement by the Colorado Department of Highways to an alignment design for the sidewalk, curb and gutter in that area. The Planning Office recommends that the Engineering Department recommendation be followed and become a condition of approval prior to approval of the final 4 E 0 plat. F. The storm drainage of the site shall be designed by a registered engineer to ensure that the historic water table is maintained or that a modified system be approved by the Engineering Department. Response: This has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. 5. Condition: The total square footage of the project shall not exceed 43,000 square feet. Response: The applicants have agreed to this condition, however, the application states that the applicants agree not to exceed 43,000 square feet FAR. The appropriate wording should eliminate the reference to FAR since 43,000 square feet is an amount of floor area and not a floor area ratio. 6. Condition: The hot tubs for the individual units shall be located partially on the footprint of the patios as shown on Exhibit "A" presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Foam covers shall be required for each hot tub on the site. Response: This has been accomplished as shown on the final plat drawings and the applicant agrees to supply foam covers for all hot tubs on the site. 7. Condition: The pool area, recreation building, access ways, and parking ramp may be heated for snowmelt purposes. Response: The applicant is currently planning on snow -melting the garage ramp and the area between the recreation building and the swimming pool. 8 Condition: The applicants must receive encroachment permits from the Engineering Department for the light posts and walls on the ramp area within the public right-of-way. This shall be obtained prior to final plat approval. Response: The applicants have verified with the Engineering Department that these permits shall not be required. 9. Condition: Public river over look shall include one bench and boulders for public seating. Response: This has been accomplished through its depiction on the landscape plan. 10. Condition: Applicants shall receive all necessary permits from the State Highway Department. 5 E • Response: The applicants have not obtained the permits from the Highway Department but are continuing to work with that agency along with the Engineering Department. 11. Condition: Condominiumization: The 17 free market units shall be condominiumized with the following conditions: a) The applicant shall submit a statement of subdivision exception which shall include the limitation that the units shall be rented for periods of six months, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. b) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district if one is formed for their area. (c) The applicants shall be required to pay the affordable housing fee based on the unit which is being demolished(w/ an equivalent bedroom count) pursuant to section 7-1008 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Response: The applicants agree to this condition, however, the application agrees to a payment which has since been increased in the approved Code. The Planning Office recommends that the applicants must be required to pay the adopted fee rather than the amount which is stated in the application. In addition, the staff has determined that item (a) above should be revised to read that the condominium conditions shall be incorporated into the subdivision agreement rather than as a separate subdivision exception document. Additional comments by the Engineering Department state that the Engineering Department is able to supply some large boulders to the applicants for help in rip rap along the bank on the property and adjacent to the property boundaries. At preliminary submission the applicants submitted soils engineering information. The measures suggested by the soils engineer shall be the responsibility of the applicants. The Engineering Dept. has also noted that the curb along original curve shall be at least 8 inches high in order to provide protection for pedestrians from the adjacent traffic. The final concern expressed by the Engineering Dept. was that the applicants are creating a substantial grade change in the public right-of-way along Main Street in order to slope the topography down towards the patio and hot tub areas of the front building. The Engineering Department feels that the maximum allowable grade change on the public right-of-way should be no greater than one foot (see the attached site plan). In summary, the application for Final Plat approval is generally A • • acceptable to the Planning staff with the exception that the staff encourages that City Council to review the above conditions #3, 4.c, and 4.e. In addition, there are several conditions which are pending approval which hopefully will be resolved by the Public hearing in June. The staff suggests that we leave these minor issues for discussion at that time if discussion is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the City Council discuss the issues of the Park at the corner of spring and Main, the issue of streetside parking along the boundaries of the property, the issue of requiring a handrail along the steep portion of the sidewalk and the additional concerns raised by the Engineering Department. We recommend that the Council not take any action tonight with regard to the Final Plat or condominiumization but that Council give the applicants direction in order that final action can be taken at the June meeting. The staff also recommends that the Council grant first reading approval to the Ordinance regarding the vested rights provision. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: CH.fina1700 'r7 FINAL PLAT SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS 700 EAST MAIN SUBDIVISION 1'11ELIMINARY PUD/SUBDIVISION SUBMISSION PROJL (SITE TT- i!1 1 it i .. •c:,= •::::••, 1�. � , .. .. 1 _ 1 NCEPT I I ,. ��., :•._:�%�, :`.. _ ' � I � j ERFiO1V PARK —MAI 1WIl I llllilllll111l,111llllll -_ :r` ,nY:r '�� „�� ,•.- _ MTN VALLEY fa•NOWFI, ----- -IRLLCI RIC Il , Lam._'.• ~C...1L� 1 I: , � __ .l /.,-.. _• _—�.v, __' N �wa..w. t —MOP U I UU 200 400 t,Url 800 feet I NDE'X 1 . r'r Ivt• a �:riw c m , . ... > S Z 0 w > Q ORDINANCE NO. _ (Series of 1988) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE 700 EAST MAIN PUD WHEREAS, the owners of the 700 East Main property, Fine Associates, are requesting that the development rights for the 700 East Main PUD located at a site more specifically described in Exhibit "A" be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed said request at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on May 23, 1988 and at a duly noticed public hearing on June 13, 1988; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the final plat for 700 E. Main constitutes the site specific development plan for the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Section 1 The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval will result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights; and Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this ordinance following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right; and Section 4 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval; and Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 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 2 provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of June, 1988, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once 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 day of 1988. ATTEST: William L. Stirling, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1988. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk William L. Stirling, Mayor K. EXHIBIT "A" • k. Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 North Mill Street Po ;t Office Box 1730 Aspen. Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 October 27, 1987 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 87-140 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE S. E. 1/4 S. W. 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE N. W. CORNER OF BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE; THENCE S 75009'11" E 150.00 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE S 59018'00" E 56.37 FEET; THENCE S 50014'11" E 118.32 FEET; THENCE S 52057'39" W 47.02 FEET; THENCE S 49058'47" W 21.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE S 14050'49" W 100.00 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE N 75009'11" W 2.31 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE 62.88 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 868.51 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS S 10018'25" E 62.87 FEET); THENCE 145.72 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 176.18 FEET (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 51027'27" W 141.60 FEET); THENCE N 75009'11" W 164.75 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE N 14050'49" E 220.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 21 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 60.016 SQUARE FEET, MORE. OR LESS. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRli: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director A-91 RE: Annexation Element DATE: May 18, 1988 Please bring Resolution #9 and all attachments regarding Endorsement of the Annexation Element from your April 11, 1988 City Council packet to the May 23, 1988 meeting. If you do not still have your old copy, please contact us so we can be prepared with extras at the meeting. Thank you. . qllqlj� 0 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW FOR 700 E. MAIN/ APRIL 19,1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.ALL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE APPLICANT SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , UNLESS HEREIN MODIFIED BY THESE CONDITIONS. 2. EMPLOYEE HOUSING: SAME AS (2) ON CH.700 3. THE CORNER PARK AT SPRING AND MAIN STREET IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TWO BENCHES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC R.O.W. AS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. 4. ENGINEERING: SAME AS (5) ON CH.700 EXCEPT FOR C AND F, AS MODIFIED BELOW. C. THE SIDEWALKS , CURB,AND GUTTER ALIGNMENT ALONG MAIN ST. SHALL BE DESIGNED PARALLEL TO THE PROPERTY LINE FOR APPROX'LY 150' FROM THE SPRING STREET CURB, THEN DOGLEG TO THE ORIGINAL CURVE CURB. THIS IS TO MAXIMIZE THE AVAILABLE ON STREET PARKING W/OUT REDUCING THE SAFETY OF THE ORIGINAL CURVE UNDER SLIPPERY CONDITIONS. THE DESIGN IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEERING DEPT. F. SAME PLUS ADD... OR A MODIFIED DESIGN AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPT. 5. THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROJECT SHALL NOT EXCEED 43,000 SQUARE FEET. 6. THE HOT TUBS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS SHALL BE LOCATED PARTIALLY ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PATIOS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" PRESENTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FOAM COVERS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH HOT TUB ON THE SITE. 7.THE POOL AREA, RECREATION BUILDING , ACCESS WAYS, AND PARKING RAMP MAY BE HEATED FOR SNOWMELT PURPOSES. 8. SAME AS (9) FROM CH.700 9. SAME AS (10) FROM CH.700 10. THE APPLICANTS SHALL RECEIVE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. 11. SAME AS 12 ON CH.700 EXCEPT FOR (C) (C) THE APPLICANTS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE BASED ON ONE THE UNIT WHICH IS BEING DEMOLISHED( W/ AN EQUVILANT BEDROOM COUNT) PURSUANT TO SECTION 7-1008 OF THE PROPOSED CODE. CH.7CONDITIONS EXISTING CODE/ FINAL PLAT CONTENTS 20-15 : TECHNICAL PLAT REQ. 20-16 : AGREEMENTS REQUIRED 24-8.12 : FINAL PLAT CONTENTS 24-8.9(B)(E) : CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE/ AND LANSCAPING PLAN(?) SEE 24-8.16 24-8.19 : OPEN SPACE AND COMMON FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 24-8.6 : GENERAL PROPOSED CODE/ FINAL PLAT/PUD/SUBDIVISION SEC. 7-903 2. (PG.7-51/7-57) SEC. 7- 1004 /PLAT REQ. CH.FINALP fie vzLfr-ram !o /D kt�-> ao Gar TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 700 East Main Residential GMP Project/Preliminary Plat DATE: April 19, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Office recommends approval of the Preliminary Subdivision/PUD, Stream Margin Review, Special Review for 2 (4) bedroom units, condominiumization; confirmation of the exemption of an on -site employee dwelling unit, and partial approval of the proposed "clarification" to the conceptual PUD submittal and GMP application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION APPLICANTS: Fine Associates. REQUEST: 14 residential GMP allocations, PUD Approval, and exemption from the GMP process for an employee housing unit. LOCATION: 700 East Main St. (Lots 1-18, Block 21). ZONING: RMF/PUD. WATER: Aspen Water District hookup. SEWER: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District hookup. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the northeast corner of Spring Street and Main Street. The parcel contains 60,016 sq. ft. Currently, 2 houses and a barn/shed structure are located on the property. In addition, the applicant has provided document- ation from the Building Department that a third unit was demol- ished on the property. The site contains mature cottonwood trees along the portions of the south and west perimeters of the property. The property also contains several mature evergreen trees. The area of the property along the Roaring Fork River is covered with dense vegetation sloping down to the river. This vegetation includes low lying bushes and cottonwood trees. The natural topography of the site slopes gently upward from Main Street to the northeastern portion of the property. The steep slopes on the property border the Roaring Fork River on the eastern edge of the site. No development is proposed on this portion of the site. • SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed 700 Main multi -family project is surrounded by a variety of uses including the Eagles Club, adjacent and directly to the north of the site; a residential condominium project to the south across Main Street (Original Curve Condominiums) and a mixed use building to the west, the Concept 600 building which includes office space and residential condominium units. The Creektree condominium units sit adjacent to the back (NE) portion of the property while the eastern portion of the site is bordered by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The 700 Main application proposes construction of 14 free market units and one employee housing unit and a reconstruction of 3 existing units for a total of 18 units to be located in 3 multi -family buildings. The proposal includes 41 underground parking spaces and 4 ground level spaces. Recreational amenities include a swimming pool and a recreational building. On February 22, 1988 the City Council approved conceptual review of 700 E. Main with conditions. These conditions were the same conditions imposed by the Planning Commission with several additions. The Planning Commission is now reviewing the preliminary plat submission. At this stage the Planning Commission must determine if the applicants have complied with the conceptual review approval. These conditions are listed below with a response indicating the applicants level of compliance. Condition: 1) The applicants shall provide detailed information regarding the size, layout and features of the proposed employee housing unit at preliminary submission or this may be approved by the Housing Authority prior to preliminary plat submittal. Response: This has been accomplished and approved by the Housing Authority. Condition: 2) The on -site employee unit may be rented to an employee of the project with no occupancy guideline requirements, however, if the unit is rented to someone who is not employed by the project, then the unit must be rented at the low-income guidelines. Response: 2 The applicant agrees to this condition. Condition: 3) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings shall be submitted at preliminary submission. Response: The landscape plan was submitted illustrating mature plantings, however, there is no verification that the site can sustain the proposed plantings. This shall become a condition of final plat approval. Condition: 4) The corner park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches. Response: The applicant states that this condition is a misunderstanding and requests to clarify that the corner is not intended to be accessible to the public. Condition: 5) All sidewalks and curb and gutter designs provided at preliminary submission shall conform to Engineering Department specifications. Response: The application does not comply with the Engineering Department's requirements for sidewalks. The Engineering Department has evaluated the proposal and developed conditions of approval. Condition: 6) Detailed energy conservation information shall be submitted at preliminary submission in order to determine actual savings. Response: The applicants have submitted this information which has been reviewed by the Roaring Fork Energy Center, however, no detailed guidance has been provided by that referral agency. 3 Condition: 7) The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department regarding necessary stabilization of the banks of the Roaring Fork River along the applicant's property lines. Coordination of this work shall be accomplished prior to preliminary submittal. Response: The Engineering Department is satisfied with the applicants submittal and feels that the concerns have been mitigated through the stream margin review material. Condition: 8) The applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Department's memorandum dated January 28, 1988. Response: This has been accomplished with the exception that the high water line on the plat must be redrawn pursuant to the Engineering Department's approval. Condition: 9) The applicant shall provide additional information regarding the number of existing available parking spaces along the property lines of the project as well as provide information on how many spaces will be eliminated due to the development of the project. Response: The applicant has supplied this information. There are currently 9 spaces available, four of which would be eliminated by the project without modification to the proposed preliminary plat. In summary, the applicants have generally addressed the conditions of conceptual approval, yet additional conditions will be required to adequately address new concerns which have been raised. The following indicates the changes which have been made in the application since conceptual review: 1) The Main Street elevations. 2) Additional balconies on Main Street. 3) Additional parking information requested by the City Council. 4) Public seating on Main Street at the overlook park. 4 `J • 5 ) FAR. The Main Street elevations have been modified since the Conceptual review to reflect separate peaked roofs for all of the units that front Main Street. The conceptual submission showed several of the units under one peaked roof. The preliminary proposal also now proposes balconies on the third level of these units whereas before these units only had balconies on the second floor. Both of these changes appear to add bulk to the building, giving the building a larger facade with identical lines for each unit. Additional balconies, which do not count in the FAR calculations, also add bulk to the building. In reviewing the conceptual plans it is difficult to tell how the applicant planned on getting all of the proposed units inside of the elevations which were shown on Main Street. Therefore the changes to the roof line (peaks) on the Main Street elevations of this building may be necessary. However, the additional balconies are not necessary. The Planning Office recommendation is to accept the Main Street elevations as proposed but eliminate the third floor balconies. An additional condition which was added at the City Council meeting was the condition that the applicants verify how many parking spaces would be reduced along the public right-of-way by the development of the project. The applicants have worked with the Engineering Department in order to determine the number of existing spaces and the number of remaining spaces after the development is built. The existing number of spaces along the right-of-way is 9 . The development will delete 4 of those 9 spaces due to new curb cuts. However, if the applicants accept the Engineering Department condition and redevelopment of parking along Main, only two spaces will be lost (see Jim Gibbard's memo attached; maps will be available at the meeting). The Planning Office recommends that the entranceway to the surface parking on Spring Street be redeveloped in order to provide two more on - street parking spaces. The preliminary submittal shows that the overview park area along the public right-of-way does not contain a bench for seating. The preliminary proposal shows that boulders are to be utilized for seating. While this may have a more natural appearance, the Planning Office feels that if this area is to truly be utilized by the public, a bench should be installed along with boulders to offer the public an option and to make it clear that the area is intended for public use. At the conceptual review, the applicant stated that the project would contain approximately 40,000-42,000 sq. ft. which is under the allowable floor area of 50,497 sq. ft. after slope reduction and areas under water are deducted. The exact floor area proposal was not known at the time of conceptual review since the E method for calculating FAR in the RMF zone district was recently revised, and new calculations had not been submitted. However, the preliminary plan submittal indicates there will be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. of floor area above the maximum proposed at conceptual. The Planning Office believes that the project should not exceed the square footage as it was represented at the conceptual stage. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department submitted several memorandums regarding the 700 E. Main project. These memorandums mention the following issues: a. The submitted plat does not conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. b. The Stream Margin Review plat that has been submitted does not have the high water line in the right location. C. The submitted design shows a trash access gate and two wall or fence structures which encroach onto the public right-of-way. If an encroachment license for these is requested, the Engineering Department will recommend against it. It is the understanding of the Planning Office that the trash area will be within the setbacks but will not encroach into the City right-of- way. The Planning Office does not have a problem with this proposal since there is no structure above grade. The trash will be lifted from the garage level to the surface through doors which are flush with the surface. It is the understanding of the Planning Office that the wall or fence structures can be modified to a form acceptable to the Engineering Department. d. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets needs to be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. e. We would also recommend that the sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street be designed so that parking there can be maximized (see attached diagram). 2 0 f. The proposed location of the easement for the transformer/utility pad is acceptable to the Engineering Department as long as the dimensions of this easement are at least 101x7'. g. The proposed sidewalk on the north side of Original Curve needs to have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to the river. 2) Environmental Health: No additional comments. 3) City of Aspen Water Department: No additional comments. 4) Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: No additional comments. 5) Fire Marshall: 7) Housing Authority: In a memo dated 4/14/88, Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority, states that the plans for the one bedroom employee unit are acceptable. 8) Roaring Fork Energy Center: In a memorandum dated 3/24/88, the Roaring Fork Energy Center reviewed the preliminary detailed proposal. Steve Standiford of the RFEC commends the applicants on not using any woodburning devices and notes that the proposed hot tubs will result in increased energy use. He recommends that foam covers be used to prevent stand-by evaporative losses and that the tubs will use high - efficiency heating systems to provide hot water. 9) Roaring Fork Transit Authority: No additional comments. 10) State Highway Department: In a memorandum dated April 7, 1988, the State Highway Department noted that permits are required for the curb and sidewalks and for landscaping in the public right-of-way. PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS SUBDIVISION/PUD: The 700 Main site was designated as a PUD site because of its proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the concern that valued green spaces would be preserved. In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational 7 area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The preliminary grading plan shows that there will be approxi- mately a 5' elevation gain from the Main Street view which will block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space feature of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main, where a relatively level view from Main Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The conceptual submission stated that this area was for pedestrian use but did not offer any detail with regard to providing seating areas within this space. The Planning Office felt that this area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing of the development. At the conceptual review before City Council and the Planning Commission, the Planning Office requested that the use of this area be clarified. The Planning Commission supported the Planning Office recommendation that a condition of approval be made stating that "the corner park at Spring and Main shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches" (see attached condition #4 of conceptual review approval). The applicants are now stating that the intention was never to allow this area to be accessible to the public and that benches would be supplied on the public right-of-way. This position is in direct conflict with what the Planning staff represented to the City Council after review of the conceptual submittal by the Planning Office. Our memorandum to the City Council stated the following: "In addition, if accessible to the public as passive park space, the area would be very valuable to workers in the area for lunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant". At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant represented that the park is intended for public use and that outdoor furniture would be provided. The applicants are now requesting that this issue be clarified. The Planning Office feels that this is not consistent with the conceptual approval and that the applicant must comply with the conditions of conceptual approval. However, if the Planning Commission would like to entertain a revision to the conceptual and growth management approvals, then PUD amendments and growth management re -scoring are required. (This is covered in greater detail in this memorandum under PUD/GMP amendments). An additional public benefit of the 700 Main site design is the addition of sidewalks along Spring, Main and Neal Streets. The applicants propose to landscape within the public right-of-way and provide a river overlook and public seating area at Original Curve. This will extend the open space feeling of Herron Park. The bulk of the project is placed to the rear of the site =3 adjacent to the Eagles Club. As noted in the discussion regarding the site design, the applicants use a clustering of structures and parking facilities in order to preserve the most valuable views on the site. The architectural design of the structures take advantage of the various views towards Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Mountain and Independence Pass. The scale and height of the buildings are consistent with the surrounding area and the mass (largest of the buildings) of the development is placed at the greatest possible distance away from Main Street (approximately 165 feet). In summary, the Planning Office adequately addressed the PUD exception of non-compliance conditions of approval which recommendation. feels that the applicants have section of the Code with the of several subdivision/PUD, are reflected in the proposed EMPLOYEE HOUSING REVIEWS: Section 24-11.2(F) of the Aspen Municipal Code provides an exemption for employee housing units which are deed -restricted in accordance with the City's housing guidelines. This Code provision states that the review of exemptions of units from the development allotment procedures must determine the community need by considering compliance with adopted housing plans, the size, number, and location of the units and the rental/sale mix of the development, as well as the proposed price categories. The applicants are requesting that a one -bedroom rental unit which will provide housing for up to (2) employees be exempt from the growth management procedures. The applicants contend that this size and type of unit is needed in the community and that an exemption is appropriate. According to the Housing Authority, this type of unit as well as the location is consistent with the goals of the Housing Author- ity and the Housing Authority guidelines. At their meeting on February 22, 1988, the City Council granted the applicant's request to rent the employee unit to an employee regardless of that employee's income. However, if the unit is rented to someone who is not employed by the project, the unit must be rented at the low-income rental guidelines to a qualified employee. In addition, the City Council made the determination that the exemption of the employee housing unit could be determined by the Housing Authority final approval of the unit design. In his memorandum dated April 14, Jim Adamski states that the proposed unit design (attached) is acceptable to the Housing Authority. Therefore, the Planning Office recommendation reflects the approval of the exemption for the employee unit. 9 0 • STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: Condition #8 of the conceptual approval reads "the applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Departments memo dated 1/28/88." The applicants have submitted a plat which is generally acceptable to the Engineering Department, however, the high water line illustrated on the plat must be redone to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. The Planning Office recommends that final approval of Stream Margin Review be reflected in the Planning Commission recommendation with the condition that the high water line be placed on the plat to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. SPECIAL REVIEW FOR 2 (4) BEDROOM UNITS: The applicants propose 2 (4) bedroom units. The existing Code notes that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is set by special review for units over 3 bedrooms in size. The proposed Code requires 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area for a four bedroom unit, and this is what is proposed by the applicant. The Planning Office recommends approval of the Special Review to allow 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area for 2 (4) bedroom units since this is consistent with the proposed regulations. CONDOMINIUMIZATION: The applicants are requesting condominiumization of the 17 free market units in the project under Section 20-22 of the existing Code. The criteria is as follows: a) Existing Tenants Shall be Given Written Notice and Option to Purchase: the only tenants who are displaced live in a single-family residence at 120 N. Spring Street and have waived their option to purchase a newly constructed unit. b) Six Month Minimum Lease Restriction: The applicants are requesting a waiver from the six month minimum lease restriction. The application states that the project is located in a neighborhood containing similar condominium developments without 6 month minimum lease deed restrictions. The existing Code does not contain criteria for determining what areas are appropriate for waiver of the six month minimum lease restriction, however, the Revised Land Use Regulations includes the following four criteria. Section 7-1008 (2) Residential dwelling units in the Residential/Multi- family (RMF), Rural Residential (RR), Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C-1), and Office (0) zone districts shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases, 10 0 0 with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year, unless the applicant shall demonstrate that: a) The immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for condominiumization is characterized predominantly by lodges or other units which are permitted to be used as short-term accommodations, and a substantial percentage of these units are currently being used for short-term rentals; and RESPONSE: The applicants have stated that the surrounding residential units do not have 6 month minimum lease restrictions. However, it is important to note that the projects which allow the short term accommodations are all projects which were created prior to the enactment of the 6 month minimum lease restriction in 1977. b) The parcel is in close proximity to the downtown area or to major tourist recreational facilities. RESPONSE: The proposed townhomes are located on the bus route, five blocks from the gondola and five blocks from the Hyman Avenue mall. c) The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the subject neighborhood as appropriate for short-term accommodations. RESPONSE: The 1973 Aspen Area Master Plan designates this area as multi -family residential indicating that it is an appropriate location for high density residential uses for the permanent population. At the conceptual review stage the Planning Commission and City Council approved a development on this site which is a multi -family residential project. While this project will be too expensive for the majority of permanent residents of the community, it would be inconsistent with the plan to allow it to be short termed. The surrounding land uses are a mixture of local uses (Eagles Club, residential uses and the SCI uses) and tourist uses (short term accommodations at Original Curve Condominiums and Concept 600). The Planning Office feels that the master plan intended this site to be used as a permanent residential multi -family site rather than a short term (lodge oriented) site. The areas to the North and East of the site are primarily long term residential areas. In recent months the City Council has chosen to deny several requests in these areas for waiver of the 6 month minimum lease 11 restriction in order to maintain residential characteristics for this portion of town. The Planning Office does not support waiver of the 6 month restriction since this might encourage other long term residential projects in this area to seek short term status. d) There were not previously long-term residents of the parcel who were displaced by the proposed condominiumization. RESPONSE: The applicants have stated that the project's employee housing commitments mitigate the displacement of employees. However, 2 single family residences are being lost and employees are being displaced by the development of this project (see c below). The employee housing commitments are requirements to offset the impacts of the new units, and do not mitigate the displacement which is occurring since the reconstruction of the demolished unit is exempt from GMP housing calculations. In summary, the Planning Office does not support the request for a waiver of the 6 month minimum lease restriction based on the location of the development, the community need for long term permanent housing, the displacement which is occurring and the effect that having a short term project in this location would have on the surrounding long term projects. Criteria c below addresses Section 20-22. c) The Applicants Shall Demonstrate that Approval will not Reduce the Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing: The applicants suggest that the requirement for employee housing was mitigated by the employee housing commitment in GMP with regard to one on -site unit and a cash -in -lieu payment. The fact is that two existing single-family houses which have historically housed local permanent residents are being demolished. As noted above, one house has been rented while the other house was owner occupied. It is our understanding that the rental house has been rented within the guidelines (moderate income). Therefore, the applicant must deed - restrict one new unit under the existing code or pay a cash payment under the proposed code if the Commission finds that the employee housing commitment through growth management did not mitigate the displacement of these employees. The rental unit which is in question was exempted by growth management (replacement) and therefore does not make a direct employee housing payment in the cash -in -lieu contribution. The Planning Office is requesting that the Planning Commission make a determination as to whether or not an additional affordable housing fee is required for this project. 12 The applicant has the option of either deed restricting one of the units pursuant to Section 20-22 (d) of the existing code or requesting that they fall under the new code provisions paying an affordable housing fee for one of the units pursuant to Section 7- 1008 of proposed code. The Planning Commission has the option of waiving the fee if it is found to be appropriate. The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominiumization with the conditions as listed in the recommendation. CLARIFICATIONS PUD/GMP AMENDMENTS: The application states that there are several clarifications that the applicants would like to make regarding the conceptual plan submittal. The application states that the applicant does not believe that the proposed clarifications constitute " substantial deviations from an essential element of the GMP proposal". The Planning Office agrees that two of the three clarifications are minor in nature and do not greatly effect the project as was proposed at conceptual review. These two issues are: 1. Snowmelting of the area around the pool and recreation building. 2. The addition of hot tubs to the patios of each of the 17 free Market units. The Planning office feels that the addition of the snowmelting and hot tubs will increase the overall energy use on the site and that this could require a rescoring of the Energy section of the Growth Management evaluation, however, the Planning Office does not feel that there is very clear direction from the RFEC with regard to the impacts of these changes relative to the overall energy use of the project. The Planning Commission scored the Energy section of the growth management evaluation with a consistent 2.5 score (one Planning Commission member gave a score of 2). The Planning office feels that a rescoring of this will not significantly change the overall score granted to this project. In addition, the Planning office considered the change in character of the project due to the addition of hot tubs on every patio. Our conclusion, after considerable thought was that the character of the project is a tight urban feel and that the addition of hot tubs would not significantly impact the character. The hot tubs which are located in the internal units will not impact the public in any way. The concern initially was the impact of the units along Main Street. In reviewing these units in more detail it seems unlikely that they will be visible at all from the street due to the fact that they are located below grade and landscaping will shield any direct views. The 13 0 recommendation of the Roaring Fork Energy Center, that foam covers be used on the tubs should become a condition of approval. In addition, the proposal shows these units as having additional patio areas added for the hot tubs. In effect, this adds to the mass of the project. The Planning Office feels that the patio size should remain the same with the hot tubs located on the patios which were shown at conceptual review. The Planning office does not support the applicant's request for an insubstantial amendment with regard to the open space at the corner of Spring and Main. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum the applicants and the Planning Staff disagree on what was represented at the conceptual level subdivision and GMP review with regard to the corner of Spring and Main. The Planning Staff strongly believes that the corner open space area was to be accessible to the public and that benches were to be located in this area as a passive open space/park area. This position is supported by the fact that the applicants committed at the conceptual review stage to condition #4 which states that the corner park at Main and Spring Street will be accessible to the public and that benches will be provided in this area. This position is even more strongly supported by the fact that the issue of whether or not this area was to be accessible to the public was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting as well as at the City Council meeting. This is documented in our memo to the City Council as well as in our memo to the Planning Commission (attached). It is difficult for the planning staff to support the project with regard to its open space/site design amenities if in fact the applicant is saying that this area is not accessible to the public; and, if the applicant is only supplying benches within the public right of way. The Planning Commission has several options. The first option is to determine that condition #4 was clear and is a condition of approval which must be complied with. The second option is to determine that the issue is not significant and that it is merely a clarification which does not require an amendment to the GMP scoring or reconsideration of subdivision approval. If the Planning Commission wishes to reconsider condition #4 and rescore the project relative to site design the staff has prepared a rescoring recommendation attached to this packet. The Planning Office, however, does not recommend a rescoring. The Planning Commission score for site design were quite high ranging from 2 to 3 for a total of 18.5 points. Even if all the Planning Commission member agreed with staff that site design should be rescored to receive 1 point (indicating a major design flaw) the total # of points would be 7 points in this category. This would mean that the applicants would lose 11.5 points in this category. This, in turn means that the average score in the Quality of design section would be 10 rather than 11.The application would still score above the threshold and maintain 14 • a its position relative to the other projects. Therefore, a rescoring does not have any impact on the GMP status of the project. The Planning Commission, however, has the authority through both subdivision review and GMP amendment procedures to maintain the requirement of condition #4,imposed on the applicant and accepted by the applicant at Conceptual subdivision review. The Planning Office recommends determine that the accessibility of Main and Spring street was a PUD approval and that condition preliminary approval. that the Planning Commission of the open space at the corner specific part of the conceptual #4 stands as a condition of the RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Preliminary Subdivision/PUD, Exemption from growth management for the employee dwelling unit, condominiumization, stream margin review, and special review approval for the 700 Main project with the following conditions: 1) All representations of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval. 2) Employee Housing: The on -site unit shall be deed - restricted as a low income rental unit with priority to be given to an on -site employee of the project who doe not require to meet the low income guidelines. 3) Subdivision/PUD/GMP: A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings illustrated in the landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. 4) The corner park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include 2 benches. 5) Engineering: Prior to final plat approval, the Engineering Department shall verify that the applicant has adequately provided the following information: a. The plat shall conform to all of the requirements set forth in Section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. b. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets shall be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. C. The sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street shall be designed so that parking there can be maximized. In addition, the surface parking 15 0 • along Spring Street shall be redesigned in order to provide 2 additional on -street parking spaces. d. The easement for the transformer/utility pad shall be at least 101x7'. e. The sidewalk on the north side of Original Curve shall have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to the river. f. The storm drainage for the site shall be designed by a registered engineer to insure that the historic water table level is maintained. 6) The total square footage of the project shall not exceed 42,000 sq. ft. 7) The hot tubs for the individual units shall be located on the footprint of the patios as shown on the conceptual plan. The hot tubs shall not extend off of the patios as was submitted at preliminary submission. In addition, foam covers are required for each hot tub on the site. 8) The pool area, recreation building and parking ramp may be heated for snowmelt purposes. 9) The applicants must receive encroachment permits for the light posts and walls on the ramp area within the public right-of-way. This encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to final plat approval. 10) The public river overlook shall include (1) bench and boulders for public seating. 11) There shall be no 3rd floor balconies on the Main Street units 12, 14 and 16. 12) Condominiumization: The 17 free market units shall be condominiumized with the following conditions: a) The applicant shall submit a statement of subdivision exception which shall include the limitation that the units shall be rented for periods of six months, with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. b) The applicants shall agree to join an improvements district if one is formed for their area. 16 Option to c) The applicants shall be required to pay an be determined affordable housing fee based on the one unit by the Planning which is being demolished (bedroom count) Commission: pursuant to Section 7-1008 of the proposed code or to deed restrict one of the new units pursuant to Section 20-22 (d) of the existing code, whichever is in effect at the time of final plat approval. CH.700 17 0 0 0 41 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 April 12, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Subdivision Dear Cindy: HAND -DELIVERED TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8188 Pursuant to our meeting this morning, this letter is to provide the following clarifications of Fine Associates' Preliminary PUD/Subdivision Application scheduled for the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on April 19, 1988. 1. Project Name. 11700 East Main" is a project name for the approval identification purposes only. The applicant intends to choose a different project name later in the development process. 2. FAR. The applicant has previously stated that the proposed FAR was not to exceed 42,000 sq. ft. This commitment was based upon interpretations of the FAR calculation formula prior to final revision and administrative interpretations of this formula. There have been some very recent (April 9, 1988) formula interpretations and conclusions between Bill Drueding and Michael Thompson of Hagman, Yaw. In addition, refining of technical development plans has increased the need for additional square footage. It is my understanding that the applicant now needs approximately 1,000 additional square feet. 3. On -Street Parking. There are currently seven (7) 2-hour parking spaces on Main Street along the subject project. Jim Gibbard's proposed alternative curb design would allow two (2) additional spaces. Please note that this design also impacts the proposed open space amenity. There are currently nine (9) 2-hour parking spaces on Spring Street along the subject property. Five (5) of these spaces will be deleted by the project's entry, garage entry, and trade and utility transformer access. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By I Maltha 0. Pickett MCP/bw cc: Bob Kueppers 0 • GIDEON I. KAUFMAN LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 April 12, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Subdivision - FAR Calculations Dear Cindy: The following calculations represent the required Park Dedication Fee for the 700 East Main Subdivision approval. Purchase Price ($2,205,000) Number of proposed units (17) TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925.8166 = 1,297 x net new population (32.5) $42,154.00 Please note that we are requesting exemption of the employee unit from the Park Dedication Fee requirements. I will appreciate your review of the above calculation and verification of the fee owed. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C., a Professional Corporation By �1 _ J`� r kar'tha C. ckett MCP/bw cc: Bob Kueppers HOLLAND & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW iJAi] DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELECOPIER (303) 925-9367 COLORADO SPRINGS ASPEN BILLINGS BOISE CHEYENNE WASHINGTON, D.C. THOMAS J. TODD February 29, 1988 Ms. Cindy Heuben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 700 East Main Street Project Dear Cindy: This letter is a follow-up to the February 22, 1988 Aspen City Council public hearing on the proposed 700 East Main Street Project. The law firm of Holland & Hart owns commercial office space in the Concept 600 Building, which is located west of and across the street from the 700 East Main site. After observing the applicant's presentation, we wish to state for the record that Holland & Hart has no objections to what appears to be a sensi- tive and creative re -development of the site. As you may recall, I voiced a concern at the public hearing about street parking on Original Curve and North Spring Street. We at Holland & Hart are anxious to see that parking on Original Curve and North Spring Street remain as all -day unrestricted parking. I'm sure that a number of the other businesses on East Main Street have similar concerns for the availability of all -day street parking for their clients and employees. Based on the foregoing, we request that the City Planning and Engineering Departments keep these concerns in mind in the event modifica- tions to our neighborhood's parking patterns are considered as a consequence of the development of the 700 East Main Street Proj- ect. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Thomas J. Todd for HOLLAND & HART TJT/sg ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER 242 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE`C0 81623 (303)963-0311 y1 L March 24, 1988 TO: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: 700 E Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 The RFEC was formed in Aspen by volunteers interested in promoting the conservation of natural resources. To this cause, we are pleased to see the elimination of all woodburning devices. Improving the local air quality while reducing the energy -inefficient use of natural resources is a commendable change in this development. The additional 16 hot tubs will result in a corresponding increase of energy use. We hope that foam covers will be used to prevent stand-by, evaporative losses (especially at night) and that the tubs will utilize high -efficiency heating systems to provide the hot water. Besides the addition of the extra hot tubs, the project seems to have the same energy features as the earlier submission. Please reference our opinions dated January 8, 1988 for further comments. / i,, / , .a,/.:'_ 0 RAGMAN YAW 4 March 1988 ARCHITECTS Ili) 2U? <ot.m (;A[.EN.k ASPEN. c.t)LOR tki,,8I0[I }p;,92i _'AST Mr. Steve Standiford Roaring Fork Energy Center 247. Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Re: 700 East Main Street Dear Steve: /Co- �A2ct( �,4X 77Z�)��cEcg9-- _—� gay-38'3� 5� � � C � u ►� `� �{ou 3E�1 We are submitting our project for the Preliminary PUD/Subdivision process now, and I would like to take this opportunity to tell you exactly how we addressed your energy concerns expressed during conceptual PUD. I am including prints of our building elevations so you can see how the glazing works. In addition, I have attached a copy of our glazing area survey for all East, North and West facing glass. Our current design has 3,141 SF of actual glass area on these faces, which is 6.17% of our floor area for the top three levels of all build- ings. As you know, we are also providing Low-E glass in all Non - South facing windows, which will further reduce energy consumption. The combination of Low-E glazing and half of the allowable non - south glass will make this project an exemplary one with respect to energy conservation. *The calculation sheet shows a possible future increase in non -south glass, which is currently on the boards. As you can see, the impact of this increase still has our total under 7% of floor area. With regard to water consumption, it is important to note, in response to your conceptual PUD comments, that our toilets will all be maximum 32 gallon tank sizes, and that our showers will all have maximum 3 GMP restrictions on them. Please call me if you have any questions on this or on the Preliminary PUD Application, when you receive it. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Michael Thompson AIA Partner MT:aa Enclosures PAX 7-n r' MAR 1 8 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD__.. L�': J� �-8�2" �-o �-Ce. ; 2•-`lY2 /o r`�.(�Xiu - Idl.� ��° 14 6-0 9 � 2-1 r% x 2-11'y �-G• M �• "o 'Z-40 x 5-0 2 /1-t.1-7y - 11e. 3 L r Jy2x� Zr%g I-o xCo-14 f 6• 2 314 2-0 x G • G ('7 SCE Q ;2-5'�53/4 J—ram'14 ��-g�V 3-0 r� 4 x 5 �� T ciC ?" % 57A//L Lf �i�i Z p>2 41,vr7S) �}O 5F g %Zo �7 9yC.17C5 yGTtl A L A�-4 'To7'A G TO7-A 4. zic t 7 _- GCuE�.S �, Z, 3 Au. 'r3urc.;7�N4js: SOS 89Cv. 5� Co. V7 irfzI54s( r= A��2�X . 230 � �7�AS5 = � . ? 2 �o . 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925.2867 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM: JIM ADAMSKI, HOUSING DIRECTOR DATE: April 14, 1988 RE: 700 MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION, EMPLOYEE UNIT REVISION BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a modification to the employee unit in the 700 E. Main Project. I have reviewed the drawings for square footage and bedroom count. The drawings do not have a scale on them but from what I can determine the square footage is approximately 750 - 800 net livable square feet, which is above the employee guideline for a one bedroom low income unit, which is 500 - 600 s.f.). HOUSING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Office recommended approval of the applicants modification to the employee unit number 18, with the condition that the rental rate be in accordance with the low income employee guideline, i.e., $.60 per square foot, up to 600 s.f. or a maximum of $360.00 per month including utilities. Further, that if the unit is rented by an employee of the project occup- ancy guidelines do not apply. The applicant must also pay $685,000 in payment -in -lieu fees for the remaining employee generation before the issuance of a building permit for the project. 0 n MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: April 14, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main Preliminary Residential PUD/Subdivision ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- In a memo dated January 7, 1988, the Engineering Department recommended that the detention structures described in the proposed storm drainage plan be designed by a registered engineer to insure that the historic level of the water table is main- tained. This recommendation was not addressed in the above application and the Engineering Department recommends that it be a condition of approval. In the Engineering Department's Stream Margin Review of this application, it was recommended that a registered engineer should verify that the riverbank on the east boundary of the site be protected from erosion. The above application adequately addres- ses this in both the areas of protection of the bank from construction and from erosion. jg/700main4 cc: Jay Hammond MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department Qi DATE: April 7, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and has the following comments: 1. The submitted plat does not conform to all of the requirements set forth in section 20-12 of the Municipal Code. 2. The Stream Margin Review plat that has been submitted does not have the high water line in the right location. 3. The submitted design shows a trash access grate and two wall or fence structures which encroach onto the public right of way. If an encroachment license for these is requested, the Engineer- ing Department will recommend against it. 4. The proposed five foot wide sidewalk which is adjacent to the curb along Spring and Main Streets needs to be redesigned so that there is a two foot space between this sidewalk and the curb for the purpose of sign placement. 5. We would also recommend that the sidewalk curb, and gutter alignment along Main Street be designed so that parking there can be maximized (see attached diagram). 6. The proposed location of the easement for the transformer/ utility pad is acceptable to the Engineering Department as long as the dimensions of this easement are at least 101x7'. 7. The proposed sidewalk on the north side of Original Curve needs to have a guard rail installed on the north side along the area where the bank drops off to the river. jg/700mainl cc: Jay Hammond Chuck Roth • c -4/4 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department 1�2 DATE: March 1, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main curb, gutter and sidwalk design. The Engineering Department would recommend that the applicant design the curb, gutter and sidewalk alignment on Main Street so that parking can be maximized. The attached diagram shows a design alternative which would create two more parking spaces than the existing alignment. jg/700main cc: Jay Hammond e x j � 1 I -A 7906.8x f� x 7882 B 7879 i 8 Pool — \ \' x7911.4 H E RRON i I 9,p x 7885.3 Propo d C PARK Exs7•�9 � x. 7905.0 301 - REE o0 \� I F- x7910.7 II I 7910.6 11 (VEAL x 7909.1 0 7 I ° - x )9/O a x L== IR—X- 0 DER .2x VENUE I x 7914.3 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department ('l DATE: February 24, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ This is in regard to a phone conversation with Rich Persky of the State Highway Department in Grand Junction in which we discussed the location of the guard rail on the north side of Original Curve. Rich indicated that the guard rail could be removed entirely and the curb could serve as a barrier to traffic provided the curb was at least 6 inches high and the edge of the curb was at least 20 feet from the centerline of the street. He also indicated that he would like the applicant to send a copy of the plans for this sidewalk to both he and Milt Cass, the State Highway Department supervisor of maintenance in Glenwood Springs. jg/grdrail cc: Jay Hammond 3) A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted with commitments for mature trees on site. Verification that the site can sustain these plantings shall be submitted at preliminary submission. 4) The corner park at Spring and Main Street shall be accessible to the public and shall include benches. 5) All sidewalks and curb and gutter designs provided at preliminary submission shall conform to Engineering Department specifications. 6) Detailed energy conservation information shall be submitted at preliminary submission in order to deter- mine actual savings. 7) The applicant shall work with the Engineering Depart- ment regarding necessary stabilization of the banks of the Roaring Fork River along the applicants property lines. Coordination of this work shall be accomplished prior to preliminary submittal. 8) The applicant shall submit a stream margin review plat at preliminary plat stage pursuant to the Engineering Department's memorandum dated January 28, 1988. CH.700 11 0 -+ Crnc�-P41A_r air" .. f . �.. b_Ab_ws .f �w i.•..•iwi� r ,.w a...w► i�•.f r..�'_ ►v..► concern t nat vss l uoa •)t eon nl,gt en vc�u l �l t,o �,reaervod . nt•.1 ! f,w In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The conceptual grading plan shows that there will be approxi- mately a 51 elevation gain from the Main Street view which will block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space features of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main where a relatively level view from Main Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The application states that this area is for pedestrian use but does not offer any detail with regard to providing sitting areas within this space. The Planning Office feels that this area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing of the develop- ment. In addition, if accessible to the public as passive park space, the area would be very valuable to workers in the area for lunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant. The additional public benefits of the 700 Main site design is the addition of sidewalks along Spring, Main and Neal Streets. The applicants propose to landscape within the public right-of-way and provide a river overlook and public seating area at Original Curve. This will extend the open space feeling of Herron Park. The bulk of the project is placed to the rear of the site adjacent to the Eagles Club. The proposed open space for the site offers approximately 55% open space when calculated with the proposed open space standards. The open space between the " and back buildings is approximately 70' and the closest stru to the Roaring Fork River is setback approximately 501. 6 �laY-� Y-\lV)C� (IJIVW,�U intensive residential use by permanent residents of the community since it is located in close proximity to employment and shopping areas. The Plan states that these areas should be used as a source for housing low income residents. The 1985 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element identifies a proposed pedestrian corridor along Neal Street. The applicant recognizes the need for sidewalks in this area and commits to providing them on Neal Street to the No Problem Bridge as well as along Main and Spring Streets. In summary, the proposal is consistent with adopted plans with regard to providing a multi -family development. The development, however, is not intended to be within a price range affordable to low ,income permanent residents of the community. The proposal commits to providing an identified need for a sidewalk along Neal Street. SUBDIVISION/PUD: The 700 Main site was designated as a PUD site because of its proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the concern that valued green spaces would be preserved. In general, the proposed site design retains the valuable public elements of the site with regard to views and buffer vegetation. Specifically, the site design preserves the vegetation corridor along the Roaring Fork River and its banks. The easterly view plane to the river area from Main Street is partially preserved as an undisturbed area. A sunken pool area and a recreational area will be located on the eastern front half of the parcel. The conceptual grading plan shows that there will be approxi- mately a 5' elevation gain from the Main Street view which will block any direct view of the swimming pool area from the public. This will provide an open, undisturbed view to the wooded banks of the river. Another open space features of the site is located at the corner of Spring and Main where a relatively level view from Main Street will be provided into a pocket park containing approximately 2,000 sq. ft. of landscaped green space. The application states that this area is for pedestrian use but does not offer any detail with regard to providing sitting areas within this space. The Planning Office feels that this area provides a visual break from the proposed front structures and massing of the develop- ment. In addition, if accessible to the public as passive park space, the area would be very valuable to workers in the area for lunch breaks, etc. In order to make the area accessible and encourage its use, benches and passive use spaces should be provided by the applicant. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant represented that the park is intended for public use and that outdoor furniture will be provided. C I�Nk-kC4 _R�' CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, hereby certity that on this /—) day of 198Y , a true and correct copy of the attached No ice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners a$ indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named'on the public notice. Nancy Caeti 1 1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 700 E. MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP PRELIMINARY PLAT/PUD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 19, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Marty Pickett, on behalf of her client, Fine Associates, requesting GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD approval. The applicant is proposing 17 free-market residential units, plus one employee unit. The property is located on the northeast corner of Main and Spring Street and is bordered on the west by the Concept 600 Building, on the north by the Eagles, on the east by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the Original Curve Condominiums. The land is located in the RMF Zone District and is approximately 60,016 sq. ft. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 227. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 31, 1988. City of Aspen Account. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 700 E. MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP PRELIMINARY PLAT/PUD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 19, 1988, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M., before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor, Old City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application submitted by Marty Pickett, on behalf of her client, Fine Associates, requesting GMP Preliminary Platt/PUD approval. The applicant is proposing 17 free-market residential units, plus one employee unit. The property is located on the northeast corner of Main and Spring Street and is bordered on the west by the Concept 600 Building, on the north by the Eagles, on the east by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the Original Curve Condominiums. The land is located in the RMF Zone District and is approximately 60,016 sq. ft. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925- 2020, ext. 227. s/C. Welton Anderson Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on March 31, 1988. City of Aspen Account. Aspn/Phkln Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81011 AV -17 0916CM Z-j F.-WD C t..-,AVE I-ANE - - 1,400 9769 A'S.1-11, ON MD A - SENDER A"cq- rp?,5— ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311 March 24, 1988 TO: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford, Director RE: 700 E Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 The RFEC was formed in Aspen by volunteers interested in promoting the conservation of natural resources. To this cause, we are pleased to see the elimination of all woodburning devices. Improving the local air quality while reducing the energy -inefficient use of natural resources is a commendable change in this development. The additional 16 hot tubs will result in a corresponding increase of energy use. We hope that foam covers will be used to prevent stand-by, evaporative losses (especially at night) and that the tubs will utilize high -efficiency heating systems to provide the hot water. Besides the addition of the extra hot tubs, the project seems to have the same energy features as the earlier submission. Please reference our opinions dated January 8, 1988 for further comments. ASF+EN*PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Bill Drueding - Zoning Enforcement Officer DATE: March 29, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main Restaurant GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Realizing this application is for preliminary approval, I have the following comments: 1) Should we address park dedication fees at this time? The employee unit may be exempted if City Council takes that action. Section 20-18(7) 2) Section 29-3.7(3) and 24-3.7(6) relate to the setback requirement. I can't tell from the renderings if they have been considered. 3) The preliminary plans are insufficient at this time to verify F.A.R. and height. Advise the applicant that the Building Department will hold to the totals represented. 4) Does Section 24-2.6, Land Under Water apply here? Or, is there any vacation of land by the city? Sec. 24-2.5 WD: to offices: 517 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3O3/525-5573 mail address: 50S East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81S'11 ASPEN♦PITKIN ENVIRLMENTAL HEALTH OEPAA*ENT MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Department From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director T�I-) Environmental Health Department Date: March 15, 1988 Re: 700 E. Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- This office performed a review of this submission during the GMP process in 1987. After a review of this submittal dated March 10, 1988, this department has no other comment beyond those offered in a memorandum dated December 17, 1987. In fact, concerns noted in 1987 memorandum have been addressed in the 1988 Preliminary Plat/PUD submittal. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: March 1, 1988 RE: 700 E. Main curb, gutter and sidwalk design. The Engineering Department would recommend that the applicant design the curb, gutter and sidewalk alignment on Main Street so that parking can be maximized. The attached diagram shows a design alternative which would create two more parking spaces than the existing alignment. jg/700main cc: Jay Hammond - -7 94.8 x 7906 8x W.L. x7882.8 7879 ;; I8g I - I I Pooh x7911.4 H ERRON 9 7885.3 grope d c PARK Exis-t,Kj STREET x 7905.0 30 1 e9 \ o � �9 00 ---------, � _— � 790�x 2 ;�- — ------ \ \FOR It I I �� � \ x 7910.7 t � I DER 2x 791Q__ l i \ '------------- -- 7910.E i I NEAE "VENUE x 7909.1 ' t x 7910.6 ' _ 0 7 I x 7914.3 �9/p x � L _ W i I W I � / t � I � t I - - t x 7913.8 x 7913.4 J�► n I i a x I x7917.1 x7 6.3 7915.9 x AVENUE x7916.4 � X It w i MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department City Electric Department Environmental Health Parks Department Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Transit State Highway Department (Glenwood) Zoning Official Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Cindy M. Houben, Planning Office RE: 700 E. Main Residential GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD Parcel ID# 2737-073-27-002 DATE: March 10, 1988 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Marty Pickett on behalf of his client, Fine Associates requesting GMP Preliminary Plat/PUD approval. The applicant is proposing 17 free-market residential units, plus one employee unit. The property is located on the north east corner of Main and Spring Street and is bordered on the west by the Concept 600 Building, on the north by the Eagles, on the east by the Roaring Fork River and Herron Park and across Main Street by the Original Curve Condominiums. The land is located in the RMF zone district and consists of 60,016 square feet. Please review this material and return your comments no later than April 8, 1988 in order for this office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z. Thank you. 4 _A ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S_ Galena Street Aspen, 00 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date:y RE. 76*0 Dear 1 1 This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the� captioned application_ We have determined that your application /ISM NOT complete_ L Additional items required include: Disclosure of Ownership (one copy only needed) Adjacent Property Owners List/Envelopes/Postage (one copy) Additional copies of entire application Authorization by owner for representative to submit applica- tio n Response to list of items (attached/below) demonstrating compliance with the applicable policies and regulations of the Code, or other specific materials A check in the amount of $ A.. Yodr application is ,comp =I to and we have scheduled it for review by the P(� 1 on `i tti-' We will call you if we need a additional information prior to that date_ Several days prior to your hearing, we will call and make available a oopy .of the memorandum.. Please note that it your responsibility to post your property with a �NOT n, which we can provide you for a $3.00 fee. B_ Your application is incomplete, we have not scheduled it review at this time_ When we receive the materials we have. requested, we will place you on the next available agenda_ If you have any questions, please call / the planner assigned to your case_ Sincerely, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 2� ;As TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager �GVV FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director RE: Allocation of Residential Quota DATE: March 7, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that you adopt Reso- lution $, awarding 14 units to 700 E. Main, 4 units to 925 E. Durant and no units to 771 Ute Avenue. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On February 22, 1988, the Council reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission scoring of the three projects submitted for 1987 Aspen residential growth allotments. You were informed that all three projects submitted exceeded the minimum threshold, but insufficient allotments were available to meet the applicants' requests. You decided to award 14 units to the 700 E. Main project, 4 units to the 925 E. Durant project and to decide tonight on the 8 unit request by 771 Ute Avenue. BACKGROUND: At the last meeting we presented to you the calculation of available quota, as is required of us by the Code. Since that presentation, it was pointed out to us that the Copper Horse and Alpina Haus have not formally been changed in use from lodge to residential, because their employee housing deed restrictions will not be finally recorded and in effect until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the new hotel. Therefore, following is the final, accurate calculation of quota available to the competitors: Original quota available: 39 units Deduction for units built: -30 units Addition for allotments expired: +3 units 1987 available quota: 12 units While 12 units was also the number we reported to you at the last meeting, the big difference is that these are available without borrowing into the future. As you may recall, previously we told you that the twelve units had to come from the so-called "minimum 30% rule" (Section 24-11. 3 (k)), requiring that a minimum number of units be available for competitors if the quota is used for GMP exemptions which must be deducted from the available quota. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Since there are twelve units available this year, and 26 units were requested, the Council would need to borrow 14 units from the future to accommodate the other projects. At the last meeting, you decided to borrow 6 of these units, meaning that the 14 unit application by 700 E. Main and the 4 unit application by 925 E. Durant have been addressed. This action is reflected in the attached resolution. At the last meeting we also reported to you that the Code only allowed you to borrow a maximum of eight units from the future to address this year's requests. It was this statement that caused you to table action on the 771 Ute Avenue request, since there appeared to be only 2 additional units available to this project, leaving it six units short of being able to be built. Section 24-11.3 (b) of the Code, which deals with "multi -year" or "future year" allotments, reads as follows: "The city council may (but need not) grant a development allotment for an entire project to be constructed over a period of years provided that each year during the scheduled construction the annual allotment provided for in Section 24-11.1 shall be reduced by the amount of construction permitted by the approval." Based on discussion with the City Attorney, we conclude that this provision does not apply to the situation in which we find ourselves this year. The 771 Ute project is not intended to be built over a period of years; instead it is intended for complete construction right now. If the applicant agreed to build a portion of the project in 1988 and a portion in 1989 then the Council could award the units requested pursuant to this section. The only reason that we are looking to borrow into the future at all is that growth in 1987 on previously subdivided lots and from employee housing was significant (30 units), and the Code requires that these units be accounted for, leaving us with a limited number of units to award. The fact that this is not enough units to meet all of the applicants' requests is one of the difficult realities of having a growth management system. The Code recognizes, however, that in a particular year the Council might want to authorize construction in excess of the the number of units available, because of the quality of the projects submitted or for other special circumstances. Therefore, Section 24-11.3 (a) was written, stating the following: "In awarding development allotments in any given year, the city council may authorize construction in excess of the maximum number of dwelling units, lodge units or commercial and office square footage specified in section 24-11.1 by as much as twenty (20) percent for dwelling units, twenty-five (25) per cent for commercial and office square footage and thirty three (33) per cent for lodging units ( rounded up to • • the next whole number); provided that any such excess development be off -set by reduction in successive years such that every fifth year the total construction within the previous five (5) years shall not be in excess of the cumulative total permitted by section 24-11.1." The Planning Office therefore concluded that 200 of 39, or 8 additional units were available for allotment this year, of which you have already awarded six units. We remain convinced of this position, and continue to recommend that no more than this number of units be awarded this year. ALTERNATIVES: At the last meeting, the representative of the 771 Ute Avenue project pointed out to you that a 26 unit lodge allotment was granted to this site which the applicant is prepared to build if this residential allotment is denied. It was argued that the residential project has fewer growth impacts than the lodge, and the 26 units would be returned to the lodge quota, helping to make up for prior borrowing in this sector. The neighbor, the Aspen Alps, also pointed out to you that they prefer the residential project as compared to the proposed lodge. These arguments are good ones which we will not try to dispute. However, there is another side to the question of what may be the best use of this property. This is the issue of community balance, which is one of the cornerstones of our growth managment policy plan, and is certainly relevant when discussing trading off one quota for another. Many people in the community have pointed out to us that over the past ten to fifteen years, there has been an attrition of small lodges in Aspen. The most recent such presentations were made by Bill Kane in support of the Little Nell project and Joe Wells in the current Ritz -Carlton submission. While we certainly do not agree with all of the numbers therein, or the growth conclusions reached, it is nonetheless true that many small lodges have been demolished or converted to other uses during the 1970's and 80's. We know it is up to the private sector to decide which use is best for a property, within zoning limitations. However, we would like to do whatever is possible to encourage the con- struction of small, high quality, new lodges in Aspen, since all of the recent lodge development has been reconstruction/small additions. The Lodge at Aspen is the only approved small, new lodge in Aspen, and is one of the few remaining vacant sites in the lodge district where such a facility could be built. We recognize, though, that the design for the lodge may not be quite as effective as that for the more recent residential project. If you decide not not award the applicant the residen- tial units, we request that you authorize staff to work with the building plans for the lodge to incorporate the best features of the residential application, without having to take this applicant through another public review process. u We would also point out that with recent approvals for 14 units at 700 E. Main, 4 units at 925 Durant, 4 units at 700 S. Galena, and 3 units at Summit Place, plus the six units recently built at 700-712 E. Hyman, there is certainly not going to be a shortfall in the kind of townhouse product proposed by 771 Ute Avenue. Given all of the above findings, following are the alternatives available to Council: 1. Do not award any units to the 771 Ute Avenue project. 2. Determine that because of unique circumstances assoc- iated with this site, it is in the best interests of the community to award a residential quota to this project in return for the applicant giving up the prior 26 unit lodge allotment. The result would be to grant the allotment from the 1988 quota, the year it is to be built, pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (b), and direct the staff to clarify this section of the code as part of the Ordinance 5 public hearing process. 3. If the applicant agrees to build the project over a period of two years, then a multi -year allotment for the 8 units could be granted pursuant to Section 24-11.3 (b) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that you not award any units to the 771 Ute Avenue project and adopt Resolution 8 , as written. resquotadecision • March 2, 1988 Martha Pickett Suite 3800 One United Bank Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: 700 East Main Dear Marty: This letter is to confirm that I have received your letter dated February 24, 1988, and to acknowledge that I generally agree with your representations. I would like to add the following: 1. Sidewalk Commitment: I agree that the details of the sidewalk commitment were not discussed at conceptual review and that the Engineering Department did not raise the specific issue of placement relative to the guard. I also agree that the project was scored because of its commitment to provide the additional sidewalk. This is a typical level of review at the con- ceptual level. At the preliminary level the Engineering Department may have additional concerns which need to be adequately addressed relative to the sidewalks. 2. The Water Interconnect: You noted in your letter that the interconnect on Main Street was determined to be of limited value to the neighborhood by the Engineering Department. The interconnect was actually determined to be of minor significance by the Aspen Water Department. 3. Handicapped Access: I concur that it appears that adequate handicapped access is provided on site, however, this must meet building code regulations which is the applicant's responsibility to verify at the time a building permit is requested. In addition, the Planning Commission or the City Council may request additional handicapped facilities at preliminary or 0 • Marty Pickett March 2, 1988 Page 2 Final Plat review. 4. Energy: Your letter clearly expressed my position on the be submitted at Preliminary Submission. At 4 yesterday, however, I told you that I would applicants representations of Energy demands of and send the application to Steve Standiford at Fork Energy Center for his review. This was to applicant to submit at an earlier date. At our meeting yesterday I told you several issues. These are as follows: 1. Amendments and Timing: material to ,ur meeting accept the the project the Roaring enable the that I would look into In order for the applicant to include individual hot tubs in some of the units and to snowmelt the pool area they must request an amendment to their GMP application pursuant to Section 24-11.7(b) of the Land USe Code. After reviewing the schedule it appears that we would not be able to get on a Planning Commission agenda until the time that you are anticipating preliminary review. Therefore, I suggest that you include the amendment request as part of the Preliminary Submission. This request should have a representation by the applicant regarding the energy and site design scoring items. In addition to the amendment request for the hot tubs and snowmelt, the applicant should also be requesting an amendment regarding the park at the corner of Spring and Main Street. It is my clear understanding that the appli- cants represented that the corner would be accessible to the public. This is represented in my memorandum to the Planning Commission dated January 19, 1988 and in condition #4 of that memorandum. In addition, I have attached and high- lighted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting where this issue was clarified. If it was the applicant's intention not to provide an area which is accessible to the public then an amendment request must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and I suggest that this request be made in conjunction with the other amendment requests at the time of preliminary submission. 2. Encroachment permit: The applicants must obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Dept. This is an issue which is normally handled as a separate issue with the Engineering Dept. Please Marty Pickett March 2, 1988 Page 3 contact the Engineering Department regarding the submission requirements for an encroachment permit. This information may be included as part of your preliminary submission if you wish. However, the encroachment issue is taken to the City Council whereas the Preliminary submission goes before the Planning Commission. Thus, depending on your timing situation the applicant may wish to make a separate application to the Engineering Dept. I would like to thank you for continuing to work closely with me on this project. I would like to express concern, however, that there are quite a few players on the applicants team. I request that for the remainder of the process either you, or someone you designate become the only person that I deal with directly. My fear is that unnecessary misunderstandings may occur if too many people are asking for my advise relative to various special interest. I do not mind meeting with the architects, planners or anyone else, however, I do request it that either you or another designated individual be present at those meetings. If this is a problem please let me know as soon as possible. Once again, thank you for your continuing assistance. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, Cindy Houben, Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office ch.martyl GAL• S, KRAMER, GRIMSHAW & HA•NG A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS SUITE 3800 ONE UNITED HANK CENTER ��(� O 1700 LINCOLN STREET L.Lr DENVER, COLORADO ao203 TELEPHONE (303) 839-3800 ' (TELEGOPI ER: 303-031)-3630) MARTHA C. PICKETI' February 24, 1988 (303) 839-3702 Ms. Cynthia M. Houben Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 700 East Main Dear Cindy: This letter is to confirm my understanding of issues we discussed and clarified in my meeting with you and Joe Wells on February 22, 1988. The following points were resolved: 1. Distance from Slope You understand that the building c;psest tp t3e rover is set back approximately 40 feet from the river and 50 feet from the river center line. 2. Sidewalk Commitment Joe raised the point that the engineering department is now taking the position that the sidewalk along original curve on Main Street should be on the inside of the guardrail, away from Main Street right-of-way. In addition, there have been comments from the engineering department that they would like to require a heated sidewalk. Joe reiterated that these conditions are not part of our commitment. You agreed that Fine Associates' commitment to provide this sidewalk has not been conditioned upon the location in relationship to the guardrail or heating. Your review of the engineering department's comment letter confirmed that the department gave the project three points and such scoring was not conditioned upon these new requests. It is our understanding that Fine's sidewalk commitment remains as stated in the GMP and PUD application. 3. Water Interconnect Joe submitted a copy of the letter which he wrote to Jim Markalunas, Director of the Aspen Water Department on • • Ms. Cynthia M. Houben February 24, 1988 Page 2 January 19, 1988. This letter was also part of our submission to the P&Z at the public hearing at conceptual review. A copy of the letter is attached which confirms with Jim the City's preference to have the water interconnect located in the garage to provide required sprinkler service to the garage. Our previous proposal to interconnect the existing water main on the south side of Main Street with the main on the north side of Main Street, was determined to be of limited benefit to the neighborhood by the engineering department. 4. Handicapped Access We clarified for you that the areas designated as elevator space in each individual unit are provided so that an elevator may be added as an owner option. However, the courtyard has handicapped accessibility off of Spring Street, and the pool and recreation facility have handicapped access via an elevator from the garage. These are acceptable provisions for a private residential development. 5. Energy To meet the condition regarding energy, you verified that we need to provide Steve Standiford, of the Roaring Fork Energy Conservation Center, with whatever information he needs to prepare an energy audit. A letter from Steve approving the energy detail will be sufficient for our preliminary submission. Cindy, please call me if you have any different interpretation of the above issues or to add any additional comments you may have. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in working with us on this project. Sincerely, CALKINS, KRAMER, GRIMSHAW & HARRING Mar ha . Pickett /mz-s 10324.001 Enclosure c: Fine Associates Joe Wells • 19 January 1988 Mr. Jim Markalunas Director, Aspen Water Department HAND DELIVER Dear Jim: As you know, we met with you sometime ago to discuss the 700 Main Project and to determine improvements to the water system which would benefit the neighborhood as well as our property. Upon further consideration of our proposal to interconnect the existing water main on the south side of Main Street with the main on the north side of Main Street which we are extending to the east, you have concluded that this element of our proposal is of limited benefit to the neighborhood because the lines are already interconnected further west. We have now discussed with you the manner in which service will be pro- vided to the project in more detail in order to clarify this aspect of our project. At present, we anticipate providing service from the south off of the extended Main Street line and service from the north off of the Bleeker Street line serving the Eagles Club and Creektree Condominiums; these two lines will be interconnected in the garage to provide required sprinkler service to the garage. You have suggested that if we relocate the isolation valve that we have proposed to add in the Main Street line to the Bleeker Street line to the west of the Eagles Club, that this would improve service to the neighborhood by providing backup service to the Eagles and Creektree. We are prepared to relocate the isolation valve in order to better improve water service to the neighborhood. Regards, Joe Wells G I concur that with this clarification, the water service for the neighborhood is improved. � 1 Jim Markalunas 14;�ctor, Aspen Water Service CITY OFASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 February 22, 1988 Michael Thompson, A.I.A. Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 So. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 700 E. Main Project Dear Michael: Concerning the 700 E. Main project and the sidewalk to the No Problem Bridge, I wonder if you could help us with a detail. When the bridge was constructed, one of the bid alternates was to face the wing walls and abutments with red river rock which we had gathered. The Council did not want to spend the extra money for this detail, so we used the rock to line the drainage ditch alongside Neal Avenue, from Original Curve to the bridge. When the sidewalk is constructed, I would like to salvage the red river rock and stock pile it in a parking space at Heron Park for future use. (If you could employ them in your work in that area, it might look quite nice). We could have one or two people present at the time of construction to assist. Thanks for you consideration. Sincerely, ffalw� Chuck Roth Assistant City Engineer CR/co/Letter25.88 cc: Planning Office Jim Gibbard • 1�TA 19 January 1988 Mr. Jim Markalunas Director, Aspen Water Department HAND DELIVER Dear Jim: As you know, we met with you sometime ago to discuss the 700 Main Project and to determine improvements to the water system which would benefit the neighborhood as well as our property. Upon further consideration of our proposal to interconnect the existing water main on the south side of Main Street with the main on the north side of Main Street which we are extending to the east, you have concluded that this element of our proposal is of limited benefit to the neighborhood because the lines are already interconnected further west. We have now discussed with you the manner in which service will be pro- vided to the project in more detail in order to clarify this aspect of our project. At present, we anticipate providing service from the south off of the extended Main Street line and service from the north off of the Bleeker Street line serving the Eagles Club and Creektree Condominiums; these two lines will be interconnected in the garage to provide required sprinkler service to the garage. You have suggested that if we relocate the isolation valve that we have proposed to add in the Main Street line to the Bleeker Street line to the west of the Eagles Club, that this would improve service to the neighborhood by providing backup service to the Eagles and Creektree. We are prepared to relocate the isolation valve in order to better improve water service to the neighborhood. Regards, Joe Wells I concur that with this clarification, the is improved. Jim Markalunas �-—D4;�ctor, Aspen Water Service water service for the neighborhood • 171 HU 11 4 1 �\167i)„� TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Steve Burstein and Cindy Houben, Planning J2 Office RE: Residential Quota for 1987 Applications DATE: February 22, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that lCity Council allocate fourteen units from the 1988 Residential GMP Quota to the 700 Main project. QUOTA CALCULATION: The annual quota for residential development in Aspen is 39 units. According to the quota system, the following calculations- must be made to determine the number of allotments available for competitors. 1. Deduct any excess allotments awarded in prior years. There were no such allotments made in prior years to be deducted. 2. Add any unused development allotments which were carried over from prior years. There were no such allotments to be carried over, since by Resolution 21, Series of 1987, Council eliminated the unallocated 39 units from the 1985 and 1986 quotas. 3. Deduct any phased allotments granted in prior years. There are no such allotments to be deducted. 4. Deduct the net number of units added to the residential inventory during the prior year as a result of GMQS exemptions. In 1987, there was a net increase (new construc- tion minus demolitions) of 30 residential units via exemptions. For the record, an additional 9 units were built from previously allotted projects, which are not required to be deducted from the quota. Additionally, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges were deed restricted to affordable housing in 1987. This means that a total of 57 lodge rooms were removed from the inventory, and are to be added to the L-1/L-2 quota, as per Council's prior dec- ision. This also means that 89 employees have been housed in dormitory accommodations which, at the maximum rate within the City's housing guidelines of 8 persons per dorm unit, equates to 1 • 12 new dorm units from the change in use. The total number of units to be deducted from the quota is therefore 30 plus 12, or 42 units. 5. Deduct any units awarded to meet the requirement that a minimum of 30% of the original quota be available. There were no such awards made during the prior year. 6. Add any units which have expired in the prior year. The Gordon/Callahan project, submitted in 1984, expired in 1987. There were 3 allotments granted to this project. Summarizing, following is the number of units remaining in the quota for this year: 39 units - 42 units + 3 units = 0 units. Since Section 24-11.3 (k) requires that a minimum of 30% of the original quota be available for competitors, the quota must equal 39 x 0.3, or 12 units. Therefore, 12 additional units must be made available for 1987 from the 1988 quota, meaning that the 1988 quota will start at 27, not 39 units. REQUESTED ALLOTMENTS: Competitors for this year's allotments have requested a total of 26 units. All competitors met threshold requirements (above 31.8 points) in scores by the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 1988, as summarized below. Tally sheets for each project are attached. Project 700 Main 925 E. Durant 771 Ute Avenue Units Requested 14 4 8 Total GNP Scores 40.62 pts. 37.0 pts. 36.0 pts. Since only 12 units are available from the quota, City Council must decide whether or not to award excess allotments to one or more of the projects. Section 24-11.3(a) of the Municipal Code is the applicable provision and reads as follows: "In awarding development allotments in any given year, the city council may authorize construction in excess of the maximum number of dwelling units... specified in Section 24- 11.1 by as much as twenty (20) percent for dwelling units;... provided that any such excess development be off- set by reduction in successive years such that every fifth year the total construction within the previous five (5) years shall not be in excess of the cumulative total permitted by Section 24-11.1." Therefore, Council is given discretion to grant allotment for an 2 additional 8 (7.8 rounded to the nearest whole number) residen- tial units, meaning that a maximum of 20 units could be awarded this year. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Following are arguments in favor of excess allotments. Attached you will also find letters from Wayne Ethridge, representing 925 E. Durant, and Sunny Vann, represent- ing 771 Ute Avenue, supporting allotments to their projects. 1. If the project has already met the competitive threshold, is there any purpose served by requiring the project to submit in the next year? All three of the projects significantly exceed the competitive threshold of 60%. 2. The actual growth rate in residential units within the City of Aspen during this decade has been below the allowed quota. The only occasions in which we have exceeded the quota were in 1980, as a result of Castle Ridge, and last year, due to the single family/duplex construction and conversions of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges to employee housing. 3. Last year the City decided to eliminate 39 units which were previously unallocated. Had these units been carried over, there would be adequate units to meet this year's requests. 4. The respective projects provide the following benefits to the community: a. The 700 Main project received the highest score in the 1987 residential competition. This project did very well in the scoring categories of quality of design and improvement to public facilities and services. Both staff and P&Z evaluated 700 Main to be a high quality multi -family project. b. In the case of 925 E. Durant Townhouses, the applicant would build four units and contribute $226,000 as cash in lieu for employee housing. By right, without GMP allocation but with a lot split, the applicant could build one duplex and one single family house, or three total units. The combined floor area for this scenario could total 6,840 square feet, compared to 10,430 square feet in the proposed four-plex. If the duplex were condominiumized, under the proposed code provi- sions employee housing cash contribution would be approximately $11,175. The project scored well in the quality of design categories of neighborhood com- patibility (2.2), site design (2.25) and trails (2.3). C. The 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project would result in a nine unit residential building with 19,680 square feet, 3 • compared to a 26 unit lodge with 22,660 square feet approved for the site (Lodge at Aspen, as amended in 1986). The residential project has less bulk, more open space, and architecture with articulation of smaller scale massing elements. The employee housing commitment for the residential project is $240,000 compared to on - site employee housing in the lodge consisting of 1 one - bedroom and 1 dormitory housing 9.75 employees. The project scored generally well in the quality of design categories of neighborhood compatibility (1.9), site design (2.1), energy (2.6) and trails (3). All of the projects offer notable cash contributions for employee housing. A public/private partnership creating dormitory housing is the Housing Authority's highest priority. With the help of the substantial employee housing cash -in lieu contributions, the dormitory project can hopefully be soon realized. Arguments against award of excess allotments include: 1. One principal reason for eliminating the 39 unallocated units last year was the City's decision to not provide further opportunities for new subdivisions, given the growth we anticipated in residential development which is exe from the competition requirement, along with anticipated lodge development. We were correct in projecting the level of single family/duplex growth in 1987 and can now expect significant lodge development in 1988. There is also a strong indication that the single family and duplex construction in 1988 will be another "banner year." In summary, even though the residential growth rate over the last ten years has been lower than the allowed quota, Aspen has experienced significant residential construction in 1986 and 1987. And 1988 is projected to continue this current trend for a third consecutive year, when construction of major lodge projects is anticipated to begin. It would be unwise to do anything to further fuel the growth rate for the next several years. In fact, we should be working diligently to reduce our growth rate in all sectors at this time while we seek to implement solutions to our affordable housing and transportation problems. 2. When we were evaluating whether or not to award a multi -year allotment to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Little Nell projects, one justification was that development in the residential sector had been below the quota, leaving some slack in our planned growth rate. If we accelerate our residential rate at the time we are experiencing the accelerated lodge development, we will undermine the rationale for granting the prior multi -year allotments. 4 3. Allocation to these projects reduces the quota available to residential projects which may be more advantageous to the community and will be submitted in future years. 4. Making the decision on future year allocation based on employee housing cash -in -lieu would place too high a priority on money offered the public compared to the other considerations in our growth management system. The City should be assured that projects maximize improvements to the quality of public facilities and services, maximize the quality of design, and are located in the most propitious places. In addition, the high sums of money offered are not necessarily unique to this year's projects. The level of cash contributions proposed in the 1987 competition could be proposed in the 1988 competition as well. RECOMMENDATION: There are very clearly two sides to the issue of I future year allocation of residential units. The 700 Main project was the top scorer in three categories of the competi- tion and must receive the 12 available units. Allocation of only two more units to allow the total project to be built minimizes the redundancy and hassle of future year competition. Phasing would have the disadvantage of disrupting the neighborhood over a longer time period. We recommend that you use 2 units from the excess allotments to complete this project this year. The Planning Office does not support any excess allotments beyond these two units. The Planning Commission recommends that an additional four units be awarded to the 925 Durant project, for a total of 18 units being allotted. Since the 771 Ute Avenue project needs 8 units and only two other units could be awarded, the Planning Office and Planning Commission both recommend the award of no units to this project. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission recommends the following motion: "Move to direct the staff to draft a resolution allocating 14 units to the 700�kain project and four units to the 925 Durant proje t.' T e Pikgng in "6:fice recommends the following alternative motion: "Move to direct the staff to draft a resolution allocating 14 units to the 700 Main project." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: res.quota87 5 CZTY OF ASPEN •1P. Iry� �•� r•,-�^ 1' 'r•��r•�C.D'I'J� •- �1 C 1 1 • • 11 1. Public Facilities and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service 2 _1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 e. Parking Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ 2 f. Road 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 1 _ 2 SUBTOTAL 12 10.5 11 11 11.25 10.5 12 11.17 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 Compatibility _ b. Site Design 2 3 3 3 2.5 2 3 _ c. Energy 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ 3 e. Green Space 3 3 2 2.5. 2.5 2 _ 2.5 SUBTOTAL 13 14.5 12.5 13.5 13 11.5 13 13 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public Transportation b. Community Camrnl Facilities 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4. Ehployee Housing (20 pts) a. Low Income 10 8 10 10 _10 _100 10 b. Moderate Income C. Middle Income - SUBTOTAL 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 9.7 SUBIUPAL CAMOORIM 1-4 41 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 41_ 39.87 5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 2 0 0 0 1.25 0 2 .75 TOTAL POINTS 1-5 43 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 43 40.62 • 0 VANN ASSOCIATES Planning Consultants February 10, 1988 HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council % Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes Residential GMP Application Mayor and City Council: This letter is submitted in support of Mr. Kent Shodeen's request for a growth management allocation for. his proposed 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project. Mr. Shodeen's project was one of three applications submitted for consideration in the 1987 residential GMP competition. Although the P&Z scored the project sig- nificantly above the minimum required threshold, the available residential quota is insufficient to enable Mr. Shodeen to receive an allocation. In fact, there is insufficient quota to meet the needs of the project which received the highest score. The lack of available quota is due primarily to the number of single-family and duplex structures which were exempted by right from the GMP process _during 1987, and to the conversion of several older lodges to employee housing which was approved in connection with the approval of the Aspen Mountain Lodge. As a result, only two (2) units remain for allocation from the 1987 residential quota. The Code, however, does provide in such circumstances that a minimum of twelve (12) units be made available, provided that these units are subtracted from future years quotas. In addition to the ten (10) units which are automatically borrowed from the future, the P&Z recommended that an additional two (2) units be borrowed in order to provide sufficient quota for the project which finished first in the competition as well as four (4) units for the project P.O. Box 8485 - Aspen, Colorado 81612-303/925-6958 0 • Mayor and City Council February 10, 1988 Page 2 which finished second. The P&Z made no recommendation with respect to Mr. Shodeen's project, which finished third and only one (1) point behind the second place finisher. As you may recall, thirty-nine (39) unallocated units from the 1985 and 1986 quotas were eliminated by the City Council during the summer of 1987. Had these units been retained, sufficient quota would be available for all three projects, and the necessity of borrowing from the future to allow even the first place project to build without phasing would be eliminated. The staff's prin- cipal reason for recommending the elimination of the prior years' quota was the anticipated amount of exempt residen- tial construction in 1987 and the amount of projected lodge development in 1988. While we believe that the rationale for eliminating the unallocated units is debatable (e.g., the majority of the projected lodge development has already been accommodated by prior years' quotas and the conversion of existing lodges to employee housing), the issue is admittedly esoteric and obviously more than a little subjective. Consequently, instead of debating the appropriateness of the available quota, we would like to point out several compelling reasons why we believe Mr. Shodeen's project should be awarded an allocation. These reasons are summarized below. 1. The project site presently has a GMP allocation for a twenty-six (26) unit lodge which Mr. Shodeen is prepared to construct should he be unsuccessful in his request for a residential quota. Upon receipt of a eight (8) unit residential allocation, he will relinquish the twenty-six (26) unit lodge allocation which will be credited to the available 1988 lodge quota. 2. Mr. Shodeen's property will be developed. However, the impacts associated with the development of a nine (9) unit residential complex are, in our opinion, considerably less than those associated with a twenty-six (26) unit lodge. 3. The proposed residential project was designed to improve upon the prior lodge approval. It is less dense, smaller and preferable to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, it provides more desirable open space and • 0 Mayor and City Council February 10, 1988 Page 3 more architectural relief to adjacent development. 4. The score which the residential project received from the P&Z significantly exceeds minimum threshold requirements as well as meets the Planning office's recommended scoring criteria for the award of future years' allocations. Scores which meet a minimum of sixty- seven (67) percent of the points available are deemed to be of sufficient quality as to not require resubmission in order to achieve significant project improvements. S. Having met and exceeded applicable scoring criteria, no significant benefit or public purpose would appear to be served by requiring the project to compete again this year. 6. With the proposed merger of the L-1 and L-2 zone districts to create the new L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residen- tial zone, Mr. Shodeen will no longer be able to compete in the residential GMP competition. As a result, the project would most likely have to be significantly revised in order to compete successfully in the lodge competition. 7. The actual growth in residential units in recent years has been significantly below that which is allowed under growth management. Similarly, the impact on the City's growth rate resulting from impending lodge develop- ment has been offset by the fact that the majority of the units which have been approved were borrowed from previous years quotas. The effective lodge growth rate has been further reduced as a result of the recent conversion of several older lodges to employee housing and the subse- quent crediting of the available lodge quota. In summary, the basic purpose of the growth management plan is to control the rate and quality of the City's growth. As a result of the prior approval of the lodge, development of Mr. Shodeen's property will inevitably occur. The issue here, therefore, is not growth but rather the kind of development that will occur and the quality of the project. We believe, and representatives of the neighboring Aspen Alps agree, that the proposed nine (9) unit residential project will have significantly less impact than the approved lodge, and that the project is of significantly greater quality in terms of architec- tural design and neighborhood compatibility. Given Mr. Shodeen's inability to compete in the City's future Mayor and City Council February 10, 1988 Page 4 residential competitions, we believe it would be unfor- tunate for all concerned if the lodge were to be built because of an artificially imposed lack of available, residential quota. Erased on the above, Mr. Shodeen respectfully requests that the City Council give thoughtful consideration to his dilemma and award a sufficient residential allocation to allow the development of the proposed 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project. We would be most happy to work with the staff in order to establish an appropriate methodology to accomplish the above objective within the provisions of the Municipal Code. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, VANN.ASSOCIATES_ Sunny VaRtZ AICP M� SV:c cc: Kent Shodeen • 0 GROUNDWORK BOX 3863 ASPEN, CO 81612 February 12, 1988 Honorable Bill Stirling, Mayor Councilwoman Pat Fallin Councilman Michael Gassman Councilman Tom Isaac Councilman Bill Tuite City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 FFB ! Z RE: 925 E. Durant Townhomes Residential GMP Submission Dear Mayor and Council: As you are aware, the 925 E. Durant Townhome development consists of four units on four Aspen Townsite lots (F, G, H and I, Block 119). The property is zoned R/MF and is currently vacant. The purpose of this letter is to summarize the public benefits which will result from development of the site through the GMP process. In a "normal" year, this letter would not be necessary, since at the January 26th meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, the 925 E. Durant project received an excellent score of 37 points and was recommended for an allocation. In addition, the project received preliminary plat approval. The unusually low residential quota of twelve units available for the 1987 competition requires the Council to allocate six units from future years under the provisions of Section 24-11.3(a) of the Code in order to allow construction of the two projects recommended for allocation by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: The 700 E. Main development, which requested fourteen units, and the 925 E. Durant development, which requested an allocation of four units. At this time, it is unclear what position the planning staff will take in regard to the award of excess allocations for our project. It is clearly your right to allocate up to eight additional units for 1987, provided that those units are deducted from the annual quota over as a five year period. In a memo to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission dated January 12, 1988, Alan Richman stated arguments for and against excess allotments. The "for" arguments were essentially as follows: 1. Is any purpose served by requiring a project to recompete if it has met the competitive threshold? 2. The actual residential growth rate in Aspen during the 80's has been below the allowed quota. 3. There would be no need for the award of excess allotments had the City Council not eliminated thirty-nine • 0 unallocated units in the fall of 1987. The "against" arguments were: 1. The proposed code will requires a -project to receive 67% of the available points, exclusive of employee housing, to be eligible for a future allocation, and that unless a project has met the level of quality expressed by a score of 67% of the available points, a public benefit would be derived by requiring re -submission. 2. Acceleration of the residential construction rate at a time when lodge development is accelerating would undermine the rationale for granting prior multi -year allotments. 3. Rather than further fuel the growth rate, the City's goal should be the reduction of the growth rate in all sectors pending resolution of existing transportation and employee housing problems. Using Alan's pro -con analysis, it is apparent that the 925 E Durant Townhomes development qualifies for an allocation. Specifically, the Townhomes score of 25.5 points received in GMP scoring categories 1 through 3 exceeds the 19.8 threshold requirement by 29 percent and is indicative of the quality of the townhome development. Consequently, no public benefit would be derived by re -submission in 1988. As Alan indicates, residential growth has been below quota, to the extent that thirty-nine unallocated units were eliminated in 1987. The projects' score of 25.5 points easily exceeds the suggested 22.1 (67%) point threshold score for future allocation for the 1988 competition. Since the project has demonstrated its ability to compete in both the 1987 and 1988 competitions, it follows that Alan's first "con" argument is inapplicable to this project. In fact, Alan infers that if a project meets or exceeds the suggested 1988 score, no purpose would be served by re -submission. Alan argues that the city should leave "...some slack" in the planned growth rate in the residential sector. The city has in fact created considerable slack by eliminating thirty-nine potential units. The granting of an allocation to 925 E. Durant will not result in acceleration of the residential growth rate since the four units granted to the project must be deducted from subsequent year's quotas. There appears to be ample justification to award the quota to a project which has demonstrated its quality, particularly since there will*be no adverse effect on Aspen's growth rate. The last'"con" argument Alan made was that the City's housing and transportation problems require immediate attention. The 925 E. Durant Townhome development has agreed to provide $226,000.00 as a cash -in -lieu contribution for employee housing. This contribution represents the largest percentage cash -in -lieu contribution received by the Housing Authority and is an extraordinary contribution for a -four unit project. Even if very conservative lending practices are assumed, the $226,000.00 contribution could be used as a 25% downpayment to create a $904,000.00 employee housing development, or the Housing Authority could merge the contribution with that of 700 E. Main to create a debt -free $911,000.00 employee housing project. Clearly, the contribution of $226,000.00 by the 925 E. Durant Townhome development can do a great deal to solve the city's employee housing problem. It is additionally important to note • that the townhomes will create few, if any transportation problems. The development is located within easy walking distance of transportation routes and the City's Commercial Core. All owner and guest parking requirements are met on site and the existing alley is used for access, assuring that existing parking on Durant Street will not be affected. It should be noted that the 925 E. Durant property .is entitled to two units (a duplex) on the existing four lots without the necessity for any process beyond a building permit. Additionally, the lot split provisions of the Code would allow the site to be developed on two new lots, with a duplex on one and a single family residence on the other. While it is clearly to my client's benefit and the benefit of the City to use the GMP process, it is a fact that there is a gain of only one unit through the GMP process if it is assumed that the lot split process would create three units. The city is obviously in a win -win situation with the 925 E. Durant Townhomes project. Through the grant of an allocation of four of the eight units available to the council from future year's allocations, the council assures receipt of a large contribution to the cash -in - lieu employee housing fund, significant public improvements, and the elimination of four units from future quotas, only one of which is a "new" unit. In summary, the 925 E. Durant Townhomes project was very well received by the Aspen -Planning and Zoning Commission, to the extent that the project was recommended for an allocation from future year's quotas, and five of the seven P&Z members felt the development deserved bonus points for its quality. The project's score easily exceeds the 1987 threshold and the recommended 1988 score for future allocations. The City Council has the opportunity to help solve the community's employee housing problem and improve the East Durant neighborhood through the grant of essentially one more unit to the 925 E. Durant Townhomes than would be available through the existing lot split provisions of the code. I look forward to discussing the townhomes project with you on February 22nd, 1988. Sincerely, yours, Wayn Ethridge Groundwork WE/jsr cc: Steve Burstein Cindy Houben MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein and Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Residential Quota for 1987 Applications DATE: February 22, 1988 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends that City Council allocate fourteen units from the 1988 Residential GMP Quota to the 700 E. Main project. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council allocate 14 units to the 700 E. Main project and 4 units to the 925 E. Durant project. QUOTA CALCULATION: The annual quota for residential development in Aspen is 39 units. According to the quota system, various calculations must be made to determine the number of allotments available for competitors. This year we are directed by the Code to deduct the net number of units added to the residential inventory during the prior year as a result of GMQS exemptions. In 1987, there was a net increase (new construction minus demolitions) of 30 residential units via exemptions. Additionally, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges were deed restricted to affordable housing in 1987. This means that a total of 57 lodge rooms were removed from the inventory, and are to be added to the L-1/L-2 quota, as per council's prior dec- ision. This also means that 89 employees have been housed in dormitory accommodations which, at the maximum rate within the City's housing guidelines of 8 persons per dorm unit, equates to 12 new dorm units from the change in use. The total number of units to be deducted from the quota is therefore 30 plus 12, or 42 units. Since Section 24-11.3 (k) requires that a minimum of 30% of the original quota be available for competitors, the quota must equal 39 x 0.3, or 12 units. Therefore, 12 additional units must be made available for 1987 from the 1988 quota, meaning that the 1988 quota will start at 27, not 39 units. ADVISORY COMMISSION VOTE: The Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded their scores of the three 1987 residential GMP projects and recommended additional future year allocation of two units to the 700 Main project, the top scorer. In a second motion P&Z also recommended allocation of four units to the 925 E. Durant Townhouses project, the second scorer. No recommendation for 1 a 0 • allocation was made for the 771 Ute Avenue Townhouses project, the lowest scoring. Subdivision reviews and recommended conditions of approval were completed for all three projects. Conceptual review of 700 Main will be discussed by Council tonight. Ensuing final subdivision reviews by Council for 925 E. Durant and 771 Ute depend upon Council's decision on future year allocations. EXCESS ALLOTMENTS: Competitors for this year's allotments have requested a total of 26 units. All competitors met threshold requirements (above 31.8 points) in scores by the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 1988, as summarized below. Tally sheets for each project are attached. Project 700 Main 925 E. Durant 771 Ute Avenue Units Requested 14 4 8 Total GMP Scores 40.62 pts. 37.0 pts. 36.0 pts. City Council must decide whether or not to award excess allot- ments to one or more of the projects. Section 24-11.3(a) of the Municipal Code is the applicable provision and reads as follows: "In awarding development allotments in any given year, the city council may authorize construction in excess of the maximum number of dwelling units... specified in Section 11.1 by as much as twenty (20) percent for dwelling units; ... pro- vided that any such excess development be off -set by reduction in successive years such that every fifth year the total construction within the previous five (5) years shall not be in excess of the cumulative total permitted by Section 24-11.1." Therefore, Council is allowed to grant allotment for no more than 8 residential units from a future year quota. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Attached you will also find letters from Wayne Ethridge, representing 925 E. Durant, and Sunny Vann, representing 771 Ute Avenue, that state their requests for future year allocation and supporting reasons. Following are arguments in favor of excess allotments. 1. If the project has already met the competitive threshold, is there any purpose served by requiring the project to submit in the next year? All three of the projects meet the competitive threshold proposed in the new code of 60%, as well as 67% which would be needed to be eligible for future year allocation. 2. The actual growth rate in residential units within the City 2 of Aspen during this decade has been below the allowed quota. The only occasions in which we have exceeded the quota were in 1980, as a result of Castle Ridge, and last year, due to the single family/duplex construction and conversions of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges to employee housing. 3. Last year the City decided to eliminate 39 units which were previously unallocated. Had these units been carried over, there would be adequate units to meet this year's requests. 4. Qualities of the respective projects are such that develop- ment is beneficial to the community; and the decision to withhold a future year allocation would probably eliminate them from any future consideration. a. The 700 Main project received the highest score in the 1987 residential competition. This eighteen unit project did very well in the scoring categories of quality of design and improvement to public facilities and services. The employee housing program consists of one on -site unit and a cash -in -lieu contribution of $685,000. Both staff and P&Z evaluated 700 Main to be a high quality multi -family project. Phasing of the three structures was not considered. b. In the case of 925 E. Durant Townhouses, the applicant would build four units and contribute $226,000 as cash in lieu for employee housing. By right, without GMP allocation but with a lot split, the applicant could build one duplex and one single family house, or three total units. The combined floor area for this scenario could total 6,840 square feet, compared to 10,430 square feet in the proposed four-plex. If the duplex were condominiumized, under the new code employee housing cash contribution would be approximately $11,175. The project scored well in the quality of design categories of neighborhood compatibility (2.2), site design (2.25) and trails (2.3). C. The 771 Ute Avenue Townhomes project would result in a nine unit residential building with 19,680 square feet, compared to a 26 unit lodge with 22,660 square feet approved for the site (Lodge at Aspen, as amended in 1986). The residential project has less bulk, more open space, and architecture with articulation of smaller scale massing elements. The employee housing commitment for the residential project is $240,000 compared to on - site employee housing in the lodge consisting of 1 one - bedroom and 1 dormitory housing 9.75 employees. The project scored generally well in the quality of design categories of neighborhood compatibility (1.9), site 3 0 • design (2.1), energy (2.6) and trails (3). All of the projects offer notable cash contributions for employee housing. A public/private partnership creating dormitory housing is the Housing Authority's highest priority. With the help of the substantial employee housing cash -in lieu contributions, the dormitory project can hopefully be soon realized. Arguments against award of excess allotments include: 1. The Code does not allow Council to allocate the units! 2. The new Code would require a project to receive 60% of the available points to exceed the competitive threshold and 67% of the points to be available for future year's allotment. While all three projects received in excess of 67% of the available points, the new rules may encourage even higher quality projects next year to ensure that the subsequent applications are successful. Thus, allocation to these projects may eliminate the possibility of residential projects considered more advantageous to the community being submitted next year. 3. When evaluating whether or not to award a multi -year allotment to the Aspen Mountain Lodge and Little Nell projects, one justification was that development in the residential sector had been below the quota, leaving some slack in our planned growth rate. If we accelerate our residential rate at the time we are experiencing the accelerated lodge development, we will undermine the rationale for granting the prior multi -year allotments. 4. one principal reason for eliminating the 39 unallocated units last year was the growth we anticipated in residential development which is exempt from the competition require- ment, along with anticipated lodge development. We were correct in projecting the level of single family/duplex growth in 1987 and can now expect significant lodge development in 1988. There is also a strong indication that the single family and duplex construction in 1988 will be another "banner year." In summary, even though the residen- tial growth rate over the last ten years has been lower than the allowed quota, Aspen has experienced significant residential construction in 1986 and 1987. And 1988 is projected to continue this current trend for a third consecutive year, when construction of major lodge projects is anticipated to begin. 5. Future year allocation this year will probably lead to future year allocation next year, fueling the growth rate of high -end residential projects when we know that housing is not going to be available for all of the workers required 4 for the planned projects. 6. Making the decision on future year allocation based on employee housing cash -in -lieu would place too high a priority on money offered the public compared to the other considerations in our growth management system. The City should be assured that projects maximize improvements to the quality of public facilities and services, maximize the quality of design, and are located in the most propitious places. In addition, the high sums of money offered are not necessarily unique to this year's projects nor are they guaranteed to be paid. The level of cash contributions proposed in the 1987 competition will likely be proposed in the 1988 competition as well. While the applicants hope to build their projects, as we know from other projects, there are no assurances they will be built within the next three years or a longer time period with extensions. RECOMMENDATION: There are very clearly two sides to the issue of future year allocation of residential units. The 700 Main project was the top scorer in three categories of the compe- tition. Allocation of only two more units to allow the total project to be built minimizes the redundancy and hassle of future year competition. Phasing would have the disadvantage of disrupting the neighborhood over a longer time period. The 925 E. Durant project can be perceived to have nominal increased density over that allowed by right while contributing to the City in employee housing cash -in -lieu and arguably overall project quality above a "by -right" project. The 771 Ute project of nine units has generally improved in design over the lodge project, as viewed by P&Z and the Planning Office, and would also result in more employee housing cash. Its density in terms of bedrooms has decreased (18 residential bedrooms compared to 26 lodge bed- rooms) . Overall, the Planning Office believes that it is inappropriate to allocate mor residential units from the 1988 quota. Future year allocation c nflicts with the Code as presently written. It tends to fuel growth. And it represents a heavy reliance on the sum of employee housing cash contribution offered when there are still design problems with the 925 E. Durant and 771 Ute projects that may be acceptable but do not make them exemplar projects, in our opinion. If Council agrees with 1-i-s, the appropriate motion is: "Move to grant future year allocation of fourteen (2) units from the 1988 residential quota to the 700 Main project and do not grant more residential allocations to the other competitors in the 1987 residential GMP competition". CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: res.quota87.2 61 ��• • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY • SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECEIVED FF }s�S10 Ie� 650 CAPITOL MALL .7ti?Q SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814-4794 \� REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 17, 1988 Regulatory Section Ms. Martha C. Pickett Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw and Harring One United Bank Center Suite 3800 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Ms. Pickett: I am writing to you regarding the proposed development at 700 East Main Street in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The proposed residential development would be located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. On February 16, 1988, Mr. Gary Davis of this office conducted an on -site field investigation to determine whether wetlands were present on this site. Based upon this field review, we have determined that the only wetlands present occupy a very narrow (approximately five (5) feet) band of riparian cottonwood trees (Populus angustifolia) immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Provided you do not discharge dredged or fill material into this area of riparian cottonwood trees, a Department of the Army permit would not be required. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Davis at telephone (303) 243-1199. erely, Gra �-L-. cNure Ohief, Re ulatory Unit 4 764 Ho ' on Drive, Room 211 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-8719 Copy Furnished: Mr. Gideon Kaufman, 315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305, Aspen, Colorado 81611i rya. n:� r'.• r ►. r• by V F411 •: '• 1 •V •: V M IN Project: 700 Main P&Z VOTIM NMEMEEIRS Ramona Jasmine R Weltcn DE vid Mari Jim Average 1. Public Facilities and Services (12 pts) a. Water Service 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 _ b. Sewer Service 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ c. Storm Drainage 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 d. Fire Protection 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ e. Parking Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 f. Road 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.75 1 2 SUBIVIAL 12 10.5 11 11 11.25 10.5 12 11.17 2. Quality of Design (15 pts) a. Neighborhood 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 _ Compatibility b. Site Design 2 3 3 3 2.5 2 3 c. Energy 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 _ d. Trails 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ e. Green Space 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 SUBTOTAL 13 14.5 12.5 13.5 13 11.5 13 13 3. Proximity to Support Services (6 pts) a. Public 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ Transportation b. Community Coitmtl 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Facilities SUBTOTAL 4. Employee Housing (20 pts) a. Low Income 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 b. Moderate Income c. Middle Income SUBTOTAL 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 9.7 SUBTOTAL (ATD30RIES 1-4 41 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 41 39.87 5. Bonus Points (5.3 pts) 2 0 0 0 1.25 0 2 .75 TOTAL POINT'S 1-5 43 39 39.5 40.5 41.5 38 43 40.62 PZM1.19.88 700 MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION Cindy Houben from the Planning Office: This is a stream margin review. The applicant has taken into account all the criteria in stream margin review. They are keeping the development away from the most easterly portion of the site. There is a nice open view to the river corridor from Main Street. There is a sense of open space as you are coming into town around Original Curve. They have kept the bulk of the development to the back of the property to allow a sense of open space. There is a wide amount of public right of way between the property line and the street corner. The applicant has committed to a sidewalk down to No Problem Bridge which helps the area. The Planning Office is basically happy with the site design. There are 41 parking spaces underground. There are 4 parking places which are left along Spring Street. All of this works on the site and it is commendable that the parking is underground. It makes for a visually nice site design. The basic requirement in the RMF zone district has been met and exceeded in certain cases as far as site coverage. I don't think that we have any major concerns. Regarding employee housing: I feel that in this case it is even more significant because the 1973 Comprehensive Plan designates the site and the area is residential multi -family site for high density use and also it should be used for low income housing. There were only 4 sites in town that were designated back in 1973 as areas that might be appropriate for permanent resident population, high density scale and multi -family use. We are recommending that the employee unit be exempt from the growth management process. We also believe that the unit because it is provided in a low income level should not be allowed to be rented by an employee of the project unless they are a low income employee. There is basis in having the guidelines to allow commercial lodge projects waiver on this but we don't find any precedent for that as far as the residential is concerned. Gideon: We have devised a plan that respects the special features of the site. The first issue of the site is the proximity to the Roaring Fork River. The plan preserves the view from the park as well as from Main Street. The eastern most portion of the site is in proximity to Herron Park. We tried to continue that park -like feeling. We tried to be a transition from the massive street scape along Main Street to the Park and to the River. The bulk of our E:3 0 • PZM1.19.88 project sits 65 feet back from the curve. The front part of the project is 3 feet and more below the maximum height that is allowed and we tried to create a smaller scale on Main Street. It is a mandatory PUD which means we had flexibility. We could have sought more. Instead the developer tried to seek less--20% or over 10,000 sq ft less than allowed to build. Most of the height of the buildings is below code. Open space and green space all exceed code requirements. Only 32% of the site is covered with buildings. We are relocating transformers and putting them where they are less noticeable. We added trails. We have eliminated all wood burning devices and we have greatly exceeded the code requirements for cash -in -lieu payments. Larry Yaw: One of the key factors in the site design is the amount of open space. From a community standpoint the open space offers transition and relief from movement along Main Street. The zoning requires 35% open space. We have exceeded that to 55% of the site. The building footprint only occupies 32% of the site. That leaves 68% undeveloped. The code allows us over 50,000 sq ft of FAR. We have used only a little over 40,000 sq ft. The heights of the buildings are less than the required code. We have placed the majority of the units back away from Main Street and just a few up front. There are no fireplaces or wood burning devices in this project. We have left an open space at the corner which is 55' X 70' to preserve the existing Cottonwood trees and create a park by providing park -like benches. The placement of these buildings also provides an important transition from a 4 and 1/2 story building at the end of the Concept 600 down to 2 and 1/2 stories and finally to merge with the open space. Along the Main Street frontage there is over 300 feet. We have only used 1/3 of that. We have extended the natural form here and landscaped it for visual privacy. We have provided over 500 ft of sidewalk along the property line and an additional 300 ft to connect with the pedestrian access to No Problem Bridge. We have provided open space continuing from Spring Street to Main Street. The parking ramp is over 200 ft away from the curb and is snowmelted. The refuge collection area is kept in the lower level except for periods of collection. Joe Wells: Discussed several points regarding employee housing questioning whether we should be reconsidering our employee housing commitment at this late date, the applicability of the 1973 Land Use Plan, the consistency of our proposal with current regulations and housing guidelines and to take issue with the Planning Offices's position that the authority exists to change Ic L u PZM1.19.88 our proposal given the consistency with current regulations and guidelines. The 1973 Land Use Plan which is now 15 years old includes a series of policy statements and maps. The Planning Office failed to bring your attention to the fact that twice in the plan itself there is a confirmation that the intended useful life of the plan was only until new zoning code and zoning district maps could be adopted. The zoning code and zoning district map was adopted in 1974. "The plan is 'Co serve as a guide to the Aspen Planning Commission in reviewing applications for building permits until and only until a new zoning code and a new zoning district map are adopted." Cindy pointed out to you that under a residential multi -family area designation, it was the intent that those areas would be a source for low income housing. In our opinion that does not necessarily mean a site for low income housing. We feel that we are still in compliance with that language even if the Land Use Plan did apply by virtue of our cash -in -lieu contribution of $685,000. C We note that this on -site employee housing requirement has not been applied to other projects that have been developed in the area since that plan was adopted. That plan has been abandoned on the Rio Grande property which is an adjacent site to our site that has the same designation in that plan. We don't believe that it is appropriate to apply to us at this late date. In 1985 the City gave developers the option of satisfying the housing requirement by means of the cash -in -lieu payment. It is not, as has been suggested by the Planning Office, optional to the City. It is optional to the developers. That is evident by both the provisions of the GMP Regulations as well as the 1987 Housing Guidelines which were adopted in April of 1987. We are in complete compliance with the current Land Use Regulations in regard to employee housing. We have received the approval of the Housing Authority for our proposal and, as Jim Adamski has confirmed, the number one priority established by the City in its adoption of the housing guidelines is to provide housing for the MAA students as well as seasonal employees and we feel that our cash -in -lieu contribution goes a long way toward getting that started. Under what source the City would have to force us to change the proposal when we are consistent with current regulations, the Planing Office seems to be relying on fraud authority under either PUD or subdivision regulations to require an optional 0 • PZM1.19.88 solution and appears to be willing to concede that that authority does not exist under GMP Regulations. By virtue of being designated a mandatory PUD we fall under the PUD regulations. Otherwise we would not be a PUD because we are totally consistent with the underlying zoning. However, the mandatory PUD section focuses strictly on environmental concerns as areas to be reviewed and the PUD in general focuses on site design and architectural considerations. At no point is employee housing discussed as a basis for review of PUD. The ability to force changes under the subdivision regs are, in our opinion, equally doubtful. Section 20.9 which has to do with suitability of land for subdivision states that no subdivision shall be approved which includes elements that are not in conformance with any applicable zoning ordinance but we are in compliance with all applicable zoning ordinances. Larry Yaw: The GMP is the only process by which employee housing has contributed to and paid for by the private sector. It is also a process that requires a very exacting design inclusion of precise set of commitments that demonstrate merit. You sit in judgement in competitive projects and you need and use an exacting set of requirements to evaluate them. So last Friday after working for 3 months with the Planning Office, they are requiring 5 additions on -site employee housing units. Let me tell you why this action, and particularly if it translates to procedure makes design physical planning literally impossible in the context of a GMP. As you know design is an activity that starts and identifies criteria, objectives and it proceeds through an arduous design process which translates all that into beneficial physical design. If you mod or mix the on -site employee housing versus cash -in - lieu as unidentified by factor or public policy, it is virtually impossible to reconcile those design issues to a level required by GMP. Our commitment here was to provide housing for 34 employees which we did. The only way that I know of to reconcile that in a physical planning sense is to create literally 34 different scenarios and mixes of on-site/off-site and free market units. To anticipate something that doesn't at this point that has not even been identified as policy. The Planning Office happened to pick 5 more employees. I don't know what criteria was chosen or if there was one. But I submit again that it was late and with the chance of being somewhat arbitrary. The concept of GMP provides a tool for better community planning. The concept of a roving employee housing policy is absolutely contradictory to that policy. I find it interesting or also contradictory that the Planning Office has held my feet to your 11 PZM1.19.88 fire in terms of exacting GMP compliance in such matters as bench location, lines and sidewalks, stair treatment while at the same time it has requirements to somewhat arbitrary ruling as to the amount of employee housing on site. We are striving, you are striving to create projects that maximize public benefits with tight and restrictive sites. Aside from the generosity of that gesture, it gets us project that could be built. That planning is an exacting endeavor --an exacting commitment. We can't even sharpen our pencils without having established standards for employee housing on or off - site. Gideon: We have a lot of rules and regulations in Aspen. We are strict in our codes but we also strive for fairness. One of the things we have, done is we have tried to set up procedures to make this difficult process fair. We have worked on this project for 4 months. During that period of time we have had many meetings with the Planning Office who made suggestions to us on the project that we have incorporated into this design process. All through that time not a single mention was made to us about our on -site employee housing or cash -in -lieu. At 5:00 Friday afternoon when we come to pick up the memo is the ( first time that we are told about this after a 4 month process of design and development in working together. How did we get our employee housing basis? We worked with the Housing Office. We were told what the number one community priority was on employee housing. And we went ahead and implemented that. There is nothing wrong with cash -in -lieu. Let me remind you of something. In 10 years of residential GMP, before cash -in -lieu, we got less than 5 units of disbursed employee housing. There are problems enforcing it and we weren't getting any. So we decided to try something else--cash-in-lieu. Cash -in -lieu we all know is going to need time. And David is right. You guys had a problem with cash -in -lieu. But the City Council chose to adopt it and so we have to live with what they have adopted and what applies to us. We are greatly exceeding the code requirements. I don't see why we should have this imposed on us at the last minute. The 1973 Planning Office interpretation of the Master Plan wasn't applied to anybody else in the neighborhood. Why should it be applied to us now? To me it is a question of fairness. I would like to read you a quote. "I think that what happens now is that you are doing a disservice to the applicant for this year's residential GMP because I don't think it is anywhere clear in the code. While it would be a good thing to get employee housing on - site, the applicants are going to turn around and say how can you 12 PZM1.19.88 do this to us now? And I think they would have every right to say that." Jasmine's quote says everything that echoes my feelings at this particular point in time. Jim made a very important point at that last meeting. He said there are no standards for accepting cash -in -lieu. We have identified that we have a problem and we really agree with you that it is a problem. But you can't set standards now. You can't sit down when an application is in front of you and decide at this point in time that this is the standard that is going to apply. The code is clear. It gives the option to the applicant. Cindy: It is important to remember that this is the conceptual level of plan. This is not final plans. Alan: We brought this up the way we did for 2 reasons. Number 1 because of the comments made to us by the Planning Commission last Tuesday when we were considering amendments to the new code and number 2 because when we review applications doing our detail review, Cindy looked at the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan which we are required to do. When she looked at that plan she discovered the designation on that plan of this site as a source of lcw and moderately low income housing. CWe wish that 3 months ago we had identified this site as the way it was designated on the Land Use Plan. We didn't. It is unfortunate that we were unable to identify for the applicant months ago. But Cindy makes a point. This is conceptual PUD. It is the first time you are reviewing the application. If this isn't a time for negotiation between the Planning Commission and the applicant, I don't know when it is. I don't think we are too late simply because we didn't notice this in pre -application. The real point here is to go back and look at the record as to what we wrote when we wrote the cash -in -lieu option and whether we do have the capability to apply cash -in -lieu option. (Reading from memo to Council at the hearing that adopted cash -in -lieu) "Providing this option puts the City in position where it has more choice and flexibility in how our housing needs can be met. But never requires that the City accept the cash -in -lieu that any developer that is not in the Community's best interest at that point in time." From the minutes --"Richman told Council the cash -in -lieu provision is an option --not something Council has to accept. An applicant can propose cash -in -lieu and Council can make a determination that the cash -in -lieu will not get them to their housing goals. Richman said there is nothing in the provision 13 • • that requires them to accept." we made. PZM1.19.88 Those are the key comments that You, as a planning commission, have an obligation to determine the need for the kind of housing an applicant is proposing. If you don't believe that the need is there --the $685,000 in cash. But if you think the need is there for a certain amount of housing on -site, I think you have every basis in Section 24- 11.10. And the City Attorney advises me to tell you that you have the legal authority to request that housing to be on -site. I think in terms of PUD regulations you absolutely have the authority. The very first section of PUD--Section 24-1.2 says "Developments which are presented to you must be in accord with the Master Plan". The bottom line is the 1973 plan is the most up to date one that we have. It is the adopted plan of the City of Aspen. Your decision should be in accord with that plan. You should have housing on this site. Gideon: Alan is right. When you go back and look at the minutes like Alan looked at and maybe he made that representation. But what is adopted in the code is what we have to read and what we have to abide by. We are in compliance with the Land Use Code because we are contributing to that. It really comes down to a situation where you have decided that maybe the cash -in -lieu benefit doesn't work. I really don't think that at this particular time on this particular project that it is appropriate. Let's not lose sight of the fact that you are getting a very important cash -in -lieu contribution. One that greatly exceeds what we are required to give and one that is strongly supported by the Housing Authority. Just as zoning matters are delegated to you, housing matters should be delegated to them. Jim Colombo: I don't understand why we have a Housing Commission who was charged with the responsibility to decide what the problems, solutions and applications of the employee housing are and what the solution should be. And yet we get different recommendations from the Planning Department which I don't believe spends as much time with those housing issues as the Housing Authority does. Is our Planning Department talking with the Housing Authority? And if they are, why can't you guys come up with something which you both agree on before you get it to us and to the applicant? Alan: The housing office is not required to look at the Aspen Land Use Plan. We are. We are working with the Housing 14 • 0 PZM1.19.88 Authority on an adoption of the housing element so that the Planning Office and the Housing Authority will have the same plan for housing in the future. We don't at the present time. We are on the same philosophical bent. The Housing Authority is pushing for as much cash as it can get so that it can produce units. We are sympathetic with the position that I heard several members of the Commission voice last week which is the cash -in -lieu is a wonderful option. I wrote the program, I endorse the program strongly. However, it is an option. It is not the only way the problem can be solved. What we are suggesting is the amount of cash we get here is somewhat less than the cost for production. We are not suggesting no cash. We are not suggesting trying to produce housing for 34 people by this development. That would be outlandish. We are suggesting some compromise that we think that is reasonable based on the fact that there is additional density. Jim: Is it unreasonable for me to assume that the Housing Authority with your help should have a full perspective of the entire problem and should work on that problem with a whole approach to it both in land use and in housing? Otherwise why should we have a Housing Authority that deals with nothing more than putting beds up and pillows down and putting people in them? Alan: The Housing Authority on a case like this is a recommending body. They are a referral agency. They are an agency that makes a suggestion of conditions which we bring to you and which you will bring to the City Council. The Housing Authority is no more than a recommending body. They are what is called the City's Housing Designee. They have been designated by the City as the expert on housing. Jim: Can I make a suggestion that what you should do is educate the Housing Authority what the concerns are that you have. I am not saying that they should have the same recommendations as you. There is going to be a difference of opinion. That is fine. But we seem to have a total different concept of where employee housing should be going between the Planning Department and the Housing Authority. Alan: Neither Jim or I would agree with that at all. We are about as close as you can possibly be. Jim Adamski: We work very closely together. We are implementors. We implement financing mechanisms. We implement production. We work with the developer at pre -conferences. We talk about the needs. We disagree with some methods. Our methods are based on pragmatism. If you look at our Board and 15 0 0 PZM1.19.88 see who sits on it, you will see that there is the appraisal side, the attorney side and land development. We feel that to fill the goals and objectives that the City Council has stated that we need to do this through cash -in -lieu in this time and space and not scattered sites. If we had wanted to scatter sites we would have recommended scattered sites. We are trying to produce units for employees. That is our goal. Larry Yaw: If you want production, give these guys the financial support they need. There are objectives that have been se:. They don't have the money to do that stuff right now. Give this policy and these guys a chance to go from concept to production. If the projects in GMP are prepared to support that via the cash - in -lieu --don't cut it off at its knees. Welton opened the public hearing for public comment. There was none and Welton closed the public hearing. Gideon: For clarification --Cindy said that the 5 bedrooms can just be added. Under current zoning that is not the case. There is an underlying land requirement that would prohibit that. There is double FAR in that zone district. We don't have enough underlying land to have 5 bedrooms. Michael: The code itself is clear and although the notes to the City may have said that they were going to have a choice, the ordinance does not say that and the ordinance is the law. The ordinance says absolutely it is up to the applicant. There is no place in the ordinance that says it is up to the applicant subject to the approval of the Commission or the City Council. I think they have satisfied the code and I think it is fundamentally unfair as well as possibly illegal to turn around at this point and say to them "Now by complying with the code you have not complied to our satisfaction and you are not going to get your approvals". MOTION Roger: I would like to move that we move off of employee housing considerations at this time and go back to subdivision. Welton: With the 3rd project it is not a question. We can solve this right now for both of these projects. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. W1 0 • PZM1.19.88 Roger: Basically I like the project very much but there are a few technical things and it has to do with parking and access to the project. There is an inconsistent designation where in one place there is called a guest/service parking and another is titled arrival parking. I need a clarification of what you call guests. Arrival parking to me connotates a lodge type of operation. Larry: The services now call it arrival parking. If someone has a question about where to go that is why we put the employee housing up there and this parking right next to it as well as postal service deliveries, packages --it all goes to one source then it is distributed throughout the project. Roger: My concern is that on a project of this size that there is not sufficient non-resident guest parking. My suggestion is to add some parking on Main street for a short portion where you could get somewhere between 5 and 8 spaces. My only other concern on the project is the activity in the area of Bleeker and Spring Street where you have the Creek Tree Drive coming in more or less opposite Bleeker. Then add to it with the planned additional use of this area in the future from so-called Spring Street extension. Is there anything you can do to help relieve a potential problem in that area? Larry: The driveway is placed a distance away from Main Street to avoid traffic conflict. It has a 20 to 30 foot waiting area so that when a car comes up he has plenty opportunity to stop and look clearly both ways. This whole thing was conceived to avoid putting more traffic problems on Main Street than were there. There is currently a curb cut there. We thought that in the interest of traffic planning that by eliminating curb cuts and traffic movements there by consolidating them on the Spring Street side that we were actually creating a parking and traffic plan in conformance with the ideas of safety and traffic planning. This is the solution which the Engineering Department preferred. We doubt that 17 units will generate more parking needs than the 45 spaces we have provided underground even with guest parking. David: A concern of mine is we don't have enough parking in the City and just for parties and things like that where people would park. Along with Roger I would make that a point with the Engineering Department. George Wier: About 50% of the cars there have been setting there 6 weeks or so. They are just parked there and left. The rest of 17 0 • PZM1.19.88 them belong to County employees. They park there and walk up to the Courthouse. Jasmine: I think the project looks very attractive. It has been identified as a high -density area for permanent residents. I just don't think that this will be affordable to most current permanent residents of Aspen. This represents a second home market rather than long term local permanent residents. I am concerned that this is a piece of land the intent of which was that it is a desireable spot for permanent residents who would have more need of using the kind of support facilities available nearby. People who buy a 3/4 million dollar second home tend to have maids go to the supermarket for them and they don't come here to do their own vacuuming. They require a lot of people who will do these support services for them. It seems it would be desireable from a marketing standpoint to have availability of some support people on site to service the kind of people who are going to living in this project. Roger: I think the Project should be addressed as East Main Street. Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept.: I was concerned about stream margin because I don't think the Engineering Department has commented and I know there is a problem. There has been a loss of trees in the river during high water in recent past years when we got our flooding problem. We would ask the applicant to consider doing something to stabilize the banks so that no more trees are lost. George Wier: Having lived there for 40 years, there has been 2 trees lost or washed out on that bank. In other words they are permanently anchored in rocks and the water coming up there don't really wash. And even when the water is clear over that flat down there there is not enough pressure to do harm. Chuck: There was 1 that went within the last 3 years. George: That was because of some kind of movement that the City was in there on that pipe up there to put water pipe in there. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the conceptual sub- division stream margin review exemption from GMP for the employee housing units approval for the 700 East Main Project with the following conditions: Conditions 1 through 6 to be identical to the Planning Office memo dated January 19, 1988. (Attached in 0 PZM1.19.88 records) New condition 7 shall read "Applicant shall correct project address from Main to 700 East Main Street. New condition 8 reading 'The applicant shall deal with the stabilization of the river bank to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. Gideon: That is committing us to something we have never even had an opportunity to discuss. Welton: It shouldn't be a problem. Roger: If it is a problem with the Engineering Department, we should deal with it right now. Gideon: I would like to reserve the right to bring that issue back here. David seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Welton: Do we want to deal with this employee housing question now or after dealing with the 3rd subdivision which does not have any problem with this. It is obvious we are not going to get to the GMP scoring tonight. Jim: I support the cash -in -lieu program and I think that the Housing Authority's recommendation is the one I would prefer to take. I think that more can be done for this community in a more continuous type of housing for the employees by the cash -in - lieu program. I also challenge the real compatibility of 3/4 million dollar townhouses being comparable with 1-bedroom low income employee housing. The main philosophical problem I have is that I wish the Planning Department could work in an architectural office during the creation of one of these projects. I completely agree with the architects on this problem. If you say you have to put employee housing in at this late date it becomes financially impossible for a project to exist. Alan: I think this will be the last time we will have this problem because of the new code. We are separating conceptual subdivision and GMP. The competition will not happen in conceptual anymore. This is a perfect case of why we are making that recommendation. Jim: I think the idea of fairness becomes the issue. The inappropriateness of this being given to the applicants on Friday is not fair in my opinion, nor correct. Welton: What we want to do here to resolve this question is to 19 PZM1.19.88 poll the Commission as to how they feel after hearing the oratory from the applicants and the Planning Office. Roger: I think it is unfair to the applicants so I have to agree with the applicants. I agree with the concept that there should be a mix of housing on -site and where appropriate cash -in -lieu. I would be in favor of accepting these applications as they are in this case and we will get on with it next year as far as correcting the problem. Mari: Alan, has a rule been changed or is it just that there was an assumption made on the part of the developer that the option was at the developer's discretion rather than the City's discretion. Is it clearly in the code? Alan: The rule has not been re -written since it was adopted in 1986. Mari: So the language is in the code. Alan: We feel comfortable -- Welton: Is it clear that it is the City's option and not the applicant's option? Alan: As clear as it could be. Mari: Then I don't think the rules have been changed. Gideon: The cash -in -lieu section says it is the applicant's option. Roger: That is why I am in favor of the applicants in this case. David: I think that fairness is definitely the question. However, we as a Commission did not favor the cash -in -lieu. And many of you developers out there have known that. We are responding to a problem and I think that we as representatives of the community are committed to do that. So I am siding with the Planning Office in this. Jasmine: I would agree that the language in the code is sufficiently imprecise that it is not clear to an applicant what the situation was. I do think that it is unfair except that none of the applicants ever even thought about the possibility of production for the units. They never asked either. Obviously they didn't want to have to produce the housing let alone on - site. PA 9 0 PZM1.19.88 I don't think it is surprising to anybody that a developer who is putting up expensive homes would rather pop out $20,000 per employee and consider it generous. But I don't think that is fair to the community. When you talk about fairness or unfairness what are you going to say to the people who buy those homes and then can't get maids and nannies for their children. They can't squeeze those maids or nannies into a 3 bedroom apartment of their own. And they won't be able to get them from the community because they won't be available. They won't be able to have people shoveling their sidewalks, etc. These are things you rely on from the loan level service employee to do for you. You put pressure on the community that is a cost to the community. It is not fair for somebody who wants to come here and work hard not to be able to live here when they could be providing a valuable community service. That is not fair to the person. That is not fair to the community. I think you are asking the community to take an unfair burden of supplying employee housing when you have got terrific location which is appropriate to put at least a few employees in without destroying your plan. We have to bear this cost. Where is the fairness in that? Ramona: I agree with the developer. I think the Planning & Zoning Commission is partly responsible for the employee housing problem. Never in the Zoning Code have we put in a zoning area or for a good many years overlay a district that would require employee housing. We used to require employee housing on -site for lodges and for various other things. That has been in the last 15 years written out of the code. P&Z has been in charge of that in making recommendations to the point where the code is today. So I don't think we can lay it onto the developers. They come here. They abide by the rules. They have in this instance totally abided by the code. It is written in there. It says they can make a choice. They made the choice and I think that we should live with that. And if we don't like it that way then we should change it. Michael: Basically, I agree with what Ramona and Jim have said. I think we have to look at the legalities of it. That is the only basis that we or anybody else has of looking at this. You have got to go along with what the laws say. Employee housing is a major problem. The developer has done nothing wrong with taking the option which are available in the code. And the code clearly says it is the option of the developer. I don't see how you could look at that code and say it is anything else. 21 • �J PZM1.19.88 I think we are overlooking what the Housing Authority, who is the City's designee, said is important. We are not in a position to make that decision. Right now the Housing Authority says we need dormitory housing and they want cash to do this. Obviously the City Council thought it was important enough to change the code to put a cash -in -lieu in there and that is how they are doing that. I don't think we should penalize them and I also don't think we should penalize them because they are not building low cost housing. That is not their obligation. This is a free economy where people come in a build whatever they think is going to sell. And if they feel that they are going to sell to people that can pay more money than we can afford, that is their prerogative. And I don't think they should be penalized for it. Mari: I agree with the Planning Office. Welton: As much as I hate to miss the opportunity of providing employee housing on both of these projects for low income employees, I really feel that it is totally unjustifiable to come in at the llth hour and change it. It is a flaw in our code as it is right now and I hope it has taught us a lesson that we can avoid in our re -write of the code in both sequence of GMP and subdivision and in the wording to make it clear that this is an option that should be discussed with the Planning Office early on l and before a lot of investment. I was leaning the other direction near the beginning. It is a lot easier to change drawings than it is to change the actual completed project but I think we are going to have to bite the bullet and realize that we made a mistake and try to do better the next time. I think this ordeal that we have gone through this evening has put the development community on notice that this is going to be something that is going to have to be negotiated on in the future. MOTION Roger: For the 925 East Durant Townhomes I recommend acceptance of the applicant's cash -in -lieu for employee housing. Jim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, no, David White, no, Roger Hunt, yes, Mari Peyton, no, Ramona Markalunas, yes, Jim Colombo, yes, Welton Anderson, yes. Motion carried 4 to 3. 22 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune FROM: Alan Richman RE: Cash -in -lieu of housing option DATE: January 18, 1988 To try to put the issue raised by Gideon on behalf of 700 E. Main into perspective, following is a brief summary of the issue. 1. The question of by what method this applicant will provide housing comes up in two respects: GMP scoring and conceptual PUD. Since the applicant has correctly identified the percentage to be housed, he has received the number of points in GMP he expected. There is no dispute as to this issue. 2. The PUD issue comes up in two respects: consistency with the master plan and whether the P&Z or Council must accept cash, or if there is discretion. As regards the master plan, Section 24- 1.2 of the Code says that the purroose of our zoning regulations is to be in accord with the "general plan of the City of Aspen". The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this and three other sites (Aspen Villas, Midland Park and Centennial, none of which were developed at the time) as high density multifamily housing. This land use category is described as being for permanent, low income residents because the sites are close to employment centers and planned neighborhood commercial establishments. Our memo says there should be a condition on the PUD to add 5 �e employee bedrooms to the site to bring it into conformance with k & the Plan, without taking away a single free market unit the applicant has requested. The cash -in -lieu option issue is much less clear. I attach page 5 of my memo to City Council dated Feb. 4, 1986, which accomp- anied the final reading of Ordinance 2, enacting the cash -in -lieu option. The important quote from the memo is as follows: "Providing this option puts the City in the position where it has more choice and flexibility in how our housing needs can be met, but never requires that the City accept the cash -in -lieu from any developer if this is not in the community's best interests at that point in time." Looking at the clear language of cash -in -lieu, which has not changed over the past two years, the concept of the option is not present. Recollecting my thinking at the time, I point you to Section 24-11.10, Subsections (a) and (f), which indicate that applicants shall only receive approval for units meeting the guidelines and/or approval of the city's housing designee and the City Council and for which there is a documented need. I was relying on this language to provide the ability to accept' or reject the cash. It is clear to me now that I was using too loose of a construction of the term "units" and that I should have explicitly addressed cash in Subsection (a) or in subsection (i) (3), which was created by the Ordinance. Nevertheless, since that time, every applicant that has offered cash has been brought �—to Council for a decision whether to accept the money or to ask for a different method of affordable housing provision. Let me conclude with an analogy to another housing issue. In the commercial and lodge sectors, applicants do not receive points for whether their housing is low, moderate or middle, merely for the percentage generated who are housed in restricted units. Q Later, when the unit comes in for GMP exemption approval, an applicant may request moderate income rates but be assigned to low. While this assignment of categories is now clearly ex- pressed in 24-11.10 (f), we frequently made such assignments before the Code expressly authorized the practice. The issue at hand is quite similar; not a matter of GMP scoring but more one r of whether the applicant's proposal must be accepted or can be modified. V I intend to address this issue in the clarified Code, and have already drafted language making the choice clear, based on criteria. The issue is how we proceed this year. Let's talk. k MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Alan Richman From: Paul Taddune Postmark: Jan 18,88 1:48 PM Subject: Reply to a reply: EMPLOYEE HOUSING -CASH -IN LIEU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reply text: From Paul 'Taddune: I THINK YOU SHOULD CHECK YOUR FILE AND COUNCIL MINUTES. ALSO, WE SHOULD AGREE ON A POSITION (PROBABLY THAT P&Z HAS NO AU'THORITY IN THE MATTER INSOFAR AS EMPLOYEE HOUSING IS CONCERNED) PRIOR TO 'TOMARROW' S ME E T ING Preceding message: From Alan Richman: Your recollection is the same as mine but I too have reviewed the Ordinance and it does not clearly suggest the optional aspect. We have ALWAYS had Council consider acceptance/rejection option in the past. I have prepared criteria for new Code to make the choice clear in the future. P&Z , at a work session last week indicated that it may not want cash in all cases this year, so we tried to tie it to PUD/subdivision issues, where greater discretion lies with P&Z and Council than with GMP scoring, where we gave full points credit. From Paul Taddune: I'T IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT THE CASH -IN -LIEU THEDISCRETION OF `THE CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER1�MAR'TY PICKEH S SHOWN ME A COPY OF ORD 2, 1986, AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY—DISCRE'TION ON THE PAT OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WAS THE ORDINACE CHANGED OR IS MY MEMORY OFF. I'T LOOKS AS THOUGH YOUR IFFICE PREPARED THE ORDINANCE, SO YOUR FILES AND, PERHAPS, COUNCIL MINUTES SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVED SOME CLUES. THIS MAY COME UP AT 'TOMARROWS P&Z MEETING 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director PE: Residential Quota for 1987 Applications DATE: January 12, 1988 PURPOSE: As you know, Section 24-11.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires the Planning Office to compile the monthly reports of the Building Inspector to determine the quota available for allotment in a given year. The purposes of this report are to provide you with calculations determining the 1987 residential quota and to address the question of whether development allot- ments should be borrowed from the future to handle this year's requests. QUOTA CALCULATION: The annual quota for residential development in Aspen is 39 units. According to the quota system, the following calculations must be made to determine the number of allotments available for competitors. 1. Deduct any excess allotments awarded in prior years. There were no such allotments made in prior years to be deducted. 2. Add any unused development allotments which were carried over from prior years. There were no such allotments to be carried over, since by Resolution 21, Series of 1987, Council eliminated the unallocated 39 units from the 1985 and 1986 quotas. 3. Deduct any phased allotments granted in prior years. There are no such allotments to be deducted. 4. Deduct the net number of units added to the residential inventory during the prior year as a result of GMQS exemptions. In 1987, there was a net increase (new construction minus demolitions) of 28 residential units via exemptions. For the record, an additional 6 units were built from previously allotted projects, which are not required to be deducted from the quota. Additionally, the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges were deed restricted to affordable housing in 1987. This means that a total of 57 lodge rooms were removed from the inventory, and are to be added to the L-1/L-2 quota, as per council's prior dec- ision. This also means that 89 employees have been housed in dormitory accommodations which, at the maximum rate within the City's housing guidelines of 8 persons per dorm unit, equates to 12 new dorm units from the change in use. The total number of units to be deducted from the quota is therefore 28 plus 12, or 40 units. 5. Deduct any units awarded to meet the requirement that a minimum of 30% of the original quota be available. There were no such awards made during the prior year. 6. Add any units which have expired in the prior year. The Gordon/Callahan project, submitted in 1984, expired in 1987. There were 3 allotments granted to this project. Summarizing, following is the number of units remaining in the quota for this year: 39 units - 40 units + 3 units = 2 units. Since Section 24-11.3 (k) requires that a minimum of 30% of the original quota be available for competitors, the quota must equal 39 x 0.3, or 12 units. Therefore, 10 additional units must be made available for 1987 from the 1988 quota, meaning that the 1988 quota will start at 29, not 39 units. EXCESS ALLOTMENTS: Competitors for this year's allotments have requested a total of 26 units. Assuming that all competitors meet the threshold, P&Z and City Council will need to decide whether or not to award excess allotments to the eligible projects. Section 24-11.3 (a) of the Municipal Code is the applicable provision and reads as follows: "In awarding development allotments in any given year, the city council may authorize construction in excess of the maximum number of dwellling units... specified in section 24- 11.1 by as much as twenty (20) percent for dwelling units; ...provided that any such excess development be off -set by reduction in successive years such that every fifth year the total construction within the previous five (5) years shall not be in excess of the cumulative total permitted by Section 24-11.1." Please note that Section 24-11.3 (b) of the Municipal Code, regarding multi -year allotments does not appear to apply to any of the three projects submitted this year. This section specif- ically refers to projects to be built over a several year period which are granted allotments through the construction period. No applicant has referred to phasing within the materials submitted to us at this time. If any applicant elects to phase following the scoring, we will review the applicable criteria from the Code at that time. Based on Section 24-11.3 (a), the opportunity exists to award up to eight additional units to the successful applicants. Follow- ing are the arguments pro and con on this issue, and a staff recommendation for you to consider. A. Arguments in favor of award of excess allotments 1. If the project has already met the competitive thresh- old, is there any purpose served by requiring the project to submit in the next year? 2. The actual growth rate in residential units within the City of Aspen during this decade has been below the allowed quota. The only occasions in which we have exceeded the quota were in 1980, as a result of Castle Ridge, and last year, due to the single family/duplex construction and the conversions of the Alpina Haus and Copper Horse lodges to employee housing. 3. Last year the City decided to eliminate 39 units which were previously unallocated. Had these units been carried over, there would be adequate units to meet this year's requests. B. Arguments against award of excess allotments 1. The new Code requires a project to receive 67% of the available points (not 60%, which is the competitive threshold) to be eligible for a future year's allotment. We suggest that unless the project in question meets this level of quality, then there is a purpose served by requiring re -submission next year, as the quality of the project is likely to improve to insure that the subsequent application is successful. 2. When we were evaluating whether or not to award a multi- year allotment to the Aspen Mountain and Little Nell projects, one justification was that development in the residential sector had been below the quota, leaving some slack in our planned growth rate. If we accelerate our residential rate at the time we are experiencing the accelerated lodge development, we will undermine the rationale for granting the prior multi -year allotments. 3. One principal reason for eliminating the 39 unallocated units last year was the growth we anticipated in residential development which is exempt from the competition requirement, along with anticipated lodge development. We were correct in projecting the level of single family/duplex growth in 1987 and can now expect significant lodge development in 1988. It would be unwise to do anything to further fuel the growth rate for the next several years. In fact, we should be working diligently to reduce our growth rate in all sectors at this time while we seek to implement solutions to our transportation problems. We believe it is also inappropriate to add to fuel to the construction rate when it is apparent that housing is not going to be available for all of the workers required for the planned projects. The more small projects we approve for the local construction industry, the clearer it becomes that the larger projects will require outside help, putting us further behind in our seasonal housing dilemma. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that you not award excess allotments to any of the applicants this year, for the reasons stated above. The one caveat to this recommendation is that if the 700 Main project, requesting 14 allotments, is the top -ranked project, we would support using two units from the 1988 quota to avoid the necessity of this project competing again next year. If the 771 Ute and 925 Durant projects are ranked first and second, or if any other combination of rankings occurs, we would recommend awarding the twelve available units, and not awarding any excess allotments. 1987resquota • Ll JAN 1 8 M E M O R A N D U M TO: PLANNING OFFICE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FROM: ANN PHILLIPS, PROPERTY MANAGER DATE: JANUARY 4, 1988 RE: 700 MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION PROJECT: This application for GMP allotment seeks fourteen (14) free-market one -bedroom low income restricted employee units on the northeast corner of Main Street and Spring Street. Three units have existed on site and will be reconstructed. This property is located within the RMF PUD zone on 60,016 square feet. The multi -family units are being configured into three separate buildings connected by a common underground parking structure. Forty-five bedrooms are being requested. The configuration is Resident Generation two 4-bedrm units = 6 bedrms six 3-bedrm units = 18 bedrms nine 2.25 bdrm units = 20.25 Total 44.25 bdrms. The applicant will build one low income unit with one bedrm and provide 50% of the project with a cash -in -lieu contribution. Credit for existing replacement units Two 3-bedrm @ 3.00 people/unit = 6 One 2-bedrm @ 2.25 people/unit = 2.25 8.25 people credit Net new free market residents 44.25 less 8.25 = 36 Minus credit of 1.75 for low income emp unit = 34.25 34.25 times $20,000 = $685,000 HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Approve application with stipulation that the cash -in -lieu of $685,000.00 to be paid at building permit and allow low income rent to be charged on one bedroom employee unit but not restrict income of employee if employed by the project. DATE: TO: FROM: RE: 0 ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY ASPEN, COLORADO MEMORANDUM January 4, 1988 Steve Burstein, City/County Planning Department Cindy Houben, City/County Planning Department Bruce A. Abel, General Manager Paul S. Hilts, Director of Operatio�� 700 Main Residential GMP We can see no negative impacts on RFTA services being generated by the above -referenced project. As indicated in the GMP submittal, both the Snowbunny and Highlands buses serve the corner of Spring and Main. Present schedules provide service twice per hour on each of these routes and, in general, there is adequate capacity to serve a project of this limited scale. As a practical matter, there is a bus serving this corner traveling to City Market, Little Nell and Rubey Park every fifteen (15) minutes. In addition, the winter shuttle service offered by the developers should be encouraged in order to provide additional alternatives to the auto for residents of this project. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please let us know. pak PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 700 MAIN RESIDENTIAL GMP AND PUD APPLICATIONS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 19, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, second floor, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Fine Associates requesting 14 residential growth management allotments, one employee unit and 3 replacement units for a total of 18 units. These units are proposed to be con- figured in 3 buildings at 700 Main Street, between Spring Street and Original Curve. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 227. s/ William L. Stirling Mayor, Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 31, 1987. City of Aspen account. 9 December 7, 1987 Gideon Kaufman 315 E. Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 700 Main Residential GMP Dear Gideon: This letter is in regard to your 700 E. Main GMP application. While the GMP portion of your application is complete, and has been scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 19, 1988, additional information is requested with regard to the following matters: * Please provide tables illustrating: a. That the project complies with minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards b. Floor Area Ratio - Please provide the size of the various units and the other spaces within the project. * Please provide written verification that three legal units exist on the site and can be reconstructed. Please submit 21 copies of this additional material to this office as soon as possible, so that we can complete all of our reviews in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Cindy Houben, Planner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office CH:nec i• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insuranos Company 801 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 • RICH LUHMAN • WHEELER SQUARE LAW OFFICES 315 E. HYMAN AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 88 099 CODU- Ll DATE : JANUARY 27, 1987 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION DOROTHY MARIE MIKKE.SEN PARCEL "A" SUBJECT PROPERTY ARDITH LOUISE WARE ALICE JUANITA GALLEGOS P.O. BOX 132 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ALBERT W. BEVAN, JR. PARCEL "B" SUBJECT PROPERTY 1719 SANDER.SON AVENUE COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80915 FINE ASSOCIATES CONTRACT INTEREST IN PARCELS "A" & "B" 1916 IDS CENTER SUBJECT PROPQRlY MINNE.APOLIS, MINN. 55402 JEAN -PAUL AUBE UNIT 307, CONCEPT 600 CONDO. 522 AL.GONQUIN BOULEVARD EAST TIMMINS, ONTARIO, CANADA P4N187 MELVIN L. SCMMER UNIT 405, CONCEPT 600 COW DOROIHY K. SOWER, TRUSTEES P.O. BOX S-3 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 STEPHEN A. (REENE UNIT 202, CONCEPT 600 CONDO CLARK FICKE 1407 HUNTINGTION DRIVE RICHARDSON, TXAS 75080 RICHARD STAHURA UNIT 201, CONCEPT 600 CONDO P.O. BOX 17101 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15235 JOAQUIN F. BLAYA UNIT 203, CONCEPT 600 ISABEL BLAYA 540 IEUCADETUDRA DRIVE COOL GABLES, FLORIDA 33156 • NAMES AND ADDRESS JOHN L. LEPPIA JOHN F . IEPPLA 4040 DAHL R01D mam, MII IIESO -A 55364 PAM WAi EFIELD 9501 SM ERHILL LANE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FRED C . SC HULTE b 224 SOUTH MIC'HIGAN AVENUE CHImw, ILLINOIS 60604 SIEVE B. BROUGH DEBORAH A. BROUGH 599 TROUT LAKE DRIVE SANGER, CALIFORNIA 93657 � V ROBERT H. BORCHEPTS HOLDS H. BORCHERTS 1555 WASTENAW ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104 L. ROSS 5637 BENT TREE DRIVE DALLAS, TEXAS 75208 W.R. NEWELL 'a MARY HELEN NEWEL.L x 909 RUE ST. GRE00IRY M RWIAL, QUEBEC, CANADA RITA M. DOUSSARD y 2235 S. HOYT COURT IAKDM, COLORADO 80227 DONALD R. HEYS MARIE L. HEYS 2531 ESSEX ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48106 MICHAEL A. O'NEIL SALLY B. 1500 DIAMJND SBAMROQt .,TU4ER DALIAS, TEXAS 75201 MARTHA FOSTER 3601 'IURT'LE CREEK BOULEVARD DAL AS, TEXAS 75219 vc PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 1111# Inwranos Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION UNIT 204, CONCEPT 600 CONDO UNIT 206, CONCEPT 600 CONDO UNIT' 207, CONCEPT 600 CONDO RE me" O m v I 1-9-IM96/ II I UNIT 210, CST 600 CaMO UNIT 301, CCINCEPT 600 CONDO 11106 1 •/ ��• .1 / •r n -TIM were vem v w-re1 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. "I* Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611. (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION KATHLEEN A. MANN P.O. BOX 2057 ASPEN, ,COLORADO 81612 JOSEPH A. MARCHEITI 8532 W. BERWYN AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60656 DAVID S. SHANKS f #9 RIVO ALTO CANAL r LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90803 %ff RALPH DORAN 2500 WOODWARD WAY ATLANTA, MORGIA 30305 ,I .. CON C. SHIRLEY ;.: LEIGH L. SHIRLEY As ` 7805 BRIARIDCE ``- DALLAS, TEXAS 75230 ' LINDA LEVIN WAAG P.O. BOX 1624 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 i ROBERT H. MITCHELL SUITE 222 5934 ROYAL LANE DALiAS, TEXAS 77024 RIC:HARD P. COPPOCK 11603 PLEASANT VIEW PINQQN'Y, MICHIGAN 48169 CEORCE W. FOSTER PATRICIA C. FOGIER 351 C. MALLARD POINT BARRI%-ION, ILLMIS 60010 RALPH C. DORAN ELIZABETH B . DORAN 2600 WOODWARD WAY ATLANTA, CEORGIA 30305. C OINHA, LTD. and 1614 KAIAKAUA AVE SUITE 201 H94OL II U, HAWAII 96826 1' • M11' • 11 III ffiu1 • M • .11 / II• UNIT 401, CONCEIT 600 CONDO UNIT 402, CCxVCEP'T 600 CONDO 1 I M •11 • II• 1. / «11' • 11 • II / 1 • M .11 •• 111 1 • MII' •11 •III i it •I. •II' • 11 III UNIT 209, CONCEPT 600 CONDO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. TIII• Insuranos Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION JAMES J. AYLOR PHILLIP C. NOLAN JOHN W. CLARK CRAIG JOHNSON EVANELINE JOHNSON #505 8370 GREENSBORO RQAD MCLEAN' VIRGINIA 22102 DAVID S . KIDDER -3928 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD DALLAS, TEXAS 75205 WILLIAM DAVID ARNETTT BETTE LEE ARNETT 4805 SOUTH DARK AVENUE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60615 JERE WC.A= 777 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE I MUNAUKEE, WISCONSIN 53202 HOLLAND - HART 690 EAST MAIN. STREET i ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN -600 , P.O. BOX 3159 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 CONCEPT 600 CONDUIRiijM ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 12344 ASPEN, C(A.ORADO 81612 KLAUS F. OBERMEYER P.O. BOX 130 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 GAII.EN ' B. S [ITH 601 EAST SLEEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO.81611 , NATALIE A. GIGNOUX i 251 TA19M DIVE LITCHFIELD PARK, ARI7ANA*85340 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA STREET .ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1• •: •iDl' .11 • II• UNIT 306, CaUX T 600 CONDO UNIT 403, CONCEPT 600 CONDO 1: • M .11 /III • • M •• «�I' .11 •I II • UNITS 7 9, SPACE B, CONCEPT' 600 CO W METES AND BOUNDS, CITY OF ASPEN LOTS 6,7,8,9, BLOCK 20, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TAT 1, GIGVOUX LYNCH SUBDMSION LOT 2, GImOUX LYNCH SUBDIVISION HERRON PARK,: OPEN SPACE, METES AND BOUNDS PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 "Amt-b Anu AUDKKSS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION UNITED STATES ARMY CORP. OF ENGINEERS ALL MATTERS CONCERNING AREA ADJACENT TO AND IN ATTENTION : GARY L. DAVIS THE ROARING FORK RIVER -164 HORIZON DRIVE, ROOM 211 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506-8719 (NOTE: APPLICATION MUST BE MADE AND HEARING SET IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PI KIN CO(1NTY/CITY HEARINGS) RICHARD W. VOLK M EROUS LOTS, OK1�4M FLATS SUITE 3600 5847 SAN FELIPE I. HOUSTaN, TEXAS 77057 REMO LAVAGNINO NLflEROUS LOTS, MAH(MA FIATS P.O. BOX 532 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 NELIGH C. COATES, JR. LOT 1, CREEICIREE SUB. C/O COATES, REID & W JDROIN 720 E. HYMAN AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 CHARLEY ELBERT TACKER TRACT OF LAND, EAST ASPEN ADDITION EMMA LOU TACKER 115 NORTH NEAL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 i' FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES LOT 3, CREEKIREE SUB 700 E. BL.EEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JEFFREY PAT.?ENRFRG UNIT 733, CREEKIRFE CONDO FRED PHIUIPS 2925 MANSFIEL.D ROAD P.O. BOX 3735 SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA 71103 DAVID E. BE(704ITH x •, UNIT 735, CREEKIREE CONDO C/O FOLEY AND IARDNER 777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE AUIWAUK EE, WISCONSIN 53202 JOHN L. LANCASTER, III , UNIT 727, CREEKIREE CONDO ROBERT P. LANCASIER , 4300 INIERFIRST ONE DMIA.S, TEXAS 75202 JOAN L. MEICAI� tie.. r UNIT 729, CREEKTREE CONDO P.O. BOX 8542 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 :: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Tllle Inwranoa Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION CREEK TREE CONDCMINIIM ASSOCIATION CCM+DN AREA, C REEKTREK CONDO NO-ADBRHS-A-VAE,kHFZ- David E. Beckwith c/o Foley and Lardner, 777 E. Wisconsin Ave. STEPHEN M. PE ERHANS Milwaukee, WI 53202 N%2i BLOCK 27, EASr ASPEN 3415 BRIESTOWN COURT WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 HAROID A. THAU UNIT B-4, LARKSPUR CONDO P.O. BOX 1171 • WESTON, CONNECI'ICUT 06883 A M4 RONNIE ROARK UNIT A-i, LARKSPUR CONDO • 2100 NEWPON STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704 DELPHINIiM ASSOCIATES UNIT A-5, LARKSPUR CONDO ' C/O LIDDELL, SAP, ETC. 500 GULF BUILDING H0[ISTON, TEXAS 77002 i EU(ENE SIEGEL , UNIT B-3, LARKSPUR CONDO 800 EAST HMCINS AVE. #B-3 ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81611 :i. TH(MAS IACCINO UNIT A-3, LARKSPUR CONDO 800 EAST HOPKINS AVE, #A-3 ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81611 IAWRENC E M. FRLEEMAN UNIT A-1, LARKSPUR CONDO LYNN L. FRIEIMAN 4042 HANOVER C OM WEST BLOCITIELD, MICHIIGAN 48033 SINIBALDO TOZZI UNIT B-1, LARKSPUR CONDO DIANE TOZZI 8100 DEM400D SnMING HEIGHTS, MLCHIGAN 48077 VAHE HOVSEPIAN UNIT B-5, LARKSPUR CONDO 1871 MT. OLYMP S DRIVE LOS ANCEFS, CALIF ilk 90046 DENNIS E. NIXON UNIT B-2, LARKSPUR CONDO RICARDO E. LONGORIA A. FREDERIC O E. LONGORIA C/O INTERNATIONAL BANK OF CCI4.IERGE P.O. BOX 1359 LAREDO, TEXAS 78040 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. TNIo Inauranoe Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION TIM,1S J. AVERY MARIE J. TIMMS 800 EAST HOPKINS AVE. A-2 ASPEN, C LORADO 81611 LARKSPUR CONDUIM M ASSOCIATION 800 EAST HOPKINS AVE, #A--2 ASPEN, CC LRADO 81611 GEORGE B. WOODS ELIZABETH A. WOODS INDIES WEST #11 2234 GULFSHORE DRIVE N. NAPLES, FLORIDA 33940 �1 EDWARD R. BRADLEY JR. C/0 CBS TELEVISION r 524 WEST 57th. STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10019 CHARLES E. HALL P.O. BOX 10122 _; ' ..,ASPEN, COL.O ADO 81612 I EDWARD R. CAMPBELL JR. OSCAR E. CLOYD 401 TEXAS STREET „•: SEEi NEPORT, LO(JISIANA 71 104 DAVID S. WILSON ROUTE 3, BOX 90 MJNETA, VIRGR41A 24121 THCMAS J. NIXCN C/O BRESLAUER, JACOBSON & RUIMAN SURE 1700 2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS LOS ANCELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 ERMNANO MASINI ALDA MASINI 830 EAST HOPKINS AVE. #201 ASPEN, COL,ORADO 81611 ; JERCM K. GOLZMAN y 1803.CALIFORNIA AVENUE SANTA MJNICA, CALIFORNIA 90403 ' R(BM BLALMAN 230 C WIRAL PARK SOUIIi NEW .YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10019 UNIT A-2, LARKSPUR CONDO CCM4)N AREA LARKSPUR CONDO UNIT 102, CENTENNIAL PARK CCNDO Lei e IN =511 me11 PQ I e I F.11 m 0/ I1/ UNIT 101, CENTENNIAL PARK CONDO UNIT 203, CENTENNAAL PARK CONDO L�Y1�7111 M11�1111�1�1: �►II_� UNIT 103, CE]N ENNIAL PARK CC NDO UNIT 201, CENTENNIAL PARK CONDO UNIT 303, CENTENNIAL PARK CONDO UNIT 202, CENTENNIAL PARK CONDO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. IV@ Ineuranoa Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 "ACIGJ ANU AUUKE55 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION CENTENNIAL PARK CONDOMINILM ASSOCIATION CCMI:V AREA CENTENNIAL PARK CONDO NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE NIEL ROSS P.O. BOX 2075 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 DOREEN ANDERSON P.O. BOX 10635 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 JAY COOK, III C/O BUSINESS PLANNING ASSOCIATES '.- 2nd FLOOR, 260 FRANKLIN STREET B06'IM, MASSAaIUEI'I5 02110 ROffi2T L . SCHROEDER JOAN C. SCHROEDER 53 PIMA COURT BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 BAYARD HOVDE.S'VEN P.O. BOX 3810 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 EDWARD L. THRASHER P.O. BOX 7974 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 CHRISTINE AUBALE OERSCHEL P.O. BOX 2985 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN MAIN CONIDOMINILM ASSOCIATION NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE ELIZABM ANN PLASSMAN P.O. BOX 10754 ASPEN,-COLORADO 81612 COLONLAL SAVINGS AND IDAN ASSOCIATION FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS'AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF THE FLORIDA KEYS 510 SOUTHARD STREET P.O. BOX 1488 KEY NEST, FLORIDA 33040'. SHELBY J. TRAVIS 208 EAST 28th STREET, APT. 2G NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10016 LOT A, BLOCK 28, EAST ASPEN UNIT 202, ASPEN MAM. CONDO UNIT 303, ASPEN MAIN CONDO UNIT 203, ASPEN MAIN CONDO 1 •11 1 / I1� UNIT 201, ASPEN MAIN CONDO UNIT 102, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT.110, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 306, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Tltle Inwranoo Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION MARY JO BERSC= UNIT 205, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO P.O. BOX 1414 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 MARINA JAM SUITS UNIT 201, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO P.O. BOX 8261 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 BARBARA BOLAND J EARL BOLAND UNIT 207, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO _ 1240 MEADOWSWEET ROAD GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 ,'. CRIGINAL CURVE #202 ASSOCIATES UNIT 202, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO C/O McMENAMY I 11 DENISE COURT LINCRO T, NEW JERSEY 07728 n.BARBARA BIRCH UNIT 307, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO APT. 4V 165 WEST 66th STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10023 J Tf= E. COWART UNIT 301, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO P.O. BOX 1028 TE11,URIDE, 'COL0 ADO 81435 . ITKMAS E. THOBURN UNIT 308, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO -; VIVIAN E. THOBURN 3206 BUCiMUlAM LANE COCOA, FLORIDA 32926 BURIN D. SMITH UNIT 203, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO J. ROBERI' FISHER C/O THE WRIGHT CONNECTION 17313 � SUNSET BOULEVARD PCIFIC PALISADES, CALIFORNIA 90272 ETHELYN DAROFF UNIT 208, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO 1313 WILLIAMS, UNIT 905 DENVER, COLORADO 80220', JOAN SIEGEL UNIT 107, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO P.O. BOX 11214 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 EWALD RAMR UNIT 109, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO P.O. BOX 1225 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 71t1e InsurMnos Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 61611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS LINDA LIVIIJGS ON DAVIS 1673 34th STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007 PALM M C . CASEY APT. 8 IC47 EUCLID STREET SANTA MJNICA, CALUUU41A 90403 WILLIAM R. DUNAWAY P.O. BOX E ASPEN, CIXORADO 81612 FREDRICK K. MARTINSCIN P.O. BOX 3186 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 MJUNTAIN STATES C ffMCATIONS, INC. P.O. BOX BOX E ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81612 DR. JOYCE M. CARLYLE 5 SUNRAY COURT BOX 459 LRAMM, ONTARIO CANADA NOL I SO 10 MARGARET CANTRUP t. P.O. BOX 852 ASPEN, C MADO 81612 LEONARD CAVE SANDRA CAVE 10217 OLDFIELD DRIVE KENSRUICN, MARYLAND 20895 MARILYN J. OBEREM13T P.O. BOX 1730 PAWIEY ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA 29585 GREG SHERWIN 1020 EAST HOPKINS AVE.fP1 w ASPEN, C -0RADO 81611 .; VIRGINIA D. MURRAY 333 EAST 34th STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW PORK`10001 GREG SHERWIN BRIGITIE M. HILL y 1020 EAST HOPKINS AVE #i ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONDO UNIT 302, ORIGINAL. CURVE CONDO CONDO UNIT 204, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 210, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 304, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 101, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO 1 /• 1 M •I I11 UNIT 106, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 310, ORIGINAL CURVE CCNDo 1• /' 1 M /: III UNIT 104, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 105, ORIGINAL. CURVE CONDO UNIT 108, ORIGINAL. CURVE CONDO • 0 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 71t10 Insurance Company 601 E. Hopklns Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAMES AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION JOHN F. THIBODEAU UNIT 209, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO 2420 GREYSOLON ROAD DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812 BOX 9618 ASPEN �I �,,;1_I81612 I A. FREDE'RICK UHLER FRANCES M. UHLER P.O. BOX 49 WASHINGTON, NEW JERSEY 07882 ORIGINAL CURVE CONDQ-M� ASSOCIATION ATTENTION SIEVE HACH 940 WATERS AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MEL SEID 1104 DALE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ' SPRING STREET ASSOCIATES P'.0. BOX 1815 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612. HENRY H. WULSIN JOHN J. ATIGUE JR.' 442 SIOUIE GAYL.ORD STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 NEAL A. GRANT DONNA R. GRANT 15000 NALL STANLEY, KANSAS 66224 THE SPRING STREET CONDUENM ASSOCIATION NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE DON S. WESIERLIND DORIA J. WESIERLIND 728 EAST HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ARCHIE McGILL C/O THE DONALD J. FLEISCHER CO. INC. 2nd FLOOR 710 EAST DURANT AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 UNIT 303, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO UNIT 206, ORIGINAL CURVE CONDO C UN AREA ORIGINAL CURVE UNIT A CG+ERCIAL, THE SPRING STREET CONDO UNIT B, CCIERCIAL THE SPRING STREET CONDO UNIT C, D, C ERCIAL THE SPRING STREET CONDO UNIT 1, RESTnF►MAL TILE SPRY STREET CONDO 11'11 I • • 1 • II •f II I Ca MTN AREA THE SPRING STREET CONDO LOTS 17, 18 BLOCK 28, EAST ASPEN ADDITION FRAC. LOT 12, IXS 13,14,15,16 BLOCK 28 EAST ASPEN ADDITION PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. THI• Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 NAME) AND ADDRESS BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION HOPKINS AVENUE ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 740 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 HUNTER SQUARE ASSOCIATES IRVING BIERS 925 VIA CASITAS (BRAE, CALIFORNIA 94904 I GEORGE L. CARISCH GERALD F. CARISCH C/O CARISCH THEATERS, INC. SUITE 212, 641 LAKE AVENUE WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TH(MAS D. McCLOSKEY JR. BONNIE P . Z tCL.OSKEY C/O RONALD D. ALISTIN TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 7846 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 E MONS STREET VENIURE P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 DAYTON HEIDELBERG DISTRIBUTING CO. 1518 DALTON STREET CINCROaTT, OHIO 45214 ELLEN JUNE KUPER 624 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 COLORADO DIVISION HIGHWAYS 202 CENIENNIAL GLEM OOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 COUNTY OF PITM 500 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FRACT. LOTS K 6 L , N BLK. 103 LOTS 10, 11, BLOCK 28, EAST ASPEN LOTS A,B,C, D, BLOCK 98 ASPEN E 10' LOT D, ALL LOTS E, F, and G BLOCK 98, ALL OF LOTS 5,6,7, BLOCK 29 EAST ASPEN, LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, BLOCK 98, ASPEN E � LOT R, ALL LOT S, BLOCK 98, ASPEN E %Z LOT 0, ALL OF LOT P, BLOCK 98, ASPEN ALL OF LOT Q W � LOT R, BLK. 98, ASPEN ALL PROPERTY JOINTLY HELD WITH CITY OF ASPEN RE: PARKS AND OPEN AREA • d• (A rak 81611 ASPEN MAIN CONDO ASSOC: C/0 Bayard Hovdesven p.0. Box 381Q Aspen, CO 81612 6W East Mn•kw, Coin& 81611 C1leS Inc. Centennial Owners Assoc. 100 Luke Shored St Aspen, CO 81611 Ikamyers Ttle Insurance Cprporation NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS RICHMOND. VIRGINIA SCHEDULE A cont'd. PARCEL A: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE;SWk OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANG 84 WEST OF RE SIXTH PRINCIPAL HUMAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLOR=. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FUlDZ : BEGINNTN6 AT THE N10KIHEAST cmcR OF LCTT 18, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN; THENCE NORTH 75'09' 11" WEST 44.10 FEET ALONG THE NORTiERY LINE OF IAT 18 AND 17 OF SAID BLOCK 21; THENCE NORM 36022100" EAST 26.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°35'00" WEST 85.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50*14'11" EAST 118.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY EDGE ICF THE ROARING FORK RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 52057'39" WEST 47.02 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY EDGE OF SAID RIVER; THENCE SOUTH 49'58'47" WEST 21.71 FEET AMC THE WFSTIId.Y EDG OF SAID RIVER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ALL OF IATS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (FO I Y LOTS K, L, +i, N, 0, P, Q, R, S) OF BACK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITICN, TOGETHER WITH ALL OF THE ALLEY OF BLACK 21 OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH ALL OF LATS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 (F ZERIY F, G, H, AND I) OF BLOCK 21, OF THE EAST ASPEN ADDITION E}IIEPT A PORTION THEREOF LOCATED NOnHI OF THE FO IAWINC; DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TAT 6, THENCE SCUM 59' 18'00" EAST 56.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50' 14' 11" EAST TO THE INI RMCTICN WITH THE EAST SIDE LINE OF LOT 9, WHICH N ORIHERLY PORTICN OF SAID LOTS 6, 7, 8, AND 9 WERE CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 311 AT PACE 11 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH A TRACT OF LAND LYING IN MAIN STREET 100 FEET IN WIDTH 50 FEET WIDE ON EACH SIDE OF A CFNTEMIIE DESCRIBED AS FOLIAWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT CN THE SOUTH LINE OF BLOCK 21 WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TAT 18. BEARS SOUTH 75009'11" EAST 59 FEET MIRE OR LESS; THENCE ON A 7' CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO A POINT OF INTERSEMCN WITH THE SCUM LINE CF MAIN STREET WH1FIa THE NC7RTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 9, BLACK 28 FAST ASPEN SEARS SOUTH 75009'11" EAST 12 FEET, MORE OR LESS, E)MT THAT PORTION THEREOF PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ASPEN BY DEED END IN BOCK 223 AT PAGE 152 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY RECORDS DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND IF.9CRIBED IN THE SE. CF THE SW; CF SECTICN 7, TIJWNSHIP 10 SCUM, RANG 84 WEST OF THE SDO:H PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICUTARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGI CMU AT A POINT FROM MUCH THE NW CORER OF BLACK 28, OF THE EAST ASPEN TC> mITE BEARS NORM 75'09' WEST A DISTANCE OF 186.3 FEET; THENCE NORTH I1039' WEST A DISTANCE CF 111.74 FEET; THENCE SOUIH 57009' FAST A DISTANCE OF 28.3 FEET; THENCE AROUND A CURVE TO THE RIGH WITH A CENTRAL ANUE OF 55000' AND A RADIUS OF 176.18 FEET A DISTANCE OF 168.2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75'09' WEST A DISTANCE OF 142.8 FEET, TO PLACE CF BEGmnM. PARCEL B: LCITS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 21, EAST ASPEN ADDTTICNAL TCWNSILE, 035-1-e99.OD4W Schedule -Page -No. 0 0 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10, 1986 l to the city as described in Section 1. Oates said that was acceptable. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, yes; Walls, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. BAAR LOT SPLIT Mayor Stirling moved to table the public hearing to February 24, 1986; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1986 - Employee Housing Code Amendments Alan Richman, planning director, reminded Council they agreed with the first four changes unanimously and added section 5 which addresses cash -in -lieu. Councilman Isaac objected to the repeal of extra points for conversion of existing units. Councilman Isaac said he would prefer to see existing units available for employees. Richman said this amendment leaves conversion with the same amount of points as production of new units. Gideon Kaufman said applicants can get extra points for converting old, run down units and providing new units would get less points. Mayor Stirling said when Council originally made this amendment, they assumed the units would be upgraded; however, there is not a mechanism to do this, and applicants are getting existing points for conversion. Mayor Stirling said this amendment gives the applicant freedom to make the choice on what the market dictates. The second amendment discusses requirements of provision of employee housing off -site. The third amendment is the FAR bonus in the commercial core district. Councilwoman Fallin said she opposes allowing employee housing in the Aspen Metro area and that this housing should be within the city. Richman told Council the Aspen Metro area generally conforms to the annexation areas Council is looking at. Richman agreed housing should not be provided down valley, and the first choice would be within the city. Richman pointed out there is little land left within the city. Mayor Stirling said there has to be flexibility to get employee housing. Richman said another amendment is the reduction for the number of points available in the residential scoring system. Richman said this has put too much emphasis on employee housing in the residential sector. Richman told Council the cash in lieu provision is an option, not something Council has to accept. An applicant could propose cash in lieu and Council may make a determination that cash in lieu will not get them to their housing goals. Richman said there is nothing by providing this 5 Reaular Meeting Ashen City Council February 10, 1986 option that binds Council to accept it. Richman said this opens up the opportunity to get dorm -type or senior housing. Richman told Council there have only been 13 units produced through the residential GMP since 1978; 8 free market unit and 5 employee units. Richman said there is some problem in the residential section not allowing the financing to work. Richman said changing the points for employee housing and the cash in lieu option will help get at the problem. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman told Council the reason he favors the cash in lieu option because the present system requires an applicant to maximize a development on site. Kaufman said he has had some applications where the site did not work well with all the density. Certain neighborhoods are overcrowded to begin with or don't lend themselves to employee housing. Kaufman suggested a one year review clause to see if this will work. This option will give Council the opportunity to make a better project for the community. Kaufman said the purpose of a flexible GMP is to be able to adjust it over time. Bil Dunaway said the success of this program would hinge on the amount of cash required to give. If it is too little, the program won't work. Mayor Stirling asked how it is determined ( what the cash in lieu would be. Richman told Council cash in lieu is based on subsidizing per employee. Richman told Council all calculations in the GMP are on a per person basis, not bedrooms or number of units. Mayor Stirling asked about the issue of the developer getting off the hook by not having to provide inventory. Richman said this one P & Z's main objection. Richman said the point is to get housing, and the system has not been effective and cash in lieu is a way to be effective. Richman told Council there are other ways of producing housing rather than to have the public sector go out and build the housing. Jim Adamski, housing office, told Council he feels cash in lieu can offer incentives and meet the demands of the employees. The demand might be a mortgage pool. Adamski said the city and county have produced employee units, now they need a way to make them affordable. Adamski said the housing office does not want to get into developing and managing housing. Jim Curtis, housing authority, told Council he supports cash in lieu as it recognizes the job the city and county have done in creating a physical housing supply. Cash in lieu also gives flexibility in how the housing authority can work with applicants to come up with solutions as the current code offers no alternatives. Curtis said the Code should create as many options as possible and judge these on their individual merits. 0