Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.831 Ute Ave.108A-89Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption & Rezoning 108A-89 2737-182-95 101 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 U LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113-63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63450-146 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 00123 -63340-190 00113 -63360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL _ SUB/GENERAL _ SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL Name: Phone: Address: Project: Check # Additional billing: Date: #of Hours: ky LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109. 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III 1 March 12, 1990 Leslie Lamont City Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ute Trail Townhouses Dear Leslie: TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-6808 Enclosed for your file is a letter from BFI Waste Systems which states that they have reviewed the plans for the trash area proposed for the Ute Trail Townhouses and the trash service area is more than satisfactory. This should comply with condition number 15 to the conceptual P.U.D. approval as addressed on page 27 of the application filed February 26, 1990. Also enclosed is a letter from Brenda S. Beairsto of Nelson/Zeeb Construction Company, Avon, Colorado, stating that she certifies that she mailed a copy of the notice attached thereto to each of the persons listed on the attached list of names. This should demonstrate compliance with the mailing of notice requirements. If you would like a copy of the certificate from Stewart Title which states that those names are the names of the owners listed within 300 feet of the Ute Trail Townhouses property, I can provide that also. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, . I oseph E. Edwards, III JEE ch Enclosures MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER, P.C. 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 SANDRA M. STULLER, P.C. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ALAN E. SCHWARTZ (303) 920-1018 FAX 920-4259 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Aspen City Council and Board of Directors of Sister City Housing, Inc. FROM: David J. Myler DATE: January 24, 1995 RE: Billings.Place - Final Report As of this date, the Billings Place project is essentially completed. A few relatively minor "punch list" items remain to be addressed. We are holding $20,000 in retainage to insure satisfactory completion of those items. Sale of all units has been completed and all of the units are presently occupied by the purchasers. A condominium association has been formed and the initial meeting with the purchasers was held on January 19, 1995. At that time, operating control of the association was turned over to a board of directors elected by the current owners. The Japanese Investment Notes have been paid in full and $50,000 will be set aside to create an educational fund on behalf of Mayor Kannon. Along with John Worcester and Bob Hughes, I am engaged in settlement negotiations with the Black Swan Hall owners, primarily relating to their claim for damages in connection with the removal of a large cottonwood tree during construction, and hope that this matter will be resolved quickly. Funds have also been set aside in order to satisfy any potential obligations that we may have in that regard. The only remaining issue of any consequence involving our contract with Mr. Pugh is the possibility of additional compensation based upon the resale value of the free market units. As you may recall, Sister City Housing is entitled to a "bonus" equal to the difference between $1,300,000 and 25% of the sale price or appraised value of the three free market units. Based upon current estimates of value, we expect that some additional compensation will be forthcoming. It would, however, be premature to estimate the amount of that compensation at this time. s MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council and Board of Directors of Sister City Housing, Inc. January 24, 1995 Page 2 Without including any additional "bonus" compensation, the revenue and expenses for the project for the period December 1, 1992 through January 15, 1995 can be summarized as follows: Revenue: A. Loans 1. Aspen $ 776,000 2. Kannon 50,000 3. Japanese Investors 600,000 $1,426,000 B. Income 1. Sale to Pugh $1,300,000 2. Sale of Completed Units 651,762 3. Interest 34,000 $1,985,762 TOTAL REVENUE $3,411,762 Expenses: 1. Purchase of Billings Property $1,300,229 2. Interest Expense (Billings Note) 76,100 3. Cost of Sale to Pugh 66,490 4. Cost of Construction and Re -purchase - Units D through J 882,164 S. Cost of Sale - Units D through J 8,926 6. Operating Expenses 59,753 7. Reserve for Black Swan Settlement 0 8. Pay Off Japanese Investment Notes Principal $600,000 Interest 25,041 Cost of Yen 171,830 796,871 9. Reserve for Kannon Fund 50,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $3,254,533 FUNDS AVAILABLE TO REPAY ASPEN LOAN $ 157,229 n 1\4YLER, STULLER &. SCHWARTZ Memorandum to Aspen City Council Board of Directors of Sister City January 24, 1995 Page 3 and Housing, Inc. In an August 15, 1994 memo, I estimated that $345,900 would be available to repay the City of Aspen loan, resulting in a loss/subsidy of $430,100. I noted, however, that that amount would in all likelihood be reduced by the cost of purchasing yen in order to repay the Japanese Investment Notes. Due to the severe decline in the value of the dollar, that cost was $171,830. Were it not for this unforeseen problem, the funds available to repay the City of Aspen would have been $329,059 or $16,841 less than projected. In the final analysis, the project itself came in on budget although a little late and, if market conditions in Aspen continue, we should be able to make up a substantial portion of the exchange rate loss through the "bonus" payment due from Mr. Pugh. eiater\counc14.mem DAVID J. MYLER, P.C. SANDRA M. STULLER. P.C. ALAN E. SCHWARTZ Steve Barwick City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE Dear Steve: MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (970)920-1018 FAX 920-4259 October 16, 1995 Billings Place - Final Accounting I have enclosed a check in the amount of $151,452.00, which represents the total funds available for repayment of the Promissory Note by Sister City Housing, Inc. to the City of Aspen. Since my report of January 24, 1995 (copy attached for reference), the following additional circumstances of significance have occurred: 1. The Board of Directors has not yet determined whether additional compensation is due to Sister City Housing from James Pugh pursuant to the terms of the 1993 Contract for Sale. If additional compensation is due, it will be paid to the City upon receipt. 2. The Black Swan lawsuit has been settled, resulting in the payment of $15,803.88 from Sister City Housing funds. 3. The Kannon Educational Fund, in the principal amount of $50,000.00, has been established. 4. Additional interest income has been earned. S. The 1994 tax returns for Sister City Housing have been filed. The amount paid on the note is $5, 777. 00 less than anticipated in the January 24th memo. Please note, however, that the Black Swan settlement required $1,803.88 more than anticipated; the 1994 tax return cost $1,525.00, an expense not included in the January 24th memo; and I have retained $2,;500.00 to cover additional expenses associated with the corporate tax return for 1995 (total - $5,828.88) With these adjustments, we are within a hundred dollars of the amount projected on January 24th, not considering any additional funds which may be due from James Pugh. Steve BarTwickR & SCHWARTZ City of Aspen November 16, 1995 Page 2 Sister City Housing, Inc. will remain in existence with a new Board of Directors to serve as the vehicle for administration of the Kannon Educational Fund. Otherwise, its initial purpose has been achieved. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, MYLER, STUZLI,�R & By: DJM:caw Enclosures cc: Aspen City Council Sister City Housing Directors sister\city2.1tr David J . MyJA1'r NAME S- Ste_ ACCOUNT NO.__/� 82-326/1021 PAY THE E ORDERER OF 4rl DOLLARS _ �ata>srm &U E. HYIMN • B)0) B:5-B)00 ASPEN, COI.OMDO Bier i MEMO 1: L0 2 L0 3 2 6 Li: 908 B 3 5ii' - ----------- BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR GMQS EXEMPTION, MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCEPTUAL PUD November 13, 1989 APPLICATION FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION, MAP AMENDMENT AND CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. FOR THE BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT November 13, 1989 Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 920-5090 Owner/ Nelson/Devore Partnership Applicant: 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1744; 925-2317 Architect: William Lipsy & Associates Box 3203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 210 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-3734 Civil Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Engineer: Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc. Suite 204, 601 East Bleeker Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-6727 Attorney: Joseph E. Edwards, III Law Offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. Suite 109, 201 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-7116 D20/02 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4 A. Project Goal 4 B. Request for Fee Waivers 5 C. Architectural Overview 6 D. Variances Requested 7 III. REQUEST FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION (F.M.U.) 9 IV. COMMON REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 10 V. MAP AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS 13 VI. MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW STANDARDS 15 VII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REQUIREMENTS 24 A. General Information 24 B. Conceptual Description 24 1. Introduction 24 2. Free -Market Units 25 3. Affordable Housing Units 28 4. Open Space 30 5. Summary 31 C. Public Facilities 31 D. Conceptual Site Plan 32 VIII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REVIEW STANDARDS 33 A. General Requirements 33 B. Density 33 C. Land Uses 35 D. Dimensional Requirements 35 E. Off -Street Parking 38 F. Open Space 39 G. Landscape Plan 41 H. Architectural Site Plan 41 I. Lighting 41 J. Clustering 41 K. Public Facilities 41 L. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation 42 EXHIBITS 1. Land Use Application Form and Pre -Application Conference Summaries 2. Letter from Applicant Regarding Habitable F.A.R. and Number of Bedrooms 3. Letter of Authorization from Applicant 4. Title Certificate 5. 8}"x1l" Vicinity Maps 6. Letters Regarding Availability of Public Facilities 7. Letter from Engineer Regarding Drainage 8. 81"x1l" Site Plan 9. Soils Report BACK POCKET 1. Improvement Survey 2. Full -Size Site Plan D20/03 -2- 1 7 L u I. INTRODUCTION This application is for a G.M.Q.S. exemption, map amendment and conceptual P.U.D. approval for a project on the property at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, and is submitted by the owners of the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership (applicant). The project will have a free- market component and an affordable housing component. The application for G.M.Q.S. exemption is for the free-market component. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and the applicant requests an amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen (rezoning) to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D. Also, the applicant requests approval of the conceptual P.U.D. application for the property. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Land Use Application form and a copy of the two Pre -Application Conference Summaries. Because there is involved a mandatory P.U.D., a "four - step" process is required by § 6-205 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (here- inafter Land Use Regulations). Section 6-205A.8.c., Land Use Regulations, requires that approval of a rezoning be simultaneous with review of the final P.U.D. application; the applicant is submitting the application for rezoning for reference by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council at the conceptual level. The applicant requests the necessary public hearings and formal consideration and approval of the rezoning be contemporaneous with consideration of the final P.U.D. application in accordance with the Land Use Regulations. At its meeting on Novem- ber 7, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved sponsorship of the rezoning application. In the first two steps of the four -step process, the applicant seeks approval of (1) an application for G.M.Q.S. exemption by the Planning Director pursuant to S 8-104A.1.a., Land Use Regulations, for the free-market component of the project and 2) a conceptual P.U.D. appli- cation. Also, for reference, the applicant has filed its application for rezoning. In steps 3 and 4 of the four -step process, the applicant will by separate application seek approval of (#1 ) a G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council pursuant to § 8-104C.1.c., Land Use Regulations, for the affordable housing component of the project, `(2� an application to rezone the property from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D., 3 a final P.U.D. application, 4j a subdivision application, and Q a special review application for parking for the affordable housing component pursuant to § 5-301B., Land Use Regu- lations, and for an external floor area ratio (F.A.R.) increase from 1:1 to 1.1:1 pursuant to 5 5-206D.10, Land Use Regulations. Additionally, the applicant intends to apply for condnmi_rj, i�n of the project as a component of the subdivision application and, after final approval, to apply for vesting of property development rights. Since there is involved a rezoning and a P.U.D. approval, the applicant D20/04 -2- requests that all final approvals be adopted by the ordinance procedure pursuant to the requirements of the City Charter. The applicant requests, pursuant to S 6-202C., Land Use Regulations, that the Planning Director waive any overlap- ping application submission requirements and allow the applications to be submitted and considered as a consolidat- ed development application. This application for G.M.Q.S. exemption, rezoning and conceptual P.U.D. is exempt from Ordinance 58 (Series of 1989) by Section 4 of that ordinance, because the applicant will reconstruct as affordable housing not less than 100% of the existing habitable floor area and not less than 100% of the existing bedrooms of the currently existing residential idwellings on the subject property. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a letter from William Lipsey, Architect, and Karinjo Devore, General Partner of applicant, stating they have examined the premises existing on the property, the "existing habitable FAR" is 5,655 square feet and the total number of bedrooms is 12. D20/04 -3- LL C 2 C a L Cr LL C II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Project Goal. The applicant views the proposed development as an exciting and unique opportunity. This property has a long history of providing affordable housing to residents who are employed in the community. Karinjo and Nicholas Devore are general partners of the applicant and have resided on the property since 1961. There are currently three generations of Devores living on this property. Deane Billings, the prior owner of the property, moved to California and, approximately one year ago, determined to sell the property. Due to spiraling real estate prices in the Aspen area, the fair market value of the underlying realty reached a level which could not be supported by rental of affordable housing. Thus, it became apparent the property would go the route of many other affordable housing projects in the Aspen area --sale, demoli- tion and reconstruction of very expensive second homes for non-residents. This has already happened on the neighboring parcels. Consequently, the current residents would be displaced --very likely down valley. This is a problem which has plagued Aspen of late and which the current City Council is struggling to solve. See, for example, Ordinance 47 (Series of 1988), Ordinance 23 (Series of 1989), Ordinance 58 (Series of 1989) and Ordinance 59 (Series of 1989). This project arose out of the desire of the Devore family to remain on the property and retain the history of D20/04 -4- providing affordable housing at this location; the proposal is an effort to help solve instead of further exacerbate the problems currently faced by the City of Aspen. The goal of the project is to reconstruct affordable housing which replaces more than 100% of the existing habitable F.A.R. and more than 100% of the existing bedrooms while paying fair market value for the underlying real estate. Thus, Deane Billings has received full fair market value for the property; and the qualified long-term residents will have the opportunity to continue living on the property. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to develop a project with a free-market unit (F.M.U.) component and an affordable housing unit (A.H.U.) component. In essence, the F.M.U. component will subsidize the A.H.U. component and thereby allow affordable housing to remain in this desirable location. This property is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola; if affordable housing can be successfully retained on this property, it can be done on almost any property in town. Through developments such as this, affordable resident housing can be disbursed throughout the City and County without current landowners suffering losses in the value of their properties. B. Request for Fee Waivers. In order to help make this project financially feasible, the applicant requests the waiver by the City Council of application fees, the park development impact fee, water tap fees, plan check fees and permit fees. The D20/04 -5- applicant feels the waiver of these fees is justified since the goal of the project is to preserve in -town affordable housing without any up front (e.g., land buy -down) subsidy from the City. If financially and otherwise successful, this project can serve as a model for future retention of in -town affordable housing. Another significant cost faced by the applicant is the carrying cost of financing the project. Thus, the City could be of tremendous assistance in ensuring the viability of the project by expediting the scheduling of the meetings for the processing of the development applications. The applicant will assist in any way possible to expedite the scheduling of the processing of the applications. C. Architectural Overview. The physical shape of the land in large part dictates the architectural layout of the project. As designed, the project will be constructed in three clusters. One cluster will be comprised of four F.M.U.s and the remaining two clusters will be comprised of five and two A.H.U.s. The F.M.U.s will be in a townhouse format along the Ute Avenue (front) side of the property. In order to avoid the feeling of a large wall along Ute Avenue and to protect the views from Glory Hole Park and Ute Avenue, the proposed front yard set back for three of the four F.M.U.s is 20 feet instead of 10 feet as required by the zone district. Behind the F.M.U.s will be an entrance to the F.M.U. garages and open parking for the A.H.U.s. The D20/04 -6- A.H.U.s will be in two clusters behind the parking area. The open space is divided between the F.M.U. and A.H.U. clusters. Over 3,000 square feet of open space is in front of and on the sides of the F.M.U. cluster, and the remaining open space creates a landscaped courtyard for the A.H.U. clusters. D. Variances Requested. In large part, the project can be constructed within the parameters of the R/MF zone district. However, a few minor variances through P.U.D. will be requested; and an external F.A.R. bonus is requested through special review. A height variance of five feet is requested for the F.M.U. cluster and one of the A.H.U. clusters. Two variances of two feet ( for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the side -yard setbacks and a variance of seven feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the rear -yard setback are requested. Additionally, the location of approximately one-half of the open space is proposed to be with and around the A.H.U. component of the project which is located towards the rear of the project and off of Ute Avenue. The strict definition of open space includes a requirement that open space be open to view from the street at pedestrian level. The definition of street in the Land Use Regulations includes private streets such as the access easement along the northwest boundary of the property,. The project has --l.,- suffic' ert uncovered space fie.n satisfy, the e zone district requirement, some of that space may not satisfy. the D20/04 -7- strict definition of open space; and a variance through the P.U.D. process for the percent of "open space" is requested, Pursuant to § 5-206D.10., Land Use Regulations, the external F.A.R. in the R/MF zone may be increased for multifamily dwellings from 1:1 to 1.1:1 by special review. Although the floor area of the living spaces is considerably below the 1:1 ratio, the external F.A.R. bonus will be requested to accommodate porches, overhangs and other architectural amenities which greatly enhance the quality of the project. D20/04 -8- z r 37 L.LJ x LL1 Q LL. Cn Lij ZD III. REQUEST FOR G.M.Q.S. EXEMPTION (F.M.U.) The applicant has been informed by Bill Drueding, Chief Zoning Official for the City of Aspen, that the applicant has four "legal" residential units on the property. Pursu- ant to--9S 04A 1 a., Land Use Regulations, the applicant requests exemption by the Planning Director from the G.M.Q.S. requirements of the Land Use Regulations for the four units to be reconstructed on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The applicant will request G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to § 8-104C.1.c., Land Use Regulations, with the second submission of applications (steps three and four) . D20/04 -9- cn z LLJ LLJ Q� W LLJ W Q: IV. COMMON REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Section 6-202B., Land Use Regulations, provides the five common review requirements to be contained in all development applications. These five requirements are provided below for both the rezoning application and the conceptual P.U.D. application. A. "The applicant's name, address and telephone number contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant." Attached as Exhibit 3 is the required letter from the applicant. B. "Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur." The street address for the project is 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The legal description for the property is Lots 14 and 15A, Ute Addition, Original Aspen Townsite, and a tract of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth P.M. lying northeasterly of an existing roadway which roadway abuts the southwesterly boundary of the said tract which is more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the most southerly corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, thence S45°42'00"W 81.71 feet; thence N27109'00"W 34.27 feet; thence N13051'00"W 47.51 feet; thence N28°34'00"E 57.60 feet; thence southeasterly D20/04 -10- along line 1-9 of the former boundary of the City of Aspen to the point of beginning. C. "A disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the development application." Attached as Exhibit 4 is a copy of a current title certificate from Pitkin County Title showing ownership of the property in the applicant and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel. As owner of the property, the applicant has the right to file these development applications. D. "An W'xll" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen." Attached as Exhibit 5 is a copy of an 8J"x1l" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. E. "A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application." The specific review standards for rezoning and for conceptual P.U.D. include a written description of the D20/04 -11- proposal and are addressed in separate sections later in this application. D20/04 -12- u 7- W J V. REZONING REQUIREMENTS Section 7-1104C., Land Use Regulations, provides the three requirements (in addition to consideration of the specific review standards) for an application for rezoning. Each of these is addressed. A. "The present zone district classification and existing land uses of the real property proposed to be amended." The present zone district classification of the subject property is R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and there are two residential buildings on the property with an existing habita s ware -fee These residences are not deed restricted. However, they have historically been rented as affordable housing. There are currently two parking spaces on the property. There are four "legal" units and 12 bedrooms in these residences. B. "The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet of acres, or a major fraction thereof." The entire parcel is proposed to be amended from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D. The total square footage of this parcel is approximately 17,975.5 square feet. See the survey in the pocket at the back of this application. C. "An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment." D20/04 -13- Included with this application in the pocket in the back of the application is a copy of a current improvements survey of the real property. D20/04 -14- VI. REZONING REVIEW STANDARDS The nine standards of review for a rezoning are provid- ed in § 7-1102, Land Use Regulations. Each of these stan- dards is addressed. A. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." The proposed rezoning from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D., is not in conflict with any 1 applicable portion of the Land Use Regulations. B. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." To date, four elements of the Aspen Area Compre- hensive Plan have been adopted by the City Council. The Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element was adopted by Resolution No. 18 (Series of 1985); the Historic Preserva- tion Element was adopted by Resolution No. 25 (Series of 1986); the Transportation Element was adopted by Resolution No. 19 (Series of 1987); and the Annexation Element was adopted by Resolution No. 31 (Series of 1988). The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with any element. With respect to the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element, Glory Hole Park is directly across the street from the proposed development, and there is a paved trail along the northeast side of Ute Avenue. The project will have open space consistent with the RM/F zone requirements, although some of it is located near the rear of the parcel to create a courtyard for the A.H.U. component and, therefore, may not D20/04 -15- meet the strict definition of open space because it is not open to view at pedestrian level from Ute Avenue or the private street along the northwest property line. With respect to the Historic Preservation Element, the dwellings currently on the property, while old, are certainly not historic in an architectural or any other sense. Most of the other developments on Ute Avenue are developed in a scale and character similar to that proposed for this project. This project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan because the project is providing additional off-street parking and not displacing resident employees. The two current parking spaces will be replaced with 16 parking spaces. Further, resident employees who would undoubtedly be displaced down valley or, at a minimum, out of the downtown area, and, thereby, forced to commute will be retained in the center of town within walking distance of most employers and essential facilities. The proposed project is not inconsistent with the Annexation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The project has long been a part of the townsite of Aspen. C. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses considering exist- ing land use and neighborhood characteristics." D20/04 -16- § 5-206A. The purpose of the R/MF zone district is stated at The purpose of the R/MF zone district is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. . . . Lands in the R/MF zone district are typically those found in the original Aspen Townsite, within walking distance of the center of the city, or include lands on transit routes, and other lands with existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached and detached residential dwellings. The proposed amendment and the project proposed for the property fit squarely within the purpose of the R/MF zone. The proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts. To the north and west of the project is the L/TR zone. To the south and east of the project is R-6, mandatory P.U.D. zoning (of which the subject property is currently a part) . To the north and east directly across Ute Avenue is Glory Hole Park, which has a P zoning; and across Glory Hole Park to the north and east is a large area zoned R/MF. The L/TR zone neighboring the property is slightly more intensive than the proposed R/MF zone: there are more permitted uses; the allowable height is three feet higher; and the minimum percent of open space required is ten percent less for L/TR than for R/MF. Compare § 5-206 and § 5-215, Land Use Regulations. The R/MF zone is an appropriate transitional zone from the more intensive L/TR zone to the less intensive R-6 zone. This property is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola and within a few D20/04 -17- minutes walking distance from the commercial core of the town. An intensive residential use of this property is appropriate. The front of the property abuts Ute Avenue. Directly across Ute Avenue is Glory Hole Park, and across Glory Hole Park is a large area zoned R/MF. Directly behind the property is a ten -foot -wide dirt road. Directly behind this small roadway is a steep hillside which is very likely //0 too steep for development. On the two sides of the property (northwest and southeast) are multi -family townhouse -style condominium developments. To the northeast of the property are the 777 Ute Townhomes and the Ajax Condominiums. To the southwest of the property is Black Swan Hall. The 777 U,te Avenue Townhomes are constructed in the L/TR zone. According to the recorded plat, these townhomes are on a lot with an area of 21,475 square feet and consist of nine free-market condominiums each three stories high. This project is constructed on an odd -shaped lot with the bulk and mass of the project clustered on Ute Avenue adjacent to the Nelson-Devore property. A large portion of the open space for that project is on an odd -shaped parcel in the rear. According to the G.M.P. application for that project, the floor area for the nine free-market units on that project is 28,700, of which 19,689 is attributable to F.A.R. Assuming these numbers are accurate, the external F.A.R. for that project is .93:1. This project provided no affordable D20/04 -18- housing but instead made a cash payment of $300,000.00 in lieu of construction of affordable housing. The Ajax Condominiums are a two-story nine -unit condominium project which also provided no affordable housing. Black Swan Hall is constructed in the R-6 zone and is a four -unit condominium complex. According to the recorded plat, each unit is three stories high with four bedrooms and is built on approximately 18,730 square feet of land. According to the file at the City Clerk's Office, the total floor area of the project is 7,600 square feet. The external F.A.R. of the project is .4�1 Once again, no affordable housing was provided by this project. An R/MF rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses and would provide an appropriate transitional zone from the L/TR zone to the R-6 zone. The proposed project and the proposed rezoning are consistent with the existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." There will be no effect on traffic generation and road safety other than the avoidance of potential adverse effects caused by displacing resident afforable housing. This project is within walking distance of the Gondola and all essential services. State Highway 82 has been made increasingly dangerous in recent years due to the displacement of affordable resident housing down valley D20/04 -19- since most of the jobs are in the Aspen area and most of the affordable housing is down valley. This project seeks to retain 100% of the existing habitable F.A.R., which currently is affordable resident housing, and more than 100% of the bedrooms which are currently affordable housing. This project will replace the two existing on -site parking spaces with 16 new parking spaces. E. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extend to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." The rezoning from R-6, mandatory P.U.D., to R/MF, mandatory P.U.D., will not affect demand on any public facility except water supply. There are currently two 2 residences divided into 12 units on the property, and the neighborhood is already intensely developed. The only increase in demand on public facilities is with respect to water. The two residences currently on the property obtain water directly from the Durant Mine. The new project will tap onto the City water lines. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a letter from Jim Markalunas, Director, Aspen Water Department, which confirms that adequate water supply is available to service the proposed project. Also attached as Exhibit 6 are letters from Aspen Consolidated Sanitation D20/04 -20- 10. District, Holy Cross Electric Association and the Fire Department stating that adequate facilities are available to service the proposed project. The project is within easy walking distance of the Rubey Park transportation facility, and the project will provide 14 new on -site parking spaces. F. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." There will be no adverse impacts on the natural environment. The site is practically flat and treeless. There is a steep, heavily wooded slope directly across the road behind the project which will be undisturbed. The applicant anticipates the addition of trees and other landscaping amenities to enhance the property. G. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character and the City of Aspen." The proposed amendment from R-6 to R/MF will allow a transition zone from the L/TR zone to the R-6 zone. Development of clusters of multi -family dwellings such as the proposed development for this project is consistent and compatible with the community character in this area of town. The project is one and one-half blocks from the Gondola and within easy walking distance of the commercial core and all essential facilities. Clustered multi -family dwellings are appropriate for this neighborhood. D20/04 -21- H. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." Since this area of town was originally zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D., there have been considerable changes in the neighborhood. Black Swan Hall, a multi -family condominium development, was built next to this project in 1977; and the 777 Ute Townhomes project on the other side of this property is currently under construction. There has been considerable new development on Ute Avenue, including a Marge residential project at 1010 Ute Avenue. The most significant change to the neighborhood was the addition of the Gondola, Gondola building and Little Nell Hotel. These additions and the increased use of Aspen Mountain caused by the Gondola have made this area of town considerabely more intensive. More important is the recent dislocation of resident employees. Aspen has reached an almost crisis level with lack of affordable housing. Due to spiraling real estate values, affordable housing throughout the City of Aspen has been largely replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach of the majority of the employees in town. As a result, the employees which service the town's tourist industry are now forced to commute from down valley or simply leave the area. As a result, there is a shortage of employees; and those employees who have stayed in the area are generally bitter and angry. This rezoning is D20/04 -22- proposed in an attempt to prevent the displacement of additional employees from the Aspen area. I. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." The proposed amendment is clearly in harmony with the public interest and the intent of the Land Use Regulations. The Land Use Regulations have been amended extensively within the last few years in an attempt to stimulate reconstruction of affordable housinq as is proposed by this project. This project is not in conflict with the public interest since it proposes to retain in the Aspen area affordable housing. D20/04 -23- WAN WE Wil a VII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REQUIREMENTS The requirements for submission of a conceptual P.U.D. development plan are set forth in § 7-903C.1.a., Land Use Regulations. Each of these is addressed below. A. "The general application information required in common procedures, S 6-202." This information is provided above in Section IV, Common Review Requirements. B. "A conceptual description of the proposed P.U.D. This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the planned unit development and a conceptual description of proposed land uses, building heights and locations, landscaping, open space, natural features and access ways." 1. Introduction. This development plan mixes two very different housing types: affordable housing units and free-market units. Four F.M.U.s in a townhouse style are clustered on the Ute Avenue frontage in order to maximize views of Glory Hole Park and Red Mountain. They are on the least constrained portion of an extremely tapered site. The seven A.H.U.s, covering less ground than the F.M.U.s, are clustered on the Aspen Mountain side of the site, the most constrained portion of the site. Parking for the A.H.U.s and the entrance to the F.M.U. garages are located between these two components on the middle portion of the site. Access to the parking is by a dedicated access easement on the northwest property line. Pursuant to the D20/04 -24- Subdivision (Exception) Agreement for 777 Ute Avenue Townhomes between the City of Aspen and the developer of that project, which agreement is recorded in Book 575 at Page 82 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk an Recorder, the developer of 777 Ute Avenue Townhomes is to pave a 16-foot surface along the access easement on the northwest property line of this site. See paragraph B.2. of that agreement. The objective of this development plan is to produce (dignified replacement housing for the affordable housing now on the site. This housing is made possible through sale of the four F.M.U.s to be built on the Ute Avenue portion of the site. The P.U.D. process creates the needed flexibility for development of this odd -shaped --------------- parcel with an unprecedented mix of high end and low end housing types. 2. Free -Market Units. The F.M.U.s are necessary to make this project financially feasible. The four F.M.U.s will be developed as luxury townhomes. The applicant's marketing research indicates it is necessary for these townhomes to be approximately 3,000 square feet each, provide at least three bedrooms and provide garage parking for two cars. The proximity of this site to the Gondola and I all essential services in town makes this location prime for development of luxury townhomes, as is evident by the nine luxury townhomes being constructed on the 777 Ute project next to this proposed development. The applicant requests D20/04 -25- variations in height and parking for the F.M.U. component. No variation in setbacks is requested for this component of the project. a. Setbacks. Three of the four F.M.U.s are set back twice the required ten -foot front -yard setback. This reduces the apparent height and bulk of the Ute Avenue facade. The fourth unit is set back only the required ten feet due to a tapering of the site along the access easement on the northwest side of the site. Also, by not being set back the same number of feet as the other three units, the Ute Avenue facade is broken up and appears less bulky. b. Height. The underlying R/MF zone requires a minimum front yard of ten feet and allows a maximum height of 25 feet. The proposed three-story F.M.U.s have flat roofs and are 30 feet high when measured from grade. Because 75% of the Ute Avenue facade is set back 20 feet, the apparent height of this part of the facade, when viewed from a passing car on Ute Avenue, is exactly the same as a 25-foot-high facade set back only ten feet. The F.M.U.s are not sunk five feet below grade, as is usual for this type of development. There are two reasons for this. Q There is a history of occasional spring surface water runoff from Aspen Mountain (particularly since installation of new snowmaking facilities and the Gondola) through this site, which suggests that below -grade areas may be subject to occasional flooding. This problem is mitigated by not D20/04 -26- constructing sub -surface spaces. See Exhibit 7, a letter from Jay Hammond, civi engineer, which explains the potential problem and the suggested solution. (2) Sinking the F.M.U. garages five feet below grade would require a minimum of a 20-foot-long ramp at the rear of the townhomes to allow the cars to access the below -grade garage. The ,angle of these ramps would be 250, far steeper than the recommended standard maximum of 15% for vehicular ramps. These 20-foot-long ramps could be accommodated only by eliminating all of the parking for the A.H.U.s. In order to lessen the feeling of a large wall on Ute Avenue, to avoid drainage problems and to provide A.H.U. parking, the applicant requests a variation from the underlying zone height maximum of 25 feet to 30 feet. C. Parking. Pursuant to § 5-206E.1., Land Use Regulations, required parking for the F.M.U. component is one parking space per bedroom. As proposed, the F.M.U.s have three bedrooms. However, off-street parking may be varied pursuant to § 7-903B.4., Land Use Regulations, through the P.U.D. process based on several factors. These factors are addressed in Section VII, Conceptual P.U.D. Review Standards, below. The applicant requests a variation in required parking from three spaces to two spaces for each three -bedroom F.M.U. This reduction is justified for two reasons. (1) These luxury townhomes tend to be second homes which do not generate the usual one D20/04 -27- car per bedroom, and there is no need to encourage auto use for second homes in the downtown area. (2) These units are a very short walk from the downtown Aspen area, all essential services and the Gondola, which greatly reduces the need for vehicular transportation. 3. Affordable Housing Units. The A.H.U.s are arranged in two clusters fronting a central courtyard with views toward the wooded slope of adjacent Aspen Mountain and toward Red Mountain across the valley floor. The smaller structure is to the southwest portion of the rear side of the tapered site and is two stories high to allow light into the courtyard and to allow the other A.H.U. structure to have views of Red Mountain. The larger A.H.U. structure is along the southeastern boundary of the rear of the property. A man-made waterfall and creek using water from the Durant Mine (the current domestic water supply for the residences on the property) meanders down the middle of the courtyard providing a wonderful landscaping amenity for the A.H.U.s. Through the P.U.D. process, setback and height variations from the underlying zone dimension requirements are requested. Parking is to be provided through special review. a. Setbacks. The A.H.U. clusters encroach into the side- and rear -yard setbacks as defined by the underlying R/MF zone district in three places. This is necessary to accommodate a site that tapers to zero on the Aspen Mountain side. None of these encroachments borders an D20/04 -28- existing building or a potential building site. These encroachments border a dirt road. Across this road is a steep, wooded hillside which is not a pr✓�Eical building site. Requested are two side -yard setback/variations of a maximum of three feet deep (for a distance of less than 20 feet) and one rear -yard setback variation of a maximum of seven feet deep (for a distance of less than 20 feet). These variations and setback encroachments are depicted on the site plan included herewith. b. Height. The three-story A.H.U. structure borders the southeast corner of the site in order to minimize height and bulk impacts and to make possible creation of the waterfall/courtyard open space --the humanizing focal point of the A.H.U. cluster. Further, the height variation helps minimize the footprint of the building, maximize the open space of the project and prevent the need for sinking the cluster below grade. Thus, a height variation of five feet from 25 feet to 30 feet is requested for one of the A.H.U. structures. No views are impacted by this requested variation. C. Parking. Pursuant to § 5-301B., Land Use Regulations, the parking for the A.H.U. component is to be determined by special review. Eight parking spaces are provided for the seven A.H.U. units. The project is within a few minutes' walk from downtown Aspen, and the need for more than one car per household is doubtful. A special D20/04 -29- review application will be provided at steps three and four of the review process for the A.H.U. parking. 4. Open Space. The R.M.F. zone district requires 35% of the site be open space. The site is 17,975.5 square feet, and 6,291.43 square foeeeei is required to be open space. The project —provides v,ys3-square feet as uncovered space. This is"of the site area. We have calculated uncovered space as follows. 3 C�' (�e (01© Total field area Free-market f otprint A.H.U. footprint 1 A.H.U. footprint 2 Parking area 17,975.5 s.f. - 4,500.0 s.f. - 800.0 s.f. 2,025.25 s.f. - 3,624.0 Trash area - 70.0 Total uncovered space V Tso7-2i s.f. The uncovered space i a ortione between the two components of the project. Directly across Ute Avenue from the project is Glory Hole Park, which enhances the open feeling on Ute Avenue and the front of the project. Approximately one-half of uncovered space is provided on Ute Avenue and along the sides of the F.M.U. component of the project. The remainder of the uncovered space is used for a courtyard for the A.H.U. component of the property. The courtyard is a tremendous addition to the A.H.U. component. As a result of the two -component nature of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. D20/04 -30- As a result of the two -component nature of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles." Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, includes private streets such as the street along the northwest property line used to access the parking area. Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant requests a variation from the required percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process. (Preliminary calculations indicat 29$ the total site area satisfies the definition of open space. It is anticipated the applicant will request a variation in open space fr m 35% to 29%. 5. Summary. The unu a shape of the parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The requested variations of height, setback and percentage of open space would make possible private -sector development which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. D20/04 -31- courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles." Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, includes private streets such as the street along the northwest property line used to access the parking area. .Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant requests a variation from the required percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process. 5. Summary. The unusual shape of the parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The requested variations of height, setback and percentage of open space would make possible private -sector development which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C. "A statement conceptually outlining how the proposed P.U.D. development will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurances will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development." D20/04 -31- The proposed P.U.D. is adequately served with all appropriate public facilities except water. The applicant has requested a waiver of water tap fees. If the water tap fees are waived, such waiver provides assurance that the public facilities will be made available. D. "A conceptual site plan, illustrating: (a) existing natural and man-made features; (b) general configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and .existing and proposed utilities; (c) a general landscaping plan and elevations or other architectural renderings of the proposed improvements, which, at a conceptual level, depict general site design features, building mass and height, and relation to natural features of the site." Included in the back pocket of this application is a copy of the conceptual site plan for this project. A reduced version of this site plan is attached as Exhibit 8. D20/04 -32- VIII. CONCEPTUAL P.U.D. REVIEW STANDARDS ! The 11 review standards for P.U.D. are provided in § 7-903B., Land Use Regulations. Each of these is addressed below. A. General Requirements. The proposed development is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, as is set forth in Section VI, Map Amendment Review Standards. The proposed development does not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The only possible area of future development which could affected is along the rear and side yards where setbacks are requested. However, there is a dirt roadway which abuts the property and is in no way affected by the development. Also, the land across this roadway is a steep hillside which is very un to be deve ed. J.PE.Q.5 • exemption is requested herein for the reconstruction of the four legal units; and, in steps three and four of the approval process, a G.M.Q.S. exemption will be requested for the A.H.U. component. B. Density. 1. General. The proposed density of the project is consistent with that permitted in the underlying zone district. The R.M.F. zone allows an external floor area ratio of 1:1, which may be increased to 1.1:1 by special review. See § 5-206D.10., Land Use Regulations. The applicant will file a special review request for the D20/04 -33- increase in density in steps three and four of the four -step process. There is sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the proposed development. See the letters provided in Exhibit 6. There are adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. In Exhibit 6, the fire marshall states there is adequate and ample water for the required fire flow to protect the property. The land is suitable for the proposed development. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a copy of the soils report prepared by Chen & Associates, Inc., for this property. Further, the structures are being built on grade instead of being lowered by five feet, as is traditional. This is due to occasional water runoff in the area. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the natural water shed due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. The buildings, as proposed, have flat roofs with internal drains, thereby minimizing the soil erosion and runoff. (There will be no wood -burning fireplaces in the project, and any wood -burning stoves will be certified. There will be no deleterious affect on air quality in the surrounding area caused by the proposed development. The design and location of all structures are compatible with the terrain, which is very gradually sloping. Consideration. 2. Reduction in Density for Slope The existing site has no slopes over 20%; therefore, no slope reduction applies. D20/04 -34- C. Land Uses. The multi -family residential use of land is permitted by the R/MF zone district. D. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district are met except for (1) the maximum height of the F.M.U. component and one of the A.H.U. component buildings, (2) a less than 20-foot segment of the rear -yard setback and two less than 20-foot segments of the side -yard setbacks, and (3) the required (percentage open space. To assist in review of this project, we have included area and bulk tables on the site plan. There are 11 dimensional requirements for the R/MF zone district. Each of these is addressed and, where necessary, variations are requested. The 11 dimensional requirements are addressed in the order presented in § 5-206D., Land Use Regulations. 1. The minimum lot size in the R/MF zone is 6,000 square feet. This lot is considerably larger than the minimum lot size. 2. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit for multi -family dwellings on lots of 27,000 square feet or less when at least 50% of the units built on site are restricted as affordable housing are as follows: studio, 500 square feet; one bedroom, 600 square feet; two bedrooms, 1,000 square feet; three bedrooms, 1,500 square feet. The proposed development is comprised of two studio units, four two -bedroom units and five three -bedroom units, which 4T o results in a minimum lot area requirement of 12,500 square �G D20/04 -35- feet. Thus, the minimum lot area requirements are satisfied. See Lot Area Tables on the Site Plan. 3. The minimum lot width requirement in the R/MF zone is 60 feet. The lot varies in width from 142.39 feet to zero due to its odd shape. The average lot width is considerably more than 60 feet. See the survey included with this application. 4. The minimum front -yard requirement in the R/MF zone is ten feet for principal buildings. Three of the four principal buildings along the front of this lot are set back 20 feet, and the fourth unit is set back the minimum ten feet due to the tapering of the lot on the northwest side. 5. In the R/MF zone, the minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings is five feet. As stated above, the applicant requests variation for the side -yard setback in two locations as depicted on the site plan included with this application. The requested variations are approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of three feet into the side yard. 6. The minimum rear yard for a principal building in the R/MF zone is ten feet. As stated above, the applicant requests a variation for one area as depicted on the Site Plan included herewith. This variation is approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of seven feet deep. 7. The maximum height for buildings in the R/MF zone is 25 feet. As stated above, the applicant D20/04 -36- requests a variation of five feet for two of the three clusters. The F.M.U. component of the project is proposed to be 30 feet, and one of the two A.H.U. clusters is proposed to be 30 feet. This is considered advisable by the project engineers because of occasional water runoff. It is usual in the Aspen area to build a three-story townhouse and build the first story of the house five feet below grade. However, since it is not advisable to construct below grade on this site, a five-foot height variation is requested. The buildings will have flat roofs with internal drains to minimize runoff and erosion. 8. The minimum distance between buildings on lots in the R/MF zone is ten feet. The three separate clusters on this site are considerably more than ten feet apart, and no variation is requested. 9. The percent of open space Fequired for a AP pcby' building site in the R/MF zone is 35%. _M r�� 35% of the site is uncovered space. Due to the nature of the project having an F.M.U. component and an A.H.U. component, the open space is apportioned between those components. If this parcel had a street on the rear side instead of being backed up against Aspen Mountain, the entire -3�9-% of the site which is uncovered would qualify as open space. Due to the unusual site location and shape, the applicant requests a variation in the -re6 e percent of open spaceA�,.,, 35-2 aGly) 10. The external floor area ratio requirement in the R/MF zone for multi -family dwellings is D20/04 -37- "1:1, which may be increased to 1.1:1 by special review." Although the living space of the project is less than a 1:1 F.A.R., the applicant will request an increase to 1.1:1 by special review in steps three and four of the application process in order to accommodate architectural amenities which greatly enhance the project and are included in F.A.R. calculations. 11. There is no internal F.A.R. requirement in the R/MF zone. E. Off -Street Parking. The off-street parking requirements in the R/MF zone are one parking space per bedroom for the free-market units, § 5-206E.1., Land Use Regulations, and to be determined by special review for the affordable housing component pursuant to § 5-301B., Land Use Regulations. As noted above, the applicant requests a variation in the required number of off-street parking spaces for the F.M.U. component. There are three bedrooms in each of the F.M.U.s. The applicant requests the required number of parking spaces be reduced from three to two. Section 7-903B.4., Land Use Regulations, provides the criteria to be considered for variation of off-street parking through the P.U.D. The relevant considerations are addressed. 1. "The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development." The F.M.U. component will be developed as high -end luxury units which have historically been sold in Aspen as second homes for D20/04 -38- non-residents. The property is located within one and one-half blocks of the Gondola and within a few minutes' walk to all essential facilities and restaurants and shopping. It is doubtful that more than two cars would be needed or used by any second -home owner in this location. 2. "The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development." The public transit facilities are within a four -block walk of the project, and there is a pedestrian trail syste which asses along the opposite si of Ute el Avenue. � i 3. "The proximity of the proposed^ development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City." As stated above, the proposed development is in very close proximity to the commercial core and the primary public recreational facility, that is, the Gondola. As required by the Land Use Regulations, the applicant is willing to assure the City that the nature of the occupancy will not change. F. Open Space. Section 7-903B.5., Land Use Regulations, provides that the open space requirement of the underlying zone district may be varied. [A] variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed P.U.D. and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in D20/04 -39- the proposed P.U.D. through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it (1) is to be used and is suitable for scenic landscaping, or recreation purposes and (2) is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the area is intended. The requested variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed P.U.D. since the proposed variation would allow the open space to be divided between the F.M.U. cluster and the A.H.U. clusters. This is consistent with the dual nature of the project. The open space of the project will be for the mutual benefit of all development in the P.U.D. While called a courtyard instead of a common park or recreation area, the open space is to be used (1) for scenic landscaping and (2) is accessible and available to all dwelling units. The requirements for a variation are satisfied. The Land Use Regulations require that the development plan be accompanied by a legal instrument which insures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces. It is the applicant's intention to prepare and record condominium declarations for the project which will provide for the perman nt care and maintenance of he open spaces. If necessary, he condominium declaration will be available for review and approval at steps three and four of the application process. D20/04 -40- G. Landscape Plan. The a e lan is to be filed and approved as a part of steps three and four of the review process with the final P.U.D. development plan. H. Architectural Site Plan. As a part of steps three and four of the review process, the applicant will provide an architectural site plan with the final P.U.D. plan as required by the Land Use Regulations. The applicant has provided with this application a conceptual site plan giving the locations of the buildings and an overview of the site. I. Lighting. All lighting will be arranged to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference and will be provided on the architectural site plan filed with the final P.U.D. development plan. J. Clustering. As is encouraged by the Land Use Regulations, the dwelling units are clustered. K. Public Facilities. Adequate public facilities are available to accommodate the proposed development. The current developmentanected to all necessary public facilities except fo nd there is sufficient water availability and presservice this project. See Exhibit 6. There will be no net public cost for the provision of water to this project. While the applicant has requested a waiver of tap fees, the applicant will pay all hard costs for hook up to the City water system, such as laying and connecting any pipes. The buildings of the P.U.D. are arranged such that all D20/04 -41- structures are accessible by emergency vehicles. There is a roadway along the rear of the property, and a parking area is provided in the center of the property. L. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. Section 7-903B.11, Land Use Regulations, provides six areas to be addressed for traffic and pedestrian circulation. Each of these is satisfied. 1. Every dwelling unit in the P.U.D. has access to a public street through the parking area to the dedicated access easement along the northwest property line which is to be paved by the owners of 777 Ute Townhomes pursuant to the Subdivision (Exception) Agreement between the owner of that project and the City. This access easement has been dedicated to public use. 2. The principal vehicular access into the parking area on the center of the project has been designed Zto be wide enough to permit smooth traffic flow into and out of the parking area as well as into and out of each of the parking spaces. There is no hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic created by this parking area. 3. The proposed development does not create traffic congestion on the arterial and connector roads. By providing 14 additional off-street parking spaces, the proposed development helps mitigate the congestion on the arterial and connector roads. D20/04 -42- 4. Every residential building is within 60 feet of the central parking area, which provides vehicular access to a public street. 5. Other than the trash, garage and storage areas, there are no non-residential land uses within the P.U.D. 6. The dedicated private access easement along the northwest border of the property is to be improved by the owners of the 777 Ute Townhomes within the parameters of the City regulations and ordinances. D20/04 -43- C A L IAa 94LUr 1 .AND USE APPLICATION FURM 1) Project Name 2) Project location 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen,• See §IV B of Application for legal description (indicate street address, lot & block mmi>-_r, legal, description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R-6, mandatory P.U.D. 4) lot Size 17.975.5 s.f. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Nelson/Devore Partnership, 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-1744 925-2317 5) Representative's Name, Address & Fhone # Joseph E. Edwards, III, Suite 109, 201 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925-7116 1) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use C bricgptual SPA Conceptual historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final. Historic Dev. 8040 Grp -*ne X Conceptual PUD Minor historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD historic Demolition Mountain . View Plane Subdivision Iistoric Designation Cog dcminiumi nation X -Text/Map Amendment- GMS Allotment Iat Split/Iot Line X GKM S Exemption Adjustment Description of Existing g Uses (timber and type of eXi-Stir" St"_JC es; aPPxXDCimat,e sq. ft. ; rIznber of bedrooms; any pr'evivas approvals granted to tl1e Ply) . Two residential structures; 5,655 habitable F.A.R.; 12 bedrooms Description of Development Applications G.M.Q.S. exemption by Planning Director; Map Amendment from R-6, P.U.D., to R/11F, P.U.D. (for reference only); Conceptual P.U.D. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attacimyerst 2, Minimum Ski ssion Contents X Respanise to Attadm ent 3, Specific Submission mission Contents X Respoaise to Attachment 4, Review Starrlanis for Your Application CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: I26-umcfC1 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: LIS REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: �S 61 2. Describe action/type of development being requested:jT r i I on :S �C)<Qt,,6t6)YN �7 re-C A--�r I j .z,_ e j1j Vt l` Ui1WIct-t4lici / t� - eN 3. A eas is which Appli ant has been equested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) , 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: A 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: /zit �° �I 8. Anticipated date of submission: CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: ?) 1 1 1l11 1 1 n b 5 (1 ; r1 � APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:L 1< G)a I P (_ 6d REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:' OWNER'S NAME: 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only (P&Z then to CC 5. Public Hearing: (YES (NOj — 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:_ 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: %�L(Do 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9 ICQMMENTS/UNIgU CO CERNS: C� n t ' /?frm. pre_app I a �, November 7, 1989 Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 831 Ute Avenue Dear Planning Department: We have examined the residential dwellings at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and the total existing habitable FAR for the two residential dwellings on that property is 5,655 square feet and the total number of bedrooms in the two residential dwellings on that property is 12. Very truly yours, Bill Lipsey, �hitect _:jjn Devore General Partner, Nelson/Devore Partnership ch L/12 3 November 7, 1989 Aspen-Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Land Use Applications for 831 Ute Avenue Dear City of Aspen Planning Department: The Nelson/Devore Partnership is the record owner of the following described property: Lots 14 and 15A, Ute Addition to the Townsite of Aspen, and a tract of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth P.M., lying northeasterly of an existing roadway, which roadway abuts the southwest boundary of the said tract which is more particularly described as follows. Beginning at the most southern corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, thence S 45*42' W 81.71 feet, thence N 27*09' W 34.27 feet, thence N 13*51' W 47.51 feet, thence N 28°34' E 57.60 feet, thence SE along line 1-9 of the former boundary of the City of Aspen to the point of beginning, Pitkin County, Colorado. The street address for this property is 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The Nelson-Devore Partnership, whose address is c/o Nelson/Zeeb Construction Company, Inc., Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620, and whose telephone number is (303) 949-5152, authorizes the law offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr., Suite 109, 201 North Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, whose telephone number is (303) 925-7116, to file with you any applications under the Aspen Land Use Regulations they shall deem necessary for the above -described property. Very truly yours, NELSON- EVARE--PARTI_ASHIP a- evore- 01,Cl D(A,S General Partner ch L/10 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT : NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP ARE THE OWNERS IN FEE SIMPLE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO —WIT: REFER TO DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO DEEDS OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, ENCUMBRANCES APPARENTLY NOT RELEASED: DEED OF TRUST IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,080,000.00 PAYABLE TO DEANE BILLINGS LIEN AND JUDGEMENTS APPARENTLY NOT RELEASED: NONE ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THE FACTS STATED ARE TRUE, THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR A GUARANTY OF TITLE, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., NEITHER ASSUMES, NOR WILL BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATEVER ON ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN. CERTIFIED TO: 11/01/89 PITKINi COUNTY ITITIE1, INC. Recorded as o'clock _ M., Reception No. I' I' 1YARRANTY DEED THIS DEED Made this 6+ o 1 I da rf NoVeM�eR j between . DEANE BILLINGS •I C �I County of Pitkin j _J ,I9 of the , State of Colorado, grantor NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP whose legal address is c/o Nelson/Zeeb Construction Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620 of the County of Eagle Recorder. 89. i I I I State of Colorado, granlee(s): 1Vll'N1iSSE'1'11, That the grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of i Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of a hich is heretic acknoaicdged. ha s granted. bargained, sold and crn %mcd. and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, comet, and confirm, unto the rr:mtecls)• its heir< and assigns forever. all the real property. together with improvements, if any, situate. lying and bring in the County of Pitkin . State of Colorado. described :Is lollosys: PARCEL A All of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the Townsite of',, Aspen, except mineral interest. I I PARCEL B 1 All of Lot 15 A, Ute Addition to the Town-�j e�''. of Aspen, except mineral interest. oft,•....• PARCEL C A tract of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, Township 10'South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying Northeasterly of an existing roadway, which roadway abuts the southwesterly boundary of the said tract more particularly described;as follows. Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen; thence S. 45*42100" W. R1.71 feet; thence N. 27009100/1 W. 34. 27feet; thence N. 13*51100"'W.' 47.51 feet; thence N. 28034'00" E. 57.60 feet; thence Southeasterly along Line 1-9 of the former boundary of the,City of Aspen to the point of beginning. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded August 26, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 299 as Reception No. 96828. Mineral interests reserved in Deed recorded April 28, 1961'in Book 193 at Page 595, Reception No. 111295, of records for Pitkin County, Colorado (Affects Parcel C). The right and privilege to relocate the present existing water line, other than at its terminal point as reserved by Kenneth N.C.B. Moore and Betty Moore in Deed to Deane Billings recorded March 23, 1964 in Book 206 at Page 263 as Reception No. 117341. 1' T "Offsets" as shown on the Plat of Ute Addition recorded"''in'Plat Book 2 at Page 15 as Reception No. 602225 and identified as'' "$ "Setback lines" on the survey dated October 11, '1988'prepared`by:" 'j Alpine Surveys, Inc. as Job No. 88-134. I Development Covenant and 5 foot Utility easement lying within a 6 ' foot road easement as shown on the replat of Lot "15 Ute Addition Recorded in Plat Book 10 at Paoe 91 as Reception No. 2296571,'11'0111 "'rp't *If in Denver. insert "City and'. Nu. 463. Rev. 3•87. %%ARRAN'T1' VUll 0- Ph.,Nx,.,hlr W- Al II,.Jr..J t•vhh,htn,. Ws 'A' 611, M. , LA—.J, t'() ov21/ — I.tlll, $II.a01t1 3.17 1� C •, :'raj �i also known by vtrect and number as: 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 j,. G j !• '1'0CETIILR with all and singular the heredliamems and appurtenances thereto belonging, or In anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, tide, interest, claim and 1 ` demand whaism%cr of Ibe grantor(s), either in law or equity, of, In and to the above bargained premises. with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO IIAVE AND TO IIOLD the said premiacs above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the grantee(s), its heirs and assigns forever. And the grantor(s), for him sel f his) heirs and perst-nal represersattves, do a Scovenant. grant, bargain, and agree to and with the grantee(s), its ' heirs and assigns, that at the nine of the emeul Ing and delivery ol'these presents, he Was well seized of the premises above conveyed, ha a perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple. and ha S good right, full power and author:-,. r grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and un:cr grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and restrictium. of whatever kind or nature soecer, except I 1989 Real Property Taxes payable in 1990. i The gantor(s) shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grawcos), its his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any parttheruf. I ' i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the granior(s) ha S executed this deed on the date set forth above. I DEANE BILLINGS'' 'I +�p10J yQ ' .,rM;pfyt, •, STATE OF COLORADO CnunV "f PitkiR The fvre,ting instrument Lclure da) �.�j 19-• II'?• was acknuwlcdyvl me this I of /IOVEMgEP� ) bS DEANE BILLINGS '1 %� � L-4 ' \I) curt:missinn expires \N'imrss my hand and offictl seal I' Vincent J. HigenelNotery Public s ., My Commission expires 12/26/90. 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 61611 oq rasa; li a c a. I j '2 I 2 0 a o oU y=y Ui C L •^ .y^ 1 i V L t y m - Recorded at o'clock Nil — Reception No. Recorder C f' DEED Or TRUST THIS INDENTURE, blade this / diy of .fb✓gM ggZa 19 89 . bet„ccn NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP I hwhose address isC/O Nelson/Zeeb Construction Company, I„ Inc. Drawer 5400, Avon, Colorado 81620 ! I hereinafter referred so as oramor. and the Public Truttce of the 'County or ' I ! Pitk in State of Colorado, hereinafter referred iss a% Public Tru%lee. WITNESSETH, THAT. WHEREAS. ' NELSON/DEVORE PARTNERSHIP + .I has eaccuted a promissory note or notes, hereinafter referred to in file %ingulor. dated November 1, 1989, . for the principal surn ofONE MILLION EIGHTY THOUSAND AND N01100 ($ 1, 080, 000. 00) Dtrllars. payable to the orJcr of 1,DEANE BILLINGS %%hoseaddressis 4662 Saratoga, Avenue, San Diego, CA. • i alter she dale hereof. a ith hucre%1 thereon from she date thereof ! ut fire rate of 10 1/2 percent Per unnusn. p:nahle , Interest shall be due and payable monthly on December 1, 1989 and each month thereafter until Principal and Interest are paid in full.. !I Principal shall be due and payable on November 1,11990i f j l AN13 R HLREAS. The grantor isde,in,us of securing p:lq u,clll at file Pill -pal and intc—1 at.uid rrrmdss%w, male ill %%hose hands sower the said note orally of Ihent or:,y he. i , NOW. T14LRLI-Ottl?. The grantor. in eunsidcraliun of'lice• rren+iw nd It-, file p1111—C Anesaid. Joe% hereto grain, bargain. sell and come.y unto the said Politic Trustee in trust forever. the fullm%inr JesnilkJ pml+c•rl. shmi a in rise Counl%ut l Pltkl❑ .Slag of CulnraJn. to it: r: ati ... !I PARCEL A 1 I All of Lot 14, Ute Addition to the''T.opFRsite of I. Aspen, except mineral interests. �% j PARCEL B j A.11 of Lot 15 A, Ute Addition to' theTownsite' of Aspen, except mineral interests. PARCEL L. 1 A tract. of land being parts of Lots 33 and 38, Section 18, ;i Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, lying Northeasterly of an existing roadway,,which roadway l abuts the southwesterly boundary of said tract more particularly j described as follows. ' , Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 14, Ute Addition to; •r the City and Townsite of. Aspen; thence S. 45042100" W. 81.71 It feet; thence :N. 27009'00" W. 34.27 feet; thence N. 13°51'00" W. is 47.51 feet; thence N. 28°34'00" E. 57.60,! feet;- thence i Southeasterly along Line 1-9 of the former boundary of',the City I� of Aspen to the point of beginning. �; also known bystrectandnumberas 031 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611'' TO HAVE AND 10 HOLD lire same. logelher with all and,invula, rise rri%ilere, and uprurtcnance% Ihcrcumo helunging: In Trust nc%erdreless, that in case of defaull In the raymenf of said note or any of IlAcm. or any part thereof. or in file puynlenl of the interest thcreon. according to [he scram and effect of s i said note or any of them, or in The paymerw of am prior encumbrances, principal or inlere%l, if um', or incase defaull shall be made in or in case of %iulation i or breach of any of the terms• conditions• eomenams or arreesnenl% herein contained. file hcncriciary hereunder or file legal holder of The indebtedness ' I secured hereby may declare a violation of any of the covenants herein contained and elect fit ad%erike said pmperly for s;de and demand such sale, !hen. jupon filing notice of such election and demand for sale u ilh file Public Trustee. %ho shall upon receipt of such notice of election unit demand for sale cause ■ copy of the same to be recorded in the recorder's office of fire counll in v, hit It told real c%late is situated. it shall slid no. Ja,%lul for the Public l iu%tce to sell and dispose of the same less manse or in separate parcels, as the said Public Trustee may think bests, and all llic lief 1. ode said interest of the grantor. his heirs or assigns therein, at public auction at The South from door The Court House. in the Count% • of P itk i n j . State of Colorado. or on said premises• or any part Ihercof u% ma%FK %l+ccilicJ in the notice of said sale, for the highest and hest trice the • • same will bring in cash, four weeks public notice ha%ing been previousic gi%en of the time and place of such sale. by advertisement.. weekly. in some newspaper of general eirodation at that lime puhlithed in said Count of P i t k i n , a copy of %%hich notice shall be mailed I within ten d+ws floor the date of file lir%l publication thereof so also grantor of the addre,% hcocin ri%cn solid to such rcrsun or person% uppearior it, I,me acquired a suhaequenl record imete%I intail real carafe rat the addret% ri%cn in the retooled iudtumenl: %firm oid% file county and state is riwrr as the . i address alien such notice shall he mailed lvthe county seas. and io make and File In Ihr purrha%cr or lnrrchn%ers ul %ugh rmperiy at such ale. a cerlihtale or eertifrcafes in ,%rising de,cribing such pmperly purchs,cd. and also sum or %unit paid therefor. ant the time %%hen the purchases air purchasers ror miler person enlillcd therctol shall he entitled fit a deed or deeds Ihercfor, unlc%%the %:one shall he redeemed a%f% provided h% Ww: and said Public lnr%tce %hull. upon dnnand by the person or per%on% holding the said certilicate air ccrlirienct of purchase. w hen said Jcmand is made, air uptm dem:md by the person' I a d k nd of If 1 tll h for , nioo hsvbr a rrcJ. "like a a cu u c h Ile such mm�J %ma she Ilnre r rCJen r n ra h propert) urcha%ed. in the time Jc I made. c f aJf rte milled load cJ o F e I 'I rlo.r e s:' or % s n n inary L o t of rnnacv:urce and hull h s,'property urch:,cd. hstb. uJ JrxJ JccJ hull Ix I t�te rd I r e n s e person (or ppecrsons a JccJ air dads fir Um %Ill ,r I dpneJ. aekntn%IaJpell and delicoeJ by file said I'uhhe 1 nnh•r and shall cnnu•y will quilslui,n to %uth pa a+u ur Ik•rtuu% entitled h, :uth deed. the said prolseny rureha%eJ u, afure,nid i d all file tight, title, interest, fa•noli ant] cqu!r) of rrdcmpthm ul ahe roan is. lift hobs and n%%!rn, lhctcin• uud shall fecne the sum or sum% for which file said protwny ,.is sold and shall ,cfcr to d,c p n%cr of ule drerein cnmaincd. and fir the safe of sales made he %irrue Ihereof; and In case of an a,6gmnent of such ecililieale or ccrificatc% of purchase, or in ca%c of the redemption ul such properry. h% a sub%equent encumbrancer, such at%!rmnenl or nct cmfaion sha!l a!,,, fw refenrJ o, in wch deed or Jecd,: hill lha notice or sale need nos he %es ;,of in such deed or deeds and the Public Trustee shall. out of t ,e proceed, air u, 61—f w,h %ale, alter lir%, pa. WE unit ro Ming all fe". thorpc—nd eo%i%of making %aid sale, pay to tho bancliclary hareunder or life legal holder of suld nnlc file principal and intclesl due on suid mule according fir file tenor and effect thereof, and all . moneys ed%•anced by such benenclary or lerul holder nr %uW note for Inwronce. Imes end a—otentt. %Ith Interest thereon of 15 1 / 2 Per cent per annum. rendering the meq,lm. if on)-. unto file grantor, hi% Iceal rrpw,cnlalk tale a%%irm: %%hich sale or %ales still taid deed or Jcrclt to made shall he a perpetual bar• both in Ina and equity, araina the grantor his freir, and u,%irn%, slid Al other perm %claiminr'l,e said lm,perry. or am part thereof. h%, from, through or under file grantor, or any of ll,cnl. 7 he holJcr or holders of said nolc or note% ma., putdw,c said pmpcil%or am part lhefcoL and it shell not be obllpafory upon the puttiu%er or purchasers, ul nny such %ode b, ,ce fit the applicolion of file purchost money, 11 a rcleose deed he required. If is greed that the grantor, hill hairs or asalpna will py d'd etpun%s Ilwrcnr. 'If In Denver, Inken "City ufd." No. 341A. Itc%. 2-94. uLCu ul' 1 fit s t u•nr,n% b"m r, Mil. n", ,,,, SO, cl,"„ II„Jr.nA l•af•li•hi"r. aft w'...r,, .Ir., .. t u,.....• , n4' -. %+, t And ilw ilrunhtr Rn hbmself umd Ida hvlrx, personal rvprnunutllvua ur ltxalgns vosv ionot and ugrata lotand wlih the Publ,e Tnutue that et tha time ar ,he ensealing of and daiit'ary ttt ihcaa presents he is well belled of Iha s:lld land and wrivilvnls In fast simple, and has soul rlghl, full power and lawful , authddly Id grant, burguln, sell and Convey the save In file n unner and Emu ax aforesaid: hereby fully and absolutely lvulving and releasing all rights and claims he may have in or To said lands, lencnients, and property a, a I l,mrcsread Escn+p•too, or other exemption. under and by virtue of any act of the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, or as any cvema pnon under nd h) virtue ,sf an) act off he United States Cungm%i. now existing or which may j . hereafter be passed In Mellon thete al and it the xmue are Ime and cicur of all hem and encumbrances whatever, except ( . Il hl if I,I I I j 14 1, r t ",n'nni'ST'!I IIr k8 li I F1hI'i1IIIL: ...I ,. t•'li' ii: ;;J s�, �l' �If sl {�,•is rl fl l.j•- . SUBJECT TO RIGHTS OF WAY, MINERAL INTERESTS, EASEMENTS, SET -BACKS AND'COVETS'OF RECORD. 1989 Real Property Taxes payable in 1990. '9t''`+'' �Nj �141 •I' N , and the ahtre bargained property in the quiet and peaceable possessiun of the Public Trustee, his successors and assigns. urainst all and ry person or,'; persons lawfully claiming or toclaim the whole ormry pan thereof. the grantor shall and will Warrant and Forever Defend,1,:`...,,I Until payment In full of the indebtedness, the grantor shall ilmepy pay all sasses and aueumenn levied on the property: any and all amounts due one account of principal void Interest or of her wnn on any senior encunduunccs, If any: and wilt keep all Impprovemtnu that may be on aald lands Insured I against any casualty loss, Including extended eoecruge. In a company or companies meeting the net won b requirements of the lacneliclury hereof In on amount nut less than the then total indebtedness. Each policy' shall contain a loss pa�:Iblc clause naming the beoeilciary as ntortplagee and shall further I provide that the insurance may nor he canceled upon less than ten days wrincn notice coolie bencliciary. At the uptiun of the beneficiary the original policy or policies of insurance shall be dcti%cred to the bencliciary as lusher security for the indebtedness. Should the grantor lail to insure and deliver the policies ur to pay razes ur assessments ss cite same fal i due, unu pay any u nwunts pa)uble upon senior encumbrunces, i l any. the beneficiary may make any such payments or pnKure any such insurance. and all monies so paid w ilh interest thereon at the rote art S 1 /2 per annum shall be added to and become a pan of doe indebtedness secured by this Decd of Trust and nay be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the property if nut paid by the grantor. In' addition, and of its option, the beneficiary may declare the indebtedness secured hereby and this Deed of Trust to be in default fur failure to, procure Insurance or make any of the payments required by this paragraph. ' : I' If all or any part of the property or an interest therein is sold or trans feted by the grantor without beneliciary's prior written consent, excluding (a) the creation of a lien or encumbrance subordinate ro this Deed ul Trust. cat the creation of a purchase money security merest for household appliances. (c) a transfer by devise, descent or by operation of paw upon the &uth of a joint tenant or (d) the grant of any leasehold interest of three )ears or less not containing an option to purchase, beneficiary may at beneficiary's option. declare all the sums secured by this Deed of Trust to be immediately due and payable. Beneficiary shall have waived such option to accelerate if, prior to the sate or transfer, beneficiary and the person to whom the pproperty is to be sold or transferred mach agreement in writing iliac the credit of such person is satisfactory to beneliduy and that the interest payable on the sums secured by this Deed of Trust shall be at such rate as beneficiary shall request. 1 AND THAT IN CASE OF ANY DEFAULT, Whereby the right of foreclosure occurs hereunder, the Public Trustee or the holder of said note or eertiticam of purchase, shall at once become entitled to cite possession. use and enjuyn,ent of the property aforesaid, and to cite rents, issues and profits thereof, from the accruing of such right and duriny the pendency of fureclusum proceedings and the period of redemption, if any there be: and such possession shall at once be delivered to the public Tru%cce or the holder of said note or certificate of purchase on request. and on refusal, the delivery of such possession may be enforced by the Public Trustee or the holder of said note or certificate of purchase by any appropriate cost suit or proceeding, and the Public Trustee, or the holder of said nine or certificate of purchase, or any thereat, shall be entitled to a Receiver fur said property. and of the rents, issues and profits theeol; alter such default. including the tittle covered by foreclosure proceedings and tire period of reder+splion, if any chum be, and shall be entitled thereto us a muucrof right without regard to the solvency or insolvency of the gramaror of the then ownerof said property and without regard to file value thereof, and such Recci,cr may be app„inlcd by any Noun of cungmteni jurisdiction upon ex pause upplication and without notice— notice being hereby expressly waived — and all rents, is,ues and prufii%. income and revenue thetelr to shut, be applied by Such Receiver to the payment of the Indebtedness hereby secured. according to the paw and the orders and directions of the court. l Is- , AND, That In cash of default in any of said payments of pfincipal or interest. according to the tenor andeffect of said promissory note aforesaid, orany of them, or any part 111ereof, or lot u breach or violation litany of the covenants or agreements herein, by the grantor. his personal representatives or assigns, then and in that case the whole tit said principal sum hereby secured. and the interest lhcrcon to The fine oil the sale. may at once, at the option of the legal ho,derthemof, become due and payable, and the said properly be sold in the manner and with the same effect us if said indebtednesshad matured, and that If foreclosure be made by cite Public Trustee, an anumcy's lee ah I, sxrnrrt-i❑ a reasonable amount tfollart for services in the supervision of said foreclosure proceedings shall be ullowed by the Public Trustee as a part of the cost of foreclosure, and If foreclosure be made Ihrlugh lihe courts or reasonable attorney's fee %hull be taxed by The court as a pan of the cost of such foreclosure proceedings.; • The singular number shall include the plural. oil plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to alp genders! Executed this / 1, day of 1/EMr3E ATTEST, ISE\LI State of Colorado T sx. Count.. rl+k j p The comic mg Inslrvmcnt was acl.nrn Icdged before me this 16� b)' R�cENd A•NEl6oa 6tvep-Al �t+M' Pall . II Witness Iny hand and sal. My commission expires Vincent J. HigenslNotary Public My Commission explree 12128100. 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Loa 3 � O p E 2 ►Ur O C a 0 0.i a LL 0 0 u i p W FW^ is H� O o A z re 89. f+�u1Ca'o NELSON[DEVORE PARTNE$SIV1y���� am B y 1 � �� i ✓s "day of /qCyC-JKoE{Z N�Lx)N�DEVti�Es�f� I +'p •" ,.' Ill,.a yin, MIS"L' , ,t 1 1, .. T i�'•�II, I :,�. ilia, ;dl ,tu„r Ul . J sa E 9 7 0 z E Fi 5 �lsi (PUD) 'L�--� Imo— R- 1 5� HERRON PARK �! J 1 1 .• 1 ___ p 1/4 • 8 0 0 E r 1 7 0 0 E PARK CORNER, SECTION 0 I I, 1_J I E. HOPKINS AVE. * 9 R B - I I I JI I I . �• ' ! E. HYMAN I AVE:" _ t a z FER Z W � ' I 1 z • 1 r,� I E W \ I__-----r.._u G . w F o _1 �, � � I I c ) i � _ _� .fir ,• •-1 1 1 - i I 1 I I \1 lli 1 . I .----- r --- I I - - 1TFUH 1 Q C 1 1LraAQ / — --- ` 38 39 P I .—.°.—_1 i -- WATERS 1 I 1- 2 2U ). o — 1 . 32 I r Is r °1 M so / _1 le / 1S _ L/TR 2, �� is 11 14 2, 26 14 /I �I / 10 24 / 4 ° 4 �F (PUD). a . ►I I �. -15 : " it ' C V (PUD) i � I+yS�1J�iJ�► �- R_15 —' (PUD) .... 3 ' 20 Irau G55 19 ' Is , ' 17 16 UtR 14 ►�-',4 le- cEL Ird I I 6.... M . X4, 2 R -15 I I t (PU6) " L is 1 it 11 if u 1 r if 11 it 1 1 r 11 CIT 13 M November 10, 1989 Karinjo Devore Attn: Jody Edwards 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 831 Ute Avenue/Dean Billings Project Dear Karinjo Devore: This letter is to confirm my sufficient capacity to provide I understand to be 11 units. will be made available to permits. PEN eet 611 telephone comment that water service for your anticipated Therefore, this letter is to :he project upon application supply is available in housing project, which advise you that water for the required tap It must be understood that existing service lines must be disconnected if they are to be abandoned. This is a routine condition of permits for new service lilies. I am assuming you plan to put in a new service line for the project. incerely, JMarkalunas, Director Water Department JJM/kw MEMORANDUM To: Karinjo Devore 1280 Ute Ave. Aspen, Co. 81611 From: Wayne Vandemark,� Fire Marshal Date: November 8, 1989 Re: Fire Protection The above mentioned property is within a four minute response time from the fire department. There is a fire hydrant on the corner of Ute and Original Ave. This hydrant will supply the complex with ample water for the required fire flow. c.c. Jody Edwards 13 1 IU'J UU J ' 1 V • MUL I _RUDD CLCI. I R 1 L 1 CL 1 IU ;-U�—=14D-4U0l Huc't' I ... [0LY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. )799 H1011WAY 62 R (). IIRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 61602 November 8, 1989 Ms. Karinjo DevQre Box 0-3 1280 Ute Avenue Aspen, Colorado RE: Billings Project at Ute and Original Dear Ms. Devore: The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has adequate resources to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. _2� U�'�_' Buzz Quaco, Staking Engineer BQ:rjm (101) 943•5491 rAX: 94S•408l .aspen Consolidated Sanitation (District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 11-9-89 William Lipsey 210 S. Galena Ripen Co. 81611 HE: Billings Project Dear Mr. Lipsey, Tele. (303) 925-2537 Mr. Larry Mullin was in our office to briefly discribe this project. This letter is to confrim that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District can service this project. We do have several conments and requirements that we will detail when we see the entire application during the approval process. S i ncer "I y, G Thomas B. Bracewell Collection Systems Superintendent SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 SURVEYORS November 10, 1989 Mr. William Lipsey Architect P.O. Box 3203 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Drainage at Billings Property Dear Bill; P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6727 I am writing in follow-up to our meeting and discussion of yesterday regarding drainage and potential off -site impacts to the Billings property at Ute and Original. We reviewed topographic mapping related to the site and discussed the potential impacts of off -site drainage. The property sits at the confluence of two drainages including lower Spar Gulch to the southeast and a minor basin to the southwest which follows the Aspen Mountain road to the site. The City of Aspen, through our firm, is proceeding with design of a diversion structure to intercept lower Spar which should significantly reduce the hazard of most major runoff and storm events from that source. Given the possibility, however, of a major event exceeding the capacity of the Spar structure or the more likely possibility of a major storm impacting the smaller basin to the southwest and given the history of drainage impacting this site, it is my recommendation that structures designed for the property seek to avoid the placement of habitable space _bgLow existing grades. I offer this recommendation based on a fairly cursory review of basin characteristics as well as my observation of the site over several years as Aspen City Engineer. Should you wish our firm to provide additional continent or detail, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submi d, J . Hammond, PE ncipal, Aspen office Schmoeser, Gordon, Meyer Inc. 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-1004 1 it I JGIVI UT-AU['UX Ielecupler lu[u 111-1,1—uy 111'.3U ChenONorthernjnc. Nelson/[eeo Gonst. " 92b 68084 2 Consuhing Eno veers and Scierniata Job No. 4 504 89 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED TOWNHOME AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS 831 UTE AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO Prepared For: Nelson-Zeeb Construction Attn: Larry Mullen P.O. Box 5400 Avon CO 81620-5400 5080 Road 154 G enw000 Sorines. Colorado 8160, 303 945 7458 303 945.2363 Facsimile September 25, 1989 rail TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS FIELD EXPLORATION SUBSOIL CONDITIONS FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS FLOOR SLABS UND ERDRAIN SYSTEM SITE GRADING SURFACE DRAINAGE LIMITATIONS FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE.2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURES 5 AND 6 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 7 7 8 ,JLIYI UI -AGI VA IVICLUpJVI IUGU +II-IJ-oy r II-JI I INV I 5UII/LVUIJ k.'UflSl„ I `JL5 00IJ00i 4 CONCLUSIONS The proposed structures should be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Other design and construction criteria relating to geotechnical aspects of the proposed struc- tures are presented in the body of the report. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for two proposed structures to be located at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services letter to Larry Mullen of Nelson-Zeeb Construction, dated August 17, 1989. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was con- ducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and labora- tory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing are presented in the report. This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to construction of the proposed structures are included in the report. a ,' SENT BY;xerox Ielecopier 7020 ;11-13-89 ; 11:31 Nelson/Zeeb Const, 925 68084 5 -2- PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The two proposed buildings will be three stories, of wood frame construc- tion, with below grade parking. Ground floor will likely be slab -on --grade. Grading for each structure is expected to have cut depths between about 8 to 10 feet. We assume moderate foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type construction. When building loadings, location and grading plans have been determined, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS Two residences were located on the project site at the time our field work was conducted. We understand that both will be razed for construction of the new structures. Vegetation in the area consists essentially of grasses and trees (backside of the existing two --story house). Topographically, the property is relatively flat towards the north, but steepens upward signifi- cantly toward the south. Some minor past site grading may have been done, and the area possibly contains remnants or waste from past mining activity. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 31, 1989. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4-inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted CME-55 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Chen -Northern, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8-inch and 2-inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with JCIVI ar -Aerux i e i ecupier tu�u i i i-is-uy I I JL , iVe l son/ Leeo i4onst, -+ yob bdud;ii b - J blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values* are an indication of the relative density or. consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the' samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSOIL CONDITIONS The subsoil conditions encountered at the site are shown graphically on Fig.. 2. The subsoils consist of 4 to 5 1/2 feet of man -placed fill of clayey silts and sands overlying natural loose to medium dense silty sands and gravels. The fill is expected to be variable in depth and composition, and could contain debris. Drilling in the lower dense granular deposit with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit at all three locations. Laboratory testing performed on selected samples obtained from the bor- ings included natural moisture content, dry density and gradation analyses. The results of swell -consolidation tests conducted on a sample of the upper natural sandy soil indicate a moderate to high compressibility under light to moderate loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1 1/2-inch fraction) of the natural granu- lar soils are shown on Figs. 5 and 6. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to moist, U T E A V E N U E u. CUTS OFF MORE VIEW THAN 3(1' BUBAING SETBACK 20' /I io�•OE�+MOfE iMhnTPelr+D 777 UTE TOWNHOUSES H �vh+-1• a NISr{� ` DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN scale: I" = 10' UTE AVENUE SETBACK & HEIGHT STUDY ____ scale: I" = 1(P ZONING SUMMARY SITECOVERAGE (RMF ZONE) EASE E. -E ii fTsnY euE G SrtEUAnEA ,—Dn e OPEN SPACE: vr..q cow,.a. vnoJp au, d..e cru u.-+a w:n+r 2a��a oo SrtE CAVERAGESwn�.i + n nEOUiREO]f%OPfnACE Gov +eV rem weywo!.+n.o.m omo ACTUAL OPEN SPACE 6OT.nY MOA moon '.'.uaro✓ry.mi or..9 MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS pJc z.ne �ar...,,sox u+nwoQr a...m. Anu z sm� +000.mn ...o +aaoa +fmm +Jar iMU . • 1l0aK 60mmr TAl ti f00 m.k lTi.a Ssi Ors FAR von n . e FAR E.w.p EAR sassn .+r GrY...w.rm..n .Qaeee.Tz+�".m .asa0 (HABITABLE) rw. AEu vAn feme� >e.s c. REPLACEMENT E.rsq aa. z AH ae�oerar.my+ao+.wwf..aoy,. BEDROOMS en. a o.-mm.wa.r HEIGHT JmT.n.m...nv+.+nw•vuD.wA+.,-me.n. p.x...c u,.uowwmva.rm.vnn nm.�+. PARKING v. +s.c.*.aes+�.noeate.r+w x�n mar.+ GMQS SETBACKS n..w.a xoon n,.�. we�mwmur Aw.,. IEa vr�m +f J n D.•rm.m IW a ] "D ( O C 1 UTE AVENUE 777 UTE \ TOWNHOUSES BILLINGS PROPERTY =I� Q BLACKSWAN CONDOMINIUMS I VICINITY MAP scale V = 50' DP I I ivcu r I I IJ"UJ 11-JL lit; IJVII/LUVI) 1rUI1 -' yL0 000014 l 3) The footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous walls and 24 inches for isolated pads. 4) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should.be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protec- tion. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 5) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 6) A representative of the soil engineer should observe all footing excava- tions prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the build- ings and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for back - fill consisting of the on -site granular soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropri- ate surcharge pressures such as adjacent buildings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained v L�r1 6;1 -ncI Vn is 11VVNjvI IVLV r I I —IJ—VJ r 1 I.JJ r IVr I %?VII/LOru �OUII56"' yL� OOUOIii C -6- conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral -pressure imposed on a foundation wall or -retaining structure.. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation mate_ rials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coeffi- cient of friction of 0.45. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pef. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particu- larly in the case of passive resistance. Compacted fill placed against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a granular material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. We recommend granular soils for backfilling foundation walls and retaining structures because their use results in lower lateral earth pressures. The natural on -site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock can be used as backfill. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the walls. Subsurface drainage recommendations are discussed in more detail in the "Underdrain System" section of this report. ,)tlul tr.xerox leiecopier YU2U ;11-13-89 ; 11:33 ; Nelson/Zeeb Const, 925 68U84 9 -7- FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded -slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. We suggest joints be provided on the order of 15 feet on center. The requirements for slab reinforcement should be estab- lished by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4-Inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2-inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site gravels devoid of vegeta- tion, topsoil and oversized rock. UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawl space and basement areas be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. uui�i ui•nc1Vn ccVNlcI IVLV 111—IJ—VJ i 11•04 + M:ISuII/LeeU 1'UIIb y47 OOUO? 1U -8- The drains should consist of drain tile placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free -draining granular mate- rial. The drain should be placed at least 1 foot below lowest_adjaoent finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free -draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 2 feet deep. SITE GRADING Fill material used inside building limits should consist of a granular material. Fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density near the optimum moisture content. Fill should not contain concentrations of organic matter or other deleterious substances. The soil engineer should evaluate the suitability of proposed fill materials prior to placement. In fill areas, the natural soils should be scarified, adjusted to a moisture content near optimum and compacted to provide a uniform base for fill placement. Site grading should be planned to provide positive surface drainage away from all building and parking areas. The buildings and parking areas should be placed as high as possible on the site so that positive drainage away from these features can be provided. Surface diversion features should be provided around parking areas to prevent surface runoff from flowing across the paved surfaces. Excavation of the soils at the site should be feasible with conventional heavy-duty equipment. Boulders and large cobbles encountered in the excava- tion near bearing elevation should be removed as carefully as possible to reduce disturbance to the bearing soils. Cavities resulting from boulder and large cobble removal below foundation bearing elevation should be backfilled with compacted fine gravels or concrete. If perched groundwater is en- countered in the excavation, it should be removed prior to foundation construction. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the buildings have been completed: 1) Inundation of .the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 9% of the maximum standard Prootor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the buildings should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in*paved areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation 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 the exploratory borings drilled at the v�I.l v l •iwi Vn I V I V V Vr/LVI I Vt.V / I I I V VA 1 1 1- V V 1 111; 1;?V11/ LUUV VVII:? -' J4J UVVU IM I L _ 1 O— locations indicated on Fig. 1 and the proposed type of construction. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site 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 may be made. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. Very truly yours, % fir.•P'qP'( STZ 6-1 CHEN-NORTHERN, INC. 15222 t ! Sy Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. f'�•�OttFl, L.•'Q� ���•CF Reviewed By Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. SLP/ec JLIY I 4ZD 001.1014IJ �\GI WA COI GI. vpi GI lucu , I—IJ—va , I I.o;� , IVe I SVII/Luldu Iruns�, APPROXIMATE SCALE I ofa 30� UTE AVENUE HOLE 3 EXISTING I BUILDING I XHOLE 2 — — �(ROAD AND � * — —i 1 UTILITY EASEMENT I BUILDING SETBACK LINE HOLE I • 1 � i � 1 I EXISTING BUILDING 4 504 891 ChenONorthern,Inc. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS ' Fig. I �)cm LAY-xerox ieiecopier 'lU2U ;11-13-89 ; 11:35 ; Neison/Zeeb Const, 925 6808414 Hule 1 Hole 1 Hula 3 Elev. 105.81. Elev. = .101.81. Elev. 101.3' 110 110 105 105 2/12 4/12 100 ``,Scm20.9 0' llU=104.5 100 .. 4/12 10/12 5//12 WC=16.0 17/12 > 1rC=18.5 +4=14 -?00425 > 9S -200=40 95 W :o 49/12 +4=412 28/6,20/0 Q 90 ,�. p� 90 .. 32/6,20/0 50/6,20/0 85 p 85 Note: Explanation of symbuls presented un Fig. 3. 4 504 89 �lEni N�i��l 1'11,11�C. Was vf lxpluritdry Nr#nAi Fig, 2 d LiY1 ui •AcI v^ IUIt�. VP1 CI IVLU , I I —IJ—UJ 1 11, JU i IVttl Ibull/ Lreu tau1156. — LEGEND: yLU VOVOIIIIV " Fill; mixed sand, clay and silt with some gravels, contains some organics, soft, �,4 moist or very moist, black and brown. Silt (ML); sandy, stiff, moist, dark brown. Gravel and Sand (GM-SM); silty, louse to medium dense, very moist, brown, silt zones. Gravel (GP -GM); sandy and slightly silty with cobbles and possible boulders, very °-64 dense, very moist, light brown. PRelatively undisturbed drive sample; 2-inch I.D. California liner sample.. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8-inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM 0-1586.. 4/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 4 blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California ur SPT sampl*r 12 inches. NOTES: 1. Exploratory burings were drilled on August 31, 1989 with a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory burings were measured appruximately by taping from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark on Fig. 1. ' 4. Theexploratory bur.ing lucations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. S. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring lugs represent the approximate. boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the burings at the time of drilling. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC a Water Content (%) DD - Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve -2100 - Percent passing No. 200 sieve 4 504 89 1 ChenONorthem,Inc I Legend and Notes I Fig. 3 Stwl ur;xerox lelecopier 'IU2U ;11-13-89 ; 11:36 ; Nelson/Zeeb Const. - 925 68U8;416 TJOK, 3 a 5 Moisture Content 20.9 percent From: Hole 1 at S feet oil 1111moll MONNIN MOON �AR �■11 ■ ��IYI�NIII■■I�AII 0.1 1.10 1w -vv APPLIED PRESSURE -- ksf 4 504 89 1 Chen -Northern, Inc. I SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I FI9. 4 Chen -Northern, Inc. 4 504 89 TABLE t SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS - %Ak*'tE tOC-XDOk lYCP,1A AL 0." S7UFE Cdr;;iTFxi IWUf1+4L ow 104.5 P'E+i(fIJT PASS&NG NO 2M s J17l'E 48CA6ilATS I.WDfIF1+M COM PfE SS NE s� H . BmHi iwF t+OtF R�9 GnftfeLSAND 1 "a iz1 uou ua txi PEJISTlGT7 1x) 1 5 20.9 sandy silt 10 18.5 24 36 40 silty gravelly sand 2 S 16.0 34 41 25 silt =sand gravel 3 9 41 54 S slig t y si ity sand and gravel .•i February 7, 1990 Leslie Lamont Aspen-Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Affordable Housing Development Dear Leslie: By this letter, I certify to you that I mailed a copy of the attached notice to each of the persons listed on the attached list of names and addresses on December 21, 1985 1989. Very truly yours, JEE ch L5/21 Enclosures Brenda S. Beairsto NELSON/ZEEB CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. P.O. Drawer 5400 Avon, CO 81620 State of: Co l)2a.cv County of: djAU- Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13 N. day of T 19 90 Notary Public: K(u2Q,yl Q (j03SW ic[, lcc u)ct2d,, I CO My Commission expires: 79D { RE: BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 8, 1990 at a meeting to begin at S:OOPM before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III. The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD approval for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel located at 831 Ute Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitken Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090. s/William L. Stirling, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 21, 1989. City of Aspen Account. -tp ��-o-�`�, I9 9 0 q 0 11 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: BILLINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 8, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III. The applicant seeks Conceptual PUD approval for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel located at 831 Ute Avenue. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pit.kin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090. s/William L. Stirling Mayor Aspen City Council ------------------------ Published in The Aspen Times on December 21, 1989. City of Aspen Account. DEC 18 '89 16:4E JUL LDWHHUb HIIUHNLY r.c ROBERT N. NOYCE ANN S. BOWERS 11 LAS BRISAS AUSTIN, TX 78746 CLARENCE A HERBST, JR. 3445 HOWARD ST. SKOKIE, IL 60076 DONALD E. DOLMER 1614 WEST LAFAYETTE JACKSONVILLE, IL 62650 D. KENNEDY FESENMYER DELORES J. FESENMYER PO BOX 952 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, M1 48303 RICHARD H. CONANT RUTH H. CONANT 9301'INGLEWOOD CT. POTOMAC, MD 20854 DEAN L. GREENBERT PO BOX 129 NE'WPORT, MN 55055 ANN S. BOWERS ROBERT N. NOYCE 11 LAS BRISAS AUSTIN, TX 78746 LEE GLADSTONE GERTRUDE F. GLADSTONE 2222 CHERRY VALLEY ROAD WOODSTOCri, IL 60098 MONTE SMITH PEGGY SMITH 525 HIGHLAND TERRACE BRICKTOWN, NJ 08723 JAMES A. SHIRK LINDA S. SHIRK C/O BEER NOTS, INC. R.R. #13, BOX 529 BLOOMINGTON, IL 617014 JEROME P. EPSTEIN DEBORAH R. EBSTEIN 25 MT. LAUREL RD. HAINESPORT, NJ 0303E EARL M. LAT'!ER'1A*N 1—O ,vc. 0TTTCZAiIGiZW _ GAL PITTSBURGH, PR IbZl/ mxtienaea rage Z. i JLl, lj ' bJ lb i 4-4 JUL LLJWHt[JS H I i VKI vt T r. ID C.L. EQUITIES, INC. PO BOX 75010 HONOLULU, HI 96836 KENNETH D. MERNSTEIN 1105 SEMINOLE RICHARDSON, TX 75080 EDGAR STANTON, JR. ROSAMOND STANTON 2320 CALLO LUSTRE TUCSON, AZ 85718 C.C. CHANG ILING S. CHANG C/O CURIS SIEH 2775 GLENDOWER AVE. LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 LORNE LEIBEL 16 TUDOR GATE WILLOWDALE, ONTARIO CANADA M26 1N4 PATRICK J. NORTON GAYLE NORTON KEVIN M. NORTON JOHN A. ELMCRE, II PO BOX 381 WRIGHTSVILLE, NC 28480 SAMUEL C. SILVERSTEIN JO ANN SILVERSTEIN 325 EAST 79TH ST. # 6B NEW YORK, NY 10021 ROBERT W. PAULIN MARY T. PAULIN 4930 EAST OAKMONT DR. TUCSON, AZ 85718 LANE N. MELTZER C/O JOHN LYNOTT 927 ST. PHILIPS ST. NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 BERTELINE BRIER DALE FOREST KNOLLS GREENWOOD LAKES, NY 10925 KENT W. SHODEEN 13 SOUTH 7TH ST. GENEVA, IL 60134 DAVID FAIN RUTH FAIN C/O ASPEN ALPS PO BOX 1228 ;SPEN, CO 81612 DON M. SIMECHECK 741 WEST CREEKSIDE HOUSTON, TX 77024 U� 1 ' d 7 l b: 4� J v:. LLwMPCLJ M i i uml ic. 1 ALEXANDER B. SLATER Po BOX 491 LOCUST VALLEY LONG ISLAND, NY 11560 LOUIS MARCUS 601 OLD CROSSING DR. BALTIMORE, MD 21208 STEPHEN ABRAMSON RUTH C. ABRAMSON C/O LAWRENCE M. ABRAMSON 1860 FOREST HILL BLVD. STE 200 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33406 DR. R. VERNON COLPITTS, M.D. 7515 SOUTH MAIN STE 480 HOUSTON, TX 77030 BARTELINE BAIER DALE FOREST KNOLLS GREENWOOD LAKES, NY 10925 REAL PROPERTIES LTD. MATTERHORN PROPERTIES, LTD. BEAR PROPERTIES, LTD. 1072 S.E. BRISTOL STE 105 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 STEWART MACO STEWART MACOL 9641 INWOOD RD. DALLAS, TX 75220 MACNEE ENERGY CORP. 1850 MT. DIABLO BLVD. STE 640 WALNUT CREE, CA 94596 JOSEPH T. VERDESCA 1250 MAJESTY DALLAS, TX 78247 JAIME PARIS 2021 SANTA MONICA BLVD. NO. 3615 SANTA MONICA, CA 90406 RONYRA REALTY N.V. C/C THE ASPEN ALPS PO BOX 1228 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBERi c". FOWLER, TRUSTEE 4837 PRICKLY PEAR LANE SCOTTSDALE, AZ 35253 L I L I a F. HEmPH:L� C/O ASPEN ALPS PC �0:' 1223 eC')C►t (In _R1 Al i __ tx;enoeo rage 4.1 n.zlrcn, to olulz GARY FRED THOMPSON TOM WILBUR THOMPSON ULI, l J 07 10 - -414 J VL r-v""mw'D n i 1 VRl iL i t C/O DONNA GORMAN PO BOX 190 COLTON, CA 92324 BASLO C/O MR. W. D. EBERLE C/O TERTIARY 53 MOUNT VERNON ST. BOSTON, MASS 02108 CONSTANCE HARVEY 421 D ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER ASPEN, CO 81611 MARJORIE S. RHODES TRUST 1401 AVOCADO AVE. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ALVIN DWORMAN 645 FIFTH AVE. NEW YORK, NY 10022 GUILLERMO DSUNA DORIS OSUNA 234 PARK AVE. DEL RIO, TX 78840 BEAR PROPERTIES, LTD. MATTERHORN PROPERTIES, LTD. 17662 IRVINE BLVD. 04 TUSTIN, CA 92680 HENRY P. MCINTOSH IV DBA MCINTOSH ENTERPRISES 124 VIA BETHESDA PALM BEACH, FL 33480 EDWARD M. O'HERRON, JR. TRUSTEE 425 WORTH AVE. PALM BEACH, FL 33480 HELEN ROGAL CANDE 147 DUNBAR ROAD PALM BEACH, FL 33480 NOLAN K. BUSHNELL NANCY N. BUSHNELL 3869 WOODSIDE RD. WOODSIDE, CA 94062 WILLIAM E. TROTTER, !I ?340 SEVERN AVE. STE 230 METAIRIE, LA 70002 TRUSTEE MCG'UIRE 'LIQUIDATING TRUST r 5200 RENAISSANCE TOW=R DALLAS, TX ALBERT SMALL SHIRLEY S. SMALL STE 444 WASHINGTON SQUARE 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. WASHINGTON, DC 20036 ARTHUR RUCK STE 1220 #1 MARITIME PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 L. RODMAN DRAKE RODMAN L. DRAKE .LOAN D. FOX JOAN 0. FOX 515 CAMBRIDGE S.E. GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49506 HERBERT J. WINTER 3321 S. PULASKI RD. CHICAGO, IL 60623 JEROME A. KAPLAN STE 403 6001 MONTROSE RD. ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 MARVIN LOTZ LINDA LOTZ 611 NORTH SIEFFA DR. BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 CHESTER B. SALOMON ROSALIND S. SALOMON 975 PARK AVE. NEW YORK CITY, NY 10028 SAXON PAINT & HOME CARE CENTERS, INC. 3849 WEST FULLERTON AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60647 JOHN MCLEAN TAYLOR C/O CARL B. LINNECKE, C.P.A. STE 101 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 DOROTHY ADAMS 9319 S BURTON WAY 3EVERLY HILLS, CA 9021.0 JOHN V. POLK PEGGY J. POLK 114C SUGAPBEPRY HCUSTCN TX 77"-2), u . nv O nnT -;uA n, MARK S. ROTHMAN SANDRA C. ROTHMAN • 7992 RIVERSIDE DR. CABIN JOHN, MD 20818 .m LC -I. 13 67 10•14J JVL r-L44-l�.LJ ni ' VrNllL I JEFFREY L. KENNER 168 EAST 74TH ST. NEW YORK CITY, NY 10021 DARLENE M. MCCLUSKEY TWO COVENTRY COURT PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208 F.L. FABIAN, JR. 43 MONARCH BAY SOUTH LAGUNA, CA 92677 DOROTHY S. HINES C/O AD VALOREM TAX MANAGER 2800 POST OAK BLVD. HOUSTON, TX 97056 WILLIAM FEICK, JR. 641 FIFTH AVE. APT 38D NEW YORK, NY 10022 BETTY G. AMOS 13724 S.W. 92 CT. MIAMI, FL 33176 HALGLENN CORPORATION STE 105 1428 BRICKELL AVE. MIAMI, FL 33131 CLARISSA H. CHANDLER. 902 NORTH GREEN BAY RD. LAKE FOREST, IL 60045 GEORGE C. HOUSTON 1510 WICHITA PLAZA BOX 636 WICHITA, KS 67201 ISAAC ARNOLD, JR. ANTONETTE ARNOLD C/O JAMES A. HALL & ASSOC. STE 412 9494 SOUTHWEST FREEWAY HOUSTON, TX 7?074 MARGARET T. PHILPS #503, 80 NORTH EUCLID PASADENA, CA 91101 LEON C. HIRSCH TURI L. H. HIRSCH 150 GLOVER DR. NORWALK, CONN 06850 CANTERBURY COMPANY ASSOC. C/O BARBARA _,. RCSS 2C5 N. MICHILCAN AVE. STE 3909 cx6uowvu rage III CHICAGO, IL 60601 JAMES M. TROTTER III 5414 BELLAIRE DR. NEW ORLEANS, LA 70124 .. GL1J O: 1 O • •-i0 J �!L Ll�W1"IR IJJ n 1 I VRI 1G 1 MAUREEN M. REIN 1225 WESTMOOR RO. WIPPETKA, IL HERBERT M. GELFAND 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD. STE 610 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 JOHN H. FIGI, JR. M & I MARSHALL ISLEY BANK MARSHFIELD CO. TRUSTEES CENTRAL PLAZA 630 SOUTH CENTRAL AVE. MARSHFIELD, ES 54449 JAMES M. TROTTER, III 3340 SEVERN AVE. METAIRIE, LA 70002 JOSEPH C. HARRIS NANCY M. HARRIS 386 SOUTH MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD. ST. PAUL, MN 55101 JOHN R. RIDDELL, JR. JOHN M. P. THATCHER, JR. PO BOX 231 SEA ISLAND, GA 31561 CHRISTINE FORSYTH PETERS 10540 CLEARWOOD SOURT LOS ANGELES, CA BURT SUGARMAN CIO WYMAN, BAUTZER, ROTHMAN ET AL 14TH FLOOR 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 JOHN HAROLD LOSSING JANE BLACKMAN LOSSING 3301 NEW MEXICO AVE. NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DC 20016 DARRELL F. HOOVER 17821 MITCHELL IRVINE, CA 92714 JAMES C. GIANULIAS MARILYN H. GAINULIAS C!0 CAMEO HOMES 1105 Q'JAIL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MARGARET R. SPENCER ax�enQea raQu 0.1 F 1011 NASHVILLE AVE. NEW ORLEANS, LA.70115 PAUL R. HAMWI PO BOX 350 ASPEN, CO 81612 3AMES F. STEWART SHIELA E. STEWART PO BOX 4154 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACO STEWART C/O WOOD BRANCH OFFICE PARK 11931 WICKCHESTER LANE STE 302 HOUSTON, EX 77043 THOMAS C. PECKHAM PO BOX 9766 ASPEN, CO 81612 JAMES R. PAUL PO BOX 1505 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90295 JAMES PAUL PO BOX 1505 MARINA DEL REY, CA 90295 IRWIN WINKLER MARGO A. WINKLER 10125 WASHINGTON BLVD. CULVER CITY, CA 90230 HOWARD ABRAHAM 1340 ASTOR ST. CHICAGO, IL 60610 BERNARD SACKS 2424 SOUTH WABASH AVE. CHICAGO, IL 60616 MEYERS MAKERIES, INC. PO BOX 7498 LITTLE ROCK, ARK 72217 ASPEN --CHANCE HOMEOWNERS ASSCC., INC. (NO RECORD ADDRESS; LINDA D. EDWARDS FKA LINDA EDWARDS WOERNER 990 VAN NUYS ST. SAN DIEGO, CA 92109 CnASPEN ASSOCIATES :/0 M. CHA:.c STE 304 45� NE4PORT CENTER DR. txzenaea rage a 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92" SPAR CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO. C/O EDWIN J. SMART PO BOX 799 � , 2 �q�J�r�, NCO 3?. � :? _12�_ N'?RTH .nRR- P_'�4S RD. ..A !'"LA, CA 5c07 1 ^ j V 41 Ir l .. PO BOX 15155 ASPEN, CO 81612 UTE CHALET, INC. PO BOX 1284 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SKIING CORP. PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAARD MOSES PO BOX 21 ASPEN, Co 81612 PITKIN COUNTY TREASURER 506 E. MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 JAMES C. BLANNING, JR. PO BOX 43 ASPEN, Co 81612 GEORGE P. MITCHELL STE 260 2002 TIMBERLOCK PLACE THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 MARY ANN HYDE PO BOX 1557 ASPEN, CO 81612 ROBERT D. KLINEMAN & BERNARD E. SINGER, TRUSTEES PO BOX 11782 ASPEN, CO 81612 EDWARD PATTON IRENE PATTON PO BOX 264 ST JOHN, VT 00830 DR. EUGENE W. ROBINSON MARY ALICE ROBINSON 231 PADDOCK ST. WATERTOWN, NY 13601 DAIVC A PARKER F_LI?ABETH M. PARKER 1507 4ALDEN DR. Mrl FAN VA 171111 MCLEAN, VA 32101 SYLVIA SURAR SILVER 3150 LAKE SHORE DR. CHICAGO, IL 60601 a DONALD B. CAFFRAY ANN I. CAFFRAY 5TH FLOOR HARBOR BANK BUILDING 11 GOLDEN SHORE DR. LONG BEACH, CA 90802 MICHAEL C. DRAVITZ C/O K & S PARTNERSHIP 6406 BRENTFIELD DR. DALLAS, TX 75248 OKENrA FAiMILY CONDOMINIUM 1704 BURNETT AVE. AMES, IOWA 50010 EMILY L. WHITE 2010 SWANSON AVE. LAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ 86403 MARTIN H. SILTON RITA PICKER SILTON PO BOX 12189 ASPEN, CO 81612 RUSSELL T. LUND LUNDS, INC. 905 TONKAWA ROAD LONG LAKE, MN 553'56 Levant American c/o Colonial Navigation Co., Inc. 2240 17 Battery P1. New York.City, NY Resort Hotel Development a/k/a Woodstone Associates 709 E. Durant Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Kent W. Shodeen 13 South 7th St. Geneva, IL 60124 777 Ute Limited 777 L'te Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 I 0TA 1 l u TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margerum, Planning RE: Billings - Conceptual PUD/Conceptual Rezoning DATE: January 8, 1990 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends conceptual PUD approval with amendments to the conditions of approval. The applicants are seeking conceptual PUD approval, and conceptual review of rezoning as a threshold issue. This is the second step of a four step PUD review process. Conceptual PUD review requires a public hearing at Council. COUNCIL GOALS: This application is consistent with Council's goals to encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community, and ensure that an adequate amount of affordable housing is available. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council is familiar with this property. The Council had an opportunity, in early summer, to meet with Deane Billings and several of his tenants to discuss development alternatives for his property. Council also amended Ordinance 58 to enable the submission of development applications that would replace 100% of bedrooms and 100% of floor area with deed restricted units after demolition. Finally the Council adopted a scheduling policy giving priority to affordable housing projects that replace 100% of existing floor area and bedrooms with deed restricted units. The Billings redevelopment proposal complies with both of these criteria. BACKGROUND: At their December 19 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommends approval of the conceptual PUD for the Billings property. The P&Z did, however make recommendations regarding the conditions of approval and the development program itself. These remarks are discussed under the P&Z Committee Vote section of this memo. This property has been the subject of much discussion. Deane Billings has, for many years, provided de facto affordable housing for twelve families on this property. A recent attempt to sell the property for redevelopment was met with concern. The future of the site became unclear with the recent demolition moratorium. Potential displacement of residents and redevelopment of the parcel has mobilized several residents to create a development package that replaces 100% of the bedrooms and 100% of the floor area with deed restricted affordable housing. There are twelve units on the site, only four of which are legal. The applicants, a partnership including several existing residents, propose to redevelop the property with three free market units and seven deed restricted units. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The property is currently zoned R-6. It is necessary to rezone the property to RMF/PUD. A PUD review is a four step process. This is the second step of that process. Review of rezoning is technically done at steps 3 and 4 of a PUD review process, however staff is of the opinion that this is a threshold issue and should be conceptually reviewed at this point. The applicants are also seeking subdivision, special reviews for parking and FAR increase, GMQS Exemptions for replacement housing and affordable housing, condominumization and vested rights. Please see the attached memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a thorough review of conceptual PUD and conceptual rezoning. Included in that memo is an outline of the full review process for this project. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST KEY ISSUES: 1. Variances - The applicants are seeking several variances through the PUD review process. Those are: height (25 to 30), sideyard and rear yard setbacks, and open space. Parking and external FAR will be determined by special review. a. The Commission expressed strong concern for a height variance, believing that variances are intended to enhance site design if a reduction in height was implemented elsewhere on site. The applicants responded with a new massing design that eliminated one of the free market units (4 to 3) and reduced the amount of building area that requires a height variance up to 30 feet. b. The Commission directed the applicants to determine the development potential on the sites behind the Billings property to better evaluate the impact of reduced side yard and rear yard setbacks. C. A variance for open space was not discussed at length. 2. Parking - Although special review for a reduction E in parking is not until step 3, the P&Z suggested a further reduction in the amount of parking available for the free market units. P&Z felt that the location of the development lent itself to automobile disincentives and perhaps a better site plan or height reduction may be accomplished with a reduction in garage space. 3. Amendments to the Conditions of Approval - both the Commission and the Applicants suggested amendments to the conditions of approval. Those have been incorporated into the December 19 P&Z memo. 4. Amendments to the Development Plan - in response to concerns identified by staff during review of the application, the applicants have altered some aspects of the development plan. Primarily there are three free market units instead of 4, more parking for the affordable units, and a reduction in the amount of building area that is over the 25 foot height limit. These changes will be outlined at the applicants presentation to Council. Also for your review is an attached project update from the applicant and their engineer. 5. Rezoning - the P&Z did not discuss, at a conceptual level, rezoning the property. Staff believes that this is a threshold issue and should be preliminarily reviewed. If the Council finds for one reason or another that rezoning is a problem, staff recommends the project be tabled until the issues can be resolved. This will prevent the premature submission of a final application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Conceptual PUD for the Billings Affordable Housing Development Plan with conditions as approved and amended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those conditions of approval are provided in the attached Planning and Zoning December 19 memorandum. ALTERNATIVES: a) denial of the project as proposed; b) amend the proposal; c) denial rezoning to RMF/PUD; d) rezone to AH. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the conceptual PUD with conditions as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Planning and Zoning December 19 memo Applicant Revision Sheet billings.cc 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Billings Conceptual PUD Review/ Conceptual Rezoning DATE: December 19, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicants seek Conceptual PUD review for the development of 4 free market units and 7 deed restricted units on a 17,975.50 square foot parcel. The applicant also seeks a GMQS exemption for replacement of the four legal residential units that exist on site. This is a Planning Director sign -off. Please see attached memo. Staff recommends approval, with conditions, of the conceptual PUD. APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership, represented by Joseph Edwards, III LOCATION: 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen ZONING: R-6, mandatory PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request a Conceptual PUD approval for the reconstruction for 4 free market townhomes and 7 deed restricted affordable dwelling units. REFERRAL COMMENTS: A. Fire Marshal: The project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. B. Environmental Health Department: The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the proposal and submitted the following referral: 1. Sewer - The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer. 2. Water - The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new project is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. 3. Air Quality - The application states that there will be no wood -burning fireplaces and any wood -burning stoves will be certified. 4. Noise - No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this project. It is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. 5. Contaminated Soils - The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. C. Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company, Inc.: In a referral letter, dated November 13, 1989, the company has indicated that they have the capacity and capability to serve the project as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary costs are paid and the local and company codes for installation of gas lines are met. D. Engineering: Having reviewed the application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in Section 7-1004 (D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of Schmueser Gordon and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a 10 foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different 2 alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation system. 6. The Public Right of Way on Ute Avenue at this location is adequate. 7. The City requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the City. 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the Ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along Ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. E. Housing: The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: 1. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two -bedroom units of 1,000 square feet per unit, and one three -bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet (to be restricted as a resident occupied unit). A total of thirteen bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. (Affordable Housing Unit) component in a cluster of two buildings located at the rear of the parcel for a total floor area of 6,500. 2. The four two -bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 x 1,000 s.f.= $890.00 per month. 3. The owner shall provide an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two -bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 4. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U.Is must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two -bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA (Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority). K 5. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 6. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U.s to avoid further displacement of our working community. 7. Parking will need to be addressed with additional information as to possible present tenancy requirement in steps three and four for the A.H.U.s. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Proiect Description The parcel, located at 831 Ute Avenue, is zone R-6/PUD. The site area is 17,975 square feet. Currently, there are twelve dwelling units on the site for a total floor area of 5,655. The Zoning Officer has determined that four of the units are legal units. The property is adjacent to the L/TR zone district. A private road separates the 777 Ute development to the north (L/TR) from the project property and a dedicated trail easement runs behind the property. The Aspen Alps are up the hill from the property on the other side of the trail easement. The applicants propose to develop four, three -bedroom, free market units and seven deed restricted dwelling units ranging from studios to three -bedroom units. This property has a long history of providing affordable housing to residents who are employed in the community. Approximately one year ago, Deane Billings, the prior owner of the property, attempted to sell. In an effort to preserve their housing, tenants formed a partnership to redevelop the property in a manner that preserved local/affordable housing and was sensitive to the goals of the community. In order to support this type of development, a mixture of free market and deed restricted units are proposed for this site. Although a rezoning to the Affordable Housing Zone District will not work for this project, the applicants are confident that the proposed mixture of free and affordable units, made possible by a rezone to RMF/PUD, can work. Not only is the proposal intended to replace existing long-term community housing, it also incorporates affordable housing in an area that has become primarily second homes and meets the goal of integrating employee housing in all neighborhoods. The redevelopment of the parcel requires demolition of the existing units. As you are well aware, there is a moratorium 4 preventing the demolition of multi -family buildings which precludes the submittal of any application requiring demolition of multi -family. However Council, at their October 9 meeting, amended the moratorium resolution to allow the submittal of an application, that required demolition, but which proposes to replace 100% of the existing floor area and 100% of existing bedrooms on site. This proposal accomplishes those two criteria. The project also requires a rezoning of the property. The property is now zoned R-6/PUD. The allowed uses for this site are either: two, detached single family; 1 duplex; or one single family. This lot is not eligible for a lot split. It has already been divided. Thus, for the proposes of this project, it is necessary for the applicant to rezone the property to RMF/PUD. Zoning requires a map amendment. The review process for a rezoning technically begins at the third step of PUD review. However, staff believes that rezoning the parcel is a threshold issue that determines the viability of this proposal. To facilitate a more thorough review, this memo will cover the general criteria of rezoning. B. Review Process Many facets of review are required for this application. The process is as follows: Step 1 - P&Z conceptual PUD; inclusion of Planning Director sign -off for GMQS exemption for replacement housing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 2 - Council conceptual PUD, public hearing; review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 3 - P&Z final PUD, public hearing; rezoning, first step, public hearing; subdivision, first step, public hearing; special review reduction in parking; and special review FAR increase 1:1 to 1.1:1. Step 4 - Council rezoning, public hearing; final PUD; subdivision; GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing; condominumization; and vested rights and PUD/Subdivision Ordinance, first reading. 5 Step 5 - Council second reading Ordinance, public hearing. C. PUD Review Section 7-903 B. outlines the review standards for a conceptual PUD as follows: 1. General requirements a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The 1973 plan identifies this area as mixed residential. The intent of the project is to replace existing employee housing with permanent housing that is affordable. This is made possible through the sale of the four free market units to be built along Ute Avenue. Affordable replacement housing has been a primary goal of the City Administration for some time. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The project is consistent with the surrounding land uses as they are all multi -family, except for one single family residence on Original Street. Glory Hole Park which is across the street. This is a high density area of the City. The parcel is adjacent to the L/TR zone. A more detailed review of the surrounding land uses will be given in the :formal rezoning review. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Future development shall not be affected as the surrounding property is high density development and consistent with the proposed, except for Glory Hole Park. The rear of the property is bounded by a dedicated trail easement. This trail may be impacted by the reduction of the rear yard setback. The land on the other side of the trail easement is very steep and potential development, if any should occur, should not be affected. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: GMQS exemption is requested for the reconstruction of the four legal units on site. GMQS exemption is also requested for the seven affordable housing units on site. A 2. Density a. General - the maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying Zone District and may be reduced. RESPONSE: the proposed density of the project is consistent with that permitted in the underlying zone district when rezoned to RMF/PUD. According to the Code, the necessary lot area for the proposed unit/bedroom configuration is 12,500 s.f. The lot area exceeds what is required as the parcel is 17,240 square feet. It is unnecessary to propose a reduction in density. Water pressure utilities are sufficient to service the project and the project is easily accessed by Ute Avenue and Original. A soils report has found the land suitable for development and the buildings are being built on grade instead of being lowered by five feet due to occasional water runoff in the area. There will be no wood -burning fireplaces in the project and any wood - burning stoves will be certified. The design and location of the development is compatible with the terrain which is gradually sloping and void of vegetation. b. Reduction in Density for Slope Consideration RESPONSE: Reduction in density for slope consideration is unnecessary as the site has no slopes over 20%. 3. Land Uses The applicant proposes to rezone to RMF/PUD from R-6. Multi- family residential is a permitted land use in the RMF/PUD Zone district. 4. Dimensional Requirements The project complies with all dimensional requirements, (including lot area), except height, side and rear yard setbacks, and open space. The applicant is also requesting an increase in external FAR. PUD review enables variations in dimensional requirements. a. The height limit in the RMF zone is 25 feet. RESPONSE: The applicant requests a five foot variance for the four free market units and one of the two A.H.U. clusters for a proposed height of 30 feet. Because of occasional runoff, as addressed in the letter from Jay Hammond of Schmeuser Gordon, it is unadvisable for any living or storage space to be constructed below grade. This includes the garage spaces for the free market units. Therefore, what is usually a below grade third floor in most Aspen buildings, must 7 be accommodated above grade for this project. The roofs are flat with internal drains to minimize runoff and erosion. To minimize the impact of increased height on the units along Ute Avenue, the applicants have increased the front yard setbacks, for three of the units, from the required 10 feet to 20 feet along Ute Avenue. As is diagramed by the height study on the site plan, the view plan is less impaired with increased setbacks. The cluster of A.F.U.s that are proposed to be 30 feet are built into the hill at the rear of the parcel. Above the project is the Aspen Alps. A very dense development with large buildings. It is unlikely that the increased height of the rear building would impact any development to the rear of the property. Adjacent to the project, to the southeast, is the Black Swan residential units. The side of the Black Swan that faces the proposed project is predominantly windowless. The increased height is of concern to staff, specifically the Ute Avenue units and their impact upon the adjacent 777 Ute development. However, this site is fairly constrained by drainage and the inability to provide underground parking, requiring ramps. Ramps would eliminate the parking area for the A.F.U.s. b. Side yard setback - the required side yard is 5 feet. RESPONSE: In two locations the design requires a side yard variance. The requested variations are approximately 20 feet long and a maximum of three feet into the side yard. The lot is very oddly shaped. The lot varies in width from 142.39 feet to zero in the rear. The locations of the reduction in setbacks are next to the dedicated trail easement that runs behind the property. It does not impact the private road that separates the project from 777 Ute Avenue. C. Rear yard setback - the required rear yard setback is 10 feet. RESPONSE: Because of the odd shape of the lot the design requires a setback variance of approximately 20 feet long and maximum of 7 feet into the rear yard. As previously discussed, the rear boundary of the property is a dedicated trail easement with a steep slope rising up from the trail to the Alps development. Thus impact should be negligible. d. Open space - 35% open space is required. 9 RESPONSE: Approximately 35% of the site is uncovered space. Most of the open space is the interior of the lot between the free market units on Ute Avenue and the A.F.U.s clustered at the rear of the property. Although the property is bordered on one side by the trail easement, open to view cannot be counted from pedestrian routes. If this were not the case then the project would comply with the open space requirement. The applicants seek a variance from 35% open space to 29% open space. It is important to note that Glory Hole Park is directly across the street from the project thereby lending the perception of openness to the project. e. External FAR - a 1:1 FAR is required in the RMF zone for multi -family dwellings. RESPONSE: The FAR may be increased to 1.1:1 by special review. The project is at 1:1 but the applicants will request an increase to 1.1:1 in steps 3 and 4 in order to accommodate architectural amenities which will enhance the project. 5. Off Street Parking NOTE: Special review for reduction in parking occurs at Step 3. The off-street parking requirements in the RMF zone are one space per bedroom for free market units and to be determined by special review for A.H.U.s. The applicants propose two garage parking spaces for each three -bedroom free market unit and seven to eight spaces for the seven A.H.U.s. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying Zone District based on the following project -related considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. RESPONSE: Currently the site is devoid of parking except for 2 spaces. The applicants propose approximately 16 spaces on site. The free market units are targeted toward the second home owner which, the applicants suspect, will not have more than 1 or 2 cars. Many residents now living on the property average one car. Because of the location of the site the use of the automobile is unnecessary for in -town oriented activities. b. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. RESPONSE: The project site is within roughly 1500 feet of the Ruby Park Transportation Center. Cooper Street is two blocks away providing bus transit services. There is a pedestrian/bike trail that extends up and down Ute Avenue. In addition, there is E a dedicated trail easement behind the property. C. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City. RESPONSE: The project is within one and one-half blocks of the Gondola and the commercial core. As required by PUD review for the reduction of parking the applicant can assure the City that the nature of the occupancy will not change. The seven A.H.U.s will be deed restricted pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 6. Open Space According to the Code, a variation in the minimum open space may be permitted if: a. such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD: RESPONSE: The variation in open space enables an effective separation of the free market units and A.F.U.s. The provision of the well defined, interior open space, separating the two A.H.U. clusters, prevents a crowded feeling and provides relief by drawing the wooded hillside down into the center of the project. Fortunately, the project designers have been able to draw upon Glory Hole Park, directly across the street from the free market units, to enhance the perception of openness. b. the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: i. is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes: RESPONSE: The interior open space has a prominent water feature and is to be used for scenic landscaping. ii. is accessible and available to all dwelling units for whom the common area is intended: RESPONSE: All the A.F.U.s open onto the interior courtyard. The free market units have access to the courtyard from the rear of the units and are across the street from Glory Hole Park. The condominium declaration, to be reviewed at steps 3 and 4 if necessary, will provide for the permanent care and maintenance of the open spaces. 10 7. Landscape Plan The landscape plan shall be reviewed at steps 3 and 4. 8. Architectural Site Plan The applicant has provided a conceptual site plan with locations of the building and an overview of the site. As part of steps 3 and 4 the applicant will provide an architectural site plan. 9. Lighting The lighting for the site shall be incorporated within the architectural site plan and shall be designed to reduce glare. 10. Clustering The dwellings are clustered to the rear and sides of the site. The interior open space is an important feature that enables the well designed clustering of the A.H.U.s on the site. All the free market units are joined together along Ute Avenue. 11. Public Facilities As exhibited by the referral comments, this project can be serviced at no additional cost to the public. It is necessary to connect the project to the public water system. There is sufficient water available and pressure to service this project. The applicant will seek a tap fee waiver but will pay all hard costs for hook up to the City water system. All the buildings are arranged as to be accessible to emergency vehicles. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. RESPONSE: The free market units have pedestrian access directly onto Ute Avenue. By vehicle, both the free market units and the A.H.U.s must access Ute Avenue via a 12 foot private roadway. This is the road that separates the 777 Ute development from this project. Pursuant to the Subdivision (Exception) Agreement for 777 Ute Avenue, the owners shall pave the private road. The private road has been dedicated to public use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by 11 through traffic. RESPONSE: Although the application states that the vehicular access into the center of the project is wide enough to permit smooth traffic flow into and out of the parking area, staff is concerned that this area is too tight. Although the demand for vehicles should be reduced, due to the location of the project, the parking spaces are small and the width between the two free market units and A.H.U.s is somewhat cluttered. Pedestrian access from the A.H.U.s appears confined as all walks lead to the parking area verses onto a pedestrian oriented circulation pattern. This seems unfortunate as the project is gearing toward the pedestrian via reduction in numbers of parking spaces. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. RESPONSE: The project is reducing the current congestion on Ute Avenue by providing 14 new off-street parking spaces. Two off- street spaces currently exist. Again the project is designed around auto disincentives. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60') feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: Every residential building is within 60 feet of the central parking area, which provides vehicular access to a public street. e. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. RESPONSE: The trash area, garage and storage areas are first accessed by the private roadway and their use should not cause traffic congestion on the public streets. The design of the trash service area may constrain efficient pick-up. f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. 12 RESPONSE: The private roadway along the north west border is to be improved by the owners of the 777 Ute development within the City regulations and ordinances. D. Rezoning Review It is necessary for the applicants to seek a rezoning of the parcel from R-6 PUD to RMF PUD. Typically rezoning is not reviewed until steps 3 and 4. However, because rezoning is vital to the success of this project, staff believes that preliminary review of the rezoning criteria should take place at steps 1 and 2. If the Commission finds for one reason or another that rezoning is a problem, staff recommends the project be tabled until the issue can be resolved. This will prevent the applicant from prematurely preparing a final application. Pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Code, the following are the criteria for a map amendment (staff has only responded to specific criteria that we perceive as pivotal at this point): a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: To the north and west of the project is the L/TR zone. To the south and east of the project is R-6 PUD, to the north and east directly across Ute Avenue is the park zoned P and across the park to the north and east is a large area zoned RMF. The L/TR zone is more intensive than RMF. The RMF zone is a more transitional zone between the L/TR and the R-6 extending to the R-15 which extends along Ute Avenue. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. 13 g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Rezoning of the parcel will enable a proposal that is intended to preserve the community character of this parcel with the provision of affordable units on site. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: Although the parcel is zoned R-6, there is one single family home, diagonally across Ute Avenue from the project that is consistent with this zoning. The property is surrounded by multi -family development. The underlying zoning no longer reflects the changes that have occurred. This parcel is surrounded by multi -family development. i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: Staff has some concern regarding other property owners seeking a rezoning to RMF/PUD. However, no other applicant in town has yet to submit a development proposal that replaces 100% of the bedrooms and FAR on site with deed restricted affordable housing. This proposal will provide more than 50%, of the total proposed units, deed restricted units on site in a manner that champions the primary goals of this City Administration. Because of these unique characteristics, staff is comfortable in recommending a rezoning for this parcel. Staff also believes that this project is setting a strong precedent for differentiating this proposal from other rezoning requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that P&Z recommend to Council conceptual PUD approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in Section 7-1004 (D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. Off-street parking spaces shall be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. There shall be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. An additional 4 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. is required to bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot 14 standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. 7. The City requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the City. 8. The applicant shall make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along Ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. 9. There shall be no direct connection between the municipal water system and the informal water system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. 10. There shall be no wood -burning fireplaces and any wood - burning stoves will be certified. 11. The four two -bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, (moderate) as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing _Guidelines. 12. The owner shall provide an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two -bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 13. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U.'s must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two -bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA (Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority). 14. The units shall be leased a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 15. Present tenants shall be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U.s. 16. The applicants should continue to work with the design of the buildings to lower the exceeded height. 17. Staff is concerned that the vehicular circulation area is too confined. The applicants should continue to work with the configuration of the parking area. 15 18. The applicants should attempt to improve the pedestrian access and circulation from the A.H.U.s. 19. The applicants shall provide evidence that the trash service area enable efficient pick-up. ATTACHMENTS: GMQS Exemption, Planning Director Sigh -off Site Plan Zoning Summary and Setback & Height Study Applicant Rezoning Request Referral Comments billings.pz 16 MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Billings GMQS Exemption for Replacement Units DATE: December 13, 1989 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Section 8-104, the Planning Director shall exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does not create additional dwelling units or involve a change of use. An applicant may also propose to delay reconstruction of existing dwelling units. The number of legal units must be verified and reconstruction will be pursuant to the applicable review process. FINDINGS: The applicants propose to demolish 12 residential units. Four of those units have been determined legal units. Please see attached memo from the Zoning Officer. The redevelopment of the parcel includes four free market units and seven deed restricted affordable units. The affordable units are subject to GMQS exemption from Council. The applicants have submitted an application for conceptual PUD review and rezoning. PUD review is a four step process. Reconstruction cannot occur until all the review processes have been completed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends GMQS exemption for the replacement of 4 residential units by 4 new 3-bedroom units with condition: 1. prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have received Final PUD, Subdivision, and rezoning approval. I hereby approve the above Growth Management Quota exemption pursuant to Section 8- 4 A.1 & 2 of the Aspen Usk die. my 7 g'er director a„. SUBAppppDE GULvEFT}.JT .� 9& T E A V E N U E MOLE N►0.ri ro"D 9� 01 UTE S ETB, 777 UTE TOWNHOUSES _ GARAGE - RECID[\T OCCUPIEh m �'� � UNIT (17 high) — o O c — 1.. O O o ►Z \ y v >c UNIT E-ah J <�� LIN G & li-ah 2 br \ -studio & 1-2br HEIGHT: 30 (3.STORY) i • UNIT Fah \ 2br I • UNITS I & J-ah _ ]-studio & 1-2br Ac W N'WAY / HEIGHT: 20-(2-STORY) .�I�aNMApE (PiCEK ,t ~j • ,CC 1 D l UNIT K-ah (res. occ.) F 3 br cA T � F • HEIGHT: MY(3STORY) >II [ZANY MANE wAYF[. SOU PGE DEVELOPMENT S FIT PLAN j n NO-IE: IGH BUILDING SET BACK 10'. OFF MORE VIEW THAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' 10 FT SACK & HEIGHT STUDY scale: I" = 10' ZONING SUMMARY _SITE CON, ER AGF. (RNIFZONF) SITE AREA: 17,975 50 s1 EASEMENT DEDUCTION 705 00 sl REMAINING SITE AREA 17,240 50 al AFU 1�1s1@A00 SI ]story 20.20 40000 51 1 2br@800 51 AFU 1.1 s1@too It 3 Story 20.20 40000 st 1 �2b,(V!100 st AFU 1.2br0800 51 2 story 20a20 40000 $1 AFU 1 20r0800s1 2 story 20.20 40000 if AFU 1 0br(&I 800 s1 3 story 24 5.2< 5 600 00 51 AFU Garage a S'0701 story 25s25 625.00 .1 FMU's a.OBR@] 000 3 glory 25.<5 1r S.C.00 st FOOTPRINT -TOTAL AREA: 1200 00 51 I 1.200.00 s1 t 80000 t1 80000 al 1 90000 s1 C-- .•v 0 00 10,S00 00 s1 -2.000 00 . garage sInIuso,+ U•. :a TOTAL FAR; 17,300.00 51 OPEN SPACE: Parking Coverage 3,771.00 51 8 AM ars •6 FMU —S•16 um Wei Sunken CourtyaraS 0.00 sl Trash Ara. 70.00 11 17.10) F-1prim Ara. 6 00 00 st SITE COVERAGE -Subtotal 11, 1".00.1 REOUIRED 35% OPEN SPACE. 6034.18 st Now ReWmdOpen SPaoa amo• ACTUAL OPEN SPACE: 6,07450 al Qlus OK b Iatrt parting, Vaal' or murry.M a -- or Mrs beow a MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS RMFZone (sssumes>50%AN1ePl8ad) 2Awbr ownAMU 2 50000 1 U2 r Al. 4 ,,000000.D00O 1 01 150000 0,:mP 000 7600 WsA Obr FMU A $0000 TOTI, 2 5C C tss1ll . 1' 240 "1 CI - FA R A=b*FAR .snr n�terll 16.�^i<S�s�wSprcal Fr.+. n[Iual FAR I' 0^0 Oo SI 18 b(.A 5 SI FAR E.t5—g FAR 5 655 61 M: nlCr Ga apea ovPrnanp5 QK e.e1u0PC "s' mPc . i KluOnb (HABITABLE) Ne AFU FAR BIX t 0 0 <5'sl OK besembnt a10 aor 6 m c an¢ai net mt o-- RFPL.ACEMENT sl,ngeRAM 010.nS— calls bl rPpIK ng 10 • e.41eBEDROOMSs rBR RCDIAc,. p 13 OK mpels o a MneP ro P np^ HEIGHT 0 Flory llruClure5100] wnl rr0w a PUD approval•- no below gre0e bong unlf a SuSP of pmern•ai ry c" G Y e^•. PARKING FMU's 1spaa Leoioom i--.1. 2 Dataufe 2n0 tomes AR D 5 ctal R v.pw GNJQS _ A e.i61,11g Wgel unils Ih.$ eaempl Irom GMOS SETBACKS RepwreO Actual Front Iv. 10 20 g�vas ory more open spas on UIe Avenue Sian Valos 5 0 neeo PUD e.emplon Rear Yards l0 3 rweo PUD e.e Ion LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109. 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR, JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 928-7115 FAX (303) 925-6808 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redevelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will have more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.U.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its application as soon as possible. questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Jr se �E.Edwar�s,�II J L/38 cc Amy Margerum Leslie Lamont conceptual P.U.D. If you have any WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 20, 1989 This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT I.-1*4-, �yITil�i To: Leslie Lamont Planning Office From: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health Officer Environmental Health Department Date: November 28, 1989 Re: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new project is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. AIR QUALITY• In a review of the application, there was no comment made regarding the effect of this proposal on air quality issues. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT With that understanding the following is offered. The applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations that pertain to air pollution. Currently they are: Aspen Municipal Code, Ordinance 88-20 which requires the registration of all gas and woodburning devices in a building. Ordinance 86-5 which describes types and numbers of woodburning devices that can be installed. Regulations 1,3 and 8 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Reaulations and Ambient Air Quality Standards. These regulations address fugitive dust control plans, emission control permits, and demolition of buildings which may contain asbestos containing material. NOISE: No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this project. However, it is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Not applicable. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/820-5070 OCKY C )M1 ANN INV. November 13, 1989 To: Nelson/Zeeb Construction CO INC. Drawer 5409 Avon, CO 81620 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Rocky Mountdin Natural Gas Division of K N ENERGY, Inc. has the capacity and capability to serve the Project at 831 Ute Ave in Aspen Colorado as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary costs are paid and the local and company codes for instalation of gas lines are met. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, call me at #925-2323. Sincerely, Raymond L. Patch District Manager cc: John Wilson File 115,\tlantic AvC. A.A.11.C. Aspen. Colon1do 81611 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 ember 18, 1989 lie Lamont nning Office S. Galena St. en, CO 81611 Billings Conceptual PUD r Leslie: Tele. (303) 925-2537 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient atment capacity at the present time to serve this proiect.. project will necessitate a collection system upgrade nstream of the project, which we estimate to cost. approximately $9000 and this will be added to the applicant's connection costs. All of the abandoned service lines on site must be removed and capped. A line extension will be required in order to connect units E through K to our system. The alignment for the connection of units A through D can only be determined once it is know whether these units will be townhomes or condominiums. 16 if this project is completed under the auspices of affordable employee housing, then it may be in the applicant's best interest to have the on -site collection system engineering completed by the District's engineer in order keep costs to a minimum. Sincerely, Nr _ 7h Bruce Matherly cc: Nelson/Devore Partnership MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: December 11, 1989 RE: Billings Conceptual PUD Having reviewed the above and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in Section 7-1004 (D)(1)(a)(3) and (D)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of Schnueser, Gordon, and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a 10 foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation system. 6. The Public Right of Way on Ute Avenue at this location is adequate. 7. The City requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the City at the Marolt Property or the 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the Ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along Ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. jg/billin cc: Bob Gish Chuck Roth MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: December 2, 1989 --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- REQUEST: Applicant requests GMQS exemption, map amendment to R/MF zoning, and conceptual PUD approval for a project located at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Applicant requests exemption pursuant to 8-104A.1.a., Land Use Regulations, for the reconstruction of the four units on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The project will have a free market component consisting of four three -bedroom units. Each three bedroom free market unit will be a three story structure to be a total of 3,000 square feet. Applicant is required to provide one parking space per bedroom in the rezoned R/MF zone district. Applicant is requesting a variance of this requirement as to his proposal of providing two parking spaces below the F.M.U.'s in a private garage for each unit Applicant requests exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.1.c., Land Use Regulations. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two -bedroom units of 1,000 square feet per unit, and one three -bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet. A total of thirteen (13) bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. component in a cluster of two (2) buildings located at the rear of the parcel. The Applicant is supplying eight (8) parking spaces for the seven (7) units which contain thirteen (13) bedrooms. Applicant has requested Special Review pursuant to 5-301B of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicants have requested the three bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot unit be restricted to use as "resident occupied". 1 APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership, 1280 ,Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado represented by Joseph E. Edwards, III. ZONE: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicants have been notified that they have four "legal " units with a total of twelve bedrooms in these units. These units contain an existing habitable floor area of 5,655 square feet. The Applicants request for exemption pursuant to 8-104A.1.a. of the Land Use Regulations which states: (1) The remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing building which does not expand commercial or office floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a change in use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant to Section 5-510. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the four F.M.U.'s as luxury town homes of approximately 3,000 square feet each, providing at least three bedrooms and two parking spaces per unit. The Applicant is requesting G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.1.c. of the Land Use Regulations which state: to All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted." The Applicant is proposing to build an Affordable Housing component to consist of two studios with five hundred (500) square feet each, four two -bedroom units with one thousand (1,000) square feet each, and one three -bedroom unit to consist of fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. 2 Seven (7) units are proposed to include thirteen (13) bedrooms with a total of six thousand five hundred (6,500) FAR. The square footage proposed for the two studio units at 500 square feet and the four two -bedroom units at 1,000 square feet will be restricted to the allowable moderate income rental guidelines as adopted by the APCHA on annual basis. The three -bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot has been requested by Applicant to be a "resident occupied unit". This unit will be restricted to occupancy of a "qualified resident" which shall mean an resident working a minimum of 30 hours per week and nine months per year. Parking has been proposed at eight spaces for the seven units. These seven units will contain total of thirteen bedrooms. Parking has been stated by applicant for the A.H.U.'s to be provided as " the need for more than one car per household as doubtful". In the recent lease up of Truscott Place a 100% employee housing project, parking was provided at one space per unit. The proximity of the golf course facility provides additional parking for overnight/guest parking. This location will not allow off - site parking to accommodate overnight/guest parking as the access road to the property is insufficient for the requirements of emergency vehicles at a width of twelve (12) feet and therefore, cannot accomodate off -site parking of any kind. The four two -bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 X 1,000 S.F. _ $890.00 per month. Rent at $890.00 will prove to be supplied by two individual tenants, a married working couple, or joint tenancy in common. Single parent households can not provide this amount of rent in our community at this time. The proximity to the downtown core area can accommodate the lack of parking for this project, however, this project would have to be designed to accommodate a specific target group to be two working tenants with one or no vehicle. Parking will need to be addressed in steps three and four of this application as to the realistic needs of the community at large. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the reconstruction of the four F.M.U.'s and the seven A.H.U.'s on this property based on the following conditions: 3 1. Owner provides an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two -bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U's must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two -bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA. 3. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 4. Deed restriction will need to be approved and recorded by the APCHA prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U. units to avoid further displacement of our working community. 6. Parking will need to be information as to possible present three and four for the A.H.U.'s. 4 addressed with additional tenancy requirements in steps IV'! . • ::. 6 Jul TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Leslie Lamont RE: Billings GMQS Exemption for Replacement Units DATE: December 131 1989 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption for the reconstruction of existing residential units at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Section 8-104, the Planning Director shall exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does not create additional dwelling units or involve a change of use. An applicant may also propose to delay reconstruction of existing dwelling units. The number of legal units must be verified and reconstruction will be pursuant to the applicable review process. FINDINGS: The applicants propose to demolish 12 residential units. Four of those units have been determined legal units. Please see attached memo from the Zoning Officer. The redevelopment of the parcel includes four free market units and seven deed restricted affordable units. The affordable units are subject to GMQS exemption from Council. The applicants have submitted an application for conceptual PUD review and rezoning. PUD review is a four step process. Reconstruction cannot occur until all the review processes have been completed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends GMQS exemption for the replacement of 4 residential units by 4 new 3-bedroom units with condition: 1. prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall have received Final PUD, Subdivision, and rezoning approval. I hereby approve the above Growth Management Quota exemption pursuant to Section 8- 4 A.1 & 2 of the Aspen Usk �dd'e . my Eger Director W1 v J V �V013S /�, •_ W Estimated Cost $__5t_ ________ Date F'i Apr- 1 8 -- ------p- ---5�-------- Building Fee i APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work, repairs, construction, alteration or development described as follows: Ute live. Lt. 1.4, & a strip 68x58 to the rear in Ute Add. Location by Street No. and Lot and Block No. Zoning Classification: Tourist _ Name and address of owner Deane Billings 11tP AynnuA ;.npnn' Colo Name and address of contractor, architect or builder RA MA Estimated Cost "3500.00 _ Type Construction stone and masonry Intended use and purpose rental apartments Number living units 3 No. Rooms 1 6 Height 121 Width 241 Length 551 Sq. Feet 1080 Distance from lot lines N— 1 S— 61 E— 61 W— 61 _ Distance from finished grade to bottom of footings Size of footings Thickness of Foundation Walls Thickness of 1st story walls Thickness of 2nd story walls Curb -cut (Width and location) Alley bond: Style and pitch of roof Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor Second Floor Rafters Floor supports Additional particulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or construc- tion contemplated.) This Application is made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to j comply with the terms and conditions (if any) upon which it is approved; for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application, or laws of Colorado. Applicant hereby warrants that he is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon the owner, the applicant, their agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of footings, foundation, frame, lath, and roof; such inspections to be approved in writing before pro- ceeding further. The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the premises. (over) Y / Dated aad'LL --------------------d of ------- ------ r �__�-___ -,-t_---. --- --------- (Applicant) �� � A PP ica 1• nt C)-------------- (Agept, Owner, Contractor, etc.) BUILDING PERMIT' The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the following conditions: - Dated this -- ---- --Wayof-------------- ------- 19---- -- Building,Zpecto_r,_ t __ _ _. _ .. .�. « J Y,. .. 4 .x,• i rj...t -_Z.. f+. u� .. .5(il:iij'-?47 If w•:. .,.' 1 c':._'� •t.r sx;«.: �ct1 :'.:.! .. c.� 3,..:�`..� ..:Idu:da i t .r i `�.' .. .. . . BUILDING PERMIT REJECTED The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby denied and rejected for the following reasons: Dated this - _------------------ day of ---------------------------------- 19---- -------------------------------------------------------- Building Inspector. �70 l mo K a ' '� 7 City of Aspen, Col ado c ..� � 5� V N° 475 BUILDING PERMIT ESTIMATED COST PERMISSION IS HEREBY __ AS--- Sn'lyr_'-� t------------------`, TO -=`-`------A----, /------ STORY��, ON ------- BLOCK------ ---------------• ADDITION_ZZF/ ------' -�--I ------ n1I� �� ------ ZONE---- --------- FIRE DIST.-- __j&------ OCCUPANCY-------- --------------------- ADDRESS------ /_------�-- ,-----��['----------------------------------------------- TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION --------- 1✓'--------------------------------------------------------------------- loly SIZE------- -------------- //V----------------------------------------------------------------------: . NUMBER LIVING UNITS---------1/---------------------- NO. ROOMS ---a _______%_----_� ___ .�7--------- STYLE OF ROOF__��f ___f2_ � LAC- -A&AI_MOOFING MATERIAL__ �L/____ ARCHITECT----------- -1 — 4e,-*, ---------------------- ADDRESS --------'------------,--/-------------------------- CONTRACTOR------------�y'-=1J----------------------- ADDRESS------1- ----'v------ L---------- REMARKS: vc- /� a ----- City Clerk F _ r • y L .S Estimated Cost $ / / 'D / ate Filed Building Fee $ g APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE Zques7tto ITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Permission is hereby perform and do described as follows: the work, repairs construction alteration or development Location by Street No. ands t and Block No. 16 Zoning Classification: Name and address of owner DdJ- L / N G-. Name and address of contractor, architect or builder Estimated Cost Type Construction Intended use and purpose Number living units No. Rooms Height Width el Length ` S q. Feet ys/Q Distance from lot lines S— E— W—� d Distance from finished grade to bottom of footings // ditJ _ Size of footings /(° ',}4 D, /r ,J 5e, Thickness of Foundation Walls Thickness of 1st story walls �' 'r .��b� D f • f ss: �stoywa&�O _ Curb -cut (Width and location) Alley bond: �— Style and pitch of roof Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor r-Se� loor Rafters -15a*r supports Roof Material Additional particulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or co trac- tion contemplated.) i� (over) This application is made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Uniform Building Code, the City Zoning Ordinance and all other ordinances governing construction, etc., within the City of Aspen and upon any other conditions (if any) upon which it is approved; or for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application or laws of Colorado. Applicant hereby warrants that he is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon the owner, the applicant, their agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of footings, founda- tion, frame, lath, and roof; such inspections to be approved In writing before proceeding further. The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the premises. Dated and signed this ------- _'_& ---- day of - - -- - ------------------- 191V/ ----------------- --- ---�+--------------------- ' (Applicant) Capacity: --------- - - - - --------- (Agent, Owner, Contra BUILDING PERMIT The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the following conditions: e� Dated this ----- /40W--- d of _ - 19_-V ---- ----------- - uilding nspector. BUILDING PERMIT REJECTED The above and foregoing application for a Building Dermit is hereby denied and rejected for the following reasons: Dated this ----------- day of ------------------------------ 19---- ---------------- ------------------------ Building Inspector. / t ,".. -- — �. ._ emu.' _��— — -o,--;�a1dW. '9 s• � _m�>� •aF• :`4+ Ilk _ Estimated _ 5..... .....`!!........ ..__._ ct Date Filed.........../C//....�..�. ' - S.................. 14. AP..... PLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CITY OF ASPEN, 1a1TKIN COUNTY, COLORADO -- Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work, repairs construction alteration or development described as follows: Location by Street No. and Lot and Block No. iJ F' !', /C' _ L,r—f f Zoning Classification_ / Name and address of owner_ Name and address of contractor, or builder 52s5l cam+ 1 " Name and address of architect. -- Type Construction Intended use and purpose Number living unit ",,� N� No. Rooms 40 — No. of baths f I 1 �.�j/ Height Width —Length Sq. Feet 1 E Distance from lot lines N— S—1/2.4 L Z Z W--�'; R.O.W. Distance from finished grade to bottom of footings Size of footings Thickness and Type of Foundation Walls Size and Type of Ist stoy walls Size and Type of 2nd story wall r Style and pitch of roof =:(z ( a Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:) First Floor �I -� Second Floor J Rafters 3 /N L� �f C —C. Floor suppo (I Roof AIaterial Additional particulars and remarks: (If alfove data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or construction contemplated.) Draw plot plan on reverse side. This application is made with the specific underst nding that any Permit issued is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Uniform Building Code. the Zoning reguluion and all other condition t upon which sai subject is issued; or for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application or the laws of Colorado, Dated and signed this.............. ,. ....day of.................0. . ..:.., 19....4si�. .............. J............ Capacity: / (Applicant) PY:.............O...Lt%..k�Tr...................................................... BUILDING PERMIT (Agent, Owner, Contractor, etc.) The above and foregoin plication for a Building Permit is herebapproved, subject to compliance with the following conditions: / L" Dated this. .............. / /'-............day of...._. ...*Bi1di..tn ..........................., 19...C.r-� .....pector. BUILDING PERMIT ED The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby denied and rejected for the following reasons: Datedthis............................................day of......................................................................., 19 ..................................................................... Building Inspector. j 31 ? �L/it�'I� I' • G bN S City of pen, Colorado Street And Alley Excavation Permit ill C _ Name and Address of Person or Firm Making Excavation: Address and Location of Excav on: Type of Surface: 7 ww Asphalt Q Gravel Dirt and Use: 7 I_ i I --j F 7 F Intended Use of Excavation: PDIL t 6 L . C P2LL-. Opening Date: ;J� 7 • 6q 4 �f Closure Date: NC.. r This Permit is issued with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 7.1959 and all other ordinances governing excavation, etc., within the City of Aspen and upon any other conditions (if any) upon which it is approved; or for unauthorized deviation from terms of the application or laws of Colorado. *_ Applicant hereby warrants that he is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon the owner, the applicant, their agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for inspection of Excavation. V The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the excavation site. Dated and signed this ------ /__ /-2cL 19 6 ------------ 41 `. (Applicant) Capacity: (Agent, OwneaContra2ctor,7tc.) EXCA VATION PERMIT The above and foregoing application for Street and Alley Excavation Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the following conditions: y Dated this _ _- - day of - _--- ---C.----- ..___-- �y/`� din I spe . t•jr of Aspen i ❑ �Pitkin County BUILDING DEPARTMENT lumbino r ❑ Heating ❑ Elearcal No. Permit No Hate ,Z Owner-f°Je�- ' /_L_t.-!_tie -4-01-.1---------- Addria (str"j - -��;- -,d --------------- Type of Bldg --- --------- Lot --- - ---.. Block _..__.. --- Addn. --. ----- -- Contractor ---- -------------------------- Installer -------------------- Address -----------------1 Domestic & Commercial Appliances - No. description & BTU GAS------------ ---------- &--------------------------------------------------------------- - 00 Gas Line: (length & e)--------- - ----- -- ' -------------------- / � - - Z� Z :Z f --- - - r r+ Pressure Test �U_--____ pounds - On at --_-__.___ Off at ------------ Date ��' Furnace end/or Boiler - Description III BTU HEATING HotWater ----------------------------------------- - --------------- Warm /fir Description & No. of Fixtures PLUMBING —LAV TOI TUB SH KS ---DW GD - -- -------------- --------- - - -- -- -- -- FEE -------- No. of Circuits, Size of Service & Feeders, Motors. & Equipment ELECTRICAL-- -- --- ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------AMP ServiceEnt. --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE-------- ❑ Conduit CJ RomeK ❑ &MW Description: (such as Dryer, Dishwasher. Softner. Washer. Disposal, etc.) APPLIANCES REMARKS and/or CORRECTIONS to be made before approval I hereby certify ` `.-ed the fuN rwponsr City compliance with tl,e Building Code and all Vent y that I have inspected the Gas work at and/or aPWo`r�• done ur er Gas & Vent Permit No. • —� - - - - andor the t it will work uder the pass the re _ ,,'y uire or Gas & - Date°rm Buil n9 Cants f Vent - i--------------rJe --------- -------- ` Building In: a L EC.OR P ctor, County of P• - Ain Ist Inspection t"d I hereby certify that I havj inspected the work done and is it and diet if A peas the requirereenNs of fhe Building Code and o apple bI4 regulation 1 City o ;pen, Colorado Street And Alley Excavation Permit Name and Address of Person or Firm Making Excavation: 04 ' � k.Dt4 Address and Location of Excava ion: J ti _I Type of Surface: y.- Asphalt p Gravel �► Dirt p 7 _ I V Plot of E avation and Use: I_ x F R Intended Use of Excavation:: t-62 t C-L . C! PAL.I", t Opening Date: �C i / , 16t4 Closure Date: br- This Permit is issued with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or reyocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 7.1959 and all other ordinances governing excavation, etc., within the City of Aspen and upon any other conditions (if any) upon which it is approved; or for unauthorized deviation from terms of the application or laws of Colorado. Applicant hereby warrants that he Is authorized to make this application and agrees that the same shall be binding upon the owner, the applicant, their agents, heirs and assigns. All documents attached hereto are Incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Applicant agrees to notify the Building Inspector at least 24 hours in advance for Inspection of Excavation. t' The Building Inspector, or his agent or representative, is authorized to inspect the excavation site. Dated and signed this -----1 _ - ;: _.. - o (Appljl nntt)_ Capacity: /. /IZLf E'a± --- l-'�%�_.� (Ageen�t, Owner, Contractor, c.) �� EXCA VATION PERMIT The above and foregoing application for Street and Alley Excavation Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the following conditions: Dated this --------- r----- day of19� �� Ing Inspe --------------- I City of Aspen as [ Plumbing ,File` ` WY , ❑ Pitkin County ❑ Heating ❑ Electrcal No. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Permit No. -Date //,7 Owner ---------- Address (street) ----'�-----Li ------------------- Type of Bldg. _-��-�----------------------------- Lot ------------ Block ------------- Addn.------------- Contractor ___- ----______________________ Installer -------------------- Address _-_____ Domestic & Commercial Appliances No. description & BTU GAS ---------------- Gas Line: (length & S' e) _— ___---__ ______q _____/ Z-r ,�'----------------� 2 -------- FE '- ---- a a '_ Pressure Test _ �-_____-_ pounds - On at ------------ Off at ------------ Date----f_'�� __ Furnace and/or Boiler - Description & BTU 5 u HEATING HotWater------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE -------- WarmAir Description & No. of Fixtures PLUMBING LAV TOI TUB SH KS __DW GD --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- FEE -------- No. of Circuits, Size of Service & Feeders, Motors, & Equipment ELECTRICAL----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- AMP ServiceEnt.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE-------- ❑ Conduit ❑ Romex ❑ Armor APPLIANCES Description: (such as Dryer, Dishwasher, Softner, Washer, Disposal, etc.) REMARKS and/or CORRECTIONS to be made before approval For all work done under this permit the permittee accepts full responsibility compliance with the Building Code and all other applicable regulations. Installer must sign Permit before approved. Date: C act - -- -----. - -------------------------- ------------------- Installer(sign) --------------------------------------------------------T_� ----------f--��--------- INSPECTION 4ECOR Ist Inspection --------------------------------------- 2nd Inspection ----------------------------------------- I hereby certify that I hav inspected the work done unde his permit and that it will pass the requirements of the Building Code and of r applicablelregulations. Date:- --Inspector ------ --- - ---- /cr Da tq Dear Homeowner or Gccupant: The Municipal Code of the City of Aspen requires the Building Inspector to keep a record showing the proper Street number of every building site in the City. It further provides that the owners and occupants of every house in the City to place thereon figures at least two and one-half inches (22) high visible from the Street showing the number of the house. The Building department is in the process of assigning house numbers to all existing houses in the City in order to elirtiinate the confusion that now exists in the City. We have determined by the map in the Building department that your house number should be: Address 9ZI! Ute ^ _ Legal Description 14 Lot Block Subdivision to-AC!d-it ke We appreciate your cooperation in placing the above number on your house. Thank you. Zlaytod :I. PZeyrj-ng Chief Building Inspecto CHt,I : j gm LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III January 3, 1990 Leslie Lamont Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Development, 831 Ute Avenue Dear Leslie: TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-6808 At the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) review of the above development proposal on December 19, 1989, several changes to the proposed development were discussed and were preferred by P&Z. These include the following. 1. A requirement that the five-foot side -yard setback along the northwest side of the front portion of the property between Ute Avenue and the parking area entrance not be obstructed by any trees, boulders or other landscaping amenities. 2. The free-market unit (FMU) component of the project is to be reduced from four units to three units while the total square footage of the FMU component is to remain approximately the same. 3. The westerly most of the three FMUs will be built to a maximum of 25 feet. The front (approximate one-third) of the two easterly FMUs will be built to a maximum height of 25 feet, and the rear two-thirds of those two units will still require a five-foot height variance through the P.U.D. process to 30 feet. 4. The front portion of the FMU component of the project be sunk five feet in accordance with Jay Hammond's revised recommendation. Leslie Lamont January 3, 1990 Page 2 5. The pedestrian access median from the center of the affordable housing unit (AHU) parking area will be removed to allow the parking spaces to be widened from eight feet to eight and one-half feet. 6. A pedestrian access corridor or walk was added to the northeasterly side of the AHU component of the project to allow pedestrian access directly from the street. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, �� -P3, #oseE. Edwards, III JEE ch L4/18 cc Karinjo and Nicholas Devore Chupa Nelson Bill Lipsey } S AVENUE )ACK & HEIGHT STUDY scale: I"-10"'. `.4 NOTE: Gli BUILDING SETBACK 10'. CLJTS OFF MORE VIEW THAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' V ZONING SUMMARY _SITECOVFRAGF (RMF7,ONE) SITE AREA: 17.97S 50 al EASEMENT DEDVCTIOR 7 0000 51 REMAINING SITE AREA 17.240 au sl AVENUE )ACK & HEIGHT STUDY scale: I"-10"'. `.4 NOTE: Gli BUILDING SETBACK 10'. CLJTS OFF MORE VIEW THAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' V ZONING SUMMARY _SITECOVFRAGF (RMF7,ONE) SITE AREA: 17.97S 50 al EASEMENT DEDVCTIOR 7 0000 51 REMAINING SITE AREA 17.240 au sl FOUTPNINI AN I IS10400 At D dory 20.2D 400 00 f1 12t"psoo 61 AN 1.1st0400 111 0 9101y 20.20 400.00 91 I.2oripeoo 4 AN 1.2Dr0800 $1 2 dory 20.20 ADO 00 51 AFU 120r0600s1 2 story 20.20 40000 111 AN 1.0Dr01 l00 sl 0 story 24 5,24 5 60D 00 .1 AFU Gauge 8 Swage 1 story 25.25 625.00 s' FMU•s 4•0BR00 000 D story 25.45 4,Se0.00 sl FOOTPRINT•707AL AREA:*7,3 F.DO 1200 00 91 1200.00 sl 60000 61 $00 00 81 1.900 00 s1 000 10.S00 00 111 •2 DOO 00 11194r49s..clus— �• TOTAL FAR: 17,200.0C III OPEN SPACE: Pa,. V Coverage 3.771.00 91 8 A•I cars .6 FMU u•f-16 un S.w Suntan CO.'ry.ras Trash Ar.a 0.00 al 70.00 s1 (A70) Foot t o Ana 6.00 ' SITE COVERAGE-SubwI&I 11, I" OD S' RE WIRED 36% OPEN SPACE. 6.031.18 s' N.I.RA-W-1 op-n'^t. ACTUALspeoe OPEN SPACE: 6.•07� 50 s: 81us OK conurn PUNT, "m o c ,rysm .na: or rtgn Dew. n0e MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS RM12— (lsumef>5,%AMrep—d) •ar AMU 2 r 50G O:. 1.OD0 a0 s12sara0AMU 42 I I 1.3W ewn «ap 1 . 1 51.4 OC1 S00 oO t.] Dr FMU 50C 00 6 OD. 00 sl j TOTAL 12 SC' N 11, 1- 2t0 51' Or• FAR AlwwaOw FAR .fur•w,la.I It.Sti.A 55 }' w•SW`CJ1 F.r.+•.• A GAR AcI_, 1' y" 00 W. 12 Pf+ 5 f' FAR E.linng FAR 5.6061 M:-I,, Go'sQOf D.er nan96..K ..v1 on '721'CMKn rrt[1u0eC (I IA0ITABLE) NewAFueAR 5800ftaae .5t55f1O+ Dafemrnitldnr6 Mc',a <? M. REPLACEMENT E.neng ER, 12 AN O•D•nance tale 10, I.Dlacrrtg 10^.S...w waroo e BEDROOMS • SRf R.DIAC C it OK rnrfl OCry1Ke e0 •emene'• HEIGHT 0 a10ry {butt.,.%(00) .0, rra., PLO spo'-w.-n. D.ww 9'.0. Dnrtg ..1f W.r . 0, P—M.A. runpt• pOt­t PARKING GMUI 1 ipat!•9.Or00m.re0uCQ ID 2 tl G." ?,,aIIOriVi AR D Ial R new GA1QS _ A..IfI gwga1Un11f INs. .vI 110m GMOS SETBACKS R.RwrW Actual Flonl Yara 10 20 qt"s my Toro open spaot an UM Arenu. 5:0.•Va, as $ rleea LID e.enlplwn Rear VarOf 10 0 r.eeC PU .. non LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 100. 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8I4511 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 025-7110 FAX (303) 025-6808 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redevelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will have more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.U.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its conceptual P.U.D. application as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Jr6seE.Edwar s, I IJL/38 cc Amy Margerum / Leslie Lamont ✓ . A , WAYNE L. VANDEMARK, FIRE MARSHAL 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2690 TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Wayne Vandemark RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 20, 1989 This project is within a four minute response time from the Fire Station. There is an ample water supply by fire hydrant to supply the required fire flow. ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT To: Leslie Lamont Planning Office From: Carolyn Hardin, Environmental Health Officer! Environmental Health Department Date: November 28, 1989 Re: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS• The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the munici- pal water utility system". The current domestic water supply for the property is an informal system that consists of surface water that originates at the Durant Mine. When the new project is connected to the Aspen Water Department distribution system, there shall be no direct connection between the municipal system and the informal system, to preclude the possibility of back siphonage or potential contamination. AIR QUALITY: In a review of the application, there was no comment made regarding the effect of this proposal on air quality issues. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 ASPEN*PITKIN En iONMENTAL HEALTH OEP RTMENT With that understanding the following is offered. The applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations that pertain to air pollution. Currently they are: Aspen Municipal Code, Ordinance 88-20 which requires the registration of all gas and woodburning devices in a building. Ordinance 86-5 which describes types and numbers of woodburning devices that can be installed. Regulations 1,3 and 8 of the Colorado Air Quality Control Reaulations and Ambient Air Oualitv Standards. These regulations address fugitive dust control plans, emission control permits, and demolition of buildings which may contain asbestos containing material. NOISE• No long term noise impacts are anticipated on the immediate neighborhood as a result of the approval of this project. However, it is predicted that short term noise impacts on the neighborhood will occur during the construction phase of this project. Should complaints be received by this office, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement will be the document used in the investigation. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: Not applicable. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 OCKY C).\WANY INC. November 13, 1989 o: Nelson/Zeeb Construction CO INC. rawer 5409 von, CO 81620 0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Rocky Mountdi!n Natural Gas Division of K N ENERGY, Inc. has the apacity and capability to serve the Project at 831 Ute Ave in Aspen olorado as long as the appropriate forms are filled out, the necessary osts are paid and the local and company codes for instalation of gas ines are met. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, call me t #925-2323. incerely, Ny�� �? aymo�id L. Patch istrict Manager c: John Wilson File llaAtlantic AXc.AAA. .C. Aspen, CoIorado 81MI (.ill - I'1_'.,._! '2-) MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department DATE: December 11, 1989 RE: Billings Conceptual PUD Having reviewed the above and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The applicant will need to submit a plat for the final development plan which meets the requirements in Section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a) of the Land Use Code. Since the conceptual site plan which was submitted did not have the required utility meter locations, these will need to be shown on the above mentioned plat. 2. The design for the off-street parking spaces shows substandard widths. These spaces need to be redesigned to allow for an 8 1/2 foot width. 3. The applicant needs to follow the recommendation by Jay Hammond of Schnueser, Gordon, and Meyer that there be no placement of habitable space below existing grade because of the hazardous impact by off site drainage. 4. The 6 foot easement for the Aspen Mt. Rd. which has been proposed needs to be increased an additional 4 feet. The 771 Ute Townhouse development previously granted a 10 foot easement so this additional 4 feet will bring the width of this road up to the 20 foot standard that is required for emergency access. 5. The relocation of the Durant Mine water channel to a different alignment entering Glory Hole Park is not recommended due to the impact this would have to the park. Bill Ness of the Parks Department indicated that this new alignment would require a new channel through the park which in turn would impact the underground irrigation system. 6. The Public Right of Way on Ute Avenue at this location is adequate. 7. The City requests that, in the event of major excavation on the site, any boulders larger than 36" which are not needed by the developer be provided to the City at the Marolt Property or the 8. The applicant has shown a sidewalk and curb along the Ute Avenue frontage on his site plan. At the present time we have direction from Council to postpone any sidewalk, curb and gutter construction until they make a decision on it this spring. We would, however, request that the applicant make an agreement to construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along Ute Avenue when directed to by City Council. jg/ illin cc: Bob Gish -buck Roth i MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Housing RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: December 2, 1989 REQUEST: Applicant requests GMQS exemption, map amendment to R/MF zoning, and conceptual PUD approval for a project located at 831 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Applicant requests exemption pursuant to 8-104A.1.a., Land Use Regulations, for the reconstruction of the four units on the property to comprise the F.M.U. component of the project. The project will have a free market component consisting of four three -bedroom units. Each three bedroom free market unit will be a three story structure to be a total of 3,000 square feet. Applicant is required to provide one parking space per bedroom in the rezoned R/MF zone district. Applicant is requesting a variance of this requirement as to his proposal of providing two parking spaces below the F.M.U.Is in a private garage for each unit Applicant requests exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.1.c., Land Use Regulations. The affordable housing component will consist of two studios of 500 square feet, four two -bedroom units of 1,000 square feet per unit, and one three -bedroom unit of 1,500 square feet. A total of thirteen (13) bedrooms will be reconstructed in the A.H.U. component in a cluster of two (2) buildings located at the rear of the parcel. The Applicant is supplying eight (8) parking spaces for the seven (7) units which contain thirteen (13) bedrooms. Applicant has requested Special Review pursuant to 5-301B of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicants have requested the three bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot unit be restricted to use as "resident occupied". 1 APPLICANT: Nelson/Devore Partnership, 1280 ,Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado represented by Joseph E. Edwards, III. ZONE: R-6 STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicants have been notified that they have four "legal " units with a total of twelve bedrooms in these units. These units contain an existing habitable floor area of 5,655 square feet. The Applicants request for exemption pursuant to 8-104A.1.a. of the Land Use Regulations which states: (1) The remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of an existing building which does not expand commercial or office floor area or create additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a change in use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant to Section 5-510. The Applicant is proposing to reconstruct the four F.M.U.'s as luxury town homes of approximately 3,000 square feet each, providing at least three bedrooms and two parking spaces per unit. The Applicant is requesting G.M.Q.S. exemption by City Council for the A.H.U. component pursuant to 8-104C.1.c. of the Land Use Regulations which state: it All housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee. The review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted." The Applicant is proposing to build an Affordable Housing component to consist of two studios with five hundred (500) square feet each, four two -bedroom units with one thousand (1,000) square feet each, and one three -bedroom unit to consist of fifteen hundred (1,500) square feet. 2 Seven (7) units are proposed to include thirteen (13) bedrooms with a total of six thousand five hundred (6,500) FAR. The square footage proposed for the two studio units at 500 square feet and the four two -bedroom units at 1,000 square feet will be restricted to the allowable moderate income rental guidelines as adopted by the APCHA on annual basis. The three -bedroom fifteen hundred (1,500) square foot has been requested by Applicant to be a "resident occupied unit". This unit will be restricted to occupancy of a "qualified resident" which shall mean an resident working a minimum of 30 hours per week and nine months per year. Parking has been proposed at eight spaces for the seven units. These seven units will contain total of thirteen bedrooms. Parking has been stated by applicant for the A.H.U.'s to be provided as " the need for more than one car per household as doubtful". In the recent lease up of Truscott Place a 100% employee housing project, parking was provided at one space per unit. The proximity of the golf course facility provides additional parking for overnight/guest parking. This location will not allow off - site parking to accommodate overnight/guest parking as the access road to the property is insufficient for the requirements of emergency vehicles at a width of twelve (12) feet and therefore, cannot accomodate off -site parking of any kind. The four two -bedroom units will rent for $890.00 per month, as according to the 1989 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines. This rent is based on a charge of $.89 X 1,000 S.F. _ $890.00 per month. Re:.t at $890.00 will prove to be supplied by two individual tenants, a married working couple, or joint tenancy in common, Single parent households can not provide this amount of rent in our community at this time. The proximity to the downtown core area can accommodate the lack of parking for this project, however, this project would have to be designed to accommodate a specific target group to be two working tenants with one or no vehicle. Parking will need to be addressed in steps three and four of this application as to the realistic needs of the community at large. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: S t a f f recomm.znds approval of the reconstruction of the four F.M.U.'s and the seven A.H.U.'s on this property based on the following conditions: 3 1. Owner provides an approved and recorded copy of deed restriction indexing the two studios and four two -bedroom units to the current affordable housing moderate income price and rental guidelines and the "Resident Occupied" three bedroom unit to the allowable current guidelines applicable to "Resident Occupied". 2. Verification of employment of person(s) living in the A.H.U's must comply with the current moderate income price and rental guidelines for the studios and two -bedroom units. Verification of employment and residency will be provided to the Housing Authority for the "resident occupancy unit". Verification shall be completed and filed with the Housing Authority Office by Owner prior to occupancy thereof, and must be acceptable to the APCHA. 3. Leases for these units will need to supply a minimum of six (6) consecutive months. 4. Deed restriction will need to be approved and recorded by the APCHA prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. Present tenants will need to be given first option for occupancy of the A.H.U. units to avoid further displacement of our working community. 6. Parking will need to be addressed with additional information as to possible present tenancy requirements in steps three and four for the A.H.U.'s. 4 REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES Incorporated January 8, 1990 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Dear Councilmen: I represent George Mitchell and Buddy Bornefeld who are adjacent landowners, to the south, to the Billings project. They have reviewed the proposal and have no problem with the proposed development including the set -back and height variances requested in the application. Sincerely, C.A. Vidal 117 South Monarch P. 0. Box 3159, Aspen. Colorado 81612 Telephone:(a0:3) 9'5 4530 July 2, 1990 Amy, I have attached the GMQS Exemption memo dated December 13. That memo identifies the Section of the Code that enables the Planning Director to approve a GMQS Exemption. I have also attached the documentation from the building department that led Bill to the decision that there were four legal units on the site. I also replied to Jed regarding this manner and indicated to him that all this information is in the files that I have just organized. Leslie �Cv A S -FG o Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 1990 BILLING CONCEPTUAL PUD (Mayor Stirling left the room due to conflict of interest). Leslie Lamont, planning office, said this is an application for redevelop- ment of approximately 18,000 square feet on Ute Avenue. This parcel is currently zoned R-6/PUD; the applicant would like to rezone the property RMF/PUD. The applicant are proposing to demolish the existing 12 units, 4 of which are legal and replace this with 3 free market units and 7 deed restricted unit. Ms. Lamont told Council this is the second step of a 4 step process. P & Z conceptually approved the development plan with conditions. Ms. Lamont told Council the rezoning will not occur until steps 3 and 4; however, this is a threshold issue and Council should address it conceptually. Ms. Lamont told Council under PUD the applicant are requesting variances to vary the height from 25 to 30 feet at certain portion; to vary open space from 35 percent to 29 percent, and to vary side yard setbacks. Ms. Lamont told Council there are two special reviews in step 3, parking reduction and FAR increase to 1.1:1 from 1:1 which is a bonus for providing affordable housing on site. The applicants will be seeking a GMQS exemption for affordable housing on site and condominiumization. Ms. Lamont told Council GMQS exemption for replacement of the legal units on site is a planning director sign off. Karinjo Devore, applicant, told Council her family has lived on this property for 30 years; all of the residents have lived there at least 10 years. The owner decided to sell the property and gave all the tenants notice. The potential buyer was going to replace this was a luxury second home. There was a reprieve because of the multi -family demolition moratorium. Ms. Devore told Council the residents discussed with the planning office how they might save their property and were able to buy the property last November. Ms. Devore said she feels their proposal is the best solution to a very critical problem. Bill Lipsey showed the plan presented to P & Z which had 4 free market units along Ute avenue. These units are going to generate 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 1990 the ability for the rest of the project. Lipsey said the height was 30 feet but the buildings were set back an extra 10 feet. Lipsey said at that point they did not want to put any habitable space below grade because they had not had a chance to do any soils studies. The affordable units are on the back of the site with access off Ute avenue off the road that goes up to the Aspen Alps. There is a 2 story structure with 2 two -bedroom units and a 3 story structure with some studio units of 400 square feet and two -bedroom units of 800 square feet and a resident occupied unit which will be about 1800 square feet. Lipsey said there was sensitivity of the height on Ute avenue and some criticism of parking and pedestrian access to the back of the units. Lipsey said the revised the plans to have 3 free market units on Ute avenue with a split level scheme with some habitable space below grade. This allowed the buildings to be dropped to 25 feet in some places and 30 feet in others. The width of the parking spaces for the affordable units was increased. Lipsey said they are requesting some flexibility in the rear yard setback and the side yard setback. Lipsey said the plan was received well by planning and P & Z. Ms. Lamont told Council P & Z did not feel the open space issue was a problem. Ms. Lamont said P & Z was concerned about the setback because of the potential for development behind the Billings property. Councilman Gassman opened the public hearing. Charlie Tarver asked about the parking. Ms. Lamont told Council P & Z wanted the applicants to explore reducing the free marking if it could help reduce the height. Lipsey said he is studying this; it is not an easy solution to remove one parking space and expect the height of residential space will drop. Ms. Devore told Council currently there are 2 parking places at the project; this proposal is for 16 off-street spaces. Molly Campbell, Gant, said when the Gant was built in 1974, Council then tried to disincen- tivize the auto an granted 105 parking places for 140 units. Parking over there is very difficult. Ms. Campbell said a substantial amount of parking has been eliminated on Ute avenue. Pam Cunningham, Aspen Alps, told Council the Board is generally very much in favor of the project; however, they are concerned about the height and setback variances. Ms. Cunningham pointed out no one currently maintains the Aspen Mountain road. Rick Neiley, representing the Black Swan, told Council the owners have concerns regarding the extent of this redevelopment. Neiley said the project may be over sized for this site. Neiley said there may be 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 1990 some potential negative consequences. There are currently 4 legal units with 12 legal bedrooms; the applicants are proposing 10 units and 24 bedrooms. The applicants are seeking reductions in setback, open space, increase in height and an increase in FAR. Neiley said this project addresses some of the city's goals regarding housing; however, it may be too much for the site. The applicants should consider a reduction in some features of the site so that it is less intrusive on the neighborhood. Bill Hewitt said he feels there will be a parking problem whether these are part time residents or not. Hewitt said he does not feel Council or P & Z should make up new rules when there are rules for this applicant to follow. Hewitt said the project is too big and should be scaled down. The set of rules in the community should apply to everybody. Councilman Gassman said this is a PUD, which allow some things to be varied. Ms. Lamont told Council the RMF zone allows a FAR of 1:1. A special review allows in the RMF zone %.,,ith affordable housing on site an increase in floor area of 1.1:1. This does not represent anything outside the existing code. Mary Gleason, 861 Ute avenue, told Council she favors this project. Councilman Gassman closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters said he favors this project and is an appropriate use of the site. Councilman Peters said he feels it is great someone would come forward with a project that closely resembles the affordable housing zone district but is doing it without the AH zone. Councilman Peters said he supports the rezoning. This property is right next to the LTR district, which has a bigger density. Councilman Peters said he would like the applicants present an 1/8" scale massing model. Councilman Tuite said he cannot think of a better project in which to allow some variances. Councilman Tuite pointed out these height variances would not cut off any views of the mountain. The project is trying to generate as much employee housing as possible. Councilman Crockett said he feels this is an excellent application of a PUD. Councilman Gassman said this project is being proposed without any public subsidy and is the type of project Council hoped would happen when they started talking about an affordable housing zone. Councilman Gassman moved to approve the conceptual PUD for the Billings affordable housing development plan with conditions recommended by P & Z; seconded by Councilman Peters. Ms. Lamont pointed out the applicants have already increased the width of the parking spaces to 8.5 feet so condition #2 can be 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 1990 eliminated. Ms. Lamont said conditio #3 ))addresses no habitable space below and their engineer has revised his en ation. Ms. Lamont said she would like this condition �gb' ct to aluatio nd a royal b erin de artment. ition #1 should have added "gas log fireplaces" shall e ified. s. Lamont told Council she is going to replace conditio s #11, 12,e�an an will be one condition stating, )'The owner sha provi approved and recorded copy of the deed restriction of the affordable units subject to review and approval by the housing authorit "/. Councilman Peters said he would like to add a condition that the applicants provide a massing model of 1/10" to the foot scale. Councilman Gassman asked about the Aspen Mountain road and if this can be included in the Ute avenue improvement district. Councilman Gassman said he would like to see the ownership of and maintenance of the Aspen Mountain road by esearch added into condition #4. All in favor, motion carried. 12 LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109. 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III November 2, 1989 Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 025-71145 FAX (303) 025-45908 Re: Rezoning of the Billings Property (831 Ute Avenue) Dear Mr. Anderson: Our office represents the Nelson/Devore Partnership which purchased the property known as the Billings Property on November 1, 1989. It is the intent of the Nelson/Devore Partnership to redevelop the Billings Property with four free-market units and approximately seven affordable housing units. The affordable housing component of the project will have more F.A.R. than the existing habitable F.A.R. currently on that property and will have more bedrooms than currently exist on that property. In order to redevelop the property, the Nelson/Devore Partnership will require that the property be rezoned. The property is currently zoned R-6, mandatory P.U.D.; and, on advice of the Planning Department, we will request that the property be rezoned to RMF, mandatory P.U.D. I will appear at your next P & Z meeting and, during citizens' comments, request the commission approve sponsorship of the Billings property for a rezoning in order that the Nelson/Devore Partnership may file its Planning & Zoning Commission November 2, 1989 Page 2 application for rezoning with its application as soon as possible. questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Jr6seE.Edwar s, I IJL/38 cc Amy Margerum ✓ Leslie Lamont conceptual P.U.D. If you have any RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:32pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Mc_ans, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton and Mari Peyton arrived immediately after roll call and Roger Hunt was excused. None COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS STAFF COMMENTS Amy: City Council met last night on the Hwy 82 EIS. They did not make any decision as to what route they prefer into town. They continued it to Wednesday November 15th and that is contingent on whether we get an extension from the Hwy Dept for our official comments. Council met last night in executive session on the Ritz and will meet again on that in open session on the 13th. PUBLIC COMMENTS b i Jody Edwards: I represent the Nelson DeVore Partnership. Edwards asked P&Z to sponsor our application for rezoning. Welton: I would entertain a motion to sponsor rezoning of the Billings property on Ute Avenue. Mari: I move to sponsor a rezoning of the Billings property on Ute Avenue from R-6 to RMF mandatory PUD. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. There was no further public comment. MINUTES JULY5, SEPTEMBER 19 AND OCTOBER 24, 1989 Bruce made a motion to approve these minutes. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11/13/89 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-182-95-101 108A-89 STAFF MEMBER: L L PROJECT NAME: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMOS Exemption and Rezonincx Project Address: 831 Ute Avenue Legal Address: APPLICANT: Nelson/Devote Partnership Applicant Address: 1280 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Jody Edwards Representative Address/Phone: 201 N. Mill Aspen, Co 5-7116 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 442 99 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 7 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date "z'I-' PUBLIC HEARING: YES AN_O VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date ! " = PUBLIC HEARING: %'YES ,, NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: ------------------------------- City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water _� Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. Q� �d DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 November 17, 1989 Joseph E. Edwards, III Law Offices of Joseph E. Edwards, Jr. 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Billings Application Dear Jody, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on January 2, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshal FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Billings Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption Parcel ID# 2737-182-95-101 DATE: November 17, 1989 ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Jody Edwards on behalf of his client, Nelson/Devore Partnership, requesting Conceptual PUD approval for the Billings property. Please review this material and return your comments no later than December 15, 1989. Thank you. LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III FAX (303) 925-6608 November 15, 1989 Leslie Lamont Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Billings Affordable Housing Application Dear Leslie: Today I noticed I made an error on page 30 of the Billings Affordable Housing Development Plan Application which was submitted November 13, 1989. I failed to deduct the 735-foot dedicated road easement from the total field area to determine the total "uncovered" space on the site. Also, Bill Lipsey and I made a preliminary calculation of the site area which fits the strict definition of open space. Our calculations indicate 29% of the site area is open space. Thus, the variation requested for percentage of open space through the P.U.D. process should be specified to be from 35% to 29%. As a result of this error and this additional information, several of the pages in the Application should be changed. Enclosed are seven copies of the revised pages. I would appreciate it if you would insert these in place of the pages with the same numbers in the current Applications. Also, I have included for your reference one copy of the changes which were made. Very truly yours, �ose h E. Edwards, III/ JEE ch L2/25 Enclosures A.H.U.s will be in two clusters behind the parking area. The open space is divided between the F.M.U. and A.H.U. clusters. Over 3,000 square feet of open space is in front of and on the sides of the F.M.U. cluster, and the remaining open space creates a landscaped courtyard for the A.H.U. clusters. D. Variances Requested. In large part, the project can be constructed within the parameters of the R/MF zone district. However, a few minor variances through P.U.D. will be requested; and an external F.A.R. bonus is requested through special review. A height variance of five feet is requested for the F.M.U. cluster and one of the A.H.U. clusters. Two variances of two feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the side -yard setbacks and a variance of seven feet (for a distance of approximately 20 feet) on the rear -yard setback are requested. Additionally, the location of approximately one-half of the open space is proposed to be with and around the A.H.U. component of the project which is located towards the rear of the project and off of Ute Avenue. The strict definition of open space includes a requirement that open space be open to view from the street at pedestrian level. The definition of street in the Land Use Regulations includes private streets such as the access easement along the northwest boundary of the property. The project,hs WT ncovered spaceta--&a4i4Xy the zone district requirementome of mat space may not satisfy the D20/04 -7- strict definition of open space, and a variance through the P.U.D. process for the percent of "open space" is requested. Pursuant to § 5-206D.10., Land Use �\ 1 Regulations, the external F.A.R. in the R/MF zone may be I increased for multifamily dwellings from 1:1 to 1.1:1 by t� special review. Although the floor area of the living spaces is considerably below the 1:1 ratio, the external F.A.R. bonus will be requested to accommodate porches, overhangs and other architectural amenities which greatly enhance the quality of the project. D20/04 -8- review application will be provided at steps three and four of the review process for the A.H.U. parking. [?/%",p 4. Open Space. The zone district requires 35% of the site be open space. The' site/iis 17,975.5 square feet, and 6,291.43 square feet is required G a z- / to be open space. The project provides 6;95 .25 square feet 3 q-. &o as uncovered space. This is-39-% of the site area. We have calculated uncovered space as follows. Total field area 17,975.5 s.f. R o a (,! — 7 6 S. a Free-market footprint - 4,500.0 s.f. A.H.U. footprint 1 - 800.0 s.f. A.H.U. footprint 2 Parking area Trash area Total uncovered space The - 2,025.25 s.f. - 3,624.0 70.0 -Fr;956-5 s.f. uncovered space is apportioned between the two components of the project. Directly across Ute Avenue from the project is Glory Hole Park, which enhances the open feeling on Ute Avenue and the front of the project. Approximately one-half of uncovered space is provided on Ute Avenue and along the sides of the F.M.U. component of the project. The remainder of the uncovered space is used for a courtyard for the A.H.U. component of the property. The courtyard is a tremendous addition to the A.H.U. component. As a result of the two -component nature of this project, some of the uncovered space in the A.H.U. D20/04 -I^ courtyard is not "open space" within the strict definition provided in the Land Use Regulations. The definition of open space in the Land Use Regulations provides that open space areas "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level, which view need not be measured at right angles." Street, as defined in the Land Use Regulations, includes private streets such as the street along the northwest property line used to access the parking area. Since some portion of the uncovered space on the project does not meet the definition of open space, the applicant requests a variation from the required percentage of open n space through the P.U.D. process. ret &_ 16.,...E 5. Summary. The unusual shape of the parcel presents unique design challenges and opportunities. The P.U.D. process makes possible efficient development of this parcel by encouraging flexibility and innovation. The requested variations of height, setback and percentage of open space would make possible private -sector development which creates dignified affordable housing for the City of Aspen in a manner compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C. "A statement,conceptually outlining how the proposed P.U.D. development will be served with the appropriate public facilities, and how assurances will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development." D20/04 -31- LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 100, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III November 27, 1989 Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-8808 Re: Nelson/Devore Development Application --Billings Property Dear Leslie: Enclosed is a copy of a letter we received from Rocky Mountain National Gas concerning capacity and capability to serve the proposed project at 831 Ute Avenue. Please add this to our development application. Very truly yours, 4ose E. Edwards, III JEE ch L3/07 Enclosure LAW OFFICES JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SUITE 109, 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. JOSEPH E. EDWARD5, III December 29, 1989 Leslie Lamont Aspen-Pitkin Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116 FAX (303) 925-6808 Re: Billings Development --Final P.U.D. Application Dear Leslie: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of December 27, 1989, in which I spoke to you and you spoke to Jim Gibbard. It is my understanding that § 7-903C.2.a.(12), Aspen Land Use Regulations, which requires that a plat with the information required by SS 7-1004D.1.a.(3) and D.2.a., Aspen Land Use Regulations, be submitted as a part of a final P.U.D. application, merely requires a draft plat so that the Engineering Department can get a sense of what is proposed and verify that all of the necessary information is included. That section does not require that such plat be a final plat with permanent ink on mylar. Please let me know if this is not consistent with your understanding of that section. Very truly yours, 6osephEdwards, II/10 cc Chupa Nelson Karinjo and Nicholas Devore Bill Lipsey / SCHMUESER G I MEYER INC. January 6, 1990 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS Mr. William Lipsey, Archtect P.O. Box 3203 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Update of Billings Property Drainage Dear Bill: P.O. Box 2155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925-6727 This letter is to provide a written follow-up to our discussions and my verbal comments to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on December 19, 1989, regarding the potential off -site drainage impacts to the Billings property. Subsequent to our meeting in November, I wrote a letter, dated November 10, 1989, expressing initial concerns regarding the location of the property with regard to off -site drainage flow. As I noted in the let- ter, this concern was related to my observations of the site vicinity over the past several years as well as a..."cursory review of basin characteristics...". As I indicated to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on December 19, and as you and I had discussed prior to that hearing, I have since undertaken a more detailed review of adjacent drainage as well as planned and constructed drainage improvements in the sorrounding area. This review reveals: - A commitment by the adjacent 777 Ute Avenue Townhome project to install an intercepting catch basin on the Aspen Mountain road to the southwest of the site. - Installation of several minor berms and storm routing improvements along the upper Alps road along the Lower Spar corridor to the south of the site. - Improvements to an intercept drain installed by the Aspen Skiing Company on the upper Aspen Mountain road to the west. - The City of Aspen's commitment to drainage improvments in Lower Spar Gulch. While I remain of the opinion that the Billings site is in a location subject to off -site drainage impacts, I have come to the conclusion that a combination of on -site design features (grading, drainage, etc.), as well as planned or implemented off -site improvements, no longer suggest the need for a design which precludes habitable space below grade. Clearly, the elimination of subgradesliving space is an extreme measure with significant implications to unit design and heights appropriate to sites subject to a "high" risk of flooding. Further review, in my opinion, reveals improvements and commitments that will reduce the risk to this site significantly. 1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212 • Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 • (303) 945-1004 January 6, 1990 Mr. William Lipsey, Archtect Page two I hope this letter is helpful. Feel free to contact me for further comment or detail. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. gill-4�� Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal - Aspen Office JWH:lec/9296 cc: Joseph E. Edwards, III �� c� - 4 �,, C41 VC� (:)i"Dr,1\ Ui JIC fe dam►-�-�-� 0 g ._ ��2•01-_� ___._..__--�Se�',e�� �e��jclu��-o--c,.n a���uo��.o�,1ny,. requests a variation of five feet for two of the three clusters. The F.M.U. component of the project is proposed to be 30 feet, and one of the two A.H.U. clusters is proposed to be 30 feet. This is considered advisable by the project engineers because of occasional water runoff. It is usual in the Aspen area to build a three-story townhouse and build the first story of the house five feet below grade. However, since it is not advisable to construct below grade on this site, a five-foot height variation is requested. The buildings will have flat roofs with internal drains to minimize runoff and erosion. I8. The minimum distance between buildings on lots in the R/MF zone is ten feet. The three separate clusters on this site are considerably more than ten feet apart, and no variation is requested. 9. The percent of open space required for a 41 building site in the R/MF zone is 35%. ����rrK�'-�- 5— % of the site is uncovered space. Due to the nature of the project having an F.M.U. component and an A.H.U. component, the open space is apportioned between those components. If this parcel had a street on the rear side instead of being backed up against Aspen Mountain, the entire 3X of the site which is uncovered would qualify as open space. Due to the unusual site location and shape, the applicant requests ary , variation in the percent of open space. �r 10. The external floor area ratio requirement in the R/MF zone for multi -family dwellings is D20/04 -37- QD- J -- ry) Z CDN7Kol- PT o°E -az U T f Y N U PrOUNr RE L.S. NVMt� S 38'35' 705, 92 _ 96.2I' 1-11— —L F � I'LA Cif, L.S. `t018 Aht'EN -TOWNSITE COP-11-IE.►e NO. 1 U KV E`f OK' S GE -T FICA I H E.I�1�Y CE-KT I FY TH^7 ON G�TOI�E.IZ 2G , 1181, /+ VISUAL (HSPE.CTIOH W/l5 f ff-KF0f-f"Iff-t::) JrrlI-)E.IZ MY SUPERVISION OF THE ��OVI= b! SGF�1�EI� PIZOPEKT Y. 1'40 CHAIN GES W EKE 1`90U N O EXCEPT ^S 5I-10VVN NC)TE(::) ALITM1 �SkJKVI=YS, INC:- tly _ Cr--T0I3EK ZG , I169 L.S. O 5 10 20 30 40 50 Pf✓ET V�A'2I�2 Of r-3F✓^K(NJG- FOUNf-D MONUMD- t A`, 5I40WN 0, LDCA7LD FOK Af7CTOIN(NG MITCHELL 1'teOf'EKT1- 5UZYE-Y0K'S CEIZT1F(CA-T a S, (�At-l1E.L. P M`KENZIE_ 1 IEREt�f CEKTIF"( `THAT ON SEPT. 7, 1-f88, A WA`? 1'�-:KFOKMED UNDER 'M f ---UPEKVISION OF A TfKACT OF )- ANf7 SHOWN HF-rf LON, THE ONE i� TWO STOK&( Wom 6� MA50NKeI 17 UX) --DtN-� WERE, FOUND TO I-5E, LOCATE.(? A5 SI--IOWt-( HEIZE.ON , TF-t� �-OC ATION � Pf MENS(GN`� OF AL--. (MPIZ0YEME(JT'::,, E-A5fMENT5, K(GHT5 -OF -WA'1 11�i EV(i7Lt�lc OK KNOWN TO ME 84 Et-')CR0ACHMENT--�' f3� OK ON THESE. t'KE.MISES ARE AGCUfCATEL f 5H0Wf-I. E^5v-ME-KITS OF KECoKD /ArE F-')ASE,D UPON S-rFWAKT TfTLE OF ASFEN TITLE 'POLIClf �OKDEiZ No, Ai-Fit-lf. 5UKVE-f5, (1-�- CY--TOP.5E1-Z1 It, P15 b a tit : 17t``NI EL F, 1✓l` t<EN �'� "41 NOTK'E. Aecord,mg to a m.menn a,, ia,,,,n eased upon any detect n ma survey wen,' 3 ,e11, all t-t mycovr.r such detect In no evert may any action naseo upon any detect in Ihis survey he commenced more than ten years from the dale of the ce rliticatiom shown hereon Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 Surveyed 1 7 613 5.N Revisions o 2G 59 Drafted 10 1 1 8 5 f7>. F�'. Title IMFKOVIFM�Ej� 5UKV1✓�1 1-07'2' (4 A I5A + M-%B5. UTE AMITIOW UTlI � OF /ASPEN, CCL0K-`,,D0 Job No - 1.94 Client r-:)I L L I K(C-�D NOTE: 25' HIGH BUILDING SET BACK 10'. CUTS OFF MORE VIEW THAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' 1T T F A V F N IT F ISSUE I DATE BY r Z 111,13,99 D- DP �CANTKOI- PT # 202 U T A V E N U L fOUNO ' RE L, 9. NVMC",E 5 38'35' 705, 92 16.21' �2'04 "W .1t TLA. C V , L.Z. °IUIB Z O A5t'�N TOWNSIT� C�NEte NO. 1 S U KV E`(OIZ' S CE R•7m C/\7 E: I H EKP�'.:)Y CF-KT I FY TH^T ON 26, 1181, 4 V15LIAL INSPECTION WAS f f_Kr-0K_"lffj:�' UN tDM MY OF THE OV f= bl=SGfZI EIO PR.0PEK-7 Y. NO Cr--I^N GES W E.IL FOU N O EX CLF T ^5 SHOWN ,kNrD NOTEp HEF�,LON. ALPI N E SUK.VI=.YS , I Nc CCT,05EP_ 26, 1161 rbY YPs� ZA me Pe O 5 10 20 30 40 50 FEET ✓GfIJ- E_ I ° = lo, 1'✓A51`2 OF 13EiJZ(WG r FOUNt� MN ONUMETS A`� 5HOWN O, LOCATEJD FOK Af-,?LTOIN(t,1G M(TCHELL 1'feOPEKT�(. 5URYEYOZ/115 CERT[F(CATe S, PAh11E.L F. M`KENZIE_ CEKTIF'1I •THAT ON SEPT. 7, 115b, A WA`-� i'r_KF_0KMED UNDER 'M`i -_-k1pEtzYI510N OF A TfKACT OF LAND SHOWN HEKEON, THE• ONE, 4 TWO 6TOK'I WWD A MA50NKII r!XX_D(NG-:) Wf_=ZE. FOUND T-0 Fx- LOCATE( A5 SFtOW>-( HE KFLON . THL I...,OC AT(CT�l � i7I MENS(qr-) OF ALL IMPrzOYE.MENTS, EA5F-MENrS, IeIGHT5 -OF -WAef tIJ OK KNOWN TO i 4E: 14 Et.1CKO^CHMF._1,475 P" OK ON THESE 1'K-F_MISES ARE ACCUICATFL`f 5HOWN, F^51_.ME_KITS OF KF_coKr2 /Ar\r- P)ASEp UPON STE\A/AKT TITLE. OF ASPEN TITLE. POLICK (OKDER NO• ALPINE. SUKV'EGtS, I1�L. ttyt� S7flNlEL P, 1'(`t<ENZ-IE. OCTO[3E.1e" It, I15b 1_.5, 20151 NOTICE: According to Colorado law , cased upon any defect In s „ � be Commenced more than ten years frOm the dd:!". _ i.vr.. hereon Alpine Survevs. Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 Surveyed 1 7 6 5 5•N . Revisions o . zc.51 Drafted 10 11 85 D t'. Title IMrK0\/1=MF1-,FT 5UKV!✓Gl 1_0T "2 f4 4 15A + My.Bi. UTE ^MT10W GIT`l e, TOWI,ici, TE. o /'ASPEN GOLOK..,,DO Inh Mn 5 6 - 1 Client 11,51 LI_I K(6,"D 3" 5uo(z DE C l vEP`T TO 49 IDLE P^Pr, f O"D 1 1/+ II i r I I UNIT A-fmu 3 br UNIT B-fmu 3br A V E N U E a UNIT C-fmu 3br • • �i i \ q � V UNIT D-fmu � 3br I 1 \SIN it A UTE I S ETB TEAS k� GARAGE 777 _ RESIDENT OCCUPIED UTE CJ1" + UNIT 02' high, TOWNHOUSES a UN G & H-all P UNIT E-ah -studio & 1-2br 2 br ✓ 44 i UNIT F-ah 2br — WA-K, WAy • ~ ���NMADC- HEIGHT. 20' (2-STORY) CP-EEK � M c is F 4D r c—c'NNECT TO f11I5T'G- '-'UF-AN T MANE WATER SOUf�E IFy F IGHrs) DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN lop HEIGHT: 30 O. UNITS I & J-ah �i 1-studio & 1-2br UNIT K-ah (res. occ.) 3 br HEIGHT: 30 (3-STORY) 1 • c E Al h i I I 10 FT ACK & HEIGHT STUDY scale: I" = 10' - ZONING SUMMARY _ SITE COVERAGE: (RNIF ZONE) SITE AREA: EASEMENT DEDUCTION REMAINING SITE AREA OPEN SPACE: 25' HIGH BUILDING SET BACK 10'_ CUTS OFF MORE VIEW THAN 30' BUILDING SETBACK 20' 17,975.50 st 735 00 st 17,240.50 sf FOOTPRINT AFU 1.1sICli400 sf 3 story 20x20 400 DO sf i-2br@800 sf AFU 1.1st@400 st 3 story 20x20 400.00 st 1.2br@800 sf AFU 1-2br@8D0 sf 2 story 20x20 400 00 51 AFU 1 21br@800s1 2 story 20x20 40000 st AFU 1.3br@1,800 st 3 story 24 5x24 5 600.D0 st AFU Garage 9 Storage 1 story 25x25 625.00 sf FMU's 4-38R@3,000 3 story 25x45 �500 00 sf FOOTPRINT -TOTAL AREA:-7,32F.00 Parking Coverage Sunken Courtyards Trash Area Footprint Area SITE COVERAGE -Subtotal REOUIRED 35 % OPEN SPACE. (ACTUAL OPEN SPACE: FAR 1 ,200.00 st 1,200.00 sf 800.00 sf 800 00 of 1,800,00 st resident occupied unit 0.00 13,500.00 st -2,000 00 sf garage exclusion4 units TOTAL FAR: 17,300.DO 51 hangs porches etc not included in this FAR 3,771 .00 st 8 AH cars +8 FMU cars-16 cars total 0.00 st 70.00 st (7x10) 6 200 00 st 1,166.00 sf 6,034.18 sf Note Required Open space cannot (e,074.50 sf thus OK contain parking, trash or courtyard areas 2' or more below grade MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS RMF Zone (assumes >50 % AH replaced) F- A R FAR (HABITABLE) REPLACEMENT BEDROOMS HEIGHT PARKING GNIQS SETBACKS 2-studios AHU 2 x 50000 1,000 00 st 4-2 br AHU 4 x 1,00000 4.000.00 sf 1.3br own occup 1 x 1 .5D0 00 1.500 00 4.3 br FMU 4 x 1,500 00 6 000 00 sl TOTAL 12 500 00 sl< 17 240 5s1 OKI Allowable FAR sit(, area x 1 1 18,96c 55 st w'Special Review Actual FAR 17 K0 N s1 18 964 5 st Existing FAR 5,655 sl ne; inler Garages overhangs. etc excluoeci 72st meth included New AFU FAR 5 800 sl oross >5 F.55sf OK basement sloraoe b rrrchanical net included Existing ER'e. 12 AH Ordinance calls for replacing 100,, exisl'g bedrooms BR's Re laced 13 OK- meets ordinance requirements" 3 story structures (30') will require PUD approval ---no below arade Irving units because of potential runoff probleme FMU s 1 space,bedroom reduce to 2 because 2nd hordes AH by Special Review 4 existing legal units thus exempt from GMOS Required Actual ont Yard 10 20 gives city more open space on Ule Avenue de Yards 5 3 need PUD exemption ar Yards 10 3 need PUD exemption