Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.su.Fox Crossing 555 Walnut second file 76-2004
Letters & Testimonies in Support Of Fox Crossing 1. Robert Zupancis 2. Ruth Kruger 3. Howie Mallory 4. Tom & Patti Clapper 5. Tenants on Walnut and Race Streets 6. Mark Hesselschwerdt, Boazd Chairman, Smuggler Mobile Home Park L.J. Espamer Colleen Burrows 7. Lisa Thurston, Hunter Creek Condominiums 8. Geoffrey Lester, Hunter Creek Commons Corporation 9. Bill Stirling 10. Jon Busch 11. Martha Cochran, Aspen Valley Land Trust 12. City of Aspen Parks & Open Space Staff, City of Aspen 13. Dale Will, Open Space & Trails, Pitkin County 14. Larry Griffith 15. Clurie Bennis 16. Natasha Kirschen 17. Connie Harvey 18. Tim McFlynn Reference Information Submitted List of Professional Opinions Requested On Access and Developability of Hunter Valley Way Parcel 1. Validity of Access Easement: Chris LaCroix, Garfield and Hecht 2. Ability to Privately Condemn for Access under Colorado Law: Garret Brandt, BrandUFeigenbaum 3. Technical/Economic Feasibility of the Access: Jay Hammond, Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer 4. Technical Feasibility and Cost Estimates for Access: Frank Montonati, PresidenUCEO, MCO Mine Services 5. Technical Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Access Route 6. Likelihood of Development Approval for Hunter Valley Way Within the County under the Takings Procedure: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 Mazch 2005 Planning • Urban Design Lnndscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIF STREET Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Asrerv, Coiow.oo 81611 Community Development Department Te~eeeorve: 970.925.2323 City of Aspen Fax: 97o.9zo Ieza ~. _1 E-Mnnr. in[oQscaplanning.com 130 S. Galena Street wen: www.scaplanning.com Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Responses to Fox Crossing Continued City Council Hearing Questions Dear Chris: The purpose of this letter is to provide the applicant's responses, as requested, to remaining questions from the 28 February 2005 City Council hearing on the Fox Crossing project. We would very much appreciate your distributing the letter with the City Council packet for the continued hearing scheduled for 14 March 2005. Valuation of the Hunter Valley Way Parcel We have provided an opinion from planning consultant Mitch Haas that the Hunter Valley Way Pazcel could be developed under the Pitkin County takings procedure. In addition, an engineering analysis has been provided by tunnel expert Frank Montonati, President and CEO of MCO Mine Services of Silverton, Colorado and confirmed by Jay Hammond, P.E. of Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer that there is feasible and cost-effective access to the site. A legal opinion from Chris LaCroix, Esq. of Ga~eld & Hecht confirms the validity of the access easement provided to the site. A legal opinion from Garret Brandt, Esq. discusses the provisions under the Colorado constitution and in case law for a private taking that could have provided access to the site if an alternative access had not been granted. As requested, taken together, these various documer-ts attest to the existence of a valid easement, useable access to the site, and the pazcel's value as a premium single-family estate location. Moreover, we provided mapping showing that this particulaz site is a remaining significant exclusion from a band of protected open space north of the City and providing access to the Hunter Valley. Placing this parcel under open space protection will be a significant addition to the community's open space inventory. This has been confirmed by the County Open Space and Trails Boazd, the City Parks Department, and numerous comments from the general public. The parcel conforms to the criteria of the newly adopted ordinance intended to provide Transferable Development Rights in the City for significant open space parcels. Moreover, the provision of three additional development rights as requested will not increase the density of the proposed subdivision over the underlying R-6 zoning in any way. We believe that the granting of these development rights is entirely consistent with the code as amended and with conservation valuation practices throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. It is important that this proposal for acquiring the Hunter Valley Way parcel uses no public funds. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 March 2005 Page 2 It should be noted that County TDRs are cuttently selling in the area of $170,000 and therefore three TDRs fall well within the value of $600,000. At one point in time, the City issued TDRs for the Smuggler Trailer Park Subdivision. The new TDRs from the City in exchange for open space protection are inherently less valuable than the prior ones because the new ones do not include an exemption from affordable housing or cash- in-lieu requirements. Finally, as was noted in the prior meeting, the three TDRs would facilitate only approximately 6,000 square of additional development. This additional developmem is roughly equivalem to the 5,750 square foot base allocation that would be provided to the Hunter Valley Way parcel. It is faz below the potential 15,000 square feet of development that could be accommodated on the Horner Valley Way pazcel under current zoning. Moreover, this 6,000 square feet of development in Fox Crossing remains entirely consistent and conforming to the density provided by the R-6 zoning for the Fox Crossing pazcel. Lot 3 Building Envelope The applicant will accept a condition of approval to provide a specific building envelope that may be different from the standazd zoning setbacks. The intent of the envelope would be to protect the stream and natural bench on the northwest corner of the lot from development that would unduly encroach on the privacy and natural setting of the adjacent Hunter Creek Condominiums. The building envelope, which cannot be easily designated umil the snow is offthe ground and the topography can be better analyzed, will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department, and will provide for the reasonable development of the allowable floor azea on the lot. ADUs The affordable housing obligations of the subdivision will be met through cash-in-lieu payments as prescribed in the Land Use Code. As requested, no Accessory Dwelling Units will be incorporated into the subdivision. Parking within the Subdivision and on Spruce Street The Fox Crossing project will provide for all required parking within the subdivision and will additionally provide a minimum of six (6) additional parking spaces on lots within the subdivision. The project will provide for three (3) public parking spaces at the entry to the Meadow located at the end of the public portion of Walnut Avenue. Additionally, the project will provide and pay for the development of head-in public parking along Spruce Street adjacent to proposed Lots 1 and 2, subject to a determination by the City that this would be the cuttently preferred use. The applicant will execute a Sidewalk Agreement with the City to pay its fair share for a sidewalk in front of Lot 2 along Spruce Street, if and when the City decides it would be appropriate to install sidewalks in that azea. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 March 2005 Page 3 Proposed Receiver Lots for TDRs The receiving sites for the three TDRs would be the proposed Fox Crossing Lots 8 and 9, and the Griffith Subdivision Lot 3, as shown on the project Development Plan. Parking on Race Street The applicant has provided a design for parking on both sides of the east-west portion of Race Street, based on the City's determination that it would prefer this additional parking with a single travel lane on this portion of the roadway. This design is based on continuing the current 14-foot width of the Race Alley travel lane and adding two 8-foot parking lanes. As part of this design, the applicant is requesting a vacation of a portion of the current Race Street right-of--way from it current width of approximately 45 feet along its elliptical northern boundary to a regularized 30-foot width. (Please see attached cross- section of Race Street.) Foa Crossing Meadow and Trail The trail will provide continuity from the existing Oklahoma Flats Trail terminating at Gibson Avenue to the Hunter Creek Trailhead on Spruce Street. Portions of this connector would utilize existing sidewalks and provide new connections along Spruce Street. We have produced a revised trail map indicating this connectivity, which was provided at the prior hearing. The trail is to be a six-foot wide concrete trail, with a standard finish that includes colored concrete consistent with other trails and meets all Parks Department specifications. The trail would be in a public easement, similaz to that of many trail corridors that run within the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, such as the Rio Grande Trail. A concrete trail would require very little maintenance except for snow removal. Snow removal within the Fox Crossing Subdivision would be the responsibility of the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association and subject to applicable policies for snow removal that may be articulated by the Parks Department. The Fox Crossing Meadow would be owned and maintained by the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association. An easement would be provided, allowing public access to the pazk from the trail that passes through it. It is ow understanding that the Parks Department does not want to take ownership of this property. It should also be noted that the park would remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission as an historic site and would need to be maintained in a manner that was compatible with the adjacent historic structures. The applicant has committed to providing interpretive signage indicating the history of the neighborhood, including the former Midland rail loop adjacent to the pazk, along with other trail signage as may be required by the Parks Department. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 Mazch 2005 Page 4 Hunter Creek Bus Stop The Hunter Creek Bus Stop is currently owned by the Hunter Creek Condominium Association with an easement provided to RFTA for the bus shelter, current bus operations, and future transportation uses. It appears that there aze some issues with respect to the future ownership of this site and its use by RFTA. These issues include: 1. the request by Hunter Creek Condominiums that the City purchase the site from them for $75,000 before a park can be established there; 2. the need for RFTA to vacate the unused portion of its current easement (that is, everything but the bus stop) as part of this transaction; 3. the need to remove gravel and debris reported to be currently on the site; and 4. the requirement for subdivision that would accompany a sale of the site to the City of Aspen. These issues have nothing to do with the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision nor are the applicant in any position to resolve them. However, the applicant commits to the installation of landscape improvements on this site, if these issues can be resolved and a clear approval for the installation of landscape improvements can be provided within two yeazs of project approval for Fox Crossing. In addition, the applicant would be pleased to assist the discussion to resolve these issues over the next several months. Clearly, this cannot be achieved before the current approvals aze granted. Traffic Impacts The Fox Crossing subdivision, as noted by the City Engineer in his presentation, is designed to provide two sepazate traffic zones: one connecting with Race Street, the other connecting with Walnut Avenue. The project is designed to move density and traffic impacts away from the historic sites, and from Race and Spruce Streets. It will have a very minimal impact on off-site traffic, with the addition of no more than five dwelling units to the Race/Spruce Street traffic azea. These minimal impacts aze confirmed by the Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer traffic study that was provided eazlier and is also attached to this letter. Placing a road through the subdivision in an east-west direction would have the effect of potentially increasing traffic impacts on Spruce Street, encouraging cut- through traffic, and eliminating lots in a way that would shift development to the designated Meadow, now allocated for a park. Conclusion In conclusion, the applicant has worked diligently with the neighborhood and City commissions to be as forthcoming and responsive as possible in addressing the issues that have been raised. Numerous neighborhood meetings have taken place to heaz concerns and develop meaningful responses. The impacts of the subdivision will be contained within the subdivision itself. The project will not generate off-site pazking demand. At the same time, it will provide additional pazking and neighborhood improvements to address existing needs. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 March 2005 Page 5 The proposed development is consistent with the underlying R-6 zoning and is not seeking any additional density or any other variances from the provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Major community benefits aze proposed in the form of open space dedications, park and trail development, and historic preservation. These include a pazcel dedicated to open space that wind be developed as an additional duplex lot under wrrent caning. The project has received the unanimous approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information in response to the questions raised by Council. We look forwazd to working with the City Council to satisfy their wncerns. Very truly yours, C/-(~~~~ Stan Gleason, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: 1. Cross sections of Race Street showing alternative pazking and travel lane options 2. Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer traffic report .~ ~ -, s ~' _N _„ d' h _.. _ __ ~- c 0 _~ _n' .~ zlv~ ~~ BRANDY •FEIGENBAUM, P.C. ~~~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW BASALT OFFICE CHARLES T. BRANDY (1939-2001 US BANK BUILDING 420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 132 MIDLAND AVENUE, SUITE 4 GARRET S. BRANDY ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM TELEPHONE: 970.925.5196 TELEPHONE: 970.92$.$196 _____ Fax: 970.925.4559 www.brandt-law.com Fax: 970.925.4559 PETER P. DELANY, PARALEGAL GARRET S. BRANDY asbrandtCol Brandt-law. com February 28, 2005 By Hand Delivery John Worcester, Esq. City ofAspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Action to Secure Easement by Private Way of Necessity Dear John: It is this firm's opinion that actions to establish "private ways of necessity" (or sometime refereed to as "private condemnation") are recognized in Colorado law, and can be used to establish access to landlocked parcels. The right to such actions are stated in the Colorado Constitution, have procedures specified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, and have been upheld by the appellate courts. Article II, § 14 of the Colorado Constitution provides that, Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitary purposes. (Emphasis added.) While the Colorado Constitution provides the basic right of private condemnation, C.R.S. § 38-1-101 et seq. outline the procedures to be followed. First, the party seeking to condemn must be within the category of those authorized to condemn, such as the landowner (not merely a lessee). Next, the value and location of the road easement must be specifically determined, including assessment of alternative access locations. Then the party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to acquire the easement through negotiation. As part of that effort, the condemning party must provide written notice to anyone with an interest of record in the property that it intends to acquire the property. If the easement has an estimated value of $5,000 or more, the notice also must include the statement that the condemning party will pay the reasonable costs associated with an appraisal. The purpose of this procedure is to encourage negotiations and settlement If the parties cannot agree upon terms, the condemning party may then initiate condemnation proceedings. The right of private condemnation can be summed up by the following quote from West v. Hinksmon, 857 P.2d 483 (Colo.App. 1992): The right to condemnation of a private way of necessity exists when the need to condemn is reasonably necessary and when the common law or other legal remedies do not provide a present enforceable legal right to an alternate mode of access that is both reasonable and practical. In conclusion, the Colorado appellate courts have interpreted the Colorado Constitution, and relevant statutes, so as to provide a powerful remedy for person with property that lacks reasonable and practical access to the nearest public road. /Vepr~yyt~)ruhy yours, ,., ,, / (~ Garret S. Brandt for BRANDY + FEIGENBAUM, P. C. cc: Camilla Auger Note: This opinion relies upon reseazch contained in "Access at Last: The Use of Private Condemnation", by Robyn W. Kube, The Colorado Lawyer, February 2000, Vol. 29, No. 2 [Page 77]. ~~x~~.~ ~ ~cH~, ~.~. RONALD GARFIELD' ANDREW V. HECNT DAVID L. LENYO MATTHEW C. FERGUSON' CHWSTOrxHe 1. LACROIx" CYNTHIA C TesTER CNAO J. SCHMITI NATASHA SAYPoL GRHCARY $. GOROON'a ERIC D. MUSSHLMAN' CNRISTOrHER D. BRYAN DP CDNN$EL, ROBERT E. KeNDIG PARALHGALS MICxAP1 D. McCDLLGM JASON K. BAOLSMA RUSSELL B. ZUCRERMAN KATI{Y TMSSEN yIA FACSIIIIII.E 92as119 AND HAND DELIVERY John Worcester, Esq. City of Aspen Attorney's Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, COS 1611 Re: Huuter Valley Way Dear John: February 23, 2005 21~ ~~ ~ X-~~ ASPEN OFF[CE GOI EAST HYMAN AVENUE AsrHN, COLORADO 81611 THLerxoNE (970) 925-1936 FACSIMILB (970) 925-3008 BASALT OFFICE 110 MIDLAND AvFlIUE, $UITH 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 _ 71iLeexoxe (970) 927-1936 FACSIMILH (970) 927-1783 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE TNe DENVHR CHxree 420 SeveNrx STReer, SUITE 100 GLENWOOD $rRING3, COLORADO $1601 TELEeNOxH (970) 947-1936 FACS[MH.E (970) 947-1937 I have reviewed the Grant of Easement dated as of January I, 2005 between CASS General Partnership and Raymond and Camilla Auger that was recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 507279 (the "Easement Agreement'. I understand that the Easement Agreement has been recorded to satisfy certain requirements set forth in paragraph I1 of that certain Agreement of Cass General Partnership dated February12,2004. I believe that the Easement Agreement establishes legal access to the property owned by Cass General Parmership (which, I understand, is also known as the "Hunter Valley Way "property). As a result of the Easement Agreement, I believe that the owner of the Hunter Valley Way properly has access to a public road as a result of the right to construct a driveway across the Auger properly, and the right to use the private rued known as North Spruce Street. Please let me know if you need anything further. Copies to: Camilla Auger Harris A. Cahn Garret Brandt, Esq. ATTORNEYS AT LAW W[11S11e: W W W.gerF1e1N1eCLLCOID Sin G TE & CHT, P.C. By Chris Croix C: WrPortb11iA1anege\SSEMPLE1I08673_1.DOC 1. also sdminrd m T. dso ndmined so 3. ebo sdmistW to 1. also ndmivcd to New York Hv Conncli[ul Bu Hlinni[ Hv New leruy Hm ®Pllnfed Ov iCC1'C1Cd Olptf ~ Fire P~obeciion Dislbid 4'~D Est Hoplatis Avenue Aspen, ©O 87®91 January 24, 2005 Dear Camilla, As per our conversations regarding Fox Crossing these are the terms to which we agreed: All structures shall have installed approved fire sprinkler systems Walnut Street shall continue to Lone Pine An additional fie hydrant shall be provided on Walnut Street Adequate radii and width shall be provided on Walnut Street to accommodate fire department apparatus access The intersection of Race Street and Race Ally shall be widened also to acxommodate fire department apparatus access The final issue is the fadlitafing of emergency vehide access on Race Ally, d is recommended that in orderto sued a tx4tlenedc that one way traffic be instituted From the plans 1 have seen thus far it appears that these issues have been addressed. Please contact me if you have any comments or concerns. Sincerely, Ed Van Walraven Fire Marshal 925-2690 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS S SURVEYORS October 27, 2004 Mr. Ed VanWalraven Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Protection District 420 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Fox Crossing Project. Fire Protection Dear Ed: GLENWOOD SPRINGS I I B W. 6TH, SL11TE 200 GLEN WOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 970-945- 1004 FX: 970-945-5948 ASPEN P.O. BOX 2155 ASPEN, CO B 161 2 970-925-6727 FX: 970-925-4 157 I am writing in follow up to our several meetings regarding the Fox Crossing project on the north side of Aspen. The Fox Crossing project comprises a re-subdivision of existing properties in the area of the Williams Addition into a total of 12 lots (including 4 duplex lots) accommodating up to 16 residential units. From our meetings, we have discussed several general requirements of the project with regard to emergency access and fire protection. As a result of those meetings, the project has incorporated the following recommendations; The intersection comer from Race Street onto Race Alley will be improved to accommodate emergency vehicle turning radius requirements. 2. The curve radii for the "S" curve of the Walnut Street extension have been modified to meet minimum standards for fire equipment and a 35-foot tangent added between the curves. 3. A "K" turn has been added to the end of the Walnut Street extension to accommodate emergency vehicle access, turnaround and egress. 4. With regard to improving water availability from a fire protection standpoint, the loop water main extension proposed from Walnut Street to Lone Pine Road would include the placement of an additional fire hydrant near the end of the access extension to provide improved fire protection to the rear lots of the subdivision. 5. All of the proposed residential structures within the subdivision will have internal fire suppression sprinkler systems. We certainly understand that these items represent just some of the many design and constnaction requirements to fully meet the appropriate Fire Protection Codes for the project and individual structures. We did want to memorialize our discussions and preliminary project design revisions as we proceed forward through the City of Aspen approval process. October 27, 2004 Mr. Ed VanWalraven Fox Crossing Fire Protection Page 2 Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. '~^-- ay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh FCEV1 Fire Marshal Aspen Fire Protection District ~- 30 -o~ llcrv~~} ou~- '~fOV-'1 Cg'Yt1i ~ 1 c(, J~,,,~e4' Benefits of the Fox Crossing Project: 1. Gift to the City/County of the Hunter Valley Way property, an approximately ten- acre property adjacent to Randal Pazk that is a potential development site along the Hunter Creek Trail. The Aspen Valley Land Trust has agreed to place a permanent conservation easement on the property. Hunter Valley Way together with Randal Pazk will create 20 acres of permanent open space along Hunter Creek Trail. 2. Development of a public pazk and playground on the City-owned Aley Pazk property on Spruce Street across from Centennial Apartments and adjacent to Hunter Creek Condominiums; 3. Restoration and preservation of the Angie Griffith Blue Victorian under Historic Preservation review; 4. Preservation of the 1950s log cabins, also under Historic Preservafion review; 5. Preservation of the meadow adjacent to the Blue Victorian as apublicly- accessible pazk, including retention of significant landscape elements; 6. Establishment of a pedestrian trail connecting the Oklahoma Flats Trail, the Fox Crossing Meadow, the Aley Pazk on Spruce Street, and the Hunter Creek Trail; 7. Establishment of historic interpretive signage in the meadow to show the history and development of the railroad, the historic residences, the meadow, and the Fox Crossing neighborhood; 8. Provision of a looped water main from the present dead end main on Walnut Avenue and a sprinkler system for every house although not currently required; 9. Sightline improvements to the Walnut Avenue/Gibson Avenue intersection; 10. Reconstruction and widening of the east-west portion of Race Street, including provision of neighborhood parking; 11. Provision of a second means of vehicular egress for Walnut Avenue to enhance safety and convenience; 12. Residential development that is in accordance with the densities established by zoning, without additional density and without any variances on Race Street. Benefits of the Foa Crossing Project: 1. Gift to the City/County of the Hunter Valley Way property, an approximately ten- acre property adjacent to Randal Pazk that is a potential development site along the Hunter Creek Trail. The Aspen Valley Land Trust has agreed to place a permanent conservation easement on the property. Hunter Valley Way together with Randal Pazk will create 20 acres of permanent open space along Hunter Creek Trail. 2. Development of a public pazk and playground on the City-owned Aley Pazk property on Spruce Street across from Centennial Apartments and adjacent to Hunter Creek Condominiums; 3. Restoration and preservation of the Angie Cmffith Blue Victorian under Historic Preservation review; 4. Preservation of the 1950s log cabins, also under Historic Preservation review; 5. Preservation of the meadow adjacent to the Blue Victorian as apublicly- accessible pazk, including retention of significant landscape elements; 6. Establishment of a pedestrian trail connecting the Oklahoma Flats Trail, the Fox Crossing Meadow, the Aley Pazk on Spruce Street, and the Hunter Creek Trail; 7. Establishment of historic interpretive signage in the meadow to show the history and development of the railroad, the historic residences, the meadow, and the Fox Crossing neighborhood; 8. Provision of a looped water main from the present dead end main on Walnut Avenue and a sprinkler system for every house although not currently required; 9. Sightline improvements to the Walnut Avenue/Gibson Avenue intersecfion; 10. Reconstruction and widening of the east-west portion of Race Street, including provision of neighborhood pazking; 11. Provision of a second means of vehicular egress for Walnut Avenue to enhance safety and convenience; 12. Residenfial development that is in accordance with the densities established by zoning, without additional density and without any variances on Race Street. Men~oranclu~ri To: Camilla Auger Parks and Recreation Department From: City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Staff Date: October 26, 2004 Re: Hunter Valley Open Space The City of Aspen's open space initiative has worked hard to preserve open space in and around the Aspen area. The City is proud to have protected over 1000 acres of land, which had been designated as critical wildlife habitat, important view planes, containing wetlands or other ecologically important resources and sites that offer a number of recreational opportunities. The acquisition of the Hunter Valley VVay parce! will contribute greatly to both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen's existing open space programs. The acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way parcel will ensure the integrity'of wildlife corridors and habitats, plus protect the scenic qualities along the Lani White and Hunter Creek Trails. Additionally, preserving Hunter Valley Way increases the over all open space value of Randall Park and other surrounding open space parcels. In addition to the preservation of open space, staff supports the projects proposal to provide funding for park improvements to the City parcel known as Aley Park. This proposed funding will help bring together the planning and development of one of the City's under utilized resources. The spruce Street neighborhood has seen a lot of growth and an increase in families. The Aley parcel has been identified for park development in the Parks Master Plan. Staff is interested in the possibility of working with the Fox Crossing Development in order to accomplish the development of this necessary public amenity. ~~ RE: Proposed Fox Crossing November 1, 2004 To Aspen City Council, As manager of the Hunter Creek Condominiums I want to express my support for the proposed Fox Crossing project that will be adjacent to our property. The open space meadow in the middle of the project is attractive in this already dense neighborhood. Also, the foot path and the historic preservation of the miners cottage will be an asset in this area. The Hunter Creek Condominium complex has received numerous new planted trees that will screen our buildings from Fox Crossing and most homeowners are very appreciative. I believe the developer of this property will be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. Sins rely, LL'``'//,,~~,,~~//~~ Lih~ru~rsto~i~N~~ Hunter Creek Properties, Inc. Hunter Creels 1400 Vine Street Aspen, Colorado 8161 I 970/925-1060 NOV. 1. 2004 3:11PM PITKIN CO MANAGER N0. §536 P. 1 Camilla Auger Via Facsimile: 544-9251 1tE: Hunter Valley Way Property Dear Camilla: t am writing tts con5rm that the Open Space Program is very keen to acquire the Hunter Valley Way property, formerly owned by David Miphaels, This property~s the "missing link" in a series of protected properties which protect Bunter Creek and provide a trail corridor. Aspen is truly blessed to have this corridor so c',ose to town, where a pedestrian can walk into the wilderness from town. Our acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way property would complete a valuable public corridor. Sin ly, v~../ Dale Will Open Space & Trails Program 530 E. Main, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~owrvrteoxxeernmaucx (970) 92Q-5232 • nov O1 04 04:07p Rspen Valley Land Trust 970-963-8441 p.l Aspen Valley Land Trust November 1, 2002 RE: Hunter Valley Way Parcel To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written to confirm that Aspen Valley Land Trust would be most willing to accept a conservation easement on the 935-acre property known as the Hunter Valley Way Parcel. Acceptance of the easement would provide for monitoring and easement enforcement on the property in perpetuity. ff you have any questions, please feel free to contaM me. Sincerely, /' ~~r~« C~%G6~~u~...- ~tart a Cochran Executive Director Aspen Valley land Trust 320 Main Street • Carbondale, Colorado 81623.970.963.8440.•fax. 970.963.8441 wvnv.avltorg TO: Nick Adey, City Engineer I~,,^,^ ~~ FROM: Colleen Burrows, 518 Spruce Street RE: Fox Crossing Development PlanlTraffi ~~6 BBBoooard Advisory Mtg. DATE: December 3, 2004 Dear Nidc, It is my understanding that the Traffic Advisory Board met on December 1, to discuss the traffic issues as they relate to the Fox Crossing Development Plan. Our neighborhood would like to know what transpired at that meeting. Could you please give me a written response to what was discussed and recommended at that meeting as soon as possible. It is my understanding there were 3 or 4 options discussed as they related to traffic flow and safety into and out of the subdivision that you and your group reached consensus. Please explain these options in order of preference. I am unable to obtain the minutes from this meeting due to Lynn Bader's absence, so I would appreciate a response from you. Thank you very much. oc: Ed Van Walraven Loren Ryerson Tim Ware Lynn Bader Phil Overeynder John Niewoehner .~. I ~~ ~~ ~~ 1~ J~ -~,~ ~vt ~,tiw i~ a .04 Why Connecting Spruce Street to Lone Pine is a Bad Idea Adding a roadway connecting Lone Pine to Spruce Street will not lessen traffic on Spruce Street but rather will bring more traffic onto Spruce Street from Lone Pine. Every caz that would have exited onto Spruce still will exit onto Spruce Street. No city infrastructure or sidewalks aze involved. The driveways inside Fox Crossing, including Walnut private drive, are private driveways. There is no less impact on any city sidewalk by connecting Lone Pine to Spruce Street. In fact, there would be more curb cuts on Lone Pine. 3. Fox Crossing is installing a water loop connecting Walnut with Lone Pine and Race Street which is a major improvement to existing city infrastructure. 4. An additional road way connecting Lone Pine with Spruce Street solves no traffic problems, increases traffic, and destroys Fox Crossing Meadow for no purpose. Page 1 of 2 X-Sender: helenk@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:19:56 -0700 To: chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us From: Helen Klanderud <helenk@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Fox Crossing X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner. Found to be clean Chris, ~~ I have given the Clerk's office a copy for the record. Geoff sent this a-mail to all council members. Helen Reply-To: <geoffl@cunniffe.com> From: "Geoff Lester" <geoffl@cunniffe.com> To: <helenk@ci.aspen.co.us>, aims@ci.aspen.co.us>, <torre@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: <terryp@ci.aspen.co.us>, <rachelrichards@comcast.net> Subject: Fox Crossing Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:25:54 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by aspen.cunniffe.com id jOKIXwDt011686 X-Spam: [F=0.0006898571; B=0.500(0); HS=0.500(0); 5=0.010; MH=0.800(2005011916); R=0.016(s5/n310)] X-MAIL-FROM: <geoffl@cunniffe.com> X-SOURCE-[P: [216.237.69.43] X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner. Found to be clean X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by commons.ci.aspen.co.us id SAA02619 Dear Helen, Tim and Torre, As a representative of Hunter Creek Condominiums, 1 wish to convey several comments to you regarding the Fox Crossing Subdivision development plan. Firstly, we view the proposed development directly to our south in a favorable light. Because of our very close proximity to [his development, notably 33 condo units with direct views, 1 list below the following comments for consideration: 1. The most recent site plan has evolved to show access from Lone Pine Road. We prefer access to remain from the south, to retain Gibson Avenue as the primary traffic bearing street. That said, if the Fire Department requires access from Lone Pine, we recommend making it anon-public vehicular access way. Curbs, removable poles, etc. can be used to prevent normal vehicular circulation but allow for pedestrian access into the core of the development, as well as the Fire Department. 2. We reject the notion of revising the development plan to allow for a public road hugging our common property line accessing Lone Pine Road. In addition to the reason mentioned above, we wish to retain the existing natural tree line buffer along our common property line and not subject our nearby condo owners to vehicular traffic issues. 3. Our wonderful pond, stream and waterfall are located on our property, but in proximity to our common property line. We wish for that amenity, along with the adjacent existing trees, to be respected and remain undisturbed during the construction process. Long term, we desire the serenity of this valuable open space be enjoyed indefinitely by permanently file://C:\DOCUME~1\CHRISB~l.ASP\LOCALS~l\Temp\eud23.htm 1/20/2005 Page 2 of 2 maintaining the existing landscape buffer mentioned above 4. On a general planning note, Lot 3 is somewhat'9andlocked" as well as partially unusable due to a steep bank cutting though perhaps a third of it' s area. You might suggest the developer reconsider the merits of that lot as a stand alone building site. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Geoffrey Lester Hunter Creek Commons Board of Governors, President file://C:\DOCUME~l\CHRISB~I.ASP\LOCALS~I\Temp\eud23.htm 1/20/2005 r~-~ ~~~ Robert Zupancis Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Fox Run Subdivision Dear City Council members, The proposed subdivision development that you are reviewing has serious health, traffic, noise and safety issues for our neighborhood. I believe the greatest impact to existing residences on Walnut Street, Race Street, South Avenue and Spruce Street will be the large volume of construction and service traffic spread over many years. The 4 way intersection of Gibson and Gibson, South Avenue, and Walnut Street is already unsafe. One-half block away the South Avenue, Spruce Street and Trailer Court Street intersection is already narrow and unsafe. For health, traffic, noise and safety reasons all construction traffic should be required to enter the project from Lone Pine Road. All construction mobilization should take place on the applicant's property to minimize neighborhood impacts. Since we are in the EPA zone contaminated soil brought onto roads by construction vehicles and spread over a wide area as dust particles could be better contained if construction vehicles entered from Lone Pine Road. To prevent the spread of contaminated dust even Lone Pine Road will have to be cleaned several times daily. I support the applicants proposal of a two way street from Walnut Street to Lone Pine Road. The two-way street would take some pressure off the dangerous Walnut, Race, and South streets intersection. ~' Because Race Street hardly accommodates one car in the winter I support making Race a one way circle through Spruce Street. The other option, having Race Street one way circling to Lone Pine Road would work. This option would greatly compromise the wonderful trail and historic park aspects of the project. To my knowledge applicant has not provided a satisfactory on site parking plan other than the minimal amount required by the City of Aspen. Currently there are no available off site parking spots for this project. Off site parking is barely adequate for existing residences. In the winter parking from a couple big parties from the 16 or more residences on the site would cause safety and traffic flow issues on the streets throughout the neighborhood. ~- 7~c. o,~e. Gc9c~}/ ho.s ,~o yo /-'.?o/YL Soof~2 ~~,r.e~ef , ~t6t ~~~ ~a~~ ~o sow~/~ ~ ~~.y d~y,~o~. Extending the Rio Grand/Hunter Creek Trail through %: block long Walnut Street and creating one of Aspen's quaintest historical parks at the end of Walnut Street will create increased demand for the five parking spaces on Walnut Street. In addition there will be at least two new and two existing units, accessing directly onto'/: block long Walnut Street. Their guests and their overflow parking will use Walnut Street for parking. Anyone has the right to Park on Walnut Street. However, I do not feel the developers of this huge project have the right to not provide adequate on site overflow parking on their own very large parcel at the expense of existing, and future residences located directly on Walnut Street and other streets in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Robert Zupancis January 24, 2005 MEMO: To: City Council From: Jon Busch 548 Race Street (Alley) Aspen, Co. 81611 As a neighbor surrounded on two sides by this major development, I support the Fox Crossing application as approved by P&Z. There are however a number of of details that have not been addressed and I would like to bring some of them to your attention: 1. First of all I have concerns about parking. No parking is proposed anywhere internal to the project. Race Street, that half block at the end of Race Alley, is parking for my tenants and guests as well as residents of Centennial. It is guest parking for the three existing dwellings in the Fox Crossing development area. The applicant's plan calls for creating five additional dwellings along Race Street/Race Alley while at the same time cutting the on- street parking inventory by more than half. Chris Bendon says that the proposed 28ft ROW if remaining one way could accommodate an additional ;~ ~ lane of parking. I ask for a commitment by the city to allow that additional parking on the north side of Race Street if the parking inventory proves inadequate. 2. Secondly, there are a number of unanswered questions regarding the public trail along Race Street and going through Fox Crossing's internal park/open space. Unresolved is how wide that sidewalk/trail will be. I would suggest that it should be at a minimum six feet wide. Also unresolved is the construction of that trail. I suggest that it be a hard surface because people with strollers will use it. The trail is not shown in drawings as continuing along Walnut Street to its intersection with Gibson Avenue. It needs to be continuous. The trail should not be fenced in the park area. Any fencing, whether by the developer or future owner should not be solid. It is important that fencing between lots 3, 4,5 and 8 not be higher than four or five feet as a fence any higher will be esthetically unpleasing to trail users. The applicant's drawing of the trail/sidewalk along Race Street seems to indicate that it would straddle the new private property line and the public ROW. If allowed to do so it would preclude the possibility of ever allowing parking on that side of the street as the ROW is already as narrow as it can possibly be. The sidewalk should not be in the proposed public ROW. 3. I do not support the plan being promoted by some in the neighborhood to open Race Street through Fox Crossing and connecting to Lone Pine. I am the person most affected by Fox Crossing and I don't like the increased traffic that would be generated on both Race Alley and Race Street. The proposed road would also severely impact Hunter Creek residences. 4. The one-way configuration of Race Alley will increase traffic on it because people already use it to evade the congested intersection of Spruce, South and Park Circle. I would request that the City install a speed bump in the alley and a stop sign at Spruce and Race Street. 5. The applicant has indicated to me that they have not made up their mind whether to build ADUs or not. I want to encourage both you and the applicant not to add these units. They already have been granted multiple TDRs and the buildings will be quite large. Though only thirteen lots, there are nineteen dwellings. I believe ADUs which again I do not support, require additional on-site parking but if not, it is critically important that this parking be required. ADUs would literally double the density of the project. 6. For the record the applicant has stated that she will work with me on the garage design for the historic cabins directly across the street from me. The height proposed in her shed-roof gazage is the highest right in front of my property and only five feet from the road. A different roof design could reduce the visual wall effect. 7. I urge the developer to keep construction impacts within the site. These include worker parking and construction vehicles including earth movers, assorted delivery vehicles and back hoes. 8. Though this may not come up, I do not support additional sidewalk construction on Spruce Street because it will reduce the number of pazking spaces which are heavily used. 9. The applicant must present a dust mitigation plan. As the applicant has stated many times, she is trying to be sensitive to the single family character of the Williams Addition neighborhood. It could have been much worse and I agree. It is fundamentally a good project and I don't believe any of the questions I ask you to address would be unduly onerous on the applicant. The proposed trail and access will, if well designed be a neighborhood amenity used by many. I~ U /~ VJ 420 East Hoplu~: Avenue Aspen, CO 87611 January 24, 2005 Dear Camilla, r,~~- GL ~~ ~~ As per our conversations regarding Fox Crossing these are the terms to which we agreed: All structures shall have installed approved fire sprinkler systems Walnut Street shall continue to Lone Pine An additional fire hydrant shall be provided on Walnut Street Adequate radii and width shall be provided on Walnut Street to accommodate fire department apparatus access The intersection of Race Stn;et and Race Ally shall be widened also to accommodate fire department apparatus access The final issue is the fadldating of emergency vehide access on Race Ally, it is recommended that in orcler to avoid a bottleneck that one way traffic be instituted From the plans 1 have seen thus far d appears that these issues have been addressed. Please contact me rf you have any comments or concerns. Sincerely, ~ /, / Ed Van Walraven Fire Marshal 925-2690 coy} January 24, 2005 Camilla Auger By Hand Delivery RE: Hunter Valley Way Property Dear Camilla: I am writing to confirm that the Open Space Program is very keen to acquire the Hunter Valley Way property, formerly owned by David Michaels. This property is the "missing link" in a series of protected properties which protect Hunter Creek and provide a trail corridor. Aspen is truly blessed to have this corridor so close to town, where a pedestrian can walk into the wilderness from town. Our acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way Property would complete a valuable public corridor. Open Space & Trails Program 530 E. Main, Suite 301 vawao oN accraeo vavrx Aspen, Colorado 81611 ® (970) 920-5232 January 24, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I currently reside at 2 Williams Way. We have granted an easement to the city to expand the pazk pazcel located directly across Williams Way from our residence. Camilla Auger recently approached us to discuss her plans for the development of the pazk parcel in conjunction with her Fox Crossing project. We support her efforts and willingness to fund the project. We reiterated our acceptance of the ten~ns of our contract with the City regazding the development of the property. We favor a simple passive neighborhood park. We agree that pazking should be limited to no more than four spaces on Spruce St. We also appreciate the commitment to landscape along Williams Way to minimize the impact of the park and any bathroom facilities located therein. The creation of the pazk has been in the works for a long time. It will enhance our neighborhood. Sinc ly, . ~~('z colt Flicks ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark / Buckazoo Builders To: Camilla Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005.9:46 PM City Council /City Of Aspen I have met With Ms. Auger concerning her proposed development of the Race Street parcels and believe that her consideration of the neighborhood's needs and wishes along with her own has generated a very workable plan. I personally think she has put her heart into making this plan as good and fair a project we (the neighbors) could have hoped for, given atl the extenuating circumstances. Thank You, Mark Hesselschwerdt 225 Cottonwood Lane Printed for Jackie Lothian <jackiel~uci.aspen.co.us> 1/24/2005 Robert Zupancis Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81611 City Council Regarding: Fox Crossing Subdivision Deaz City Council Member, ~~~~ AR 14 2005 ~~~IOPN ji~~~ENT Applicant has agreed to the following construction, road improvements, and parking recommendations. These requirements should be stated in writing as part of applicant's final ok. Applicant has agreed to Staff s recommendation that all Construction Access be off Lone Pine Road. Because applicants lots will be developed over an extended period of time the agreement for construction access of Lone Pine should be enforced until all the lots in the project have reached a total build out. Applicant has agreed to Staff's recommendation that Construction mobilization will take place on one or more of their own lots. `This Construction mobilization contingency should be in effect until the lots in the project have reached a total build out. All pazking spaces, including the six extra spaces that are beyond code. should be specifically identified by applicant. These spaces should not be spaces where one caz pazks behind another or are part of an existing driveway. Applicant has agreed to pay for any necessary upgrades on Walnut Street, Race Street and Race Alley since they are increasing neighborhood traffic. This includes sidewalks, curb and gutter, and repaving. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok. Applicant has agreed to no construction parking on Walnut Street, Race Alley and Race Street. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok Applicant has agreed to not having any ADU's in the project. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok. By defining these and other agreements neighbors will not be put in the position of having to enforce vague requirements. This means leis conflict and everybody is much happier. Sincerely ;~~1'~~: Robert Gupanc~~~ March 13, 2005 LJ Erspamer 534 Spruce St. Aspen, CO 81611 The Honorable Mayor of Aspen And the Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fox Crossing application Dear Mayor and Council, I have enclosed a plat map of the Fox Crossing that would be supported by the majority of the neighbors in Williams Addition. The advantage to this proposal as opposed to the current one by the applicant is: 1. This plan mitigates the traffic problem within the development rather than pushing the problem onto Spruce Street outside their development. 2. The hiking trail would go through Fox Crossing to the Hunter Creek bus stop and also to the Rio Grande trail. 3. This trail to the Hunter Creek bus stop would allow the hikers closer access to their cars at the parking lot at Lone Pine. 4. Hikers would have a quiet walkway after returning from Hunter Creek 5. The park would adjoin the Hunter Creek common area that would allow immediate access for their residents without having to walk through the subdivision. 6. This park would be a buffer zone between the driveway and Hunter Creek. If Hunter Creek desires they could build a berm for privacy and have an opening or notch in it to access the park. 7. Hunter Creek could use some of their common area to expand the park. 8. This park will get more usage by the public since it is not a front yard for private homes. 9. This additional roadway from Race Alley to Lone Pine would allow for better access for all the lots within the subdivision. 10. There could be speed bumps or depressions to slow traffic down if that is a concern. 11.As Jay Hammond, the consultant for Fox Crossing said, this cut would not be used as a short cut from Spruce Street as there is no demand for traffic from Williams Addition to Lone Pine Road. All this traffic goes to town and this road would not be shorter or faster. This road in Fox Crossing would be narrower than a street and much slower. 12. If necessary Race Street could be closed or made a one way towards Spruce Street to prevent short cut traffic. 13. Lot line and setbacks could be adjusted to help the developer in this configuration as the neighbors support this proposal. 14. The trail through the project going to Walnut could be on the Lot 8 side of the street if favored by the developer. 15. This proposal creates flow, compatibility, harmony and diversity in the neighborhood. 16. Some lots will be larger than before and therefore have larger yards than those proposed by the applicant. 17. The new park would be away from the homes to create privacy for the homeowners. 18. Lots 2 and 3 would have a small portion of their lots adjoining the park for less of an impact. A berm could be built for privacy if desired. 19. Some of the lot lines could be adjusted to favor the developer. We feel that this is the best proposal for the developer and our neighborhood. This idea retains all the lots as requested by the developer and even increases the area for some of the lots. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, LJ Erspamer Ward Hauenstein ~aau aan+ws --~__ ~ a ~ ~= a 3~ _: ~ i 1 W ~ `° ! ~ v~ ' J 1 p .. lllW~~' J~J ~ ~ JOn 's~ ` ~; ~ ~ =" ~~1 ~ e~ ,env era -- --_ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. 3 ~ /~ 1 ~ EO F •~~_. ~ t w ~ • Ei~__..~d ~ ~~~ ^ a,w ~"! r HMO ~ '• P JNO~ x^x~~ 1 3~~ ~~~„i i ~ 133tl1S 1tIK1rN1 > ~~ . . ~~ w=ri _a ~ ~ ` 1 .~ 11 ` j g ~ s~ - U =_ wt ~ ~yy~ / si ~ ~~ 3~ f t L S ., ~! ~ 3r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 14 OS 04:02p Catherine Markle (9701 925-6584 p.l Hunter Creek Commons Board of Governors 1400 Vinc Strcet Aspen, CO 81611 970 / 925 / 1060 March 14. 2005 The Honorable Mayor Helen Klanderud and Members of the City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Fox Crossing & GrilTith Subdivisions, Public Hearing March 14, 2005 (To be read into the record) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: As a member of the Hunter Creek Commons Board of Governors I would like to offer the following conclusions from our meeting with developer Camilla Auger and subsequent discussions among Boazd members: At this time we believe that Mrs. Auger's petition in front of City Council should stand on its own merit and that negotiations for development, subdivision, or gifting of the piece known as "Triangle Parcel" are not necessary for conclusion of your review. We have discussed an offer by Mrs. Auger to provide seed money to pursue subdivision and future park development of the over 20,000 square foot parcel and we are considering that offer, but will not be able to make any decisions or conclusions for some time and do not wish to hold up the Fox Crossing project. There is also a parcel of land contiguous to both the proposed Max Aley Park and the Hunter Creek Condominiums property in the northeast comer that we own. We are also in discussions with Mrs. Auger regarding the combining of that parcel with the park parcel, but as yet are undetermined as to our own future development needs for the parcel. Hunter Creek also owns a small appendage of land at the intersection of Race and Spruce Streets, immediately adjacent to proposed Lot i of Fox Crossing. We have suggested to Mrs. Auger that she may wish to acquire that parcel from us to add to Lot 1. We estimate that piece at approximately 1250 square feet. The addition of that sliver of land would allow either an increase of the total lot area of March 10, 2005 Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fox Crossing Application Dear Council: I regret that I cannot attend this meeting as I am out of town on a Motion Picture Exhibitor convention. For the record here are my thoughts on the Fox Crossing Application before you tonight. First let me say that, like most people here, it is not so much that I like the application, but more that it could have been so much worse. It is a very dense development compounded by increased FAR as well as TDRs. This said, I support the application as has been presented and as I understand it to be presented to you tonight. The main change I understand is allowing parking on both sides of Race Street and a small number of additional parking places internal to the project. Following are specific comments for the record. 1: I see no reason why Race Alley must be made one-way. It has functioned perfectly well for the past 30 years that I have lived on it. Keeping it two way will reduce impacts on Spruce Street (though I consider those impacts minimal). 2. I support a later examination and determination by the neighborhood whether there should be sidewalk extensions on Spruce Street. The developer is already providing a new paved trail, which will serve much the same area. 3. I do not support creating a road through the project to connect with Lone Pine Road. The added impact on Spruce StreetlRace Alley is a total of two single- family homes and two duplexes (as proposed). These are likely to be mostly second homeowners, but even if they were not, additional trips generated would be no more than a dozen or so more car trips than are presently on the road. ~- i ~., .~ • ~5 ~ t~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~• ws 0 s ~ ~~ wn ~ 3 n ~~ 1 C ~~ ~ \ r ~0 4 G: ~ (t(( N !( ~ O {11r 3 'I WALNUT STREET i ~ ~ ~ \~ +~ ~ O~ O O ~ O 4 = ~ _ ~--;,0 ~ 1 ~c .---+ r~~~~~J ~ ~ i V~~~~~~ e ~ ~ : ~ a ~ J a3 ~ _..I RACE ALLEY ~ ~t N v y R j ~~ N ~~ IR ~i a 777 .~ ~ ~~~ ' C ; '^p ~^ ' '= '~ ~ ~ ~ 30~ Z -~~ ~ ~a O N r 8~ M V ~~ ~o 3 o° a ~v • os n ~O O SPRUCE STREET ~. Robert Zupancis Box 11481 Aspen, CO 81611 City Council Regazding: Fox Crossing Subdivision Deaz City Council Member, ~ ~. Applicant has agreed to the following construction, mad improvements, and pazking recommendations. These requirements should be stated in writing as part of applicant's final ok. ~/ pA p alit cant has agreed to Staff s recommendation that all Construction Access be off Lone les. ~e~Olion$ Pine Road. Because applicants lots will be developed over an extended period of time the agreement for construction access of Lone Pine should be enforced until all the lots in the project have reached a total build out. plicant has agreed to Staff s recommendation that Construction mobilization will take ~(p3, ~caf iun o place on one or more of their own lots. This Construction mobilization contingency should be in effect until the lots in the project have reached a total build out. KS ~~"~ 1 spe cfically identified by a~pplicantlx These spaces should not be spacesswhere one caz y.'p ~~}- prl parks behind another or aze part of an existing driveway. 5(tYG~IN Applicant has agreed to pay for any necessary upgrades on Walnut Street, Race Street `~t~,4~jj~ ~ and Race Alley since they aze increasing neighborhood traffic. This includes sidewalks, ~ curb and gutter, and repaving. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok. Applicant has agreed to no construction pazking on Walnut Street, Race Alley and Race `~es.~l.8 Street. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok ~ 3 Applicant has agreed to not having any ADU's in the project. This requirement needs to be specifically addressed in applicant's final ok. By defining these and other agreements neighbors will not be put in the position of having to enforce vague requirements. This means less conflict and everybody is much happier. Sincerely _. -? Robert upanc ~' ASR ~ 4 ?DGq March 8, 2005 To: Aspen City Council $(/~~~~N~~~'~R~aFy, Asa homeowner on Spruce Street and one who has followed closely the developers plan and presentations, I am concerned that the developer has implied that the neighborhood can not reach consensus on this project and therefore everyone's individual concerns can be dismissed. It is true that each resident has specific concerns regarding this project. The one unifying factor and most important is the project must handle its traffic, parking and construction impacts internally. It is my hope that council's review of this project will address this one lacking point of good planning . inperely~7~ olleen Burrows DATE: March 8, 2005 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colleen Burrows RE: Fox Crossing Proposed Development Following the February 28 City Council meeting and talking again with neighbors, we would like to note and recommend the following: 1. SITE VISIT - We suggest a site visit with Council members around the proposed subdivision and surrounding neighborhood. We feel to walk the area, and see first hand the size, and proposed layout would be helpful for everyone. Perhaps a creative solution could emerge. What is noticeable to us is how small the site is for 19 homes, with the site elevation change and density. Jay Hammond incorrectly pointed out that the West loop has 60% of the density while the East Loop only has 40%. (Please see exhibit C) There is actually greater building density and less land on the East loop! There is also less parking. West Loop Total Land 57,502 sq. ft. Total FAR Dev. 23,004 sq. ft. PARK with car/street access 10 homes all vehicle access front, side back service. Traffic Flow good to town East Loop Total Land 47,871 Total FAR Dev. 24,054 PARK no streetcar access (walk only) 7 homes vehicle back only access alley one way only. 2 homes front/side access. Traffic Flow bad to town. 'Also please note (Exhibit C under the FC Park parcel) there are 1750 square feet to be transferred. Where are these development rights landing? "The site plan reflects a good deal of "green space." Is it in scale? Is the developer over the allowed FAR in this zone when the 9000 square ft. open space park is taken out of the total land count? These are some questions we have. "Stan Clausen stated at the last meeting if they cut into lot 1 or 3 in the East loop to make a left one way loop; or a t-bar turn around, these lots become not develop able. Yet the applicant is actually taking over 1850 square feet city land for their own use as well as using old railroad right of way. The developer is maximizing their profitability at the expense of the exisitng neighbor's traffic impacts. Had it been a PUD the entire subdivision would have had tb have its own entrance and exit, most likely Lone Pine. There would not have been any back alley access used as a front access, or separate loops that "do not mingle" (why?) as Jay Hammond stated at the last meeting. We find this traffic pattern illogical and self serving for the developer. To say there should not be a road connecting East and West because it will impact the green space or historic ambiance, is questionable when you look at the overall density. We also ask you to look at how much of this project actually sits on Lone Pine, Race Alley, Hunter Creek and Walnut( now that it is being expanded) and how little is on Spruce Street. 2. RACE ALLEY -Race Alley residents who object to a left loop connection know how much they have to gain by not widening Race Alley to make it a two way `street'. They have enjoyed usage of city right of way. Not all their cars have spaces on or in front of their homes. They maintain a small charming feel. This old Aspen feel has been fine with the neighborhood. With the proposed development however, and one waging of Race Alley, Spruce Street should not be asked to handle Race parking, traffic ,even sidewalk upgrades? This is not right. The developer's plan has left both Race Alley and Spruce Street neighbors trying to throw off impacts and upgrades that the developer should and could be handling internally. 3. ADDITIONAL PARKING/SIDEWALKS - At the last meeting, Councilman Semerau asked where the additional parking spots totaling 44 were? The developer said they were on the larger West loop lots. This does not help the East loop. Regarding this loop, Stan Clausen identified additional parking on Spruce Street and up at the Aley (Rosalie) park. It should be noted no parking has been identified at Aley Park. (See latest Traffic Parking map.) Nor has any additional parking been identified up at the Hunter Creek trail head. where it is needed. We have hikers and several long term 'campers' every summer that park on our block because there is no parking on North Spruce on either side of the street or at the trail head. As on Walnut , we request no parking be allowed on Race or Spruce Street. If there is to be any 'special' parking on Race or Spruce Street we ask that it come under review to be short term or permitted. We also recommend two speed humps be placed on Spruce Street, one between South and Race Street before the first corner heading north and another on the straightaway from Race up to the top North Spruce. The speed on both straightaways is far too fast for residential. 4. CONSTRUCTION - As Walnut residents requested at the last meeting, Spruce street residents also request no construction/contractor parking on Spruce Street to be included in the ordinance . With environmentally sensitive soils and high traffic density conditions we have grave concerns for transport safety and dust mitigation m the neighborhood. Once again thank you for your time and consideration. March 10, 2005 Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fox Crossing Application Dear Council: I regret that I cannot attend this meeting as I am out of town on a Motion Picture Exhibitor convention. For the record here are my thoughts on the Fox Crossing Application before you tonight. First let me say that, like most people here, it is not so much that I like the application, but more that it could have been so much worse. It is a very dense development compounded by increased FAR as well as TDRs. This said, I support the application as has been presented and as I understand it to be presented to you tonight. The main change I understand is allowing parking on both sides of Race Street and a small number of additional parking places internal to the project. Following are specific comments for the record. I see no reason why Race Alley must be made one-way. It has functioned perfectly well for the past 30 years that I have lived on it. Keeping it two way will reduce impacts on Spruce Street (though I consider those impacts minimal). 2. I support a later examination and determination by the neighborhood whether there should be sidewalk extensions on Spruce Street. The developer is already providing a new paved trail, which will serve much the same area. 3. I do not support creating a road through the project to connect with Lone Pine Road. The added impact on Spruce Street/Race Alley is a total of two single- family homes and two duplexes (as proposed). These are likely to be mostly second homeowners, but even if they were not, additional trips generated would be no more than a dozen or so more car trips than are presently on the road. 4. I understand that the developer on Spruce Street is proposing temporary additional parking. I don't know where there is a perceived need for it and worry that temporary becomes permanent. 5. I remind Council again that fire hydrants are woefully inadequate in this neighborhood. 6. I'm not sure if TDRs are controversial anymore. I would just point out that a downside to them is that my neighborhood is paying a burden in increased density. 7. Race Alley is in many ways more a street than an alley. Six existing homes "front entrances" are on Race Alley and yet zoning treats it as back yards with as little as Sft setbacks. The developer is orienting the homes toward the .internal open space when even the most cursory look at plans shows that entrances are off the alley. I think it would be to the owner's own economic benefit to make the Race Alley as attractive as possible and encourage that this be taken into consideration in the final design. 8. I ask that the developer present a dust mitigation plan both from on site excavations and dirt on roads. I know Camilla Auger wishes that I could me more unqualified in my support of her project. I do support it and I don't want my concerns to be seen as less than supportive. Thank you. _- \J~ ~~ Jon Busch Feb 22 OS 09:31p Bob Marik (7037 812-8054 p.l FROM :MCBfRRht< M0MT0NHTI FRX NO. :970-367-5492 Feb. 22 2005 05:40PM PS Frank Montonati Pres. Ceo. MCd Mme Svc. P.O. Box 165 81433 Mr. Raymond Auger Meridian Capital Group 61? Rio Grande Place Aspect Colorado 81612 I)car Mr. Auger, Pursuant to our lniel'discussion regarding the following, I wr71 reiteraoe in this tract a general ov~erviewofthe stdgax rthand A geraic tmnei of 20' X 12' incross-section is large alluvium can cost upwards of 52000 per foot Many facxors can wmpticate tbis Sguse such as inclusion ofday or other potential material w>vch tends to Lrbaicate Ltrge blarrs ofalLrviwm, imdra~tion of wrier, the necessity of grouting various conditions which cause ground probLans Etc. Tueneting is solid rock is mac predictable and generally a tutmd ofthis sine in eempaeae gewma could coat aeon m a taco per tbot Again, conditions that could influence the cost are mnnerous. Constnretien of a pored sibs disposition ofextcacbed tnaberial, iatacepdon oflaults a other adverse geologic features, a tnticflctory table of distances fa ercplocive storage, Ele. T hold adsgtee in Mining Engineering from the New Malden L15tidt0e ofMiniag and TecLrology. I Lave forty 5~ years eatperie~e in mining sad ypdergormd noon. I am Presidentand Caro. ofMCO MINE SERVICE and in that capacity X have constructed numerous ttmaels under simiLz to the sbo~e geaaal desesippon, As you can appttciate, the above stated wab are only relative and apply only m geaaic set of parameters , Feb 22 O5 09:35p Hob Marik [703] 812-8054 p.l FROM :MCO-FRRr1C MBNTOtJRT1 FRX tJD. :970-387-5492 Feb_ 22 200'' 05: 40PM P2 To arrive at a moss accurate estimate wonld roquire an is depth study. This would ixlude in tine t determination of the exteat of the alluvium and portal wasOntctioio. the type and orieuiation of solid mck at a predetermined depth fic® surface. u is my hope that this ird'orstmtion is of use to you and can be applied to resolving your ~~ sineerety, F:anlcbroatamti. FEB-22-2005 TUE 02 ~ 23 PN _ _ _ FAX N0, P, 02/02 AGREEMENT RE E~(TEtJSION Whereas, the partners in the CASS General Partnership have agreed to extend the date FROM May ~, 2005 to June 23, 2005 by w+jO12~o ginteresttfromr the CASS rights to Purchase under bargain/sale at $550,000 General Partnership property generally know as to ess~st CASS' contenlp ated gift t ra fully described in the Schedule, ("the Prothe ndersigned hereby agree the following: tax qualified chanty or government entity, ~, In the avant that. the contemplated bargain/sale t{, ntaxrgd,lthat Ishuntil CASS on cr before June 23, 2005, the parties or government entity is not completed by a from CASS agree to extend current agreements for an additiefal gOhas e~+e P p rtY September 23, 2005, in order that Camilla Aug P a+n sale/glit to a tax qualified partnership on the same terms ($550,000 + 12%) as those available to Walnut Prope , LLC; in a transaction facilitating the contemplated bang charity. aiding 2, Tha March 22, 2004 Right of First Refusal and Agreement e9 similarly extended from May 1, 2005 to September 23, 2005. Voting Rights is hereby 3, It is agreed this document shall, until SsPtentb oft General sPartnershipl 2, above poor agreements under CASS Partneoccur, th9s Agreement shall control. This amendments thereto as well as the said First Refusal Agreement noted in pP and where any conflict in terms may agreement shall then expire on September 24, 2005• Dated this 22st day of FebNary, 2006. BY THE CASS PARTNERS WITH VOTING INTEREST: "~rter HISATTOpNEY1NFACT 6ret Mason, D.O. ~~ Jacl . 5welgart v,~=~N~ IdSATTQNIEY W FACT Camilla Auger SCHEDULE pescriPflon of Properly Lot 26, Section 7, Township 10 South, Range ~ West of the Slxth Pnncipal Mendlan, County of PiYdn, State of Colorado. FEB-22-2005 TUE 06 53 AN FEH-39-~ZBB3 06:02 Rk FAX N0. f.9.llb k1YUJk VkUI' AQi1F3Edl~EIJT Tt] TERMQ~tA'fE ~A9Bka6NT P, 02 P.01 Pct 8i '1'h1e A~wment !e enoaY:d ia~ this let of A,peU, 2m5 btwaa (;+unills sad iil~ymaad Aupnt ("Au~et'~ end CABS L7eesd! Parterarldp (°CA9R'~. WliEREAA, the }rrda haws tmbered lato m optiou aauttaot to eel! ad ttaoafl~t the Hurler Valley way property to thr C.Iq of Aapnrt, ~~- 7 ~' ~ oiler queliRtd cptiLr of Asyer'e choaeing npoo eXmtaiee of the op8an by Av~or~ WI3SRPAS, Auher ills gsapted en erceee elld phlity eaeemmat to the Huotee VaJloy gVsr Arow~', vrhioh eeeemee~Y aha11 aot be t SfAu~ mtetaiaea lts aptian. NOW, T'I~RfiPUAE, the partiae ~ to oemel aad tetmloate the Acaea sad T.Mility Paee®ettt upon eomrsiae of tqe aplioo earl paymeat tiMae+mder u tlr eemta limo that the xa~sl pg~~ooppa~ to hamferret! to dac entity ofAuaer's ohoveluQ. Tbie onacelMtlon led tetmlatploola s oo~idm of »~ anchor t11e Aunt apdan. If Augar riila to extDOire the option and mrdrs Qia pryliimt doe tbaewadar, tfioo sues aad ad1i~' easenfent shall remain #a ihll farpl and elfeot. C.~,9~ Camilla Au~{x >~~ ~ ' /F,~/G4itar. Petkuq' /By',~-/ r 3Pathsr t-, p~. ~~~ Februazy 22, 2005 Mr. John Worcester City of Aspen Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 RE: Pitkin County Takings Determination Procedures Dear John: At the request of Ms. Camilla Auger, I am writing this letter to describe the takings determination procedures long since established in the Pitkin County Land Use Code ("the Code"). Over the past five-plus years, I have represented at least five clients in the preparation and processing of Pitkin County land use applications that have resulted in takings determinations. As recently as January 12, 2005, I successfully completed a takings determination and remediation process with the Boazd of County Commissioners ("the BOCC"). I have another such hearing scheduled for Februazy 23, 2005. In both of the aforementioned cases, the Pitkin County Hearing Officer issued determinations denying 1041 Hazards Review and Conceptual Submission applications for steeply sloped (i.e., slopes greater than 30%) properties located on the face of Smuggler Mountain: the first was a property known as "Government Lot 33" and the second is a property referred to as Smuggler Mountain, Pazcel C. As you are probably aware, development in Pitkin County must occur within a building envelope approved through the 1041 Environmental Hazazds Review and Conceptual Submission ("1041 Review") process. The Code standards for 1041 Review prohibit development in many azeas, such as but not necessarily limited to flood plains, critical habitat, rock fall azeas, avalanche "red" zones, and on slopes greater than 30%. In cases where an entire property is within any one or more of such hazard areas, or not enough property to accommodate development is available to allow complete avoidance of any one or more of such hazard areas, a land owner must apply for 1041 Review only to have it "automatically" (i.e., the Code leaves no room for discretion) denied by the Pitkin County Hearing Officer. Since the Hearing Officer has no choice but to issue a denial in such cases, the only available avenue for appeal is through the takings determination process; that is, there has been no denial of due process or abuse of discretion, and the takings determination process remains as the only other type of appeal provided for in the Code. POI N. MILL STREET, SUITE 7 O8 • A$PEN, COLORADO • (970) 925-781 9 • FAX (970) 925'/3')-b Takings Determination Procedures February 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 The standard for review of a takings determination request is found in Section 3- 290 of the Code. Section 5-220 of the Code provides the submission contents necessary for a takings determination request. Section 4-150 of the Code describes the procedures for a takings determination: a petitioner must submit their request for a takings determination within fifteen (15) days of the Hearing Officer's decision, and the BOCC must schedule a hearing within fifteen (15) days of receiving the request. Next, the BOCC is required to render a decision regarding the takings determination request within fifteen (15) days of the hearing on the matter. In other words, the BOCC has fifteen (15) days from the date of the hearing to issue a decision as to whether or not a takings has occurred. In all cases with which I am familiar, where 1041 Review on an undeveloped parcel resulted in a denial, the BOCC has found that a regulatory takings has occurred and gone on to approve remediation. When this occurs, the BOCC renders a decision stating that the regulations have resulted in a taking and directs staff to return with a resolution allowing development subject to mitigation of 1041 hazards. The end result is a 1041 approval allowing development within a designated building envelope subject to hazard mitigation requirements. Furthermore, while the effective limit on steepness of slopes is 30%, the Code allows development on slopes of up to 45% in cases where it can be demonstrated that the total allowable floor area cannot be accommodated on slopes of less than 30%. If you should have any questions or require further information and/or clarification, I will be happy to make myself available. Please do not hesitate to contact me using the phone number provided on the bottom of this letter's first page or via email at mhaas@sopris.net. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas Owner/Manager cc: Camilla Auger c:\tvty DocumentsWdminis[ra4ve\City\Worcester_Pi[Co Takings Procedures BRANDY •FEIGENBAUM, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDY (1939-20011 US BANK BUILDING 420 EASE MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.5196 FAX: 970.925.4559 www.brandt-law.com BASALT OFFICE: GARRET S. BRANDY MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM PETER P. DELANY, PARALEGAL John Worcester, Esq. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Action to Secure Easement by Private Way of Necessity Dear John: 132 MIDLAND AVENUE, SUITE 4 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELEPHONE: 970.925.5196 FAx: 970.925.4559 GARRET S. BRANDY gsbrandtCalbrandt-law.mm By Hand Delivery It is this firm's opinion that actions to establish "private ways of necessity" (or sometime referred to as "private condemnation") are recognized in Colorado law, and can be used to establish access to landlocked parcels. The right to such actions are stated in the Colorado Constitution, have procedures specified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, and have been upheld by the appellate courts. Article II, § 14 of the Colorado Constitution provides that, Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitary purposes. (Emphasis added.) While the Colorado Constitution provides the basic right of private condemnation, C.R.S. § 38-1-101 et seq. outline the procedures to be followed. First, the party seeking to condemn must be within the category of those authorized to condemn, such as the landowner (not merely a lessee). Next, the value and location of the road easement must be specifically determined, including assessment of alternative access locations. Then the party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to acquire the easement through negotiation. As part of that effort, the condemning party must provide written notice to anyone with an interest of record in the property that it intends to acquire the property. If the easement has an estimated value of $5,000 February 28, 2005 or more, the notice also must include the statement that the condemning party will pay the reasonable costs associated with an appraisal. The purpose of this procedure is to encourage negotiations and settlement. If the parties cannot agree upon terms, the condemning party may then initiate condemnation proceedings. The right of private condemnation can be summed up by the following quote from West v. Hinksmon, 857 P.2d 483 (Colo.App. 1992): The right to condemnation of a private way of necessity exists when the need to condemn is reasonably necessary and when the common law or other legal remedies do not provide a present enforceable legal right to an alternate mode of access that is both reasonable and practical. In conclusion, the Colorado appellate courts have interpreted the Colorado Constitution, and relevant statutes, so as to provide a powerful remedy for person with property that lacks reasonable and practical access to the nearest public road. Very truly yours, Garret S. Brandt for BRANDY i FEIGENBAUM, P.C. cc: Camilla Auger Note: This opinion relies upon research contained in "Access at Last: The Use of Private Condemnation", by Robyn W. Kube, The Colorado Lawyer, February 2000, Vol. 29, No. 2 [Page 77]. TO: Aspen City Council Members ~ ~~A~^ P From: Residents on Spruce Street ~, 1^, . --1 , ", Date: February 28, 2005 RE: Fox Crossing Subdivision Approval Neighbors in the Williams Addition Subdivision are quite concerned and therefore opposed to the Fox Crossing Development Plan for the folbwing masons: The current plan's traffic flow and parking solutions are unacceptable. This along with more increased density, only benefits the Developer. We ask you to require the applicant to go back and connect their inner road system, from Race Alley to Walnut/Lone Plne. provide 'Inside' Fox Crossing guest parking and set right this plan that does not work for our neighborhood. HISTORY - Underthe original Williams Addition Plat, Book 22, Page 15 ,lots were laid out in city block row fashion. Spruce Street was a street, Race Alley was an alley and Walnut Street was a wide dead end street. The intent when laid out was to have some order and flow to the lots. Lots that numbered 1-22 on the north side of the annexation sat on Walnut street and Lone Pine while lots 1-24 on the Smuggler enclave side sat on Spruce and Race. There were some odd pieces of abandoned railroad right of ways and mining claims, but the overall birds eye view shows some order and form to the Williams Addtion sutxlivision. The point to be made is that through time, and now this developers plan to make a new subdivision, Williams Addition row lots are virtually gone. Race Alley (an alley) is to act like a street even though it can't support the developers plan to be a street. PRESENT: The proposed new alley houses have no front street side or street parking anywhere because of the alley width conditions and open space lot , therefore Spruce street is being selected to take all the Race alley traffic flow and guest parking for this alley. The other option is to widen it which residents do not want. The developer, has married two large separate ownership parcels that each contain many city block style lots and a large Railroad parcel and are creating a new subdivision that has NOT gone through PUD or GMOS system resulting in a significant disregard of impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Further, a county parcel thrown into the proposal, forced a code amendment change resulting in County TDRs into the city and greater density that has grown over the months, from 13 to 16 and now 19 development rights. Not 19 townhomes, but 19 large homes with ADUs. The mitigation of sensible, least impactive to the neighbors, logical traffic flow and additional parking has not been wisely addressed. The developer has thrown traffic and parking onto Spruce Street, which leads into the overcrowded 5 artery area known as South, Park, Spruce, Cottonwood, Oak, Gibson and Walnut. (See Attached map which is left out of every presentation.) This is a high density area, with Williams Way, Williams Woods, Centennial, and Smuggler Village all using one road. Schools buses, along with Public transport all converge at a narrow spot. We think it is wrong the developer has turned their back and is adding to this problem The developer should revisit their plan and not threaten to walk if required to revise this impactive development proposal. Approval of lot line adjustments and greater density without satisfying glaring traffic and parking flaws sets a bad precedent. Any newly created subdivision of this size in an already heavily impacted neighborhood should meet very specific standards within its land use process. Walnut Street has been added on to and redone to make a new loop, but the developer refuses to see the wisdom and merit of making a new Race alley loop that hooks over to WalnuUlone Pine. It should also be noted that old railroad right of ways along with current city right of ways are being used for the developer's interests without connecting the obvious loop and thus being able to handle the development's circulation problems and parking internally. With regard to Hunter Creek Condominium impacts, the developer before submitting their application planted and screened all along the property line and Hunter Creek Condo open space. The 02/24/2005 10:38 7138501761 KAUFMAN PAGE 02 Stephen M. Kaufman 512 Race Street Aspen, CO 81611 TRANSMITTED BY FACSIMILE February 24, 2005 Aspen City Council Aspen, CO RE: Fox Crossine Subdivi~on Dear City Council Members: My wife and I aze the owners of the home on 512 Race Street (actually, the western half of a duplex, the other half being on Spruce Street). I am the only owner of this residence since I purchased it from the developer in 199. It was built just prior to that in accordance with all then-existing city requirements. I now understand that consideration is being given to condemning 5 feet of property on either side of Race Street, in order to make It a two-way street. ] am writing this letter in protest of that idea. There are several other viable and reasonable ways to manage the construction and later traffic to the north ~,pa,-r property, the simplest being dedication of Race Street as a one-way ptreet north. Wide~g the street would severely damage my property in the following ways: • My heated driveway would need to be re-piped, wired aad laid • The new power transformer placed by Holy Cross (for the new underground utilities under Race Street) would have to be placed even deeper into my property ~`~ My fence would have to be torn down and moved 02/24/2005 10:38 7138501761 KAUFMAN PAGE 03 • I would lose most of the 5 parking places on the south end of my property on Race Street, that belong to both sides of the duplex, requiring me to give up more of my yard to parking, to replace the loss • I would lose at least one parking space in my driveway (which was built to accommodate two spaces outside the garage) On the other side of Race Street, my two closest neighbors would have the street within inches of their homes, creating as impossible safety issue. For all the above reasons, I urge you to reject condemnation as a possible alternative. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, V ~. Stephen M. Kaufman FEB 26 '05 05[53PM RSPEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION 9252442 ASPEN DISPUTE' RESOLUTION The Benedict Bwldtng 1280 Ute Avenue, Suite 10 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ph 970 925 2445 Le 970 925 2442 Www.AspenDisputcRcaolution.com February 28, 2005 P.1 Honorable Helen Klanderud, Mayor City of Aspen Gerald D. Alpem, Ph.D. City Hall 130 S. Galena Alfred J. Dictach Aspen CO 81611 Debra A. Palender re~ Fog CROaslxc Roben P. Crueler Dear Mayor Klanderud~ Beott Harper As you know, I spoke briefly in favor of this project when it was Wi11Iam J. Uppman last before City Council, emphasizing the community benefits of the open space preserved and linkages to and from the Hunter Creek Trail. Martin Manosevi[z, Ph.D. Timothy McPlynn Since that Council meeting, this development would appear to result in even more connected park and open space land -• 42 acres In David Melton an otherwise high density residential area of east Aspen -• without any concomitant increase in the development's density. This offer a Peter van Domelen tremendous public asset without having to use scare open space funds for an acquisition. As the former counsel for the Friends of Hunter Creek and one of the founders of the Pitkia County Open Space .and Trails Program, I would respectfully urge you and the members of City Council to approve this application. I am sorry another commitment precluded my attendance at this evening~e meeting. Very sincerely, ~ha.. Timothy cFlynn~ February 24, 2005 TO: Mayor of Aspen and Aspen City Council FROM: Tom and Patti Clapper RE: FOX CROSSING Dear Mayor HIanderud and Members of the Council, Due to the fact we will not be able to attend the February 28, 2005 Fox Crossing land use heazing we would like to submit the following comments and request that they be read in to the Public Record. 1. It is of great importance to note the value of "master planning" of this property as a whole. This is an opportunity that provides benefits to both the community and to the applicant that would not be provided if this property were to be developed on a "lot by lot" basis. Therefore, we believe it would be in everyone's best interest to approve the Fox Crossing "master plan" thus allowing this property to be developed as one parcel rather then as individual multiple residential lots. 2. The existing and historic use of Race Alley should not be changed. We believe the changes being considered (one way or wider two way) aze not only unnecessary but would in fact create much greatez impacts to the neighbors and to the neighborhood itself. It is our understanding that these changes have been recommended by the Aspen Fire Protection District (Fire Marshall). We agree that these aze valid concerns as these aze the same concerns related to other streets and alleys in Aspen. And the best way to address these concerns on Race Alley is the same way they aze addressed on other City streets and alleys... by the City's Community Safety Department and by the Aspen Police Depaztment. When there is a fire related incident officers from both of these departments respond in order to manage traffic flow. And these departments have a pzoven track record as to thew ability to provide both safe and rapid fire truck access which at times may mean reversing one-way alleys or making alleys/streets one way. IF there were to be an incident on Race Alley now or in the future traffic would be managed as needed at that time. To one way this alley (either way) would create an unnecessary impact to the neighborhood. To widen this alley would create an unnecessary impact to property owners ON this alley...regazdless of there being an existing legal set back and or City street easement. 3. We greatly appreciate the provision of both pazk and open space as part of this application. This is one of the key benefits that is provided when a property is developed with a "master plan" rather than with multiple individual lot development applications. February 24, 2005 PAGE TWO RE: Fox Crossing Public Comments We recognize that the approval of this application will add a significant amount of square footage to our neighborhood. At the same time we also recognize that development of some kind on this property is inevitable. Thus the only thing that we...actually that you...can do is to approve what we believe to be and what we hope you believe to be the best and the least impactive land use application...the Fox Crossing application which is now before you. Thank you and sincerely, Tom Clapper Patti Clapper 218 Cottonwood Lane Aspen, CO 81611 925-1990 RONALD GAAFIELD' ANDREW V. HECxT DAVID L. LENTO MwrrEEw C. FEaovsoN' CHRISTOPHHR J. LACROI%'~ CYNTHIA C. TESTER CHAP J. $CHMIT3 NATASHA Swrrol. GREGORY $. GORDON''~ ERIC D. MUSSELNAN' CNRISTOPHE[ D. BRYAN OP COUNSHL, ROBERC E. RErrolc PARALEGALS MICNAHL D. McCOU.vM 7ASON R. BAOLSMA RUSSfiLL B. ZUCRERMAN KAnrr THIS3EN VIA FACSI[MII..E 920.5119 AND HAND DF.i.I VERY John Worcester, Esq. City of Aspen Attorney's Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hasler Valley Way Dear John: Febnuuy 23, 2005 ABPEN OFFICE 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-1936 FACSRNx.E (970) 925-3008 BASALT OFFICE IlU MIDLAND AvfiNxE, $UITfi 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELePNONE (970) 927-1936 FACSMILfi (970) 927-1783 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE TxE DENVfia CENTRE 420 SeveNm STaeer, BUrfE 100 GLfiNWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 Tp.EPNONe (970) 947-1936 FACSIMILE (970) 947-1937 I have reviewed the Grant of Easement dated as of January 1, 2005 between CASS General Partnership and Raymond and Camilla Auger that was recorded in the office of the Pitkin Colmty Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 507279 (the "Easement Agreement'. I understand that the Easement Agreement Iles been recorded to satisfy certain requirements set forth in paragraph 11 of that certain Agreement of Cass General Partnership dated February 12, 2004. I believe that the Easemem Agreement establishes legal access to the property owned by Cass General Partnership (which, I understand, is also known as the "Hunter Valley Way "property). As a result of the Easement Agreement, I believe. that the owner of the Hunter Valley Way property has access to a public road as a result of the right to construM a driveway across the Auger property, and the right to use the private road known as North Spruce Street. Please let me know if you need anything further. Copies to: Camilla Auger Harris A. Cahn Garret Brandt, Esq. ~iARFIE~.~ ~ HEGY~~', ~.~. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Website: www.garfieldhec6LCOID Sin , G IE & CHT, P.C. By Chris LaCroix C:WrPor(611iManegel,SSEMPLb1108673 LDOC 1. elan W minW In 1. Jm dmimd m 3, elan admincd m s. tlao admired m Ncr Yoh Ev Coaxnicut av Dlinnia Hv No leraeY bar ®Prinhd on n:cyekd paper MEYER GORDON SCHMUESER °'°°JO° "mss ~"~`~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ X 3088 _ _, 1 1 B W. 6TH SUITE 200 P.O. BOX 2155 P.O. BO oLEHwo00 sPelHOS, eo B 1 601 AsPEH, c0 e 1 61 2 tees Bu~rF, co 81 224 E N G I N E E R S' S U R V E Y O R 5 970-925-6727 970349-5355 970945 1004 FX: 970-945-5948 FX: 970-925-4157 Fx: 970-349-5358 February 25, 2005 Ms. Camilla Auger Walnut Property, LLC 709 Spruce Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hunter Valley Wav Tunnel Access Dear Camilla: I am writing in follow-up to our recent conversations regarding the proposed access drive into the Hunter Valley Way property adjacent to your property on Smuggler Mountain. As you know, your husband Raymond and I spent quite a bit of time discussing design options in an effort to get a conventional "surface" constructed driveway into the site. A conventional driveway proved exceptionally difficult, if even feasible, due to the steep terrain and narrow horizontal confines of the available property in which it would have to be constructed. Following discussions of several elaborate and potentially expensive design options, we returned to the concept of constructing a tunnel access from your property around the Randal Park property into Hunter Valley Way. The option of a tunnel bore into Hunter Valley Way was suggested early in our discussions regarding the difficult access design and was, at least initially, set aside as potentially too costly and difficult. As we spent more time investigating conventional driveway designs, several potential advantages to a tunnel design became apparent: 1. The potential building site in Hunter Valley Way is located at and below the elevation of an access portal at your property on the Cora Lee. A tunnel access could be constructed at a close to flat profile gradient with only sufficient grade to permit positive drainage within the bore. 2. As a tunnel at a flat grade, the access would be virtually unaffected by weather conditions and winter icing. 3. Compared to the structural and long-term maintenance requirements of a surface access across this terrain, a tunnel may, in fact, be an economical solution to the access into Hunter Valley Way. 4. A tunnel access offers the potential benefit of excellent security for a luxury home on the Hunter Valley Way property. Through one of the Principal staff members in our Crested Butte office, we contacted Mr. Frank Montonati, President and CEO of MCO Mine Service in Silverton, Colorado. Mr. Montonati is a Mining Engineer with some 45 years experience in mining and underground construction. Based on Mr. Montonati's comments in a letter to Raymond, we would anticipate that a tunnel access is feasible and would cost between $315,000 February 25, 2005 Ms. Camilla Auger Hunter Valley Way Access Page 2 and $630,000 for a total distance of approximately 315 feet depending on the range of subsurface material encountered. Mr. Montonati is certainly clear that there are a number of unknown factors with regard to underground construction that could affect these figures, but it would certainly appear that these numbers are in a reasonable ballpark for tunnel construction. From a historical perspective, we certainly know that extensive tunnels were constructed and maintained for the mining operations in and around and under Aspen for many years before and after the turn of the century. While Mr. Montonati's letter is clear that there are a number of factors that could affect the cost of the tunnel bore itself, there are also several external factors that would affect the cost of access construction including the approaches, finish levels or special security features on the portals, drainage, ventilation and lighting. Even including these items, I would anticipate that a budget for access construction in the range of $375,000 to $750,000 is probably very realistic. I hope these comments are helpful with regard to a tunnel access concept for the Hunter Valley Way property. Feel free to contact me if I may provide additional information or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. I Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JHfh 2004-321 _001CA1 March 13, 2005 LJ Erspamer 534 Spruce St. Aspen, CO 81611 The Honorable Mayor of Aspen And the Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fox Crossing application Dear Mayor and Council, I have enclosed a plat map of the Fox Crossing that would be supported by the majority of the neighbors in Williams Addition. The advantage to this proposal as opposed to the current one by the applicant is 1. This plan mitigates the traffic problem within the development rather than pushing the problem onto Spruce Street outside their development. 2. The hiking trail would go through Fox Crossing to the Hunter Creek bus stop and also to the Rio Grande trail. 3. This trail to the Hunter Creek bus stop would allow the hikers closer access to their cars at the parking lot at Lone Pine. 4. Hikers would have a quiet walkway after returning from Hunter Creek 5. The park would adjoin the Hunter Creek common area that would allow immediate access for their residents without having to walk through the subdivision. 6. This park would be a buffer zone between the driveway and Hunter Creek. If Hunter Creek desires they could build a berm for privacy and have an opening or notch in it to access the park. 7. Hunter Creek could use some of their common area to expand the park. 8. This park will get more usage by the public since it is not a front yard for private homes. 9. This additional roadway from Race Alley to Lone Pine would allow for better access for all the lots within the subdivision. 10. There could be speed bumps or depressions to slow traffic down if that is a concern. 11. As Jay Hammond, the consultant for Fox Crossing said, this cut would not be used as a short cut from Spruce Street as there is no demand for traffic from Williams Addition to Lone Pine Road. All this traffic goes to town and this road would not be shorter or faster. This road in Fox Crossing would be narrower than a street and much slower. 12. If necessary Race Street could be closed or made a one way towards Spruce Street to prevent short cut traffic. 13. Lot line and setbacks could be adjusted to help the developer in this configuration as the neighbors support this proposal. 14.The trail through the project going to Walnut could be on the Lot 8 side of the street if favored by the developer. 15: This proposal creates flow, compatibility, harmony and diversity in the neighborhood. 16. Some lots will be larger than before and therefore have larger yards than those proposed by the applicant. 17.The new park would be away from the homes to create privacy for the homeowners. 18. Lots 2 and 3 would have a small portion of their lots adjoining the park for less of an impact. A berm could be built for privacy if desired. 19. Some of the lot fines could be adjusted to favor the developer. We feel that this is the best proposal for the developer and our neighborhood. This idea retains all the lots as requested by the developer and even increases the area for some of the lots. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, LJ Erspamer Ward Hauenstein March 10, 2005 Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Fox Crossing Application Dear Council: I regret that I cannot attend this meeting as I am out of town on a Motion Picture Exhibitor convention. For the record here are my thoughts on the Fox Crossing Application before you tonight. First let me say that, like most people here, it is not so much that I like the application, but more that it could have been so much worse. It is a very dense development compounded by increased FAR as well as TDRs. This said, I support the application as has been presented and as I understand it to be presented to you tonight. The main change I understand is allowing parking on both sides of Race Street and a small number of additional parking places internal to the project. Following are specific comments for the record. 1. I see no reason why Race Alley must be made one-way. It has functioned perfectly well for the past 30 years that I have lived on it. Keeping it two way will reduce impacts on Spruce Street (though I consider those impacts minimal). 2. I support a later examination and determination by the neighborhood whether there should be sidewalk extensions on Spruce Street. The developer is already providing a new paved trait, which will serve much the same area: 3. I do not support creating a road through the project to connect with Lone Pine Road. The added impact on Spruce Street/Race Alley is a total of two single- family homes and two duplexes (as proposed). These are likely to be mostly second homeowners, but even if they were not, additional trips generated would be no more than a dozen or so more car trips than are presently on the road. 4• I understand that the developer on Spruce Street is proposing temporary additional parking. I don't know where there is a perceived need for it and worry that temporary becomes permanent. 5. I remind Council again that fire hydrants are woefully inadequate in this neighborhood. 6. I'm not sure if TDRs are controversial anymore. I would just point out that a downside to them is that my neighborhood is paying a burden in increased density. Race Alley is in many ways more a street than an alley. Six existing homes "front entrances" are on Race Alley and yet zoning treats it as back yards with as little as Sft setbacks. The developer is orienting the homes toward the internal open space when even the most cursory look at plans shows that entrances are off the alley. I think it would be to the owner's own economic benefit to make the Race Alley as attractive as possible and encourage that this be taken into consideration in the final design. $• I ask that the developer present a dust mitigation plan both from on site excavations and dirt on roads. I know Camilla Auger wishes that I could me more unqualified in my support of her project. I do support it and I don't want my concerns to be seen as less than supportive. Thank you. ~~`J~ Jon Busch - ~ Glacier Chris Bendon From: Chris Bendon Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:08 AM To: Stephen Ellsperman; John Worcester Cc: Brian Flynn; Jeff Woods Subject: RE: Hunter Valley Way Conservation Easement Page 1 of 2 Stephen: We can amend the approvals administratively in light of nobody wanting the easement, I don't think it is a big issue. If the conservation groups are worried about getting dragged into a weird deal now and exposing their organization to an audit, I still think we should try to give the easement away in a few years when maybe there will be less concern. Cheers, Chris Chris Bendon. AICP Community Development Director Gity of Aspen 9 r 0.429.2765 ch risb a~ci. aspen. co. us __ . __ . From: Stephen Ellsperman Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:31 PM To: John Worcester Cc: Chris Bendon; Brian Flynn; Jeff Woods Subject: Hunter Valley Way Conservation Easement John: When the Fox Crossing Development was approved, the applicant was required to convey the property known as Hunter Valley Way to the City of Aspen with a third party easement attached to it. For some reason, the applicant conveyed the property to the City of Aspen and then provided a separate conservation easement to the City (not a third party). This conservation easement basically provides the same protection measures that a third party easement provides. At this point, it is becoming extremely difficult to get a third party easement on the property, especially since the applicant no longer owns the property. Staff feels that the conservation easement that the City holds provides adequate protection. I have asked Brian Flynn to drop the conservation easement over to 11 /30/2005 Glacier Page 2 of 2 ti you for your review. Chris: If John W. approves the conservation easement, what steps would you need to do in order to amend the language of the PUD to take out "third party" conservation easement and place simply "conservation easement". Prom the desk of: Stephen Ellsperman City of Aspen Deputy Director Parks and Open Space 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 1970)429-2034 ste~h_ene@ci.aspen sous http:/!as pen recreatian.com( 1 1 /30/2005 SUMMARY REPORT OF A COMPLETE APPRAISAL ~~"' . -` A VACANT LAND PARCEL AND`A55UCIATED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LOCATED NEAR ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR: CASS GENERAL PARTNERTER ~ LLP C/O MR. LARRY CAR 401 WATT AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA 95864 EFFECTIVE DATE: MAY 18, 2005 ROCKY MOUNTAIN VALUATION SPECIALISTS RECEIVED JUN 0 S 2005 BUILDING DE4'ARTMENT ~~~ ,~ , RMVS FILE #18540 d May 31, 2005 Larry Carter Cass General Partnership, LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 RE: Complete Appraisal in a Summary Report format for a Vacant Land Parcel and Associated Development Rights Pitkin County, Colorado RMVS File No.1S540 Dear Mr. Carter: In fulfillment of our agreement as outlined in the Letter of Engagement, Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists, LLC (RMVS) is pleased to transmit our Complete Appraisal presented in a Summary Report format developing an opinion of the market value of fee simple estate in the above referenced real property as of May 18, 2005. The opinion of value reported below is qualified by certain assumptions, limiting conditions, certifications, and definitions, which are set forth in the report. The appraisal will be used by the client to determine the market value of the property, and to determine the tax benefits associated with granting a conservation easement on the property. It may not be distributed to or relied upon by other persons or entities without written permission of RMVS. However, the client may provide only complete, final copies of the appraisal report in its entirety (but not component parts) to third parties who shall review such reports in connection with loan underwriting or securitization efforts. The appraisers are not required to explain or testify as to appraisal results other than to respond to the client for routine and customary questions. As an appraisal prepared in a Summary format, the detail of data reporting is confined to a summary of the information reported. The depth of the detail presented in a Summary Appraisal is less than that of aSelf-Contained Appraisal. The client and user of this report should further recognize that the summary report is structured for utilization by frequent users of appraisal services. That they have an adequate degree of familiarity with local market and economic conditions, the subject property, and the understanding of the markett the propertyf or the valuation pro ess and conclu onsr an www.rock mountainvaluation.net Li?6 Cute Blyd, I3Ll;;. ?. ,Stn l i// P.O. &r_c F43 Lakc~+ood, C0 ffi1'I3o Salida, CO HL'01 Phone7193~9.03UU Phone 30391! 9~6a ~-a~8fifl,75i~bU8R Fay 303.`11-k.9~L- d The client and any unintended users of the report are warned that this report is not intended to be aSelf-Contained report as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Apprnisnl Practice (USPAP). It cannot be understood properly without additional information on file with the appraiser. Please note that our consent to allow an appraisal report prepared by RMVS, or portions of such report, to become part of or be referenced in any public offering, is at our sole discretion. If given, it will be on condition that we will be provided with an Indemnification Agreement and/or Non-Reliance letter, in a form and content satisfactory to us, by a party satisfactory to us. We do consent to your submission of the reports to rating agencies, loan participants or your auditors in its entirety (but not component parts) without the need to provide us with an Indemnification Agreement and/or Non-Reliance letter. The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, our interpretation of the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uuifarm Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Apprnisnl Practice of the Appraisal Institute, The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), and Title XI Regulations. Based on the analysis contained in the following report, the market value of the subject property is concluded as follows: MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION A~tiraisa~ ise InterestApyraised EffeetiveDate Val$4C_ncl=si°n Fee Simple May 18, 2005 As Is Personal Properh~ $690,000- As Is May 18, 2005 $720,000 Entitlement The analysis contained in this appraisal is based upon assumptions and estimates that are subject to uncertainty and variation. These estimates are often based on data obtained in interviews with third parties, and such data are not always completely reliable. In addition, we make assumptions as to future behavior of consumers, and the general economy, which are highly uncertain. It is, however, inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur which will cause actual achieved operating results to differ from the financial analyses contained in this report, and these differences may be material. www.rock mountainvaluation.net ! i_?h Cntr• RhvL, HL/g. 3. Ste. /?0 ' P.O. Bu.c N4N Cp 81201 SnliJz 6 I. al.carood, C0 S02 , Ph~~nr °, 199 w,11800 Phone 3(139UAah~ ; 9h.(d188 Pe~888 fa~303}17-19317 . d Therefore, while our analysis was conscientiously prepared based on our experience, and the data available, we make no warranty of any kind that the conclusions presented will, in fact, be achieved. Additionally, we have not been engaged to evaluate the effectiveness of management, and we are not responsible for future marketing efforts, and other management actions upon which actual results may depend. We believe, based on the assumptions employed in our selection of investment parameters for the subject, that the value conclusion represents a market price achievable within one year exposure prior to the effective date. We take no responsibility for any events, conditions, or circumstances affecting the market that exists subsequent to the effective date of this appraisal. This letter is invalid as an opinion of value if detached from the report, which contains the text, exhibits, and addenda. It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the analysis or if RMVS can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, ROCKY MOUNTAIN VALUATION SPECIALISTS, LLC WA, SRA Mark Kane Commercial Appraiser mark.kaneQrock mountainvaluation.net Colorado Registered Appraiser #AR40020323 MAI: Member of the Appraisal Institute CCIM: Certified Commercial Investment Member SR/ WA: Senior Member of the Right of Way Association SRA: Senior Residential Appraiser www.rock mountainvaluation.net 1 ?36 Cule Hhv(, BIAg. 3. Ste. l ill ~<J ~dgt CO A L'01 I akcmood, C O 803~n c _ g. Phony °I )_~ OHUC Phunu :0?AI1.9565 pay 888756.605H Iaa?03 y1~.~>>I' I~1TeCIOr - KNl V J deane.daven ortOrock mountainvaluation.net Colorado Certified General Appraiser #CG40042578 d The subject property is a +/- 9.5 acre parcel of vacant land in the Hunter Creek neighborhood north of Aspen in unincorporated Pitkin County. The owners (Cass General Partnership, LLP) are currently in the process of granting a to therCity of Aspene These two eMnts are scheduled t o~ ur on May 31, 2 05 cel As compensation for the land, the City of Aspen will grant Cass General Partnership, LLP, three "Transferable Development Rights' (TDRs). These development rights have been approved by the City to be applied specifically to another development site known as Fox Crossing. Also on May 31, 2005, the developer of Fox Crossing will purchase these three TDRs from Cass General Partnership for $705,000, or $235,000 per development right. The client has requested that the appraisers value the Hunter Creek parcel "as is' without any encumbrances and as though developable to its highest and best use as a luxury single-family home site. The client has also requested the appraisers analyze the TDR market within Pitkin County. This is to determine if the sales price negotiated for the three nDl~ssbeTlgiss analysise w 11 e follow f thex land s v auation o nab hea DirectnSales Comparison Approach. 5 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d CERTIFICATION 9 PARAMETERS OF THE APPRAISAL 9 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 12 LIMITING CONDITIONS 17 HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS 17 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS 18 THE APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT 23 SUBJECT DESCRIPTION 23 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 25 SITE DESCRIPTION 2~ NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY 35 GENERAL MARKET ANALYSIS 49 VALUATION PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGIES 50 THE COST APPROACH 51 THE DIRECT SALES COMPARISION APPROACH 71 THE fNCOME APPROACH RECONCILIATION ADDENDA 72 6 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado Certification Statement The undersigned do hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: _ the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, conclusions and recommendations. we have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. we have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. _ our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporfing predetermined results. _ our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction hi value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. _ The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, inconformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Stnndards of Professionnl Appraisal L'rnctice. Mark Kane has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; Deane Davenport did NOT inspect the subject. no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance or appraisal consulting assistance to the persons signing this certification. 1nsHtute relahing to roeview by itstduly authorized representativesppraisal the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuafion, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 7 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d that as of the effective date of this report, all appraisers involved with the preparation and reporting of this assignment are in good standing both with the Appraisal Institute, as well as the Colorado State Board of Real Estate Appraisers. as of the date of this report, Deane L. Davenport has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. (Revised 1-05-05) It is our opinion, that subject to the Contingent and Limiting Conditions as set forth in this appraisal, the market value, based on the fee simple" interest in the subject identified as Pitkin County Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 273707100005, and the development rights associated with it, near Aspen, in Pitkin County, Colorado are as follows: A~nraisT a~ remise As Is As Is Interest~Sed Fee Simple Personal Property Entitlement E/'{ective Date Mme 18, 2005 Mny 18, 2005 ValueValue C $4,300,000 $690,000- i ~ •- L. Davenport, MAI, C M, SR/ WA, SRA Director Colorado Certified General Appraiser #CG40042578 Mark Kane Commercial Appraiser Colorado Registered Appraiser #AR40020323 * MAI: Member of the Appraisal Institute CCIM: Certified Commercial Investment Member SR/WA: Senior Member of the Right of Way Association SRA: Senior Residential Appraiser The Certified General Appraiser level licenses the above individual to perform appraisals on all types of real property in compliance with Colorado state law, section 12-61-706, C.R.S., and Title XI of the Federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"). 8 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d This appraisal report, the letter of transmittal, and the certification of value, are made expressly subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions, as well as any hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions referenced in the appraisal: GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 1. Legal and Title Considerations Pertaining to the Property - No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed good and marketable unless otherwise stated. - The subject property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated. 2. Illustrative Material and Information Provided by Others - The appraiser(s) assumes that the intended user of this report has been provided with copies of available building plans and all leases and amendment, if any, that encumber the property. - A legal description and survey was furnished. The appraisers also used county assessor data to ascertain the physical dimensions and acreage of the property. Should a survey prove this information inaccurate, it may be necessary for this appraisal to be adjusted. - Currently there are no standards for the uniform measurement of improved properties. The appraiser(s) has utilized standard appraisal procedures common in the local market area to determine the total improved areas of the subject, and has used those results for the sole purpose of completing the appraisal assignment. Please note this does NOT constitute a guarantee as to the accuracy of these measurements, except as they pertain to typical appraisal procedures for obtaining such measurements. 9 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d - The intended user of this report is advised to consult with an architect or other professional to insure the accuracy of building measurements for engineering, legal or other non- appraisal purposes. - The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy. - All engineering studies and architectural plans are assumed correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are included only to help the reader visualize the subject property. 3. Property Utilization - Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. - We assume that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in the report. - We assume that the subject property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations and laws, along with applicable covenants, conditions and restrictions unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the appraisal report. 4. Scope of the Inspection, Property Conditions - Only a visua] surface inspection of the property has been made by the appraiser(s). We assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the subject property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 10 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d - We assume that the property conforms to all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions unless non- conformity has been identified, described, and considered in the appraisal report. - We assume that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, or national governments or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the opinion of the value contained in this report is based. - Nothing in this report should be deemed a certification or guaranty as to the structural and/or mechanical soundness of the building(s) and systems that relate to the functions and operations of the property. Rather the appraisal assumes functions, operations, and energy efficiency levels are satisfactory and consistent with the age of the property, unless otherwise noted. The intended user is urged to retain experts in analysis of such systems, if desired. 5. Appraisals Made Subject to Completion - On all appraisals subject to satisfactory completions, repairs, or alterations, the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent upon completion of the improvements according to specifications and as stated in the report, and in compliance with all laws, regulations and other restrictions, in a competent manner, and immediately. Represented designs and engineering are assumed correct and adequate. 6. Environmental Disclaimer - Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser(s). The appraiser(s), however, is not qualified to detect such substances. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 11 +~- - The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, toxic mold, and other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value concluded in this appraisal is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The intended user is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 7. Market Data Presented - The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to change with future conditions. LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Allocation of Value - Any allocation of the total values concluded in this report between the land and the improvements applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and buildings must not be used in conjunctions with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used. - Any opinions of value provided in the report apply to the entire property, and any prorating or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the opinion of value, unless such prorating or division of interests has been set forth in the report. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 12 d 2. Possession, Confidentiality, Distribution and Use of Report - Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. - Information contained in the appraisal may be utilized by the intended user, but the report remains the property of Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists LLC (RMVS). - This report shall not be used by anyone but the intended user specified in the report or an appropriate third party as may be determined by the intended user at his/her sole discretion, without written approval, and then only in its entirety. - Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or RMVS) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the Managing Director of RMVS. - All conclusions and opinions concerning the analysis which are set forth in the report were prepared by the appraisers whose signatures appear on the appraisal report. No change of any item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the appraisers, and RMVS shall have no responsibility if any such unauthorized change is made. - Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the By-Laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute. 3. Limitations of the Appraisal Services - The appraiser, due to this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation or testimony or attend in court with reference to the subject property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 13 - Opinions of value contained in this report are the professional opinions of the appraiser(s). There is no guarantee, written or implied, that the subject property will sell or lease for the indicated amounts within the indicated period. - Acceptance and use of information in this report in any manner or purpose is acknowledgement that the entire report has been read by the intended user and that he/she agrees with the conclusion and the data contained in this report. - The intended user agrees to notify the appraiser(s) of any error, omissions or invalid data within 30 days of receipt of the appraisal and return the report along with all copies to the appraiser(s) for correction prior to any use whatsoever. 4. Auxiliary Reports and Related Data by Others - Unless stated otherwise, no auxiliary studies or reports related to the subject property, such as surveys, environmental impact reports, special market studies, highest and best use reports, feasibility analysis, or reports regarding modifications to the property for either compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, structural, or other reasons, have been furnished or reported to the appraiser(s) by the intended user. Data presented with respect to the subject's ownership, marketing, and income history is made available through the intended user, the borrower, or related parties. Provision of such auxiliary data, or the discovery of it by the appraiser(s), is beyond the scope of the appraisal services contracted. The appraiser(s) reserves the unlimited right to alter, amend, revise or rescind any of the statements, findings, opinions, values, estimates, or conclusions upon any discovery or provision of such data or analysis, subsequent to it becoming known to the appraiser(s). Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 14 d 5. Limitations Related to the Definition of Value - The value concluded under the specified value definition is "the most probable price which a property should bring." As a point of clarification, the definition of value represents what a prudent, knowledgeable purchaser, under no necessity to buy would be willing to pay to purchase the property in a current sale. By this, value is representative of the price paid by the buyer, not the net proceeds to the seller. That is, the value does not consider payment of current sales commissions, title policy fees, legal fees, liens, past due taxes, or other disposition costs. 6. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance - The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. The appraiser(s) has not made a specific compliance survey or analysis of the property to determine whether it is in conformity with the various detailed requirements of ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property and a detailed analysis of the requirement of the ADA would reveal that the property does not comply with one or more of the requirements of the act. If so, this fact would have a negative impact upon the value of the property. Since the appraiser(s) has no direct evidence relating to this issue, possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA was not considered in concluding the value of the subject property. 7. Summary Report Format - Based on the standards of a Summary Report format, the detail of data reported is confined to a summary of the information considered, and a summary of the reasoning that supports the analysis, opinions and conclusions. The user of this report should recognize that the depth of detail of a Summary Report is less than that of aSelf-Contained report. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 15 d - A Summary Report is structured for utilization by frequent users of appraisal services that have an adequate degree of familiarity with local market and economic conditions, the subject property, and the appraisal process, such that the level of detail provided will not impair an understanding of the market, the property, or the valuation process and conclusions. The client and any unintended users of the report should be aware that this report is not intended to be aSelf-Contained report as defined by USPAP Standard 2. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 16 d HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS' Although the client is in the process of granting a conservation easement, and removing an access easement, the client has directed the appraisers to value the subject in its current status as an unencumbered parcel, readily developable to its highest and best use as a residential development parcel for a luxury single- family dwelling. The subject with the proposed conservation easement in place would have a different value than concluded in this appraisal. The subject is appraised under the hypothetical condition that it will not be encumbered by a conservation easement. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONSZ There were no extraordinary assumptions utilized in the valuation of the subject. ~ hypothetical condition That which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary [o known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. A hypothetical condition may be used in an assignment only if. o Use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison; o Use of the hypothetical condition results in a credible analysis; and o The appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for hypothetical conditions. Z extraordinary assumption An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter [he appraisers opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external [o the property such as market condtions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. An extraordinary assumption may be used in an assignment only if: o It is required to properly develop credible opinions and conclusions; o The appraiser has a reasonable basis for the extraordinary assumption; o Use of the extraordinary assumption results in a credible analysis; and o The appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for extraordinary assumptions. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 17 d THE APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT The appraisers have been assigned by the client to develop an opinion of the subject's market value, based on the current "as is" condition of the subject. The appraiser(s) has made a determination as to the scope of work necessary to solve the client's appraisal problem. The preparation of a Complete Appraisal, in accordance with Standard 1 (Real Property Appraisal, Development), in a Summary report format, prepared in accordance with USPAP Standard 2 (Real Property Appraisal, Reporting), is necessary to effectively demonstrate our analysis to derive the valuation conclusions. Under the parameters of this assignment, the following approaches to value were considered and used in this appraisal: Approach Considered Used Cost Approach No No Direct Sales Comparison Approach Yes Yes Income Approach No No There are two components associated with the subject to be analyzed; the vacant land parcel, and the associated TDRs (Transferable Development Rights). In both cases, the only applicable approach is the direct sales comparison approach. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 18 tl Purpose of the Appraisal and Definition of Value: The purpose of this appraisal is to determine the market value "as is" of the subject property, on a fee simple basis, as of an effective date of May 18, 2005. "Market value," as used in this report, is defined as: ... the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and Seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. -(12 C.F.R. Part 34.42(g); 55 Federal Register 34696, August 24, 1990, as amended at 57 Federal Register 12202, April 9, 1992; 59 Federal Register 29499, June 7, 1994) -Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, (Chicago, 2002) Page 177 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 19 d The appraisal considers the valuation of the subject property with an effective date of May 18, 2005, the date of final inspection. In determining the valuation of the property, we will consider the market value under conditions prevalent at that time. Establishing the effective date of the appraisal is standard appraisal practice, and it is important to consider because value is subject to change over time. Aside from possible physical changes to the property, the value of real estate is also subject to changing economic conditions, under which value may remain static, increase, or decrease. Additionally, changing policies of governing authorities may impede or encourage development over time. These limitations are implicit in the definition of "market value." For further discussion on this subject, refer to the section of this report entitled "Valuation Procedures and Methodology." Note that the valuation makes no reduction for commission on sale, unpaid taxes, or liens against the property. Intended Use of the Appraisal The purpose of this appraisal is to provide the client, Cass General Partnership, LLP, with information about the subject land value and the value associated with its Transferable Development Rights. The client will use these values for tax planning purposes. The intended user of this report is the client, Cass General Partnership, LLP. Scope of Work To complete this assignment, the following steps were taken by the appraisers: 1. Inspection of the property; 2. Data collection from the owner; 3. Public data was collected from the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, Pitkin County Treasurers Office, and the Pitkin County Planning Department; 4. Direct sales comparison steps taken included data collection from the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, Pitkin County Multiple Listing Service, and discussions with local participants in the market. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 20 d The State of Colorado does not require disclosure of sales prices, the terms of sale, or mortgage details in public records. Moreover, privacy legislation precludes lenders from revealing the mortgage terms without the written permission of the borrower. The appraisers have accumulated the market data contained in this report over a period of several years, from a variety of sources that are believed to be reliable. Personal Property Land: This appraisal analysis and the conclusion of value pertain specifically to the subject's real property elements. No personal property has been included. Transferable Development Rights: "Transferable Development Rights' (TDRs) are an interest in real property only as long as they are attached to the land. When they are sold, they become personal property, becoming real property again when they are attached to another tract of land. In the case of the subject, the three TDRs are currently under contract for sale and are considered personal property. Date of Value The effective date of this appraisal analysis is May 18, 2005. Date of Final Inspection The subject property was inspected on May 18, 2005. Propert~Ri hg; is Appraised Based on the likely ownership profile of the subject under its highest and best use, the property interests in the subject's land component represent a fee simple interest. The fee simple interest in the subject property is defined as follows: Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the government powers o taxation, eminent domain, police pozoer, and escheat. (Dictionary of Real Estate Fourth Edition) Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 21 d Expos_ ur` The appraisers have examined the average length of time for comparable properties in the subject market area, and have determined that the average time in which these properties were exposed to the market was 12 months. Marketing T Given the existing market information from an historic perspective, as well as the thelcsub ed supoplertine tf theeconcluded etaluge of thistapprainprawoulderequireaa 1 p p Y marketing time of 12 months or less. Consideration of Market Value "As Is" Based on requirements under USPAP (Supplemental Standards Rule, Statement on Appraisal Standards No. 10), the "as is° value of the subject has been concluded as part of this appraisal assignment. The "as is' valuation considers the value of the subject land component as it presently exists without any development encumbrances, under the hypothetical conditions applied, and subject to current zoning in effect, and it is concluded to be $4,300,000. The "as is" value of the subject's Transferable Development Rights is concluded to be within the range of $690,000 to $720,000. 22 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado tl PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Location: Unincorporated Pitkin County Legal Description: Section 7, Township 10, Range 84, Lot 26 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Current Ownership: Cass General Partnership, LLP Sales History: The current owners purchased the subject on February 17, 2004 for $550,000. At the time of purchase, the subject parcel was landlocked, with no vehicular access and virtually no development potential. The former owner had tried unsuccessfully to gain access by private condemnation through several adjacent properties. After several years of unsuccessful litigation against the adjacent property owners, including Pitkin County, the owner gave the parcel to his spouse, who decided to sell the parcel rather than continue litigation for access that would be costly, lengthy, and uncertain at best. The adjacent landowners have significant monetary resources, and were prepared to fight any litigation for the near future. Since the purchase on February 17, 2004, an easement access has been obtained through an adjacent property located at 709 North Spruce Steet, forestalling the need for any further condemnation action. By virtue of the newly acquired access, the highest and best use significantly changed from a limited recreational use parcel to a premium quality residential home site. This has maximized its use and appeal so the parcel may fully realize its development potential, increasing its value substantially. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 23 d Considering the recently acquired access, the difference in the price paid in February 2004 and the concluded value in this report is understandable, reasonable, and supported by the market. There were no other transactions involving the subject property for the three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal according to the Pitkin County Assessor's office. The ownership of the subject is scheduled to be transferred to the City of Aspen on May 31, 2005 through Special Warranty Deed. In terms of compensation for the property, the City will give the current owners (Cass General Partnership, LLP) three Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). These three TDRs are currently under contract for sale to Fox Crossing, LLC, for $705,000 and will be used to augment the existing development right on the Fox Crossing development site. The contract price of $705,000 for these three TDRs appears reasonable and supported by the market data. 24 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d SITE DESCRIPTION: Site Area: Street Surface / # Lanes: Shape: Topography: Utilities Water: Sewer, Electricity Gas Telephone +/- 9.586 Acres Gravel/two lanes Irregular Moderate to Steep Sloped Well Septic Holy Cross KN Energy Qwest with various long-distance providers Access: Average Land Use Restrictions: None Known Environmental Issues: None Known Flood Hazard: A small portion of the northwester corner of the property that lies along Hunter Creek may be located within a 100/ 500-year flood zone. Adjacent Uses: Residential and open space Site Improvements: There are currently no improvements to the site. 25 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d LOCATION MAP ,F:.~H~. ~.:, RFo ~ ~~~F q~~ Hqo O,QR~ q~Gy ~5 qq i ~d ~ ~ ~ 6`c~~TT @P nom, ~'QEOS RO ~Ra ~ < ~' ROARING FORK RD kx` ,ZV' FLOOD MAP irvE qE-- ~ZONE% } ~p Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 26 SITE MAP ae..~ P.,, ~~: O / .... _ / ProN~atl / Y.~! •erv / '' '/ _. r ~,-~~ ,,..,. aao~ ~ ~~ w ~ ~ NEIGHBORHOOD SUMMARY The subject is located north of the Aspen City limits in what is commonly know as the Hunter Valley Way or Spruce neighborhood. High-quality single-family residences on small to medium acre tracts of land dominate the area. The properties in this area range in price from approximately two million dollars to well over 15 million dollars. Hunter Creek runs north/south through the neighborhood and through the western portion of the subject site. The area is dominated by Smuggler Mountain to the east and Red Mountain to the north. Along with the residentially developed parcels, there is a significant amount of vacant land to the north and east, giving the area a sense of open space. The residents in this area enjoy a high level of privacy with most properties having gated access. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 2~ d EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS Easements and restrictions of record include typical access and utility easements. A current title policy was not requested for review. To the best of the appraisers' knowledge, there are no private restrictions that presently limit the economic use of the site. The appraisers cannot guarantee, however, that such restrictions do not exist. Deed restrictions are a legal matter, and only a title examination by an attorney or Title Company can identify such restrictive covenants. The owners are in the process of granting a conservation easement on the property that will virtually exhaust any potential future development on the site. This appraisal is made under the hypothetical condition that the conservation easement is not pending and the site may be developed to its highest and best use. SOIL CONDITION A detailed soil survey and engineer's report was not requested or provided for review. To the best of the appraisers' knowledge, there are no known soil or sub- soil conditions, potentially hazardous materials, or toxic waste problems that adversely affect economic use of the property - on or surrounding the site. We assume that the site may be developed to its highest and best use, providing proper planning, engineering, and construction practices are observed. ADVERSE CONDITIONS No apparent adverse conditions were observed during the inspection of the site. The subject is appraised as if none existed. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 2$ d ZONING In terms of the specific zoning of the subject, the site is zoned AFR-10, Agricultural/Forestry/Residential, by Pitkin County. The stated purpose of the district is as follows: Maintain the rural characters of lands proximate to development centers and State highways by preserving agricultural operations, wildlife hahitat, and scenic quality zuhile permitting lozu density, single family dwelling units and customary accessory uses. The uses by right in this district include single-family residences up to 15,000 square feet, as well as agricultural uses. This zoning district also has minimum lots sizes and set back requirements. The reader is directed to the development stipulations contained within the zoning ordinances for Pitkin County. SITE CONCLUSION The subject site is well positioned for development of a luxury, large single- family residence. The width, depth, and topography of the site, along with the surrounding infrastructure already in place make the site well suited for immediate development. The site has good valley and mountain views and there is a significant amount of aspen and pine trees on the property. Hunter Creek runs through the northwestern portion of the site as an additional amenity. The property is located in a neighborhood consisting of large estate homes with straightforward access to all shopping, entertainment, sports, and services offered in the City of Aspen approximately one mile or five minutes away by automobile. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 29 d Photographs of the subject property: Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 30 LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARDS SUBJECT (APPROXIMATE I'AKCEL BOUNDARY IN YELLOW) d Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 31 LOOKING EAST WITHIN PROPERTY LOOKING NORTHEAST WITHIN THE PROPERTY d Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 32 VIEWS WEST FROM PROPER"I~C PORTION OF HUNTER CREEK THROUGH rxurr;K rY d ~~~ ,: ~. ~ ,~ ~ + art, ka 'mss x~'a "es ~'' s. .:es. ,. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 33 VIEWS OF AJAX MOUNTAIN (ASPEN SKl AKt;A) rxvm rnvrcnr r VIEWS OF BUTTERMILK SKI AREA FROM PROPERTY d 11V1 C1C1Vll vicvv Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 34 INTERILIR vit;w t,uunuvu i~vi.ir. d The subject property is located adjacent north of the City of Aspen. Aspen is the county seat of Pitkin County, located in the central mountain region of Colorado. The following regional analysis of Aspen and Pitkin County are to assist the reader in understanding the economic, social, environmental and government factors that help to shape the market value of the subject. ROARING FORK REGIONAL ANALYSIS It is critical to recognize that many factors impact upon an individual property's valuation, and that paramount among these are those factors external to the property boundaries. Often referred to as the "four great forces", these factors are the physical, economic, governmental, and social forces that form the fabric upon which the property value is created, modified, or destroyed. An examination of the historical aspects which impact upon the current economic trends, as well as the current and future trends of the economy, business cycle, population, financing, and taxes, must be examined in terms of the immediate significance and impact upon property values. The subject property is located in Aspen, Colorado. This region of the Roaring Fork River Valley is typified by a mixture of old and new development along an east-west corridor formed by the Roaring Fork River and SH 82, centered on the City of Aspen. Economically, the valley is affected primarily by the growth occurring between Aspen and Glenwood Springs, which is composed of the southeast section of Garfield County, as well as Pitkin County and the extreme southwest portion of Eagle County. The area surrounding the subject is directly affected by these economic trends, which in turns directly affects the subject property. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 35 OVERVIEW Pitkin County was established and began its existence as a silver mining region in central Colorado in 1881. The county today is a major destination draw from both a national and international perspective. The City of Aspen in particular represents an internationally known resort for many years. This has created a significant economic phenomenon making the city the second most expensive real estate market in the entire country (based on a study in 2002). Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 36 PITKIN COUNTY REGIONAL ANALYSIS d PHYSICAL FACTORS Pitkin County is a resort county totaling ±925 square miles that is located in the mountain region of central Colorado, just west of the continental divide. Its rough dimensions run 54 miles east to west and 34 miles north to south at its widest margins. The climate is normally mild, except at higher elevations; elevations range from 6,625 feet in the Roaring Fork Valley to 14,259 feet atop Castle Peak. The county's physical features are dominated by the Roaring Fork River and its various tributaries. The predominant topographical features include steep mountain terrain, tree-covered lower mountains, and striking river valleys where the majority of the county's population resides. The county is dominated by mountain terrain and two large rivers: the Roaring Fork River and Crystal River. The valleys created by these two rivers have fostered spectacular mountain vistas and valleys where communities have developed. The predominant growth nodes have originated in the Roaring Fork Valley and its tributary creeks, Maroon and Castle Creeks. Pitkin County represents ayear-round destination resort centering on the City of Aspen. The county and city are destinations to the third largest number of skiers in Colorado. Aspen Mountain was developed in 1945 and hosted the FIS World Championships in 1950. Today it remains as one of the preeminent resort communities in the entire nation and one of the largest ski destinations in Colorado. The following table describes the trend in skiing for Pitkin County resorts, as compared to statewide and regional totals: Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado g~ d N,P.~e6pxa.w roL'a, e.c9e ~•z a,G52 <.,~3 I 1 ]`o .rag ,xe16 ',•a -2e 9etz AaWI6laYllbn Y~pA1. l'F_+95 ?3 _ HS.av. ~1_`d9 J-,• "• 21621 319,Se. .. s. I.U' 3 :eE C31 0urtaemik MOUrbio 19iA?6 -`FC tP9.lC9 "9 ]eF '.5P.L •a9 Cti 111' 9F a2 Crests BUm 53[1' tPE=G 5] 2G 516]SC Y6.3PC =9 iu.d± 39*_9a '.'.:192 H'+'9 32 P.1 a Cuvlura MOUMan t ~ IF.9. CM 3i' =9 lrp lY~ CR Pttanpo MO4n41n _'il$21° 3Yw3P 2J`.y2 3:9'Ch _sfJl[ 'll?G. =C:S'q _ 3E+39 HcvNUn Nlll IP.' 'i ]FS I'-9i P.~3C '<'vM I t! -C0'. 15~1P 'a [CO li.l:f SlNerlon OH ON JN.. „w CNC ON CN J'!O ]}e; 23'JC Smnnuz 31a,PY Ce 2dC LP, 'Ae.32C 3&1.]C6 -14: -T PJL 'aC 211 5Gf Pdfi'Ct ;o-i $lea 'J_'.>.' 3C9 .Gli L '.I[_" 1:5n 195 11.!_' '[l32" ?i '['Jl tl '.CIL'-:' iMlurlb 3CC.a9 ]C':ab _x 6' i5P,5P 33]9 '.1E3. eY ~O ?:C 25 "` WdfCmM v[a5 49 - 1'9"S 03,:6 =.2 ]" '3 "C '~9.da1 lea "ef' '".2T SU&TOTK ),i81.R6 1]RBa 3,60].099 3,6]6.W1 t.0I6J6i J,e]!%5 ;169.J]1 2.R6,9R 1]Y.ll6 9RL9N 951!10 MoiMe '3':' :9 Nr 11.'. DN :A~ CN ]N 0 ~.•! iN CN BeaaerCmY ©a.ft 53d,a'BT `Y N3 +t4p5t SP3.5:0 'a=q' S3GC _'w:.'9 ?.iX '3.353 '90 `R filmYenXJpe ',_IS,II 5359 '.3E, L3a-,!]_ 1]60963 ',a9g~~, '; M1-?P _133 ~ ,496,518 HCa,-] IW2]5` C ©pa RUnan ie::a p•3 i9'D< dJ1 R5 2+.'a' 3]2:IL pelpPe 'OL'.:ita tIN.J" '131.113 N ,]0535.- t:P2 P1 '9'i,`A ~ 1141? '.'5?,'? ".tF_.1F" ':3C •.OC '~60.'t• 1,113.34 G1<?3? Vvl `,1".96 t453N ',dSC,Cn: y9PC: I ei p] \331,43 ~. Ca50C: '.532.0_1 152dP' 155E 5'] N`nhr Pak '.%ti, 3PdQr 01[,RC 60t,aS I^.G'.' Pe0+C9 =d'6`. pg=a6 ".l4 dG9 T?] f51@IE SUB-iOTK 611]OK EIRl16 662J,411 49]!635 56A,960 6.J36,.]09 6300 M3 6.9f6]q 4113,P) 606).81! 6,S5i 301 MapaMa Bann .'S],a5 2..'a6 a X111 _ ~~1,T 5,69 'S.r aO _L 64~ ~i61C5 'S1~5iP 9i :IC1 !aCg 9Mkgtl Pau Or JJ9 CI! 7fJ .-h `C']I Idi' _p'd0 JNO CN p1C Elbva lMlnran 4.',[I! 'll [i9 ' :L_t;3 _F,'i' 23]111 SSC~.uIC 2PC,T_3 '_'4 =r.•< LowlanE ~.`:C"J .?d,ICG 3C'[f!' '. i5! ?N.52i AJ?E.. _'2d =l'e 5: '06.-9' .119[1 L]a Gl9 Mann 'S9.N `-01.v03 '30 Cir _x-32 w5]PC '4C9S 1':9C '36.6'C 14T N4 '41 F0.' PoaEpSOm P]_11 " 390 191% iPt lt' "B -4136 0=_.16 SkiC 9' d~ nJG 'A,' %.10~ ] '1` 9L." !q"^~ nP di3 y<pp .f'P StlVrs i3a 6]51- fi~:ll ] t['3W %l3J _al 'l hi] 05.dCC 591a Sunlipb Bd e5` 63?`] v F2 ^.1 1CC3Pf 'P: ~.6-': 3+'W 94F<C dl_i53 59,5`.C SUB-TOTILL 1165619 LI61 IM 11 5M IIJ356] 13A®5 L1M 15] 1122391 (.169080 1031231 1 OQ 11 131 T H,161.2]3 1t105,]O6 H~L105t I1.Mi.523 tt919.119 11,339,561 ID.®3)6] f18666R 1149,1]1 11805,]1 11.YI])1 NlcleaixMCreas Sl. 59.1 2H,95 a'u].1655 135.1 d90.1 d91. 1T4 dtl.Nt f]],L 151. ImeuNOeelea 0. -05] 3. Sa 10 lli' d93 d]). 1.11 d63% 1. 10 In addition to the ski industry, there are many area golf courses and upscale retail to augment the strong winter tourist draw. Today, the county benefits from a year-round tourist-based economy, much as do other Colorado mountain resort markets. CITY OF ASPEN Aspen, much as Vail and Breckenridge acts as a destination draw for this region of Colorado, based on its international reputation as a "world-class' ski resort. The effects of this cannot be overstated, based on the ripple effect the city has had on other communities in the Roaring Fork Valley. Physically, the town is 7,815 feet above sea level, and is located in the Roaring Fork River Valley. Its natural setting provides for world-famous skiing, as well as other recreational activities that make the area ayear-round resort destination. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 38 d _ ~ `° '- _ l- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s . ~ __ ' - ~_ _ ~ _, ~ a .. ` _- ~ s 2 AP ~ Mµ _ ~ ~ n ! ~ ~~ , ' d a. ' .. i • ~ j ~ ~ ~ C 4 t 1 p r . . ( . P y r j p .~ F z - ~ .. - " ~ A ~ ~ ro ~ e ~ I ~ { k ' L , y . ;~ ~~ . 4 ~ I I E ~ ~ h ~ ~A ~ ~ % , ~'_ ~'~ ^ Y At °y .. ~. - _~ _~ r i r 'a.: ~f, ~'° x r '.i.. The city, which is the county seat of Pitkin County, was a former silver mining town that was established in the late 1800's. Skiing was introduced in the 1950's and created over time a large regional draw. Today, Aspen ranks as one of the most popular ski resorts in the state. Combined, Aspen Mountain, Snowmass, Buttermilk, and Aspen Highlands form the 3rd largest ski resort area in the state for the 2003-2004 season, behind Breckenridge and Vail. Transportation Linkages Primary access to the area is from SH 82, which is a four lane state highway to the west of Aspen. The highway continues east of the city over Independence Pass and into the Upper Arkansas River Valley just south of Leadville, this route is closed during winter months. Independence Pass is the highest highway pass in the state at just over 12,000 feet. The pass is very narrow in certain spots and has a notorious reputation as a dangerous mountain thoroughfare. The primary linkage to other regions of the state is to the west, through the Roaring Fork River Valley and via SH 82. Glenwood Springs is located 40 miles west and provides linkage to I-70. I-70 is the primary east-west route through the entire state and links this region of Colorado with other mountain resort areas, as well as Grand Junction to the west and Denver to the east. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 39 tl Transportation to Aspen is also served by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA). The entity provides regular bus service to communities throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, including Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs. This service has provided some relief to the already heavy traffic problem along SH 82 between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Plans are underway to reconstruct rail service between these cities using the abandoned Colorado Midland Railroad right-of-way, which parallels SH 82. Other major linkages include the Aspen airport, Sardy Field, located west of the city. This airport represents one of 13 commercial service airports in the state (out of 79 public-use airports) and is the third busiest airport in terms of enplaned passengers (240,000 per year). There are over 40,000 takeoffs each year at this airport. A 1996 study on the economic impact of the airport concluded that it provided over $478 million to the local economy, and was vital to the nations overall air transportation system. The airport was founded in 1946 by the precursor to Aspen Airways. The airport was deeded to Pitkin County in 1956, and has operated as a county airfield ever since. A 17,500 square foot terminal was constructed in 1976. The runway is 7,004 feet long and the terminal was expanded to 37,500 square feet in 1987. Parking was expanded in 1999. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 40 d Regular commercial shuttle service flies in and out of the airport. Together with the Eagle County Regional Airport in adjacent Eagle County, the city is served by full time regular major commercial airline service. The Eagle County Regional Airport provides daily commercial air service via United, Northwest and American airlines. Aspen has grown along with the rest of Roaring Fork Valley communities. The following graph tracks the population growth in the four major regional communities since 1980: COMPARATIVE CENSUS TOTALS FOR ROARING FORK COMMUNITIES 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 r- / -- ~~i li 1980 1990 2000 2003(est) t Aspen ~ Basalt -~-Carbondale -F Glenwood Spgs The 2000 census indicated that there were 5,914 persons living in Aspen full time, an increase of 17.1% over the 1990 total of 5,049. This pace is expected to slow during the early years of this decade as growth shifts to down valley communities, where property values are lower. 2004 population estimates for Aspen and other Roaring Fork Valley communities support this conclusion. Given the regional draw of the area, Aspen represents the most expensive housing market in Colorado, outpacing all other resorts in the state by a wide margin. Aspen homes in 1999 cost 292% more than typical US housing stock, and are nearly double the next most expensive Colorado resort, Telluride. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 41 d The following chart tracks the average home prices in the Aspen market for since January 2000: Residential Property Trends $4,500 -- - --- - ------ - - ---------------- - ---- $4,000 __ ---- --- - c $3,000 - - - °c $2,500 ----- - - _ --- ----- ` - - ~ $2,000 - -- --- --- -- -- ---- x $1,500 ----- --- -- --- -. $1,000 _ - ----- ----- - $500 - _ - -- - - - '- __ ~ - $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 -~ SF Condo -} SF Lot Although the average price of single family lots fell for this period, please note that this covered a very small total of the sold single family lots in the entire market. When lot sales from outlying areas of Aspen are included, the average sold price for residential lots increased for this period. What is clear from the data is that single family home prices have more than recovered from the dip in the market seen after 2001. This is expected to continue for the near future, as the factors of supply and demand generate upward pressure on housing prices. The average daily population in Aspen is over 20,000 persons, although 48% of the county's population resides in unincorporated areas, due to the extreme cost of housing. This has created a "down-valley' effect, where employees of Aspen area businesses must often live in less expensive communities as far away as Rifle and Silt. This has also created a heavy burden on SH 82, the primary transportation route in the region. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 42 d While Aspen enjoyed a robust growth rate of over 25% between 1990 and 2000, areas like Basalt/El Jebel and Carbondale exploded in terms of new residents, with rates of over 450% and 70% respectively for the same period. As this trend continues, these other communities are faced with the same growth restriction issues and increasing housing prices. In Aspen, single homes sales for 2002 averaged $3.6 million, essentially unchanged from the $3.5 million posted for 2001. The average sale price in 2003 climbed to just over $4.0 million. This data was generated internally at RMVS and has not yet been updated for 2004. Additional insight may be provided by a report by Land Title for Pitkin County residential sales that shows: • The increase in the average price per residence from 2003 to 2004 was 28.88%. • Dollar volume of sales increased almost $65,000,000 from 2003 to 2004. • For the first three months of 2005, total dollar volume of sales is $142,000,000 over all of 2004. • If the trend witnessed in the first three months of 2005 continues, Pitkin County would see a total dollar volume of sales exceeding $1,600,000,000 or 6.7 times the total dollar volume of 2003. This indicates that the recovery from the events of 2001 is well underway. DOWN VALLEY EFFECT The demand for housing, reflected in increasing average home prices, illustrates the "down valley domino effect. Geographically, the growth plume for this region has been determined by geography, where communities have developed along two major river basins. The Roaring Fork River, which begins east of Aspen near Independence Pass, travels west, creating a river valley that has been settled for over 100 years and is currently undergoing significant development. The growth has centered around major communities, which followed the railroad routes through the region (which in turn followed the river beds). Aspen has been a major ski resort for over 50 years. Before this, Aspen was a silver mining community, and was a terminal for the Colorado Midland Railroad, which transported silver out of the region. It has been the catalyst for the current economic boom the valley has seen since the 1970's. A "world-class' resort, central Aspen currently averages over $4,000,000 per home in terms of resale activity, fueled by external resort demand factors. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 43 15 miles west and located at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan rivers, the town of Basalt (and the unincorporated community of EI Jebel to the west) was incorporated in 1901, and was a railroad division point for the Midland Railroad. The railroad failed in 1918 when World War 1 and the collapse in silver made mining in the region unfeasible. Basalt became a typical post-boom mountain community for much of the first half of the 20th century, until the explosive growth in skiing created a growth plume originating from Aspen to the east. Today Basalt is more than a stop over between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. The town has a master plan for the middle valley region and currently is benefiting from the same demand factors that affect other Colorado resort communities. The development of a major golf course east of town, as well as the commercial development occurring south of the down town district, and has revitalized Basalt. Major residential development, such as Willits, is currently attempting to catch up with the housing demand generated by the economic growth in the region. Likewise, Carbondale has benefited from its mid-valley location and the domino effect. Carbondale benefits from its location at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Rivers, and the resulting wide valley basin. Large residential communities, such as Aspen Glen and River Valley Ranch, have helped Carbondale to follow Basalt in terms of average housing price appreciation. The development of several large golf courses has only strengthened the economic base of this town. Glenwood Springs, the county seat of Garfield County, has benefited from both the down valley effect, as well as its own important location at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and the Colorado Rivers. The city, which is the largest between Denver and Grand Junction, marks the termination of the Roaring Fork River Valley and the beginning of the lower Colorado River drainage basin. West of Glenwood Springs is New Castle, a small town that is currently the focus of significant growth from several large subdivisions. The small downtown commercial district is now augmented by a retail center at the I-70 interchange. This new commercial center includes a City Market grocery store and several convenience retail stores that serve both highway and local patrons. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado ~ d West of New Castle is the Town of Silt, a former railroad stop that is located in the Cactus Valley, an agricultural area along the Colorado River. Silt is slated for major development with the proposed Stillwater development, a 1,200 unit residential development located south of the downtown. Rifle is the second largest city in Garfield County and is located 30 miles west of Glenwood Springs and seven miles west of Silt. Rifle has a growing retail commercial district located at its interchange with I-70 that includes a Wal-Mart. The county airport is also located east of the city. The town of Parachute represents the western terminus of this market. Formerly the focus of oil shale activity during the 1980's, Parachute today is a regional center and includes Battlement Mesa, a retirement community that began during the 1970's as an oil shale-spawned residential development. Residential growth has clearly followed the down valley pattern of lower housing prices as one travels west. Currently, the town of Parachute and city of Rifle enjoy the most affordable housing in the region. The following chart described the trend in housing prices in the Roaring Fork and lower Colorado River basins, using the average residential unit sold price for 2003-2004 as the basis of comparison: Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 45 d "Down Valley' Effect Based on 2003-2004 Average SF Home Sales, Aspen to Parachute e l ~ ~~ ~*~;~~ ~x ~-~ ~ , a~ ~t, d = ~ -- ~' r' `Y~ 1 t ' : r ~.~? ' eian~cC ~i~~~ ~ NEW CASTLE ! ~ 1 ~+ ~ SILT/R[FLE `~ $262,185 ,.~ ,f~ v~~, t. _ ._ _._.. $222,002 ~'~'..,~: i ale PARACHU'T'E ` ~ 1 $129,298 ~. ~ ~. ~.>u, a a,i - ~ ~ ~ eNaral Pi 9M1aea rve 511 i `~~ JPnngS_ ;(~ !" y ~ ~. lixrs h 1 ~ 1 d ddP ~ F F _ ~~ y~-" n„1, GLENWOOD SPGS ,x t $245 612 ~ ~ ~ ~ i 3s R ~ ~ r ~ emena 1 [ i Fei ~e r'F c ,~~- 'f3i~tF ~, r~.q- t 1#...- ,~, =~ t ~-- ~--•eas~l~ ; ne a&m: ~r u ~ ~ ~~ ,- -=.e~e~ ~. CARBONDALE - ~'il, ~I e t t. $474,232 ~.£~:>`.. __ BASALT r M_fe"e~ }J „ems ~a, - "t $532 202 ~ ;. 2 r q sqk a ~^I ~ ~ ~ s nape .! 22`~x. a a3i-` , • rrt ina r ~~ `' P ~ Fa ann~` < r`~ts. ^q x..;p ~ ia" ~ "~',~- • ,>_ ..~ A 'i ~,~~ x -- ASPEN ~ a ~ ~".S ~ 6 ` as ~ a 'f f ~tG1 $4'007'907 cy E~ !11 P F"~~F ~{ ~ :~~ + ~(~ ~ *~ F ~ +w, .1'. a ~ C SN 5 ~ ~ [' ,. ~Y . - ~ a Peal. Applicability to the Subject Given these market trend factors, the subject should benefit from the following market attributes: -Strong location in exclusive Aspen market - Adequate urban infrastructure and services in close proximity -Demand outpacing limned supply for multi family and lodging product in this market -Strong transportation linkages to the region Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 46 d HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS The analysis to determine a property's highest and best use of (1) as though vacant, and (2) as improved, include the following: 1. Physically Possible: the size, shape and topography affect the uses to which land may be developed. The utility of a parcel is dependent on its frontage and depth. Sites with irregular shapes may be more expensive to develop, and topography or subsoil conditions may make utilization too costly or restrictive. Highest and best use as improved also depends on physical characteristics such as condition and utility. 2. Financially Feasible: The use of the property is analyzed to make a determination as to the likelihood that the property is capable of producing a return which is greater than the combined income needed to satisfy operating expenses, debt service, and capital amortization. Any use that is expected to produce a positive return is classified as financially feasible. 3. Legally Permissible: A legally permissible use is determined primarily by current zoning regulations. However, other considerations such as long-term leases, deed restrictions, and environmental regulations may preclude some possible highest and best uses. 4. Maximally Productive: The use that provides the highest rate of return among financially feasible uses is the highest and best use. The use of the land must yield a profitable net return, and the quantity of land devoted to any specific use must be limited to that quantity which will yield a maximum return to each owner. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 47 d Highest and Best Use Evaluation "As Is" (Vacant): Relatively straightforward is the first test of highest and best use -that of physically possible potential uses. The site's physical attributes are sufficient to support a residential site, based on location and physical attributes. A commercial or industrial use is out of the question, given the location away from supportive infrastructure and urban development. In addition, the traffic pattern is primarily one-way toward the city. A commercial use dependent on traffic volume or visibility would not be supported. An agricultural use or recreational use would also be supportable based on the physical attributes. Surrounding uses include an open space park and luxury single-family residences in the $5,000,000 to well over $12,000,000 price range. Legally permissible uses are influenced by both the current zoning in place and subdivision development policy. Clearly, the current zoning supports uses that maintain the rural character of the area, including aloes- density residential use, agricultural uses, and recreational uses. The parcel configuration of the subject provides for a specific residential development potential, given the exemption in such cases. The allowable uses are therefore limited to individual residential development, agricultural uses and recreational uses. The current AFR-10 zoning allows for single-family residences with a floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately 6,000 square feet. However, many developers in the area have petitioned for, and have received, FAR allowances of up to 15,000 square feet within this zoning district. In either case, a potential luxury residence should without difficulty fall within the $8,000,000 to over $12,000,000 price range. The third test of highest and best use is financial feasibility. Most residential uses tend to be feasible, based on the significant price points achieved in this market. Financially, alarge-scale luxury residence best supports the land value. A large-scale luxury residential use would clearly out produce the agricultural use and any recreational use. Based on these parameters, the highest and best use of the subject "as is° would be as a luxury residential development. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 48 Current appraisal standards recognize value. These are identified as the Comparison, and Cost Approaches. three basic approaches to real estate Income Capitalization, Direct Sales The Income Capitalization Approach measures value by capitalization of the net income from the real estate. The potential gross income is first estimated based on data derived directly from the market. Deductions are then made for vacancy and collection loss, and normal operating expenses. The resulting net income figure is then converted to a value estimate by any one of several capitalization methods. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach is based on comparison between the subject property and similar properties which sold within a reasonable period prior to the date of appraisal, and which are capable of providing insight into the valuation of the subject property. Units of comparison are examined and developed and after making the appropriate adjustment for differences such as location and physical characteristics, are then applied to the subject to derive an indication of value. Critical in this valuation methodology, is the availability of sufficient market comparables with which to make valid comparisons. The Cost Approach to value is developed by two fundamental opinions: the value of the land and the value of the improvements to the land. Initially, the current fair market value of the land is estimated as if unimproved and capable of being put to its highest and best use. The reproduction or replacement cost new of the improvements, less any accrued depreciation, is then added, along with any contributory value of the site improvements. The validity of the resulting value estimate is impacted to varying degrees by the accuracy of the cost estimates and the depreciation estimate. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 49 d ...,, ,,..._ .-~• . COST APPROACH The Cost Approach is widely used by many appraisers because its application is relatively uniform. Its proper use can provide appropriate support to the market and income approaches to value. The application of the cost approach begins with a determination of the site value, calculates a replacement cost for the improvements, calculates and deducts the impact of all forms of depreciation, resulting in a depreciated replacement cost. This depreciated figure is added to the site value, for a concluded cost value determination. The subject property represents a vacant land parcel and associated development rights. The only applicable approach in the valuation of the subject property is the direct sales comparison approach. The cost approach was ultimately determined to be inapplicable to the valuation of the subject property. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 50 d The Direct Sales Comparison Approach to value involves direct comparisons of the property being appraised to similar properties that transacted in the same or similar market in order to derive a market value indication for the property being appraised. This approach rests on the principle of substitution, which states that no commodity has a value greater than that for which a similar commodity -offering similar uses, utility and function -can be purchased within reasonable time limits that the buyer's market demands. In other words, the market value of a property is set by the price of acquiring a substitute property that could provide the owner with similar and competitive utility characteristics. The principle of substitution is critical in all three of the approaches to value, as it provides a critical relationship in the rationale of their applicability to questions of value. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach will be used exclusively to value the two components of the subject; the land itself, and the "Transferable Development Rights' (TDRs). The first part of this section will address the land component of the subject. The second part will address the three TDRs associated with the land and that are currently under contract for sale to a third party for $705,000 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 51 d Part 1 -Land Component Current analysis provides a variety of market data as a basis for the comparison process. The factors to be considered in a direct sales comparison are referred to as elements of comparison. These four major adjustment factors include the following: 1. Time of Sale 2. Location of Sale Property 3. Physical Characteristics 4. Conditions of Sale Based on trends within the subject market area of Aspen, the appraisers have determined that the unit of comparison most applicable to subject's land component is the price per acre of vacant land. The land sales analyzed within this approach were all considered to be of similar quality and scale in comparison to the subject. Selection of Comparable Sales: The following selection criteria were used: 1. Sale Period: 2000 -Present. 2. Location /Neighborhood: Aspen and surrounding areas. 3. Highest and Best Use: Luxury Single Family Development. 4. Physical Attributes: Larger scale single-family home sites. Sale Collection Results The comparable sales search revealed 21 sales that occurred in the subject market area. The search was then narrowed down to sales that were considered most similar to the proposed subject improvements. The following sales represent the best available from the market to determine the subject's market potential under this valuation approach. While some are better marketplace examples, the appraisers believe that they represent sufficient comparability to draw a sound market-based conclusion for the subject. The selected comparable sales are presented on the following pages. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 52 d Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 53 d Address: Lot A -East Highway 82 Site Area: 3.93 Acres Zoning: AFR-10 Sale Date: 08/20/01 Sale Price & Terms: $2,050,000 /Cash Sale Price/Acre: $521,628 Verification: Broker/County Comments: This sale is located approximately four miles southeast of the subject in the Cooper subdivision close to Highway 82. This parcel features extreme privacy with a stream on the property and borders to national forest. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 54 d COMPARABLE SALE #3 Address: 993 Moore Drive Site Area: 5.82 Acres Zoning: Single Family Sale Date: 09/30/03 Sale Price & Terms: $3,050,000 /Cash Sale Price/Acre: $524,055 Verification: Broker/County Comments: This sale is located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the subject in the Five Trees neighborhood. The parcel is adjacent to a conservation easement. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 55 d Site Area: 9.4 Acres Zoning: SF Sale Date: 10/09/02 Sale Price & Terms: $2,250,000 /Cash Sale Price/Acre: $239,361 Verification: Broker/County Comments: This sale is located approximately six miles northwest of the subject in the Woody Creek area. The parcel is gated with a horse pasture, pond and stream on site. Overall, this sale is inferior to the subject in terms of its location in Woody Creek, which is inferior to the subject's location to 56 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado ~---- Address: 31037 Highway 82 d COMPARABLE SALE #5 Address: TBD White Horse Springs Site Area: 7.82 Acres Zoning: AFR-10 Sale Date: 06/03/02 Sale Price & Terms: $2,000,000 /Cash Sale Price/Acre: $255,754 Verification: Broker/County Comments: This sale is located approximately three miles northwest of the subject in the Stanwood/White Horse Springs neighborhood. The parcel has good surrounding views and has all utilities available to the site. ??? 57 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d COMPARABLE SALE #6 Address: 880 Pine Crest Drive -Snowmass Village Site Area: Zoning: Sale Date: Sale Price & Terms: Sale Price/Acre: Verification: 5.66 Acres PUD 03/01/05 $2,885,000 /Cash $509,717 Broker/County Comments: This sale is located in Snowmass Village at the upper end of Pine Crest Drive. All utilities are readily available to the site. The site has excellent surrounding views and has ski in/ski out access. ??? explain? 58 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado COMPARABLE SALE LOCATION MAP _ 1 -^--~ 1 L~~-~., ,. Woo ~:~erk % 1 `N ,~.- J~ I SALE #4 \~ Z f; r r SALE #5 ~ %-~~ ~, 7 ~ r 1 ~ ~ SALE #6 1 81615 SALE#1 SVBJECT 1 Suowm.YS ' lage ~ ~/ • ` az A5 en 8Y61Y l I ~ P i i 1 1 ~ -~ SALE #3 ~ SALE #2 1 J _ f- ~-,~J SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE DATA Land Sale Overall Sale Zonin Size Sale Price Price/Ac Compazability No. Location Date B (acres) Similar Location Similar Views W. Buttermilk 08/03 SF 5.28 $1,625,000 $307,765 Inferior Amenities 1 Road Overall Inferior _ __ -__ - - --- --- Similar Location Superior Views 2 Lot A Hwy 82 OS/Ol AFR-10 3.93 $2,050,000 $521,628 Superior Amenities _ Overall Superior - --- - Similar Location Similar Views 3 993 Moore 09/03 SF 5.82 $3,050,000 $524,055 Superior Amenities Drive Overall Superior --- -- Inferior Location Inferior Views 4 31037 Hwy 82 10/02 SF 9.4 $2,250,000 $239,361 Similar Amenities Overall Inferior __ - -- - - Inferior Location Similar Views 5 White Horse 06/02 AFR-10 7.82 $2,000,000 $255,754 Inferior Amenities Springs Overall Inferior - -- -- Inferior Location Similaz Views 6 880 Pine Crest 03/05 PUD 5.66 $2,885,000 $509,77.7 Superior Amenities Drive Overall Su erior AFR- 9.3i ------ ----- ----- S Hwlter Creek --- 10 59 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d Comparability Analysis Analysis of the assembled sale data was predicated on discerning which of the various differences in physical, economic and locational characteristics impact upon value. Property Rights Conveyed: All sales were determined to be fee simple estates. Cash Equivalency: All of the sales were for cash, or for terms, which netted cash to the seller. A review of the available county records pertaining to the foregoing sales did not reveal atypical financing which required consideration for cash equivalency. Conditions of Sale: An examination of the comparable sales did not reveal any atypical conditions of sale that would affect the reported sale price. Market Conditions: The appraisers have examined the market for recent vacant sales in an effort to determine if general market conditions, as expressed by changes in relative price levels, has changed during the time period in which the first sale included as a comparable occurred to the effective date of the appraisal. Data included in this analysis was obtained from the Pitkin County Board of Realtors, Data Research Associates, a recent survey by The Valex Group, Inc, and appraiser file data. An analysis of the data provided contradictory results, given that each sale sample included different inputs. Depending on the source, vacant land sales showed moderate increases in relative pricing between 2001 and the effective date of the appraisal. The appraisers did not merely rely on general housing survey indices, but additionally examined the sales of properties determined to be most similar to the subject project. These properties also showed moderate pricing gains of less than 5% annually. Expenditures Made After Sale: There were no disclosed expenditures made after the sales that had any impact in the sales prices. 60 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d Location: All of the sales analyzed were located within the Aspen market area and provide alternative developmental opportunities on which similar highest and best use development could occur. All of the sales chosen were outside the Aspen "central core" market and were therefore similar to the subject in this respect. Sales #4, #5, and #5 are located in areas that support multi-million dollar housing, but are less desirable locations that are further from Aspen's central core. Parcel Size: The subject is +/-9.5 acres, which is considered moderate for this market. The comparable sales ranged in size from approximately four acres to ±9.5 acres. Price per acre within this size range appeared to show no clear discounts or premiums. All sales were similar to the subject in this respect. Views: Premiums are paid for parcels that posses panoramic views. Sales #1, #3, #5, and #6 have similar views as the subject property include those of Ajax Mountain (Aspen Ski Area) and/or Buttermilk. Sale #2 has superior views that include Independence Pass and the Roaring Fork Valley. Sale #4 has inferior views down valley from Aspen. Topography: All sales, along with the subject, have gentle to steep sloping and have available for immediate development at least one-half of the parcel. Amenities (trees, river frontage, ski access): A premium is paid for treed parcels in this market. Along with the visual aspects of treed parcels, there is a desirable privacy element inherent in parcels that are heavily treed. Premiums are also paid for amenities such as river frontage and ski access. The subject possesses several desirable amenities that include some river frontage along Hunter Creek and moderate tree coverage, considered superior to sales #1 and #5. Sale #2 is heavily treed along with river considered superior to the subject. frontage with the Roaring Fork River, Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 61 d Sale #3 has superior amenities in comparison to the subject that include heavy tree coverage and ski area access. Sale #4 has similar river frontage as the subject along with similar tree coverage. Sale #6 has superior ski in/ski out access and superior tree coverage. Conclusion All sales had attributes inferior, similar, and/or superior to the subject. ??? There was no clear "best" sale to compare with the subject. The appraisers therefore considered the entire dataset in determining the subject's position within this market. The subject possesses good site attributes that include superior views, some river frontage, and a moderately treed lot. In consideration of these factors, the market indicates a unit value near the upper end of the range at $450,000 per acre. Applying the subject's area of 9.586 acres indicates a value of $4,313,700, Rounded to $4,300,000 Concluded Unit Value $450,000 Subject Size (Acres) 9.586 Concluded Land Value $4,313,700 Rounded $4,300,000 INDICATED VALUE VIA THE DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH: Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 62 d Part 2 -Transferable Development Rights (TDR) This section will address the Transferable subject's land component. Development Rights associated with the Definition: Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), sometimes referred to as severable use rights (SURs), emerged in the real estate industry during the 1970's. A Transferable Development Right is a development right that is separated from a landowner's bundle of rights and transferred, generally by sale, to another landowner in another location. Some TDRs preserve property uses for agricultural production, open space, or historical uses. In this arrangement, a preservation district and a development district are identified. Landowners in the preservation district are assigned development rights, which they cannot use to develop their own land but can sell to landowners in the development district. These landowners can use the transferred rights to build at higher densities than zoning laws in the development district would normally permit. Pitkin County TDR Overview: In 1987, when Pitkin County completed the Doeon Valley Comprehensive Plan, the County did not envision the type of accelerated, large-scale development pressures that it would experience in the backcountry. By 1994, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) was ready to adopt zoning that would acknowledge that the backcountry was different from the rest of the County, in terms of character and in terms of County services that could and/or should be available. The Rural/Remote Zone District was born. Moreover, from the Rural/Remote Zone District, the TDR (Transferable Development Right) program was born. The County's TDR program was originally adopted to encourage the relocation of development from the backcountry to areas closer to existing services and infrastructure. The program has since been expanded to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and to discourage development in environmentally hazardous areas. 63 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d What is a Preservation Site? • A Preservation Site is a lot/ parcel of land from which development rights are severed and transferred. The Preservation Site is deed restricted against further development. • Any legally created lot/parcel within the R/R, TR-1, or TR-2 Zone Districts may be a "Preservation Site'. • A "constrained site" not within the R/ R Zone District may also be determined to be a "Preservation Site '. How many TDRs can be obtained from a Preservation Site? 1. Rural/Remote Preservation Sites: There is one TDR for every 35 acres of land within an R/R or TR-1 Preservation Site. A legally created parcel greater than 1 acre, but less than 35 acres also has one TDR available. cxam ~e: Size of RuraURemote (R/Rj or Number of TDRs Contained Within Transitional Residential-1 (TR-1) Parcel Parcel Acres 1-69.9 1 70-104.9 2 105-139.9 3 Rural/Remote or TR-1 property less than 1 acre in size may also qualify for one TDR, if certain criteria are met. 2. TR-2 Preservation Sites: There is one TDR for every 10 acres of land within a TR-2 Preservation Site. A legally created parcel containing less than 10 acres also has one TDR available. cxam ~e: Size of Transitional Residential-2 (TR-2) LodParcel (Acres) Number of TDRs Contained Within Lot/Parcel 1-19.9 1 20-29.9 z 30-39.9 3 3. "Constrained Site' Preservation Sites: The BOCC may grant one or more TDRs for a "constrained site' not within the Rural/Remote Zone District. What is a Receiver Site? • A Receiver Site is a lot/parcel of land within Pitkin County to which development rights are transferred from a Preservation Site. • No specific Receiver Sites have been identified. However, Receiver Sites are limited to properties within unincorporated Pitkin County. • Properties within the TR-1 zone district may not be Receiver Sites for TDRs. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado ~ How can TDRs be used? 1. To Exceed the County's 15,000 Sq. Ft. Residential Floor Area Limitation. • Subject to a One-Step Special Review by the BOCC. • Each TDR used will be equivalent to 2,500 sq. ft. of floor area. • TDRs may not be used to exceed the Floor Area Ratio on a lot/parcel where the underlying Zone District dictates a house size of less than 15,000 sq. ft. • TDRs used to exceed the 15,000 sq. ft. limitation may only be transferred as follows: a) TDRs from a Preservation Site within the Rural Area may be transferred to a Receiver Site within: (i) the Urban Growth Boundary, or (ii) the same planning area as the Preservation Site (i.e., Snowmass/Capitol Creek, Woody Creek, Independence, or Maroon/Castle Creek). b) TDRs from a Preservation Site within the Crystal or Frying Pan River areas may be transferred to a Receiver Site within: (i) the Rural Area, or (ii) the same planning area as the Preservation Site. c~~+r, House Size Desired S . Ft Number of TDRs R uired 15 001-17,500 ~ 17 501-20,000 2 20,001-22, 500 3 2. To Obtain a GMQS Exemption for New Development (i.e., New Dwelling Units or Newly Created Lots). Subject to a One-Step Special Review by the BOCC. The number of TDRs required for exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) depends upon the size of the residence proposed. TDRs used for a GMQS exemption for new development may only be transferred as follows: a) TDRs from a Preservation Site within the Rural Area may be transferred to a Receiver Site within: (i) the Urban Growth Boundary, or (ii) the same planning area as the Preservation Site (i.e., Snowmass/Capitol Creek, Woody Creek, Independence, or Maroon/Castle Creek). b) TDRs from a Preservation Site within the Crystal or Frying Pan River areas may be transferred to a Receiver Site within: (i) the Rural Area, or (ii) the same planning area as the Preservation Site. Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado 65 3. To Obtain a GMQS Exemption for Additional Floor Area. Special Review approval is not required to utilize TDRs for additional floor area • up to 15,000 sq. ft. in County approved subdivisions. • A One-Step Spr area uvrt 15 000 sq. ftrongo nr lots/parcelsd to utilize TDRs for additional floo p exem tion depends upon the size of The number of TDRs required for a GMQS p the residence desired. TDRs from any Preser exem t on for additional floor areaeceiver Site within t e Rural Area as a GMQS p City of Aspen TDR Overview: ro ram, although at a ro ram is similar to the Cou of of only eight (8) TDRs The City of Aspens TDR p g much smaller scale. Historically, the City has had a p available to the public, which were exhausted in 2002. There were also no specific preservation or fferen e bet een the CountycandiCl ty TDRsastthat the County TDR basis. Another d grants a specific alTOwa~ed on a OCase byecase basis (generallyoallowmg 1,500 toe2,500 TDR allowance is square feet of additional floor area). A recently passed ordia elieible landowners who donate their land to the City, and/or new TDRs to be grante $ reservation grant an encuCmbrto c a n more control in directing new development and P finance as allowed the y g areas in and around the City. The subject property is the first project to implement t is new system. 66 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d Subject: The client is currentvioustsecton (9586 acrest in the Hunter Creek neighborhood) iThe described in the pre client will transfer ownership of the land to the City of Aspen. As compensation fort e land, the City will grant the client three TDRs. These three TDRs ax C ossing for $705,000~or $235,000rpe pTDR.dThesephree TDRsaw l project known as Fo allow an increase of 4,500 square feet of floor area to the present allowable density. Within this section, the appraisers will analyze sales of County and City TDRs to determine is this current contract price for the subject TDRs reasonable and market supportable. Sales Collection Results: Although there hae nbelatively little sales agtivntydfor t ese rights on the ope nmarket years, there has b Through discussese ri Vht are saving theme in anticipationof futureldemandpncreasing the owners of th g property values, and decreasing development districts. As previously discuns{hethWere exhaust d gn 2002RThe recently passedlordinan euwlill in the City of Aspe Y allow the City to create more of these rights and will increase the City's control of uture development. 67 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d The following sales information was obtained through discussions with area brokers and developers, Aspen MLS data, and discussions with the City of Aspen Planning Department: PITKIN COl Sale # # of Date TDRs 1 2 10/05/04 2 3 02/19/02 3 2 06/29/01 4 1 08/18/04 5 1 02/01/05 y 1 02/26/02 7 1 07/20/00 $ 1 Under Contract Auhiect 3 Under Contract Discussion and Conclusions: TTY/ASPEN TDR SALES Jurisdiction Price Price/'TDR $240,000 $179,000 $191,500 All TDR sales occurred within either County or City jurisdiction. The sales were verified by at least one broker or principal involved in the transaction. In some cases, the TDR(s) have not yet been applied to any particular development, but are being "saved" for potential future development. The following is a brief description of each sale: Sale #1: This sale involved two County TDRs that originated from the Frying Pan Mining District. These two rights were used to expand the development area of asingle-family development site in the Castle Creek area outside Aspen. Sale #2 This sale involved three County TDRs that originated from the Independence Pass District, the Hunter Creek District, and the Frying Pan District. According to the broker, the buyer still holds these rights for potential future development. Sale #3 This sale involved two County TDRs that originated from the Starwood neighborhood north of Aspen. According to conversations with the selling broker, Dennis Jung, these rights are still being held for future potential development. 68 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d Sale #4 This sale involved one County TDR from the Frying Pan Mining District. According to the broker, the right was transferred to an undisclosed single-family development site in the Basalt area. Sale #5 This sale involved one County TDR that originated from the Larkspur Mountain area outside Aspen. It was used on asingle-family development site in the Woody Creek area northwest of Aspen. Sale #6 This sale involved one City TDR that originated from the condominium conversion of the Smuggler Trailer Park. This TDR was purchased for $240,000 and subsequently applied to the Fox Crossing project north of Aspen. This same development property has the three subject TDRs under contract for $705,000. Sale #7 Like sale #6, this sale involved one City TDR that also originated from the condominium conversion of the Smuggler Trailer Park. This TDR was subsequently applied to the Witz property north of Aspen. Sale #S This comparable is currently under contract and has not yet closed. Discussions with area developer Bill Stirling, along with discussions with the Aspen Planning Department, indicated that this sale involves a TDR from the Starwood neighborhood. However, it was not clear on what property this TDR would land. 69 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d Conclusion: In analyzing the comparable TDR sales, one major comparison factor drives the sales prices. It is the location of the "preservation district" where the TDR was granted. There is an apparent correlation between the sales price per TDR and its proximity to Aspen, which has some of the most prohibitive development guidelines and regulations in the state. In analyzing the locational attributes of each of the sales, sales #1, #4 and #5 were least comparable to the subject in terms of proximity to Aspen. These sales were located more towards the Basalt and Frying Pan development districts northwest of Aspen - less desirable locations than the subject's was. The remaining sales were all located close to Aspen or within the same general area. Although Sale #7 is close to the subject, it is the oldest sale and the buyer indicated that the seller was less knowledgeable of the TDR market due to the scarcity of sales at that time. The remaining sales (#2, #3, #6), along with the TDR under contract in the Starwood neighborhood, provide the best indication of value for the subject's three TDRs. These remaining sales were sold (or under contract) at a price range of $200,000 to $245,000. The subject's three TDRs are currently under contract for $235,000 apiece, or $705,000 total. This contract price appears reasonable and supportable by the market. This analysis justifies a narrow range of value for the subject between $230,000 and $240,000. TDR Unit Value $230,000 to $240,000 X Number of TDRs 3 Concluded Aggregate TDR Value $720 OOOto 70 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d This approach to value is predicated on the premise that the property is designed to return a flow of income to the owner when properly developed. The theory of the income approach advocates that the value of the property is the present worth of the net income it will produce during the remainder of its economic life. An investor or perspective purchaser should consider the income producing ability of the property and the expected return on his investment. The income approach measures market value by determining the price that open market conditions would justify paying for a particular property's net income stream. This is specifically accomplished for an appraisal by discounting the property's projected net income into present value by use of a capitalization rate derived from sales of comparable properties. The property's net operating income is the key term. The subject property is a vacant land parcel and it's associated TDRs. The only applicable approach in the valuation of the subject property is the direct sales comparison approach. The income approach is inapplicable to the valuation of the subject property or the entitlement rights. 71 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado d The pertinent approaches to value have been extensively detailed in this appraisal analysis. A summary of the conclusions of each of these individual approaches indicates the following: Cost Approach -The cost of reproducing or replacing the subject property, less depreciation from all sources, plus the NOT APPLICABLE land value as determined throu h market com arison. Direct Sales Comparison Approach -The value as $ 4,300,000 -Land indicated by recent sales of comparable properties, as adjusted to account for all differences in physical, location $690,000 - $720,000 - 3 TDRs and economic characteristics. Income Approach -The z~nlue which can be bapporte pon NOT APPLICABLE the property's net earning capacity, I ~~,,;+nli~ntinn of the net income imputable to tlu' r ert . Summary and Conclusion The only applicable approach in the valuation of the subject components is the direct sales comparison approach. Both the cost approach and the income approach are inapplicable to the valuation of the subject property. The data contained within the direct sales comparison approach was sufficient in which to demonstrate the factors that inherently relate to value. All of the sales were recent and possessed overall similar attributes, as well development potential. As the only approach applicable, the final opinion of value is afforded entirely to this approach. Ap,~raisa~~!1Se InterestAynra~sed Date of Value ValueValue C Fee Simple O5 8 OS $4,300,000 As is ~ / Personal Property $690,000- As Is 05/18/05 $720,000 Enfitlen~ent 72 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado Reconciliation and Final Concluded Value d APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS 73 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado e cR A Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa Graduated with honors in 1971 B. S. Degree in Business Administration B. S. Degree in Psychology 2. University of South Dakota, Vermillion S.D. Masters Level Work -Psychology ~a-.~~a~r ;n last three years: Eminent Domain Law Basics for ROW Professionals #803 Land Tides #801 Land Acquisition Volume 8-Appraising Partial Acquisitions Federal & State Laws 021.809BR Real Estate 092.517 Overview of Opportunities in Corp. The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions #401 Feasibility Analysis, Market Value & Investment Timing Ethics & the Right of W ay Profession #103 Principles of Real Estate Law #800 The Skills of Expert Testimony #214 Interpersonal Relations in Real Estate #202 Site to Do Business Hands on National USPAP Update #400 SRWA Review & Study Session Case Scudies in Acquisitions Analysis Advanced Studies in Marketing Analysis # 104.504 Scope of Work: Expanding Your Range of Services #C2390 Valuation of Detrimental Conditions in Real Estate Relocation Appraisal Training Program Appraisal Institute Seminar; Summit 2004 Uniform Relocation Act Seminar Rethinking Urban Design & Planning April 23 6r 24, 2001 August 6 & 7, 2001 November 13 & 15, 2001 March 19, 2002 April 17, 2002 Apri122.26, 2002 May 3, 2002 July 18, 2002 August 7 & 8, 2002 September 20, 2002 February 26.28, 2003 May 12, 2003 May 13, 2003 July 24 & 25, 2003 September 15, 2003 January 24, 2004 February 20, 2004 June 18,2004 July 12, 2004 December 13.14, 2004 March 8, 2005 May 19, 2005 DNeted: --vage Break- ~SSO~'IATION/MEr~FRSHIPS _ - MAl #09141 - Member of the Appraisal Institute SRA- Senior Residential Appraiser - Member of the Appraisal Institute Certified Commercial Investment Member# 7610 - Conunercial Invesmment Real Estate Institu[e SR/WA#4963 -Senior Member of the International Right of Way Association Certified General Real Property Appraiser #CG01179, State of Iowa Certified General Real Property Appraiser #CG 920631, State of Nebraska Certified General Real Property Appraiser #230CG-2005, State of South Dakota Certified Geneml Real Property Appraiser #CG40042578, State of Colorado Iowa VA Approved Panel -Formerly approved in Arkansas for VA FHA approved Panel -Appraisal Past Board Member of the Siouxland Economic Development Council Past Member of the Affordable Housing Advisory Council for the Federal Home Loan Bank Past Member of the Sales Tax Financial Oversight Committee for the Sioux City School Board Member- Editorial Review Board for "The Journal of the Commercial Invesmient Real Estate Institute" Past Member of the Board of "The Center" for Assistance, Information and Direction for Sioux City Past Member and President of Big BrothersBig Sisters of Siouxland Past Member of [he YMCA Board of Directors EMPLOYMENT' HISTORY p g y 1971.77 Vocational Evaluator/W orkshop Dtrector in 3 ro rams for the men[all retarded, Licensed R. E. Broker, Davenport 6z Associates, and Staff Appraiser with Ritch LeGrand MAI, Sioux City, Iowa, 1977.1982 Independent Businessman, Fayetteville Arkansas, 1982.1984 Staff Appraiser with Mc Howard Scott MAI and Mc Larry Dowell RM, Fayetteville AR Ownec -Professional Property Appraisals, March 1986 to December 1988 Part Owner - Davenpott Appraisal Services January 1989 to December 1992 Owner -Appraisers/Consultants, Inc. January 1993 to 2004 Director-Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists 2005 T1 TT A T T TcT nF (':i.iFNTS CL11~i ~t'fl Arkansas Development and Finance Authority Bakakis Law Fim~; Berenstein, Vriezelaar, Moore, Moser & Tigges Law Firm Boatman's Bank of Sioux City City of Sioux City Crary Law Firm Coopers and Lybrand Accounting Federal Housing Authority First National Bank of Sioux City First Federal of Sioux City First National Bank of Sioux Center HUD Iowa Beef Processors Iowa Department of Natural Resources Lmnberman s Investment Corporation of Austin Texas Margolin Law Finn; M.G.LC Nebraska Economic Development Corporation Nebraska Department of Natural Resources Norwest Financial Services, Inc Norwes[ Mortgage Appraiser #9218 Numerous private parties, real estate experts and agents Resolution Trust Corporation Security National Bank Siouxland Economic Developmen[ Corporation Terra [ntemational Veterans Administration ` _ _ ~rmatted: My Big Heading, LeR TL v Summary of T itieations: o~~a: ¶ Al/20/00 _ _Trial - St )udes Hospital land, 69" & Louise Avenue, Sioux Falls, SD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -' " St. Judes Children Research Hospital VS Ted J Thonvs & Greg J Kaschmitter Ol/OS/O1 Craig G. Probasoco VS RalanetR. ProbasOcoGordon Dr., Sionx Ciry, IA 01/19/01 Trial- Flood Homes, Walden Ave. & Sergeant Rd. Sioux City, IA Dennis Fischer, etal VS City of Sioux City OS/Ol Deposition -Tracey, 2701 South Lewis Blvd., Sioux City, IA Cicy of Sioux City VS Leo D. & Marcia Tracey 06/Z 1/Ol Condemnation Hearing- Tracey, 2701 South Lewis Blvd., Sioux City, IA City of Sioux Ciry VS Leo D. & Marcia Tracey 0681/01 Commendation -Ahlers land, Hwy 75 South Sioux City, IA City of Sioux City VS Dick W. Ahlers 10/24/01 Condemnation Hearing- Leckband, 418 W 20`x' Street, Sioux City, IA City of Sioux City VS Maybelle Leckband & George R. Leckband 01/10/02 Deposition -Missouri River Energy, Sioux Falls, SD City of Sioux Falls VS MO River Energy Services dba MO Basin Municpal Power Energy 01/31/02 Trial -Missouri River Energy, Sioux Falls, SD 02/04/02 City of Sioux Falls V S MO River Energy Services dba MO Basin Municpal Power Energy 03/05/02 ~ ty oE3ioux Ciry VS Maybel e lec band &tGeorge R.1Leckband 03/27/02 Trial -Leckband, 418 W 20`h Street, Sioux City, IA City of Sioux City VS Maybelle Leckband &George R. Leckband 06/04/02 Trial -Fethkenher, 2541 South Helen, Sioux City, IA Sharon Fethkenher & Staci Fethkenher VS Cung & Lien Troung & City of Sioux City 0785/02 Trial - Archie's, 224 - 4`" Avenue, LeMars, IA Robert A. Rand VS Valerie Lou Rand, Marilyn Jackson-Beeck aka Marilyn Jackson & Archie's Inc. Condemnation Hearing- Lihs, 515 West Clifton Srreet, Sioux City, IA 0827/02 City of Sioux City V S Dennis L. & Lois A. Lihs 12/02102 Trial -Ahlers, Hwy 75 South, Sioux City, IA VS Dick W. Ahlers City oESioux City Condemnation Hearing-2013 Dakota Avenue, South Sioux City, NE 01/03/03 Novak VS Community Development Agency ial -Frontier Bank, 4425 Singing Hills Blvd., Sioux City, IA T 0124/03 r Frontier Bank V S City of Sioux City 0423/03 Condemnation Hearing- Spencer Diesel, 807 - 3"~ St, Sioux City, IA Diesel Injection & Spencer Turbo, Inc. City of Sioux City VS Spencer v e Orange City R u 06/16/03 e x County Board of Dop~Eiwe [em State Bank VS Sio ial -Flood homes, W alden Ave. & Sergeant Rd., Sioux City, IA T 07118/03 r Dennis Fischer, etal VS City of Sioux City osition -Plaza Bowl, 3091 Hamilton, Blvd., Sioux City, IA D 08/12/03 ep City of Sioux City VS Bruce W. Casper Hearing- Oehlerking Fann Land, Sioux City, IA i 06/17104 on Condemnat City oESioux City VS Charles Oehlerking 08/11/04 Deposition - Plankinton School, Plankinron, SD VS Aurora Cooperative Oil Co., et al Co . Dakota Fire Insurance 08/19104 Deposition - Homes by IBP, Dakota County, NE Cacol Marmo, et al VS IBP, Inc. 09/15/04 Deposition -Peoples Bank, Akron, IA Peoples Bank &Trust n/k/a Peoples Bank VS. Plymouth County Board of Review 10.7.04 Trial -Peoples Bank, Akron, IA Peoples Bank & Trust n/kla Peoples Bank V S. Plymouth County Board of Review 5.25.05 Trial - In the Marriage of Curtiss D. Farrell VS. Diane Farrell District Court-Plymouth County Iowa via telephonic testimony Petitioner's Resistance to Motion to Release Respondent's Sale Proceeds PE IFI PROPERTY TYPES Single-family residences Condominiums -single unit and total complexes 2.4 Family; Larger multifamily complexes Office Buildings; Retail Stores -Major and neighborhood Warehouses; Industrial Properties -large and small Truck terminals; Service stations; Land exchanges Farmland only; Sub-divisions; Large tracts of vacant land Riverfront permanent easements between States and Cities ~.,~.-~T~Tr a~STGNb~NT TYPES `~• " Lut anon Support Market Value, Fomm and Narrative Reports, g Condemnation (Both the Governmental body, and for the Owner); LR.S. Cost Breakdowns; Payback Period Compu[ations; Easement valuationslconsultations Feasibility; Market Analysis; Highest and Best Use; Corridor valuations (multiple parcels) Cash Flow Projections; Net Present V alue Technique (Discounted Cash Flow) PROFESSIONAL REFS EI~NCE~ Ms. Sally Websrer- Mr. Steven D. Davidson Review Appraiser, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln Nebraska, (402) 471.5535, I have done several types of exchange and conservation easement projects with her Attorney, Baird, Horovided litiga[ on s ppo t for histclienslowa Beef (402) 636.8227,1 p Processors involving lawsuits revolving around environmental obsolescence to stigma. Mr. Mark Meierhenry- Attorney, Sioux Falls South Dakota, (605) 336.3075 Former Attorney General - State of South Dakota, worked with him Eor private landowners in lawsuits regarding takings for public roads in South Dakota Mr. Richard A. Rushenberg- District Review Appraiser- Anny Corps. of Engineers, (402) 221.4347, completed complex appraisal assignments for the t$67,000,000 Perry Creek Flood containment project in Sioux City Iowa Mr. Alan Hesse- City of Sioux City Property Officer, (7121 279.6307, worked on well over 1200 property assignments for the City from small easements to rent surveys to Eminent Domain purchases and trials t lants.mg properties from single family residences to processing p Ms. Carol}m ].Olson Assistant Attom andetrial testimony forohighway acquis t2ions in Th d litigation suppo Iowa Great Lakes region involving fee simple and leased ee estates (partial and total acquisitions). PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists (2000 to Present) Commercial Appraiser Experience comprised of appraisal research and market analysis °n lodr~ n s appraisal projects iartmentgomplexesl vacant land,lsubdivisionfdevelopme n, shopping centers, ap es. Geographic special use properties, and other commercial property typ assignments include the metropolitan erformed includesgassignmentsou~ntahe communities. The scope of work p following counties: Adams County Arapahoe County Boulder County Crowley County Conejos County Denver County Delores County Douglas County Eagle County Elbert County E] Paso County Garfield County Grand County Hinsdale County Jefferson County Kiowa County Kit Carson County Archuleta County Chaffee County Larimer County Las Animas County Lincoln County Logan County Morgan County Phillips County Pitkin County Pueblo County Saguache County Sterling County Summit County Teller County Weld County Park County Chaffee County Mesa County Gunnison County La Plata County Park County 83 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado RELATED EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: Metropolitan State College: Undergraduate Studies Real Estate Training Centen Registered Appraiser Training Program Licensed Appraiser Training Program American Real Estate College: Certified Residential Training Program Lincoln Graduate Center: 660 -Writing The Narrative Report Appraisal Institute: Genera 120 -General Appraisal Procedures 310 -Basic Income Capitalization 320 -General Applications 420 -Business Ethics roach 530 -Advanced Sales and Cost App PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONSIASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS: Appraisal Institute: Associate Member Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers Colorado Registered Appraiser #AR40020323 (expires December 31, 2006) 84 Hunter Creek -Aspen, Colorado MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I'' n~~ /~ RE: Fox Crossing Park Parcel Agreement DATE: May 9, 2005 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2005, the Fox Crossing Subdivision was approved by City Council. One of the conditions of approval required City Council to review and approve an operational agreement for the Park Parcel, which is to be deeded to the City. The condition reads as follows: Prior to filing of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, there shall be an agreement specifying ownership, design, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the park and trail reviewed and approved by City Council. The City Parks Department and the Applicant have developed the attached proposed agreement for Council's review and approval. Stephen Ellsperman, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation, and a representative for the Applicant will be attending the Council meeting to address any specific questions. Staff has reviewed this proposed agreement and considers it to be consistent with the representations made during the approval process. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. CITY M.9N7~GER'S RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Fox Crossing Park Agreement." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Fox Crossing Park Agreement AGREEMENT (Walnut Properties, LLC and City of Aspen) This Agreement is entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and Walnut Property, LLC, ("Walnut"). WHEREAS, Walnut has recently received land use approvals for a project commonly referred to as Fox Crossing (see Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2005); and, WHEREAS, the City Council, as condition of the land use approvals granted to Walnut, required Walnut to enter into an agreement with the City of Aspen Parks Department relating to certain landscaping and trails to be constructed and maintained within the approved land use project. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows 1. Desi :The Fox Crossing Park shall be passive: grass, flowers, trees and shrubs. The landscape plan will be provided by Walnut Property, LLC, ("Walnut"),and approved by the Aspen City Parks Department, ("City") and the Historic Preservation Commission, ("the HPC"). 2. Installation: Walnut shall install the Fox Crossing Park and the sprinkler system as designed. City shall provide a water tap for the sprinkler system without a tap fee or other charge from the Water Department. 3. Parkin :Walnut shall provide three (3) parking spaces on Walnut Street at the edge of the Park. 4. Maintenance: The City shall maintain the Park. Walnut may provide additional maintenance and upgrade as desired. Specifically, Walnut will maintain flower gardens, floral displays, water features and other special items as mutually agreed. 5. Path/Trail. Walnut shall install the trail as shown on the attached drawing appended hereto as Exhibit "A". The Trail shall be maintained by Walnut: snow removal in the winter and broom cleaned free of gravel and debris in the spring, summer and fall. 6. Lightin Signage: Walnut shall design and install lighting and signage including the history of the neighborhood and the railroad, which will be approved in advance by City and the HPC. 7. Structures: There shall be no structures in the Park. Stone or wood benches, bird baths, dog pick-up stations, water features, and drinking fountains will be allowed at Walnut Property, LLC's discretion and expense. Page 1 8. Hours/Activities: The Park will be open to the public from 8:00 AM until Sunset. Residents of Fox Crossing may use the Park at other hours as well. No fires or picnic tables shall be allowed. No special events shall be permitted unless agreed to and scheduled in advance by both Walnut and City. 9. Park Dedication Fee. In view of Walnut Property, LLC's major contribution of the Fox Crossing Park property to the City, the installation of the Park and the $100,000 commitment to Aley/Spruce Park, no additional Park Impact Fees shall be due from Walnut. The $100,000 contribution for Aley/Spruce Park shall be spent at Aley/ Spruce Park, unless there are excess funds left over, in which event they shall be used on Fox Crossing Park. Walnut and City shall agree on a final design (which may be modified by the public comment process) for Aley/Spruce Park. The Park will be passive (trees, grass, shrubs, flowers) except for playground equipment. At the end of the Park nearest Centennial on Spruce Street up to six (6) dedicated parking spaces will be located for the Park and fox hikers. 10. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 11. General Terms. Walnut: Street Address City, State & Zip Code (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification. shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: WITNESSED BY: By: Title: Date: WALNUT: By: Title: Date: .IPW-saved: 4/19/2005-785-G:\lohn\word\agr\FoxCrossingParkAgr.doc Page 3 7~ /S VT l• ~~ d l N C N ° n S d O O J S 2 N J T V 0 ~ N C V Q 0 T d .°~• O O n J ° J+ N N - d - ` + ~ - m x O y O y O y O y O y y y ~ ~ ~ m ~ % ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° r0 N ~ ~ W ° n PCJ '~ x m (7P " N CP '^ m (P~ - w x N (P m m x w m r N 3 N- N N + ~ ' 3 O y o ~. ~ p ,< -- ' N O , ~' W_ O ,~ ' ~n O ~ ' Yo O ~ ' _J N o . ~ . ~ O ! ~ O `G ^ V 1G l ~ O 1G ^ W lG ^ O lG ^ J lG ^ \G TJ W P N' A ^ P W O P W N a 'y ~ ~ a 'O ~ a ~ m 'O ~ ~ a p ~ ~ p v p C p C ~ C ~ C N C ~ O W J N J J N ~ J ~ e T T vT T '~ O O O 4 's` ~ '~. L .l 'i ~: 1 ( v it # # # a ~ d, 3 s .I ~-"O '1 y O l ,..: °y~ kn -% ~ ~ a° jm ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ '.: 3:. " y y -!§ ~ , ~ . i u N - ~ 1a0. x ,n v N m N: x a r (p . z ~ f r , ~:~ Y ~ _ "1 ~ :. t ~ T ~ T d ~ ~' " ~kt (p a C i oo L. ON ~€dt ~ ~~ 'N .N i~F~ Y' ;~S N. ~ N ~ j=R gY~ ~" qF ~ .n y O ~O O P~ O O W *p O; Mk ~ .O ., ~ I~ s 'O r . i . ., .. ^ ` o s ~:¢' ~' o o f s 5 '3 0 _ .. s ^ ^ . y 0 N `n !O 'V OI ,O): P OI W: ~ 2+r O "~ W :..N a ry 0 (~ `iy+'t ~"Ffi 7 r c '.O .. (/1 f/1" y y to y y rl y 0 <~~ }. p y '^ (A ~ y y ~ O ..~ N J m a .~ ~ m' m _. J Yn 3 ~ J a 3 Yo '. , J a 3 !o S a o sos m s„ Yo a J m.' n 0 c J a ', e ~ O c S a e O c ~ a ,n - o y x O'N '0 d. N 0 . 0 ~ 0 N X - 0" x "0 ' 0 0 .. N :.0 % 0. 01 ~ CP /~ ~Cl d d ^.6 T d T d T d T' d T d T d 41 :^. . \G 4 'd _T ` x d x N ~ .-~ N P m . ~. o~ 3 3 3. a 3. 3 3 . ...d 3' .:.3 d' "' ~ ~ 3 \!/ 3_ \Cl 3 \!l 3 O CI p .. o N m° n,. 7~ Z ~ 7 ,' ~ c `c 7~.~ ~ O , ~ N O ,<'_ j 0.,~ ~ O ~ o O `~~ :... v !~~ ( /~ ~l l ~ 0 J \G _W W W W W N W. 0 ~ W.. '^ lJ a P a ~ a ~ 3 .'~ '::d d O 0 W OY N P V A W: W N P -V ~t N~ )Z.VI.. AI Y ' a Fyn 0 d O N ' d J ' N d J 'O 0 N D OI O O : O O O N y d C~ V ,J ' N' IIt N J . C W J . C O J C O. J ^ '~ 0 h J k H ~ pr- •N i"l. /X t {t ~.,i N iuN $ N ~ 'F` "~['4. y ,p tv4 yi II J 6 . Y II~J 6 M1 ~'~ $'t A Y Si O ,y O . Yrj W 1~ Ip 41 y p C'Rh ~~ 7 ~ A J .u ' N d ~ t3 d ~ A f 0 C ! A 7 , O ~ Q A ... Y h ~ . V , { C ~ L ~II .: aa 1, :: N O A - ,, F O J , -; y, ~+ .N F .~ 4yzy 3 N ~ 7 ; N^ N : J O n d s :°0 3 ~'~ O 4 S O ~ o0 00 oo oo '.o ~ ~ 1 J , ad . ~' ~ .~ I io-¢ " A .•d .. d po O ~ ~ .. aa~ Nd y -lady oD JC a dy o D ' o A o D r o '^-1 - n9wr ° ' (~ Dn Z O ~ ~ ID N W o m ~ p ~ r A°- ~ n° Q rr o ao na A°^ d r ~ o 3 - J '~ ~ d3° ~ d - ~ ~ p ~ v ~ ~ --d d . T d nN dy nN. ~y °,y ~' m nd a°2 d ~o?com aa °- ~'n.. o'^°- n^o va. ~ ~3o n ~_ 3dNd am.. ~o m o d= d ~'aJ mm o _ S mJ =m ro n d mN m n d~ ?~ F_N ~ ~ ~ -1 2= n n °na ~ mo mnno oa m da 3 00 ~° ' 3 4m Tui v . -~ u d< pj O . d d< J a° 0 3. a° d , , c m J- d d °' J O O fD - p~ m ~ 3mo: Na 3 nri oo .ZO ? nd a . , n ~ o C ~ m ~ nv ° °s Sa o S m n ~ -m x: + m ~ of c ~ a 9 ~ g v .a o m Sam i ~ 5 d f. °° a m m o o m m .. m o m ~~ O T o- N .-. (D N v u o ° ddo n J3 ° J m °Da -O N n d '< o mio ~- d a 'm ' y m v ~d v a JAN m sw~c °~ v I$ olcx mm .,X d ~~ 3~ a om m S <° vyo ~ d 0.3 ~ 0 0 0 ~ T d S 0 N T • _ J T- d p C d J" J ~~ S O N Q 0 J 0 SS d0 S' O. ~ 000 ~ as "NO 3(D y a 4 ° m d N a .J~ r m'o ao m a y t 'mo d r dO d m _a < ° cD ~ c N N ~ ~ _ ~ 3.°. 0 a O _ x Na d p N m ~ ~ d S 0 (n J# (n `< # ~ d # N N a C' 0 Ol N N (D O 0 0 6 ~ J O O n ^I ] O d ~ n d J 0 a 0~ i (p a M < d a o a . < N o a J d Jd d . d o n c J Jd n V J n d 10 o O d m ry C N d s O O~ d O N# a ~ ~ O d # N O ~ 3 Jd °- d a d C~O ~ O N J Ho a N 0 3 ad_.~~ O adY'. ~'" j 3 n N 33 nnx L Q. m N (D ~~ ~ Q J J F N ~j ~ J 'F O r r d d N N J pl J= O ~< 3 m ~~Jm 3r ,n J v oo J, 3f ac 3°-'g °~ ?. T m ~ s o 3 .c °- ~ 0 3~ ## ° o d ~ s ~ n N ~~~ n 0 N r? K O# C •G (n A T J° O n ~ N 0 N (D (D J J ~ j ~ O_ C Q ~ O_ ~ l7 ~ O J ~ 0 j N p~ fn Do 5 °N do mN o od3 d. 3an 'oy d° ' J 3 m? m oa a_ om a N~o Q _, v ~J N 0 0 # a d n ~ d (D N O JS 0 ~ H p d N d O.N (1 J J UI O ( -1 m 0 a n or a c b o a «~ O a C " , C' #< a < N 0 r d _J _ ^`G d O1 (p N 0 0 0 m a K .. 0 l a 1 , g 3NU1 i ~ 44i 3Wd ~ I ' ~ I ~ i J N ~ u ~ x / ~ ~ = d n o ~ / _ / ~ i I o ~ _ _ ~ e ~ ° 3 i Q=off n ' . ~'W~s ~ ~ o m r E ~ - l ONp ~V ~ s]r .~ V O ,~ m N 2 ~ ~ I u ~ ~ 3 f , _ . E __ . A + O~Nr WALNUT STREET / ~ ~ n - o, \ ~ m " 3 00 vi o-o ~ wa> O1 +IV I U~OT ~ ~ AT --3 I _ I .111. ~ ~ I '3 i _ _ ~3 mvrr i-I _ -__~ , u; N __ $ ' _~ RACE ALLEY s sw v . A v f D ` OOr m ~ v o°- N - ~ ~~ ~ aw ~ ` _ ~ _P~ y SPRUCE STREET - ~\ °N' ~ iO ~ u :~ I ;3 ~ I _ 1y mor ~ NOL' u ~• Aux O 7 O max' 1 6D0 f D'a ~° f o T ~ , ~l ~d inxpny0 f S iu, uc DAIS: S4QEC: ~ ~ Fox Crossin Subdivision 0E lcpu.el 04 ~ g Develo ment Plan "F°s'°"s ~"" ' ISP&i, COIaB~D0 p 5 Y.l 0. ^ 2] W101 ] Oct 0. '~ ~E S'fi~T 11 1 s SEAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC 16 Febmary 2005 Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management Mi. Chris Bendon, Director 200 EAST MAIN s, aeel _ Community Development Department Asaev, coiow,no g~e~i City of Aspen Fexc 970.92Q 6285.2323 130 S. Galena Street E-Mna infoC~scaplanning.com A$pen, ~.•~ 81611 WFa:www scaplanning.com Re: Responses to Fox Crossing City Council Hearing Issues Deaz Chris: Thank you for your list identifying unresolved questions and issues from the prior City Council hearing on the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to provide the applicant's responses to these issues. I would appreciate your distributing the letter with the City Council packet for the hearing on 28 February 2005. Let me address these issues in the order you have listed them in your a-mail. Park aad Trail The trail is intended to provide complete continuity from the existing Oklahoma Flats Trail terminating at Gibson Avenue to the Hurner Creek Trailhead on Spruce Street. Portions of this connector would utilize existing sidewalks and provide new connections along Spruce Street. We have produced a revised trail map indicating this connectivity, which is attached to this letter. The trail is proposed to be a six-foot wide concrete trail, with a decorative finish that might include colored concrete and exposed aggregate. Final details for the trail material and finish would be subject to the approval of the City of Aspen Pazks Department. The trail would be in a public easement, similar to that of many trail corridors that run within the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, such as the Rio Grande Trail. A concrete trail would requve very little maintenance except for snow removal. Snow removal within the Fox Crossing Subdivision would be the responsibility of the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association and subject to applicable policies for snow removal that maybe articulated by the Pazks Department. These might include, for example, maintaining a portion of the width of the trail under snow cover for Nordic skiing. The Fox Crossing Meadow would be owned and maintained by the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association. An easement would be provided, allowing public access to the pazk from the trail that passes through it. It is our understanding that the Parks Department does not want to take ownership of this property. It should also be noted that the park would remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission as an historic site and would need to be maintained in a manner that was compatible with the adjacent historic structures. The applicant has committed to providing imerpretive signage indicating the history of the neighborhood, including the former Midland rail PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECfOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 2 loop adjacent to the pazk, along with other trail signage as may be required by the Parks Departmern. Race Alley The current pavemern width of Race Alley (the north-south portion) and Race Street (the east-west portion) is 14.5 feet. Given the 20-foot right-of--way of Race Alley, along with the encroaching improvements and landscaping of many of the abutting property owners, we do not believe it is possible or appropriate to consider widening the pavement. Its status is similar to that of Fourth Street in the West End as it approaches Gillespie Street. However, as part of this application, we are proposing to widen the east west portion of Race Street to a pavemern width of 20 feet. This would allow two-way traffic along this section of the roadway and significantly alleviate congestion. An 8-foot parking lane would also be provided along this section. We have also adjusted the turning radius at the curve on Race Street to conform to Fire Department requirements. Having studied at length the question of a one-way restriction for Race Alley, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the abutting properties. It would also increase the traffic loading on Spruce Street, since that street would then be required to provide either ingress or egress for all abutters on Race Alley and Race Street. However, if it is decided that aone-way configuration is requued for Race Alley, then we would recommend that it be a northbound one-way loop, taking access from South Avenue. This would perform better because the left-turn into Race Alley from South Avenue could be stop sign controlled, whereas a left turn into Race from Spruce Street would be more difficult to control. Hunter Valley Way Parcel The Hunter Valley Way Pazcel could be developed under the Pitkin County takings procedure. It has a recorded access easement in place from the adjacent Auger property that would permit access to future developmern. The parcel has, under previous ownership, been the subject of development proposals, County 1041 applications, litigation, and threatened litigation. The sterilization of this pazcel would protect the Hunter Creek Trail, while maintaining the parcel in pristine condition without any encroachment of private development. The resulting protected open space would consist of 20 acres, including adjacent Randall Park, at a key location for open space preservation. At the request of the City Attorney, the law firm of Garfield & Hecht is preparing a legal opinion on this access. Impacts on Surrounding Roads The impacts on surrounding roads have been addressed in a traffic analysis prepazed by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer Engineers. The impacts of the proposed development aze minimal and have been well-distributed within the project. Some discussion has emerged regazding the impacts on Spruce Street, along with a discussion of the need for sidewalks Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 Febmary 2005 Page 3 on Spruce Street between Race Street and South Avenue. The traffic analysis has shown that the off-site impacts to Spruce Street aze very small, particularly in relation to existing background traffic. We believe that to require the applicant to install sidewalks along Spruce Street would not be proportional in any way to the impacts ofthe proposed subdivision. Moreover, sidewalks along Spruce Street at this location would be very disruptive to existing parking patterns of abutting residents. It is cleaz that sidewalks would not be regarded favorably by a significant number of abutters. We believe that the question of installing sidewalks along Spruce Street should be the subject of a neighborhood planning process that is not related to the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision. If it is determined that sidewalks aze appropriate, then a proportional allocation of costs among all abutters should take place. Hunter Creek Bus Stop The Hunter Creek Bus Stop was initially established and improved some years ago by agreement between the Mocklin property and the Hunter Creek Condominiums. The Fox Crossing Subdivision does not abut this property nor would it have any impact on the use of the bus stop. It is not cleaz that there is a community need for a park at this location and it should be noted that the applicant is providing funding for the development of a community park on the former Aley property, a location that has long been designated as a desired community pazk location. That said, as part ofthe work for the proposed Aley Park it might be possible to provide some additional landscape materials and site clean- up at the bus stoplocation, and the applicant may be prepared to agree to this as a condition of approval. Internal Parking All ofthe proposed lots within the Fox Crossing Subdivision will meet the pazking requirements ofthe City of Aspen Land Use Code. That is each lot will provide garaged pazking for two vehicles for each residence. Additionally, all but two ofthe lots will be able to provide off-street pazking for at least two guest spaces. The two lots that will not be able to provide this additional parking are encumbered by the historic residences. So, the development will comain all ofthe required parking within its lots and, at the same time, provide considerable additional pazking for the residences. Moreover, the applicant is very awaze that there is an existing pazking problem in the neighborhood irrespective of any new development that may take place. In order to enhance neighborhood pazking generally, we have identified three locations that can be developed to provide additional guest and service pazking available to all residents ofthe neighborhood. This pazking has been identified on the attached map and could provide as much as 16 additional spaces available to the neighborhood. One ofthe key issues related to pazking in the neighborhood is the seasonal storage of vehicles on city right of way. This is readily appazent by the snowed-in and derelict Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 4 vehicles of all types located along Spruce Street, Race Street, and Lone Pine Road. We would strongly recommend the implememation of a neighborhood parking program similar to that of the West End and Shadow Mountain neighborhoods in order to improve the parking situation and visual quality for all residents of the neighborhood. This type of program, properly enforced, would create much more pazking space for the benefit of neighborhood residents and visitors. Cabins as Affordable Housing In meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, it became cleaz that the Commission did not favor a relocation that would move the cabins any significant distance from their existing location. Accordingly, the applicant was constrained to place the cabins as a single free-market unit between the historic Victorian and Lot 7, which already comained an existing house requiring its own lot. Criven the requirements for building separation, there is no way that the cabins can be physically accommodated as separated small Affordable Housing units on the property preferred by the Historic Preservation Commission. It would be possible to relocate them to a larger lot, for example, Lot 1 and have them separated. However, this was inconsistent with the direction of the Historic Preservation Commission. It should be noted that the Subdivision Ordinance has specific requirements for the provision of affordable housing. The applicant fully intends to comply with these provisions that require either ADUs or cash-in-lieu payments. There is not requirement whatsoever for the provision of a separate component of affordable housing. Nonetheless, one of our eazlier project designs involved the relocation of the cabins to Lot 1 and their retention as possible affordable housing. Although this was not favored by the HPC, the applicant would be prepazed to revisit this design and redesignate Lot 6 as afree-market non-historic developmem lot if there were cleaz direction from Council that this approach conferred greater public benefit than maintaining the adjacency of the cabins to the Blue Victorian. In conclusion, the applicant has worked diligently with the neighborhood and City commissions to be very forthcoming in addressing the issues that have been raised. The proposed development is consistent with the underlying R-6 caning and is not seeking any additional density or any other variances from the provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Major community benefits aze proposed in the form of open space dedications, park and trail development, and historic preservation. These include a parcel dedicated to open space that could be developed as an additional duplex lot under current zoning. The project has received the unanimous approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 5 Please let me know if I can provide any additional information in response to the questions raised by Council. We look forward to working with the City Council to satisfy their concerns. Very truly ours, S C au AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: Copies of Site Drawing shown trail continuity and additional parking options ~x~~~~-~ 3 Mazch 2005 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 2011 EAST MAIL: STREET Mr. Chris Bendon, Director ASPEN, COLORADO B16I I Community Development Department TELEPHONE' 970.925.2323 t.It Of AS en F.ax: 970.920.1628 y p E-MAIL: info@scaplanning com 130 S. Galena Street WEe: wvucscaplanning mm Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Responses to Fox Crossing Continued City Council Hearing Questions Deaz Chris: The purpose of this letter is to provide the applicant's responses, as requested, to remaining questions from the 28 February 2005 City Council hearing on the Fox Crossing project. We would very much appreciate yow distributing the letter with the City Council packet for the continued hearing scheduled for 14 March 2005. Valuation of the Hunter Valley Way Parcel We have provided an opinion from planning consultant Mitch Haas that the Hunter Valley Way Pazcel could be developed under the Pitkin County takings procedure. In addition, an engineering analysis has been provided by tunnel expert Frank Montonati, President and CEO of MCO Mine Services of Silverton, Colorado and confirmed by Jay Hammond, P.E. of Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer that there is feasible and cost-effective access to the site. A legal opinion from Chris LaCroix, Esq. of Garfield & Hecht confirms the validity of the access easement provided to the site. A legal opinion from Garret Brandt, Esq. discusses the provisions under the Colorado wnstitution and in case law for a private taking that could have provided access to the site if an alternative access had not been granted. As requested, taken together, these various documents attest to the existence of a valid easement, useable access to the site, and the pazcel's value as a premium single-family estate location. Moreover, we provided mapping showing that this particular site is a remaining significant exclusion from a band of protected open space north of the City and providing access to the Hunter Valley. Placing this pazcel under open space protection will be a significant addition to the community's open space inventory. This has been confirmed by the County Open Space and Trails Boazd, the City Pazks Department, and numerous comments from the general public. The parcel conforms to the criteria of the newly adopted ordinance intended to provide Transferable Development Rights in the City for significant open space pazcels. Moreover, the provision of three additional development rights as requested will not increase the density of the proposed subdivision over the underlying R-6 zoning in any way. We believe that the granting of these development rights is entirely consistent with the code as amended and with conservation valuation practices throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. It is important that this proposal for acquiring the Hunter Valley Way parcel uses no public funds. ~'' PIA~~'NING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMM UM TIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 Mazch 2005 Page 2 It should be noted that County TDRs aze currently selling in the azea of $170,000 and therefore three TDRs fall well within the value of $600,000. At one point in time, the City issued TDRs for the Smuggler Trailer Park Subdivision. The new TDRs from the City in exchange for open space protection aze inherently less valuable than the prior ones because the new ones do not include an exemption from affordable housing or cash- in-lieu requirements. Finally, as was noted in the prior meeting, the three TDRs would facilitate only approximately 6,000 squaze of additional development. This additional development is roughly equivalent to the 5,750 square foot base allocation that would be provided to the Hunter Valley Way pazcel. It is faz below the potential 15,000 square feet of development that could be accommodated on the Hunter Valley Way parcel under current zoning. Moreover, this 6,000 squaze feet of development in Fox Crossing remains entirely consistent and conforming to the density provided by the R-6 zoning for the Fox Crossing pazcel. Lot 3 Building Envelope The applicant will accept a condition of approval to provide a specific building envelope that may be different from the standard zoning setbacks. The intent of the envelope would be to protect the stream and natural bench on the northwest corner of the lot from development that would unduly encroach on the privacy and natural setting of the adjacent Hunter Creek Condominiums. The building envelope, which cannot be easily designated until the snow is off the ground and the topography can be better analyzed, will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department, and will provide for the reasonable development of the allowable floor area on the lot. ADUs The affordable housing obligations of the subdivision will be met through cash-in-lieu payments as prescribed in the Land Use Code. As requested, no Accessory Dwelling Units will be incorporated into the subdivision. Parking within the Subdivision and on Spruce Street The Fox Crossing project will provide for all required parking within the subdivision and will additionally provide a minimum of six (6) additional pazking spaces on lots within the subdivision. The project will provide for three (3) public parking spaces at the entry to the Meadow located at the end of the public portion of Walnut Avenue. Additionally, the project will provide and pay for the development of head-in public pazking along Spruce Street adjacent to proposed Lots 1 and 2, subject to a determination by the City that this would be the currently preferred use. The applicant will execute a Sidewalk Agreement with the City to pay its fair shaze for a sidewalk in front of Lot 2 along Spruce Street, if and when the City decides it would be appropriate to install sidewalks in that area. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 Mazch 2005 Page 3 Proposed Receiver Lots for TDRs The receiving sites for the three TDRs would be the proposed Fox Crossing Lots 8 and 9, and the Griffith Subdivision Lot 3, as shown on the project Development Plan. Parking on Race Street The applicant has provided a design for parking on both sides of the east-west portion of Race Street, based on the City's determination that it would prefer this additional parking with a single travel lane on this portion of the roadway. This design is based on continuing the current 14-foot width of the Race Alley travel lane and adding two 8-foot parking lanes. As part of this design, the applicant is requesting a vacation of a portion of the current Race Street right-of--way from it current width of approximately 45 feet along its elliptical northern boundary to a regularized 30-foot width. (Please see attached cross- section of Race Street.) Foa Crossing Meadow and Trail The trail will provide continuity from the existing Oklahoma Flats Trail terminating at Gibson Avenue to the Hunter Creek Trailhead on Spruce Street. Portions of this connector would utilize existing sidewalks and provide new connections along Spruce Street. We have produced a revised trail map indicating this connectivity, which was provided at the prior hearing. The trail is to be a six-foot wide concrete trail, with a standazd finish that includes colored concrete consistent with other trails and meets all Parks Department specifications. The trail would be in a public easement, similar to that of many trail corridors that run within the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, such as the Rio Grande Trail. A concrete trail would require very little maintenance except for snow removal. Snow removal within the Fox Crossing Subdivision would be the responsibility of the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association and subject to applicable policies for snow removal that may be articulated by the Parks Department. The Fox Crossing Meadow would be owned and maintained by the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association. An easement would be provided, allowing public access to the pazk from the trail that passes through it. It is our understanding that the Parks Department does not want to take ownership of this property. It should also be noted that the park would remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission as an historic site and would need to be maintained in a manner that was compatible with the adjacent historic structures. The applicant has committed to providing interpretive signage indicating the history of the neighborhood, including the former Midland rail loop adjacent to the pazk, along with other trail signage as may be required by the Parks Department. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 March 2005 Page 4 Hunter Creek Bus Stop The Hunter Creek Bus Stop is currently owned by the Hunter Creek Condominium Association with an easement provided to RFTA for the bus shelter, current bus operations, and future transportation uses. It appeazs that there are some issues with respect to the future ownership of this site and its use by RFTA. These issues include: I. the request by Hunter Creek Condominiums that the City purchase the site from them for $75,000 before a park can be established there; 2. the need for RFTA to vacate the unused portion of its current easement (that is, everything but the bus stop) as part of this transaction; 3. the need to remove gravel and debris reported to be currently on the site; and 4. the requirement for subdivision that would accompany a sale of the site to the . City of Aspen.. These issues have nothing to do with the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision nor are the applicant in any position to resolve them. However, the applicant commits to the installation of landscape improvements on this site, if these issues can be resolved and a cleaz approval for the installation of landscape improvements can be provided within two yeazs of project approval for Fox Crossing. In addition, the applicant would be pleased to assist the discussion to resolve these issues over the next several months. Clearly, this cannot be achieved before the current approvals are granted. Traffic Impacts The Fox Crossing subdivision, as noted by the City Engineer in his presentation, is designed to provide two sepazate traffic zones: one connecting with Race Street, the other connecting with Walnut Avenue. The project is designed to move density and tralTic impacts away from the historic sites, and from Race and Spruce Streets. It will have a very minimal impact on off-site traffic, with the addition of no more than five dwelling units to the Race/Spruce Street traffic area. These minimal impacts are confirmed by the Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer traffic study that was provided eazlier and is also attached to this letter. Placing a road through the subdivision in an east-west direction would have the effect of potentially increasing traffic impacts on Spruce Street, encouraging cut- through traffic, and eliminating lots in a way that would shift development to the designated Meadow, now allocated for a park. Conclusion In conclusion, the applicant has worked diligently with the neighborhood and City commissions to be as forthcoming and responsive as possible in addressing the issues that have been raised. Numerous neighborhood meetings have taken place to hear concerns and develop meaningful responses. The impacts of the subdivision will be contained within the subdivision itself. The project will not generate off-site parking demand. At the same time, it will provide additional parking and neighborhood improvements to address existing needs. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 3 March 2005 Page 5 The proposed development is consistent with the underlying R-6 zoning and is not seeking any additional density or any other variances from the provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Major community benefits aze proposed in the form of open space dedications, pazk and trail development, and historic preservation. These include a parcel dedicated to open space that could be developed as an additional duplex lot under current zoning. The project has received the unanimous approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information in response to the questions raised by Council. We look forward to working with the City Council to satisfy their concerns. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES,LLC Attachments: 1. Cross sections of Race Street showing alternative parking and travel lane options 2. Schmueser/Gordon/Meyer traffic report Y 'T U ~a y /T :.,, }, Y: ,~ t ~. _l ~ _. _ h ~~ L'~ti \_ Y Y7 r~.. d :. .. rtr l~ t ('a \\{` \\ #\ 'i _~ e ~ ~' z _. ~ 1 ~'z- 4 z 'I' [ 0 -a _^ ;p eoN ZO ;0 700 L i0 7aa5 ZO ~SNOISVu'Sfl ;p ~snnst 90 :gitlQ I uuvuozoa 1v~asr - uEjd ~uauzdojanaQ uotsnipgn5 ~uisso.z~ xo,~ ~-- --- 1332115 3~f121d5 ,-. a m 0 s ...r o ~ ° ~ ~ W v ~J II o ~ ~ ~ xy I $ m - f- v N m p c P. ~ I ~ ~ Q I o p 7 Iq ~ ~a ~ Q N Jon a OG c c ~ O O L J .~J O ~i, G _. _. _. 4 N I ~ ~' ~I ~ ~ ~m^~ m ao In 'd I 1 ^-nv 90tl21 ~I os~~... SCHMUESER ~ GORDON ~ MEYER -~~ c~Eewooo s.=Plncs 118 w. 5TH,. SUITE 200 ASPEN P.O. BO% 21 55 caesTEO euTre P.O. BO% 3080 E N G I N E E R S ~ S U R V E Y O R 5 GLENwOOO sPPwcs, eo 81 601 As PEN, Co BIB 1 2 cwesreo euTrE, co 81 22a _..:.___ __ _-_- .- -<_ _.... -_ .. 9]tr945-1004 -.9Z0-925-SJ2J 9J0-349-5355 '. '', ', '., I F%: 9J0-945-5948 FX: 9>0-925-415> sx: 9J0-349-5358 I-- ;,January 24, 2005 r -- _ _ 'Mr. Stan Clawson I - ;Stan Clawson Associates, LLC -;200 East-Main Street ', _Aspen,.~~ __ 181611 RE: Fox Crossino Subdivision, Traffic Analysis ''.Dear Stan J am writing in follow-up to our recent discussions regarding the potential traffic impacts !of the proposed Fox Crossing subdivision project in the Williams Addition on the north .side of'Aspen. My purpose in this letter report is to address two primary issues; the first is to address the anticipated traffic impacts of the project itself and the rationale for the I street and driveway configuration that is being proposed. The second issue is a .suggestion by neighboring property owners that the project be required to provide an internal through street connecting Spruce Street and Lone Pine Road. In my view, these two issues are inter-related from the standpoint that our project site design was intended to minimize potential traffic impacts on adjacent properties. Introduction The Fox Crossing project comprises a re-subdivision of existing properties in the area of the Williams Addition into a total of 13 lots (including up to 7 duplex lots) accommodating up to 19 residential units. The lots that will be created will front on portions of Lone Pine Road, Walnut Street (which will be extended as a private access), Spruce Street, Race Street and Race Alley. For purposes of analyzing potential traffic generation from within the project and surrounding neighborhoods, I am using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual titled Traffic Generation 7`h edition. I am also discounting some of the potential trip generation figures for proximity to public transportation as permitted in the ITE manual and supplemental documents as well as the 2003 edition of the Pitkin County Asset Management Plan. Units within the project and in the surrounding neighborhoods include single-family homes, townhome units and apartments. It is also important to keep in mind that several of the homesites within Fox Crossing represent re- development, re-location or preservation of existing units and therefore represent' no or negligible additional traffic generation. --- ?- ,Lots 1, 3 and 4 will access off of Race Street west of Spruce Street. Race Street from __ Spruce_Street to_Race Alley is to 1be improved with a minimum of 20 feet of pavement width and 8 feet of additional gravel width for parking and to serve as shoulder area to rt -- 'the`pavement on-the south side. Lots 5, 6 and 7 will access off of Race Alley (where four single-family residences _ _ rcurrently exist). Due to concerns from the Fire Marshal and City staff regarding existing - ;emergency access conditions in Race Alley, that street is likely to re-configured as a 'one-way.. Access to Lots 8, 9 and 10 and Lot 1, 2A and 26 of the Griffith Lot Split will access off a -!priuate;extension of Walnut Street with a minimum 16-foot pavement width in a 20-foot access and utility easement. The intersection of existing Walnut Street at South Avenue wilt be improved for sight lines by re-grading the berm to the west of the intersection. -- The current development plan will provide a driveway connection through Lot 2 of the Griffith iot Split that will connect the Walnut Street extension to Lone Pine Road. Based on our meetings with Aspen Fire Marshal, Ed VanWalraven, and City Engineer, Nick Adeh, several aspects of the Fox Crossing project as proposed are intended to provide for improved emergency access and fire protection. With regard to access and streets in the project area, the corner from Race Street onto Race Alley will be improved to accommodate emergency vehicle turning radius requirements. In addition, the curve radii for the "S" curve of the Walnut Street extension have been modified and a 35-foot tangent added between the curves. Our understanding from both Ed and Nick was that the project's street and access improvements were appropriate and met applicable regulatory requirements. Project Rationale In the site design process there was a general concern regarding how access and traffic associated with the project would effect adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The site design effectively divides the project into two distinct "zones" that would access from different street frontages. Lots 1, 2, 3 and, possibly, 4 (depending on the specific access design and whether or not Race Alley becomes one-way) would most likely access via Race Street off of Spruce Street. Lots 5, 6 and 7 would most likely access via Race Alley off of South Street. Lots 1 through 7 all have the ability to "loop" in from South Street via Race Alley and out Race Street to Spruce Street but, given the nature of Race Alley, I think that is unlikely for Lots 1, 2 and 3. If Race Alley is made one-way northbound, all of Lots 1 through 7 would exit via Race Street onto Spruce Street. Due to the preservation of historic structures and existing unit replacements and taking credit for proximity to frequent transit service through the South Street /Spruce Street intersection, Lots 1 through 7 (the "east" zone of the overall project) would produce a net is Analysis ehicle-trips-per day. -This represents 39% of the traffic impacts =ox Crossing project as a whole and a very small increase to Spruce Street corridor as will be discussed later in this letter. An le, trips-per day would also indicate just 3 additional vehicles per day wenigg .peak hours (typically, 10% of the daily total). ;Lot`s 8, 9;10 and Lot 1 of the Griffith Lot Split (GLS) would most likely access via the '- !Walnut-Street extension-off of South Street. GLS lots 2a and 2b would most likely access: off of Lone Pine Road on a shared driveway. Once again, under the current site T ',plan, Lots 8, 9, 10-and GLS 1, 2a and 2b (the "west" zone) all have the ability to "loop" ':from Walnut Street off of South Street to Lone Pine Road. I would anticipate, however, '-that the individual properties will tend to utilize the entries most convenient for access and egress depending on their destination and will not loop through if it causes an ;inconvenient turning movement on adjacent streets. Lots 8, 9, 10 and GLS 1, 2a and 2b will generate a net traffic impact of up to 47 vehicle Grips per day. This represents 61 % of the traffic impacts associated with the Fox - - Crossing project as a whole that would not be directed through the South Street /Spruce Street intersection, an area of apparent concern for neighboring residents. Even this volume represents just 5 vehicles a day during peak hours and, because the west zone is not encumbered by the possibility of a one-way configuration, would be distributed between South Street at the Gibson intersection and Lone Pine Road. From an internal standpoint, a through street connection between Spruce Street and Lone Pine would open the door to traffic from Fox Crossing having, in my view, a greater impact on adjacent streets by creating more options for access and egress for all of the lots within the subdivision. Traffic from the west portion of the project could have more impact on the Spruce Street corridor and traffic from the east portion of the project may have additional impact on Lone Pine Road or South Street. The through street concept also has detrimental impacts on the development plan, the proposed trail connection, the open space /passive park and the preservation of the historic buildings. External Traffic The suggestion of routing a through street connecting Spruce Street and Lone Pine Road through the Fox Crossing project is offered, I believe, on the basis that it would relieve some traffic from lower Spruce Street and the Spruce Street /South Street intersection. Under current conditions, homes on lower Spruce Street, the two "600" buildings of the Centennial apartments, the Williams Woods affordable housing project and single-family homes on upper (North) Spruce Street all must utilize lower Spruce for vehicular access. Based on our field inventory and review of the City's GIS records, and still assuming the general availability of frequent mass transit though the area with the exception of the further homes on North Spruce Street, the units "upstream" of Lower Spruce Street can - _ I'Janu~ 24, 2005 ', IMr. Stan Clauson' -- ~ ~Ftiz Crossing Traffic Analysis '- ~ ~ _Page 4 _ - -be expected to generate about 312 vehicle trips per day. As an aside, I would note that _ '__~that is not a particularly high, number and represents in the range of 30 cars an hour ',,during peak morning and evening hours, __ Analysis_nf how many of_the vehicles from north of lower Spruce Street would likely 'utilize a through connection in Fox Crossing is an exercise in looking at likely _ ~" - ~destiriatioris, irtersection cdhflicts arid routing convenience. For traffic leaving the area -- - lin the rrwrning,-likely destinations include central Aspen via Mill Street and east Aspen __'via Neale Avenue and Original Street. For drivers heading to east Aspen (or anyplace 'south and east of Gibson Avenue), the likely route would remain Spruce Street to the South-Street intersection and South Street to a left on Gibson Avenue. For drivers .headed to central_Aspen via Mill Street, it is conceivable that they would turn right ,through Fax Crossing to Lone Pine, left onto Lone Pine and right again onto Gibson `Avenue to MiIlStreet. This route entails turning movements and stop sign conflicts at - _three locations (Spruce /Race, Fox Crossing onto Lone Pine and Lone Pine onto Gibson Avenue). The current route entails just one turning movement with a stop sign ahd one additional stop sign conflict to get to the same location (Spruce Street at South Street and South Street at Gibson Avenue). It would be my opinion that most drivers headed to Mill Street would still utilize the South Street to Gibson Avenue route as the more convenient alternative. For traffic returning to Spruce Street from town, the same conditions are reversed and the same disincentives apply for traveling through Fox .Crossing. Other potential destinations for traffic leaving the area of upper Spruce Street would be properties to the west and northwest including the Hunter Creek condominiums, Hunter Longhouse, Red Mountain Road and Willoughby Way. Traffic headed to these general destinations would probably make use of a through street in Fox Crossing. Another negative for the immediate neighbors on lower Spruce Street may be the transformation of the Spruce Street /Race Street intersection into a more intensive turning movement location. While a small number of cars may utilize the alternate route through Fox Crossing, increased braking and acceleration activity at the Spruce /Race intersection may add a noise impact that doesn't currently exist. The last item I would comment on with regard to constructing a through street within Fox Crossing is that it would direct additional traffic right in front of the Hunter Creek condominiums while at the same time, removing existing trees that currently provide some screening along their frontage. In effect, trading one problem for another affecting additional residents. --- - _-- - Jan,uarX24, 2005 , ___ Mr.!,Stan Clawson ,~ - ?Foz Crossing Traffic Anatysis - --- Pa e 5 -! -_ - - ', ~ ' ---- -I,Concfusions ' iGenerally, I am of the opinion that the current Fox Crossing design does a good job of -'iprotectng the adjacent neighborhood from concentrated traffic impacts as a result of the _ __ project;deuelopment. ,While 1 do anticipate that a through street within the project might 'be utilized by a small amount of traffic heading to areas west and northwest of Fox ?Crossirg, I feel that the negatives out weigh the benefits including; °_ A through street connection between Spruce Street and Lone Pine would ', ' ':open the door to traffic from Fox Crossing having a greater impact on 'adjacent streets by creating more options for access and egress for all of the lots within the subdivision. The through street concept has detrimental impacts on the development plan, the proposed trail connection, the open space /passive park and ' ' the preservation of the historic buildings. ° The transformation of the Spruce Street /Race Street intersection into a more intensive turning movement location would result in increased braking and acceleration activity at the Spruce /Race intersection that would add a noise impact that doesn't currently exist. ° It would direct additional traffic directly in front of the Hunter Creek condominiums while at the same time, removing existing trees that provide screening along their frontage. I hope these comments are helpful regarding the potential traffic impacts associated with Fox Crossing and the concept of a through street within the project. Feel fee to call me if you have questions or need additional detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JHfjh FCSC1 SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER eRG,rECx:_~1 K Ccos~ w~__---_-_-_--_~ROS^_J~:LQQ~I_3Z~_00 ~ E N G 1 N E E ft 5 S S U R V E Y O R S SHEEI_MO, L _~F _(:! _A_c__'_~__ ______ DAlGLLL9TED.-BY: ».~._ _ _ _ __ _ ____________ __ DATE:-~j IA ~ y_.-_____ _.______ _.~- I -_ { +.. _. t. .~ ~. ~ ~ ~_--1 .. - - __-_ ._ ---__- _ ~ i I ' nn - ~,sa i ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -. - LL - ,- - - ---~ --~- -- - ±- -- L- k ~- ~- - - -. a - --- -~--- -~-- - -- -r- - -- - ~-- - - - ',Pfl_. - -'- -' -- ' - ' ~IPp ~ =~~ '--' ~ - - y -- . - J -- - -- - . - - - - - - -- - -- -- -- ~. La ~? ~ o N ~ri.} - ~ ~31~_ _ __ `1.30- - o - - - - -- - ~ lLo ~' --~ = ~,-F - - ~~ S' '- -_ i - -~ -- -- - -- ~- -~9 -!-- , ~ 5,1+,0. ~~1'QYi. _ y _ ~ O '~_ - ~1.~~ r _ _ $~~~; -,~ - ~ ~ Z ' i ~i i i ' i 'i -F- -f i '- -f - t ~i I 1 -f ,- _ r ~-1 --f- ~i i ~L -~____~_T i. i I ~ - 0.S f ~~ ~q ~"r -~- r i -` - --' + + {1~ \ ~ a I -~~,,,,c~, U ~~ - ~ - ~ 'a. _~`Tu?m~on~4,~~ ~,t- L' ot~ ~ T J I ._ZT,~. 1 - f~c~.JC~~v z; '~i __~ , S, J~~ _ ~ -hoc- ~a s~~ ~ y ~ .0.,rq~ 1 0.bi ~~k ;- 1 L- --~- - ; r-~ -------- - . ~ - -=-: T---.-- - - --- _~ _ _ --- - - _. - ~_ . GLEN WOOD SPRINGS 118 W. 6TH, SUITE 200. GLEN WOOD SPRINGS, CO B 1601 970-945-1004 FX: 970-945-5948 ASPEN P.O. BOX 21 55, ASPEN, CO 8161 2 970-925-6727 PX: 970-925-41 57 I SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER P - ~oxCrob'J~NC # yRO~I-'S7~,001 v ENGINEERS S SURVEYORS ~ "F' ~1- onTF~ O.I_ZD'QS A TF' NTH - -- , ~QrVCP. c~_~`R.2T - . _. ~ -- - - -- - - ++11 T -.~ ~ ~.~ 1, 1,~~!1, ~ S -- S~r ~ - - -- - 1l . I 1- I Jay ~- '. -- - Tu~ -- ~_ - __ ZQ ._ ~P~s _. .- _ zz. __ - _ 19. - : - l - - - t-_ ~ F ~~L~,At4~, y 3._ I- -- s a.~ - ~ ..~ ~L zL .. - 5~ = ' -- ' -- / - -- - ~ ~-$~" - ~ - 95;4:. 1-- ', ', I -- - ~ '! --- - _ - --- -~-- - - - ~ - --= -~-- , y - ~- =-- --- . I - - - - --- - I GLENWOOD SPRINGS 1 18 W. 6TH, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, 00 81601 970-945-1004 FX: 970-945-5948 ASPEN P.O. BOX 21 55 ASPEN, 00 8161 2 970-925-6727 FX: 970-925-41 57 CRESTED BUTTE P.O. BOX 3088 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81 224 970-349-5355 FX: 970-349-5358 ~A~F~.D ~ HEGY~T, P.C. RONALD GAAFlELD~ ANDREW V. HECHT DAVm L. LENYO MATTHEW C. FERGUSON~ CHRISTOPHER I. LACAOIX~~ CYNTHIA C. TESTER CxwD J. SCHMIT3 NATASHA SAYPOL GREGORY S. GORDON~'~ ERIC D. MUSSRLMAN' CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN OF COUNSEL, ROBERT E. KENDIG PARALEGALS MICHAEL D. MCCOLLUM JASON K. BROLSMA RUSSELL B. ZUCCERMAN KATIIY TH[SSEN vIA I?ACSD>m.E nasu9 AND HAND DELIVERY John Worcester, Esq. City of Aspen Attorney's Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Huuter Valley Bray Deaz John: February 23,2005 ASPEN OFFICE 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-1936 FACSIMILE (970) 925-3008 BASALT OFFICE 11O MmLAND AVENUE, SUITE 201 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 TELP.Pxolde (970) 927-1936 FACSMIfE (970) 927-1783 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE Tlde DENVER CENTRE 420 SEVeNm STRm?I. $UTm 100 GLENwOOD $PYINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPxoNe (970) 947-1936 FACSIMRE (970) 947-1937 I have reviewed the Grant of Easement dated as of January 1, 2005 between CASE General Partnership and Raymond and Camilla Auger that was recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 507279 (the "Easement Ageement'~. I understand that the Easement Ageement has been recorded to satisfy certain requirements set forth in paragaph I1 of that certain Ageement of Cass General Partnership dated February 12, 2004. I believe that the Easement Ageement establishes legal access to the property owned by Cass General Partnership (which, I understand, is also known as the "Hunter Valley Way "property). As a result of the Easement Ageement, I believe that the owner of the Hunter Valley Way properly has access to a public road as a result of the right to construct a driveway across the Auger property, and the right to use the private road known as North Spruce Street. Please let me know if you need anything further. Copies to: Camilla Auger Hams A. Cahn Garret Brandt, Esq. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Website: www.garfieldhecM.com Since , G IE & CHT, P.C. By Chris Croix C:W rPortbniManegelSSEMPLEl108673_I.DOC 1. Jao adni"ed m 3. tlao adaviwd m 3. oleo cdnirzW to a. ciao adminad io Ncw' York By Conneclia[ Ba IBinnia Bu N[v J<nry Bu ®Ptlpl[d OO recycled Pir1Lr i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 -~____- ~' ~ { _ ~ _ - R ~ -_ - GLENWOOD SPRINGS SPEN RESTED DVTTE SCHMUESERGORDON 1 MEYE I.1eW..6Trl,surrE2oo P.O..BO%2155 P.0.90X3066 -- GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 61 601 ASPENS CO 61 61 2 CRESTED OVTiE, CO fi t224 G N E E R$ 1$ V R V E N' E Y O R$ 976925-6727 9~0-349-5355 . 9~tr945---1004 -J_._ __ ________ - _-~ -~~ --- -~' Fz: 976945-5948 Fx: 970-925-41 57 Fz: 970-349-5358 !- - _-February 25~ 2005 - - ~ rNls; Camilla Auger -.Walnut-?ropedy, l_LC 70g Spruce Street __ 51611__... - RED Hunter Valley Wav Tunnel Access Dear Camilla: I am writing in follow-up to our recent conversations regarding the proposed access drive into the Hunter Valley Way property adjacent to your property on Smuggler Mountain. As you know, your husband Raymond and I spent quite a bit of time discussing design options in an effort to get a conventional "surface" constructed driveway into the site. A conventional driveway proved exceptionally difficult, if even feasible, due to the steep terrain and narrow horizontal confines of the available property in which it would have to be constructed. Following discussions of several elaborate and potentially expensive design options, we returned to the concept of constructing a tunnel access from your property around the Randal Park property into Hunter Valley Way. The option of a tunnel bore into Hunter Valley Way was suggested early in our discussions regarding the difficult access design and was, at least initially, set aside as potentially too costly and difficult. As we spent more time investigating conventional driveway designs, several potential advantages to a tunnel design became apparent: 1. The potential building site in Hunter Valley Way is located at and below the elevation of an access portal at your property on the Cora Lee. A tunnel access could be construpted at a close to flat profile gradient with only sufficient grade to permit positive drainage within the bore. 2. As a tunnel at a flat grade, the access would be virtually unaffected by weather conditions and winter icing. 3. Compared to the structural and long-term maintenance requirements of a surface access across this terrain, a tunnel may, in fact, be an economical solution to the access into Hunter Valley Way. 4. A tunnel access offers the potential benefit of excellent security for a luxury home on the Hunter Valley Way property. Through one of the Principal staff members in our Crested Butte office, we contacted Mr. Frank Montonati, President and CEO of MCO Mine Service in Silverton, Colorado. Mr. Montonati is a Mining Engineer with some 45 years experience in mining and underground construction. Based on Mr. Montonati's comments in a letter to Raymond, we would anticipate that a tunnel access is feasible and would cost between $315,000 Page 2 and $630 000 for a total distance of approximately 315 feet depending on the range of -- - -- --~ subsurface material encountered. Mr. Montonati is certainly clear that there are a - - --- number of unknown factors with regard to underground construction that could affect _ _'_ ___ these figures, but it would certainly appear that these numbers are in a reasonable ballpark for tunnel construction. From a historical perspective, we certainly know that _" extehsive tunnels were constructed and maintained for the mining operations in and -__ _-- around and-under Aspen for many years before and after the turn of the century. .While Mr. Montonati's letter is clear that there are a number of factors that could affect - - the cost of the tunnel bore itself, there are also several external factors that would affect the cost of access construction including the approaches, finish levels or special security features on the portals, drainage, ventilation and lighting. Even including these items, would anticipate that a budget for access construction in the range of $375,000 to $750,000 is probably very realistic. I hope these comments are helpful with regard to a tunnel access concept for the Hunter Valley Way property. Feel free to contact me if I may provide additional information or detail. Very Truly Yours, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. . JI Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh 2004327_007CA1 Leh 22 OS 09:31p FROM :MCOf~hYC M0NT0hWTI FRX N0. :970-387J5492 [7031 812-8054 Feb. 22 2005 05:40PM PS Prank Montooati Pies. Ceo. MC'A Mine Svc. P.O. Box 165 Stlvvrtoq Colorado 81433 Mr. Raymond Auger Meridian Capital Group 617 Rio Cnande Place Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Auger, Pursusat m our brief discussion ttgnrding the following, I wIIl roifembe in this text a general overview of tLe snbjecx at hand A generic tmnel of 20' X 12' is cross-satioo in large alluvium pa oust upwards of 52000 pa foot. Many facmrs cau wmplimle this figure such as inchtsion ofclay or other poberfial material which tends m lnbticale Urge bloclrs of alluvium, im~ptian of water, the necessity of grouting various conditions which cause ground probieans Etc. Tunneling in solid sock is mace pn~ictible sad generally a tunnel of this sine in eempeteot gtouaa could cost ssoo m a 1000 per foot Again, cooditio~ that could influence the cost are mm~erous. Coastnrction of a portal sites disposition ofeztraoled matdial, interception of faults err other adverse geologtic features, mei~ining a satisfactory table of distances fm explosive smtage, Etc. T hold a degree is Mining Ewing fmm the lYewMeuco Institute ofMining a~ TocLnclogy. I Lave forty flue years expvience is mining and utulergrotmd c~uctioa ! am PtesiderK and CEO. ofMCO M[NE SIItVICE and is that capacity T have aonstrtuxed tlttmerota iwads under sitttilaor 14 the above gaceral d~criptiott Bob Marik p.l As you can appreciate, the above stated ~ are only relative and apply only to generic set of parameters , Feb 22 OS 09:35p Bob Marik [703] 812-8054 p.l FROM :NIW-FRFYJC M0NT0NRT1 FRX NO. :970-387-5492 Feb_ 22 2005 05:40PM P2 To arrive at a mon accurate estimate ~wnld require as in depth study. This ~vorild ixlude is the oammracemmt determination of the extern of the alluvium and portal ~nstructioa, the typo and arimtation of Solid rock at a ptedeDetmined depth from anrlacc. It is my hope that this information is of use to you and can be applied to resolvin8your ~~ 3inevdy, Frank Montamti , BRANDY •FEIGENBAUM, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES T. BRANDY (1939-2001) US BANK BUILDING 420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.5196 FAX: 970.925.4559 www.b2ndt-law.cnm BASALT OFFICE: GARRET S. BRANDY MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM PETER P. DELANY, PARALEGAL John Worcester, Esq. City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Action to Secure Easement by Private Way of Necessity Dear John: 132 MIDLAND AVENUE, SUITE 4 BASALT, COLORADO 61621 TELEPHONE: 970.925.5196 FAX: 970.925.4559 GARRET 5. BRANDY gsbrandt(~brandt-law. mm By Hand Delivery It is this firm's opinion that actions to establish "private ways of necessity" (or sometime referred to as "private condemnation") aze recognized in Colorado law, and can be used to establish access to landlocked parcels. The right to such actions are stated in the Colorado Constitution, have procedures specified in the Colorado Revised Statutes, and have been upheld by the appellate courts. Article R, § 14 of the Colorado Constitution provides that, Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner, except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic or sanitazy purposes. (Emphasis added.) While the Colorado Constitution provides the basic right of private condemnation, C.R.S. § 38-1-101 et seq. outline the procedures to be followed. First, the party seeking to condemn must be within the category of those authorized to condemn, such as the landowner (not merely a lessee). Next, the value and location of the road easement must be specifically determined, including assessment of alternative access locations. Then the party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to acquire the easement through negotiation. As part of that effort, the condemning party must provide written notice to anyone with an interest of record in the property that it intends to acquire the property. If the easement has an estimated value of $5,000 February 28, 2005 or more, the notice also must include the statement that the condemning party will pay the reasonable costs associated with an appraisal. The purpose of this procedure is to encourage negotiations and settlement. If the parties cannot agree upon terms, the condemning party may then initiate condemnation proceedings. The right of private condemnation can be summed up by the following quote from West v. Hinkrmon, 857 P.2d 483 (Colo.App. 1992): The right to condemnation of a private way of necessity exists when the need to condemn is reasonably necessary and when the common law or other legal remedies do not provide a present enforceable legal right to an alternate mode of access that is both reasonable and practical. In conclusion, the Colorado appellate courts have interpreted the Colorado Constitution, and relevant statutes, so as to provide a powerful remedy for person with property that lacks reasonable and practical access to the nearest public road. Very truly yours, Garret S. Brandt for BRANDY ~ FEIGENBAIIM, P.C. co: Camilla Auger Note: This opinion relies upon research contained in "Access at Last: The Use ofPriyate Condemnation", by Robyn W. Kube, The Colorado Lawyer, February 2000, Vol. 29, No. 2 [Page 77]. FEH 28 '05 05t53PM RSPEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION 9252442 ASPEN DISPUTE) RESOLUTION The Beneditt Butldm3 1280 Ute Avenue, Sulk 10 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ph B70 925 2445 k 9T0 923 2442 wwW.AapenDisputcRcsolution.com February 28, 2005 P.1 Honorable Helen Klanderud, Mayor City of Aspen Gerald D. Alpern, Ph.D. City Hall 130 S. Galena Altrea J. Dleteeh Aspen CO 81611 Debra A. Palender re: Fox CxoseuJo Robett P. Crueler Dear Mayor Klanderud~ Scott Harper As you know, I spoke briefly in favor of this project when it was William J. Lippman last before City Council, emphaslzln$ the community benefits of the Mar[In Manosevit:, Pn.D. open space preserved and linkages to and from the Hunter Creek Trail. Timothy McPlynn Since that Council meeting, this development would appear to result in even more connected park and open space land -• 42 scree in DaWd Melton as otherwise high density residential area of east Aspect •• without any wncomitant increase in the development's density. This offer a Peer Va[sDomelen tremendous public asset without having to use scare open space funds for an acquisition. As the former counsel for the Friends of Hunter Creek and one of the founders of the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Program, I would respectfully urge you and the members of City Couneil to approve this application. I am sorry another commitment precluded my attendance at this eveaing's meeting. Very sincerely, ~~.. Timothy cFlynn~ .. .. ~, .. r ~. s ~. r r .~ Letters of Support Fox Crossing Subdivision Applicant: Walnut Properties, LLC Location: Race & Walnut Streets, Aspen Zone District: R-6 Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 February Z4, 2005 TO: Mayor of Aspen and Aspen City Council FROM: Tom and Patti Clapper RE: FOX CROSSING Dear Mayor HIanderud and Members of the Council, °" Due to the fact we will not be able to attend the February 28, 2005 Fox ..- Crossing land use hearing we would like to submit the foAowing comments and request that they be read in to the Public Recozd. ~~~ 1. It is of great importance to note the value of "master planning" of this - property as a whole. This is an opportunity that provides benefits to both the community and to the applicant that would not be provided if this property were to be developed on a "lot by lot" basis. Therefore, ~• ~ we believe it would be in everyone's best interest to approve the Fox „_ Crossing "master plan" thus allowing this property to be developed as one parcel rather then as individual multiple residential lots. ' 2. The existing and historic use of Race Alley should not be changed. We .~.. believe the changes being considered (one way or wider two way) are not only unnecessary but would in fact create much greater impacts to "~- the neighbors and to the neighborhood itself. It is our understanding -- that these changes have been recommended by the Aspen Fire Protection District (Fue Marshall). We agree that these aze valid ,., concerns as these aze the same concerns related to other streets- and ~° alleys in Aspen. And the best way to address these concerns on Race Alley is the same way they are addressed on other City streets and alleys... by the City's Community Safety Department and by the Aspen "" Police Department. When there is a fire related incident officers from both of these departments respond in order to manage traffic flow. And these departments have a proven track record as to their ability to ~" provide both safe and rapid fire truck access which at times may mean -• • reversing one-way alleys or making alleyslstreet§ one way. IF there were to be an incident on Race Alley now or in the future traffic would be managed as needed at that time. To one way this alley (either wap) would create an unnecessary impact to the neighborhood. To widen ,,, this alley would create an unnecessary impact to property owners ON this alley...regazdless of there being an existing legal set back and or City street easement. 3. We greatly appreciate the provision of both park and open space as part of this application. This is one of the key benefits that is provided when a property is developed with a "master plan" rather than with r multiple individual lot development applications. r r ... ~-• December 6, 2004 600 East Main Street, Suite 102 • Aspen, Colorado 81611 970.925.5757 • Fax:970.925.1405 • 888.648.1368 Members of Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen `° Aspen, Co Dear Members: As the property manager of Walnut Street LLC, we would like to express support for the Fox Crossing project as designed. It is our responsibility to insure that the renters are satisfied with access to their "" homes from Race St, Spruce St, or Walnut St and we have not encountered problems with traffic or parking. We feel that protecting the open space of Fox Crossing meadow is very important and together with the trail and the historical preservation is the central benefit of the development as a neighborhood. . We feel that Fox Crossing, Hunter Valley Way Open Space, and Ailey Park will be a great asset to the community. -• Sincerely, rll Stir mg w Stirling Homes, Inc. - Owner/B~r~o}ke~r/ . `lJl ~aG~~'v' ' <'- Dawnette Smith Stirling Homes, Inc. Property Manager/Broker ,., .. r ww w REAL ESTATESALES•RENTALS uuovstitlinghomesinc.com December 6, 2004 Members of Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Co Dear Members °' As renters of Walnut Street LLC, we would like to express our support for the project plans of Fox Crossing. We all currently access out homes from either Race St or Walnut St and have not encountered problems with traffic or pazking. We feel that protecting the "" open space of Fox Crossing meadow is of the utmost importance. We currently enjoy the . , open space in the middle of the parcel and feel that it should be preserved. `" We all work in the city of Aspen or in Pitkin County and feel that Fox Crossing will be a _, great asset to the community. Sincerely, _~ ~ ~ k~/~1~.- The Renters of Walnut St LLC ,,, .. w. 12-06-04;11;50AM; ;970-925-1405 # 1/ 1 December 6, 2004 l~eurbers of Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Co ' Dear Members: As renters of Walnut Street LLC, we would Like to express our support for the project plans of Fox Crossing. We all currently access our homes from either Race St or Walnut St and have not encountered problems with tr~iio or parking. We fccl that protcctiug the open space of Fox Crossing meadow is of the utmost iunportance. We currently enjoy the upon space in the middle of the parcel and feel that it should be preserved. We all work in the city of Aspen or in Pitkin County and feel that Fox Crossing will be a great asset to the community. 3iu The Renters of alnut t L C November 14, 2004 W Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street .... Aspen, Colorado 81611 _. Re: Fox Crossing -- Deaz P & Z: '~ We aze neighbors who aze long time residents of Spruce Street, Race Alley, and --• Walnut Streets. We have been working with Camilla Auger regazding Fox Crossing. She has been meeting with us to answer questions, discuss the plans for the development, and .~ amve at the best solutions for traffic routes. We have reached agreement on the following '~ proposals. Y First, Camilla has agreed to create a driveway extension of the Walnut driveway "` exiting to Lone Pine Road. Even though this will involve a road cut which Fox Crossing _ _ hoped to avoid, it will lessen traffic on Walnut, and we strongly support it. "" Second, we strongly urge the City to keep Race Street as it is - a two way street. ~, We would like to keep traffic coming out onto Spruce Street from Race Street to a minimum. We have concluded after much discussion that two bollazds which fire and "" other emergency vehicles and residents of Race Alley can drive over would achieve that objecfive. Fox Crossing would still provide pazking along the south side of Race Street and the walking trail on the north side. The bollazds or an agreed upon alternative solution "'~ on the center would reduce traffic and still permit emergency vehicles easy access. If the ,.- City will accept it, Camilla agrees with this solution. This is very important to the residents of Race Street and the residents of Spruce Street, and we hope that the City will .~ allow this solution. With regazd to Fox Crossing overall, we support the project and would like to be W kept informed and participate in decisions regarding the detail of traffic flow and construction staging as those develope. "' Sincerely, r A W November 14, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street .-- Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~_•~ Re: Fox Crossing • Deaz P & Z: We aze neighbors who aze long time residents of Spruce Street, Race Alley, and ~- Walnut Streets. We have been working with Camilla Auger regarding Fox Crossing. She has been meeting with us to answer questions, discuss the plans for the development, and arrive at the best solufions for traffic routes. We have reached agreement on the following °' proposals. First, ill~as agreed to create a driveway extension of the Walnut driveway "" exiting to Pine Road. Even though this will involve a road cut which Fox Crossm ~., hoped to avoid, it will lessen traffic on Walnut, and we strongly support it. "" Second, we strongly urge the City to keep Race Street as it is - o way street. ~"~~ We would like to keep traffic coming out onto Spruce Street fro ce Street to a minimum. We have concluded after much discussion that tw ollazds which fire and other emergency vehicles and residents of Race Alley c 've over would achieve that objective. Fox Crossing would still provide parking al g the south side of Race Street and the walking trail on the north side. The bollazds n the center would reduce traffic and still permit emergency vehicles easy access. If the City will accept it, Camilla agrees with ~- this solution. This is very important to the residents of Race Street and the residents of Spruce Street, and we hope that the City will allow this solution. »~ With regard to Fox Crossing overall, we support the ~, a mg e +~ An er CrPPk Trail CK.rd- waged 1~7..-e 'To "' Sincerely, 6~ ~cPy, r ',,,, ~ ~ " ~cr~c _ ~~ c~sces76-a~- i~b/eEC~`I'~ ~" ~r ~!Q~pGy"a`~ won S~~'-1 6 60 a rtas do~s~lvP ~ . ~`'/`~ ~~ ~~ ~~ "V U. ~ v SPi,i.~l 51~ ~~~ee. ~l~- ~'C RE: Proposed Fox Crossing November 1, 2004 To Aspen City Council, As manager of the Hunter Creek Condominiums I want to express my support for the proposed Fox Crossing project that will be adjacent to our property. The open space meadow in the ,, middle of the project is attractive in this already dense neighborhood. Also, the foot path and the historic preservation of the miners cottage will be an asset in this area. The Hunter Creek • Condominium complex has received numerous new planted trees that will screen our buildings from Fox Crossing and most homeowners are very appreciative. I believe the developer of this °" property will be.sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. Sin~c^rely, ~~ "° Lisa Thurston _„ Hunter Creek Properties, Inc. r ... ~+ HUrlter CleelC 1400 Vine Street Aspen, Cobrado 81611 970/925-1060 August 2Q 2004 Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Dear Commission members: ,. s rl~ i r I am located directly across Race Street (alley) from the proposed historic site of the Angie Griffith cabins and historic house. Developers have promised me that they will not ask for any setback variances along Race Street and that they will slightly lower the roof of the cabin's garage. I realize that the developer now is in compliance with zoning regulations along Race,. and I support the application. Sincerely, l ~~ Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado nov O1 04 04:07p Aspen Valley Land Trust 970-963-8441 p.l Aspen Valley Land Trust November 1, 2002 RE: Hunter Valley Way Parcel To Whom It May Concern This letter is written to confirm that Aspen Valley Land Trust would be most willing to accept a conservation easement on the 9.35-acre property known as the Hunter Valley Way Parcel. Acceptance of the easement would provide for monitoring and easement enforcement on the property in perpetuity. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me ... r r r w S/in 7`cerely~, ~j/~~ ,. / Marth ~t/~.t ~(.~C ~'C.l'4/3..1~/S'C~ a Cochran Executive Director Aspen Valley Land Trust 320 Main Street • Carbondale, Colorado 81623.970.963.8440.• fax. 970.963.8441 www.aNt.org ~. Memora~d~n Packs anti laecsLat?~sa I3epartnse~t ""' To: Camilla Auger y. From: City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Staff ... Date: October 26, 2004 °"` Re: Hunter Valley Open Space W The City of Aspen's open space initiative has worked hard to preserve open space in and around the Aspen area. The City is proud to have protected over 1000 acres of land; which "" had been designated as r_,ritical wildlife habitat, important view planes, containing wetlands or other ecologically important resources and sites that offer a number of recreational opportunities. --~ The acquisition of the Hunter Valley'Nay parcel will contribute greatly to both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen's existing open space programs. The acquisition of the Hunter %.. Valley Way parcel will ensure the integrity of wildlife corridors and habitats, plus prefect the scenic qualities along the Lani V~Jhite and Hunter Creek Trails. Additionally, preserving ~„ Hunter Valley Way increases the over ail open space value of Randall Park and other surrounding open space parcels. In addition to the preservation of open space, staff supports the projects proposal to provide funding for park improvements to the City parcel known as Aley Park. This proposed funding will help bring together the planning and development of one of the City's ,,,, under utilized resources. The Spruce Street neighborhood has seen a lot of growth and an increase in families. The Aley parcel has been identified for park development in the Parks Master Plan. Staff is interested in the possibility of working with the Fox Crossing ,„, Development in order to accomplish the development of this necessary public amenity. .. Ar~ THIN Camilla Auger Via Facsimile: 544-9251 RE: Hunter Valley Way Property Deaz Camilla: I am writing to confirm that the Open Space Program is very keen to acquire the Hunter Valley Way property, formerly owned by David Michaels. This property is the "missing link"'in a series of protected properties which protect Hunter Creek and provide a trail corridor. Aspen is truly blessed to have this corridor so close to town, where a pedestrian can walk into the wilderness from town. Our acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way Property would complete a valuable public corridor. ®PRINi£D ON FECYCIEO PAPER R_ Sin ly, ~1 Dale Will Open Space & Trails Program 530 E. Main, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5232 Apri125, 2004 Mayor Helen Klanderud City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 cc: Members of the Aspen City Council Director, City of Aspen Community Development Department Deaz Mayor Klanderud, I am an immediate adjacent neighbor to the proposed development between Walnut and Race, where I have lived for twenty yeazs. I would like to voice my support for the planner of the Walnut Property, _, LLC, which is being submitted to the City of Aspen. This project preserves the "Blue Victorian" that Angie Griffith lived in. the ,.. meadow in front of it, and the spirit of the railroad curve that established the history of the neighborhood. The project also includes a children's playground and park to be built with the Parks Department on Spruce Street, and has the potential to preserve over 9 acres for open space along the Hunter Creek trail. .-- It is essential that local residents who are sensitive to the history, ethics and future of our community be involved in major projects such as this one. We are fortunate that Angie Griffith's heir elected to sell the property to someone with community and environmental values and supported her vision for the neighborhood. I admire and respect Camilla Auger for her energy, creafivity and commitment to green space; especially as evidenced •~ in this project. Sincerely, ... ,,,, Clurie Bennis r r A w Mayor Helen Klanderud ~-- Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street " ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Hele,.1, Dear M ~landerud: Larry Griffith 530 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 29, 2004 `- The property at Walnut and Race streets has been in my family for many yeazs and I have happy memories of spending time there as a boy. When Angie Griffith died recently, I sold the property to Walnut Properties, LLC for the Fox Crossing project. A key factor in "" my decision to sell the property to Walnut was my confidence in Camilla Auger and her vision which I shaze for the restoration of the Angie Griffith Blue Victorian, the preservation of the meadow next to the Victorian, the creation of a pazk near the old Max Aley house "' with the Pazks Department on the City land there and the gift of 9.35 acres of dedicated open space on the Hunter Creek trail. W. I understand that she also intends to preserve as a single family house the two little -•• cabins which were slated for demolition and therefore were not a preservation requirement. I remember seeing these being built. They were maintained in their original state as natural .W in color and rubbed each year with linseed oil. Angie loved the flower beds, rose bushes and other flowers on the meadow which she tended until she grew too old to do so. Members from the senior center came in the Spring to pick some of the daffodils. ' There aze many families with small children living in Centennial and Hunter Creek as ,,, well as the houses nearby whose children and small dogs now play in the street. The major gift of critical open space on Hunter Creek Trail (which together with Randal Park will "' preserve nearly 20 acres.) the build out of the area near Max Aley's old house as a ... pazk/playground and the preservation of the Angie Griffith Blue Victorian and cabins in their historic setting of the meadow will be an important contribution to the neighborhood "~ and community. These benefits will be all within walking distance with a trail leading to the historic core at Fox Crossing. You were kind to Angie when she was alive and I hope that you and the other '~ members of the City Council will give the Fox Crossing project your support when it comes W Y Y~ r r ... ., .,. .^ Mayor Klanderud Page two , July 29, 2004 before you. With all the changes taking place in Aspen, amenities such as Fox Crossing will provide are particularly important for the future. Sincerely, ,,~~~~ Larry riffith CC: Julie Ann Woods, Chris Bendon, (for distribution to Members of the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission), Amy Guthrie, John Wooster, Esq and Boazd of County Commissioners, Hilary Smith, Cindy Houben, Lance Clark, Dale Will and John Ely, Esq. I rJ II I I I II II I II III III I I II II I ~ II II 9e~ 40~ 36 ~~ 111 06/20/2005 09.06f+ _VIP OQVI$ PITKIN COUNTY CO R 81.00 D 0.00 ORDINANCE N0. 50 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS, VACATION OF A PORTION OF RACE STREET, AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY AND VICINITY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.002 Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 North Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.026 Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application ''', from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street, as depicted in attachment A; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Deparbnent as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with a series of conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions) and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIVIIIVIIIIIII~IIIIVIIIIII I81~.0 69 0~OS0 9 05F `../ SILVIR !)RV Subdivision approval, have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, (and associated amendments to the Land Use Code) by a five to zero (5-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Subdivision Approval The Fox Crossing Subdivision shall consist ofthe following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Fox Crossing Lot #2 Fox Crossing Lot #3 Fox Crossing Lot #4 Fox Crossing Lot #5 Fox Crossing Lot #6 Fox Crossing Lot #7 Fox Crossing Lot #8 Fox Crossing Lot #9 Fox Crossing Lot #10 Fox Crossing Park Parcel Lot size = 10,331 sf Lot size = 7,510 sf Lot size = 6,0I Osf Lot size = 6,010 sf Lot size = 6,016 sf Lot size = 6,068 sf Lot size = 6,007 sf Lot size = 6,749 sf Lot size = 6,945 sf Lot size = 11,631 sf Lot size = 9,044 sf Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIII'lllilll0 692 4080 9 05n SILVIR DRVIS PI Fox Crossing Lot #11 (a.k.a. Griffith #1) Fox Crossing Lot #12 (a.k.a. Griffith #2) Fox Crossing Lot #13 (a.k.a. Griffith #3) -d ,.1 Lot size = 9,849 sf Lot size = 7,500 sf Lot size = 15,065 sf These lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. The lot designation shall be changed for the final plat to designate "Griffith" Lots 1, 2, and 3 as "Fox Crossing" Lot 11, 12, and 13, respectively. The allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor azea granted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/park use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Pazcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26:415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, #11, #12, and #13 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence, pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004. Fox Crossing Lots #5 and #6 are Historic Landmark properties and shall not be eligible for receiving TDRs. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. The maximum number of Historic TDRs which may be landed within the Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be limited to the total number of non-historic residences within the subdivision. Six (6) of the Lots shall be required to provide one additional parking space than otherwise required pursuant to the City's Land Use Code (minimum plus one spaces). These lots shall be specified in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. All other lots shall be required to meet the minimum pazking requirement. Section 2: Preservation of Hunter Valley Way Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to be landed within the Fox Crossing Subdivision in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Cleaz title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be facilitated by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. Title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be conveyed to the City of Aspen upon filing of the Subdivision Plat. 3. Prior to conveyance the Hunter Valley Way property shall be legally encumbered in a form acceptable to the City of Aspen that sterilizes the parcel and precludes Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 3 II ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II II ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ X92 408 a9 05A o SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN GOUNTV CO R 81.00 D 0.00 development, other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. 4. There shall be conveyed an open space easement on the parcel to the Aspen Valley Land Trust or similar third party acceptable to the City of Aspen. 5. The three (3) additional residential units within the Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. 6. The Hunter Valley Way parcel shall be sterilized to prevent development upon the parcel and as a result of the parcel, other than that specified herein. If Pitkin County issues transferable development rights for the sterilization of this parcel, the City of Aspen development rights issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall be considered null and void. Section 3: Growth ManaEement Exemations Required for Affordable Housing Replacement of existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a Historic Landmark (Lots 5 and 6). The parcels granted an exemption from growth management by virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space parcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13. No lots within the Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be permitted to provide affordable housing mitigation in the form of Accessory Dwelling Units. Fox Crossing Lot #11 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lots 7 and 10 contain existing residences and the current floor area shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residences on Lots 7 and 10 may be reallocated to other lots within the Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7 or 10. Section 4: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Studio residential units $1,520 per unit one-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 4 ~/ Page: 5 of 16 I~IIII IIII II II IIII) I II IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII 6120408 Os:OS~~ R 81.00 D 0.00 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be $3,621,777 per acre from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 11 new units results in a $109,750 per acre standard for calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Land Dedication Fees are not required for replacement dwellings and shall not be assessed to development on the Following lots: Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10. Development of each of the remaining lots of the Fox Crossing Subdivision shall require payment of School Land Dedication Fees according to the following schedule, payable at building permit issuance: House size 1/3 land Land Per unit Fee value per Dedication unit per acre standard acres One bedroom $109,750 .0012 $132 Two Bedroom $109,750 .0095 $1,043 Three $109,750 .0162 $1,778 Bedroom Four Bedroom $109,750 .0248 $2,722 Five or more $109,750 .0284 $3,117 Bedrooms Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 5: Water Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the following Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office at the time of construction. All clear water connections are prohibited, i.e. ground water, (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 5 R 8 5 9~ D 0801fi V IIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIII'll IIII IIII 006/20/2005 09:058 SILVIR DRVIS P 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shazed service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in azeas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 10. All ACSD total comiection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 7: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing Subdivision shall provide the City of Aspen Pazks Department with a monetary contribution of $100,000 for improvements to Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way). This shall be payable upon filing of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The Parks Department shall be authorized to use these funds for improvements to Aley Park and improvements to park or trail facilities in the general vicinity of the Project. The Fox Crossing Park Parcel shall be conveyed to the City of Aspen upon filing of the Subdivision Plat. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Pedestrian Trail connecting the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Pazks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. Prior to filing of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, there shall be an agreement specifying ownership, design, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the park and trail Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 6 ;~~y~^°~~~/7~~~ 511408 IIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIiIIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIIII~~IIIIIIIIIII.006920DZ000009 05A reviewed and approved by City Council. Maintenance of the trail shall be at th'e cost of the homeowners association. This agreement shall be then appended to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for filling. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify a construction detail for the proposed trail including the proposed 6-foot width and concrete surface. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify the number, location, and detail of wayfinding signage to be implemented. The applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to determine a mutually agreeable signage plan. Section 8: Construction Management Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Development Engineer. The plan shall include the following: 1. The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street, Race Alley, Spruce Street, and Walnut Street shall not be used for contractor parking. The City requires a contractor parking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot, or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging area. The CMP should specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a staging area is no longer required. 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided to surrounding property owners. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, contact information may be provided to the condominium association president rather than each individual owner. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to address neighborhood concerns about construction without involving the City. Section 9: Access Infrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed Contractor must obtain a City Access-Infrastructure (A-I) permit. One Contractor will be responsible for completing all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of the A-I Permit, the Contractor will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan. Section 10: Hazardous Soils: This area is partially within the Smuggler superfund site, which means additional permits and institutional controls may be required for any work done on the site. (See requirements outlined in the City Code.) City Environmental Health Department - 920.5039. Section 11: Streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Race Street shall be developed with a 34-foot curb-to-curb dimension and parking along both sides of the street. Asix-foot-wide sidewalk/trail shall be provided adjacent to the northern section of Race Street on Fox Crossing Lot #1, connecting the park trail to Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 7 IIII II I II II IIII VIII III IIIIII III II I II1 IIII 69 0408 09 OSP SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 81.00 0 0.00 Spruce Street. Sidewalk connections and parking within the rights-of--way shall be provided as described in the addendum application materials from Stan Clawson Associates dated February 16, 2005. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street, and preferably both sides, between Race Street and Park Circle. The design of this right-of--way shall be undertaken by the City of Aspen and the costs of implementing a sidewalk along one side of Spruce Street shall be bourn by the Applicant and added to the subdivision improvements agreement and secured through a letter or credit, or other acceptable means, dtte at the time of issuance of a building permit for the first building to be used for implementation of a sidewalk or other enhancements to Spruce Street. Three (3) public parking spaces shall be developed by the Applicant at the northern-most portion of the Walnut Street public right-of--way adjacent to the Fox Crossing Park Parcel. Walnut Street (the public right-of--way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide clearance with no parking. In the alternative, parking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-foot wide access easement with 16 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented. Section 12: Subdivision and Vacation Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and Vacation Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, the partial vacation of Race Street, the dedication of a portion of land to accommodate a turning radius between Race Alley and Race Street, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. 2. A building envelope on Fox Crossing Lot #3 restricting development along the northwest portion of the lot. 3. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 4. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any overlot grading and utility main work in the first phase. 5. Design specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and turning radii. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 8 IIII II IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II I I~f III P 9 ~ 4os 16 06/20/2005 09.0oF SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 81.00 D 0.00 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements. An irrigation plan for the park parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Pazks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepazed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge systems aze required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and pazcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 13: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this ~ ' '' development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including common driveways and drainage improvements. 2. The Public Facilities Guarantee shall also include the costs of implementing a sidewalk along one side of Spruce Street and shall be used for improvements to Spruce Street as determined appropriate by the City of Aspen. 3. A public access easement and ownership, use, boundary, maintenance agreement for the Pazk Pazcel and Pedestrian Trail, and construction detail as specified in Section 7. 4. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 8. 5. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 14: Fire Department Reauirements Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the newly constructed residential ~. buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems is required to meet Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 9 511408 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~06920D2005~0 9695l~ O with the Fire Marshall before starting design. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinklers. Section 15: Buildins Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel shall require Final Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. For Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel, this letter shall also confirm an understanding of the Final HPC approvals 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specific phase. 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris - from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to the property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for state contact information. 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Contractor will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit (for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 10 i lillll VIII IIIIII Iilll Ihll VIII III~II III IIIIII~II 0 69 04080 9 05n SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 8 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be installed in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 16: Fences Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park parcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. All fences within the Project shall be designed to be "wildlife-friendly" as specified in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. (Contact Pitkin County Planning Department for these specifications.) Section 17: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following fmal approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific "'• development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right; valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1Q 11, 12, 13, and the Fox Crossing Pazk Parcel. Section 18• All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if filly set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or anlended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such r. '` prior ordinances. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 11 VIII VIII II II III I I II II VIII II III 0692 4OSf 09505f SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 81.00 D 0.00 Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a coral of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Secfion 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 22: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 24°i day of January, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 23: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13d' day of December, 2004. r ~ Attest: Kathryn S. I ch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14"' day of March, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. K r, City Clerk Approved as to form: LJohn W~ter Cit3' Attorney Attachment A -Existing Property Map Attachment B -Proposed Subdivision Boundary Map Bendon C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Fox Crossing\Ordinance50-subdivision.doc Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 12 a s g: zx asa o8 tl as e P- ps, i d3 i 3 ~F. a a ~$~~ & a ~ _ ~ ~ egg jE a I~~d a- ~ ys a ~ 8 ~° a dt 3 d 93~ asa9a~ < ga3~ae ~ ;a;. ~~ y3~a I ~ ~P~a , eaa :~7 t ~ ~: ° . dEs'§4 ~. YxSS ea 563 ~2 aas ~ 3~ . ~i aa3 33F^ a °. ~ ~ ~49~e 3a 54.. s'7 F .g - .aa"s:. ce L 9 wa as ~ `dS °a 4a. ,'353 ~ fk ~ a gee+~°6 ~~~ l~~'C a £ -~~ 3e ~2e e 1 e i ~ ~~~xe~. ~.y 1 d a~g9a a x'~~ g° ~~ 0 e2~i9 3 se~~.. ~'~S~" a t°3 8 e-'§ 5 ~g g6a S ~ aa'' ~z :,?§ aa3 a e~ s3z ~ `agaz. '~!, ~ .. 1 Qr~ t¢~ U J ~. t!i W Z d ~ H-- W ~ 0 Z O _~ ^~ N LL' LL ( /~ 1 ~ Q L ` S"Z , ~~ O J_' .J W ~ :0 2 Z f-- 4' z cn - z z W m ~/ i3~,p a gg3~jg99' Ep.F Yyb ' 3i~; . 1.1. C as ~; ES e~ ~B x. w.w !I Q I. ! ! ~ a Wi al - 6 ~.~~ ~,~ a ': u s Nmsiniaen lnas lol Oll 'Ala3d d Nll!lla~ A F i ! ! ! ~~~ ~ I i~~~ ~ tt • .S ~,~ 1!lals lnnlvM 1i r~~ 3; s ie g'i°a 9 ~ 3;i; Q y 9 €3[9.~p... 11A0-N sa,~`1- ~S t• r ~ii~uuiiNiiii~uiuuu~e~.;.°~:...~ 11 II II I~ II IIII I I IIII II II II IIIII~~II 0692020a085f 096058 SILVIR DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 81.00 D 0.00 DEVELOPMENT ORDER City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of asite-specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three (3) -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site-specific development plan as described below. Property Owner's Name MailinE Address and telephone number: Walnut Property, LLC, Walnut Property II, LLC, Walnut Property III, LCC. C/O Camilla Auger, 709 North Spruce Street, Aspen, CO 81611. 970.544.0475. Leal Description and Street Address of Subject Property: Fox Crossing Subdivision, located within the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Located in the vicinity of Lone Pine Road, Race Alley, Race Street, and Walnut Street. Street Addresses to be determined. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describine Plan: The City Council approved development of a multi-unit residential subdivision more precisely described in Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004, and depicted on a final Subdivision plat to be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Land Use Approval Received and Dates: City Council Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004, attached, approved March 14, 2005. Effective Date of Development Order: May 8, 2005 (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of Development Order: May 8, 2008. (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) .-~ ~,., PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site-specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision, located within the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, by Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Aspen numbered 50, Series of 2004. The approval is for a fourteen (14) lot residential subdivision more precisely described in Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004, and depicted on a final plat to be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. For further information contact Chris Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado. (970) 920-5090. City of Aspen Published in The Aspen Times on May 8, 2005. MEMORANDUM ~~'~ TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Fox Crossing Subdivision and GMQS Exemptions 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. (cont. from 2.28.05) DATE: March 14, 2005 PROJECT: FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION REQUEST Subdivision to amend lot lines and divide seven existing lots with the SUMMARY: potential for 13 homes to be developed into 14 lots (one of the lots is a park) with a total of 19 potential homes. Two associated code amendments are proposed and are being considered under Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004. ZONING: R-6. Medium-Density Residential. No zoning changes are proposed. AeeLtCwrvT: Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC P&Z Approval with the conditions listed in the proposed Ordinance. (5-0) RECOMMENDATION: vote. P&7_ Minutes are attached. STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions RECOMMENDATION: listed in the proposed Ordinance. ISSUES FROM PRIOR HEARING: Application Addendum: The packet includes additional information submitted by the Applicant. Some of this information has been previously submitted and is merely resubmitted for convenience. A letter from Stan Clauson, dated March 3, 2005, summarizes and responds to the issues presented during the previous hearing. Park and Trail -The Parks Department would rather not own the park and be performing the maintenance, but rather have a maintenance agreement with the Homeowners Association. That being said, the Parks Department will accept ownership and maintenance of the park if that is the direction Council takes on this project. Section #7 of the Ordinance provides two options on this point -one for private ownership and the second for public ownership. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 1 - The Pazks Department and the City Attorney suggested the Hunter Valley Way pazcel be deeded to the City. The Ordinance has been amended to reflect this. Staff amended the Aley pazk improvement to a monetary contribution of $100,000 due at the time of filing. This money would then be transferred to the Parks Department. Staff included potential improvements to the Hunter Creek Bus Stop pazcel within the limits of how this money can be used. This will allow the City to improve this land if an agreement is arrived upon with the Hunter Creek Condominiums. Hunter Creek Bus Stop Area -Council raised the possibility of improvements to land owned by Hunter Creek Condominiums. The Applicant has researched this issue with the Hunter Creek Homeowners Association and several steps would be necessary to implement this request, including possible subdivision of this area of land from the Hunter Creek parcel. Determining a plan for this land will take time and negotiations with multiple parties. Staff does not suggest this project include a final plan for this land. Staff is suggesting that the Aley Park contribution be broadened to permit improvement on this land if agreements are achieved. County Parce[ -City Council requested staff obtain a determination from the County Planning staff as to the developability of the Hunter Valley Way parcel and potential TDRs which could be transferred from the parcel. The County staff is not inclined to speculate on the developability or TDRs which could be transferred, but did review and agree with the following analysis provided by City staff: The Hunter Valley Way parcel does have legal access. The access was granted through a parcel owned by Camilla Auger. Development on the parcel is subject to the County's 1041 regulations. It is likely that a driveway would be denied for 1041 approval. The parcel does contain significant areas of less than 30% slope. A building envelope could potentially be located in conformance with 1041 criteria. If either of these item fails to gain 1041 approval, a "takings" heazing determines if the developer is allowed to proceed or if the County must pay compensation to the developer for the loss in value represented by a 1041 denial. It is unknown whether the County would allow a development to proceed or if the County would choose to maintain the denial and compensate the developer. However, there have been a few recent cases with very similar circumstances and located in the same general vicinity. The County has permitted development to proceed on these other parcels. The parcel has one development right and is located in the County's AFR-10 Zone District. The parcel is slightly below the 10-acre minimum for this zone but this does not interfere with the development right. One house of up to 5,750 square feet is permitted with the ability, via Special Review approval, to increase the house size through extinguishment of Pitkin County TDRs. Landing TDRs in the County requires a review for impacts and it is difficult to determine if landing TDRs would be permitted on this site. This property was not affected by recent zoning changes to the Smuggler Mountain area. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 2 - The County has recently adopted code amendments to permit the transfer of development rights from "constrained parcels." This pazcel might be eligible as a constrained parcel. The number of TDRs granted is based on an equitable valuation of each application and it is not possible to determine the number of TDRs the County would grant for this parcel without a complete application and review by the Boazd of County Commissioners. Increase in Development Rights through County Parcel Preservation. Three development rights are being requested in exchange for preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel. One development right creates Griffith Lot #3. As a result, the Griffith parcels go from allowing a total a three residences to a total of six residences and a total of 3,300 square feet of additional Floor Area can be developed. The remaining two development rights are to be landed on proposed Fox Crossing Lots 8 and 9. Through Lot Split approvals each of these lots could be created although the resulting Floor Area for each would be less. With only lot split approval, a house of approximately 2,280 square feet could be developed on each parcel whereas the additional development rights result in Floor Areas of approximately 3,350 square feet on each parcel. Total for the two lots is an increase by 2,140 square feet of Floor Area. The total Floor Area increase for the three development rights is -5,440 square feet. Accessory Dwelling Units: The Ordinance has been amendment to prohibit ADUs in this subdivision. Construction Parking on Walnut Street: The ordinance has been amended to prohibit contractor parking along this street. Extra On-Site Parking Spaces: The Applicant has offered an additional six parking spaces to be developed on-site -one lots which are large enough to accommodate additional parking. The ordinance has been amended to reflect this obligation. Spruce Street • Right-of-Way Improvements - Council raised questions regarding improvements to Spruce Street. The Traffic Safety Advisory Committee suggested pedestrian improvements along Spruce Street be implemented by the Applicant. The Applicant has also suggested additional parking along this street to mitigate parking issues. The design of right-of--way improvements for this street will need to go through a process involving the neighborhood. The improvements themselves could take a variety of shapes including converting existing head-in pazking to parallel, implanting sidewalk on one or both sides, of the street, a street tree concept, speed humps, or any other combination of improvements. If Council wants to initiate this process, staff suggests that the Applicant's obligation for a sidewalk and parking become a monetary obligation of this lazger project and that City staff be directed to initiate this design process and Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 3 - neighborhood involvement. This project would be a work program item for Either Asset Management or the City Engineer and could be brought forward as part of next year's budget. Race Alley and Street -Staff met with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. An acceptable width for Race Alley is 30 feet if two-way traffic is to be maintained. The existing 20-foot width is only acceptable if the street becomes one-way. Both the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal recommend the direction of travel be northbound. This will cause fewer conflicts with the existing street network. In addition, the Fire Marshal feels that a southbound plan could bottleneck emergency vehicles during an event. 'Fhe City Engineer suggests allowing parking along both sides of Race Street (the northernmost portion). A 36-foot curb-to-curb dimension is recommended to permit the two parallel parking areas and one lane of travel. The Applicant's attached letter diagrams two street sections with 30-foot rights-of--way. An absolute minimum acceptable dimension is 34 feet to permit one lane of travel at 18 feet and two parking areas of 8 feet each. In this scenario, the 6-foot sidewalk will need to be entirely on Lot #1. The recommendation from the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee included a sidewalk along Spruce Street on at least one side. The Ordinance includes this requirement with the City initiating a design process for improvements along Spruce Street and the Applicant being responsible for financially sharing in the improvements commensurate with the cost of developing a sidewalk along one side of the street. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing parcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. Please refer to Exhibit B for existing parcel terminology, Exhibit C for development rights summary, Exhibit D for the proposed lots and Exhibit E for an illustrative development plan. The existing property consists of: • the Griffith Lot Split parcels - a two-lot subdivision permitting three residences, • the Bennis Property which is a duplex lot; and, • the Walnut Properties which are four legal properties each with the ability to develop a duplex or two single-family residences, described as follows: o The "Railroad Parcel," which is a long, curving property currently vacant; o the "Garage Parcel" located east of Race Alley and currently containing a garage; and, o two lots that currently house an old, abandoned house, two small cabins, and a newer (1960s) house. These two parcels merged by operation of the - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 4 - Pitkin County Land Use Code into two standazd lots, each with two residences, prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. All of the land is zoned R6 -Medium Density Residential -and permits a total of 13 homes to be developed, by right. With three of the pazcels eligible for lot splits, a total of 19 homes could be built. The proposed subdivision divides the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permitting asingle-family house or a duplex. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two yeazs ago, created asingle-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provision does not permit a second lot split and requires full subdivision approval to further divide a lot split property. This creation of a new lot, by subdividing the duplex lot, requires a subdivision approval and a new development right. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create this development right in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. Lot Line adjustments are proposed for realigning the Griffith properties and the Bennis property. T'he adjustments do not require any development allotments. The Bennis property is described as Lot #10 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision. The Railroad parcel currently permits the development of asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The property's size qualifies it for a Lot Split which would permit the development of a duplex or two single-family residences on one lot and a single-family residence on the second lot. This lot split accounts for proposed FC Lot #1 (duplex lot) and proposed FC Lot #3 (single-family lot). The land currently housing the abandoned house, the two cabins, and the newer (1960s) house was affected by Pitkin County's merger provision prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. The Pitkin County Code merged the lots into two standard parcels, each with two structures. Staff describes these pazcels as "Old House plus North Cabin" and "South Cabin plus New House." Each of these parcels permits a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Both aze considered to currently contain two single-family residences. The Old House Plus North Cabin parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #4 and #5. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. Rehabilitation of the historic, abandoned house is slated for FC Lot #5 and a development plan has been granted Conceptual approval by the HPC. Two new lots are proposed - FC Lot #8 and FC Lot #9 -each permitting one single-family residence. These two new lots require two new development rights. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create these development rights in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. The South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #6 and #7. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. FC Lot #6 is proposed for asingle-family residence incorporating the two cabins. The two cabins aze to be -Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 5 - preserved as historically designated resources and HPC has granted a Conceptual approval for the redevelopment. The remaining portion of the South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed as a pazk. No development right is needed for this lot as it will not be a development parcel. The Uarage parcel currently contains a garage and permits asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel is described as FC Lot #2 in the proposal and will continue to permit asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Some minor adjustments to the lot lines are necessazy to accommodate a better turning radius from Race Alley to Race Street. MAIN ISSUES: Emergency Access and Rond Safety: A standard of subdivision review requires the City to find that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the development. As part of the standard development review process, staff has asked the referral agencies to comment on: 1) the ability of the existing street network (with no changes) to accommodate this development; and, 2) the changes that would be necessary if the existing network is not able to accommodate the development. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshall initially responded by stating that the existing road network is inadequate as it exists today. Race Alley is a 12-foot-wide two-way street within a 20-foot wide right-of-way. The options to cure the inadequacy were described as either widen Race Alley (meaning property acquisition of 5 feet on both sides to provide a 30-foot right-of--way) or designate the existing Race Alley and Race Street as one-way. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was convened to further discuss this project and a few minor amendments. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the following agencies: Fire Department, City Engineering, Community Development Engineering, Police Department, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department. Representatives of the Water Department were also present to ensure a sufficient utility easement along the Walnut extension. The Committee discussed three items: 1) Bollards within the right-of-way; 2) the revised Walnut Street extension and connection with Lone Pine; and, 3) the adequacy of Race Alley and Street. The Committee did not support any bollards or other means of hindering movement . within. the road system. The Committee believes the extension of Walnut Street has been adequately designed. (This is an amendment to the application and provides a connection from Walnut to Lone Pine as shown in Exhibit D.) The committee stated that the current dimensions of Race Alley are inadequate and provided two options: 1) widen the right-of- way, along the full extent of Race Alley, to 30 feet; or 2) designate vehicular flow along - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 6 - Race Alley and Street as one-way with installation of a sidewalk along at least one side of Spruce Street for better pedestrian access. Staff does not believe widening Race Alley is an ideal solution. This could cause undue hardship on several property owners as structures and other improvements would be affected. Staff has included the `one-way with sidewalk' recommendation in the proposed Ordinance. P&Z supported this recommendation as it related to the adequacy of infrastructure subdivision standard. P&Z did not offer any additional "chazacter-based" opinions concerning the directional traffic flow of Race Alley. Several neighbors have suggested that the Applicant pursue an extension of Race Street to connect with Lone Pine. This would create a "T" intersection with Race Alley and would likely eliminate the proposed park parcel. Staff has not analyzed this as it is not being proposed by the Applicant and it does not appeaz to be a requirement of the Traffic Committee. If this changes, staff will reseazch this potential. The adequacy of Race Street should be addressed regardless of the outcome of the Fox Crossing application. The Fire Mazshal has stated his safety concerns and the Traffic Advisory group has provided a recommendation. If the Fox Crossing application is not approved, a total of eight new residences could be developed along Race Alley by right. Considering the potential for Lot Splits, the street could experience up to eleven new residences. The Fox Crossing application proposes nine residences to be accessed from Race Alley. Historic TDRs. The Applicant has proposed that unbuilt FAR be severed from the historic resources and transferred to non-historic residences to be developed within the subdivision. Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 and Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, and #10 are designated to receive up to two TDRs per residence. These lots aze not adjacent to the historic resources and are recommended to receiving the Floor Area increases. Staff supports the request. The HPC, during Conceptual review for development of the historic resources, supported this Floor Area shift and P&Z also recommended approval. Open Space & GMQS Exemptions. The application requests three (3) development rights in exchange for the preservation of a parcel known as the "Hunter Valley Way" parcel. The City's Open Space Acquisition Board and several other land preservation organizations support the preservation of this pazcel as it represents a vital connection along the Hunter Creek Trail and is within close visual proximity to town. Attachment #3 of the application maps this Hunter Valley Way parcel. One development right is proposed for the Griffith Subdivision and will effectively allow for up to six residences where up to three could be developed without the additional development right. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two yeazs ago, created a single-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provisions limit lot split properties to three total residences and requires full subdivision approval to further divide the - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 7 - property. By dividing the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permits a single-family or a duplex and none of the lots are limited by the three residences maximum. The Applicant has indicated that these lots would like]y be developed as single-family- residences, not duplexes. The remaining two development rights are to be landed on proposed Fox Crossing Lots 8 and 9. Through Lot Split approvals each of these lots could be created although the resulting Floor Area for each would be less. With lot split approval a house of approximately 2,280 square feet could be developed on each parcel whereas the additional development rights result in Floor Areas of approximately 3,350 square feet. Staff supports the request for three development rights. The open space parcel proposed for preservation is highly recommended for acquisition by the City's Open Space Board as well as other land preservation organizations. The additional development represents a manageable increase in the amount of impacts associated with development. The resulting development on the Griffith Lots (the most visible from Lone Pine Road) will be approximately 3,300 square feet more than would otherwise be allowed. While this represents additional impacts, staff believes the trade-off is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of the three development rights in exchange for the preservation of Hunter Valley Way. Construction Staging and Construction Impacts: Typical of infill development, the project is within an existing neighborhood and the process of development should be well-planned. Several neighbors of the project have contacted staff with this specific concern. Staff has suggested that the applicant determine a construction plan specifying access points and staging area(s). Staff believes one of the lots should be specified as a project staging area. Staff also believes that construction access on Race Alley could be problematic and that Lone Pine Road may be better able to accommodate contractor parking and a principal construction access point (at least for lots on the west side of the development). A construction management plan should address development issues such as haul routes and dust suppression, as well as provide neighbors with an on-site contact for day-to-day issues. This has been done on other big projects (Obermeyer, Grand Hyatt, Residences) where the proximity of existing development dictates such a plan. These issues have been included as conditions of approval and the applicant is accepting of these conditions. APPLICABLE LAND LJSE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: GMQS Exemptions are requested for the creation of three (3) development rights in -Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 8 - exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Final Review Authoritv: City Council 2. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for a.) the creation of new lots; and, b.) a re-arrangement of existing lot lines. Final Review Authoritv: City Council STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff findings (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit B: Existing Pazcel Terminology Map Exhibit C: Development Rights Chart Exhibit D: Proposed Lot Plan Exhibit E: Illustrative Development Plan Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit G: Traffic Safety Advisory Memorandum (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit H: Letters received by staff concerning application. (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit I: .Application Addendum letter and maps from Stan Clauson Associates. (Original application distributed with December 13, 2004, packet) Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 9 - ORDINANCE N0. 50 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS, VACATION OF A PORTION OF RACE STREET, AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE FOX CROSSING AND GRIFFITH SUBDIVISIONS ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.002 Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 North Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.026 Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street, as depicted in attachment A; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with a series of conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions) and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 1 Subdivision approval, have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, (and associated amendments to the Land Use Code) by a five to zero (5-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Subdivision Approval The Fox Crossing Subdivision and the Griffith Subdivision shall consist of the following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Lot size = 10,331 sf Fox Crossing Lot #2 Lot size = 7,510 sf Fox Crossing Lot #3 Lot size = 6,01 Osf Fox Crossing Lot #4 Lot size = 6,010 sf Fox Crossing Lot #5 Lot size = 6,016 sf Fox Crossing Lot #6 Lot size = 6,068 sf Fox Crossing Lot #7 Lot size = 6,007 sf Fox Crossing Lot #8 Lot size = 6,749 sf Fox Crossing Lot #9 Lot size = 6,945 sf Fox Crossing Lot #10 Lot size = 11,631 sf Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 2 Pox Crossing Park Parcel Lot size = 9,044 sf Griffith Lot #1 Lot size = 9,849 sf Griffith Lot #2 L.ot size = 10,000 sf Griffith Lot #3 Lot size = 15,065 sf These lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. The allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor area granted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/park use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Parcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, and Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence, pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004. Fox Crossing Lots #5 and #6 are Historic Landmark properties and shall not be eligible for receiving TDRs. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. The maximum number of Historic TDRs which may be landed within this Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be limited to the total number of non-historic residences within the subdivision. Six (6) of the Lots shall be required to provide one additional parking space than otherwise required pursuant to the City's Land Use Code (minimum plus one spaces). These lot shall be specified in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. All other lots shall be required to meet the minimum parking requirement. Section 2• Preservation of Hunter Valley Wav Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. Title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be conveyed to the City of Aspen upon tiling of the Subdivision Plat. 3. "The City of Aspen shall implement a legal encumbrance to sterilize the Hunter Valley Way parcel and preclude development, other than that associated with the Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 3 maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. 4. The City of Aspen shall convey an open space easement on the parcel to the Aspen Valley Land Trust or similar third party. 5. The three (3) additional residential units within the Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. 6. The Hunter Valley Way parcel shall be sterilized to prevent development upon the parcel and as a result of the parcel, other than that specified herein. [f Pitkin County issues transferable development rights for the sterilization of this parcel, the City of Aspen development rights issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall be considered null and void. Section 3• Growth Mana¢ement Exemptions Required Replacement of existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a Historic Landmark. The parcels granted an exemption from growth management by virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space parcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Griffith Lots 2, and 3; Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. No lots within the Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be permitted to provide affordable housing mitigation in the form of Accessory Dwelling Units. Griffith Lot #1 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lot 7 contains an existing residence and the current Iloor area shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residence on Lot 7 may be reallocated to other lots within the Griffith/Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7. Section 4: Imnact Fees Park Impact Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Studio residential units $1,520 per unit one-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 4 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be $3,621,777 per acre from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 11 new units results in a $109,750 per acre standard for calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Land Dedication Fees are not required for replacement dwellings and shall not be assessed to development on the following lots: Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10. Development of each of the remaining lots of the Fox Crossing and Griffith Subdivision shall require payment of School Land Dedication Fees according to the following schedule, payable at building permit issuance: House size 1/3 land Land Per unit Fee value per Dedication unit per acre standard acres One bedroom $109,750 .0012 $132 Two Bedroom $109,750 .0095 $1,043 Three $109,750 .0162 $1,778 Bedroom Four Bedroom $109,750 .0248 $2,722 Five or more $109,750 .0284 $3,117 Bedrooms Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 5• Water Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the following Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. All clear water connections are prohibited, i.e. ground water, (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 5 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycol snovvmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 10. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 7: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision shall provide the City of Aspen Parks Department with a monetary contribution of $100,000 for improvements to Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way). This shall be payable upon filing of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. The Parks Department shall be authorized to use these funds for improvements to Aley Park or improvements to land owned by Hunter Creek Condominiums along Lone Pine Road (the Hunter Creek Bus Stop land). Option #1-Private ownership A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and the Pedestrian Trail connecting the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the .Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundaries, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 6 and maintenance responsibilities for the Pazk Pazcel and trail. Maintenance of the park and trail shall be at the cost of the homeowners association. Option #2 -City Ownership The Fox Crossing Pazk Parcel shall be conveyed to the City of Aspen upon filing of the Subdivision Plat. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Pedestrian Trail connecting the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. The Subdivision Agreement shall also include an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundazies, and maintenance responsibilities for the trail. Maintenance of the trail shall be at the cost of the homeowners association. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify a construction detail for the proposed trail including the proposed 6-foot width and concrete surface. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify the number, location, and detail of wayfinding signage to be implemented. The applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to determine a mutually agreeable signage plan. Section 8: Construction Management Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Development Engineer. The plan shall include the following: ] . The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street, Race Alley, and Walnut Street shall not be used for contractor parking. The City prefers a contractor pazking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot, or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging area. The CMP should specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a staging area is no longer required. 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided to surrounding property owners. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, contact information may be provided to the condominium association president rather than each individual owner. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to address neighborhood concerns about construction without involving the City. Section 9: Access lufrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed Contractor must obtain a City Access-Infrastructure (A-I) permit. One Contractor will be responsible for completing all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of the A-I Permit, the Contractor will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan. Section 10: Hazardous Soils: This area is within the Smuggler superfund site, which means additional permits and institutional controls are required for any work done on the Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 7 site. (See requirements outlined in the City- Code.) City Environmental Health Department - 920.5039. Section 11: Streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Race Street shall be developed with a 36-foot curb-to-curb dimension and parking along both sides of the street. A six-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided adjacent to the northern section of Race Street on Fox Crossing Lot #1, connecting the park trail to Spruce Street. Sidewalk connections and pazking within the rights-of-way shall be provided as described in the addendum application materials from Stan Clauson Associates dated February 16, 2005. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street, and preferably both sides, between Race Street and Park Circle. The design of this right-of-way shall be undertaken by the City of Aspen and the costs of implementing a sidewalk along one side of Spruce Street shall be bourn by the Applicant and added to the subdivision improvements agreement and held in escrow by the City of Aspen for implementation of a sidewalk or other enhancements to Spruce Street. Walnut Street (the public right-of-way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide clearance with no pazking. In the alternative, pazking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-foot wide access easement with 16 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented Section 12: Subdivision and Vacation Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record. a Subdivision and Vacation Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, the partial vacation of Race Street, the dedication of a portion of land to accommodate a turning radius between Race Alley and Race Street, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particulaz utility provider. 2. A building envelope on Fox Crossing Lot #3 restricting development along the northwest portion of the lot. 3. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 4. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any overlot grading and utility main work in the first phase. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 8 5. Design specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and turning radii. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements. An irrigation plan for the park parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. [f a ground recharge systems are required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 13: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including common driveways and drainage improvements. 2. The Public Facilities Guarantee shall also include the costs of implementing a sidewalk along one side of Spruce Street and shall be used for improvements to Spruce Street as determined appropriate by the City of Aspen. 3. A public access easement and ownership, use, boundary, maintenance agreement for the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail, and construction detail as specified in Section 7. 4. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 8. ~. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 9 .~ Section 14: Fire Department Requirements Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems is required to meet with the Fire Marshall before starting design. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinlders. Section 15: Buildine Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Pazcel shall require Final Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. For Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel, this letter shall also confirm an understanding of the Final HPC approvals 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. ~. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specific phase. 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to the property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for state contact information. 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Contractor will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit (for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 10 v s 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be installed in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 16: Fences Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park parcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 17: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision hots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and Griffith Subdivision Lots 1, 2, and 3. Section 18• All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Platming and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: [f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 11 shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 22: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 24n' .day of January, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 23: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13a' day of December, 2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Bendon C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Fox Crossing\Ordinance50-subdivision.doc Attachment A -Existing Property Map Attaclunent B -Proposed Subdivision Boundary Map Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 12 g.a9' YMEf 3 F ~@. ~f~;iF - % aK~gS F ~ ,.e.~. ~~ F f pv % E 5 p~j a i ~ S ~°~ It. ~e. IF 1 ~ ks t Fgi@F ~ "~ a@Fp ~ p~?4 z N 9~ of a9~ Fa @ ~ p~ ayaa~ 3 Fi ~x4"~ ~~~s~S ps{p ~a ~7@bee ~.. ~ ~pp~F ~'~_ i. Fip~Ke ei zFa 6qP ~@, E1 k 4's pi~3^~@6-~ k ]'A Fake "'~ a ak ~~~ ~F';F ~:~r p ~d19~ia~iA X~p ~~" i K jk gg tl ~~9p~ ~Ea 1k aF ti i @7~~. . k ,~t~add~ .77F nii s:a ~ ~~aiz~: ~ ; ~ `„_ __'W~ N _ C~ €. U J ~. ' W Z O ~ ~ w ~ o z O; Q w d 1 ~ ''a L.I... ~:. .N 5 C .~ L e @,~ ;Q LL @Z J O J J U D = Z @- Q z In z Z W O] F3~i F SeA @~]( t[i[ yFyiF ~23e R "~o~ ~~~ '~~ A a ~l d . ~~ ~~ qiq F ~@E@@'~ep•~1°f`f~i[pFpa3Fp(~({{!@!¢¢elsqq n¢e¢i F l~~i@@iF liF ~f F[FF~FI!l Si~A] 9 !@ o "' 4 (' _ _.. _ U ~' I k °~~ 3 I i 3 ~ ~ § 6 Y 9 9 9 9 3 ~~ ~ 3 F ~ e 0 ~3 s a F w•. t~ yya' ''a~±.;~y 3Y T •••• k q Fg a9 ~" '"'p § 's § @ii3@I@"v aoivniaen iius ioi on •uaaa d niumao ~~ R~r~ ~ ~ @ ~9 @° ~ ~6~ a V u3aFS innirm 9p~r-~+, ~§afl@9 FF ~d !t~ ' d k vdF ~:1a1! :~iF~B~ d = ' X d N m _ N d ~O d .T. .= C . d n m J ik d ~J n# J N O O N WL t d%~O V °~ YJ m N U.L.. ~ C N O P N O O a g N N rv o ~ a ° a u u o a m L V E ~ E c t~ ° ~' ~ m o N N `E,.. N n y F m uo ~ m Nn c c v Q N p« . N O °_o d c N EL Q v ~r a o a J o Z• `J ~ ° U ~ N N d N> D " U d U C LL O V N T J # L T~ ~ ` , o d LL L E N C L C d T ## O .L >~ ~° t ~ J v V Lrr 1` O O -OAE p'O N E Y N 00 WCC J J E`O C- ` U a d ~ 3 C ~ N. 9 _ N 6 ~ N ]Y.. C LL m d q N B C mddC LL d '" N ~U> ~ dT %r X 9 U = d F' d LL C y d d d 1~ m N N 6 y 9 . .. p N N O_ d A L ~ d N N an # U V O d. # E # N 'O O - ° n O O y _ C OO O D n 'OCm n% N VRd y) 'O NC> J 'O 4 I O ~d NC>y C 'p O d d Ca N> N N O dU d10o om d a Aa v O d C No c~ v m '^o c~..v m N 3 %o J i n my c # W~ 2 A v ~ T N~ t d V fOO N ~~ z ~ N -n n QJ UI lV (0 N y ~' n d V J 9 N % n N _ # ~ N h d N N d d % N ` m .. . E c O U `? m O e n n o o o o LL . U~ LL V N U c `o ~ O ~ ~ E d t N V% d U LL C- ~ N' p~ O L 10 i ~ _ LL a % t N C ' n-. E~ lU O cF °. i N v ° d 5 d v° ~ N ~c xmo N N N r dN xao o N L % N a T m o d° O u >~ j d Y ~ d N d U C ~ U .~ d d C C 6 W W N O rn O- v a a s t ° m m J C C U'c y d d J ~ v a v v o E d m ui m o aLLU 'm >, ~ d oa'o E-°~ vEE Sa vEE n c y£ ~„ CN NN U1~C ~ a V .L. O'O DOL6C d o l6 "' O C 4 9 Y d Y O d d$ d d% y N N d% d ~ E % C Lw aO U ..~ ~ mD L C T.` g'E o oo ajE O c j d W oa aiE d O ) d N '_ > > m O O` ~ J N y m o ~ ` m N N o v a v n b o d o u ~ N cv L~ m o 'c ; EL V m ~ o.y m NNN ~ o-o N V nD o- Ud Nd C c y I-CNN y J O . J _CC CC _ O~ ~E Nv Nv N 6C C 6N~N .~N np .d !may O ~ NC~jC CT O ma C NON Nd x'00 Nd p90LL ~ d MNd O L V O d .E - N v d L = 0 2 E J L d o~ a N n J ~% J C O o a N a v J" J C° L E O v E E L N N Z U Q N N o ~ N J% d p F- N O J Q O K Q~ N N n Q% /1 W 2 H f/1 F 6 6 ~1 N ~ N N N ~: ~ ~ ~ y : ' ~ ~ V Q F- O O O O .. O C' V-'N O C F' N . . . O O N C OI C OT N N; N N ~Ta ~ Y ~ ~ CN CO N OK C O Q ~~ ~~ N J D 1* ~ ~ ~. ~ $ D 5x c{'n Z c n ~ NN ~ F~5 H^~ Hr H S.is•. F.: J4a~ u~• Y y ~ N N N'f N.C+ N N' _ y, _ N N C N„~ C N N N N N N N Q y J C C C _ N ni J O O O M M O O (O LL N ~ ~ ~ m p d V Q 10 d `N r N C 1 n N M O N O. E ~ 6 M n y 6 M ~ N M ,.. r ~ i ~ + N - t h M [n M M ~` y y 10 V /~~ ~ G ~ \ G O // ~~ V N. ~ j ~ . G q ~ V ~ ry G 'CI U UL p ~ G y N O ~.-~ ~ O 0 , ~U` O! T U` N i.O A -''O m ~. T T .T T T T `~ m ' N ~ 1 E E !~~ E E ~ E. ~ E E E `E ,E E E na .~ e 10 O LL. G LL V G LL lL U f LL' lLL LL' IL LL IL LL LL y y~ V O N x ry . 0 N 'X v N% . d N d N d _ d NU d y j d d... om. 6 m m 6 m % R. d d m m m m m' OI m m O '-N n _ m J C J J C C ~ O. C_ 6 C C_ C_ C_ C C_ C_ % n ~ N Q UJ ~ N ~ _ N ~ N ~ N. t OI (~ (~ f/1 U1 Ul U1 f/1 (~.~ O' N om r m J C -,. . ~ +C '- N M O ~~ M N V 0 O h m N 6 O L. L L O x J~; -O +J 'O J O J O J'. O J O J O J s N J a ~ ~ ~ J LL O L ~ C7 C C7 LL LL,~ 'LL LL ll LL LL LL U LL O. _ LL ' ~ % ^ ~ 'f T n 'T ~ t * y/~ , NJ •~ N- N { I k~. ~ •3 di ~.. NO LL I` N j ~ NO LLV j ~ a N ~ ~ 3 mN v d p ~M r ~ p. N d. d` d di: ! ~ C~ nNr C~ 6N ~ , z z z -z +~ p ~:: z `y -^ y d~^ N a' ro n C ' __>~ ~.A x # # # i t ~~4" J J •• 'J J µ LL LL ~ LL LL N N N j N j N ~ N ? N j o ° ° y v ~ `v rn `m y o n O a n ~' n M p, y a O p` ~- n M N pp`` n ~ N p~ 6 p N ~ o ~ N ~ r ~ N ~ o .N.. C N J T TON.C TOE TON ~ TOM TON ~ TOE NO 0 'E .E ~ J E ~ E ~i N E E ~i E N m LL IL ~ IL V / IL V IL Ua LL Ud On M J ~ LL d ~ d d N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ N M C m O1 0 C m n C_ C n _ C_ n C n C n N N N ~ N O N ~ N O N O N ~X W ~ o N a va ao 0 J o J T a N JV N = o. d L_ L y C c n N ~ O y r t m 5 3 m ~° ~j (9 m a K O z N Z N (7 ~r ---~ ~~ r~ `~ .°„°~ T '° `°"' usid }uauidolaeaQ I s"o~sU~ uocsetpgns ~mssoa~ xo,~ •° c.....r ao ti.aw..~n~~,. ~ia~s ~vva Aa ~ S ~ ~ I L . _ i fl ma` a I oa°m ~o~ W ~ > +. .„_ ~~~ _ °°a "~ 9 ' ° o m ^ 1~_ .._ =. ~ m0 ado JV1b 1 -- -- i33ais 3Jnaas ~og ~ _ ~ el ~- I :I 'J I a N mo _ $ 5 °~ =I sow ~e a a ~I I ~ e 7 I _ .. A3Ttl 3otla ~~ _ '_ , I gN l s F o~' "~ ' __ _ I N_„I~ ~- --- >, I ~- -n 4 . 6 LI " a Y_O I_ u ONE n QO oa II}- ~ i ~_o U~ 0 m-n \ i i33ais imntlM 1 ~` - e 14 - - -~-~If 40 a 1• ~ y0~ I n ~(~~ J VI W _ "~ O 1 .~~ ~ ps ~ e ( • \ ^~ / ~ ~ </~)3 ~p ~e<o / b!S o I $ ~ ~^MrM ... W. = 0 9 i m I 6 -- Y ~ V ~ / n I ~s C I M n I I b "~ ~ ''+/// N o ~ I 9~ ryn _ s~ f I `ONE PANE l I ~^ ~~~~(~ ''P.K ~f nL ~~ w- J Ul y~ ~"~ ~~~~~ ~. ~~ 1' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney r1~~~ FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director) \1YV"I RE: Fox Crossing Subdivision and GMQS Exemptions Second Reading of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. DATE: February 28, 2005 PROJECT: FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION REQUEST Subdivision to amend lot lines and divide seven existing lots with the SUMMARY: potential for 13 homes to be developed into 14 lots (one of the lots is a park) with a total of 19 potential homes. Two associated code amendments are proposed and are being considered under Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004. ZoNrnc: R-6. Medium-Density Residential. No zoning changes are proposed. APPLICANT: Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC P&Z Approval with the conditions listed in the proposed Ordinance. (5-0) RECOMMENDATION: vote. P&Z Minutes are attached. STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions RECOMMENDATION: listed in the proposed Ordinance. ISSUES FROM PRIOR HEARING: Park and Trail -The Applicant has clarified the trail width and materials. The trail will be six feet wide and constructed with concrete. The Parks Department is satisfied with this width and material. fo make the trail "feel" public, the City Parks Department suggests a broom finish, concrete trail, in city standard color (san diego buff). Proper signage (same standard as the city park signs and trail signs) and interpretation will also help make it feel public. The Applicant should work in cooperation with the Parks Department on mutually agreeable sign locations. Parks suggests one sign located at Gibson and Walnut St directing trail users up through the park and around to Aley playground. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 1 - The Parks Department does not recommend city ownership of the park and trail. They suggest the homeowners own and maintain the facility. A public access easement will cover the extent of the park and trail. Two updated maps showing trail alignment and proposed parking have been provided. Race Alley -Staff met with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal An acceptable width for Race Alley is 30 feet if two-way traffic is to be maintained. The existing 20-foot width is only acceptable if the street becomes one-way. Both the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal recommend the direction of travel be northbound. This will cause fewer conflicts with the existing street network. In addition, the Fire Marshal feels that a southbound plan could bottleneck emergency vehicles during an event. The City Engineer suggests allowing pazking along both sides of Race Street (the northernmost portion). A 38-foot curb-to-curb dimension is recommended to permit the two parallel parking areas and one lane of travel. The recommendation from the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee included a sidewalk along Spruce Street on at least one side. This item needs additional discussion. The Ordinance includes this requirement with the responsibility of the costs of the improvements to be determined by City Council. County Parce[ -The Hunter Valley Way parcel does have legal access. The access was granted through a parcel owned by Camilla Auger. Development on the parcel is subject to the County's 1041 regulations. It is likely that a driveway would be denied for 1041 approval. The parcel does contain significant azeas of less than 30% slope. A building envelope could potentially be located in conformance with 1041 criteria. If either of these item fails to gain 1041 approval, a "takings" hearing determines if the developer is allowed to proceed or if the County must pay compensation to the developer for the loss in value represented by a 1041 denial. It is unknown whether the County would allow a development to proceed or if the County would choose to maintain the denial and compensate the developer. However, there have been a few recent cases with very similar circumstances and located in the same general vicinity. The County has permitted development to proceed on these other parcels. The parcel has one development right and is located in the County's AFR-10 Zone District. The parcel is slightly below the 10-acre minimum for this zone but this does not interfere with the development right. One house of up to 5,750 squaze feet is permitted with the ability, via Special Review approval, to increase the house size through extinguishment of Pitkin County TDRs. Landing TDRs in the County requires a review for impacts and it is difficult to determine if landing TDRs would be permitted on this site. This property was not affected by recent zoning changes to the Smuggler Mountain area. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 2 - ,,,: The County has recently adopted code amendments to permit the transfer of development rights from "constrained parcels." This parcel might be eligible as a constrained parcel. The number of TDRs granted is based on an equitable valuation of each application and it is not possible to determine the number of TDR the County would grant for this parcel. Impacts on Surrounding Roads -Staff met with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal to discuss this issue. Neither believe this project will have any significant impacts on the capacity of the area's road system. The development will increase use of the road network, but not to the point of requiring any physical changes. Staff continues to recommend that construction access be limited to Lone Pine Road to the extent possible. Hunter Creek Bus Stop Area -Council raised the possibility of improvements to land owned by Hunter Creek Condominiums. This item is addressed in the attached letter from Stan Clauson Associates. Internal parking -Council raised questions regarding parking within the project itself. This item is addressed in the attached letter from Stan Clauson Associates. Also, two updated maps of the project show possible locations for additional parking. Log Cabias -City Council raised questions regarding HPC's recommendation on the location of the two log cabins. HPC preferred a location near the Victorian house (the abandoned blue-roof structure) as this has been the relationship for the past 35-40 years and the best option for maintaining the historic integrity of the resources. The options discussed were the current plan, a plan which moved the cabins to the far north east of the property (lot #1), and an unspecified off-site relocation plan. HPC did not make a recommendation on whether the cabins should be deed restricted as affordable housing. The HPC evaluated the historic preservation issues only. HPC did not deny a plan for deed restricting the cabins, as was implied at the prior meeting. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing parcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. Please refer to Exhibit B for existing parcel terminology, Exhibit C for development rights summary, Exhibit D for the proposed lots and Exhibit E far an illustrative development plan. The existine property consists of: • the Griffith Lot Split parcels - a two-lot subdivision permitting three residences, • the Bennis Property which is a duplex lot; and, • the Walnut Properties which are four legal properties each with the ability to develop a duplex or two single-family residences, described as follows: - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 3 - ~~ ,s . o The "Railroad Parcel," which is a long, curving property currently vacant; o the "Garage Parcel" located east of Race Alley and currently containing a garage; and, o two lots that currently house an old, abandoned house, two small cabins, and a newer (1960s) house. These two pazcels merged by operation of the Pitkin County Land Use Code into two standard lots, each with two residences, prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. All of the land is zoned R6 -Medium Density Residential -and permits a total of 13 homes to be developed, by right. With three of the parcels eligible for lot splits, a total of 19 homes could be built. The prouosed subdivision divides the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permitting asingle-family house or a duplex. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two years ago, created asingle-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provision does not permit a second lot split and requires full subdivision approval to further divide a lot split property. This creation of a new lot, by subdividing the duplex lot, requires a subdivision approval and a new development right. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create this development right in exchange for preserving an open space parcel Lot Line adjustments are proposed for realigning the Griffith properties and the Bennis property. The adjustments do not require any development allotments. The Bennis property is described as Lot #10 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision. The Railroad pazcel currently permits the development of asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The property's size qualifies it for a Lot Split which would permit the development of a duplex or two single-family residences on one lot and a single-family residence on the second lot. The City's lot split provision restricts the overall development resulting from a lot split to 3 units total, additional development must acquire new development rights. This lot split accounts for proposed FC Lot #1 (duplex lot) and proposed FC Lot #3 (single-family lot). Two new lots are proposed - FC Lot #8 and FC Lot #9 -each permitting one single-family residence. These two new lots require two new development rights. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create these development rights in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. The land currently housing the abandoned house, the two cabins, and the newer (1960s) house was affected by Pitkin County's merger provision prior to the land being annexed into. the City of Aspen in 1989. The Pitkin County Code merged the lots into two standard parcels, each with two structures. Staff describes these parcels as "Old House plus North Cabin" and "South Cabin plus New House." Each of these parcels permits a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Both are considered to currently contain two single-family residences. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 4 - r - s... The Old House Plus North Cabin parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #4 and #5. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. Rehabilitation of the historic, abandoned house is slated for FC Lot #5 and a development plan has been granted Conceptual approval by the HPC. The South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #6 and #7. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. FC Lot #6 is proposed for asingle-family residence incorporating the two cabins. The two cabins are to be preserved as historically designated resources and HPC has granted a Conceptual approval for the redevelopment. The remaining portion of the South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed as a pazk. No development right is needed for this lot as it will not be a development parcel. The Gazage pazcel currently contains a gazage and permits asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel is described as FC Lot #2 in the proposal and will continue to permit asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Some minor adjustments to the lot lines are necessary to accommodate a better turning radius from Race Alley to Race Street. MntN Issues: Emergency Access and Road Safety: A standard of subdivision review requires the City to find that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the development. As part of the standard development review process, staff has asked the referral agencies to comment on: 1) the ability of the existing street network (with no changes) to accommodate this development; and, 2) the changes that would be necessazy if the existing network is not able to accommodate the development. The City Engineer and the Fire Mazshall initially responded by stating that the existing road network is inadequate as it exists today. Race Alley is a 12-foot-wide two-way street within a 20-foot wide right-of--way. The options to cure the inadequacy were described as either widen Race Alley (meaning property acquisition of 5 feet on both sides to provide a 30-foot right-of--way) or designate the existing Race Alley and Race Street as one-way. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was convened to further discuss this project and a few minor amendments. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the following agencies: Fire Department, City Engineering, Community Development Engineering, Police Department, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department. Representatives of the Water Department were also present to ensure a sufficient utility easement along the Walnut extension. The Committee discussed three items: 1) Bollards within the right-of--way; 2) the revised Walnut Street extension and connection with Lone Pine; and, 3) the adequacy of Race Alley and Street. Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 5 - The Committee did not support any bollards or other means of hindering movement within the road system. The Committee believes the extension of Walnut Street has been adequately designed. (This is an amendment to the application and provides a connection from Walnut to Lone Pine as shown in Exhibit D.) The committee stated that the current dimensions of Race Alley are inadequate and provided two options: 1) widen the right-of- way, along the full extent of Race Alley, to 30 feet; or 2) designate vehicular flow along Race Alley and Street as one-way with installation of a sidewalk along at least one side of Spruce Street for better pedestrian access. Staff does not believe widening Race Alley is an ideal solution. This could cause undue Hardship on several property owners as structures and other improvements would be affected. Staff has included the `one-way with sidewalk' recommendation in the proposed Ordinance. P&Z supported this recommendation as it related to the adequacy of infrastructure subdivision standard. P&Z did not offer any additional "character-based" opinions concerning the directional traffic flow of Race Alley. Several neighbors have suggested that the Applicant pursue an extension of Race Street to connect with Lone Pine. This would create a "T" intersection with Race Alley and would likely eliminate the proposed park parcel. Staff has not analyzed this as it is not being proposed by the Applicant and it does not appear to be a requirement of the Traffic Committee. If this changes, staff will research this potential. The adeguacy of Race Street should be addressed reeardless of the outcome of the Fox Crossing application. The Fire Marshal has stated his safety concerns and the Traffic Advisory group has provided a recommendation. If the Fox Crossing application is not approved, a total of eight new residences could be developed along Race Alley by right. Considering the potential for Lot Splits, the street could experience up to eleven new residences. The Fox Crossing application proposes nine residences to be accessed from Race Alley. Historic TDRs. The Applicant has proposed that unbuilt FAR be severed from the historic resources and transferred to non-historic residences to be developed within the subdivision. Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 and Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, and #10 are designated to receive up to two TDRs per residence. These lots are not adjacent to the historic resources and are recommended to receiving the Floor Area increases. Staff supports the request. The HPC, during Conceptual review for development of the historic resources, supported this Floor Area shift and P&Z also recommended approval. Open Space & GMQS Exemptions. The application requests three (3) development rights in exchange for the preservation of a parcel known as the "Hunter Valley Way" parcel. The City's Open Space Acquisition Board and several other land preservation organizations support the preservation of this parcel as it represents a vital connection - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 6 - along the Hunter Creek Trail and is within close visual proximity to town. Attachment #3 of the application maps this Hunter Valley Way parcel. One development right is proposed for the Griffith Subdivision and will effectively allow for up to six residences where up to three could be developed without the additional development right. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two years ago, created a single-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provisions limit lot split properties to three total residences and requires full subdivision approval to further divide the property. By dividing the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permits a single-family or a duplex and none of the lots are limited by the three residences maximum. The Applicant has indicated that these lots would likely be developed as single-family residences, not duplexes. The remaining two development rights are to be landed on proposed Fox Crossing Lots 8 and 9. Through Lot Split approvals each of these lots could be created although the resulting Floor Area for each would be less. With lot split approval a house of approximately 2,280 square feet could be developed on each parcel whereas the additional development rights result in Floor Areas of approximately 3,350 square feet. Staff supports the request for three development rights. The open space parcel proposed for preservation is highly recommended for acquisition by the City's Open Space Board as well as other land preservation organizations. The additional development represents a manageable increase in the amount of impacts associated with development. .The resulting development on the Griffith Lots (the most visible from Lone Pine Road) will be approximately 3,300 square feet more than would otherwise be allowed. While this represents additional impacts, staff believes the trade-off is reasonable. Staff is recommending approval of the three development rights in exchange for the preservation of Hunter Valley Way. Construction Staging and Construction Impacts: Typical of infill development, the project is within an existing neighborhood and the process of development should be well-planned. Several neighbors of the project have contacted staff with this specific concern. Staff has suggested that the applicant determine a construction plan specifying access points and staging area(s). Staff believes one of the lots should be specified as a project staging area. Staff also believes that construction access on Race Alley could be problematic and that Lone Pine Road may be better able to accommodate contractor parking and a principal construction access point (at least for lots on the west side of the development). A construction management plan should address development issues such as haul routes and dust suppression, as well as provide neighbors with an on-site contact for day-to-day issues. This has been done on other big projects (Obermeyer, Grand Hyatt, Residences) where the proximity of existing development dictates such a plan. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 7 - These issues have been included as conditions of approval and the applicant is accepting of these conditions. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: GMQS Exemptions are requested for the creation of three (3) development rights in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Final Review Authority: City Council 2. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for a.) the creation of new lots; and, b.) a re-arrangement of existing lot lines. Final Review Authority: City Council STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. CITY MANAGER'S Un RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff findings (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit B: Existing Parcel Terminology Map Exhibit C: Development Rights Chart Exhibit D: Proposed Lot Plan Exhibit E: Illustrative Development Plan Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit G: Traffic Safety Advisory Memorandum (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit H: Letters received by staff concerning application. (distributed with the January 24 packet) Exhibit I: Application Addendum letter and maps from Stan Clauson Associates. (Original application distributed with December 13, 2004, packet) - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 8 - ORDINANCE N0. 50 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE FOX CROSSING AND GRIFFITH SUBDIVISIONS ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.002 Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 North Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.026 Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street, as depicted in attachment A; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with a series of conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions) and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 1 Subdivision approval, have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, (and associated amendments to the Land Use Code) by a five to zero (5-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Subdivision Approval The Fox Crossing Subdivision and the Griffith Subdivision shall consist of the following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Lot size= 10,331 sf Fox Crossing Lot #2 Lot size = 7,510 sf Fox Crossing Lot #3 Lot size = 6,OlOsf Fox Crossing Lot #4 Lot size = 6,010 sf Fox Crossing Lot #5 Lot size = 6,016 sf Fox Crossing Lot #6 Lot size = 6,068 sf Fox Crossing Lot #7 Lot size = 6,007 sf Fox Crossing Lot #8 Lot size = 6,749 sf Fox Crossing Lot #9 Lot size = 6,945 sf Fox Crossing Lot #10 Lot size = 11,631sf Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 2 Fox Crossing Park Parcel Lot size = 9,044 sf Griffith Lot #1 Lot size = 9;849 sf Griffith Lot #2 Lot size = 10,000 sf Griffith Lot #3 Lot size =15,065 sf These lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. The allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor area granted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The. Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/park use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Parcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, and Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence, pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004. Fox Crossing Lots #5 and #6 are Historic Landmark properties and shall not be eligible for receiving TDRs. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. The maximum number of Historic TDRs which may be landed within this Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be limited to the total number of non-historic residences within the subdivision. Section 2• Preservation of Hunter Valley Wav Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. A legal encumbrance, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall sterilize the Hunter Valley Way parcel and preclude development, other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. The encumbrance shall define maintenance and liability obligations. 3. The City of Aspen shall be a party (but not the sole party) to the deed restriction on the property. 4. The three (3) residential units shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 3 Section 3• Growth Management Exemptions Required Replacement of existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a Historic Landmark. The parcels granted an exemption from growth management by virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space parcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Griffith Lots 2, and 3; Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Griffith Lot #1 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lot 7 contains an existing residence and the current floor area shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residence on Lot 7 may be reallocated to other lots within the Griffith/Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7. Section 4: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Studio residential units $1,520 per unit one-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project to be $3,621,777 per acre from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. One-third of this value divided by the proposed 11 new units results in a $109,750 per acre standard fox calculating the impact fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Land Dedication Fees are not required for replacement dwellings and shall not be assessed to development on the following lots: Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, 7, and 10. Development of each of the remaining lots of the Fox Crossing and Griffith Subdivision shall require payment of School Land Dedication Fees according to the following schedule, payable at building permit issuance: Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 4 House size 1/3 land Land Per unit Fee value per Dedication unit per acre standard acres One bedroom $109,750 .0012 X132 Two Bedroom $109,750 .0095 $1,043 Three $109,750 .0162 $1,778 Bedroom Four Bedroom $109,750 .0248 $2,722 Five or more $109,750 .0284 $3,117 Bedrooms Amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 5: Water Deuartment Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the following Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. All clear water connections aze prohibited, i.e. ground water, (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground pazking garages. 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, sepazators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 5 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 10. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 7: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision shall improve Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way) in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department with a topset monetary contribution from the developer of $100,000. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and the Pedestrian Trail connecting the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. There shall also be an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the Park Parcel. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify a construction detail for the proposed trail including the proposed 6-foot width and concrete surface. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify the number, location, and detail of wayfinding signage to be implemented. The applicant shall work with the City Parks Department to determine a mutually agreeable signage plan. Section 8: Construction Mana¢ement Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Development Engineer. The plan shall include the following: 1. The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street and Race Alley shall not be used for contractor parking. The City prefers a contractor parking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot, or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging area. The CMP should specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a staging area is no longer required. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 6 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided to surrounding property owners. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, contact information may be provided to the condominium association president rather than each individual owner. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to address neighborhood concerns about construction without involving the City. Section 9: Access Infrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed Contractor must obtain a City Access-lnfrastrncture (A-I) permit. One Contractor will be responsible for completing all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of the A-I Permit, the Contractor will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan. Section 10: Hazardous Soils: This area is within the Smuggler superfand site, which means additional permits and institutional controls are required for any work done on the site. (See requirements outlined in the City Code.) City Environmental Health Department - 920.5039. Section 11: Streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Race Street shall be developed with a 38-foot curb-to-curb dimension and parking along both sides of the street. A sidewalk shall be provided along the northern section of Race Street, connecting the park trail to Spruce Street. Sidewalk connections and parking within the rights-of--way shall be provided as described in the addendum application materials from Stan Clauson Associates dated February 16, 2005. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street, and preferably both sides, between Race Street and Park Circle. The design, costs, and responsibility of this improvement shall be determined prior to final approvals by City Council. In the alternative, Race Alley and Race Street may remain two-way if a minimum 30 feet- wide right-of--way is provided along the entire extent of these two streets with a minimum 22-foot wide paved roadway and a minimum of a 2-foot wide stabilized shoulders on either side. Walnut Street (the public right-of--way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide clearance with no parking. In the alternative, parking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-foot wide access easement with ] 6 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 7 Section 12: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, the partial vacation of Race Street, the dedication of a portion of land to accommodate a fuming radius between Race Alley and Race Street, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. 2. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 3. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any overlot grading and utility main work in the first phase. 4. Design specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and taming radii. 5. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements. An irrigation plan for the park parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 6. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. 7. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge systems are required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 13: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including common driveways and drainage improvements. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 8 2. A public access easement and ownership, use, boundary, maintenance agreement for the Park Pazcel and Pedestrian Trail, and construction detail as specified in Section 7. 3. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 8. 4. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 14: Fire Department Requirements Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems is required to meet with the Fire Marshall before starting design. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinklers. Section 15: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel shall require Final Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. For Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Pazcel, this letter shall also confirm an understanding of the Final HPC approvals 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specific phase 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed azeas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to the property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The. State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for state contact information. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 9 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Contractor- will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit (for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and pazking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: I. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be installed in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 16: Fences Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park pazcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 17: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1Q and the Fox Crossing Park Pazcel and Griffith Subdivision Lots 1, 2, and 3. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 10 Section 19: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 22: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24°i day of January, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which heazing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 23: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 11 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13`h day of December, 2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Bendon C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Fox Crossing\Ordinance50-subdivision.doc Attachment A -Existing Property Map Attachment B -Proposed Subdivision Boundary Map Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 12 16 February 2005 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 ~fiAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture ~.L Transportation Studies Project Management 2OO EAST MAIN STREET ASP[N, COLORADO S161T TEI EPHONE: 970.925.2323 Fnx: 970.920.1628 E-MAa' in(oQscaplenning.com W os: wwwscaplanning.com Re: Responses to Fox Crossing City Council Hearing Issues Deaz Chris: Thank you for your list identifying unresolved questions and issues from the prior City Council hearing on the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision. The purpose of this letter is to provide the applicant's responses to these issues. I would appreciate your distributing the letter with the City Council packet for the hearing on 28 February 2005. Let me address these issues in the order you have listed them in your a-mail. Park and Trail The trail is intended to provide complete continuity from the existing Oklahoma Flats Trail terminating at Gibson Avenue to the Hunter Creek Trailhead on Spruce Street. Portions of this connector would utilize existing sidewalks and provide new connections along Spruce Street. We have produced a revised trail map indicating this connectivity, which is attached to this letter. The trail is proposed to be a six-foot wide concrete trail, with a decorative finish that might include colored concrete and exposed aggregate. Final details for the trail material and finish would be subject to the approval of the City of Aspen Pazks Department. The trail would be in a public easement, similar to that of many trail corridors that run within the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, such as the Rio Grande Trail. A concrete trail would iequire very little maintenance except for snow removal. Snow removal within the Fox Crossing Subdivision would be the responsibility of the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association and subject to applicable policies for snow removal that maybe articulated by the Pazks Department. These might include, for example, maintaining a portion of the width of the trail under snow cover for Nordic skiing. The Fox Crossing Meadow would be owned and maintained by the Fox Crossing Homeowners Association. An easement would be provided, allowing public access to the pazk from the trail that passes through it. It is our understanding that the Pazks Department does not want to take ownership of this property. It should also be noted that the pazk would remain under the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission as an historic site and would need to be maintained in a manner that was compatible with the adjacent historic structures. The applicant has committed to providing interpretive signage indicating the history of the neighborhood, including the former Midland rail PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 2 loop adjacern to the park, along with other trail signage as may be required by the Pazks Department. Race Alley The can ern pavement width of Race Alley (the north-south portion) and Race Street (the east-west portion) is 14.5 feet. Given the 20-foot right-of--way of Race Alley, along with the encroaching improvements and landscaping of many of the abutting property owners, we do not believe it is possible or appropriate to consider widening the pavement. Its status is similar to that of Fourth Street in the West End as it approaches Gillespie Street. However, as part of this application, we are proposing to widen the east west portion of Race Street to a pavemern width of 20 feet. This would allow two-way traffic along this section of the roadway and significantly alleviate congestion. An 8-foot parking lane would also be provided along this section. We have also adjusted the fuming radius at the curve on Race Street to conform to Fire Department requiremerns. Having studied at length the question of a one-way restriction for Race Alley, we do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the abutting properties. It would also increase the traffic loading on Spruce Street, since that street would then be required to provide either ingress or egress for all abutters on Race Alley and Race Street. However, if it is decided that none-way configuration is required for Race Alley, then we would recommend that it be a northbound one-way loop, taking access from South Avenue. This would perform better because the left-turn into Race Alley from South Avenue could be stop sign controlled, whereas a left turn into Race from Spruce Street would be more difficult to control Hunter Valley Way Parcel The Hunter Valley Way Pazcel could be developed under the Pitkin Courny takings procedure. It has a recorded access easement in place from the adjacent Auger property that would permit access to future development. The parcel has, under previous ownership, been the subject of development proposals, County 1041 applications, litigation, and threatened litigation. The sterilization of this parcel would protect the Hunter Creek Trail, while maintaining the parcel in pristine condition without any encroachment of private developmern. The resulting protected open space would consist of 20 acres, including adjacern Randall Pazk, at a key location for open space preservation. At the request of the City Attorney, the law firm of Garfield & Hecht is preparing a legal opinion on this access. Impacts on Surrounding Roads The impacts on surrounding roads have been addressed in a traffic analysis prepared by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer Engineers. The impacts of the proposed development are minimal and have been well-distributed within the project. Some discussion has emerged regazding the impacts on Spruce Street, along with a discussion of the need for sidewalks ~. Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 Febmary 2005 Page 3 on Spruce Street between Race Street and South Avenue. The traffic analysis has shown that the off-site impacts to Spruce Street aze very small, particularly in relation to existing background traffic. We believe that to require the applicant to install sidewalks along Spruce Street would not be proportional in any way to the impacts of the proposed subdivision. Moreover, sidewalks along Spruce Street at this location would be very disruptive to existing pazking patterns of abutting residents. It is clear that sidewalks would not be regarded favorably by a significant number of abutters. We believe that the question of installing sidewalks along Spruce Street should be the subject of a neighborhood planning process that is not related to the proposed Fox Crossing Subdivision. If it is determined that sidewalks aze appropriate, then a proportional allocation of costs among all abutters should take place. Hunter Creek Bus Stop The Hunter Creek Bus Stop was initially established and improved some years ago by agreemem between the Mocklin property and the Hunter Creek Condominiums. The Fox Crossing Subdivision does not abut this property nor would it have any impact on the use of the bus stop. It is not clear that there is a community need for a park at this location and it should be noted that the applicant is providing funding for the development of a community park on the former Aley property, a location that has long been designated as a desired community park location. That said, as part of the work for the proposed Aley Park it might be possible to provide some additional landscape materials and site clean- up at the bus stop location, and the applicant may be prepazed to agree to this as a condition of approval. Internal Parking All of the proposed lots within the Fox Crossing Subdivision will meet the pazking requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. That is each lot will provide garaged parking for two vehicles for each residence. Additionally, all but two of the lots will be able to provide off-street parking for at least two guest spaces. The two lots that will not be able to provide this additional parking aze encumbered by the historic residences. So, the development will contain all of the required parking within its lots and, at the same time, provide considerable additional parking for the residences. Moreover, the applicant is very aware that there is an existing pazking problem in the neighborhood irrespective of any new development that may take place. In order to enhance neighborhood pazking generally, we have identified three locations that can be developed to provide additional guest and service pazking available to all residents of the neighborhood. This parking has been identified on the attached map and could provide as much as 16 additional spaces available to the neighborhood. One of the key issues related to parking in the neighborhood is the seasonal storage of vehicles on city right of way. This is readily appazent by the snowed-in and derelict Mr. Chris Bendon Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 4 vehicles of all types located along Spruce Street, Race Street, and Lone Pine Road. We would strongly recommend the implementation of a neighborhood parking program similaz to that of the West End and Shadow Mountain neighborhoods in order to improve the pazlang situation and visual quality for all residerns of the neighborhood. This type of program, properly enforced, would create much more parking space for the benefit of neighborhood residents and visitors. Cabins as Affordable Housing In meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission, it became cleaz that the Conunission did not favor a relocation that would move the cabins any significant distance from their existing location. Accordingly, the applicarn was constrained to place the cabins as a single free-market unit between the historic Victorian and I.ot 7, which already contained an existing house requiring its own lot. Given the requirements for building separation, there is no way that the cabins can be physically accommodated as separated small Affordable Housing units on the property preferred by the Historic Preservation Commission. It would be possible to relocate them to a larger lot, for example, Lot 1 and have them separated. However, this was inconsistent with the direction of the Historic Preservation Commission. It should be noted that the Subdivision Ordinance has specific requiremerns for the provision of affordable housing. The applicant fully intends to comply with these provisions that require either ADUs or cash-in-lieu paymerns. There is not requiremern whatsoever for the provision of a sepazate component of affordable housing. Nonetheless, one of our earlier project designs involved the relocation of the cabins to Lot 1 and their retention as possible affordable housing. Although this was not favored by the HPC, the applicant would be prepazed to revisit this design and redesignate Lot 6 as afree-market non-historic development lot if there were clear direction from Council that this approach conferred greater public benefit than maintaining the adjacency of the cabins to the Blue Victorian. In conclusion, the applicant has worked diligently with the neighborhood and City commissions to be very forthcoming in addressing the issues that have been raised. The proposed developmern is consistent with the underlying R-6 inning and is not seeking any additional density or any other variances from the provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Major community benefits aze proposed in the form of open space dedications, pazk and trail development, and historic preservation. These include a pazcel dedicated to open space that could be developed as an additional duplex lot under current zoning. The project has received the unanimous approval of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning & Zoning Commission. ~-. Mr. Chris Bendon ~'' Re: Fox Crossing subdivision 16 February 2005 Page 5 Please let me know if I can provide any additional information in response to the questions raised by Council. We look forward to working with the City Council to satisfy their concerns. Very truly ows, S C AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: Copies of Site Drawing shown trail continuity and additional pazking options ~; ~~~ 2/23/2005 Robert Zupancis Silvia Davis 509 Race Street Aspen, CO 81611 To: Aspen City Council Concerning: Fox Crossing Subdivision Dear City Council Members, I was informed by a member of community development that they think Council may be considering condemning 5 feet of property on each side of Race Stteet instead of making Race Street into a one way. I do not believe that condemnation should be taken lightly especially when this group of out of state investors and the City have other options to mitigate the minimal extra traffic their project would create on Race Street and Spruce Street. Jay Hammond, engineer, stated the "east part of the project would generate about a "net increase of 30 vehicles per day". As I look out my office window at my home on 509 Race Street I would be hard pressed to count 2 to 3 cars per hour generated by the existing six units on Race Street. The bus stop and the Rio Grand Trail aze just across South Street and downtown Aspen is seven to ten minutes by foot and less by bus. I often see Race Street residents taking advantage of the bus or the short walk. My observation is that the second homeowners walk to town even more than the locals. Looking out my office window I notice that a majority of vehicles servicing Race Street residences use Race Street as a one way. They access Race by South Street and then continue azound Spruce Street. It's just easier and safer. Because of the rate of speed of vehicles headed downhill on South Avenue combined with the lack of visibility when looking up South Avenue towazds the Smuggler Trailer Court intersection I have caused vehicles to come to a quick halt when turning from Race onto South Avenue. My mother, an 81 year old driver refuses to turn from Race into South Street and feels much safer using Race as a one way through Spruce Street. The developers also have the option of redesigning their project infrastructure and access from Walnut Street and Lone Pine Road. Just a few years ago (1997-1998) that my wife Silvia Davis and I met all City of Aspen rules and requests allowing us to build the Walnut Street Town homes project. It was an elaborate process going before planning and zoning and City Council several times. I remember the intensity of our meeting with DRAC members and the changes we made in our project based on their suggestions on how to make the units warmer and more inviting to pedestrians and cazs using Race Street and South Street. Some of the current Planning and Zoning and City Council members and City department heads were among those who reviewed our application in great depth. The fire department was part of the process. Our project met all the city requirements including setbacks. Two other new ti. J projects, one across the street and one down the street went in before us so the City had plenty of practice in dealing with developments on Race Street. When the City told my wife, me our architect and our contractor that that the setback from Race Street for the project we had in mind was ten feet we took them seriously and built the project azound that setback. Keep in mind that our project met all City rules and special requests in the late 90's, not the 1800's or the 1960's. The health and safety of my family and other future owners of 509 Race Street and 511 Race Street would be negatively affected by the City taking this extra five feet. For example, the grade on my driveway at 509 Race Street was based on the required ten foot setback. If Race Street were widened onto our property by another five feet I probably would need a snowmobile to safely access Race Street in the winter. Any car other than a chained four wheel drive would need to take a running start from the end of the driveway to have any chance of making it up the hill onto Race Street. You couldn't stop and look, as required by law, before entering Race Street because in winter you would spin out on snow and in summer you spin out on gravel. If the sunken driveway were changed to accommodate the new street width drainage for the project would be compromised. If drainage were changed then the whole Insurance home guarantee situation would be an unknown. The steps accessing the front entry of our home at 509 Race Street were designed to meet code using the required City setback. The front entry and the safety of our front entry would be greatly compromised by the city taking an additional five feet of our property. These items are probably the tip of the iceberg as each change to mitigate the street widening affects some other aspect of the Walnut Street Town Homes which were designed and engineered based on a very certain setback from the surrounding streets. A big part of the City's emphasis on the Walnut Street Town Homes project was saving the trees my family had planted fifty yeazs ago. The root system on the big pine on Race Street would be damaged if this extra five feet were taken plus the utility box would have to be moved into another portion of the trees roots. I also own the lot and small home located on 511 Race Street. For the health and safety of the residents of that building the City would have to lift the house up, pour a new foundation further back, and set the house down again if they took an extra five feet of the street. I think the extra five feet would have cazs grazing the eaves of this residence. Certainly any occupants of the living area and master bedroom would not be safe with cazs being inches away from the building. Other residences would lose privacy, garages, heated driveways, steps, fences, trees, shrubs, yard space, patios, and utility boxes. The negatives of widening Race Street faz outweigh the positives. As I have expressed in a previous letter the biQ issues for the Race Street. Spruce Street, r^ ~..~ ~. lazge lonc term nroject. The developers have suggested bringing most of their construction traffic off lone Pine and staging construction on one of their own lots. It should not be up to the neighbors to enforce construction issues by complaining to Community Development or the police. Construction access, construction pazking, and construction staging should be very specifically detailed in applicant's approval. The developers have suggested that there will be no construction parking on Race and Spruce Streets. Since Walnut Street is short and already has minimal pazking for existing homes it too should be added to the list of no construction pazking for this project. If some construction pazking becomes necessary during the building of the proposed duplex on lot ten construction parking permits could be obtained from the city. As the application now stands the developer and Community Development aze proposing that the five available parking spaces on Walnut Street provide overflow parking for three existing Walnut Street residences, applicants proposed duplex on lot number ten, and applicant's proposed single family homes on lots five, six and seven. In addition these five spaces will be in demand for potential ADU overflow pazking. Instead of extending walnut Street in a straight line and providing overflow parking along the streets shoulders applicant is proposing to have a historical park in front of proposed single family lots five, six, and seven. Obviously, the existing five parking spaces on Walnut Street will provide the closest owner, guest, and service pazking to the front entries of these three proposed single family homes and their potential ADU's. The five existing pazking spaces on Walnut Street only fill the extra pazking needs of the three existing Walnut Street residences and the proposed Fox Run duplex on lot number 10. Applicant should provide additional reserved pazking somewhere on the proposed project (not on public streets such as Lone Pine or Race Street) for proposed lots five, six and seven. I believe the Pazks Department has underestimated the pazking impact generated by the proposed historical pazk and trailhead. I have no answers for the pazk, trailhead pazking issues. I assume the Pazks and Streets departments will make some recommendations so this does not become a future issue for residents and the City. Sincerely, ~-,~, Robert Zupancis ~~e. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney nI FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ v 1 ]L'An RE: Fox Crossing Subdivision and GMQS Exemptions YYYY, r Second Reading of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. DATE: January 24, 2005 PROJECT: FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION REQUEST Subdivision to amend lot lines and divide seven existing lots with the SUMMARY: potential for 13 homes to be developed into 14 lots (one of the lots is a park) with a total of 19 potential homes. Two associated code amendments are proposed and are being considered under Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004. ZONING: R-6. Medium-Density Residential. No zoning changes are proposed. APPLICANT: Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC P&Z Approval with the conditions listed in the proposed Ordinance. (5-0) RECOMMENDATION: vote. P&Z Minutes are attached. STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the project with the conditions RECOMMENDATION: listed in the proposed Ordinance. ASSOCIATION WITH CODE AMENDMENTS APPLICATION: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing parcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. The subdivision application relies on two amendment to the Land Use Code. P&Z reviewed the code amendments concurrently with the subdivision application and recommended approval (with a series of conditions applicable to the subdivision application). Upon first reading of the proposed ordinance, City Council split the code amendments from the subdivision application. Proposed Ordinance No. 50 only addresses the subdivision application. The City's Subdivision code requires an applicant acquire growth management allotments prior to, or in conjunction with, subdivision approval. If the proposed Land Use Code Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 1 - ..~ amendments of Ordinance No. 48 are adopted, this criterion can be met and staff's recommendation will not change. If the proposed Land Use Code amendments of Ordinance No. 48 are not adopted, this criterion cannot be met and staff will recommend the subdivision application be denied. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing parcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. Please refer to Exhibit B for existing parcel terminology, Exhibit C for development rights summary, Exhibit D for the proposed lots and Exhibit E for an illustrative development plan. The existing property consists of: • the Griffith Lot Split parcels - a two-lot subdivision permitting three residences, • the Bennis Property which is a duplex lot; and, the Walnut Properties which are four legal properties each with the ability to develop a duplex or two single-family residences, described as follows: o The "Railroad Parcel," which is a long, curving property currently vacant; o the "Garage Parcel" located east of Race Alley and currently containing a garage; and, o two lots that currently house an old, abandoned house, two small cabins, and a newer (1960s) house. These two parcels merged by operation of the Pitkin County Land Use Code into two standard lots, each with two residences, prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. All of the land is zoned R6 -Medium Density Residential -and permits a total of 13 homes to be developed, by right. With three of the parcels eligible for lot splits, a total of 19 homes could be built. The proposed subdivision divides the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permitting asingle-family house or a duplex. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two years ago, created asingle-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provision does not permit a second lot split and requires full subdivision approval to further divide a lot split property. This creation of a new lot, by subdividing the duplex lot, requires a subdivision approval and a new development right. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create this development right in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. Lot Line adjustments are proposed for realigning the Griffith properties and the Bennis property. The adjustments do not require any development allotments. The Bennis property is described as Lot #10 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 2 - The Railroad parcel currently permits the development of asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The property's size qualifies it for a Lot Split which would permit the development of a duplex or two single-family residences on one lot and a single-family residence on the second lot. The City's lot split provision restricts the overall development resulting from a lot split to 3 units total, additional development must acquire new development rights. This lot split accounts for proposed FC Lot #1 (duplex lot) and proposed FC Lot #3 (single-family lot). Two new lots are proposed - FC Lot #8 and FC Lot #9 -each permitting one single-family residence. These two new lots require two new development rights. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create these development rights in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. The land currently housing the abandoned house, the two cabins, and the newer (1960s) house was affected by Pitkin County's merger provision prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. The Pitkin County Code merged the lots into two standard parcels, each with two structures. Staff describes these parcels as "Old House plus North Cabin" and "South Cabin plus New House." Each of these parcels permits a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Both are considered to currently contain two single-family residences. The Old House Plus North Cabin parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #4 and #5. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. Rehabilitation of the historic, abandoned house is slated for FC Lot #5 and a development plan has been granted Conceptual approval by the HPC. The South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #6 and #7. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. FC Lot #6 is proposed for asingle-family residence incorporating the two cabins. The two cabins are to be preserved as historically designated resources and HPC has granted a Conceptual approval for the redevelopment. The remaining portion of the South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed as a park. No development right is needed for this lot as it will not be a development parcel. The Garage parcel currently contains a garage and permits asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel is described as FC Lot #2 in the proposal and will continue to permit asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Some minor adjustments to the lot lines are necessary to accommodate a better turning radius from Race Alley to Race Street. MAIN ISSUES: Emergency Access and Road Safety: A standard of subdivision review requires the City to find that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the development. As part of the standard development review process, staff has asked the referral agencies to comment on: 1) the ability of the existing street network (with no changes) to accommodate this Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 3 - development; and, 2) the changes that would be necessary if the existing network is not able to accommodate the development. The City Engineer and the Fire Marshall initially responded by stating that the existing road network is inadequate as it exists today. Race Alley is a 12-foot-wide two-way street within a 20-foot wide right-of--way. The options to cure the inadequacy were described as either widen Race Alley (meaning property acquisition of 5 feet on both sides to provide a 30-foot right-of--way) or designate the existing Race Alley and Race Street as one-way. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was convened to further discuss this project and a few minor amendments. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the following agencies: Fire Department, City Engineering, Community Development Engineering, Police Department, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department. Representatives of the Water Department were also present to ensure a sufficient utility easement along the Walnut extension. The Committee discussed three items: 1) Bollards within the right-of--way; 2) the revised Walnut Street extension and connection with Lone Pine; and, 3) the adequacy of Race Alley and Street. The Committee did not support any bollards or other means of hindering movement within the road system. The Committee believes the extension of Walnut Street has been adequately designed. (This is an amendment to the application and provides a connection from Walnut to Lone Pine as shown in Exhibit D.) The committee stated that the current dimensions of Race Alley are inadequate and provided two options: 1) widen the right-of- way, along the full extent of Race Alley, to 30 feet; or 2) designate vehicular flow along Race Alley and Street as one-way with installation of a sidewalk along at least one side of Spruce Street for better pedestrian access. Staff does not believe widening Race Alley is an ideal solution. This could cause undue hardship on several property owners as structures and other improvements would be affected. Staff has included the `one-way with sidewalk' recommendation in the proposed Ordinance. P&Z supported this recommendation as it related to the adequacy of infrastructure subdivision standard. P&Z did not offer any additional "character-based" opinions concerning the directional traffic flow of Race Alley. Several neighbors have suggested that the Applicant pursue an extension of Race Street to connect with Lone Pine. This would create a "T" intersection with Race Alley and would likely eliminate the proposed park parcel. Staff has not analyzed this as it is not being proposed by the Applicant and it does not appear to be a requirement of the Traffic Committee. If this changes, staff will research this potential. The adeuuacy of Race Street should be addressed, regardless of the outcome of the Fox Crossing annlication. The Fire Marshal has stated his safety concerns and the Traffic Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 4 - ~' ^a STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Depending upon the disposition of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004, (the code amendments) staff may need to alter proposed language of Ordinance No. 50 or recommend against its adoption. CIT RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to ap prove Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff findings Exhibit B: Existing Parcel Terminology Map Exhibit C: Development Rights Chart Exhibit D: Proposed Lot Plan Exhibit E: Illustrative Development Plan Exhibit F: P&Z Minutes Exhibit G: Various letters received by staff concerning application. Exhibit H: Application (distributed with December 13, 2004, packet) - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 7 - ~' ,.., w~ ORDINANCE N0.50 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS TAE FOX CROSSING AND GRIFFITH SUBDIVISIONS ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.002 Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 North Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.026 Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street, as depicted in attachment A; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with a series of conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions) and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 1 _a Subdivision approval, have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, (and associated amendments to the Land Use Code) by a five to zero (5-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Subdivision Aoaroval The Fox Crossing Subdivision and the Griffith Subdivision shall consist of the following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Lot size = 10,331 sf Fox Crossing Lot #2 Lot size = 7,510 sf Fox Crossing Lot #3 Lot size = 6,01 Osf Fox Crossing Lot #4 Lot size = 6,010 sf Fox Crossing Lot #5 Lot size = 6,016 sf Fox Crossing Lot #6 Lot size = 6,068 sf Fox Crossing Lot #7 Lot size = 6,007 sf Fox Crossing Lot #8 Lot size = 6,749 sf Fox Crossing Lot #9 Lot size = 6,945 sf Fox Crossing Lot #10 Lot size = 11,631sf Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 2 /*^1 r^o 4.,J e..r' Fox Crossing Park Parcel Lot size = 9,044 sf Griffith Lot #1 Lot size = 9,849 sf Griffith Lot #2 Lot size = 10,000 sf Griffith Lot #3 Lot size = 15,065 sf These lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. The allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor area granted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/pazk use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Parcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, and Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence, pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004. Fox Crossing Lots #5 and #6 aze Historic Landmark properties and shall not be eligible for receiving TDRs. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. The maximum number of Historic TDRs which may be landed within this Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be limited to the total number of non-historic residences within the subdivision. Section 2: Preservation of Hunter Vallev Way Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Grifflth Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way pazcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. A legal encumbrance, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall sterilize the Hunter Valley Way parcel and preclude development, other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. The encumbrance shall define maintenance and liability obligations. 3. The City of Aspen shall be a party (but not the sole party) to the deed restriction on the property. 4. The three (3) residential units shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 3 ,A,, . ~.,. ~ .. Section 3: Growth Management Exemptions Required Replacement of existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management, pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a Historic Landmark. The parcels granted an exemption from growth management by virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space parcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Griffith Lots 2, and 3; Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Griffith Lot # 1 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lot 7 contains an existing residence and the current floor area shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residence on Lot 7 may be reallocated to other lots within the Griffith/Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of Aspen Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7. Section 4: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Studio residential units $1,520 per unit one-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. School Impact Fees shall be assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. The project shall be subject to amendments to impact fees required by the City of Aspen, including new impacts fees or amendments to existing impact fees. Amendments to the project shall require a new calculation of impact fees. Impacts fees commensurate with each phase shall be payable upon issuance of a building permit for such phase. Section 5: Water Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 4 .w.; Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 6: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the following Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. All clear water connections are prohibited, i.e. ground water, (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in azeas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 10. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment 'system) anadditional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 7: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision shall improve Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way) in coordination with the City Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 5 ~. .~ of Aspen Parks Department with a topset monetary contribution from the developer of $100,000. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and the Pedestrian Trail connecting the park to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. There shall also be an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the Park Parcel. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall specify a construction detail for the proposed trail including the proposed width and surface material Section 8: Construction Manaeement Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Development Engineer. The plan shall include the following: 1. The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street and Race Alley shall not be used for contractor parking. The City prefers a contractor parking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot, or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging area. The CMP should specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a staging area is no longer required. 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided to surrounding property owners. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, contact information may be provided to the condominium association president rather than each individual owner. The intent of this requirement is for the contractor to address neighborhood concerns about construction without involving the City. Section 9: Access Infrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed Contractor must obtain a City Access-Infrastructure (A-I) permit. One Contractor will be responsible for completing all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of the A-I Permit, the Contractor will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan. Section 10: Hazardous Soils: This area is within the Smuggler superfund site, which means additional permits and institutional controls are required for any work done on the site. (See requirements outlined in the City Code.) City Environmental Health Department - 920.5039. Section 11: Streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Parking along the southern portion of Race Street shall be permitted. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street and Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 6 ..,j preferably both sides. The design, costs, and responsibility of this improvement shall be determined prior to final approvals by City Council. In the alternative, Race Alley and Race Street may remain two-way if a minimum 30 feet- wide right-of--way is provided along the entire extent of these two streets with a minimum 22-foot wide paved roadway and a minimum of a 2-foot wide stabilized shoulders on either side. Walnut Street (the public right-of--way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide clearance with no parking. In the alternative, parking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-Foot wide access easement with 16 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented. Section 12: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the Ciry Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. 2. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 3. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any overlot grading and utility main work in the first phase. 4. Design specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and turning radii. 5. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements. An irrigation plan for the park parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 6. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. 7. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge systems are required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 7 ~-, ,p,, ~' .~. 8. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 13: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days afrer final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including common driveways and drainage improvements. 2. A public access easement and ownership, use, boundary, maintenance agreement for the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail, and construction detail as specified in Section 9. 3. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 10. 4. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 14: Fire Deaartment Requirements Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems is required to meet with the Fire Marshall before starting design. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinklers. Section 15: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel shall require Final Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. For Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel, this letter shall also confirm an understanding of the Final HPC approvals 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 8 ~~ ~s F~ 5. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specific phase 6. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to the property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department for state contact information. 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Contractor will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit (for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be installed in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 16: Fences Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park parcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 17: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 9 ~^^~ -~ \/ v../ development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the Fox Crossing Park Parcel and Griffith Subdivision Lots 1, 2, and 3. Section 18: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 19: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 20: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 21: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 22: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24`x' day of January, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 23• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 10 ~/ ~-. ~... INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13~' day of December, 2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor [3endon C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Fox Crossing\Ordinance50-subdivision.doc Attachment A -Property Map Ordinance No. 50, Series of 2004. Page 11 .~-. ... EXHIBIT STAFF FINDINGS - FOX C ROSSING SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The subject site is identified in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP as residential. The proposal is consistent with this element of the AACP. The proposal will increase the total density in the area, by virtue of the subdivision, but no zone change is proposed and the new development of single-family and duplex structures will be consistent with the existing uses of single-family and duplex structures in the immediate vicinity. The subdivision does include historic resources and those structures are proposed for preservation and rehabilitation consisted with the Historic Preservation elements of the AACP and with City policies and regulations for historic resource development. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision to create single-family and duplex lots is consistent with the neighborhood character, which is primarily comprised of single- family and duplex structures. No zone change is proposed although a higher total density will exist as a result of subdividing the land. A park parcel is proposed which staff believes will be a good addition to the neighborhood. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Other surrounding lots will maintain access to public rights-of--way. The Fire Marshall and City Engineer have stated that Race Alley is inadequate and that it should either be widened or converted to one-way traffic. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee also has stated these two options to address the inadequacy. The proposed Ordinance requires the conversion of Race Alley to one-way traffic and pedestrian improvements to Spruce Street. With this condition being met, staff believes this criterion is met. Fox Crossing Staff Findings -Subdivision Page 1 -~, d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, IF ORDINANCE 4S IS APPROVED. Staff is not yet awaze of the capability of the road network to accommodate this proposal and cannot provide a finding on this point. The applicant is proposing to preserve an open space parcel to accommodate the proposed development. This requires a code amendment. If the code amendment is adopted, the application meets this standazd. If the code amendment is not approved, the subdivision application does not meet this standard. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. According to the Mapping of the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site, portions of this subdivision are affected by contaminated soils. This does not render the property undevelopable, but there are specific development regulations that must be followed. The approval should reference these special requirements. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessazy public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. Fox Crossing Staff Findings -Subdivision Page 2 ~: ~-, STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are proposed. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The replacement housing requirements are proposed to be met. This will require an Accessory Dwelling Unit or cash-in-lieu thereof for replacing the single-family structures. The historic structures are exempt from this requirement. The subdivision approval should specify any requested credits and if certain lots will be assigned various credits. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards will be required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication, which will be required at time of building permit. Fox Crossing Staff Findings -Subdivision Page 3 ,.~ ,-~. ~.r PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS On a project specific basis, the City Council may exempt the development of one or more residences from the provisions of this Chapter in exchange for the permanent preservation of one or more parcels considered significant for the preservation of open space. The preservation parcel may lie outside the City of Aspen jurisdiction. The exempted residential units shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Metro Area development ceiling established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The exempted residential units shall provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Review is by City Council. The criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include: 1. The strategic nature of the preservation parcel to facilitate park, trails, or open space objectives of the City of Aspen. This shall include a recommendation from the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board. STAFF FINDING: DOES 1T COMPLY? YES The proposed preservation parcel has been identified by the City's Open Space Acquisition Board as a strategic parcel. This parcel is highly visible from town and a portion of the Hunter Creek Trail crosses the property. 2. Identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value" in the Aspen Area Community Plan or as a parcel desirable for preservation in any other adopted master plans of the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Hunter Valley Way property is designated "private land with conservation value" in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. 3. Proximity and/or visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES The parcel is close to the City Boundary, but not adjacent. The parcel is visible from town and development on this parcel would interrupt the open quality of this portion of Smuggler Mountain. The development rights of the preservation parcel, including the allowed uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses if developed to the maximum. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES The Hunter Valley Way parcel is a developable parcel. The parcel has a development right of 5,750 square feet of floor area for asingle-family residence. This could be increased through extinguishment of Pitkin County TDRs in order to permit up to 15,000 square feet. Fox Crossing Staff Findings -Subdivision Page 4 ~. 5. The proposed location of the parcel(s) being granted an exemption from growth management and the compatibility of the resulting uses and intensities of development with the surrounding neighborhood, including the impacts from the specified method of providing affordable housing mitigation. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The three GMQS exemptions being sought within the Fox Crossing Subdivision are generally compatible with the surrounding development and intensities of land use. The method of mitigating affordable housing allows the developer of each of these three residences to provide either an ADU or cash-in-lieu. The impacts of additional ADUs in the neighborhood should be mitigated through the provision of on-site parking associated with the ADUs. 6. The preservation parcel shall be encumbered with a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, which sterilizes the parcel from further development in perpetuity. - -_ STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed ordinance requires a legal mechanism to sterilize the parcel with an easement partially held by the City of Aspen. Fox Crossing Staff Findings -Subdivision Page 5 ~ S~E° x P ~.9 Pi 1 ' s a ¢i ~ pR ~ yei ex49~: 9~i9 ~_~ ~3"gyp psi a3$e q~FY9~ Aa i~r ~~e16e .o.. €eF~ay~3 `3°i@"3i ¢SP fy~~ Sys s ' igp' P iAyA1. eY4~9a f2iie - e ~° tY '~bX ~:~ ii 4!i P ~°e ~~ ~~~ 6 ~~~SY~9 rn i.i~~lii x~i x 1S. aSa ~ ~i~iiie s@ ,~ ~.. ~ e~ki_ i~z9 '~ ~3~e - ~3~Y a~~~ - P~e~it ° U J J ~_ :~, W z Q k a (Y ~ Y . W ~ a- Q Z ~ a ~ .. ~ ~! ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ Q g ~`~ Q ~ Z ~ O a =' ~- o ~- ~~~ L.1.1 ~ ~~~ao (~ Z (~ Z Z l.P.i 0] R ° i i a ° ' 's ' § s n a_ ~ s S~ '- xoisiniaen lnas lol ill 'Altl3d d N11331tl'J it F g9Si i ~ Ai~di~ ~~ R d .~~~. ~ ~.x i~ RL p~p 9P%eYie~ ~i~~x Fx 9:0 a xxx~ "~' ~(`~ _v '~' 133tl15 1nN11'M ~'~ !:s ~: ~; ~8 } I e~ bi 1 ~ ~1 ~~~ ri i ~ ~ t 4;l. y' 1 p°> i yr„ •~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October 12, 2004 ~~ PUBLIC HEARING: '~'Xh~ b~ k FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ~~~ r'(lnukS ~~ ~~' Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Fox Crossing Subdivision. Chris Bendon explained the land use was a little confusing and page 2 of the memo supplied a map showing the 2 Griffith properties (permits a single family and a duplex) plus the other properties including the Bennis property (currently a duplex), the Walnut properties (4 lots), the Railroad parcel (permits asingle-family or duplex), the garage parcel (permits a duplex), the old house (a historic resource permits a duplex or 2single-family residences), 2 cabins and a newer house are currently on Race alley. Staff had to interpret county code to get the number of rights on the parcels (page 4 of the memo describes the staff interpretation and development rights allowed). Bendon said this was a subdivision without variances but with Growth Management Exemptions to re-house the existing development rights on newly established parcels and 2 code amendments. 1 code amendment was for the Historic TDR Program and 1 for the Growth Management Program. Bendon noted some issues were the emergency access and road safety; the width of Race Alley and a proposal for a new access road on the west side of the property. The Fire Department, City Engineer and Chris Bendon all agreed a little alteration on the west side road was needed and Race Street (Alley) was okay being one-way. Bendon said the City Historic TDR Program allows receiver sites to land 1 Historic TDR per residence (250 square feet); on a duplex 2 Historic TDRs could be used. This proposal would allow for 2 Historic TDRs to be used for each residence for properties that were in the subdivision. Clauson said there were 2,750 square feet to be allocated from the Historic resource for TDRs in this subdivision. Bendon explained that the subdivision had to contain the Historic Resource and the TDRs must come from that Historic Resource. Brandon Marion asked for the. way the TDRs would be used in the subdivision for the next meeting. Bendon said the second code amendment proposed was for Growth Management to recognize County TRDs. The County TDR Program allows TDRs from rural and remote (back county) or mining claims to be transferred to a property within the urban growth boundary (map on page 6 of staff memo). The Aspen Area Community Plan, which is jointly adopted with Pitkin County, recognizes the policy desire to accept those official development rights within the city; the city has not pursued that so this is kind of tricky. The proposal would recognize and accept a County TDR as a development right; in order to subdivide land in the city you have to have the development rights in hand before you go through Growth 6 ~~~ .~ r/ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October 12. 2004 Management or are obtaining Growth Management Exemptions but you can't create a lot without development rights. Bendon said the County TDR actually provides the whole entire right. Bendon provided the example of a county TDR being transferred from one site, which becomes sterilized if it only has the one TDR; in the city it was a portion of the FAR. Bendon mentioned a letter in the packet from a neighbor regarding construction staging and impacts. Camilla Auger, applicant, explained that Fox Crossing was located in a highly dense neighborhood of affordable housing, duplexes and more development was in the process with no parks or open space within walking distance. Auger said this was the chance to fix that problem of no open. space; she was committed to this neighborhood. Auger proposed low-density single-family housing around a park with a historic core; the view from the meadow is gorgeous and they hope to retain it as open space. Auger noted there were small children that play in the street and they hope to turn the unused city property into a children's playground and park. Auger said that this had one of the most popular trailheads in the city, which leads into Hunter Creek; she pointed out a park that has been threatened by development in the county and hoped to give Hunter Valley Way open space to the county with easements from the city and conservation easements from the Valley Land Trust. Auger said if they have their way to this open space the community will get 20 acres of open space to these areas by trailheads, which will all converge at one spot. Marion asked who was involved with Ms. Auger. Camilla Auger replied that it has taken her years to gather all the investors, city, county and various other agencies including the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Stan Clauson stated this was a complex project; they have been working with the Parks Department to formalize trail connections from Oklahoma Flats to Spruce Park. Clauson provided various scenarios and different zone districts surrounding this property. Clauson said the assessor's office had 7 parcels for this property and he has been working with Chris Bendon to establish the problems of these parcels and how it would interface with the TDR portion. Clauson said the core parcel would be divided into 9 lots; per Chris Bendon's analysis there were 4 lots. Clauson contimied these lots would allow the historic house, a photograph was provided its own lot and the 2 cabins would be relocated and joined together on another lot with an existing single-family house. Clauson noted there would be a 9,000 square foot park with the access roadway. Clauson explained that the streets, Race Alley platted at the turn of the century, have a 20-foot right-of--way and 14% foot pavement width to the connection at Spruce Street. The Fire Department and City Engineer have agreed on this 7 e^"w .°1 `. ..~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October 12, 2004 hammerhead and infrastructure development. Clauson said that Chris Bendon explained the Historic TDR Amendment very well. Auger said that they were still discussing the development rights; she said this project is where the tail is wagging the dog. Clauson said there was no need for the IGA. Clauson said the Walnut Street intersection improvements will be accomplished and the utility Lines from their involvement will be underground. Clauson said the construction management plan would be in effect. Auger noted letters of support from neighbors. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Fox Crossing public hearing to November 2, 2004; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, motion carried. Discussion of motion: The Commissioners requested more information on the County TDR Program; the number of lots and development rights for this entire project; information on the trail and the TDR principal with criteria. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 ASPE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 02. 2004 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers. Members John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Dylan Johns were present. Jasmine Tygre, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Dylan Johns opened the public hearings for Fox Crossing Subdivision, which was continued from 10/27/04 and the historic landmark lot split code amendments and continued the hearings to November 16, 2004 due to lack of quorum. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk .~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16. 2004 Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Chris Lee, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Ruth Kruger, acting chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members John Rowland, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine. Tygre and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked about the LeChet's building. David Hoefer replied that it was being broken up into two spaces. Ruth Kruger asked who was responsible for the sidewalk at the Bavarian; there was a big drop-off at one end. Chris Bendon replied that sidewalks were a public amenity but installed by the developer of the property. Kruger noted the sidewalk stopped in the middle of the property. David Hoefer congratulated Chris Bendon on his appointment as Community Development Department Head. Jackie Lothian reminded the commissioners about the Boards and Commissions party at the Wheeler on December 2"d The commission chose to postpone the minutes until the next meeting. Jack Johnson requested more about the Chart House on the October 19`h Minutes. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Rezoning for 1201 Riverside Drive. James Lindt stated this was continued from 10/19 and will be continued to 12/7 with new signs posted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/12/04, 11/02/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon noted this was continued from 11 /2/04. Bendon stated that Ellen Sassano from the county had a conflict tonight; now the Fox Crossing does not have to rely on the 4 CANNING & ZONING COM Minutes -November 16, 2004 county TDR program and in fact it doesn't have to have a TDR. Bendon stated that there was language in the resolution that provided that under Section 3. Bendon said the second question raised at the last meeting regarded the open space parcel and the value; Brian Flynn was present to address that issue. Bendon noted that P&Z requested a development chart noting the current development on this property and the square footage proposed was contained on page 3 of the resolution. Bendon said the October 12`h memo had the parcels on the map with the old house, north cabin, south cabin, newer house, railroad and garage parcels. The interim step was the 2 lots with the old house, north cabin lot and the south cabin new house lot were eligible for a lot split. Bendon noted the far right column of that Exhibit C had Griffith Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Fox Crossing Lots 1 through 10 plus the Fox Crossing parks parcel. Bendon noted to split Griffith Lot 2 into 2 parcels required growth management development allotment and by doing that each is available for asingle-family or duplex. Bendon said the duplexes could be split into 2single-family residences. Brian Flynn asked if the city and county would jointly own the parcel. Camilla Auger replied that they would give it to the city and county with an open space easement with the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Flynn said that parks and open space have worked to acquire land when they can; this was dedicated for the past 2 years that allowed the formation of the Open Space Board, which has criteria and goals. Flynn said that part of the criteria is met with the acquisition of the Hunter Valley Open Space. Flynn explained the Lani White Trail was next to the Hunter Creek Trail running up that corridor, which protects the scenic corridor with Aspen Valley Land Trust as the third party easement holder who guarantees protection of that parcel. Flynn spoke about the proposal of the trail to Spruce Park, which accesses the Lani White Trail. Spruce Park has a stonewall, bench and dog drinking fountain. Flynn said the parks department was trying to bring in more trails and formalize all the connections to bring people into the Spruce Park area and back out into the wilderness in a very easily identified manner with a little bit of signage. Camilla Auger provided the history of Randall Park noting potentials of critical space along the trails. There was a letter from the Aspen Valley Land Trust in support of the plan. Kruger asked the-monetary values of this parcel. Auger said there was an appraisal for $3.7 million. Auger said if a house were to be built on this parcel it would be built on the flat area and that was the worse place for a house under trail conditions. Jack Johnson asked if Aley Park and the trail through Fox Crossing were part of the proposal. Auger replied that was part of the proposal and the reason that she was doing was doing this project. .~~~ tir/ J Minutes -November 16, 2004 Auger said that they hoped that more trails would be developed and the weed patch would be transformed into a park for the community.. Auger stated the meadow at the center of Fox Crossing would be preserved, which was 9200 square feet and next to it was the old blue Victorian with cabins to be developed as asingle-family house. Auger noted these residences would be relatively low density in a high- density area making it a diverse community. Stan Clauson provided a letter from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer discussing the infrastructure and to the Fire Marshall, Ed VanWalraven, discussing the fire truck turning radius, the hydrants and sprinkling of houses; this was a subdivision not a PUD and it was fully conforming to all the parameters of the R-6 Zone District. Clauson submitted letters from Lisa Thurston from Hunter Creek Properties; Jon Busch on Race Street; Aspen Valley Land Trust from Martha Cochran indicating the Land Trust obligation regarding the Hunter Valley Way parcel; from Dale Will Pitkin County Open Space and Trails; Clurie Bennis and Mary Griffith. Clauson said the private part of Walnut Street would provide access to 5 lots as well as the Clurie Bennis house on the comer and Walnut would continue out onto Lone Pine Road. Clauson noted the extension of Walnut Street would also include the looping of water mains and infrastructure would be in place. Auger stated that they had approval of the fire department but have been talking with all the neighbors and taking in the suggestions, which have slightly different interests. Auger said this would be an on-going discussion and not a final anything. Public Comments: 1. Robert Zupancis, public, stated that he lived at Race and Walnut. Zupancis lilted the through street but wanted to see some temporary ballards at Race Street where it intersects with Spruce. Zupancis voiced concerns for the limited parking in the neighborhood currently and this proposal would add to parking on Walnut, Race, South and Lone Pine. Zupancis requested the construction access be off of Lone Pine. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, stated the preservation of the Hunter Valley was great; she noted the neighborhood was becoming crowded. Greenwood voiced concern for the dangerous intersection at South, Gibson and Walnut Streets with no visibility. Greenwood noted Luriski's property was being developed along with this proposal. Greenwood requested the development of permanent on-site parking for this proposal. 3. Ward Hauenstein, public, stated that he lived on Spruce Street; he said it was important to keep traffic away from South Street because there was a bus stop for 4 ~~ ASPE PLANNING & ZONING COMN~YISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 small children. Hauenstein requested off-street parking for this project and he said it was best to keep Race Alley two-way. 4. Collen Burrows, public, said Race Alley should remain two-way and she spoke of the density in the neighborhood. 5. LJ Erspamer, public, thanked the developers for coming to their home and wanted to support the neighbors. Auger said a number of things are feasible and agrees with. Clauson noted the code required a construction management plan. Brandon Marion asked if the parking for the trailhead was explored. Clauson replied that the Parks Department did not think that there would be a significant amount of parking from that trailhead but Aley Park would require some parking. Clauson utilized drawings to show the historic nature of the building, the trail and project. Marion asked where the guest parking would be. Clauson responded that it would be on the properties. John Rowland asked what was the mix of housing. Clauson answered there were duplexes sharing floor area. Rowland asked if there was any multi-family. Clauson replied there was no multi-family. Rowland asked if the access for lot 1 was down Race Street within the easement that was the public walkway and asked how wide the easement was. Clauson replied that was correct and the easement was 16 feet. Jack Johnson asked if the historic house would be occupied and if it would be fenced. Auger replied that it was the plan for someone to occupy the house and the cabins. Clauson stated that Gilbert Sanchez was the architect that took the historic house and cabins through conceptual approval with HPC. Auger said that they had not thought of covenants regarding fences prior but they will now. Johnson asked if that was true on the traffic generation count at 9 cars per day per unit. Bendon replied that was a common number used by traffic engineers; he said that was a national average, which counted the mailman as 2 trips. Johnson asked the history on the RR parcel. Bendon replied that it was the Midland Railroad; at the time easements were done with a fee simple process. Johnson asked if the city had long term plans for the trailer park, Gibson and South Street area. Bendon replied there were no capital plans, just minimal improvements of sidewalks, curb and gutter; the city rights-of--way in this area were minimal. Johnson asked if he was correct that the county TDRs were no 5 ~, ,.. ,., ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 longer an option. Bendon replied that they were city driven TDRs. Johnson asked if there was a restriction in the proposed language that would limit the distance of TDRs. Bendon replied there were broad criteria but the significance of that preservation parcel could be determined (page 5 of the November 2"`~ resolution). The identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value"; the proximity and visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen; the development rights of that preservation parcel and the uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses; the location of the development as it comes into the city including the compatibility of the uses; and the preservation of the parcel is encumbered with a legal description so that we know it will not be developed. Dylan Johns asked if the map was the possible TDRs for this site and the scope of what we could see with this project. Bendon replied that map wouldn't limit them; the good part of the TDR program is that parcels are being preserved. Johns asked if the development right was based upon the underlying zoning and what would the square footage be calculated at. Bendon responded the development right did not have to have a prescribed proportion. Kruger asked why Race Street could not be a two-way street. Clauson replied that it was atwo-way street now and Race Street has a 14.5-foot pavement base, which continues through the 20-foot right-of-way. Clauson said the question from the fire department was since 14.5-foot was slightly bigger than a traffic lane then Race should be one-way. Kruger asked what the off-street parking requirements were for Race Alley. Bendon replied it was the standard city requirement, which is 2 parking spaces per residences; if there is an accessory dwelling unit then there is another parking space required. Kruger asked if there were any traffic studies for any of the corners. Bendon said that there wasn't enough traffic generated by just this project to justify studies. Clauson said if there was a traffic study then Jim Challier did it. Kruger asked if there was a plan for phasing. Auger responded there was a phasing plan and the neighbors wanted the construction done as soon as possible. Kruger asked if this was the exemption process. Bendon answered this was the exemption process; the re-development of the house on the existing lot requires an administrative growth management approval, which you either deed-restrict the main house or build an accessory dwelling unit or pay cash-in-lieu with credit given to other existing residences on site. Bendon stated the resolution did not resolve whether or not those growth management rights that are being created by the city for that preservation parcel also have that ADU requirement. 6 ,.. ... .~,,, ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 16, 2004 Bendon summed up the P&Z issues as the ADUs; Race Alley; more specific what the subdivision will look like; Walnut Street; how the walkway works through the open space; and the code amendment. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing for Fox Crossing to November 30`", seconded by,7ack,7ohnson. APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Aspen Institute SPA Amendment. David Hoefer stated the notice requirements were met. Amy Guthrie stated that this request was for one building that was not built due to the lack of need for it in the past but they want to improve their ability to host conferences so they want to convert this building allocation into a conference and meeting hall. Guthrie noted this plan was slightly smaller by 1500 square feet, which may be used for the health club for future expansion. The Aspen Institute Campus is not entirely historic but portions of the campus were historic; HPC had a great process with the architect and applicants. Guthrie said that Council will have to approve a GMQS exemption for essential public facilities; the impacts of this will be minimal because many of the conferencees do not bring cars. Jim Curtis, representative for the applicant, introduced Jeff Berkus the architect for the project. Curtis stated that Amy Margerum was here but because of another committement she had to leave. Paul Taddune, attorney, and Bill Lukes were in attendance on behalf of the Pitkin Green Homeowners; Mr. Lukes had to also leave because of another commitment. Jim Curtis said that they will meet with the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners (on the other side of the river) to discuss lighting (interior and exterior). Curtis said they are basically taking a building that was approved in 1991 and changing the use of the building to compliment the existing meeting and dining facilities on the Meadows campus so the whole campus can operate more efficiently. There was a commitment to work with HPC on materials, color and lighting with an HPC meeting scheduled for January 12`~ and should be up and running in ?006. Brandon Marion checked the list of properties to make sure that he was not conflicted. 7 ~.. ..~, ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:40pm and Steve Skadron at 5:30pm. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon reminded the commissioners about the boards and commissions party at the Wheeler on Thursday, December 2"d. Bendon mentioned the December 14"' work session. Jasmine Tygre requested the commission to email the wish list to Chris. MINUTES Motion: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 5, ?004 and November OZ, ?004; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Tygre stated that it was not appropriate for her to vote at this time. Chris Bendon said the last meeting remaining issues were code amendments; the Hunter Valley Way parcel; to one-way of Race Alley and no reliance on county TDRs. Bendon said the way this was structured there was a growth management exemption, which allows the city to grant a developer growth management exemptions in exchange for a developer preserving an important open space parcel; it does not rely on the county TDRs whatsoever. There were 6 criteria for the parcel being preserved; it requires the P&Z and Open Space Advisory Board recommendations, (1) the strategic need for the parcel being preserved; (2) private land with preservation value, (3) proximity and visibility of the parcel to the City, (4) development rights associated with that parcel, (5) the proposed location of the receiving sites granted the exemption from growth management and (6) the legal encumbrance on the parcel by the City Attorney. Bendon explained Section 3 of the Resolution was the code amendment and Section 4 was the action that P&Z was taking on the Preservation. There were a recommended 3 development rights for the Hunter Valley Way parcel with 3 conditions. J`\ i:,.4 V/ ~~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Bendon said that Section 5, the form of mitigation for accessory dwelling units, should not be required because the applicant was providing open space. Bendon said Section 13 speaks to the issue of Race Alley being one-way or two- way; the staff recommendation was for Race to become one-way. P&Z was charged with deciding if the subdivision met the standards. The fire marshal] and city engineer did not think this subdivision met the standards because the infrastructure did not serve the site with the proper safety. Bendon said to widen the street would be difficult but the street could be made one-way. Bendon stated that P&Z wanted clarity on project benefits and illustrative plan showing setbacks and a roof plan of the neighborhood; no specific architecture was locked in at this time. Bendon noted the parcels were intended to be developed according to the zoning, which could change so the setbacks might change. Jaclc Johnson asked when the ADUs came to be a concern. Bendon said he mentioned it when the development rights were talked about. Johnson asked how was it written in the proposal. Bendori replied that it was silent. Brandon Marion asked for clarification on the mitigation. Bendon explained that the mitigation was for the exemption from growth management and as a benefit of being landmarked historic they do not have to provide an accessory dwelling unit. Bendon said if you look at the preservation parcel as the benefit to the community then you don't have to do anything more or they could be asked to provide housing mitigation through ADUs. I{ruger asked if this had to go to housing. Bendon replied that it did not have to go in front of housing; if there were ADUs then they would be referred to the housing office for development. Bendon said that if P&Z wanted to require ADUs Sections 3 and 5 would have to be amended to include between 8 and 11 mitigations. There were 3 development rights from the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon explained the code amendment in Section 2 was to allow 2 historic TDRs per residence provided it were within the same subdivision as opposed to what is allowed presently as 1 Historic TDR. Camilla Auger stated that a TDR was needed for other than a standard house. Auger said there was a checklist for the benefits, an illustration of what the setbacks and rooftops would look like-and illustration of what the historic would look like, which has been through architectural review. Auger said the Hunter Valley Way was a key item because it preserved 10 acres of open space. Auger said the Aspen Valley Land Trust would be an irrevocable conservation easement over Hunter Valley Way therefore insuring the open space. Auger said the trail hookup would make it possible for the Rio Grande Trail to hook up to the Hunter 3 ~„ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Valley. Auger said the road goes onto where the old railroad was aligned. They were providing a looped water main from Walnut and sprinklers for every house even though the houses were significantly smaller houses than what was required for sprinklered houses. The sightline would be improved at the Walnut and Gibson intersection; widening Race Street and providing neighborhood parking. Auger said if they couldn't leave Race Alley, as it is then it will become one-way and the development was without any requested variances. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, stated the impetus for all of this was the preservation of the Angie Griffith Victorian and the adjacent cabins, which forms the central core of the property. HPC approved a 2-story addition and a garage to the Victorian; the combined cabins would be moved onto one lot with aone-story addition. Sanchez said that any development will comply with the underlying R-6 zoning including the setbacks, which were illustrated on the drawing delineated in two- tones of green with the darker green outside the setbacks. The setbacks were 10- foot minimum front and rear yard with a total of 30 and the side yards also have 10-toot minimums because the lots were annexed after 1989, which the proposal will comply with all of those setbacks. The buildings will comply with the residential design standards; the garages will be setback 10 feet from the front fagade. Marion asked about the fire department request for the hammerhead turn around. Bendon answered the radii around the comers was of concern but now the Walnut connection goes through to Lone Pine. Bendon said the preservation of the meadow was a public park. Auger said the homeowners maintained the park. Marion said the trail stopped at the park in the picture. Auger replied that it would continue. Bendon said Section 9 in the resolution regarding this trail easement. Marion asked about the times the park was open and if it should be addressed in the easement language. David Hoefer responded that the language would include the ownership, use and maintenance responsibilities. Auger said the park itself was under the historic preservation so it had a specific boundary. Johnson asked about the question of fencing and could language be added to say that there would be no fences in the meadow to obstruct the view. Auger replied that was certainly the intention. Johnson requested board support to add language that fences could not obstruct the view from the historic properties. Sanchez stated that any fences built would have to satisfy HPC requirements; front yard fences could only be 36 inches high. Marion noted that historic structures could have 6-foot high fences in the back. A section would be added to the resolution regarding the fence size limitation for the meadow area. 4 ~~. .. ...... ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 Public Comments: 1. Colleen Burrows, public, read her letter into the record, which voiced concern about the traffic management, especially the impacts of South Street. Burrows said the developer needed to have the streets contained internally in the subdivision and go out onto Lone Pine. Burrows said there was a traffic study done before Williams Ranch and Williams Way that acknowledged South Street as a bad spot. Burrows requested that South, Walnut and Spruce Streets be looked at again. Burrows said there were some really nice things done by the developer but the lots on the north end could be reduced in size for the interior roads; there were ways that this developer could avoid pushing traffic onto the outlying streets, which were already impacted. Burrows said that the traffic committee hasn't been heard from. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, supported Colleen's comments; she said that she lived and worked on Walnut Street in a historic cabin. Greenwood obtained a parking variance and her property abutted this property. Greenwood stated that this project was not bringing a lot of amenities to this neighborhood; there was a significant grade change in this neighborhood. Greenwood asked if the project could be accessed from Lone Pine; she said that making Race Alley one-way was absurd. Greenwood said it was the Planning and Zoning's job to alleviate the traffic. 3. Marcia Poutous, public, stated that she lived on Spruce Street and Camilla has contacted people in the neighborhood. Poutous hoped that Race Alley would remain 2-way because the residences that now exist have the option of exiting off of Race or Spruce; if Race Alley is made one-way then all the traffic would exit onto Spruce, which would be bad. Auger said the lowest development was on Spruce Street; she said there would be minimal amount of cars generated onto Spruce Street from this project. Auger said they have met with the traffic committee and the fire department; they have re- designed to fit the fire department requirements. Sanchez said there was on site parking with the lots having deep driveways allowing for additional off-street parking in addition to inside the garage. ~ There was additional parking on Spruce Street in the Jon Busch parking area. Sanchez said the character of the park was passive with one of elements of trails and parks was preservation; this was a place to discover but not a destination park. Marion asked if the city engineer and police chief had comments on this project. Bendon said they were asked if it met the city standards; their response was there 5 ~~, ~ .. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 was a deficit with Race Alley (either widen or make one-way). Marion asked if Lone Pine incorporated parking or was it a no parking street. Bendon replied no parking because the cart way was 16 feet. Marion asked about Aley Park and who pays for that maintenance. Bendon replied that could be included. Hoefer noted it could be added to Section 9. Marion asked who Aspen Valley Land Trust was. Bendon replied they were a land preservation non-profit; they hold either title or easements to land in open space preservation. Johnson asked what was it about the Aspen Valley Land Trust in the way that it was set up that would make all of this irrevocable. Bendon answered that the AVLT holds an easement so they become a part landowner; in order to remove that easement you have to get the AVLT approval and their sole mission is to preserve land in perpetuity. Bendon said that having multiple parties having a say in the preserved property made it more difficult to remove the easement. Marion asked if this code amendment for TDRs had to have the sending and receiving sites in the same subdivision. Bendon replied that was correct; the west end could not take advantage of this code amendment. Marion asked if this Hunter Valley Way parcel was a potential development site. Bendon replied that it was a potential development site with access issues but it could have a development right of one house with 5,750 square feet. Bendon said the access wasn't a planning issue but a legal one. Auger said the access has been granted legally so that the investors could be given a tax incentive. Marion asked where the access was given and questioned the parcel's access. Auger replied she gave the access to the Hunter Valley Way parcel because that was the only way that the parcel could be obtained; no compensation was given for the access. Marion asked how Community Development came up with the number of development rights from the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Bendon replied that it came from recommendations from the Open Space Committee and the benefits from preserving that parcel outweighed the development rights given. Hoefer stated Sections 3, 5, 9 and 13 were for discussion as well as the general merits of the project. Tygre stated that the resolution would have to be re-done and David's suggestion to review the Sections and merits. Johnson complimented the project and the illustrative plans really were helpful. Johnson stated that he was troubled by code amendments for particular projects in general because of the unintended consequences therefore he wanted a better understanding of the consequences of the code language, which was procedural. Kruger stated it was an admirable job putting together an extremely complicated project but the ultimate goal was to preserve that parcel. Kruger said that she did 6 .-, 4,.~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 not like the code amendment method but P&Z had the right and responsibility when other projects with these code amendments come forward to review those projects. Kruger said that the developer has moved forward in way over and above what the fire department and police department have required for traffic circulation. Kruger said that with the changes to the resolution she intended to approve the project. Dylan Johns agreed that amending the code for specific projects can be tough; he said that the Hunter Valley Way parcel by itself would achieve a lot of community benefit and would not even need the rest of the project. Johns said if the subdivision was large enough to handle the Historic TDR then it would eliminate a lot ofproperties. Johns said the subdivision was no less or more dense than the surrounding area and this was probably a more attractive plan that if left for these parcels to be developed individually. Johns said the access points were consolidated by the subdivision and it was a lot safer to go out onto Spruce; he said there were a limited number of houses. Johns did think that P&Z should be re- configuring streets to create arterial roadways as long as the street met the governing bodies guidelines. Johns said he was in favor of the subdivision. Kruger said the waiver of the 3 ADUs should be kept because of the neighborhood traffic. Johns said that they should keep the 3 ADUs because he did not want another loophole in the code. Marion said he was very uncomfortable with the development of that property (Hunter Way) has been made possible by the developer; he felt this was a poor way to bring in a project saying that it could be built on but we hope that we can save it. Marion said bringing in the 3 development rights and getting rid of the ADU concept to maximize the value of the property for the developer was asking for a little bit too much. Tygre summarized that 3 of the commissioners were in favor of the project; there was a split on the code amendments; the employee mitigation was the ADUs or cash-in-lieu along with the number; claritlcation of the language on Section 9; and Section 13 the street configuration. Tygre asked if P&Z would see this project in any form again if approved. Hoefer replied that it would not come back to P&Z. MOTION: Ruth Kratger moved to extend the meeting for I S minutes; seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor; Approved 6-0. Bendon noted there were substantive changes to the resolution. Hoefer said that Jasmine and John could vote if they reviewed the minutes. Tygre said that she 7 ., ..., ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -November 30, 2004 wanted to see the complete document. Bendon and Hoefer agreed that the substantive language should be clearly stated in the resolution. Bendon explained. that the FAR should not be in the resolution because the zoning could change. Tygre said the code amendment would be discussed again as well as the mitigation; she said by exploring all the issues, it would allow for the project to be passed on with a positive approval. Auger said that this was the simplest way was by combining all code amendments. Auger said that they were willing to give up the exemptions on the ADUs if that would make it more comfortable; if P&Z wanted to dispose of that code amendment and do whatever ADU requirements P&Z chose. Auger explained the Hunter Valley Way parcel would have been developed if they had not purchased it; they did what was necessary to satisfy the investors. Sanchez asked if there were problems with the Historic TDR code amendment or was it just the mitigation code amendment. Kruger replied the commission did not like a code amendment coming in with a specific application just to make the application work. Kruger said the commission knew how this particular code amendment worked but asked how does it affect other properties. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on Fox Crossing to December 07`". Seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. S. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning. MOTION.• Jack.7ohnson moved to continue the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning to December 07`x' seconded by Ruth Kruger seconded. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk rv ., , .., V PLANNING & ZONING COMM. Minutes -December 07, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Brandon Marion, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steve Skadron arrived at 6:OOpm. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said December 14`x' would be a work session with P&Z in the City Manager's Office. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING This hearing was closed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/19): SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Sign Code Amendments. MOTION.• Jack Johnson moved to continue the Sign Code Amendments to January 18, 2005; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor; Approved 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04, 11/30/04): •• FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon stated at the last meeting the commission requested the language in the resolution be amended and added additional direction on the code amendments. Bendon said there was an economic advantage to be able to move TDRs around in a subdivision and as an advantage to preserving historic structures. The second code amendment was the development right for preserving an open space parcel; Bendon said this was an important goal and should go forward to city council regardless of what happens with Camilla's application. Preserving open space was a goal and another tool for the city. Bendon said language was changed in the resolution to require affordable housing mitigation in Section 3; Sections 4 and 5 were specifically for Camilla's project. Bendon noted that the remaining question was if other developers might find the code amendment interesting; since 2 f'a ir/ ~~~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 then Bendon received a call from a private planner regarding a property owner contemplating doing an open space preservation but they need development rights to be able to do this. Bendon stated the traffic safety advisory committee did meet (a memo was included in the commissions' mail boxes). The memo from the TSAC did not like the bollards; the Walnut Street extension connecting to Lone Pine and the adequacy of Race Alley and Race Street. Bendon said TSAC said to either widen Race Alley and Street to a 30-foot right-of--way or make the streets one-way with a sidewalk on one side and for Race to continue to Lone Pine. Bendon said the obligation was to review if the proposal met the standards. Bendon said that widening Race Alley would not be a very popular idea; he included the designation of Race Alley as one-way with a sidewalk on one side of the alley. Bendon stated the applicant was aware of the deed-restrictions on Aley Park. Bendon noted that Nick Adeh was present; Adeh was on the traffic safety advisory committee. Camilla Auger stated that Phil Overyender requested a second water line, which was done. Auger said that they will do a passive park at Aley Park with gardens. Auger said the issue of connecting Spruce Street with Lone Pine would not lessen any traffic on Spruce Street but would make a short cut through the project, which would make the historic preservation and preservation of the park not possible. Auger said there were several letters and Hunter Creek Condominiums objecting to the street going through; this would require taking out 50 trees and increase traffic. Auger said there are currently 7 full-time working resident tenants on this property (Walnut and Race Alley) and once the project goes forward most of the people will be second homeowners so there would be a reduction in traffic. Letters placed into the record were from Bill Stirling and Dawnette Smith, The Renters of Walnut Street LLC, John Erspamer and Marcia Poutous, Ward and Mimi Hauenstein, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Colleen Burrows, Lisa Thurston, Jon Busch, Martha Cochran, Parks Department, Dale Will, Clurie Bennis, Larry Griffith and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Nick Adeh, city engineer, stated there were tremendous concerns regarding the subdivision and the re-configuration of the subdivision prompted the need to take this proposal to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Adeh said that as proposed it meets the bare bone minimum for traffic movement with the exception of the need to widen Walnut Street to fit the public water loop in that easement; there was a suggestion to make Spruce Street connecting to Lone Pine 3 rne/ \<-' ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 through this subdivision, which would provide street entrances for all of the lots. Adeh said the minimum was 20 feet for Walnut Street with two-way traffic and Race Street would be one-way because of the width. Adeh said the National Fire Marshall requires a minimum width for one-way travel (restricted by walls of buildings) be 20 feet. Public Comments: 1. Jon Busch, public, supported the application as submitted. Busch said that sidewalks should be deferred to a later time and he would add a paved trail through the open space to connect to Walnut Street for a better pedestrian walkway. 2. Bill Stirling, public, said that he helped the developer assemble these lots over the course of 3 years and he manages the existing rental properties on this parcel. Stirling supported keeping Race two-way because it lends character, charm and country feeling to the neighborhood. Stirling said about 60% of the property in Aspen is owned by absentee or second homeowners, which would probably be true for this project once it is purchased. Stirling said keeping Race two-way would keep it from becoming ashort-cut. Stirling said this subdivision with the open space no longer gives that lot line to lot line feeling and creates a connector for the upper and lower trails. Stirling said the neighbors have been extremely helpful for the project. Stirling said the density in this subdivision was much less than the density that was in most neighborhoods; he said this was a great opportunity for the town with long-range benefits. 3. Patti Clapper, public, voiced concern over the one-way of Race Alley and the traffic flow. Clapper supported the trail. 4. Dave Harris, public, stated he lived across the alley from this project and he counted 19 houses in the neighborhood currently and this doubled the neighborhood. Harris stated as a subdivision it should have access within itself with streets contained. Dylan Johns asked about Exhibit C regarding the Historic TDR Landing sites and the total number of floor area per unit in the subdivision and how it worked. Bendon replied the total number of TDRs that can be used within the subdivision could not be more than what could have been used before the code amendment, which was Exhibit C. Bendon said there were 19 residences, which 2 were historic, so there would be an eligibility of landing 17 TDRs in that subdivision without a code amendment. Hoefer stated that only 8 lots could have 2 TDRs. 4 ~~, ASPE~GPLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 Brandon Marion commented that Camilla did not previously reveal that access had been granted to the Hunter Way parcel and contradicted what the applicant said in a previous meeting and at the November 30, 2004 meeting it was brought up. Marion said this caused him great concern for the integrity of the planning and zoning process and the Fox Crossing proposal but he will continue to look at the project fairly and cast his vote on the merits of the project. Marion asked who owned the land currently. Camilla Auger replied 4 unrelated investors that lived in Texas. Marion asked how they can approve the project if Race Street is not adequate. Hoefer replied that was part of the subdivision; it would have to be brought into compliance by either making the street one-way or widening the street. Hoefer noted on page 9 of the Resolution the applicant could do either one; P&Z could recommend one over the other. Marion asked how the 3 TDRs were proposed in exchange for the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon responded that was largely from the comments from Open Space and fits within current zoning; roughly it was the same amount of square footage and an opportunity for the city. Bendon said there was no scientific method. Jack Johnson requested that the allocations be brought up at the work session for discussion. Tygre agreed because the amendment troubled her as well. Tygre said the criteria could be very specific in terms of evaluation for guidelines. Johnson stated the project was complicated but a great project. Johnson said the beauty of it was the meadow and the trail running through it connecting with Oklahoma Flats and Hunter Creek. Johnson said the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine gets in the way of the beauty of the project and would negatively impact the park idea. Johnson said Race Alley should remain two-way bLrt he would vote for the resolution as written. Johns said that it has been shown that there. were multiple options for Race Alley. Johns agreed with Johnson on the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine negatively affecting this subdivision. Kruger agreed with Johns on supporting the resolution with the 2 options for Race. John Rowland asked about the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee's recommendations. Adeh replied that it was not just about traffic but also the utility easement corridor, which would mean the corridor had to meet the requirements of 20 feet. Rowland said he was comfortable with the subdivision and it met the character of the East End. 5 4. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes -December 07, 2004 Tygre stated that she would abstain from voting on this resolution and suggested the code amendment be taken out of the resolution; she said it would be a lot cleaner and fuhire applications development rights would be addressed separately. Hoefer stated that through the public notice process this code amendment was part of the project but in the future the code amendments should be separate and prior to the project application. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #33 and recommend City Council approve Fox Crossing and the associated Land Use Amendments with the addition of the solidification of the trail through the park; seconded by Jack.Iohnson. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, abstain. Motion'carried 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16): 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing and notice had been provided on November 16`x'. James Lindt explained that Dale Hower submitted this application to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from R-15 to R-6; P&Z is the recommending body to City Council on this action. Lindt provided the history of the property; the applicant designed 2 residences for this property based on the R-6 Zone District (because the zoning map had shown this property was in the R-6 zone district in 1990). Lindt said the zoning map was in error because the property was actually zoned R-15; the applicant then sued the city. There was an agreement to rezone the property; two smaller houses would probably be built on this site rather than one large single-family house. The rezoning would remove the non-conforming status and all the property to the north was zoned R-6. Staff recommended approval. Dylan Johns asked if the net effect allows for a duplex but reduces FAR. Lindt replied that is correct. Jack Johnson asked if this was the only non-conforming R-15 lot in that subdivision. Lindt replied that it was not. No public comments. Brandon Marion asked if there would be an access problem if it were a duplex rather than asingle-family. Lindt replied that it was off the culd-de-sac and the 6 ~~+'btt ~ Memorandum ~wwy'~` C'1?~f~ U To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Traffic Safety Advisory Committee~S~ Subject: Fox Crossing Subdivision Date: December 3, 2004 We are forwarding this correspondence to advise you that the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee representing Police, Engineering, Streets, Parking, and Transportation Departments met to review the subject development with respect to right of way and traffic circulation issues on this project. This meeting was also attended by Fire Protection District and Utilities Staff to ensure the adequacy of transit corridor widths for operation and maintenance of future public utility lines and emergency services. In part we believed it was important to respond to citizen concerns raised regarding the adequacy of access to the proposed development. Input was provided by the City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Police Chief, Transportation and Parking Department, Water Department and from the engineering staff in the Community Development Department. It was the consensus of the staff that the applicant's proposal to extend Walnut Street through to Lone Pine is an improvement to the current situation from all the above points of view provided that improvements are made to pedestrian facilities and that aone-way loop is provided from Race Alley to Spruce Street. However, the clear preference from all the above points of view was that an extension of Race Street to Lone Pine with an additional connection to Walnut Street would work significantly better and would resolve neighbor concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety without the need to modify Spruce Street with the addition of sidewalks. We further believe that such a solution would best utilize existing City resources for maintenance of streets, sidewalks and other infrastucture. We recognize that this is not the proposal before the Planning and Zoning Commission and that requiring this connection may go beyond the scope of your review. We are providing this input with the hope that a better solution to these issues can be worked out with the proposed development. rsnc-zooa-oi November 14, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Fox Crossing Dear P & Z: ~h~ ~- ~~ We are neighbors who aze long time residents of Spruce Street, Race Alley, and Walnut Streets. We have been working with Camilla Auger regarding Fox Crossing. She has been meeting with us to answer questions, discuss the plans for the development, and arrive at the best solutions for traffic routes. We have reached agreement on the following proposals. First, Camilla has agreed to create a driveway extension of the Walnut driveway exiting to Lone Pine Road. Even though this will involve a road cut which Fox Crossing hoped to avoid, it will lessen traffic on Walnut, and we strongly support it. Second, we strongly urge the City to keep Race Street as it is - a two way street. We would like to keep traffic coming out onto Spruce Street from Race Street to a minimum. We have concluded after much discussion that two bollazds which fire and other emergency vehicles and residents of Race Alley can drive over would achieve that objective. Fox Crossing would still provide pazking along the south side of Race Street and the walking trail on the north side. The bollazds or an agreed upon alternative solution on the center would reduce traffic and still permit emergency vehicles easy access. If the City will accept it, Camilla agrees with this solution: This is very important to the residents of Race Street and the residents of Spruce Street, and we hope that the City will allow this solution. With regazd to Fox Crossing overall, we support the project and would like to be kept informed and participate in decisions regazding the detail of traffic flow and construction staging as those develope. Sincerely, November 14, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Dear P & Z: Fox Crossing We aze neighbors who aze long time residents of Spruce Street, Race Alley, and Walnut Streets. We have been working with Camilla Auger regarding Fox Crossing. She has been meeting with us to answer questions, discuss the plans for the development, and arrive at the best solutions for traffic routes. We have reached agreement on the following proposals. First, ]l~as agreed to create a driveway extension of the Walnut driveway exiting to Pme Road. Even though this will involve a road cut which Fox Crossin hoped to avoid, it will lessen traffic on Walnut, and we strongly support it. a9 d `' °~' on-cw ITBrH..tiD~° Second, we strongly urge the City to keep Race Street as it is - o way street. ~";~ We would like to keep traffic coming out onto Spruce Street fro ce Street to a minimum. We have concluded after much discussion that tw llazds which fire and other emergency vehicles and residents of Race Alley c 've over would achieve that objective. Fox Crossing would still provide pazking al g the south side of Race Street and the walking trail on the north side. The bollards n the center would reduce traffic and still permit emergency vehicles easy access. If the City will accept it, Camilla agrees with this solution. This is very important to the residents of Race Street and the residents of Spruce Street, and we hope that the City will allow this solution. With regard to Fox Crossing overall, we support the Sincerely, iUl ~~~°~ /f q P~ r, I i~ ~ 6l mod- W CU-2c~. 1~ C.~.2 Y b riG_ S„ ds-C1SitY~ r~-~~'~t ~~- YQ~¢.p~~Z c-oi+-1 a ~ Rq Tom' c2.sa.t'op t . 0~~ ~~~~ ~l~- ~'C RE: Proposed Fox Crossing November 1, 2004 To Aspen City Council, As manager of the Hunter Creek Condominiums I want to express my support for the proposed Fox Crossing project that will be adjacent tb our property. The open space meadow in the middle of the project is attractive in this already dense neighborhood. Also, the foot path and the historic preservation of the miners cottage will be an asset in this area. The Hunter Creek Condominium complex has received numerous new planted trees that will screen our buildings from Fox Crossing and most homeowners are very appreciative. L believe the developer of this property will be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors. Sinc rely, ~~ ~~~iGv~c,'9v Lisa Thurston Hunter Creek Properties, Inc. I--IUflter Creek 1400 Vine Street Aspen, Colorado 8161 I 970/925-1060 August 20, 2004 Jon Busch 548 Race Street ~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Historic Preservation Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Dear Commission members: I am located directly across Race Street (alley) from the proposed historic site of the Angie Griffith cabins and historic house. Developers have promised me that they will not ask for any setback variances along Race Street and that they will slightly lower the roof of the cabin's gazage. I realize that the developer now is in compliance with zoning regulations along Race,. and I support the application. ;` Sincerely, ~~ `, l Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen, Colorado Nov O1 04 04:07p P°"'.en Valley Land Trust 97P"*963-8441 p.l Aspen Valley Land Trust November I, 200? RE: Hunter Valley Way Parcel To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written to confum that Aspon Valley Land Trust would be most willing to accept a conservation easement on the 9.35-acre property known as the Bunter Valley Way Parcel. Acceptance of the easement would provide for monitoring and easement enforcement on the property in perpetuity. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~~~ ~~~ a Cochran Executive Director Aspen Valley land Tnrst 320 Main Street • Carbondale, Cokxado 81623.970.963.8440 • fax. 970.963.8441 www.avlt.org X1011 To: Camilla Auger Par~as a~si R~~r~afi~sa I3epartmen't From: City of Aspen Parl<s and Open Space Staff Date: October 26, 2004 Re: Hunter Valley Open Space The City of Asp'en's open space initiative has worked hard to preserve open space in and around the Aspen area. The City is proud to have protected over 1000 acres of land, which had been designated as c~tical wildlife habitat, important view planes, containing wetlands or other ecologically important resources and sites that offer a number of recreational opportunities. The acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way parcel will contribute greatly to both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen's existing open space programs. The acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way parcel will ensure the integrity of wildlife corridors and habitats, plus protect the scenic qualities along the Tani White and Hunter Creek Trails. Additionally, preserving Hunter Valley Way increases the over all open space value of Randall Park and other surrounding open space parcels. In addition to the preservation of open space, staff supports the projects proposal to provide funding for park improvements to the City parcel known as Aley Park. This proposed funding will help bring together the planning and development of one of the City's under utilized resources. The Spruce Street neighborhood has seen a lot of growth and an increase in families. The Aley parcel has been identified for park development in the Parks Master Plan. Staff is interested in the possibility of working with the Fox Crossing Development in order to accomplish the development of this necessary public amenity. .01~~~4 Camilla Auger Via Facsimile: 544-9251 RE: Hunter Valley Way Property Deaz Camilla: I am writing to confirm that the Open Space Program is very keen to acquire the Hunter Valley Way property, formerly owned by David Michaels. This property is the "missing link" in a series of protected properties which protect Hunter Creek and provide a trail comdor. Aspen is truly blessed to have this comdor so close to town, where a pedestrian can walk into the wilderness from town. Our acquisition of the Hunter Valley Way Property would complete a valuable public corridor. Sin ly, v~~ Dale Will Open Space & Trails Program 530 E. Main, Suite 301 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ®PRINTEp ON RECYQEDYAFEF (970) 920-5232 Apri125, 2004 Mayor Helen Klanderud City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 cc: Members of the Aspen City Council Director, City of Aspen Community Development Department Dear Mayor Klanderud, I am an immediate adjacent neighbor to the proposed development between Walnut and Race, where I have lived for twenty years. I would like to voice my support for the planner of the Walnut Property, LLC, which is being submitted to the City of Aspen. This project preserves the "Blue Victorian" that Angie Griffith lived in. the meadow in front of it, and the spirit of the railroad curve that established the history of the neighborhood. The project also includes a children's playground and pazk to be built with the Pazks Department on Spruce Street, and has the potential to preserve over 9 acres for open space along the Hunter Creek trail. It is essential that local residents who are sensitive to the history, ethics and future of our community be involved in major projects such as this one. We aze fortunate that Angie Griffith's heir elected to sell the property to - someone with community and environmental values and supported her vision for the neighborhood. I admire and respect Camilla Auger for her energy, creativity and commitment to green space, especially as evidenced - in this project. Sincerely, ~'~ ~D/,, - ~/~~, ;~ feu u ~.1 Clurie Bennis Larry Griffith 530 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mayor Helen Klanderud Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Heled, Deaz Ma landerud: July 29, 2004 The property at Walnut and Race streets has been in my family for many yeazs and I have happy memories of spending time there as a boy. When Angie Griffith died recently, I sold the property to Walnut Properties, LLC for the Fox Crossing project. A key factor in my decision to sell the property to Walnut was my confidence in Camilla Auger and her vision which I shaze for the restoration of the Angie Griffith Blue Victorian, the preservation of the meadow next to the Victorian, the creation of a park neaz the old Max Aley house with the Pazks Department on the City land there and the gift of 9.35 acres of dedicated open space on the Hunter Creek trail. I understand that she also intends to preserve as a single family house the two little cabins which were slated for demolition and therefore were not a preservation requirement. I remember seeing these being built. They were maintained in their original state as natural in color and rubbed each year with linseed oil. Angie loved the flower beds, rose bushes and other flowers on the meadow which she tended until she grew too old to do so. Members from the senior center came in the Spring to pick some of the daffodils. There aze many families with small children living in Centennial and Hunter Creek as I;_ well as the houses nearby whose children and small dogs now play in the street. The major gift of critical open space on Hunter Creek Trail (which together with Randal Pazk will p preserve nearly 20 acres) the build out of the area near Max Aley's old house as a . pazk/playground and the preservation of the Angie Griffith Blue Victorian and cabins in their historic setting of the meadow will be an important contribution to the neighborhood and community. These benefits will be all within walking distance with a trail leading to the historic core at Fox Crossing. You were kind to Angie when she was alive and I hope that you and the other members of the City Council will give the Fox Crossing project your support when it comes Mayor Klanderud Page two July 29, 2004 before you. With all the changes taking place in Aspen, amenities such as Fox Crossing will provide are parCiculazly important for the future. Sincerely, /,~~~~ LarryGZ Griffith CC: Julie Ann Woods, Chris Bendon, (for distribution to Members of the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission), Amy Guthrie, John Wooster, Esq and Boazd of County Commissioners, Hilary Smith, Cindy Houben, Lance Clazk, Dale Will and John Ely, Esq. („ Ward Hauenstein " ~ ~~0~ 535 Spruce St. Aspen, CO 81611 December 6, 2004 Planning and Zoning Ladies and Gentlemen: We want to go on record some issues relative to the Fox Crossing Development. We have lived on Spruce Street for about 22 years. Our positions on the traffic issues are as follows: Race Alley should remain as it is a two direction alley. If for any reason this is to change it should be a one way alley. We are strongly opposed to widening of Race in order to make it two way. We will fight any attempt to widen Race Alley. Spruce Street should also remain as it is now. We oppose any changes to Spruce Street. In general we are grateful for the attempts that the developers have put into the development. Our first choice is to have Race Street dead end and Race Alley to become a one way with a new extension exiting onto Lone Pine. In discussions with developers they feel that this option is a deal buster. We would rather keep alignments as outlined above than spoil the Fox Crossing as designed. We also object to sidewalks on Spruce Street because of the parking spots that will lie lost. If the residents of the east side of Spruce Street are willing to lose their parking spots in order to have a sidewalk this is ok with us. We have build three off street parking places in front of our house and two :in back off of Race Alley. We have provided ample parking for everyone that lives in our house as well as visitors. We do not want to have these. spaces lost to a side walk or alley widening. Sincerely, Ward and Mimi Hauenstein ~~ ~~'~i~~. ~2.0~.~ RE: Proposed Fox Crossing December 6, 2004 To Aspen Gty Council, Hunter Creek Condominiums has had communication with the developer of Fox Crossing regarding the access of the new development, The way Fox Crossing is currently proposed, the lots will be accessed off the existing streets of Spruce, Race and Walnut. If a new street was put in from Lone Pine Road to Spruce Street, the Hunter Creek Condominiums would be negatively impacted as the new street would run along our property line in front of three of our buildings. Since . ly, /^ , ,, ~/ U~~. Lisa Thurston Hunter Creek Properties, Inc. ... ~„~tLl~ ~2.0~.Q~ December 7, 2004 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Regarding Fox Crossing Subdivision application for development We are owners and residents of property located at 534 Spruce Street, Aspen, Colorado, and have lived at this location since 1990. We wish to state our strong desire to hav Spruce Street, Race Street and Race Alley remain as they are, with no addit~i im ovements, changes or creation of one-way traffic. Marcia Poutous . , _. Section 2: Preservation of Hunter Valley Wav Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to an amendment to the Land Use Code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 48, Series of 2004, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. A legal encumbrance, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall sterilize the Hunter Valley Way parcel and preclude development, other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. The encumbrance shall define maintenance and liability obligations. 3. The City of Aspen shall be a party (but not the sole party) to the deed restriction on the property. 4. The three (3) residential units shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. 5. The Hunter Valley Way parcel shall be sterilized to prevent development upon the parcel and as a result of the parcel, other than that specified herein. If Pitkin County issues transferable development rights for the sterilization of this parcel, the City of Aspen development rights issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall be considered null and void. C ~ 6. The Applicant shall grant to the City of Aspen a trail easement through the Hunter Valley Way parcel in a form and substance acceptable to the City of Aspen Parks Department and the City Attorney. ' YfII.d~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~~ RE: Land Use Code Amendments (Associated with Fox Crossing Subdivision) -Second Reading of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004. DATE: January 24, 2005 PROJECT: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS REQUEST Two Land Use Code amendments are proposed in association with the SUMMARY: Fox Crossing Subdivision application: 1) addressing the distribution of historic TDRs within a subdivision; and, 2) creating development rights in exchange for the preservation of open space. APPLICANT: Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC P&Z Approval. P&Z minutes are attached. RECOMMENDATION' STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the two code amendments. RECOMMENDATION: ASSOCIATION WITA FOX CROSSING APPLICATION: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing parcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. The subdivision application relies on two amendment to the Land Use Code. P&Z reviewed the code amendments concurrently with the subdivision application and recommended approval (with a series of conditions applicable to the subdivision application). Upon first reading of the proposed ordinance, City Council split the code amendments from the subdivision application. Proposed Ordinance No. 48 only addresses the code amendments, while Ordinance No. 50 addresses the subdivision application. CODE AMENDMENT #t: CITY HISTORIC TDR PROGRAM: The City's Historic TDR Program provides the ability for non-historic single-family and duplex properties to "land" one TDR per residence. (A duplex property can land two TDRs.) A Historic TDR provides 250 square feet of FAR in addition to the property's base FAR allowance. - Code Amendments -Fox Crossing. Page 1 - "` ~. , The Applicant ro oses to increase this limitation and permit the landing of two TDRs per residence (up to four TDRs on a duplex site). The proposal limits this option to properties that are within the same subdivision or PUD as the "sending" site (the historic resource). The landing sites cannot be directly adjacent to the sending site and the location of these landing sites must be identified in the subdivision approval. Staff supports this concept. Staff believes this enhances a developer's ability to preserve historic resources while the additional review of the landing sites and the extra FAR ensures compatibility with surrounding properties. The limit of two TDRs per residence, while more FAR, is still a manageable amount (500 square feet) assuming acase-by-case review. Also, using the subdivision or PUD process to determine the compatibility of this additional FAR on surrounding properties requires notice to surrounding neighbors and review by both P&Z and City Council. Staff is recommending approval of this code amendment. CODE AMENDMENT #2: GMQS EXEMPTION FOR PRESERVING OPEN SPACE. The Aspen Area Community Plan endorses the concept of transferring County development rights into the City. The application contemplates a program relying on the Pitkin County TDR program and Intergovernmental Agreements. Staff, in coordination with the Applicant, re-wrote this code amendment so that it is a City-only program (no longer the result of a County action) and does not rely on County TDRs. Staff supports this amendment. Staff believes that the code amendment permitting the City to grant growth allotments in exchange for preservation of an open space pazcel is a good idea that the City should consider, r~azdless of this particular application. Preservation of open space in close proximity to the city is a community goal and this amendment provides a powerful tool to help achieve it. (Other tools are condemnation and outright purchase.) The amendment allows the City to "pick and choose" the open space most important to the City. The open space can be either inside or outside the City jurisdiction and be for a variety of purposes (view sheds, trail connections, wildlife corridors, etc.). The program does not rely on any County action and the City is not the recipient of a County program - this is purely a City program. The amendment allows the City to grant Growth Management Allotments to an application within the City. Although exempt from the "scoring and competition" process the GMQS, the development rights still require affordable housing mitigation in the form of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or cash-in-lieu. The number of allotments to be granted depends upon the nature of the open space pazcel, its strategic importance, and the impacts associated with the proposed development to be exempted. There is no proposed formula for determining the number of allotments although the developability of the open space parcel, the visual or environmental impacts - Code Amendments -Fox Crossing. Page 2 - .-, .-,1 ..~ ~... of development on that site, floor areas, and financial value could be considered. A recommendation from the City's Open Space Acquisition Board is a requirement of the review. Staff believes other applicants (besides the Fox Crossing applicant) would avail themselves of this code amendment. Staff also believes that there are sufficient safeguards within the amendment that would allow the City to deny asub-par open space parcel or a proposed exchange that provides too many development rights. Simply, the code amendment is written such that if the deal is not good for the City, the City does not have to accept it. The process requires action by the City Council after considering recommendations from the City's Open Space Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City staff. The amendment also requires that the neighborhood receiving the additional development be notified so that their comments may be considered prior to approval. Staff is recommending approval of this code amendment. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: ] . AMENDMENT To TtiE LAND Use CODE: The Applicant proposes to amend the City Land Use Code to a.) permit two City Historic TDRs to be used per residence within a subdivision containing a preservation site; and, b.) to provide exemptions from the City's Growth Management program for the preservation of an open space parcel. Final Review Authority: City Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004. Cl7 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2004." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff findings Exhibit B: Planning and Zoning Commission minutes Exhibit C: Fox Crossing Subdivision Application, sections addressing Land Use Code amendments. -Code Amendments -Fox Crossing. Page 3 - ~-, ,. -, ... EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE -FOX CROSSING REVIEW CRITERIA ~c STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the Land Use Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendments are not in conflict with any portion of Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. _STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the concept of preserving important open space parcels is consistent with the AACP. The Managing Growth Section specifically contemplates this type of transfer of development rights. The City has not pursued this preservation tool. The ability for the City to select which parcel should be preserved and how much corresponding development right should be conveyed will allow the City to strategically preserve open space considered important to the City. Staff believes the proposed amendment to the City Historic TDR Program is consistent with the AACP goals for preserving historic resources. Staff does have minimal amendments to the proposed text, but supports the concept of permitting additional TDRs to be landed on one property through a subdivision review or PUD review. This process will permit area residents to comment on the proposal as it proceeds through review. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed code amendments are not exclusive to one property or region of town. The Historic TDR code amendment is limited to the R6 zone district. This district encompasses a vast number of properties and is effective in several areas of town. Staff believes this criterion applies to the rezoning of individual properties and not to code amendments affecting many properties. Code Amendments -Fox Crossing -Staff Findings Page 1 ... ~, ,.. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES 1T COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will not have an effect upon road safety. The open space preservation amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management. Staff does not believe. either of these amendments will have any effect on road safety. 1/. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will not have an effect upon utility infrastructure. The open space preservation code amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management. Because the open space preservation amendment will not increase a properties underlying rights, staff does not believe the amendment has an effect upon utility infrastructure., Staff does not believe either of these amendments will have any effect on infrastructure. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will allow for certain houses (to be identified in a subdivision review) to exceed underlying zoning parameters for floor area by up to 500 square feet. Staff does not believe this development option will result in measureable affects upon utility infrastructure. The open space preservation code amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management: Because the open space preservation amendment will not increase a properties underlying rights, staff does not believe the amendment has an effect upon utility infrastructure., Staff does not believe either of these amendments will have any effect on infrastructure. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Code Amendments -Fox Crossing -Staff Findings Page 2 The amendments to the Land Use Code are not specific to a parcel. Staff does believe this criterion applies to an amendment to the Land Use Code. Compatibility of specific land use plans with a particular neighborhood are evaluated under the criteria of other reviews. The compatibility of this subdivision application with the surrounding neighborhood is covered under the subdivision criteria. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The amendments to the Land Use Code are not specific to a particulaz parcel -they would apply city-wide. The amendments are supported by policies which support the preservation of historic resources and a policy statement in the Aspen Area Community Plan supporting the transfer of development rights into the City of Aspen. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. STAFF FINDING: ~ DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes the two code amendments proposed are not in conflict with the public interest and that they are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. The preservation of historic resources is an identified public purpose and is supported by numerous regulations, incentive programs, and policy statements in the AACP. The transfer of development rights into the City of Aspen is a concept endorsed in the 2000 AACP and the particular text provides for acase-by-case analysis of each proposal. Staff believes the proposed code amendments meet this criterion. Code Amendments -Fox Crossing -Staff Findings Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING: -iviinu~es - vcrooer i~, ~vu4 '~xh~b~k ,_., FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION 'T'~l~i 111h~ TAG 1~551w~~ Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Fox Crossing Subdivision. Chris Bendon explained the land use was a little confusing and page 2 of the memo supplied a map showing the 2 Griffith properties (permits a single family and a duplex) plus the other properties including the Bennis property (currently a duplex), the Walnut properties (41ots), the Railroad parcel (permits asingle-family or duplex), the garage parcel (permits a duplex), the old house (a historic resource permits a duplex or 2single-family residences), 2 cabins and a newer house are currently on Race alley. Staff had to interpret county code to get the number of rights on the parcels (page 4 of the memo describes the staff interpretation and development rights allowed). Bendon said this was a subdivision without variances but with Growth Management Exemptions to re-house the existing development rights on newly established parcels and 2 code amendments. I code amendment was for the Historic TDR Program and I for the Growth Management Program. Bendon noted some issues were the emergency access and road safety; the width of Race Alley and a proposal for a new access road on the west side of the property. The Fire Department, City Engineer and Chris Bendon all agreed a little alteration on the west side road was needed and Race Street (Alley) was okay being one-way. Bendon said the City Historic TDR Program allows receiver sites to land 1 Historic TDR per residence (250 square feet); on a duplex 2 Historic TDRs could be used. This proposal would allow for 2 Historic TDRs to be used for each residence for properties that were in the subdivision. Clauson said there were 2,750 square feet to be allocated from the Historic resource for TDRs in this subdivision. Bendon explained that the subdivision had to contain the Historic Resource and the TDRs must come from that Historic Resource. Brandon Marion asked for the. way the TDRs would be used in the subdivision for the next meeting. Bendon said the second code amendment proposed was for Growth Management to recognize County TRDs. The County TDR Program allows TDRs from rural and remote (back county) or mining claims to be transferred to a property within the urban growth boundary (map on page 6 of staff memo). The Aspen Area Community Plan, which is jointly adopted with Pitkin County, recognizes the policy desire to accept those official development rights within the city; the city has not pursued that so this is kind of tricky. The proposal would recognize and accept a County TDR as a development right; in order to subdivide land in the city you have to have the development rights in hand before you go through Growth 6 ASPEN Management or are obtaining Growth Management Exemptions but you can't create a lot without development rights. Bendon said the County TDR actually provides the whole entire right. Bendon provided the example of a county TDR being transferred from one site, which becomes sterilized if it only has the one TDR; in the city it was a portion of the FAR. Bendon mentioned a letter in the packet from a neighbor regarding construction staging and impacts. Camilla Auger, applicant, explained that Fox Crossing was located in a highly dense neighborhood of affordable housing, duplexes and more development was in the process with no parks or open space within walking distance. Auger said this was the chance to fix that problem of no open space; she was committed to this neighborhood. Auger proposed low-density single-family housing around a park with a historic core; the view from the meadow is gorgeous and they hope to retain it as open space. Auger noted there were small children that play in the street and they hope to turn the unused city property into a children's playground and park. Auger said that this had one of the most popular trailheads in the city, which leads into Hunter Creek; she pointed out a park that has been threatened by development in the county and hoped to give Hunter Valley Way open space to the county with easements from the city and conservation easements from the Valley Land Trust. Auger said if they have their way to this open space the community will get 20 acres of open space to these areas by trailheads, which will all converge atone spot. Marion asked who was involved with Ms. Auger. Camilla Auger replied that it has taken her years to gather all the investors, city, county and various other agencies including the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Stan Clauson stated this was a complex project; they have been working with the Parks Department to formalize trail connections from Oklahoma Flats to Spruce Park. Clauson provided various scenarios and different zone districts surrounding this property. Clauson said the assessor's office had 7 parcels for this property and he has been working with Chris Bendon to establish the problems of these parcels and how it would interface with the TDR portion. Clauson said the core parcel would be divided into 9 lots; per Chris Bendon's analysis there were 4 lots. Clauson continued these lots would allow the historic house, a photograph was provided its own lot and the 2 cabins would be relocated and joined together on another lot with an existing single-family house. Clauson noted there would be a 9,000 square foot park with the access roadway. Clauson explained that the streets, Race Alley platted at the turn of the century, have a 20-foot right-of-way and 14'/2 foot pavement width to the connection at Spruce Street. The Fire Department and City Engineer have agreed on this 7 F& ZONING COMMISSION-Min es -October 12.2004 hammerhead and infrastructure development. Clauson said that Chris Bendon explained the Historic TDR Amendment very well. Auger said that they were still discussing the development rights; she said this project is where the tail is wagging the dog. Clauson said there was no need for the IGA. Clauson said the Walnut Street intersection improvements will be accomplished and the utility lines from their involvement will be underground. Clauson said the construction management plan would be in effect. Auger noted letters of support from neighbors. MOTION.• Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Fox Crossing public hearing to November 2, 2004; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor, motion carried. Discussion of motion: The Commissioners requested more information on the County TDR Program; the number of lots and development rights for this entire project; information on the trail and the TDR principal with criteria. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk a~' .-~. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 02, 2004 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers. Members John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Dylan Johns were present. Jasmine Tygre, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Dylan Johns opened the public hearings for Fox Crossing Subdivision, which was continued from 10/27/04 and the historic landmark lot split code amendments and continued the hearings to November 16, 2004 due to lack of quorum. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Minutes -November 16, 2004 Ruth Kruger, acting chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members John Rowland, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine Tygre and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Chris Lee, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked about the LeChef's building. David Hoefer replied that it was being broken up into two spaces. Ruth Kruger asked who was responsible for the sidewalk at the Bavarian; there was a big drop-off at one end. Chris Bendon replied that sidewalks were a public amenity but installed by the developer of the property. Kruger noted the sidewalk stopped in the middle of the property. David Hoefer congratulated Chris Bendon on his appointment as Community Development Department Head. Jackie Lothian reminded the commissioners about the Boards and Commissions party at the Wheeler on December 2na The commission chose to postpone the minutes until the next meeting. Jack Johnson requested more about the Chart House on the October 19`h Minutes. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Rezoning for 1201 Riverside Drive. James Lindt stated this was continued from 10/19 and will be continued to 12/7 with new signs posted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/12/04, 11/02/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon noted this was continued from 11/2/04. Bendon stated that Ellen Sassano from the county had a conflict tonight; now the Fox Crossing does not have to rely on the 2 ~uN.-~. Minutes -November 16, 2004 county TDR program and in fact it doesn't have to have a TDR. Bendon stated that there was language in the resolution that provided that under Section 3. Bendon said the second question raised at the last meeting regarded the open space parcel and the value; Brian Flynn was present to address that issue. Bendon noted that P&Z requested a development chart noting the current development on this property and the square footage proposed was contained on page 3 of the resolution. Bendon said the October 12`h memo had the parcels on the map with the old house, north cabin, south cabin, newer house, railroad and garage parcels. The interim step was the 2 lots with the old house, north cabin lot and the south cabin new house lot were eligible for a lot split. Bendon noted the far right column of that Exhibit C had Griffith Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Fox Crossing Lots 1 through 10 plus the Fox Crossing parks parcel. Bendon noted to split Griffith Lot 2 into 2 parcels required growth management development allotment and by doing that each is available for asingle-family or duplex. Bendon said the duplexes could be split into 2single-family residences. Brian Flynn asked if the city and county would jointly own the parcel. Camilla Auger replied that they would give it to the city and county with an open space easement with the Aspen Valley Land Trust. Flynn said that parks and open space have worked to acquire land when they can; this was dedicated for the past 2 years that allowed the formation of the Open Space Board, which has criteria and goals. Flynn said that part of the criteria is met with the acquisition of the Hunter Valley Open Space. Flynn explained the Lani White Trail was next to the Hunter Creek Trail running up that corridor, which protects the scenic corridor with Aspen Valley Land Trust as the third party easement holder who guarantees protection of that parcel. Flynn spoke about the proposal of the trail to Spruce Park, which accesses the Lani White Trail. Spruce Park has a stonewall, bench and dog drinking fountain. Flynn said the parks department was trying to bring in more trails and formalize all the connections to bring people into the Spruce Park area and back out into the wilderness in a very easily identified manner with a little bit of signage. Camilla Auger provided the history of Randall Park noting potentials of critical space along the trails. There was a letter from the Aspen Valley Land Trust in support of the plan. Kruger asked the monetary values of this parcel. Auger said there was an appraisal for $3.7 million. Auger said if a house were to be built on this parcel it would be built on the flat area and that was the worse place for a house under trail conditions. Jack Johnson asked if Aley Park and the trail through Fox Crossing were part of the proposal. Auger replied that was part of the proposal and the reason that she was doing was doing this project. 3 r°~ °° Minutes -November 16, 2004 Auger said that they hoped that more trails would be developed and the weed patch would be transformed into a park for the community. Auger stated the meadow at the center of Fox Crossing would be preserved, which was 9200 square feet and next to it was the old blue Victorian with cabins to be developed as asingle-family house. Auger noted these residences would be relatively low density in a high- density area making it a diverse community. Stan Clauson provided a letter from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer discussing the infrastructure and to the Fire Marshall, Ed VanWalraven, discussing the fire truck turning radius, fire hydrants and sprinkling of houses; this was a subdivision not a PUD and it was fully conforming to all the parameters of the R-6 Zone District. Clauson submitted letters from Lisa Thurston from Hunter Creek Properties; Jon Busch on Race Street; Aspen Valley Land Trust from Martha Cochran indicating the Land Trust obligation regarding the Hunter Valley Way parcel; from Dale Will Pitkin County Open Space and Trails; Clurie Bennis and Mary Griffith. Clauson said the private part of Walnut Street would provide access to 5 lots as well as the Clurie Bennis house on the corner and Walnut would continue out onto Lone Pine Road. Clauson noted the extension of Walnut Street would also include the looping of water mains and infrastructure would be in place. Auger stated that they had approval of the fire department but have been talking with all the neighbors and taking in the suggestions, which have slightly different interests. Auger said this would be an on-going discussion and not a final anything. Public Comments: 1. Robert Zupancis, public, stated that he lived at Race and Walnut. Zupancis liked the through street but wanted to see some temporary ballards at Race Street where it intersects with Spruce. Zupancis voiced concerns for the limited parking in the neighborhood currently and this proposal would add to parking on Walnut, Race, South and Lone Pine. Zupancis requested the construction access be off of Lone Pine. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, stated the preservation of the Hunter Valley was great; she noted the neighborhood was becoming crowded. Greenwood voiced concern for the dangerous intersection at South, Gibson and Walnut Streets with no visibility. Greenwood noted Luriski's property was being developed along with this proposal. Greenwood requested the development of permanent on-site parking for this proposal. 3. Ward Hauenstein, public, stated that he lived on Spruce Street; he said it was important to keep traffic away from South Street because there was a bus stop for 4 ~~ Minutes -November 16, 2004 small children. Hauenstein requested off-street parking for this project and he said it was best to keep Race Alley two-way. 4. Collen Burrows, public, said Race Alley should remain two-way and she spoke of the density in the neighborhood. 5. LJ Erspamer, public, thanked the developers for coming to their home and wanted to support the neighbors. Auger said a number of things are feasible and agrees with. Clauson noted the code required a construction management plan. Brandon Marion asked if the parking for the trailhead was explored. Clauson replied that the Parks Department did not think that there would be a significant amount of parking from that trailhead but Aley Park would require some parking. Clauson utilized drawings to show the historic nature of the building, the trail and project. Marion asked where the guest parking would be. Clauson responded that it would be on the properties. John Rowland asked what was the mix of housing. Clauson answered there were duplexes sharing floor area. Rowland asked if there was any multi-family. Clauson replied there was no multi-family. Rowland asked if the access for lot 1 was down Race Street within the easement that was the public walkway and asked how wide the easement was. Clauson replied that was correct and the easement was 16 feet. Jack Johnson asked if the historic house would be occupied and if it would be fenced. Auger replied that it was the plan for someone to occupy the house and the cabins. Clauson stated that Gilbert Sanchez was the architect that took the historic house and cabins through conceptual approval with HPC. Auger said that they had not thought of covenants regarding fences prior but they will now. Johnson asked if that was true on the traffic generation count at 9 cars per day per unit. Bendon replied that was a common number used by traffic engineers; he said that was a national average, which counted the mailman as 2 trips. Johnson asked the history on the RR parcel. Bendon replied that it was the Midland Railroad; at the time easements were done with a fee simple process. Johnson asked if the city had long term plans for the trailer park, Gibson and South Street area. Bendon replied there were no capital plans, just minimal improvements of sidewalks, curb and gutter; the city rights-of--way in this area were minimal. Johnson asked if he was correct that the county TDRs were no y.. Minutes -November 16, 2004 longer an option. Bendon replied that they were city driven TDRs. Johnson asked if there was a restriction in the proposed language that would limit the distance of TDRs. Bendon replied there were broad criteria but the significance of that preservation parcel could be determined (page 5 of the November 2"d resolution). The identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value"; the proximity and visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen; the development rights of that preservation parcel and the uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses; the location of the development as it comes into the city including the compatibility of the uses; and the preservation of the parcel is encumbered with a legal description so that we know it will not be developed. Dylan Johns asked if the map was the possible TDRs for this site and the scope of what we could see with this project. Bendon replied that map wouldn't limit them; the good part of the TDR program is that parcels are being preserved. Johns asked if the development right was based upon the underlying zoning and what would the square footage be calculated at. Bendon responded the development right did not have to have a prescribed proportion. Kruger asked why Race Street could not be a two-way street. Clauson replied that it was atwo-way street now and Race Street has a 14.5-foot pavement base, which continues through the 20-foot right-of--way. Clauson said the question from the fire department was since 14.5-foot was slightly bigger than a traffic lane then Race should be one-way. Kruger asked what the off-street parking requirements were for Race Alley. Bendon replied it was the standard city requirement, which is 2 parking spaces per residences; if there is an accessory dwelling unit then there is another parking space required. Kruger asked if there were any traffic studies for any of the corners. Bendon said that there wasn't enough traffic generated by just this project to justify studies. Clauson said if there was a traffic study then Jim Challier did it. Kruger asked if there was a plan for phasing. Auger responded there was a phasing plan and the neighbors wanted the construction done as soon as possible. Kruger asked if this was the exemption process. Bendon answered this was the exemption process; the re-development of the house on the existing lot requires an administrative growth management approval, which you either deed-restrict the main house or build an accessory dwelling unit or pay cash-in-lieu with credit given to other existing residences on site. Bendon stated the resolution did not resolve whether or not those growth management rights that are being created by the city for that preservation parcel also have that ADU requirement. 6 Minutes -November 16, 2004 Bendon summed up the P&Z issues as the ADUs; Race Alley; more specific what the subdivision will look like; Walnut Street; how the walkway works through the open space; and the code amendment. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing for Fox Crossing to November 30`x'; seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN INSTITUTE SPA AMENDMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Aspen Institute SPA Amendment. David Hoefer stated the notice requirements were met. Amy Guthrie stated that this request was for one building that was not built due to the lack of need for it in the past but they want to improve their ability to host conferences so they want to convert this building allocation into a conference and meeting hall. Guthrie noted this plan was slightly smaller by 1500 square feet, which may be used for the health club for future expansion. The Aspen Institute Campus is not entirely historic but portions of the campus were historic; HPC had a great process with the architect and applicants. Guthrie said that Council will have to approve a GMQS exemption for essential public facilities; the impacts of this will be minimal because many of the conferencees do not bring cars. Jim Curtis, representative for the applicant, introduced Jeff Berkus the architect for the project. Curtis stated that Amy Margerum was here but because of another committement she had to leave. Paul Taddune, attorney, and Bill Lukes were in attendance on behalf of the Pitkin Green Homeowners; Mr. Lukes had to also leave because of another commitment. Jim Curtis said that they will meet with the Pitkin Reserve Homeowners (on the other side of the river) to discuss lighting (interior and exterior). Curtis said they are basically taking a building that was approved in 1991 and changing the use of the building to compliment the existing meeting and dining facilities on the Meadows campus so the whole campus can operate more efficiently. There was a commitment to work with HPC on materials, color and lighting with an HPC meeting scheduled for January 12`h and should be up and running in 2006. Brandon Marion checked the list of properties to make sure that he was not conflicted. 7 Minutes -November 30, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:40pm and Steve Skadron at 5:30pm. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Chris Bendon reminded the commissioners about the boards and commissions party at the Wheeler on Thursday, December 2°d. Bendon mentioned the December 14`x' work session. Jasmine Tygre requested the commission to email the wish list to Chris. MINUTES Motion: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October S, 2004 and November 02, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04): TFOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Tygre stated that it was not appropriate for her to vote at this time. Chris Bendon said the last meeting remaining issues were code amendments; the Hunter Valley Way parcel; to one-way of Race Alley and no reliance on county TDRs. Bendon said the way this was structured there was a growth management exemption, which allows the city to grant a developer growth management exemptions in exchange for a developer preserving an important open space parcel; it does not rely on the county TDRs whatsoever. There were 6 criteria for the parcel being preserved; it requires the P&Z and Open Space Advisory Board recommendations, (1) the strategic need for the parcel being preserved; (2) private land with preservation value, (3) proximity and visibility of the parcel to the City, (4) development rights associated with that parcel, (5) the proposed location of the receiving sites granted the exemption from growth management and (6) the legal encumbrance on the parcel by the City Attorney. Bendon explained Section 3 of the Resolution was the code amendment and Section 4 was the action that P&Z was taking on the Preservation. There were a recommended 3 development rights for the Hunter Valley Way parcel with 3 conditions. 2 Minutes -November 30, 2004 Bendon said that Section 5, the form of mitigation for accessory dwelling units, should not be required because the applicant was providing open space. Bendon said Section 13 speaks to the issue of Race Alley being one-way or two- way; the staff recommendation was for Race to become one-way. P&Z was charged with deciding if the subdivision met the standards. The fire marshall and city engineer did not think this subdivision met the standards because the infrastructure did not serve the site with the proper safety. Bendon said to widen the street would be difficult but the street could be made one-way. Bendon stated that P&Z wanted clarity on project benefits and illustrative plan showing setbacks and a roof plan of the neighborhood; no specific architecture was locked in at this time. Bendon noted the parcels were intended to be developed according to the zoning, which could change so the setbacks might change. Jack Johnson asked when the ADUs came to be a concern. Bendon said he mentioned it when the development rights were talked about. Johnson asked how was it written in the proposal. Bendon replied that it was silent. Brandon Marion asked for clarification on the mitigation. Bendon explained that the mitigation was for the exemption from growth management and as a benefit of being landmarked historic they do not have to provide an accessory dwelling unit. Bendon said if you look at the preservation parcel as the benefit to the community then you don't have to do anything more or they could be asked to provide housing mitigation through ADUs. Kruger asked if this had to go to housing. Bendon replied that it did not have to go in front of housing; if there were ADUs then they would be referred to the housing office for development. Bendon said that if P&Z wanted to require ADUs Sections 3 and 5 would have to be amended to include between 8 and 11 mitigations. There were 3 development rights from the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon explained the code amendment in Section 2 was to allow 2 historic TDRs per residence provided it were within the same subdivision as opposed to what is allowed presently as 1 Historic TDR. Camilla Auger stated that a TDR was needed for other than a standard house. Auger said there was a checklist for the benefits, an illustration of what the setbacks and rooftops would look like and illustration of what the historic would look like, which has been through architectural review. Auger said the Hunter Valley Way was a key item because it preserved l 0 acres of open space. Auger said the Aspen Valley Land Trust would be an irrevocable conservation easement over Hunter Valley Way therefore insuring the open space. Auger said the trail hookup would make it possible for the Rio Grande Trail to hook up to the Hunter Minutes -November 30, 2004 Valley. Auger said the road goes onto where the old railroad was aligned. They were providing a looped water main from Walnut and sprinklers for every house even though the houses were significantly smaller houses than what was required for sprinklered houses. The sightline would be improved at the Walnut and Gibson intersection; widening Race Street and providing neighborhood parking. Auger said if they couldn't leave Race Alley, as it is then it will become one-way and the development was without any requested variances. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, stated the impetus for all of this was the preservation of the Angie Griffith Victorian and the adjacent cabins, which forms the central core of the property. HPC approved a 2-story addition and a garage to the Victorian; the combined cabins would be moved onto one lot with aone-story addition. Sanchez said that any development will comply with the underlying R-6 zoning including the setbacks, which were illustrated on the drawing delineated in two- tones of green with the darker green outside the setbacks. The setbacks were 10- foot minimum front and rear yard with a total of 30 and the side yards also have 10-foot minimums because the lots were annexed after 1989, which the proposal will comply with all of those setbacks. The buildings will comply with the residential design standards; the garages will be setback 10 feet from the front facade. Marion asked about the fire department request for the hammerhead turn around. Bendon answered the radii around the corners was of concern but now the Walnut connection goes through to Lone Pine. Bendon said the preservation of the meadow was a public park. Auger said the homeowners maintained the park. Marion said the trail stopped at the park in the picture. Auger replied that it would continue. Bendon said Section 9 in the resolution regarding this trail easement. Marion asked about the times the park was open and if it should be addressed in the easement language. David Hoefer responded that the language would include the ownership, use and maintenance responsibilities. Auger said the park itself was under the historic preservation so it had a specific boundary. Johnson asked about the question of fencing and could language be added to say that there would be no fences in the meadow to obstruct the view. Auger replied that was certainly the intention. Johnson requested board support to add language that fences could not obstruct the view from the historic properties. Sanchez stated that any fences built would have to satisfy HPC requirements; front yard fences could only be 36 inches high. Marion noted that historic structures could have 6-foot high fences in the back. A section would be added to the resolution regarding the fence size limitation for the meadow area. 4 Minutes -November 30, 2004 Public Comments: 1. Colleen Burrows, public, read her letter into the record, which voiced concern about the traffic management, especially the impacts of South Street. Burrows said the developer needed to have the streets contained internally in the subdivision and go out onto Lone Pine. Burrows said there was a traffic study done before Williams Ranch and Williams Way that acknowledged South Street as a bad spot. Burrows requested that South, Walnut and Spruce Streets be looked at again. Burrows said there were some really nice things done by the developer but the lots on the north end could be reduced in size for the interior roads; there were ways that this developer could avoid pushing traffic onto the outlying streets, which were already impacted. Burrows said that the traffic committee hasn't been heard from. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, supported Colleen's comments; she said that she lived and worked on Walnut Street in a historic cabin. Greenwood obtained a parking variance and her property abutted this property. Greenwood stated that this project was not bringing a lot of amenities to this neighborhood; there was a significant grade change in this neighborhood. Greenwood asked if the project could be accessed from Lone Pine; she said that making Race Alley one-way was absurd. Greenwood said it was the Planning and Zoning's job to alleviate the traffic. 3. Marcia Poutous, public, stated that she lived on Spruce Street and Camilla has contacted people in the neighborhood. Poutous hoped that Race Alley would remain 2-way because the residences that now exist have the option of exiting off of Race or Spruce; if Race Alley is made one-way then all the traffic would exit onto Spruce, which would be bad. Auger said the lowest development was on Spruce Street; she said there would be minimal amount of cars generated onto Spruce Street from this project. Auger said they have met with the traffic committee and the fire department; they have re- designed to fit the fire department requirements. Sanchez said there was on site parking with the lots having deep driveways allowing for additional off-street parking in addition to inside the garage. There was additional parking on Spruce Street in the Jon Busch parking area. Sanchez said the character of the park was passive with one of elements of trails and parks was preservation; this was a place to discover but not a destination park. Marion asked if the city engineer and police chief had comments on this project. Bendon said they were asked if it met the city standards; their response was there 5 Minutes -November 30, 2004 not like the code amendment method but P&Z had the right and responsibility when other projects with these code amendments come forward to review those projects. Kruger said that the developer has moved forward in way over and above what the fire department and police department have required for traffic circulation. Kruger said that with the changes to the resolution she intended to approve the project. Dylan Johns agreed that amending the code for specific projects can be tough; he said that the Hunter Valley Way parcel by itself would achieve a lot of community benefit and would not even need the rest of the project. Johns said if the subdivision was large enough to handle the Historic TDR then it would eliminate a lot of properties. Johns said the subdivision was no less or more dense than the surrounding area and this was probably a more attractive plan that if left for these parcels to be developed individually. Johns said the access points were consolidated by the subdivision and it was a lot safer to go out onto Spruce; he said there were a limited number of houses. Johns did think that P&Z should be re- configuring streets to create arterial roadways as long as the street met the governing bodies guidelines. Johns said he was in favor of the subdivision. Kruger said the waiver of the 3 ADUs should be kept because of the neighborhood traffic. Johns said that they should keep the 3 ADUs because he did not want another loophole in the code. Marion said he was very uncomfortable with the development of that property (Hunter Way) has been made possible by the developer; he felt this was a poor way to bring in a project saying that it could be built on but we hope that we can save it. Marion said bringing in the 3 development rights and getting rid of the ADU concept to maximize the value of the property for the developer was asking for a little bit too much. Tygre summarized that 3 of the commissioners were in favor of the project; there was a split on the code amendments; the employee mitigation was the ADUs or cash-in-lieu along with the number; clarification of the language on Section 9; and Section 13 the street configuration. Tygre asked if P&Z would see this project in any form again if approved. Hoefer replied that it would not come back to P&Z. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes; seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor; Approved 6-0. Bendon noted there were substantive changes to the resolution. Hoefer said that Jasmine and John could vote if they reviewed the minutes. Tygre said that she 7 Minutes -November 30, 2004 wanted to see the complete document. Bendon and Hoefer agreed that the substantive language should be clearly stated in the resolution. Bendon explained. that the FAR should not be in the resolution because the zoning could change. Tygre said the code amendment would be discussed again as well as the mitigation; she said by exploring all the issues, it would allow for the project to be passed on with a positive approval. Auger said that this was the simplest way was by combining all code amendments. Auger said that they were willing to give up the exemptions on the ADUs if that would make it more comfortable; if P&Z wanted to dispose of that code amendment and do whatever ADU requirements P&Z chose. Auger explained the Hunter Valley Way parcel would have been developed if they had not purchased it; they did what was necessary to satisfy the investors. Sanchez asked if there were problems with the Historic TDR code amendment or was it just the mitigation code amendment. Kruger replied the commission did not like a code amendment coming in with a specific application just to make the application work. Kruger said the commission knew how this particular code amendment worked but asked how does it affect other properties. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on Fox Crossing to December 07`". Seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning to December 07`x' seconded by Ruth Kruger seconded. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN Minutes -December 07, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Brandon Marion, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steve Skadron arrived at 6:OOpm. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said December 14th would be a work session with P&Z in the City Manager's Office. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNERBURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING This hearing was closed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/19): SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Sign Code Amendments. MOTION.• Jack Johnson moved to continue the Sign Code Amendments to January 18, 2005; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor; Approved 6-0. T CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04, 11/30/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon stated at the last meeting the commission requested the language in the resolution be amended and added additional direction on the code amendments. Bendon said there was an economic advantage to be able to move TDRs around in a subdivision and as an advantage to preserving historic structures. The second code amendment was the development right for preserving an open space parcel; Bendon said this was an important goal and should go forward to city council regardless of what happens with Camilla's application. Preserving open space was a goal and another tool for the city. Bendon said language was changed in the resolution to require affordable housing mitigation in Section 3; Sections 4 and 5 were specifically for Camilla's project. Bendon noted that the remaining question was if other developers might find the code amendment interesting; since --, Minutes -December 07, 2004 then Bendon received a call from a private planner regarding a property owner contemplating doing an open space preservation but they need development rights to be able to do this. Bendon stated the traffic safety advisory committee did meet (a memo was included in the commissions' mail boxes). The memo from the TSAC did not like the bollards; the Walnut Street extension connecting to Lone Pine and the adequacy of Race Alley and Race Street. Bendon said TSAC said to either widen Race Alley and Street to a 30-foot right-of--way or make the streets one-way with a sidewalk on one side and for Race to continue to Lone Pine. Bendon said the obligation was to review if the proposal met the standards. Bendon said that widening Race Alley would not be a very popular idea; he included the designation of Race Alley as one-way with a sidewalk on one side of the alley. Bendon stated the applicant was aware of the deed-restrictions on Aley Park. Bendon noted that Nick Adeh was present; Adeh was on the traffic safety advisory committee. Camilla Auger stated that Phil Overyender requested a second water line, which was done. Auger said that they will do a passive park at Aley Park with gardens. Auger said the issue of connecting Spruce Street with Lone Pine would not lessen any traffic on Spruce Street but would make a short cut through the project, which would make the historic preservation and preservation of the park not possible. Auger said there were several letters and Hunter Creek Condominiums objecting to the street going through; this would require taking out 50 trees and increase traffic. Auger said there are currently 7 full-time working resident tenants on this property (Walnut and Race Alley) and once the project goes forward most of the people will be second homeowners so there would be a reduction in traffic. Letters placed into the record were from Bill Stirling and Dawnette Smith, The Renters of Walnut Street LLC, John Erspamer and Marcia Poutous, Ward and Mimi Hauenstein, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Colleen Burrows, Lisa Thurston, Jon Busch, Martha Cochran, Parks Department, Dale Will, Clurie Bennis, Larry Griffith and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Nick Adeh, city engineer, stated there were tremendous concerns regarding the subdivision and the re-configuration of the subdivision prompted the need to take this proposal to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Adeh said that as proposed it meets the bare bone minimum for traffic movement with the exception of the need to widen Walnut Street to fit the public water loop in that easement; there was a suggestion to make Spruce Street connecting to Lone Pine Minutes -December 07, 2004 through this subdivision, which would provide street entrances for all of the lots. Adeh said the minimum was 20 feet for Walnut Street with two-way traffic and Race Street would be one-way because of the width. Adeh said the National Fire Marshall requires a minimum width for one-way travel (restricted by walls of buildings) be 20 feet. Public Comments: 1. Jon Busch, public, supported the application as submitted. Busch said that sidewalks should be deferred to a later time and he would add a paved trail through the open space to connect to Walnut Street for a better pedestrian walkway. 2. Bill Stirling, public, said that he helped the developer assemble these lots over the course of 3 years and he manages the existing rental properties on this parcel. Stirling supported keeping Race two-way because it lends character, charm and country feeling to the neighborhood. Stirling said about 60% of the property in Aspen is owned by absentee or second homeowners, which would probably be true for this project once it is purchased. Stirling said keeping Race two-way would keep it from becoming ashort-cut. Stirling said this subdivision with the open space no longer gives that lot line to lot line feeling and creates a connector for the upper and lower trails. Stirling said the neighbors have been extremely helpful for the project. Stirling said the density in this subdivision was much less than the density that was in most neighborhoods; he said this was a great opportunity for the town with long-range benefits. 3. Patti Clapper, public, voiced concern over the one-way of Race Alley and the traffic flow. Clapper supported the trail. 4. Dave Harris, public, stated he lived across the alley from this project and he counted 19 houses in the neighborhood currently and this doubled the neighborhood. Harris stated as a subdivision it should have access within itself with streets contained. Dylan Johns asked about Exhibit C regarding the Historic TDR Landing sites and the total number of floor area per unit in the subdivision and how it worked. Bendon replied the total number of TDRs that can be used within the subdivision could not be more than what could have been used before the code amendment, which was Exhibit C. Bendon said there were 19 residences, which 2 were historic, so there would be an eligibility of landing 17 TDRs in that subdivision without a code amendment. Hoefer stated that only 8 lots could have 2 TDRs. 4 Minutes -December 07, 2004 Brandon Marion commented that Camilla did not previously reveal that access had been granted to the Hunter Way parcel and contradicted what the applicant said in a previous meeting and at the November 30, 2004 meeting it was brought up. Marion said this caused him great concern for the integrity of the planning and zoning process and the Fox Crossing proposal but he will continue to look at the project fairly and cast his vote on the merits of the project. Marion asked who owned the land currently. Camilla Auger replied 4 unrelated investors that lived in Texas. Marion asked how they can approve the project if Race Street is not adequate. Hoefer replied that was part of the subdivision; it would have to be brought into compliance by either making the street one-way or widening the street. Hoefer noted on page 9 of the Resolution the applicant could do either one; P&Z could recommend one over the other. Marion asked how the 3 TDRs were proposed in exchange for the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon responded that was largely from the comments from Open Space and fits within current zoning; roughly it was the same amount of square footage and an opportunity for the city. Bendon said there was no scientific method. Jack Johnson requested that the allocations be brought up at the work session for discussion. Tygre agreed because the amendment troubled her as well. Tygre said the criteria could be very specific in terms of evaluation for guidelines. Johnson stated the project was complicated but a great project. Johnson said the beauty of it was the meadow and the trail running through it connecting with Oklahoma Flats and Hunter Creek. Johnson said the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine gets in the way of the beauty of the project and would negatively impact the park idea. Johnson said Race Alley should remain two-way but he would vote for the resolution as written. Johns said that it has been shown that there were multiple options for Race Alley. Johns agreed with Johnson on the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine negatively affecting this subdivision. Kruger agreed with Johns on supporting the resolution with the 2 options for Race. John Rowland asked about the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee's recommendations. Adeh replied that it was not just about traffic but also the utility easement corridor, which would mean the corridor had to meet the requirements of 20 feet. Rowland said he was comfortable with the subdivision and it met the character of the East End. 5 Minutes -December 07, 2004 Tygre stated that she would abstain from voting on this resolution and suggested the code amendment be taken out of the resolution; she said it would be a lot cleaner and future applications development rights would be addressed separately. Hoefer stated that through the public notice process this code amendment was part of the project but in the future the code amendments should be separate and prior to the project application. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #33 and recommend Ciry Council approve Fox Crossing and the associated Land Use Amendments with the addition of the solidification of the trail through the park; seconded by Jack Johnson. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, abstain. Motion carried 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16): 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing and notice had been provided on November 16`x'. James Lindt explained that Dale Hower submitted this application to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from R-15 to R-6; P&Z is the recommending body to City Council on this action. Lindt provided the history of the property; the applicant designed 2 residences for this property based on the R-6 Zone District (because the zoning map had shown this property was in the R-6 zone district in 1990). Lindt said the zoning map was in error because the property was actually zoned R-15; the applicant then sued the city. There was an agreement to rezone the property; two smaller houses would probably be built on this site rather than one large single-family house. The rezoning would remove the non-conforming status and all the property to the north was zoned R-6. Staff recommended approval. Dylan Johns asked if the net effect allows for a duplex but reduces FAR. Lindt replied that is correct. Jack Johnson asked if this was the only non-conforming R-15 lot in that subdivision. Lindt replied that it was not. No public comments. Brandon Marion asked if there would be an access problem if it were a duplex rather than asingle-family. Lindt replied that it was off the culd-de-sac and the ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Fox Crossing Subdivision -First Reading of Ordinance No. ~~ Series of 2004. GMQS Exemptions, Subdivision, Amendments to the Land Use Code. DATE: December 13, 2004 PROJECT: FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION REQUEST Subdivision to amend lot lines and divide seven existing lots with the SUMMARY: potential for 13 homes to be developed into 141ots (one of the lots is a park) with a total of 19 potential homes. Two code amendments aze proposed: one for distributing historic TDRs within the subdivision and another code amendment for creating development rights in exchange for the preservation of open space. ZONING: R-6. Medium-Density Residential. No zoning changes aze proposed. APPLICANT: Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC P&Z Approval with the conditions listed in the proposed Ordinance. (5-0) RECOMMENDATION: vote. (minutes will be provided for second reading.) STAFF Approval upon first reading. Staff is recommending approval of the RECOMMENDATION: project with the conditions listed in the proposed Ordinance. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant, Walnut Properties, LLC, is proposing subdivision and lot line adjustments to seven existing pazcels of land located between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and on both sides of Race Street. Please refer to Exhibit B for existing parcel terminology, Exhibit C for development rights summary, Exhibit D for the proposed lots and Exhibit E for an illustrative development plan. The existin¢ aroaerty consists of: • the Griffith Lot Split pazcels - a two-lot subdivision permitting three residences, • the Bennis Property which is a duplex lot; and, • the Walnut Properties which are four legal properties each with the ability to develop a duplex or two single-family residences, described as follows: - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 1 - o The "Railroad Parcel," which is a long, curving property currently vacant; o the "Garage Parcel" located east of Race Alley and currently containing a garage; and, o two lots that currently house an old, abandoned house, two small cabins, and a newer (1960s) house. These two parcels merged by operation of the Pitkin County Land Use Code into two standard lots, each with two residences, prior to the land being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. All of the land is zoned R6 -Medium Density Residential -and permits a total of 13 homes to be developed, by right. With three of the parcels eligible for lot splits, a total of 19 homes could be built. The proposed subdivision divides the Griffith duplex lot into two fee simple properties, each permitting asingle-family house or a duplex. The Griffith Lot Split, approved about two years ago. created asingle-family lot and a duplex lot. The City's lot split provision does not permit a second lot split and requires full subdivision approval to further divide a lot split property. This creation of a new lot, by subdividing the duplex lot, requires a subdivision approval and a new development right. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create this development right in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. Lot Line adjustments are proposed for realigning the Griffith properties and the Bennis property. The adjustments do not require any development allotments. The Bennis property is described as Lot #10 of the Fox Crossing Subdivision. The Railroad parcel currently permits the development of asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The property's size qualifies it for a Lot Split which would permit the development of a duplex or two single-family residences on one lot and a single-family residence on the second lot. The City's lot split provision restricts the overall development resulting from a lot split to 3 units total, additional development must acquire new development rights. This lot split accounts for proposed FC Lot #1 (duplex lot) and proposed FC Lot #3 (single-family lot). Two new lots are proposed - FC Lot #8 and FC Lot #9 -each permitting one single-family residence. These two new lots require two new development rights. The Applicant has applied for a code amendment to create these development rights in exchange for preserving an open space parcel. The land currently housing the abandoned house, the two cabins, and the newer (1960s) house was affected by Pitkin County's merger provision prior to the land. being annexed into the City of Aspen in 1989. The Pitkin County Code merged the lots into two standard parcels, each with two structures. Staff describes these parcels as "Old House plus North Cabid' and "South Cabin plus New House." Each of these parcels permits a single-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Both are considered to currently contain two single-family residences. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 2 - The Old House Plus North Cabin parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #4 and #5. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence.. Rehabilitation of the historic, abandoned house is slated for FC Lot #5 and a development plan has been granted Conceptual approval by the HPC. The South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed for a Lot Split. This will create FC Lots #( and #7. Each lot will contain asingle-family residence. FC Lot #6 is proposed for asingle-family residence incorporating the two cabins. The two cabins are to be preserved as Historically designated resources and HPC has granted a Conceptual approval for the redevelopment. The remaining portion of the South Cabin plus New House parcel is proposed as a park. No development right is needed for this lot as it will not be a development parcel. The Garage parcel currently contains a garage and permits asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. The parcel is described as FC Lot #2 in the proposal and will continue to permit asingle-family, a duplex, or two single-family residences. Some minor adjustments to the lot lines are necessary to accommodate a better turning radius from Race Alley to Race Street. MAIN ISSUES: Emergency Access and Road Safety: As part of the standard development review process, staff has asked the referral agencies to comment on: 1) the ability of the existing street network (with no changes) to accommodate this development; and, 2) the changes that would he necessary if the existing network is not able to accommodate the development. The City Engineer and the Fire. Marshall initially responded by stating that the existing road network is inadequate as it exists today. Race Alley is a 12-foot-wide two-way street within a 20-foot wide right-of--way. The options to cure the inadequacy were described as either widen Race Alley (meaning property acquisition of 5 feet on both sides to provide a 30-foot right-of--way) or designate the existing Race Alley and Race Street as one-way. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee was convened to further discuss this project and a 1cw minor amendments. The Committee is comprised of representatives from the following agencies: Fire Department, City Engineering, Community Development Engineering, Police Department, Parking Department, and the Transportation Department. Representatives of the Water Department were also present to ensure a sufficient utility easement along the Walnut extension. - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 3 - ,, The Committee discussed three items: 1) Bollazds within the right-of--way; 2) the revised Walnut Street extension and connection with Lone Pine; and, 3) the adequacy of Race Alley and Street. The Committce did not support any bollazds or other means of hindering movement within the road system. The Committee believes the extension of Walnut Street has been adequately designed. (This is an amendment to the application and provides a connection from Walnut to Lone Pine as shown in Exhibit D.) The committee stated that the current dimensions of Race Alley are inadequate and provided two options: 1) widen the right-of- way, along the full extent of Race Alley, to 30 feet; or 2) designate vehicular flow along Race Alley and Street as one-way with installation of a sidewalk along at least one side of Spruce Street for better pedestrian access. Staff does not believe widening Race Alley is ideal solution. This could cause undue hardship on several property owners as structures and other improvements would be affected. Staff has included the `one-way with sidewalk' recommendation in the proposed Ordinance. P&Z will be providing a recommendation on this infrastructure question. Several neighbors have suggested that the Applicant pursue an extension of Race Street to connect with Lone Pine. This would create a "T" intersection with Race Alley. Staff has not analyzed this as it is not being proposed by the Applicant and it does not appeaz to be a requirement of the Traffic Committee. If this changes, staff will research this potential. Code Amenrbnent: City Historic TDR Program. The City's Historic TDR Program provides the ability for non-historic single-family and duplex properties to "land" one TDR per residence. (A duplex property can land two TDRs.) A Historic TDR provides 250 square feet of FAR in addition to the property's base FAR allowance. The Applicant proposes to increase this limitation and permit the landing of two TDRs per residence (up to four TDRs on a duplex site). The proposal would limit this option to properties that are within the same subdivision or PUD as the "sending" site, the historic resource. The landing sites could not be directly adjacent to the sending site and the location of these landing sites would be identified in the subdivision approval. Staff supports this concept. Staff believes this would enhance a developer's ability to preserve historic resources while the review of the landing sites and the extra FAR would ensure compatibility with surrounding properties. The limit of two TDRs per residence, while more FAR, is still a manageable amount (500 square feet) assuming acase-by-case review. Also, using the subdivision or PUD process to determine the compatibility of this additional FAR on surrounding properties would require notice to those affected neighbors and review by both P&Z and City Council. Code Amendment: GMQS Exemption for Preserving Open Space. The Aspen Area Community Plan endorsed the concept of transferring County development rights into the - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 4 - v J City. The application contemplates a program relying on the Pitkin County TDR program and Intergovernmental Agreements. Staff, in coordination with the Applicant, re-wrote this code amendment so that it is a City-only program (no longer the result of a County action). Staff supports this amendment. Staff believes that the code amendment permitting the City to grant growth allotments in exchange for preservation of an open space parcel is a good idea that the City should consider, re~azdless of this particulaz application. Preservation of open space in close proximity to the city is a community goal and this amendment provides a powerful tool to help achieve it. (Other tools are condemnation and outright purchase.) The amendment will allow the City to "pick and choose" the open space most important to the City. The open space can be either inside or outside the City jurisdiction as long as it is important to the City (for example: view sheds, trail connections, wildlife corridors, etc.). The program does not rely on any County action and the City is not the recipient within a County program.. The application requests three (3) development rights in exchange for the preservation of a parcel known as the "Hunter Valley Way" pazcel. The City's Open Space Acquisition Board and several other land preservation organizations support the preservation of this parcel as it represents a vital connection along the Hunter Creek Trail and is within close visual proximity to town. Attachment #3 of the application maps this Hunter Valley Way parcel. Staff believes other applicants could avail themselves of this code amendment. Staff also believes that there are sufficient safeguazds within the amendment that would allow the City to deny asub-par open space parcel or a proposed exchange that provides too many development rights. Simply, if the deal is not good for the City, the City does not have to accept it The process requires a recommendation by the City's Open Space Board. and review by P&Z and City Council. The amendment also requires that the neighborhood receiving the additional development be notified so that their comments may be considered prior to approval. Construction Staging and Construction Impacts: Typical of infill development, the project is within an existing neighborhood and the process of development should be well-planned. Several neighbors of the project have contacted staff with this specific concern. Staff has suggested that the applicant determine a construction plan specifying access points and staging area(s). Staff believes one of the lots could be specified as a project staging area. Staff also believes that construction access on Race Alley could be problematic and that Lone Pine Road may be better able to accommodate contractor parking and a principal construction access point (at least for lots on the west side of the development). - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 5 - A construction management plan should address development issues such as haul routes and dust suppression, as well as provide neighbors with an on-site contact for day-to-day issues. This has been done on other big projects (Obermeyer, Grand Hyatt, Residences) where the proximity of existing development dictates such a plan. These issues Dave been included as conditions of approval and the applicant is accepting of these conditions. APPLICABLE LAND UsE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval of this project: GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: GMQS Exemptions are requested for the creation of three (3) development right in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Valley Way parcel. (Also see Code Amendment.) Final Review Authority: City Council 2. SueDivistoN; Subdivision review is required for a.) the creation of new lots; and, b.) a rc-arrangement of existing lot lines. Final Review Authority: City Council 3. AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE: The Applicant prOpOSOS t0 amend the Clty Land Use Code to a.) permit two City Historic TDRs to be used per residence within a subdivision containing a preservation site; and, b.) to provide exemptions from the City's Growth Management program for the preservation of an open space parcel. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: // Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. Y~, Series of 2004, upon first reading. Staff supports this application with the conditions of approval listed in the proposed ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this project over a series of 5 meetings and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council upon second reading. (A final P&Z decision is expected December 7"'.) P&Z minutes will be provided for second reading. C[TY ACER'SCOMMENTS: ~ %r .. n ~ .~ RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. ~, Series of 2004, upon first reading." ATTACHMEN~1'S: Exhibit A: Staff findings - Fox Crossing Staff Report Page 6 - ~ J Exhibit B: Existing Parcel Terminology Exhibit C: Development Rights Chart Exhibit D: Proposed Lot Plan Exhibit E: Illustrative Development Plan Exhibit F: Application .. - Fox Crossing.Staff Report Page 7 - ORDINANCE NO.~ (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTIONS, AND A FOURTEEN LOT SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE FOX CROSSING AND GRIFFITH SUBDIVISIONS ON LAND LOCATED BETWEEN LONE PINE ROAD AND RACE ALLEY BETWEEN WALNUT STREET AND RACE STREET, 557 RACE ALLEY, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: Griffith Lot #1- 2737.073.91.001 Griffith Lot #2 - 2737.073.91.002 Railroad Parcel - 2737.073.00.020 Nortb Cabin plus Historic House - 2737.073.00.021 & 2737.073.00.022 South Cabin plus New House - 2737.073.00.023 & 2737.073.00.024 Vacated Walnut Street - 2737.073.00.026 Bennis Property - 273707300045 Garage Parcel - 2737.073.03.030 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Walnut Properties, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, requesting approval of a Subdivision, including Lot Split approvals and Lot Line Adjustment approvals, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, and amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code for a fourteen lot subdivision, one lot proposed as a park and thirteen lots for development, situated between Lone Pine Road and Race Alley and between Walnut Street and Race Street as depicted in Exhibit A to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, City Parks, Building Department, Fire District, and the Water Department as a result of the Developmeut Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies Department reviewed the application and conditions and. and the Aspen Community Development recommended approval with a series of WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Land Use Code (Amendment to the Land Use Code, Section 26.470 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions), and Section 26.480 (Subdivision) approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development review standards for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 1 Subdivision approval, and Amendments to the Land Use Code have been met, as long as certain conditions, as listed hereinafter, are implemented; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 12, 2004, and continued to November 2, 2004, and continued to November 16, 2004, and continued to November 30, 2004, and continued to December 7, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended City. Council approve the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, Subdivision, and Amendment to the Land Use Code by a to L-~ vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Toning Commission, the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Subdivision Approval The Fox Crossing Subdivision and the Griffith Subdivision shall consist of the following lots: Fox Crossing Lot #1 Lot size = 10,331 sf Fox Dossing Lot #2 Lot size = 7,510 sf Fox Crossing Lot #3 Lot size = 6,01 Osf Fox Crossing Lot #4 Lot size = 6,010 sf Fox Crossing Lot #5 Lot size = 6,016 sf Fox Crossing Lot #6 Lot size = 6,068 sf Fox Crossing Lot #7 Lot size = 6,007 sf Fox Crossing Lot #8 Lot size = 6,749 sf Fox Crossing Lot #9 Lot size = 6,945 sf Pox Crossing Lot #10 Lot size = 11,631sf Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 2 Fox Crossing Park Parcel Griff th Lot # 1 Griffith Lot#2 Griffith Lot #3 Lot size = 9,044 sf Lot size = 9,849 sf Lot size = 10,000 sf Lot size = 15,065 sf The lot sizes may vary slightly and the final subdivision plat shall prevail upon discrepancy. I Ite allowable Floor Area for each parcel shall be pursuant to the R6 Zone District regulations, the Lot Area of each parcel, bonus floor area granted by the Historic Preservation Commission, and the proposed use. The Park Parcel shall have no development right other than for open space/park use. Fox Crossing Lots #5, #6, and the Park Parcel shall be designated Historic Landmark properties and subject to development review regulations of Section 26.415 of the City of Aspen Land t Esc Code. Fox Crossing Lots #1, #2, #10, and Griffith Lots #1, #2, and #3 may receive up to two City of Aspen Historic TDR floor area bonuses per residence. Fox Crossing Lots #5 and #6 are Historic Landmark properties and shall not be eligible for receiving TDRs. All other parcels shall be limited to one Historic TDR floor area bonus per residence. The maximum number of Historic TDRs which may be landed within this Griffith/Fox Crossing Subdivision shall be limited to the total number of residences within the subdivision. Section 2: Land Use Code Amendment -Historic TDRs Section 26.710.040 subsection 11, which section defines the amount of floor area which may be developed on individual parcels within the R6 Zone District, shall read as follows: Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 3 ...: *Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one lot shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on a lot less than nine-thousand (9,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Stnictures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwclline. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional 250 square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses, shall be eligible for one Fluor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following exception: Properties within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development as a sending site may be specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor Area increases per residence pursuant to the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval. The properties to be specified as eligible for up to two (2) Floor i~rca increases per residence shall be located within the same Subdivision or Planned Unit Development so as to enhance preservation of the historic resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission, shall not be located adjacent to the sending site, and shall be described and depicted in the Suixlivision or Planned Unit Development approvals granted by City Council. The total number of Floor Area increases permitted within the Subdivision or Planned Unit Development shall not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per non- historic residence within the entire Subdivision or Planned Unit Development. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 4 eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Section 3• L:tnd Use Code Amendment - GMOS Exemution for Preserving Significant Onen Space Parcels Section 26.470.070 (G), which section shall authorize the City Council of the City of Aspen to grant exemptions from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management (,biota System, shall read as follows: G. Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels. On a project specific basis, the City Council may exempt the development of one or more residences from the provisions of this Chapter in exchange for the permanent preservation of one or more parcels considered significant for the preservation of open space. The preservation parcel may lie outside the City of Aspen jurisdiction. The exempted residential units shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Metro Area development ceiling established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The exempted residential units shall provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Review is by City Council. The criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include: 1. The strategic nature of the preservation parcel to facilitate park, trails, or open space objectives of the City of Aspen. This shall include a recommendation from the Cit~° of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board. 2. Identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value" iu the f\spen Area Community Plan or as a parcel desirable for preservation in any other adopted master plans of the City of Aspen. 3. Proxi m ity and/or visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen. 4. The development rights of the preservation parcel, including the allowed uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses if developed to the maximum. 5. The proposed location of the parcel(s) being granted an exemption from growth management and the compatibility of the resulting uses and intensities of development with the surrounding neighborhood, including the impacts from the speci lied method of providing affordable housing mitigation. 6. The preservation parcel shall be encumbered with a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, which sterilizes the parcel from further development in petpchi i t}~. Section 4: Preservation of Hunter Valley Way Parcel Pursuant to the procedures for exempting development from the scoring and competition procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, Section 26.470.070 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and pursuant to the code amendment as described in Section 3 of this Ordinancc_ above, City Council hereby grants three (3) development rights to the Fox Crossing/Griltith Subdivision application in exchange for the preservation of the Hunter Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 5 Valley Way parcel, as described in the Fox Crossing Subdivision application, with the following conditions: 1. Clear title to the Hunter Valley Way property shall be provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City Attorney. 2. A legal encumbrance, acceptable to the City Attorney, shall sterilize the Hunter Valley Way pazcel and preclude development, other than that associated with the maintenance of open space and trails and the development of new trails, from occurring on the property in perpetuity. The encumbrance shall define maintenance and liability obligations. 3. The City of Aspen shall be a party (but not the sole party) to the deed restriction on the ~u operty. 4. The three (3) residential units shall be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. Section 5: Growth Management Exemptions Required Replacement ~~f existing residential units requires an exemption from Growth Management pursuant to Section 26.470.070.B, unless the lot on which the residence is proposed is a f Iistoric Landmark. The pazcels granted an exemption from growth management h; virtue of preserving the Hunter Valley Way open space pazcel shall also be required to obtain this additional exemption. The following proposed lots shall require affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to section 26.470.070.B: Griffith Lots 2, and 3; Fox Crossing Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and l0. Griffith Lot t~ 1 shall not be required to provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to former approvals which created the lot. Proposed Lot 7 contains an existing residence and the current Moor azea shall be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement. The mitigation credit for the existing residence on Lot 7 may be reallocated to other lots within the (;rillith/Fox Crossing subdivisions pursuant to a letter of understanding with the City of !\spcn Zoning Officer to be completed prior to the demolition of the residence on Lot 7. Section 6: Impact Fees Park Im7lac l Fees shall be assessed based upon the following schedule: Shidio residential units $1,520 per unit oue-bedroom units $2,120 per unit two-bedroom units $2,725 per unit three-bedroom or larger unit $3,634 per unit In recognition of capital improvements to the City's park and recreation system constructed by the applicant, the City Parks and Recreation Department may reduce this fee commensurate with the costs of those improvements. School Imnucr Fees shall be assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The City of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 6 Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and acash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. School Impact Fees shall be specified prior to final approval. The project shall be subject to amendments to impact fees required by the City of Aspen, including nc~-v impacts fees or amendments to existing impact fees. Amendments to the project shall require a new calculation of impact fees. Impacts fees commensurate with each phase shall be payable upon issuance of a building permit for such phase. Section 7: yy'ater Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing -ldvisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 8: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the following Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District rules and regulations. ]. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. All clear water connections are prohibited, i.e. ground water, (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground pazking garages. 3. On-site drainage plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 4. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 5. Glycoi snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 6. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 7. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service line must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specilic ACSD requirements. 8. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 9. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right o f ways to the lot line of each development. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 7 10. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. I1. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the dov\mstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 9: Public Park and Trail The developer of the Fox Crossing/Griffith Subdivision shall improve Aley Park (located at the southwest corner of Spruce Street and Williams Way) in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department with a topset monetary contribution from the developer of $100,000. A public access easement shall be provided across the entirety of the Fox Crossing Pazk Parcel and the Pedestrian Trail connecting the pazk to Race Street. The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the City Parks Department and the City Attorney and shall be referenced in both the Subdivision Agreement and the Subdivision Plat. There shall also be an agreement specifying ownership, use, boundaries, and maintenance responsibilities for the Park Parcel. Section 10: Construction Mana¢ement Plan Prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to commencement of any site/utility work, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for approval by the Community Uevelopment Engineer. The plan shall include the following: 1. The primary construction access point shall be along Lone Pine Road. Race Street and Race Alley shall not be used for contractor parking. The City prefers a cone actor parking area be designated along Lone Pine Road and on-site. 2. A lot_ or several lots, shall be used as a construction staging azea. The CMP shouici specify the particular lot(s) and shall specify at which point a ~+~^~-- is no longer required. 3. Contractor contact information shall be provided -~ ~ I~~,,~it~t0i. In the case of Hunter Creek Condominiums, cont. fJ~ I(~p~^'~' ~~ to the condominium association president rather t ~U~ ~ ~ ~ , jl intent of this requirement is for the contractor to ~~ IVI~I~ about construction without involving the City. Section 11: access Infrastructure Permit: Prior to the construction any improvements, a licensed ~ Access-Lrli~asu ucture (A-1) permit. One Contractor will all infrastructure associated with the project. As part of t will be required to submit a Construction Management Plan Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 8 Section 12: Hazardous Soils: This area is within the Smuggler superfund site, which means additional permits and institutional controls aze required for any work done on the site. (See requirements outlined in the City Code.) City Environmental Health Department 920.5039. Section 13: :streets Race Alley/Race Street shall be designated as one-way with the direction of travel being northbound. Race Alley shall continue to be signed for no parking on either side of the street. Parking along the southern portion of Race Street shall be permitted. Spruce Street shall be improved with a pedestrian sidewalk on at least one side of the street and preferably both sides. The design, costs, and responsibility of this improvement shall be determined prior to final approvals by City Council. In the alternative, Race Alley and Race Street may remain two-way if a minimum 30 feet- wide right-of=way is provided along the entire extent of these two streets with a minimum 22-foot wide paved roadway and a minimum of a 2-foot wide stabilized shoulders on either side. Walnut Street (the public right-of--way portion) shall maintain atwenty-one foot wide cleazance with no parking. In the alternative, parking may be permitted if the 21-foot wide clearance is maintained and the approval of the Fire Marshall is gained. The extension of Walnut Street to its connection with Lone Pine Road shall be developed within a 20-loot wide access easement with 16 feet of paved surface and a 2-foot stabilized shoulder on both sides. Bollards, or other physical hindrances within the rights-of--way, shall not be implemented. Section 14: Subdivision Plat Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat which shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The fnal property boundaries, disposition of lands, and utility and surface easements. Utility easements not administered by the City of Aspen shall require apprm ul by the particular utility provider. 2. Reference to the public easement across the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail. 3. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to perform any ovcilot grading and utility main work in the first phase. 4. Desi~an specifications and profiles for improvements to the public rights-of--way including geometries and turning radii. 5. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape impro~ ements. An irrigation plan for the pazk parcel shall be included with a signature line for the City Parks Department. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 9 6. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. Utility mains not administered by the City of Aspen shall require approval by the particular utility provider. Fire hydrant(s) locations shall be identified. 7. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site durim~ and after construction. If a ground recharge systems are required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frcqurncy should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site impro~ ements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 15: Subdivision Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the :y plicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 2G.-4-1.070, in addition to the following: L The a~,reement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project, including common driveways and drainage improvements. 2. A public access easement and ownership ,use, boundary, and maintenance agreement for the Park Parcel and Pedestrian Trail, as specified in Section 9. 3. A Construction Management Plan, as specified in Section 10. 4. In order to secure the construction, installation, and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 16: Fire Department Requirements Sprinkler and fire alarms are required throughout all of the buildings. The person that designs the sprinkler and alarm systems is required to meet with the Fire Marshall before starting desi~~n. It needs to be confirmed that adequate water volume and pressure exists for the sprinl:iers. Section 17: liuildin~ Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. Fox Crossing Lots 5, G..uid the Park Parcel shall require Final Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. Ordinance No 33, Series of 2004. Page 10 ,~; 2. A letter from the primary contractor staring that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. For Fox Crossing Lots 5, 6, and the Park Parcel, this letter sha!! also confirm an understanding of the Final HPC approvals 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A tree removal/mitigation plan for any trees to be affected by the specific phase. 6. A Cu~~itive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of--way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris front tine street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division will also be necessary due to tic property being in excess of 1 acre. 7. A study performed by a Colorado licensed asbestos inspector detailing the presence of asbestos. The State of Colorado must be notified and the report must be complete prior to issuance of a building permit. Contact the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department forstate contact information. 8. If the disturbance area of a particular phase of development is over one acre, the Cununctor will need to obtain a State Storm Water Management Permit (for erosion control) and a State Emission Permit (for dust control). 9. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid for the particular phase . 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarm systems shall be approved by the Fire Marshall. The Fire Department requests that sprinklers be instal Icd in each proposed house regardless of floor area. Section 18: hcnces Property boundary fences of Fox Crossing Lot 5 and Lot 6 which border the Fox Crossing Park parcel shall be developed no higher than 42 inches and shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of Chapter 26.415 -Development Involving Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2004. Page 11 Section 19: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in ,~ newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspc ~. a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years. pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Fox Crossing Subdivision Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and the Fox Crossing Pazk Parcel and Griffith Subdivision Lots 1, 2, and 3. Section 20: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Planning and 7_,oning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, w~less amended by other specific conditions. Section 21: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 22: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 23: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance i n the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 24: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the l0a' day of January, 2005, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to Ordinance No 33, Series of 2004 Page 12 which hearim~ a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation wi chin the City of Aspen. Section 25: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCI?D, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided bylaw, by the City Cuuucil of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2004. Attest: Kathryn 5. both, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, u.lopted, passed and approved this _ day of Attest: Kathryn S. loch, City Clerk Approved as ni form: John Worccstcr, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Bendon C:\hoim~Current Planning\CASES\Fox Crossing\Ordinance.doc Ordinance No 33, Series of 2004. Page 13 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In reviewing an amendment to the Land Use Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed amendments are not in conflict with any portion of Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the concept of preserving important open space parcels is consistent with the AACP. The Managing Growth Section specifically contemplates this type of transfer of development rights. The City has not pursued this preservation tool. The ability for the City to select which parcel should be preserved and how much corresponding development right should be conveyed will allow the City to strategically preserve open space considered important to the City. Staff believes the proposed amendment to the City Historic TDR Program is consistent with the AACP goals for preserving historic resources. Staff does have minimal amendments to the proposed text, but supports the concept of permitting additional TDRs to be landed on one property through a subdivision review or PUD review. This process will permit area residents to comment on the proposal as it proceeds through review. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed code amendments are not exclusive to one property or region of town. The Historic TDR code amendment is limited to the R6 zone district. This district encompasses a vast number of properties and is effective in several areas of town. Staff believes this criterion applies to the rezoning of individual properties and not to code amendments affecting many properties. Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 1 D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will not have an effect upon road safety. The open space preservation amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management. Staff does not believe either of these amendments will have any effect on road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will not have an effect upon utility infrastructure. The open space preservation code amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management. Because the open space preservation amendment will not increase a properties underlying rights, staff does not believe the amendment has an effect upon utility infrastructure., Staff does not believe either of these amendments will have any effect on infrastructure. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed Historic TDR amendment will allow for certain houses (to be identified in a subdivision review) to exceed underlying zoning parameters for floor azea by up to 500 square feet. Staff does not believe this development option will result in measureable affects have an effect upon utility infrastructure. The open space preservation code amendment will not increase the underlying developability of a parcel, only the ability to be exempted from growth management. Because the open space preservation amendment will not increase a properties underlying rights, staff does not believe the amendment has an effect upon utility infrastructure., Staff does not believe either of these amendments will have any effect on infrastructure. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community chazacter in the City of Aspen. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 2 ~~ The amendments to the Land Use Code are not specific to a parcel. Staff does believe this criterion applies to an amendment to the Land Use Code. Compatibility of specific land use plans with a particular neighborhood are evaluated under the criteria of other reviews. The compatibility of this subdivision application with the surrounding neighborhood is covered under the subdivision criteria. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The amendments to the Land Use Code are not specific to a particulaz parcel -they would apply city-wide. The amendments are supported by policies which support the preservation of historic resources and a policy statement in the Aspen Area Community Plan supporting the transfer of development rights into the City of Aspen. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes the two code amendments proposed aze not in conflict with the public interest and that they aze in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. The preservation of historic resources is an identified public purpose and is supported by numerous regulations, incentive programs, and policy statements in the AACP. The transfer of development rights into the City of Aspen is a concept endorsed in the 2000 AACP and the particular text provides for acase-by-case analysis of each proposal. Staff believes the proposed code amendments meet this criterion. SUBDIVISION A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The subject site is identified in the Future Land Use Map of the 2000 AACP as residential. The proposal is consistent with this element of the AACP. The proposal will increase the total density in the area, by virtue of the subdivision, but no zone change is proposed and the new development of single-family and duplex structures will be consistent with the existing uses of single-family and duplex structures in the immediate vicinity. The subdivision does include historic resources and those structures are proposed for preservation and rehabilitation consisted with the Historic Preservation elements of the AACP and with City policies and regulations for historic resource development. Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 3 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision. to create single-family and duplex lots is consistent with the neighborhood chazacter, which is primarily comprised of single- family and duplex structures. No zone change is proposed although a higher total density will exist as a result of subdividing the land. A park parcel is proposed which staff believes will be a good addition to the neighborhood. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? ~ YES Other surrounding lots will maintain access to public rights-of--way. The Fire Marshall and City Engineer have stated that Race Alley is inadequate and that it should either be widened or converted to one-way traffic. The City's Traffic Safety Advisory Committee also has stated these two options to address the inadequacy. The proposed Ordinance requires the conversion of Race Alley to one-way traffic and pedestrian improvements to Spruce Street. With this condition being met, staff believes this criterion is met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, [F THE CODE AMENDMENT IS APPROVED. Staff is not yet aware of the capability of the road network to accommodate this proposal and cannot provide a finding on this point. The applicant is proposing to preserve an open space parcel to accommodate the proposed development. This requires a code amendment. If the code amendment is adopted, the application meets this standard. If the code amendment is not approved, the subdivision application does not meet this standard. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow. rockslide, avalanche or snow slide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 4 Staff finds that the parcel is generally suitable for development considering all of the above dangers. According to the Mapping of the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site, portions of this subdivision are affected by contaminated soils. This does not render the property undevelopable, but there are specific development regulations that must be followed. The approval should reference these special-requirements. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.4 ; 0) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development azeas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards aze proposed. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No variations to the subdivision standards are requested. D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter ?6.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 5 The replacement housing requirements are proposed to be met. This will require an Accessory Dwelling Unit or cash-in-lieu thereof for replacing the single-family structures. The historic structures aze exempt from this requirement. The subdivision approval should specify any requested credits and if certain lots will be assigned various credits. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standazds set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards will be required for the residential dwelling units proposed. The applicant will pay cash in lieu of a land dedication which will be required at time of building permit. Fox Crossing Staff Findings Page 6