The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.201 N 7th St.0011.2008.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0011.2008.ASLU 2736- M- 3- i s o0 3 201 S. SEVENTH STREERT ERRIN EVANS MAP, AMENDMENT, REZONING GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET LLC 78.09.08 DUE TO ABANDONMENT OF APPLICATION CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 5.20 10 April 2, 2010 Case # 0011.2008.ASLU 201 S. Seventh Street According to land use code Section 26. 304.070 (F), Abandonment of application, an application is considered abandoned when the applicant has not taken action with the Community Development Department in furtherance of the application for a period of at least one year. Based upon the last public hearing date of January 26, 2009 before the City Council, the year time period is exceeded and the application is considered formally abandoned. r k 4I w1 4- Jennifer Phela Deputy Planning Director City of Aspen 27 � _ i2 -3-15 c�o c l I . (z LCA e. u Land Use 4 D 9F1ERI SANZONE 429 -7499 oppetl 627 OR009 7 n _ WWWWW � Owryr Lm*fwiw UYASUTA SEVENTH STRI... Fvt rymp 139 FREEPORT RD 200 phone ( 1 - Ad6KS PITTSBURGH PA 15215 ADpkant ® Owner uapplicant? r 0 Contractor is q*ki t? Last name Fet — l 139 FREEPORT RD 200 Phone ( ) - Cust t 26066 Addres ITTSBURGH PA 15215 Lender Last name Fast name 0 Phone ( ) - Address Microsoft Office EXHIBIT G ACSD Requirements- Centennial Conceptual PUD DRC 10-17 -07 Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service line connections in the alley of block 69 must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. If the development on Lot 3A is detached, a new service line will have to be tapped in Park Cr. If attached, a shared service line acknowledgement will be required to use the existing service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Therefore, ACSD cannot approve service to Lot 3D at this time until the applicant can show the main sanitary sewer line between Lot 3 D and Building H with set backs, lot lines, easements, and the building footprint. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. 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. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. ACSD will comment in greater detail once detailed plans have been made available from the applicant to the district. Centennial - PUD Change Parks Department DRC requirements 1. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. Contact the Parks Department for permit, 920 -5120. Parks requests alternate plans for proposed on -site mitigation. The parks department does not support the current plans to plant across Park Circle and an alternate mitigation plan should be explored. Planting across Park Circle is encouraged but with a more formal street tree planting located on both sides of the street, this can include minor screening of the smuggler run development. Any necessary irrigation, grading, or work associated with the street tree planting will be counted towards mitigation. 3. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for tree removal and protection. • Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920 -5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. 4. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Construction staging, Access and Demo adjacent to the children's park. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that there is zero impact to the playground area. 5. The access to the laundry area located adjacent to the children's park is of concern for the Parks Department. This access if not needed for vehicles should be reduced to a 5 -foot wide walk. If vehicular access is required there needs to be better means of providing a layer of safety between the vehicle and the user in the park. Plantings, fence or other means should be explored. 6. Trails: A meeting between Parks and the Developer is required to discuss the addition of public trail easements. • The City of Aspen is interested in completing a missing connection between the future Fox Crossing Meadow Public Trail and the sidewalk I adjacent to Brendan CT. A modified six -foot sidewalk should be placed across this island in order to connect the fox crossing trial to the Centennial sidewalk. The City of Aspen has been working towards creating a public trail connection between the Molly Gibson Park and Lani White Trail into Hunter Creek. Parks will request a trail easement along the north slope of Nicholas Lane, connecting to the sidewalk along Brown Lane into the trail head through Williams Ranch. REMINDERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS: The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: TRASH STORAGE AREA: We recommend for multi - family facilities that recycling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06. Given the Environmental Health Department's experience with commercial and multi- family buildings, a dumpster for cardboard will be need. For the multi - family building in this application, a minimum of at least 20 -27* square feet of the utility /trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. * One 90- gallon toter = 2 "x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co- mingled, office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard — a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3 "x4 "). Construction Phase: The applicant is also advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance, recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co- mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project that per municipal code section 13.08.110 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within any one (1) hour period of time. FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace /woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or one of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Page 1 of 1 Jason Lasser From: Lynn Rumbaugh Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:09 AM To: Jason Lasser Subject: centennial DRC comments Hi Jason: After reviewing the materials on this project, Transportation would like to request the following. Please let me know if this request is appropriate. I am not sure how the recently adopted TDM /Air Quality fee impacts the requests we can make. Page 52: If the applicant's land use application is approved and unreasonable conditions are not imposed, the applicant will grant the City of Aspen additional land surrounding the bus stop to increase the size of the bus stop and to improve the bus stop to provide handicap access. Additionally, the applicant will grant the City of Aspen an easement across Centennial land to formalize an existing bandit trail from Smuggler Run to the bus stop. Although Transportation agrees that the above improvements should be made to the existing, heavily used bus stop and bandit trail, the department feels that the responsibility for these improvements should fall on the developer rather than the City. The Transportation Department requests that the developer increase the size of the bus stop as well as provide handicap access and a formalized trail from Smuggler Run as part of this project. All plans regarding the bus stop shall meet with the approval of the Transportation Department. The formalization of the bandit trail should be approved by the City Parks & Recreation Department. Lynn Rumbaugh Transportation Programs Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 voice: 970 - 920 -5038 fax: 970-544-9447 web: www aspenpitkin com 1111512007 0-_ MEMORANDUM TO: Jason Lasser FROM: Todd Grange, Zoning Officer RE: Centennial. DRC Conceptual review. Zoning review for the PUD amendment request for 2 single - family homes and adding to existing affordable housing. DATE: October 17, 2007 Comments: 1. Copy of ordinance with approved plan included. 2. Any Design Review Standard variances. 3. Show parking on site plan for 3C ad 3D single - family homes. 4. Clarify math for the FAR allowed on site. Page 12 appears to have the net number of 164,680 but it is not clear how it is arrived at. 5. Height needs to be shown on elevations at gables and roof plan over topo map that shows same spots. A matrix with topographic elevations of the grade and the roof height and the total difference/height that corresponds to the map spots. 6. Fee Matrix for all impact fees and any cash — in — lieu fees. If any fee is not applicable state that and why. Reference ordinance if applicable 7. Design Review Standard sheet - with reduced elevations, architectural floor plans and or reference pg. or variances reference. Standard listed in order down right side of sheet and matching numbers or letters to identify each bubbled Standard on the drawings. le I Jason Lasser From: Trisha Nelson Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:15 PM To: Jason Lasser Subject: Centennial Page 1 of 1 1. Single Family Lots , is there adequate capacity in the swale on North side? 2. Single Family and Affordable Housing - stormwater cannot flow onto the ROW or storm sewer. 3. SF and Affordable - does the property attenuate the 2 year or 5 year storm events? 4. Cannot change drainage patterns to flow onto adjacent properties. 5. Utilities must be relocated; they must not be located under structures. Grading maybe an issue. 6. Improvement to pedestrian traffic must occur in Northeast portion of the project. Sidewalk is not wide enough and does not connect to existing path through fox crossing. 7. New drainage plan /improvements in parking lot on Northeast side. 8. Pedestrian Improvements on the East side of Brown Lane 9. ADA compliance is required on all intersections (Park Circle and Brown Lane) and at the bus stop. Trisha L. Nelson, P.E. Senior Project Manager I Engineering Dept. City of Aspen 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 1 F 970.920.5081 P 970.429.2784 1 C 970.309.5604 11/1512007 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing Board FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing THRU: Tom McCabe, Executive Director DATE: October 17, 2007 RE: CENTENNIAL RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPLICATION Parcel ID No. 2737- 074 -27 -703 ISSUE The applicant is proposing subdividing 16,067 square feet of land to create two lots to construct free - market single - family dwelling units. BACKGROUND Centennial consists of 241 deed - restricted affordable housing units consisting of 149 rental units and 92 ownership units. The development was approved by the BOCC in 1983. Centennial was annexed into the City of Aspen on March 24, 1989. The creation of Lots 3C and 3D will house two single - family homes. The applicant is also proposing four multi - family dwelling units to the east side of Building E on the southeast side of Lot 3A facing Park Circle. Two studio and two one - bedroom units are being proposed. The four affordable housing units would satisfy the mitigation requirements for the two free - market dwelling units. The applicant is proposing that these four units be rental units and be restricted the same as the other 149 rental units. This would allow the four units to be released from the deed restriction in the future. Staff is recommending the units as "for sale" units ONLY. Under Section 26.470.050, this requires all affordable housing units to be approved pursuant to Section 46.470.070.4, which requires the units to be for sale. P &Z has the ability to approve rental units as long as the City Attorney considers the proposed deed restriction to be permanent. In order to alleviate any misconceptions on the part of these new four units, Staff would highly recommend that the units be for sale units only. The Category 4 request does comply with the minimum square footage requirements as stipulated in the Guidelines. Under GMQS, a minimum of 60% of the total additional units and 30% of the project's additional floor area needs to be affordable. The affordable housing units must average Category 4 rates. The proposed housing mix is a total of six dwelling units — two free market and four deed restricted. This comprises 67% of the total dwelling units being proposed. The two free market units are proposed to contain 2,650 and 2,544 square feet of floor area for a total of 5,194 square feet. The two proposed affordable housing dwelling units are to contain 455 square feet of net livable area (NLA) and the two one - bedroom affordable housing welling units are to contain 881 square feet of NLA for a total of 2,672 square feet of affordable housing NLA. The 2,672 square feet of affordable NLA will comprise 34% of the additional square footage, exceeding the land use code minimum requirements. The applicant is proposing the affordable units to be identical to the other 149 rental units. Although the units are being proposed as Category 4 rental units, the applicant would set the rental rate as the other Category 3 rental units at Centennial. Again, the deed restrictions expire 21 years after the death of the last surviving County Commissioner who was in office at the time of the deed restriction for the first 149 rental units RECOMMENDATION The Board reviewed the application at their Regular Meeting held October 17, 2007 and agreed that the three units satisfy the mitigation requirement but recommended approval of the application if the three deed - restriction units are provided as for sale units and sold through the lottery system stipulated in the Guidelines. However, the Board is not adverse to the three units being rental units as long as the three units are deed - restriction under the new criteria: 1) units are deed restricted as Category 4 units with the rental rate initially starting at $956 per month; 2) the units shall be deed - restricted in perpetuity with the ability for APCHA or the City of Aspen the ability to purchase said units at the time the other 149 units would become ownership -type units at the Category 4 sales price as stipulated in the Guidelines; and 3) the rental rates shall be increased as stipulated in the Guidelines (3% or CPI per year, whichever is less). The Board was adamant that the units should not be allowed as rental units unless the updated deed - restriction is required. , %r / �§ f ; y k !Z \()\ ! !(} Ljjjjjp�2 : « � � � ^ / s>� v?? �� % � < [ � �§ ,,. b b�§ !;| §!! October 29, 2007 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Centennial Condos PUD Amendment Sent via email to iasonl(i�ci.aspen.co.us Dear Members: EXHIBIT H This letter is from Chet Tomaszczyk, who lives at 420 Silverlode Drive, in the Williams Ranch Subdivision, and Cathy Markle, who lives at 636 Vine Street, Hunter Creek Condos, Phase II. We would like to voice our opposition to the PUD amendment requesting construction of two new, free - market, single family residences and associated employee housing as residents of the neighborhood and for the following reasons: • We believe that the neighborhood is actually become too dense, with current infill of single family residences built to maximum FAR at Fox Crossing, on Stan Lauriski's property and along Park Circle. • The impact of future employee /free market development on the Smuggler Tennis Court parcel, while still uncertain will add to that impact. • The neighborhood is losing valuable open space to these many developments and, in particular, the Centennial project allows dogs and the area in question is currently the only open space remaining for Centennial dog owners to use as they walk, toward town. Centennial dog owners continue to use the Williams Ranch open space above the parking to the East as a dog park, and do not clean up. However, should you choose to approve the requested amendment, we would like to propose the following conditions of that approval: 1. Bus stop improvements at Centennial bus stop. It would make sense for these improvements to trigger an improvement of the Centennial bus stop that would allow for the bus to pull completely, or at least partially, out of Park Circle, add covered shelter improvements, paving and perhaps low level solar lighting for nighttime. 2. Bring parking lot lighting into conformity with City standards. Current parking lot lighting appears to be high pressure sodium with the orange color and voltage far in excess of that needed to illuminate the parking lot, and is in fact one of the greatest contributors to light pollution in this part of town. The current fixtures have visible bulbs, and radiate light in all directions except up. A cut -off type down light would meet City's current code requirements, improve the lighting at ground level, reduce light pollution, and maintain better privacy and neighborhood character for the residents of Centennial and surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Require installation of moisture sensors in irrigation system. Centennial has consistently overwatered its turf and native areas, to point where runoff occurs all the way to Gibson Street on a daily basis, and wetland species of grasses are growing in their native areas. Requiring either upgraded automated clocks and/or moisture sensors would bring their water usage down, and thereby contribute to City -wide efforts to reduce water consumption and runoff. 4. Require the Lani White trail connection through the Centennial property. The current `trail connection' dies in to the parking lot of Centennial, just below the westem -most houses at Williams Ranch. The trail could and should be continued around the back side of parking lots at Centennial to connect to the dog park and the base of Smuggler trail. That connection would be at a much more suitable grade for walkers than currently walking up the Silverlode Drive hill and back down to get back to Smuggler parking. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, while we understand the needs and desires for development in an ever - changing community, we believe that this development would not provide sufficient mitigation to the surrounding neighborhood to warrant its approval. Sincerely, Chet Tomaszczyk Cathy Markle Page 1 of 1 Jason Lasser From: VINCE GALLUCCIO [VINCEGALL @COMCAST.NET] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:45 PM To: Jason Lasser Cc: vincent galluccio Subject: 300 nicholas In pud JASON, PLEASE GIVE TO P &Z AND TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES. THANK YOU, VINCE GALLUCCIO DEARS SIRS, I AM OPPOSED TO THE PUD ON THE BASIS OF: 1) PREVIOUS PUD ALLOWED GREAT DENSITY TO BEGIN WITH AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS /REQUIREMENTS WERE THEN REDUCED FAR BELOW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED. THIS PUD WOULD FURTHER REDUCE OPEN SPACE. 2) THE 2 ACRES OF LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB (WHICH HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ANNEXED TO THE CITY IN THE 50TIES BY THE LODGE AT ASPEN LAWYERS)WAS ALSO BELIEVED BY THE THEN BUILDING INSPECTOR(NEWBURY) AND COUNTY COMM ISSIONER(COLLETTE PENNE) IN THE EARLY 80TIES TO BE IN THE COUNTY AND PART OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT THE CENTENNIAL PROJECT WAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR IN THE APPROVAL OF THEIR PUD. ONLY NOW DOES IT APPEAR THAT IT WAS ONLY A SMALL SLIVER OF LAND ALONG THE ROAD THAT CENTENNIAL OWNED AND NOT THE WHOLE 2 ACRES WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE BELIEVED TO BE THE CASE. 3) WHEN THE LAST COMMISSIONER DIES PLUS 21 YEARS, ALL THE RENTAL UNITS WILL BE OWNED BY CENTENNIAL TO SELL AS THEY PLEASE, INCLUDING THE NEW ONES TO BE BUILT. SINCE THE COMMISSIONERS ARE IN THEIR 50TIES AND SIXTIES NOW, THE PROBABILITIES ARE THAT THESE RENT CONTROLLED RENTAL UNITS WILL DISAPPEAR IN ABOUT 20 TO 25 YEARS. THANK YOU, VINCENT GALLUCC10,325 OAK LANE 11115/2007 Jason Lasser From: Chris Bendon Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:48 PM To: 'glenn horn' Cc: Jason Lasser; true0489 @aol.com; Jennifer Phelan; Cindy Christensen; 'Sam Brown' Subject: RE: Type of Units Required Under Section 26.470.080 of the Code Page 1 of 1 Glenn: Major applications are required to meet the general requirements of 26.470.050. That section requires all affordable housing to be approved pursuant to 26.470.070.4. This section requires units be for sale. P &Z may approve rental units as long as the City Attorney considers the proposed deed restriction to be permanent (considering the Telluride case). Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP From: glenn horn [mailto:ghorn @rof.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:31 PM To: Chris Bendon Cc: Jason Lasser; true0489 @aol.com; Jennifer Phelan; Cindy Christensen; 'Sam Brown' Subject: Type of Units Required Under Section 26.470.080 of the Code Chris: An issue has come up regarding the applicability of Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code to the Centennial GMQS application. Cindy Christensen has informed me that the Code requires for sale units affordable housing units pursuant to section 26.470.070 4. It is my view that this applies to Minor Planning and Zoning Commission Applications, not Major Planning Commission Applications. The Centennial application has been submitted pursuant to Section 26. 470.080 4. of the Code. This Code section does not require the affordable housing proposed to be sale units. Please advise me regarding your interpretation of this Code provision. Please call me if you have questions or would like to discuss this matter. Thanks. Glenn 11/1512007 Page 1 of 1 Jason Lasser From: Amy Brownstein [Amy @ski.com] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 5:05 PM To: Jason Lasser Subject: Centennial Subdivision Hi Jason: I live in 425 Free Silver Court, and my neighbors and I have received a truly frightening public notice. There is a PLO Amendment approval for 300 Nicholas Lane, which is directly below the 400 building of Free Silver Court. I few of us went out today to see where these 6 new units could be built ... and before we get paranoid about our neighborhood, could you let us know where Lot 3A is. ..we don't see any place other than open space, except the parking lot adjacent to 300. 1 do hope they are not thinking of the hillside ajoining the Molly Gibson Park hill that slopes down to Nicholas Lane. Thank you, Amy Brownstein Amy Brownstein Ski Vacation Specialist Ski.com /Aspen Ski Tours 210 AABC Suite AA Aspen, CO 81611 Voice (800) 525 2052 ex3326 Fax 970 429 2603 amy @ski.com h>tp:/ /www.ski.com 11/15/2007 SMUGGLER HOME PARK ASSOCIATION 301 OAK LANE ASPEN, CO November 15, 2007 To the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen And Aspen City Council: We, the Board of Directors for Smuggler Home Park, representing 86 families, wish to let you know that we are opposed to any development to the Centennial open space- especially on the land adjacent to Park Circle and the play structure area. Centennial's original approvals along with the Smuggler Area master plan called for several parks, recreational areas, and open space for all of the Smuggler neighborhoods. All our children use this area that was designated for recreational purposes. They sled in winter, play tag in the trees and climb the play structures at any given chance. We feel that much needed open space should be NOT be used for any kind of development. We are not opposed to the affordable condos being proposed for the parking lot area. We don't feel that open space should be compromised -ever! With all the development in this neighborhood, open space is very precious. PLEASE do not approve development for this area. Murray Cunningham- President Chuck Simpson - Secretary Donna King- Treasurer DATE: November 1, 2007 TO: P & Z Commission, Jason Lasser, Community Dev. FROM: Colleen and Art Burrow RE: Centennial Residential Growth Management Quota System and Colleen and Art Burrows, Parcel B Access Easement INTRODUCTION On August 15, 2007, the City of Aspen Community Development received an application from Sam Brown of Centennial Aspen II Limited Partnership Centennial represented by Planner, Glen Horn and Harry Teague, Architect. The application requests approval through GMQS, PUD Amendment and Subdivision of two new free market lots for two single family homes on the south /west corner of Centennial Lot 3A, and four affordable housing units. Currently, the south /west corner of 3A has been maintained as a recreational /park site for the general public, an open space buffer to mitigate impacts to the adjacent Williams Addition neighbors and to provide an environmentally safe dry well, water exit for run off from the uphill Centennial site. Issue #1 Brief The Burrows own the adjacent property directly to the north and to the east of the applicants proposed development. This property, legally described as Parcel B, east of lots 5 & 6, in the Williams Addition, became landlocked by Centennial when the project was built in 1984. When Centennial was originally approved in 1983/1984, several Williams Addition parcels nearby and adjacent to the Burrows and Centennial were granted easements by Centennial under the recommendation of the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Burrows' property Parcel B is landlocked and we are asking as part of this GMQS Review that Staff, P & Z and City Council uphold the 1983 County's recommendation (Resolution No. 83 -20) to grant access to the Burrows property as they did for the Delise property which was also landlocked. (Several easements were granted in 1983/1984 which is reflected in Centennial's Title work Schedule B). In an effort to substantiate their request, the Burrows have conducted extensive research into the history of the Centennial property as well as their own. The proposed easement is referenced in the current Centennial application. It runs on the west side of the application site plan and will serve as the applicants' driveway to the two proposed residences if approved. It has in the past served as an easement to the Burrows property. A gate and roughed in driveway currently exist. We feel it is important for the City of Aspen to have the background information, which includes the requirements placed on Centennial when granted ownership and development rights as part of the original 1983 Submission and Rezoning. Issue #2 Brief The Burrows, as the North/ East adjacent neighbor, have several areas of concern regarding the application and site plan they wish to have addressed. The application has important missed points and inaccuracies. In order to address their concerns and be granted an easement it is our hope the City will fully review the history and scope of this matter. Issue #1 Detail HISTORY OF CENTENNIAL LAND EXCHANGE, LOT 3 (PRESENTLY 3A) The following is a brief summary of the History of Centennial Land Exchange, Lot 3 (presently lot 3A) as it is not included in the current application. A review of both the Pitkin County and City of Aspen records regarding the Centennial Project reveals the following: Prior to Centennial being built (1984), Lot 3 was part of several mining claims, two of which were Top of Aspen and McCulloch Oil. In the 1970's they became a parcel called SilverKing Phase IV, owned by Jay Kuehn, who developed the housing project called SilverKing, now called Hunter Creek Condominiums. In the early 1980's a dispute between the County and Kuehn, over Kuehn's desire to condominiumize Silverking units and the County's desire to have them remain affordable housing, resulted in a settlement, with Kuehn giving Phase IV (most of Lot 3) to the County. The County joined together several other parcels, and put out for bid, to developers, an opportunity to build an affordable housing project in exchange for the land. The builder was to be given the land from the County in exchange for building an exceptional project. World Class Housing (aka) Centennial Partners were awarded the project. The project concept and recommendations for approval from the then staff, (Glen Horn, Alan Richman and Sunny Vann) and the then BOCC (Helen Klanderud, Michael Kinsley, Bob Child, George Madsen and Tom Blake) were the site remain 74% open space. Centennial Partners were to make sure adverse impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding Smuggler area neighbors be minimized and mitigated. There were to be open space, trails, parks /recreational areas. Centennial Partners noted they intended to dedicate on -site park(s) as well as trails to the County, which the County would maintain. A Drywell Drainage System was also to be built on this site to take care of underground water flow from springs and abandoned tunnels. It was further stated a buffer be maintained between the Centennial site and single family residential areas, specifically, the Williams Addition and Smuggler Village Mobile Home Park. Centennial was told by BOCC to increase the greenbelt/buffer between this development and Williams Addition, provide adequate transitional areas between the site and adjacent neighborhoods, and enhance the active recreational areas. The park(s) were to be for all Smuggler area residents. The BOCC agreed. Today, Centennial Partners own and maintain the rental units and surrounding open space land which comprise Lot 3A. In 2003 the property became Lot 3A when Centennial subdivided a piece of Lot 3 to become lot 3B "a newly created park to be given to the City of Aspen," as part of an application to approve an additional 3 bedroom `model' unit to be used by Centennial Partners /auditors. There are several 2 references stating Centennial was to provide the parks) when it was approved. It's unclear why a new subdivision was granted and why the park was given twice to the residents of Aspen? HISTORY OF BURROWS' PARCEL B — EASEMENT OF NECESSITY AS IT RELATES TO CENTENNIAL Prior to Burrows, the Vaughn family occupied Parcel B from 1952 -2000. They received a quit claim from McCullough and Top of Aspen in 1974, ten years prior to Centennial being built. Parcel B had an established access across Centennial property. It became landlocked when Centennial built in 1984. It is important to note that the Vaughn's were never public noticed on any of the Centennial meetings. After Centennial's approval the Vaughn's inquired about an easement and were advised it would remain open as a greenbelt and could be used to access Parcel B. Two access gates to Parcel B remain today and an independent appraiser, recognized by Centennial and the Burrows has noted "a roughed -in driveway is already in place." A precedent was set in 1983 when the BOCC made part of Centennial's approval be that access easements to other Williams Addition parcels be granted, not purchased. This is in direct conflict with the Centennial August 13, 2007 letter purchase proposal to the Burrows. Don Delise, another contiguous neighbor to Centennial had an easement granted to Delise' landlocked parcel as did several other neighbors. The The Burrows Parcel B is separate from the front parcel and is landlocked. This is an easement of necessity. Recommendations from the Fire Chief and City Engineer have stated this is the best access solution for Parcel B Over the past 7+ years, the Burrows have repeatedly tried to resolve the land lock issue with Centennial. In August when Centennial's Residential GMQS application was brought to the City of Aspen, Centennial Partners contacted the Burrows requesting terms for a purchased easement in exchange for supporting their GMQS application. On October 30, 2007 the Burrows received a written note offering terms for an easement which primarily require the Burrows to support the Centennial application in exchange for an easement at no cost. Issue #2 THE APPLICATION - SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PLANNING ISSUES WATER /SLOPE ANALYSIS, GRADES AND HEIGHTS - The surveys by Sopris Engineering for grade and slope analysis in the application are questionably interpreted, reducing grades, allowing for more FAR. Parking, sidewalks /trails as well as required open space are not counted or required which is contradictory to the original BOCC requirements. This allows for more FAR, bringing forth questions of intent for the project and surrounding open space. Will Centennial come forward in the future with more development requests for remaining open space? There were and still are water drainage and grade issues discussed throughout this project that are reflected in the 1983 BOCC minutes and resolutions. The land sits on environmentally sensitive soil due to historic mine shafts /tailings. Underground stream flows due to springs and abandoned mining tunnels are present. A carefully engineered drainage plan was called for that included a drywell be created in this open space. An artificial grade or hill was made to help hold water back, as the entire site runs down hill toward town. Today there is a French Drain system that is inadequate. A year around mud bog sits on the greenbelt. The French Drain backs up. Two summers ago, Williams Way properties (above Centennial) flooded. The Centennial French drain located on the site was overloaded and failed. The Burrows' cellar flooded with five inches of water. The proposed water drainage system needs to be carefully designed for the surrounding neighborhood - not just for the two new proposed homes. We request the applicant show what the old /new grade on the site is, how it relates to the neighbors, , designed and signed off on by a registered water engineer. - The height of the 3C proposed new home with the existing man made grade will be 40 feet. The applicant has not shown what areas will be lowered or redesigned. It would be helpful if the area was staked showing house /garage footprints as well as height and what if any trees will remain. LANDSCAPE /SET BACKS - The site plan shows no landscaping along the north side of the applicants' proposal - only garages and parking pads. Given the impacts these two proposed homes will have on the Burrows view plane, (the entire south view and Independence Pass view, the applicant should be made to step back and landscape with a mutually beneficial plan to both parties. The grade of the site, specifically the 10 foot high mound in the middle of the site should be graded down for water drainage. There are unobstructed views for the 3C house and it is not necessary to sit high on an artificial hill /grade. There is nothing `natural' about this grade. It was made with no regard to the adjacent neighbors or natural landscape. The architect has stated that it is being dropped 2 feet. A site visit should be scheduled in order to minimize the height/ drainage impacts. The 3D house kitchen /deck should be changed or eliminated. The 5 foot setback of the 3D house from the Burrows property line on the north and east sides is being misused with a second story kitchen /deck and roof line on the property line. REPRESENTATION - Figure 10 in the Centennial application indicates an access easement to the Burrows, Parcel B lot, along the proposed development's driveway. Having the easement drawn in and included as part of the application is suggestive that an easement has been granted and Centennial is in fact being reasonable and a good neighbor. SUMMARY- Centennial was County land given to Centennial Partners in exchange for affordable housing units, approved with trails, roads, parking, open space, parks /recreational areas. (74% open space) A required greenbelt /buffer was made and maintained in front of adjacent Williams Addition neighbors to help minimize the impacts to neighbors, add park space and establish a water drainage system. Representatives of Centennial agreed to these requirements. In light of the Burrows exhaustive 7 year, good neighbor attempts to formalize an easement and in light of The BOCC instructing landlocked parcels be granted easements and in light of the acknowledged impacts to the neighborhood Centennial created, particularly adjacent neighbors, we ask Staff, P & Z / Council to request as part of the recommendations that Centennial provide an easement to Parcel B, regardless of the final outcome of 11 EXHIBIT I DATE: November 1, 2007 TO: P & Z Commission, Jason Lasser, Community Dev. FROM: Colleen and Art Burrow RE: Centennial Residential Growth Management Quota System and Colleen and Art Burrows, Parcel B Access Easement INTRODUCTION On August 15, 2007, the City of Aspen Community Development received an application from Sam Brown of Centennial Aspen II Limited Partnership Centennial represented by Planner, Glen Hom and Harry Teague, Architect. The application requests approval through GMQS, PUD Amendment and Subdivision of two new free market lots for two single family homes on the south /west corner of Centennial Lot 3A, and four affordable housing units. Currently, the south /west corner of 3A has been maintained as a recreational /park site for the general public, an open space buffer to mitigate impacts to the adjacent Williams Addition neighbors and to provide an environmentally safe dry well, water exit for run off from the uphill Centennial site. Issue #1 Brief The Burrows own the adjacent property directly to the north and to the east of the applicants proposed development. This property, legally described as Parcel B, east of lots 5 & 6, in the Williams Addition, became landlocked by Centennial when the project was built in 1984. When Centennial was originally approved in 1983/1984, several Williams Addition parcels nearby and adjacent to the Burrows and Centennial were granted easements by Centennial under the recommendation of the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Burrows' property Parcel B is landlocked and we are asking as part of this GMQS Review that Staff, P & Z and City Council uphold the 1983 County's recommendation (Resolution No. 83 -20) to grant access to the Burrows property as they did for the Delise property which was also landlocked. (Several easements were granted in 1983/1984 which is reflected in Centennial's Title work Schedule B). In an effort to substantiate their request, the Burrows have conducted extensive research into the history of the Centennial property as well as their own. The proposed easement is referenced in the current Centennial application. It runs on the west side of the application site plan and will serve as the applicants' driveway to the two proposed residences if approved. It has in the past served as an easement to the Burrows property. A gate and roughed in driveway currently exist. We feel it is important for the City of Aspen to have the background information, which includes the requirements placed on Centennial when granted ownership and development rights as part of the original 1983 Submission and Rezoning. Issue #2 Brief The Burrows, as the North/ East adjacent neighbor, have several areas of concern regarding the application and site plan they wish to have addressed. The application has important missed points and inaccuracies. In order to address their concerns and be granted an easement it is our hope the City will fully review the history and scope of this matter. Issue #1 Detail HISTORY OF CENTENNIAL LAND EXCHANGE, LOT 3 (PRESENTLY 3A) The following is a brief summary of the History of Centennial Land Exchange, Lot 3 (presently lot 3A) as it is not included in the current application. A review of both the Pitkin County and City of Aspen records regarding the Centennial Project reveals the following: Prior to Centennial being built (1984), Lot 3 was part of several mining claims, two of which were Top of Aspen and McCulloch Oil. In the 1970's they became a parcel called SllverKing Phase IV, owned by Jay Kuehn, who developed the housing project called SilverKing, now called Hunter Creek Condominiums. In the early 1980's a dispute between the County and Kuehn, over Kuehn's desire to condominiumize Silverking units and the County's desire to have them remain affordable housing, resulted in a settlement, with Kuehn giving Phase IV (most of Lot 3) to the County. See Exhibit #1 - Silverking Map Phase IV, Gail Mahoney General Submission Phase IV Memo, Market Summary — Phase IV Parcel The County joined together several other parcels, and put out for bid, to developers, an opportunity to build an affordable housing project in exchange for the land. The builder was to be given the land from the County in exchange for building an exceptional project. World Class Housing (aka) Centennial Partners were awarded the project. See Exhibit #2 —Ord. 10, Series 1984. The project concept and recommendations for approval from the then staff, (Glen Horn, Alan Richman and Sunny Vann) and the then BOCC (Helen Klanderud, Michael Kinsley, Bob Child, George Madsen and Tom Blake) were the site remain 74% open space. Centennial Partners were to make sure adverse impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding Smuggler area neighbors be minimized and mitigated. There were to be open space, trails, parks /recreational areas. Centennial Partners noted they intended to dedicate on -site park(s) as well as trails to the County, which the County would maintain. A Drywell Drainage System was also to be built on this site to take care of underground water Flow from springs and abandoned tunnels. Exhibit #3 — Special Meeting SOCC /Public Hearing, Feb 22, 1983Feb. 22, 1983 Planning Office Memorandum, Centennial General Submission It was further stated a buffer be maintained between the Centennial site and single family residential areas, specifically, the Williams Addition and Smuggler Village Mobile Home Park. Centennial was told by BOCC to increase the greenbelt /buffer between this development and Williams Addition, provide adequate transitional areas between the site and adjacent neighborhoods, and enhance the active recreational areas. The park(s) were to be for all Smuggler area residents. The BOCC agreed. Exhibit #4- March 10, 1983 Resolution 83 -20 BOCC granting PMH Rezone, and March 14, 1983 General Submission Approval, ]an. 23, Resolution 84 -5 Detail Submission. Today, Centennial Partners own and maintain the rental units and surrounding open space land which comprise Lot 3A. In 2003 the property became Lot 3A when Centennial subdivided a piece of Lot 3 to become lot 3B "a newly created park to be given to the City of Aspen," as part of an application to approve an additional 3 bedroom `model' unit to be used by Centennial Partners /auditors. There are several references stating Centennial was to provide the park(s) when it was approved. It's unclear why a new subdivision was granted and why the park was given twice to the residents of Aspen? Exhibit #5 - April 10, 1985 Final Plat Approval, #5(i) `public improvements required for this development which are not yet constructed such as sidewalks.... and playgrounds for Lot 3 shall be shown on the fourth amendment of the final plat of the Centennial Subdivision and Condominium plat upon completion of such public improvements', and Planning Office Memo, Feb.22,1983 to BOCC, page 9, "A 50 foot landscaped buffer .... an active recreation area is the most effective method available for separating this development from and reducing the impacts on adjacent neighborhood... HISTORY OF BURROWS' PARCEL B — EASEMENT OF NECESSITY AS IT RELATES TO CENTENNIAL Prior to Burrows, the Vaughn family occupied Parcel B from 1952 -2000. They received a quit claim from McCullough and Top of Aspen in 1974, ten years prior to Centennial being built. Parcel B had an established access across Centennial property. It became landlocked when Centennial built in 1984. It is important to note that the Vaughn's were never public noticed on any of the Centennial meetings. After Centennial's approval the Vaughn's inquired about an easement and were advised it would remain open as a greenbelt and could be used to access Parcel B. Two access gates to Parcel B remain today and an independent appraiser, recognized by Centennial and the Burrows has noted "a roughed -in driveway is already in place." Exhibit #6 — Burrows' Survey, Legal Description Parcel B, Quit Claim Deed, General Submission Public Noticing List, Max Vaughn Letters, Julie Ann Woods Document. A precedent was set in 1983 when the BOCC made part of Centennial's approval be that access easements to other Williams Addition parcels be granted, not purchased. This is in direct conflict with the Centennial August 13, 2007 letter purchase proposal to the Burrows. Don Delise, another contiguous neighbor to Centennial had an easement granted to Delise' landlocked parcel as did several other neighbors. The The Burrows Parcel B is separate from the front parcel and is landlocked. This is an easement of necessity. Recommendations from the Fire Chief and City Engineer have stated this is the best access solution for Parcel B. Exhibit #7 - Schedule B from Centennial's title work shows all easements granted. Julie Ann Woods Community Development Document, Don Delise letter to Peter Guy, Chair P & Z, Resolution No. 83 -20, Easement Agreement and Schedule B Easements. Over the past 7+ years, the Burrows have repeatedly tried to resolve the land lock issue with Centennial. In August when Centennial's Residential GMQS application was brought to the City of Aspen, Centennial Partners contacted the Burrows requesting terms for a purchased easement in exchange for supporting their GMQS application. On October 30, 2007 the Burrows received a written note offering terms for an easement which primarily require the Burrows to support the Centennial application in exchange for an easement at no cost. Issue #2 THE APPLICATION - SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PLANNING ISSUES WATER /SLOPE ANALYSIS, GRADES AND HEIGHTS - The surveys by Sopris Engineering for grade and slope analysis in the application are questionably interpreted, reducing grades, allowing for more FAR. Parking, sidewalks /trails as well as required open space are not counted or required which is contradictory to the original BOCC requirements. This allows for more FAR, bringing forth questions of intent for the project and surrounding open space. Will Centennial come forward in the future with more development requests for remaining open space? There were and still are water drainage and grade issues discussed throughout this project that are reflected in the 1983 BOCC minutes and resolutions. The land sits on environmentally sensitive soil due to historic mine shafts /tailings. Underground stream Flows due to springs and abandoned mining tunnels are present. A carefully engineered drainage plan was called for that included a drywell be created in this open space. An artificial grade or hill was made to help hold water back, as the entire site runs down hill toward town. Exhibit #8 - Detailed Submission Resolution No. 84 -5, ( #8) Final Plat Approval Resolution No. 85 -27, (g.) Today there is a French Drain system that is inadequate. A year around mud bog sits on the greenbelt. The French Drain backs up. Two summers ago, Williams Way properties (above Centennial) Flooded. The Centennial French drain located on the site was overloaded and failed. The Burrows' cellar Flooded with five inches of water. The proposed water drainage system needs to be carefully designed for the surrounding neighborhood - not just for the two new proposed homes. We request the applicant show what the old /new grade on the site is, how it relates to the neighbors, , designed and signed off on by a registered water engineer. - The height of the 3C proposed new home with the existing man made grade will be 40 feet. The applicant has not shown what areas will be lowered or redesigned. It would be helpful if the area was staked showing house /garage footprints as well as height and what if any trees will remain. LANDSCAPE /SET BACKS - The site plan shows no landscaping along the north side of the applicants' proposal - only garages and parking pads. Given the impacts these two proposed homes will have on the Burrows view plane, (the entire south view and Independence Pass view, the applicant should be made to step back and landscape with a mutually beneficial plan to both parties. The grade of the site, specifically the 10 foot high mound in the middle of the site should be graded down for water drainage. There are unobstructed views for the 3C house and it is not necessary to sit high on an artificial hill /grade. There is nothing `natural' about this grade. It was made with no regard to the adjacent neighbors or natural landscape. The architect has stated that it is being dropped 2 feet. A site visit should be scheduled in order to minimize the height/ drainage impacts. rd The 3D house kitchen /deck should be changed or eliminated. The 5 foot setback of the 3D house from the Burrows property line on the north and east sides is being misused with a second story kitchen /deck and roof line on the property line. REPRESENTATION - Figure 10 in the Centennial application indicates an access easement to the Burrows, Parcel B lot, along the proposed development's driveway. Having the easement drawn in and included as part of the application is suggestive that an easement has been granted and Centennial is in fad being reasonable and a good neighbor. SUMMARY- Centennial was County land given to Centennial Partners in exchange for affordable housing units, approved with trails, roads, parking, open space, parks /recreational areas. (74% open space) A required greenbelt /buffer was made and maintained in front of adjacent Williams Addition neighbors to help minimize the Impacts to neighbors, add park space and establish a water drainage system. Representatives of Centennial agreed to these requirements. In light of the Burrows exhaustive 7 year, good neighbor attempts to formalize an easement and in light of The BOCC instructing landlocked parcels be granted easements and in light of the acknowledged impacts to the neighborhood Centennial created, particularly adjacent neighbors, we ask Staff, P & Z / Council to request as part of the recommendations that Centennial provide an easement to Parcel B, regardless of the final outcome of the application. The Burrows understand they can not control the outcome of how the application is viewed by the City, or whether or not the merits outweigh the questions. But they do believe they are entitled to an easement without purchase, expensive judicial relief, or be made to, without consideration, support an application that Centennial is seeking approval for that will impact their property directly and the neighborhood. Centennial needs to be a good neighbor to all adjacent property owners and renters. The Burrows respectfully request the following from the City: As part of the conditions for approval, Staff, P & Z and Council recommend Centennial grant an easement to Burrows landlocked Parcel B. If the Centennial application is supported, may it be amended with consideration of the site planning issues elaborated on above, prior to final approval by the City. Colleen and Art Burrows - 925 -9525 o � a c w 1, • - �. ..nom ir` '! ', _ (( / • w I N fill t ■ ter .- A r A li r �6 I PAGE 7 51 C PAGE 8 PAGE 9 Overall Si ON TO ING E PAGE 10 1 Quick Facts of Aial Total Land to be subdivided 16,067 Total Land in Lot X 8,580 Total Land in Lot 3D 7,490 Total Land in Access Easement 2,016 Lai 3L Area after Subtrarions [slope reduction, access easemenl] 6,002 FAR for Lot X 5,974 Allowable buildahIs sq. ft. for lot 31 2,650 Building Footprint Lot 3L 1,963 Lai 30 Area after Subtractions 6,305 FAR for Lot 3D 6,151 Allowable buildable sq. ft. for Lot 30 2,544 Building Footprint Lot 3D 1,696 v �— I LOT 313 p O 3C I I � Park Circle Site Plan PAGE II SCALE: 1" = 20' H Lower Level O PAGE 12 O PAGE 14 3 D Lower Level O PAGE 15 U r I� I Im vs I I I I I I I I I I light well I I i I garage t Q � I \ I \ I \ IU \ IK \ I� I K I bedroom I I light well both FI c bedroom frombe wall light well ! / street facin ___- - -- -- 7955.5' / front orrh — open to / _below outdoor zen garden light well both f closet I I i c_0h0P / I / / I / I / � 3D Main Level front PAGE 16 u I I 1 1 � I I ` 1 I I light well both FI c bedroom frombe wall light well ! / street facin ___- - -- -- 7955.5' / front orrh — open to / _below outdoor zen garden light well both f closet I I i c_0h0P / I / / I / I / � 3D Main Level front PAGE 16 c - - r 3C South Elevation VDIL I /A" = 1'0'° i front windows span through second floor between 9' -12' reen roof 4 e N?e _ A- Pa11YMir — . " -4� \ street facing light well to allow south sun into lower level PAGE 18 -72*V 7"' 7�i,o 0 . —/- - 0—:: 15 -r6q 3D South Elevation VAIC IA" s II All ('i front windows span through second floor between 9' -12' PAGE 19 Artlo !v "0_ Q �P � /s.0 _. _, =1 �I WI d a a W N °I o a 0 a 3 I �I 2 Z �I W I Park Circle I I ml al dl 4, NI ~ " I pCl � F W I al �I L o N zl N �I it YI ° d W I Vl I 1 I N I N I , I LOT 3D rLOT3C I °' I I I I i Main level - * 7955.3 , i MO level = •7939.3 I I I I I I I I ` -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' I I , , , I Site Section SCALE: 1/16 " - P -I)" �I J T � I 1I O K 1 O W O d of d . Site Plan CENTENNIAL BUILDING H PAGE 20 d Site Plan CENTENNIAL BUILDING H PAGE 20 W J TI K I W_ 1 o � I Y D Q Q 31 o I z z �1 w 1 W Park Circle Y 1 ml �I of sl zl �I W I i 1 1 _1 W I J �1 K I W d s a. c� Z WI - I � 1 I z J TI � I W 1 O o. ca z �I W I 1 �l 1 k Site Plan PAGE 21 Site Sedion SCALE: 1/16" ° 1' 0" ® Q Hei ht Limit Elevation 0 PAGE 22 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 201 S. -- lo- `� - k ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: hmn" 26 " ,V„ , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1 'A-V__�_ �A J c C� -ems (name, please print) being or representin g an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: (/ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -1 (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) A^^lk Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa e The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this l Z day of , 2009, by S P IC NOTICE RE 201 s. nh S EET, REQUEST FORA MAP WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL AMENDMENT F AN ANNEXATION INTO CITY BOUNDARIES A ZONING DESIGNATION My commission expires: _ Notary Public i,TTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: �UBLIC,41I0N MI ° "a `Ch, C � nXH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Published in the Aspen Tames Weekly on January yf/A/EV A" GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 11. 20W(2821657) u 1 lnll" • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24 -65.5 -103.3 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: 201 SOUTH 7 TH STREET MAP AMENDMENT Brian Speck opened the public hearing. Errin Evans stated that the applicant requested to annex the property at 201 South 7' Street into the city; the lot currently consists of a single family dwelling. Evans said that according to state statute a resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council at public hearing on Monday, April 28, 2008. Evans said the applicant is requesting recommendation for approval for a zone district designation of moderate density R -15. Evan said that currently the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the moderate density R -15, low density residential R -30, residential multifamily RMP and affordable housing AH. Evans said the property was currently compliant with the surrounding neighborhood; if the property was annexed and zoned R -15 under City regulations the maximum development on the lot would consist of 2 detached residential dwellings within the City boundary. Evans stated the subject lot is included in the urban growth area in the aspen area community plan; annexing this lot would allow the city to add to the trail network by gaining a trail along the front of the lot and adding more sidewalks improvements to the city inventory. Staff recommends approval of the zone district of R -15. Evans noted the issue was not the annexation with P &Z. Jim True said the issue was what zone district to designate the property. Cliff Weiss asked why it was in the interest of the city to annex this property. Jennifer Phelan responded that was up to Council to determine; the future potential revenue benefits. Phelan said that water and sewer are already served to the property by city utilities. Sherry Sanzone, Mike Shook and Yanz from Bluegreen architects were present. Sanzone said they were in general agreement with the staff; this was a two part application, the second part was the annexation with council. Sanzone said their client, Bruce Weiner, bought this property because of the proximity to the Hopkins Avenue pedestrian and bikeway and the bridge over the river. Sanzone noted this property was located on a city owned and maintained street. Weiss asked if they change from 4470 square feet that is currently built on the property if annexed they have the possibility of 6485 square feet. Phelan responded that an annexation was a negotiated process so both parties need to agree to this potential and some of these issues will be debated at council. 9 Aspen Planning! & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 3 2008 No public comments. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #20, series 2008 for the application for R -15 zoning for the property located at 201 South 7' Street; seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Speck, yes; APPROVED 5 -0. Discussion of the motion: Cliff Weiss stated that the R -15 zoning at a 6500 square foot above ground is a very large building and there was a lot of affordable housing in the neighborhood. Weiss said that he will vote for the approval of this rezoning but he was concerned with the large buildings in this area. Adjourned at 6:15 pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen — Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directoo"'\ ID DATE OF MEMO: April 18, 2008 MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008 RE: 201S.7 1h Street — Map Amendment APPLICANT /OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen LOCATION: Address - 201 S. 7th Street; Legal Description — Lot 3, Adams Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number -2735- 123 -15 -003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone district, within Pitkin County containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting a Map Amendment, to zone the property with a City of Aspen zone district zone designation Moderate Density Residential (R -15), as a part of their request to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen municipal boundaries. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this Map Amendment application to the City Council. SUMMARY: The applicant has petitioned for annexation and applied for a zoning'designation. Currently the lot contains a single family dwelling. Photo of the subject property Revised 5/29/2008 Page 1 of 12 Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to annex the property at 201 S. 7th Street which currently consists of a lot with a single family dwelling into the City of Aspen's city boundary. At this time the applicant has not indicated what the future plans are for this lot (Exhibit C — The Application). Annexation procedures are governed by the standard steps outlined in the Colorado Revised Statutes. State Statutes require certain procedural steps to be followed in an annexation and criteria for whether a property can be annexed. A resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council at a public hearing on Monday, April 28` 2008, as required by State Statute (Exhibit B). Originally the home was built in 1985, though the address was 312 S. 7 Street at that time. It is located on a street that is not within the City limits. This particular area of Pitkin County is Revised 5/29/2008 Page 2 of 12 isolated from other properties in Pitkin County because of topographical constraints including Castle Creek and Shadow Mountain. This area is also located within the designated Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Aspen. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting recommendation for approval for a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15). The zoning application will be reviewed under the requirements in Code Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. In Pitkin County, the parcel is zoned R -15 (Moderate Density Residential — 15,000 square feet lot). The applicant is proposing that the parcel be designated Moderate Density Residential (R -15) if it is annexed into the City boundary. STAFF COMMENTS Surrounding Uses Currently the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R -15), Low Density Residential (R -30), Residential Multi - Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) z9ne districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the property was annexed and zoned R -15 under the City's regulations, the maximum development on the lot would consist of two detached residential dwellings. This maximum development would also be considered compatible in this area. Within the City boundary, the nearby uses include several different land uses. North and adjacent to the property is a duplex. Across the street are multi - family affordable housing units. In the next block, on Main Street there are mixed commercial and multi - family units. The R -30 noted on the map to the west of the property is the Marolt open space. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 3 of 12 Figure 2: Surrounding zone districts. (See Exhibit E for color map) Development Rights The differences in the dimensional requirements and permitted uses between the zoning district in the County and the City are outlined in the following table: Table 1 • Comparison of Existing Pitkin County vs Future City of Aspen Dimensional Requirements. acaiu.a caucus =� ryk+ - �•. ^--. . Regtiiremeq# Minimum Lot Gross lot size is — 15,000 square feet 15,000 5 Size 33,945 Lot size used for Lot size used for calculations in the calculations in the Ci Revised 5/29/2008 Page 4 of 12 Revised 5/29/2008 Page 5 of 12 " Coadions # Prtlamcount3 Gi Laad_ r- --ms ( *See note 1) County is 26,085 sq is 31,005 ( *See note 2) ft Minimum Lot Approx 179.97 ft 75 feet 75 feet Width Minimum Lot 15,000 square feet Detached residential Area/Dwelling dwelling — 15,000 Unit Duplex — 7,500 square feet Minimum 35 feet 30 feet Principle Building - 25 Front Yard feet Setback Minimum Side 45 feet 10 Feet 10 feet Yard Setback Minimum Rear 71 feet 10 Feet 10 feet Yard Setback Maximum 28 feet 25 feet Height Accessory Buildings (See note 3) - 20 feet Floor Area 0.16 of the permiwed Not calculated by ratio. Ratio (FAR) net lot area. Floor Area Existing Floor Area Permitted — 4173.6 Single Family — 4470 square feet square feet Dwelling — 6090.30 (measured by ( *See note 4) Two detached County dwellings or one requirements) duplex — 6485.10 ( *See note 5) Permitted Uses Single Family Duplex dwelling Detached residential Dwelling, (Permitted unit, Detached single dwelling, Duplex, Two uses are restricted by family dwelling, detached residential dimensional Group home (Special dwellings, Home requirements of each Review), Retirement occupations, Accessory zone district) home (Special buildings, Accessory Review), Daycare dwelling units Revised 5/29/2008 Page 5 of 12 A� (Special Review), Conditional Uses Institute (Special ( *See note 8) Review), Park, Accessory and Temporary Uses ( *See note 7) Notes: 1. The County nor the City permits area gained from a lot line adjustment to be used for floor area calculations. A County representative indicated that a lot line adjustment approved by resolution in 2000 that resulted in a gain of 4,380 total square feet. 2. 2940 square feet of the lot along the 7 Street frontage is subject to a warranty deed, created to provide for improvements to 7 Street. 3. Building height in the County is measured to the mid -point of the roof from existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. The ridge line must be no more than 5 feet higher than the midpoint. In the City, building height measurements depend on the pitch of the roof. In this case the height would be measured from the mid -point of the roof from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. 4. The applicant did not subtract the right -of -way from the original calculations. Also reductions were not included for a lot line adjustment. In the County, 4000 square feet of sub grade of floor and 750 square feet for the garage may be added to the permitted floor area. 5. These numbers differ from the calculations of the applicant. 26,625 square feet of lot size was used. The applicant requests that the area subject to the warranty deed be included for floor area calculations. 6. These numbers could change depending on changes to the right -of -way as per the Parks Department and the Engineering Department. 7. Allowable accessory and temporary uses include: Agricultural stand, arts and craft studio, bus stop, day care home, home occupation, satellite reception device, solar energy collector, temporary commercial use, and trails. Accessory and temporary uses permitted with special review approval include: Building mounted cellular telephone antennae, caretaker dwelling unit, club house or recreational building, employee dwelling unit, water crossing or diversion. Conditional uses under the R -15 City zone district include: arts, cultural and civic uses, academic uses, agricultural uses, recreational uses, group home, child care center, and bed and breakfasts and boarding houses on historic properties. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 6 of 12 The most significant difference between the two jurisdictions is the permitted uses. The City designation permits two detached residential dwellings on a lot and the County does not in the R- 15 zone district. The applicant has been asked by the City's Zoning Officer to submit an analysis of how the parcel meets the requirements of the R -15 zone district including floor area estimates under City jurisdiction. Under the County Land Use Code, the applicant is not permitted to use the square footage gained from the lot line adjustment towards floor area calculations. It is up to the City to decide whether or not to allow the inclusion of the square footage towards floor area calculations. The property may be eligible to apply for subdivision under City regulations depending on site constraints. Using raw data figures, excluding the driveway easement and the ditch, the property could potentially be subdivided into two lots, subject to Growth Management allocations. Each lot could potentially be developed with a duplex. The property would still be eligible for the construction of two detached single family dwellings using the gross area, and subtracting the right -of -way that is subject to the warranty deed. The annexation process does not restrict what the City can add as a condition of approval of annexation. ZONING: In Pitkin County, this lot is located in the R -15 (Moderate Density Residential — 15,000 square feet lot) zone district. The zone that the applicant proposes once it is located within City boundary is similar to the existing zone in the County. This zone is compatible with the adjacent uses in the City limits. The applicant is not securing any development rights in conjunction with the approval, other than what will be permitted under the proposed zoning of Moderate Density Residential (R -15). As noted in the review criteria an R -15 zone would be a reasonable designation based on the surrounding zone districts adjacent to the property. ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN The subject lot is included in the urban growth area in the AACP and has a future designation of residential. One of the goals of the AACP is to promote pedestrian accessibility. Annexing this lot will allow the City to add to the trail network by gaining an easement for a trail along the frontage of the lot and adding more sidewalk improvements to the City inventory. The Annexation Plan created in September of 2005 reflects the land use policies of the AACP with regard to adding urbanized land. This annexation plan shall be used to ensure well- ordered development of the City, evenly distribute the cost of City services, extend services to eligible citizens, and simplify boundaries. The subject lot is located in the Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation area. It is not located in an environmentally hazardous area as other lots in this area as it is located a significant distance from the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Parks Department would like to obtain at least a 15 feet wide easement to extend the W. Hopkins Trail at this intersection towards the Marolt Bridge. Minutes from the meeting are included as Exhibit D. Revised 5/29/2008 Page 7 of 12 The frontage of the parcel does not meet City standards. The applicant will be required to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the 7'h Street frontage, up to the south portion of Hopkins Avenue. Drainage is not properly conveyed through this section and the sidewalk needs to be extended. These improvements are required prior to annexation. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the zone district designation request of R -15. PROPOSED MOTION: The Community Development Staff recommends that if the Planning and Zoning Commission satisfied with this zoning application that they may use this motion. "I move to recommend to Council, that they approve Resolution No. 00X, Series of 2008, to approve the petition for Annexation combined with the application for Zoning at 201 S. 7` Street." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff findings Exhibit B — Resolution of Substantial Compliance Exhibit C — Petition and Application Exhibit D - Minutes from the Development Review Committee Exhibit E — Color Zoning Map Insert Exhibit F — Letter from neighboring property Exhibit G — Letter from neighboring property Revised 5/29/2008 Page 8 of 12 RESOLUTION No. O%X %2 0 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RECOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF R -15 FOR 201 SOUTH 7 h STREET, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Parcel Identification Number 2735- 123 -15 -003 WHEREAS, Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen located at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Guyasuta Seventh Street, 201 S. 7 Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for a map amendment in conjunction with an annexation application, dated February 12, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the request is to receive a zone district designation recommendation of R -15; and WHEREAS, this resolution is null and void if the City Council does not approve the annexation application and the annexation does not occur; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the annexation petition and application for zoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June P, 2008; and, WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the City Council on April 28, 2008 to approve a Resolution of Substantial Compliance; and WHEREAS, the City finds substantial compliance with said State statutes, Section 31 -12 -104 C.R.S, in that the property to be annexed is specifically greater than one -sixth contiguous to existing corporate limits, has a community of interest with the City of Aspen, is urban or will be urbanized in the near future, and is integrated or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation will not extend Aspen's municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. WHEREAS, upon review of the petition and application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1 . Findings of Fact. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A request for the annexation petition and zoning application was initiated by: Sheri Sanzone, representative from Bluegreen, 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of the owner Guyasta Seventh Street LLC, 201 South 7 Street, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15) has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26- 304- 060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. 3. This proposal meets the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This property is located in the urban growth boundary with a residential designation. This proposal meets the objectives of the City Annexation Plan. The plan aims to make the City boundaries less confusing, promote pedestrian accessibility, ensure well- ordered development, distribute the costs of City services fairly, and extend City services to eligible citizens forming part of a whole community. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the annexation petition and zoning application request for the said lot to be Moderate Density Residential (R -15). Section 3• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held I 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 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED AS TO FORM Jim True, Assistant City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June 2008 LR Erspamer, Chairperson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "LOT 3 - ADAMS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION"; FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31 -12- 107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31 -12 -104 AND 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31 -12- 107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and I WHEREAS, Section 31- 12- 107(1)(g), C.R.S., mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with Sections 31 -12 -108 to 31 -12 -110, C.R.S., whenever a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31 -12 -107, C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section l That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 31 -12- 107, C.R.S. Section 2 That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S., and to establish whether or not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 28`" day of April, 2008, in Council Chambers at City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611. (A date which is not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of this resolution). Section 3 That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the City Council shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for 2 annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31 -12 -115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of Ad&&L , 2008. ichael C. Ireland, Ma or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated., , Kathryn S. vhch, City Clerk O W- saved: 3/ 132008- 778{G:yohn\wordVre osV-ot C -Ann I AM RECEIVED FEB 1 � 7nng CITY OF .ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , FDY ° �CU/�IILt� Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Prepared for: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Prepared by: Bluegreen 2008/02/04 .fxw isi 7 Minutes for the DRC Meeting TO: Development Review Committee FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner MEETING DATE: April 16, 2008 RE: 201 S. 7 th Street — Map Amendment The DRC convened at 1:30 to discuss annexing the property located at 201 S. 7` Street from Pitkin County into City limits and have the opportunity to ask the applicant questions. The resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council on March 24` 2008. The public hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2008 before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Parks Department, Brian Flynn — What is proposed for future development on the site? Applicant — An architect has been retained, but there are currently no plans. - The W. Hopkins trail extension ends at this intersection. The Department would like to have a 15 feet wide easement at a minimum to be able to extend the trail towards the Marolt Footbridge. Public Works Department (Electricity, Streets, and Water), John Hines — The property is currently serviced by Holy Cross not the city electric grid. The fences are located too close to the road for snow storage. The pavement is in poor condition. The ditch that runs through the property needs to be re- revaluated. The lines on the plat do not necessarily line up with the true location on the ditch. This needs to be resurveyed. Does the applicant intend to use the water? The City does not currently permit any water removal from that ditch. Engineering Department, Larry Doble — The Engineering Department would like to request that a portion of the property at the corner of Hopkins and 7` become right of way. The street will need to be upgraded to installed curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The pavement will require repair up to City standards before annexation takes place. The Department prefers not to annex the remainder of 7' as the County has indicated. They would prefer to annex the corner only. Zoning Official, Todd Grange — Are there currently bandit rental units on the site? Applicant — No. Community Development would prefer to see an analysis of how the current house compares to the COA's land use zoning list. Measure against the standards. Look for conformance and issues that do not conform. Compare how it exists today with the code standards regarding dimensional requirements and building permits. Some numbers in the FAR need review. The numbers do not match up. On page 20, please review the math. The r/w Revised 5/14/2008 Page 1 of 2 Revised 5/27/2008 Page 12 of 12 fxH►BtT f Errin Evans From: Ed Zasacky [edzasacky @usa.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:49 PM To: Errin Evans Subject: Fwd: 7th and Hopkins annexation - - - - -- Original Message - - - - -- Received: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:00:26 AM MST From: "Ed Zasacky" <edzasacky @usa.net> To: <jackj @ci.aspen.co.us>Cc: <dhvaughn @hotmail.com> Subject: Fwd: 7th and Hopkins annexation HI Jack: I found out from talking to Erin Evans again that the 7500 she was referring to was about minimum lot size and NOT floor area. The FAR is apparently around 5000 above (which would allow another 5000 below) so it is 10,000 not 15,000. That doesn't change the argument in my opinion, but I wanted to be technically correct. Thanks ed - - - - -- Original Message - - - - -- Received: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:18:39 AM MST From: "Ed Zasacky" <edzasacky @usa.net> To: <jackj @ci.aspen.co.us>Cc: <dhvaughn @hotmail.com> Subject: 7th and Hopkins annexation Hi Jack! I will be out of town for the June 3rd meeting, but you will be reviewing a proposal to annex an Adams Subdivision lot at the corner of 7th and Hopkins. The County doesn't allow duplexes but this annexation, if allowed to become R -15 in the City, will create the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to build a large free market duplex. (Lot larger than 15,000 s.f. and created prior to 1975). Jas thinks there is some provision in the Code somewhere that prevents the City from annexing and upzoning. That makes sense as we would see a tremendous pressure for all the County to go into the City for increased density otherwise. At any rate there is an R -15B zone if they wish to be annexed, that prevents Duplex development. We are up to here with construction in that area, if they get it the next one will want it and we will be in a war zone for the rest of my life. This zoning would allow a duplex of 7500 s.f. above grade with another large amount below grade (unlike the County). This isn't compatible with the surrounding zoning on our little street that we all love so much. This could destroy the scale of our street and allow development up and down the street if it is all annexed as R -15. Please don't allow them to ruin a neighborhood where a lot of locals still reside and force it into 2nd home development faster than it already is going. Thanks ed Ed Zasacky Broker Associate Aspen Sotheby's International Realty 315 S Galena, Aspen CO. 81611 970 - 379 -2811 cell 970 - 205 -5322 direct 800 - 695 -3955 toll free office 970 - 925 -5258 home edzasacky(@usa.net 1 6>oo 66 May 27, 2008 Errin Evans City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 201 So. 7`" St. Dear Errin: As you know, we own the home at 221 So. 7` St., immediately adjacent to the subject property which is on our north boundary. We are writing this letter to state our opposition to the requested annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen R -15 zone district. While the new owners of the subject property state that there is "no new development proposed at this time," word on the street has been for some time that there is a plan to replace the existing home with a two unit duplex. If that were not the intention, the property could be annexed into the R15 -B zone district which would provide the advantages of city annexation but not allow for redevelopment as a duplex. If the existing home on the subject property were to be replaced by a duplex through annexation, the square footage above ground could be 5,617, as compared to the house presently which is 4,470, but with the underground footage that could be utilized, the total footage could be double what it is today. Instead of housing one family, there would be two, and more service providers would be anticipated with the attendant issues of housing and transportation. If subdivision were permitted, there could be as many as four units, with four families, doubling all the impacts noted above. When all the possible implications are considered, annexation should be denied. Redevelopment of either type would clearly be contrary to the city's effort to control growth, with little if any attendant benefit to the city. The subject property is at the end of Hopkins. From Hopkins south to the dead end of the street, there are only single family residences, in most cases on large lots. We and a majority of our neighbors like the country lane character of our uncurbed and in some places unpaved street, heavily lined with trees, and do not want to see further density or development on the street. We would appreciate it if you would distribute this letter to those who will be considering this matter as we will be out of town on June 3 and cannot attend the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Linda & Dennis Vaughn ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: R O I Z 7 S� / , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ��p LJ 1 200 a STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I A/1 rir tq ! (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: tZ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Z�� 5 7 S r PP Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: T r � _J U h L S 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, (name, please print) being or representing an App scant to the C& of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: IJA Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen,() 5) days priqr the public hearing and was continuously visible from the JV day of 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. J A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Stafffeels that the proposed zone is consistent with the goals of the AACP. The lot is located in the Urban Growth Boundary. It would be an asset to the City to have the opportunity to extend the trail on Hopkins closer to the Marolt Bridge. (See Annexation Plan review for more information below) Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding The subject property is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R -15), Low Density Residential (R -30), Residential Multi - Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. The property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the property was annexed and zoned R -15 under the City's regulations, the maximum development on the site could potentially consist of two detached residential dwellings or a duplex depending on Council's decision. This maximum development would also be considered compatible in this area. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 12 of 20 Figure 1: Proposed Minimum Setback 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning will have a significant impact on traffic generation or road safety because the proposed rezoning would only have the potential to construct as proposed, one to two additional residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. 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 Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities as a result of the proposed zoning request. The property is already serviced by City water and sewer. This property already has the appearance that it is a part of the City. Only a line on a map separates this lot. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning application would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Findin g Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the community and neighborhood character of the area in that the new zoning would allow for a more consistent pattern of residential development with the remainder of the properties in the neighborhood than is currently allowed on the site. Stafffurther feels that the proposal will likely allow for the massing of residential units on the site to be spread out over the entire property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Findin g Revised 11/13/2008 Page 13 of 20 There have been few changes to the surrounding neighborhood recently. In 2000, there was an annexation to the north of the property that allowed for the construction of a duplex, single family dwelling and accessory dwelling unit. The proposed annexation will create an appropriate transition from the single family dwellings located in the County to the duplexes, multifamily units and commercial uses on Main Street. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 9. 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 Staff believes that the proposed zoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest. Providing a partial linkage for the West Hopkins trail would be an asset. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 14 of 20 Exhibit A (Continued) LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Resolution No. 71 of Series 2005 adopts the City of Aspen Annexation Plan. Petitions to annex into the City boundaries must comply with the Local Annexation Criteria listed on page 12 of the Plan and be consistent with the requirements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The City Council shall consider: 1. Aspen Area Community Plan Compliance StaffFindinQ The intent of the AACP is to limit the ultimate population in the area through a Growth Management System. This lot already has the look and feel of being a part of the City of Aspen. The lot is developed with a single family dwelling. With the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15) the maximum new development on this lot would consist of a duplex or two detached dwellings depending on the Council approval. The property is serviced with water and sewer and will add no additional burden to the City infrastructure or other services. Gaining the right -of -way to increase the trail network and extend the sidewalk will work towards the AACP goals to promote pedestrian accessibility. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 2. Urban Growth Boundary Staff Finding According to the adopted Annexation Plan, land located within the Urban Growth Boundary should be considered appropriate for annexation. Land located in the UGB is expected to be annexed over time. This lot is located within the UGB in the Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation area. Many lots located in that annexation area are located in environmentally sensitive areas. This lot is located on level ground away from the steep slopes. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 3. Significant Annexations Staff Finding Annexations that may change the regulatory structure or jurisdiction of significant community facilities and large tracts of land have major impacts on the community. The scope of review and participation of the appropriate agencies must be appropriate for the size of the annexation. Annexing this lot is not a significant annexation. Referrals were sent to County Staff and an impact analysis was waived. The annexation only involves one parcel and the predicted impacts are minimal. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Fiscal Impact Analysis Staff Finding Revised 11/13/2008 Page 15 of 20 The fiscal impacts of an annexation should be evaluated prior to annexing the property. This information is important to factor into the decision of whether or not to approve the application. Sometimes capital improvements may be required or additional service and operational costs. The costs need to be balanced with the revenues that will be gained when the property is annexed. The financial impacts as a result of annexing this lot are minimal. The City will receive property taxes of approximately 15,000 based on 2008 taxes and potential real estate transfer taxes if the property is later sold. The property is already serviced by City water and sewer. The City infrastructure has capacity to accommodate this lot even if the lot was developed to the maximum permitted by the zone designation. Capital improvements will consist of new curb, gutter and sidewalk to Hopkins at the expense of the applicant and right - of -way to accommodate an addition to the West Hopkins Trail. Trail improvements will be at the City's expense from the Parks Department budget. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 5. Development Rights /Zoning Staff Finding The differences between the development rights in the County and in the City should be considered Each jurisdiction uses a different land use code and the applicant may be able to achieve different goals, depending on the site. Usually the annexation applicant has site development plans attached to the annexation application. In this case, the annexation application involves only a boundary change at this time. The applicant has not yet indicated what the future plans for development are on this lot. It is important to consider the complete build out options upon annexation, including growth management and impact fees and the use of TDR's to ensure future compatibility with the surrounding properties. The creation of non - conforming features should be limited, but are able to receive custom legislation to make them legal. In this case, the height of the building is non - conforming. The height of the existing house is non - conforming according to the City Land Use Code. When measured by the using Code Section - Calculations and Measurements 26575.020 (B), the height of the structure is 26 feet 6 inches. The maximum permitted height in the Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone district is 25 feet. The chimney is 31 feet high. Also some of the residential standards may not be conforming. Any new development on the site will be required to meet the current land use code aside from the negotiated development rights. The net lot area is different for each jurisdiction, the City and the County. The following is a comparison of the calculations of net lot size and permitted floor area: Floor Area Calculations Coun Gross lot area 33,945 square feet Net lot area for Floor Area Calculations 26,085 square feet Reductions Road Warranty Deed 2,940 square feet Lot line adjustment (not valid for floor area) 4,920 square feet Revised 11/13/2008 Page 16 of 20 Existing Floor Area 4,470 square feet Permitted Floor Area Single Family Dwelling - 4173.6 square feet Citv Gross lot area 33,945 square feet Reductions Engineering R/W requested area approximately 4,151 square feet Existing Floor Area 4,470 square feet Net lot area for Floor Area Calculations 33,945 square feet (based on original gross lot size) Permitted Floor with reductions Single Family Dwelling — 5636.7 square feet Duplex or Two detached dwellings — 6056.7 square feet Annexing bandit units should be avoided. There are no bandit units on this site. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 6. Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Staff Finding An analysis of TDR's associated with the annexation should be under taken. Properties in the County are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights. Some properties have already received TDR's. The City has not yet developed a program to allow TDR's from the County to transfer on to lots located in the City boundary. There are no Transferable Development Rights associated with the lot at this time. Once annexed, only City TDB's could be landed. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 7. Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations Staff Finding As the City limits increase the restraints from environmental constraints and hazards on development increase. The County has regulations that address development on steep terrain and in wildlife corridors for example. The County regulations are designed to minimize land use intensity and the impacts from development. In the City, densification is encouraged and architectural character is regulated It is important that the property is regulated by the most appropriate jurisdiction. The City should note any substandard public improvements and the potential costs of the upgrades. In this case the applicant is responsible for upgrading the street infrastructure and the City will be responsible for upgrades to a new portion of the trail system. The City should avoid annexing property that will require administration over backcountry and forestry lands, as they do not have enough experience with these matters. This property has similar characteristics of most City lots and it is not anticipated that the annexation will create any regulatory problems. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 17 of 20 The regulations in the City are very similar to the County in this case. The applicant has more opportunity to develop once the lot is annexed into the City boundary. The regulations for both the City and the County would result in appropriate development for this lot. Once annexed, the property will be subject to Residential Design Standards. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Staff FindinE During an annexation, the existing infrastructure and its capacity to serve should be considered. The Council should be cautious with dated and unacceptable small water districts. These small systems may not be adequate and the cost of updates should be considered. Annexing this lot and the potential development that may occur as a result will not have a significant impact on the capacity of the existing transportation facilities, parks, drainage, schools or emergency medical facilities. This lot is already serviced by City water and sewer so unforeseen costs should be minimal. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 9. Simplicity of City Boundary Staff Finding Agencies that operate in the City and jointly in the City and the County are sometimes unclear about the location of the City boundary. A complex boundary can cause problems for emergency workers and the enforcement of rules of the County, the City and other agencies. It is preferable that a boundary adjustment as a result of an annexation reduce potential confusions. This property already has the appearance that it is a part of the City. Annexing this lot will simplify the City boundary. Only a line on a map separates this lot from the rest of the City. It would be appropriate to eventually annex the rest of South 7rh Street. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 18 of 20 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RELATIVE TO THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "LOT 3 - ADAMS SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION"; FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 31 -12- 107(1), C.R.S.; ESTABLISHING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS 31 -12 -104 AND 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SAID HEARING; AND AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF ZONING PROCEDURES FOR LAND IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED. WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, whereby real property described in Exhibit "A" appended to the Petition for Annexation, is being petitioned for annexation to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen has referred the aforesaid petition as a communication to the City Council for appropriate action to determine if the petition is substantially in compliance with Section 31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of Section 31 -12- 107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 31- 12- 107(1)(g), C.R.S., mandates that the City of Aspen initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with Sections 31 -12 -108 to 31 -12 -110, C.R.S., whenever a petition is filed pursuant to subsection (1) of Section 31 -12 -107, C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen is hereby found and determined to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 31 -12- 107, C.R.S. Section 2 That the City Council hereby determines that it shall hold a public hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S., and to establish whether or not said area is eligible for annexation pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended; said hearing to be held at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 28' day of April, 2008, in Council Chambers at City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611. (A date which is not less than thirty days nor more than sixty days after the effective date of this resolution). Section 3 That the City Clerk shall give public notice as follows: A copy of this resolution shall constitute notice that, on the given date and at the given time and place set by the City Council, the City Council shall hold a hearing upon said resolution of the City of Aspen for the purpose of determining and finding whether the area proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S., and is considered eligible for 2 annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31 -12 -115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 11 -dJ- 64, , 2008. ichael "IrelandMa�or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. ch, City Clerk JP W- saved: 3/132W8- 778 -G:yahn \"rd4es0s\L0t C -Ann I Am y annexation. Said notice shall be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed to be annexed. The first publication of such notice shall be at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. The proof of publication of the resolution shall be returned when the publication is completed, and the certificate of the owner, editor, or manager of the newspaper in which said notice is published shall be proof thereof. A copy of the resolution and petition as filed, shall also be sent by registered mail by the clerk to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and to the County Attorney of Pitkin County and to the Aspen School District at least twenty days prior to the date fixed for such hearing. Section 4 That pursuant to Section 31-12-115, C.R.S., the City Manager is hereby directed to initiate appropriate zoning procedures with regard to the territory proposed to be annexed. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of &, , 2008. ichael C. Ireland, Ma or I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated... Kathryn S. Y u ch, City Clerk O W- saved, 3A3/2008-778-G\ ohn \" dVms\Lot C -Ann I.dm Y guyasute seventh street Ilc annexation request second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portlon(s) of the area described on Attachment 'A.' c1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed thls Petition for Annexation this ? _. day or February, 2008. A ypw Sgnature & w c- E is. W �P t�e ✓" petitioner's/Owner's Printed Name X39 FREPoRT 20R'I'N Address R iTsbuP(4 r PA is a 19 City, State, Zip bluegreen 04 february 2008 5 of 33 guyasuta seventh street Ile annexation B. Legal Description of the Annexation /Proof of Ownership - attachment A CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP P1ddn Coady T7tle, Ina, a d* licensed Tice hmad a Agin! in &e Skde of Colorado bereby r:crti5ca 00 GUYASUTA SEVENITi STREET, ILC, A COLORADO LL%MM LL42U Y COWANY arc ibe ownees in &a sb*k or the fol o%* dmcdbed proem : LOT R, ADAMS SUBDI148101% acowd Io Ow Plat 8rareof recorded May 14,1973 in Rat Bode 4 at Page 908. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE Pn M COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 201 South Seventh SL, Aspen, 0011611 ENCUMBRANCES. Deed of ruot6an : GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET. LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED UA88JTY COMPANY To M Pubk Truatae d Vre Cant' dPITlQN ForMwfsd :"Tow OriginalMaud :$4,067011= Odad : Jara y 3, 2008 Reawdrd : Jam" 3, 2008 Reapmn Na :645469 AaaigwnnR d Rana reowdW in eanr a wM aa: abere Dad of Tnmtwas r— J ' JWw6rY 3, 20M as ReapOan Na 546470. This oertificale is sot to be oonsfrtud to be a prmrooke oftifle and is AwAislted for iafamatianal purpaaea 001Y- Pffm N COUNTY TITLE, INC. T3Y: authoriaad atgaenve CERTIFIED TO: Ja wo 31.2008 at 0:00 A,M. Jab No. 21796CO bluegreen 04 february 2008 6 of 33 1- annexation request fAhm Is tAIltts!*1 " P. WONAMS VLLAOA CO Not$ bluegreen 04 february 2008 7 of 33 �+wMtalemaioKdaiwnwwraerH arnlnrrewrt�se+asis 11► IR tarRVrgwRlMr M�p4�rtiikAM�OMM�krllt$KlON NOW M1o01i3trRlpp ��b��cieMIn4JXpt�OwdnmdedJ 'M1�.}gT SIWIURES ONPAOE 2 I RESOLUTION No. 20 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, RECOMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A REQUEST FOR A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF R -15 FOR 201 SOUTH 7 th STREET, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Parcel Identification Number 2735 - 123 -15 -003 WHEREAS, Sheri Sanzone of Bluegreen located at 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of Guyasuta Seventh Street, 201 S. 7" Street, Aspen, Colorado, submitted a request for a map amendment in conjunction with an annexation application, dated February 12, 2008 to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the request is to receive a zone district designation recommendation of R -15; and WHEREAS, this resolution is null and void if the City Council does not approve the annexation application and the annexation does not occur; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the annexation petition and application for zoning under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June Y 2008; and, WHEREAS, one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of the affected property have consented to annexation of their property to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the City Council on April 28, 2008 to approve a Resolution of Substantial Compliance; and WHEREAS, the City finds substantial compliance with said State statutes, Section 31 -12 -104 C.R.S, in that the property to be annexed is specifically greater than one -sixth contiguous to existing corporate limits, has a community of interest with the City of Aspen, is urban or will be urbanized in the near future, and is integrated or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fords that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, THAT: Section 1 . Findings of Fact. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A request for the zoning application was initiated by: Sheri Sanzone, representative from Bluegreen, 300 South Spring Street, Suite 202, Aspen, Colorado on behalf of the owner Guyasta Seventh Street LLC, 201 South 7" Street, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15) has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26- 304- 060(E)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. This proposal meets the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. This property is located in the urban growth boundary with a residential designation. Section 2: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of the zoning application request for the said lot to be Moderate Density Residential (R -15). Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED AS TO FORM J Assistant City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June 2008 1 Brain Speck cting airperson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. r aclae Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 26.710.050 Moderate - Density Residential (R -15). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district is to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Mod- erate- Density Residential (R -15) zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Detached residential dwelling; 2. Duplex; 3. Two detached residential dwellings 4. Home occupations; 5. Accessory buildings and uses; and 6. Accessory dwelling units and Carriage Houses meeting the provisions of section 26.520.040. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Arts, Cultural, and Civic Uses. 2. Academic Uses. 3. Agricultural Uses. 4. Recreational Uses. 5. Group home. 6. Child care center. 7. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): Fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Three thousand (3,000) 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet: a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For Historic Landmark Properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy -five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030 A.4., Historic Landmark Lot Split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front Yard setback (feet): Residential dwellings: Twenty -five (25). Accessory buildings and all other buildings: Thirty (30). 5. Minimum side Yard setback (feet): Ten (10). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 11 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Principal buildings: 10 Accessory buildings: Five (5). 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty -five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two De- S uare Feet Sin le -Famil Residence* tached Dwellings or one Duplex* 0- -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 each 100 in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum maximum of 2,400 square feet of 2,700 square feet of floor area. of floor area. 3,000 - -9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 plus 28 square feet of floor square feet of floor area for each addi- area for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor maximum of 4,080 square feet area. of floor area. 9,000 -- 15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 plus 7 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,920 square feet of floor maximum of 4,500 square feet area. of floor area. 15,000 -- 4,500 square feet of floor area, 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 plus 6 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 tional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 7,020 square feet of floor maximum of 6,600 square feet area. of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 plus 2 square feet of floor area square feet of floor area for each addi- for each additional 100 square tional 100 square feet in lot area. feet in lot area. *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 dwell- City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 12 ings on a lot less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one detached residential dwelling. 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 Floor Area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one Historic TDR. No more than one Floor Area increase shall be allowed per residence. Properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area in- crease. Non - conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. (Ord. No. 56 -2000, §§ 2, 7 (part); Ord. No. 25 -2001 §§ 2, 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 54, 2003 §7; Ord No. 50 -2005, §2) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 700, Page 13 �uigl � V +e. Errin Evans —City of Aspen Community Development Department Sheri Sanzone data 03 June 2008 I nnzr� 201 South Seventh Street —Map Amendment sxaiec: Request for Additional Information -Cpv to Project Files Request for floor area analysis based on built conditions rather than building permit documentation. The consultant team measured the existing residence to determine the following existing conditions. These conditions were compared to both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County's methodologies for measuring floor area. For ease of comparison, the consultant team also relied on the numbers presented in the staff memo, dated April 18 2008 and revised May 29 2008. The existing square footage is conforming per both codes. The existing building height is non - conforming per the City of Aspen's code by 1' -6 ". An elevation of the building, illustrating the roof and chimney height, is attached. City of Aspen: Code Zone District: Lot Area for FAR: Max Allowed Floor Area: Max Allowed Deck Area: Below Grade Area: Max Building Height: R -15 26,625 sf 6,090 sf 6,090 sf x 0.15 =913.5 sf based on exposed wall 25' -0" Existing Conditions Area, Main Level: Area, Garage: Area, Upper Level: Deck, Main Level: Deck, Upper Level: Building Height: Chimney /Appurtenance Height Actual Code 2,399 sf 2,399 sf 509 sf 134 sf 1,530 sf 1,530 sf 180 sf 0 sf 139 sf 0 sf 4,757 sf 4,063 sf (conforming) 26' -6" (non- conforming) 31' -0" Pitkin County: Code Zone District: Lot Area for FAR: Max Allowed Floor Area Max Allowed Deck Area Below Grade Area: Max Building Height: Existing Conditions Area, Main Level: Area, Garage: Area, Upper Level: Deck, Under Roof: Deck, Not Under Roof: Deck, Other Building Height: Chimney /Appurtenance Height: R -15 26,085 4,173 sf 4,173 sf x 0.15= 625.95 sf (not under roof) up to 4,000 sf exemption 28' -0" Actual Code 2,399 sf 2,399 sf 509 sf 0 sf 1,530 sf 1,530 sf 180 sf 180 sf 0 sf 0 sf 139 sf 0 sf 4,757 sf 4,109 sf (conforming) 26' -6" (conforming) 31' -0" p 2 www.bluo�ree.5aspe;;�.eom Exhibit EXISTING CONDITIONS: ON 66] 71 M]92 M 123 14, NEw 2N FENCE ON T413 LINE UNIT e $.Oo I�SAIN `OpS o6 0 Wy / ' W , 16ED ELECTRIC A6EI�NT 6R ]921 PO ]23 1 ��/ v A p R J. ♦ e9 6 25"16 . tia z� w OR IVE MOROApIE 25941 91 25d C w 2523' N y W ' � I C O O'RIVE HONED j + Hopkins Avenue IIOx E E %P r NOR ETIE 3 1N M y 2 9 1l 80 AREA FT ./. C / ,EE 9UkD. FLAT / FWTIER IK-0. F011 OMNERWI, STATUS M.O. i D EXCEP T I SOOK 33, PINE 621 Figure 2: Current survey of the Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Figure 2 is a survey of the current configuration of the subject property. Items that represent constraints or relevant issues have been labeled A - G. The property is located at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and 71h Street. The survey is oriented north. The zoning section of this memo contains information regarding the dimensional aspects of the subject property. A — There are three easements used for utilities and access to utilities. The areas in these easements can be included in lot area calculations. B — The hatched area represents an area that was added to this lot on April 20 2000 with the approval of a lot line adjustment. The County does not consider the area gained by the lot line adjustment when calculating the lot size for permitted floor area. The City may choose to use this additional area towards the lot area when calculating permitted floor area or when considering whether the lot is eligible for a subdivision. C — This is the approximate location of the sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements requested from the Engineering Department. The applicant will be required to construct these improvements from the east side of the property from the north corner to the Hopkins Avenue Revised 11/13/2008 Page 19 of 20 o� RE -BAP C � B C > )9•ap E- a5 ��. A A ' �_ Y A 91 I 3 ARMS SUBDIVISION / \ R�>D�' PPAR I 9 a.R 12 18O6NTION NO. 02369. - �- intersection. The improvements are required at the time that the annexation is approved. The applicant will not have the option to wait until the lot is redeveloped. D — This is the approximate location for the West Hopkins Trail extension. The trail would start at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and 7` Street and continue along the east side of the property along the frontage on 7` Street to the south corner. The applicant is required to dedicate right -of -way to the City for the trail. The Parks Department will be responsible for the construction of the trail. E — This shaded area is a portion of the property that is dedicated to the public upon declaration of intent from Pitkin County to widen and improve 7` Street. This portion of the lot is held in escrow by Holland and Hart. F — This private road easement is used to access the two lots located to the West of the subject property. The lot area in this easement is eligible for use when calculating the permitted floor area. G — There is a City ditch running through the property. The Public Works Department has requested that the applicant resurvey the ditch because the current survey does not accurately represent the location of the ditch. The applicant is not permitted to build on the ditch line or remove water, but the area may be used in lot area calculations. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 20 of 20 D(OlSlT CG rco Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Prepared for: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Prepared by: Bluegreen October 24 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen Coun cil FROM: Errin Evans, Current Plannerk - THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director - r DATE OF MEMO: January 16 2009 MEETING DATE: January 20, 2009 RE: 201 S. 7�h Street — Annexation Petition and Zoning Designation Request APPLICANT /OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen LOCATION: Address - 201 S. 7th Street; Legal Description — Lot 3, Adams Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 123 -15 -003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone district, within Pitkin County containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: This is an annexation request. As part of this request the Applicant is proposing a Map Amendment to zone the property with a City of Aspen zone district zone designation Moderate Density Residential (R -15). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is no recommendation at this time. SUMMARY: The applicant has petitioned for annexation and applied for a zoning designation. We had scheduled a public hearing; however the applicant is not yet ready to proceed at this time. Photo of the subject Revised 1/16/2009 s_, Page 1 of 2 Staff Comments Ordinance No. 38 and 39 Series of 2008 are being withdrawn from the Council Agenda for January 26` 2009. A date will be set at later time to reschedule a public hearing for this application. There is a portion of the property that belongs to Pitkin County via a warranty deed. This issue needs to be resolved and the County is required to give the applicant permission to grant the property to the City. Once this issue is resolved the applicant will be able to create final annexation plat for Council review. The applicant is aware of this issue and has agreed to withdraw the meeting until a final plat is ready. When a final plat is ready, the applicant will come again before Council for First Reading to set a new public hearing date. Revised 1/16/2009 Page 2 of 2 PARKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2008 TO: Eirin Evans, City Community Development THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Director Parks and Open Space FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager RE: Response to City Council Questions on the South 7` Annexation During the City Council's first reading of Ordinance No 38, South 7` Street Annexation, City Council asked two questions of the Parks department. City Council asked "If there is a plan or option for the City in the event the annexation does not occur, and how critical is the need for this trail connection." Staff will address both questions in order below. For the past five years the Parks Department and the Open Space and Trails Board have been working on acquiring easements along the South 7` Street corridor with the goal of completing the West Hopkins Pedestrian Trail. In 2003 the West Hopkins Pedestrian Trail was identified as a critical trail and its completion would fulfill two community goals spelled out in the AACP and the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan. The trail was listed on the Open Spaces top tier for trail completion in 2004 and the project was approved and funded by City Council in 2004. Because of the lack of public ROW and or missing easements along South 7` Street the project was split into two phases. Phase I was the completion of the trail between 4 Street and 7` Street. Phase II is planned between Hopkins along 7` Street to the Marolt Foot Bridge. Shortly after the completion of the first phase, Staff began working with all of the neighbors along 7` street to gauge interest in acquiring an easement along the street. The most obvious connection was along the East side of the street. Staff worked with a representative for the Cisneros Property, located at the Eastern corner of 7` and Hopkins. Parks Staff worked on acquiring a trail easement, drafted easement language, hosted several information meetings and drafted two different renderings depicting the proposed solutions. After two years of discussion, the owners decided to not accept the request for a trail easement. Since that time Staff has kept in contact with the representative hoping for a chance to open discussion however nothing has come of the contacts. If the annexation request does not occur the Parks Department will continue as status quo and manage the trail system as is without a formal connection between Hopkins and the Marolt Foot Bridge. The missing trail connection between the Marolt Foot Bridge and Hopkins Ave is the final piece for completion of the trail. Aside from the Rio Grande Trail, the West Hopkins Trail is one of the heaviest used trail links in the City. Over an eight day period, in the off season the West Hopkins Trail, accommodated an average of 86 users per day. Users range from recreationalists, commuters and winter Nordic use. It serves as the only southerly trail out of town with direct connections to Castle Creek Road, Marolt and Cemetery Lane. Staff believes the current connection is unsafe due to a number of reasons. First, the road width on 7` street is to narrow to provide appropriate room for multiple users and vehicles. Second, the abrupt end on both sides of the trail empties users on to a road. Third, the road is under the jurisdiction of the County and has traditionally been considered low on the County's Road maintenance priorities. Added to the points above is the consistent, although temporary, construction traffic which adds to the unsafe conditions, congestion and quickly degrades the road which directly affects the trail experience. Providing a separated trail connection between the west Hopkins trail and the Marolt Foot Bridge helps to provide a guaranteed safe and well maintained route for users. P Re¢ular Meetine Aspen City Council November 24, 2008 Councilwoman Kasabach moved to read Ordinance #37, Series of 2008; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 37 Series of 2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN ELECTRIC SERVICE RATES. Mayor Ireland moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 2008, with scenario 1, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Kasabach. Councilwoman Kasabach said an 8 or 9% increase in utility rates seems high. Overeynder told Council there has one been one rate increase in 10 years; these rates are not typically done annually. Overeynder pointed out the city's rates are the 7' lowest in the state and lower than other local providers. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Skadron, yes; Kasabach, yes; Romero, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2008 — 201 South 7` Annexation ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2008 — 201 South 7' Zoning Errin Evans, community development department, told Council this is a request for annexation by the owner of this property. Staff and the applicant have entered into negotiations; the applicant must show benefits to the city to be annexed. Ms. Evans said that Council adopted a resolution of substantial compliance in April 2008. Councilman Skadron asked what the city benefit is and what is the procedure if the applicant does not designate a trail. John Worcester, city attorney, said the dedication language will be on the annexation plat. Councilman Skadron asked if this annexation is denied, how would the city get the trail connection. Councilman Skadron said he would like to know if it is critical to approve this annexation in order to get a trail connection. Worcester said he will have that answer at the public hearing. Councilman Skadron asked if the land exchange is 4151 square feet or 1211. Ms. Evans said the warranty deed already gives some land to the county for the improvements to 7` street so the benefit to the city is 1211 square feet of land. Councilman Skadron asked if this is approved, does staff contemplate changes to the traffic pattern. Tricia Aragon said they do not anticipate any changes in traffic patterns. Councilman Skadron asked staff the necessity of trail linkage in this area and is it critical to the city's overall trail objectives. Staff said they will have an answer at second reading. Councilman Skadron asked if an approval allows more square footage. Ms. Evans said in the county an applicant could build one single family dwelling of 4470 square feet and in Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 2008 the city an applicant could build one single family dwelling of 5636 or two dwellings not to exceed 6056 square feet. There are differences in the way FAR is counted in the city and in the county. The county allows 750 square foot garage exemption; the city allows a garage exemption of 250 square feet/unit. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 3008; seconded by Councilwoman Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #38 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "LOT 3, ADAMS ANNEXATION" Councilman Romero moved to approve Ordinance #38, Series of 2008, on first reading; seconded by Mayor Ireland. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Kasabach, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Skadron moved to read Ordinance #39, Series of 2008; seconded by Councilwoman Kasabach. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #39 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF MDOERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -15) FOR 201 SOUTH 7 TH STREET MORE COMMNLY KNOWN AS LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Councilwoman Kasabach moved to adopt Ordinance 939, Series of 2008, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Romero, yes; Kasabach, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2008 — Fees for 2009 John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the city has a policy of addressing fees annually and increasing the fees to approximate cost of providing service to citizens. Worcester noted this ordinance does not contain fees for community development department as they are having a study done to determine the actual fees for 2009, which fee increase will be brought forward in a separate ordinance. Most fees in this ordinance are projected to increase 3 %. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 2008; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. T1 b. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen Council FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: November 13, 2008 MEETING DATE: November 24th, 2008 RE: 201 S. 7 th Street — Annexation Petition and Zoning Designation Request APPLICANT /OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen LOCATION: Address - 201 S. 7th Street; Legal Description — Lot 3, Adams Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number — 2735- 123 -15 -003 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone district, within Pitkin County containing a single family home. PROPOSED LAND USE: This is an annexation request. As part of this request the Applicant is proposing a Map Amendment to zone the property with a City of Aspen zone district zone designation Moderate Density Residential (R -15). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approves this Annexation Petition and Zoning Designation application with conditions. SUMMARY: The applicant has petitioned for annexation and applied for a zoning designation. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request for the zoning designation only and made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the application for Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone designation. Photo of the Revised 11/13/2008 Page 1 of 20 201 S. 7th Street Map Amendment Application w 0011.2008.ASLU S 201 S. 7th Street V J k 'HOPK 9 J J L Legend Maas •b � _ sect -r parks Pan a en lots City FW Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a petition to annex the property at 201 S. 7 Street into the City of Aspen's city boundary. The lot currently consists of a single family dwelling. The applicant has requested to designate the lot with a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15). At this time the applicant has not indicated what the future plans are for this lot (Exhibit G — The Application). During an annexation process, negotiations between staff and the applicant take place. Staff ensures that there is a benefit to the City as a result of the annexation. The applicant is also able to negotiate development rights. In this application the applicant has agreed to dedicate 4,151 square feet of property to the City for the purposes of an extension to the West Hopkins Avenue Trail towards the March Bridge in exchange for reduced minimum setbacks and other development rights. A portion of the area to be dedicated is currently designated for future road improvements to S. 7` Street. Figure 2 represents the lot and the proposed land dedication. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 2 of 20 © • R•154T' V R -li COUNry i i P0.0WSED 'l R -fS Qtt �� -�,�, ( (EXLSOHG R65000H19) / / \ f � S � C C: BEN I Figure 2: The subject property and the proposed land dedication. Originally the home was built in 1985, though the address was 312 S. 7 Street at that time. It is adjacent to a portion of S. 7 Street that is partially within the City limit municipal boundary. The property and this particular area of Pitkin County are isolated from other properties in Pitkin County because of topographical constraints including Castle Creek and Shadow Mountain. This area is also located within the designated Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Aspen. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to annex a lot into the City boundary: ■ Map Amendment for changing the Official City Boundary and the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. The City Council is the final review authority and considers a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the zone district designation. The applicant is proposing that the parcel be designated Moderate Density Residential (R -15) if it is annexed into the Revised 11/13/2008 Page 3 of 20 X F City boundary. In Pitkin County, the parcel is zoned R -15 (Moderate Density Residential — 15,000 square feet lot). ■ Annexation applications are governed by Colorado Revised State Statutes (CRS 31- 12 -102 et seq.) The subject property must meet the requirements of the State Statute as well as the City's Annexation Plan. The City is able to negotiate the terms of an annexation particular to each subject parcel. The Council must weigh the benefits of the annexation proposal to the City and determine that they adequately meet the needs of the City. The City Council has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny a petition to annex. DISCUSSION: Man Amendment When a property is annexed into the City of Aspen, both State Statute and the Land Use Code require that the subject property is required to have a City zone district designation. The Land Use Code also requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposal and makes a recommendation to Council. The applicant is requesting a zone district designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15) for the subject property. The review criteria for considering a zone district designation includes considering any conflicts with the Land Use Code, the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan, the compatibility with the surrounding zone districts and properties, the effect on traffic and road safety, demands on public facilities, the effects on the natural environment, compatibility with the character of the neighborhood and potential conflicts with the public interest. The property is located in a transitional area where less dense, single fancily dwellings of the County integrate into the City limits adjacent to duplexes, multi family development and mixed uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council to approve the zone district designation of R -15 on June 3 2008. (See Exhibit C for Resolution #20 of Series 2008 and the minutes) The objective of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to evaluate whether or not Moderate Density Residential (R -15) is the appropriate zone district for this lot if it is annexed. They did not review the lot size or the requests of the right -of -way dedication from the Engineering and Parks Departments. They came to the conclusion that the zone designation was the best fit considering the surrounding land uses in this particular area of the City. North and adjacent to the subject property, the Sandunes LP annexation was approved in 2000. This property consisted of two lots. The lots were designated Moderate Density Residential R -15 when they were annexed and that was deemed appropriate for that location. Once annexed the lots were developed with a single family dwelling, a duplex and accessory dwelling units. Except for the new construction on these lots, the neighborhood has not changed substantially. The proposed zone district designation of R -15 for the subject lot will permit similar densities and uses. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 4 of 20 Surrounding Uses Currently the lot is surrounded by residential uses in the Moderate Density (R -15), Low Density Residential (R -30), Residential Multi - Family (RMF), and Affordable Housing (AH) zone districts. Some of these zones have PUD overlays. Nearby on Main Street there is a Mixed Use (MU) zone district. To the west of the property is the Marolt Open Space. The specific uses of the surrounding properties include residential uses and commercial uses. There are townhomes located to the north, including the Shadow Mountain Townhomes. To the east are affordable housing townhomes including West Hopkins Townhomes. On the west side of the property are single family dwellings. There are also single family dwellings to the south of the property in the County jurisdiction. Further north of the townhomes are condominiums, including the Bavarian Inn Condos, offices and the Christian Science Society along Main Street. The use of the property is currently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Figure 3 shows the surrounding zone districts. Figure 3: Surrounding zone districts. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 5 of 20 �„ , •t. r•� L roads F City Boundary Waterways Figure 3: Surrounding zone districts. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 5 of 20 Staff Comments on Zoning Based on the nature of the use of the surrounding area, an R -15 zone district designation is appropriate for the site with a permitted use of either a single family dwelling, duplex or two detached residential units. Additional detail on the recommended dimensional standards is included in the annexation section below. Annexation The Process Annexation is a process where the property becomes a part of the City to the benefit of the City and the applicant. In the case before Council, the applicant can receive additional development rights while the City will receive a land dedication as the primary benefit as well as street improvements, property taxes and potential real estate transfer taxes. An annexation application must comply with the City's Annexation Plan, the Land Use Code and Colorado Revised State Statutes. State Statutes require certain procedural steps to be followed in an annexation and criteria for whether a property can be annexed. A resolution of substantial compliance was approved by Council at a public hearing on Monday, April 28` 2008, as required by State Statute (Exhibit B). During the annexation process, negotiations occur to ensure that there are benefits to the City. While the applicant may receive benefits as well, the Council must ensure that the annexation is an asset to the public. The negotiation process allows Council flexibility with regard to land use allowances associated with the property. For example, in this application staff is requesting a land dedication and recommending some flexibility with the dimensional standards of the site to accommodate the dedication. The applicant has been in discussions with staff and as a result, other City departments have requested the land dedication. The Engineering Department, Parks Department, and Streets Department indicated during the Development Review Committee process, that the condition and standard of S. 7` Street is inadequate. There is no designated passage for pedestrians and cyclists, surface runoff runs down the street and there isn't room for snow storage. The existing right -of -way is very narrow and does not meet City Standards. The Parks Department specified that this lot could be a key contributor to the pedestrian/cyclist path network. This area has been noted as a gap in the system. The applicant and the City Engineer have negotiated a width that is acceptable to the applicant and meets the minimum amount that would be acceptable to the City Engineer and benefit other departments (See Figure 2). The proposed right -of -way width is smaller than the City standard, but will be able to accommodate the City's needs. This includes providing an adequate amount of space for snow storage as requested by the Streets Department, as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements. Parks will gain an area to provide a future connector to the Marolt Trail from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 6 of 20 r^1 The applicant has agreed to designate 4,151 square feet of property along S 7 1 Street to assist the City in acquiring a right -of -way that can accommodate City infrastructure. The applicant will be responsible for constructing the sidewalk, with curb and gutter on the north portion of the dedicated area and a crossing satisfactory to the City Engineer from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail across S. 7` The Parks Department will be responsible for trail construction, ditching and landscaping along the south portion of the dedication. Potential Development Rights The gross square footage of the site is 33,945 square feet; however with the land dedication, the size of the lot is reduced to 29,794 square feet. Below is a comparison of the development allowance of the property in the County, compared to the allowance if it is annexed into the City. In the County the property has a similar zone designation of Moderate Density Residential (R- 15). Permitted Use City — A single family dwelling, a duplex or two detached residential dwellings. County — A single family dwelling is allowed on this site. Maximum Heieht City — 25 feet County — 28 feet Setbacks City — 16 feet County — 30 feet Allowable Floor Area City - The allowable floor area for a single family dwelling will be 5636.7 square feet and 6056.7 square feet for a duplex or two detached dwellings. County — The allowable floor area for a single family dwelling is 4470 square feet. Annexation Plan / Aspen Area Community Plan The Annexation Plan re- adopted in September of 2005 reflects the land use policies of the AACP with regard to adding urbanized land. This annexation plan is used to ensure well- ordered development of the City, evenly distribute the cost of City services, extend services to eligible citizens, and simplify boundaries. The subject lot is located in the Urban Growth Boundary and the Ute/Northstar, Shadow Mountain, Red Butte annexation area. The majority of the lots in this annexation area are located on steep slopes and affected by environmental hazards. The lot is not located in an environmentally hazardous area when compared to other lots in this area as it is located a significant distance from the steep slopes of Shadow Mountain. It is expected that lots located in the Urban Growth Boundary will be annexed at some time in the future depending on suitability and location. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 7 of 20 The lot is currently serviced by City water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer. It will benefit the City to be able to collect the property taxes from this lot that already receives the advantage of City services. One of the goals of the AACP is to promote pedestrian accessibility. Annexing this lot will allow the City to add to the trail network by gaining right -of -way for a trail along the frontage of the lot and adding more sidewalk improvements to the City inventory. The property is located close to the West Hopkins Bridge. The right -of -way will not be sufficient to complete the gap between the bridge and the trail where it ends on Hopkins Avenue; however, it could be a significant portion of the trail necessary for the connection. Staff Comments on the Annexation The most significant difference between the two jurisdictions is the permitted uses based on calculated lot size. Both the City and the County permit a single family dwelling. The City designation will permits two detached residential dwellings or a duplex, as well as the single family dwelling. The County considers the lot for development purposes to be 23,835 square feet due to a past lot line adjustment which would allow for a single family dwelling in the County under current regulations. The applicant will be permitted to use the gross lot area to calculate allowable floor area if the property is annexed into the City. Since the property may be annexed into the City, staff can view the property as a clean slate and count the lot area that was gained from a lot line adjustment. In 2000, the property received additional square footage along the northern edge as the result of a lot line adjustment. Normally, the County and the City do not permit lot square footage gained from a lot line adjustment to be used towards allowable floor area calculations. During the negotiations, staff felt it would be appropriate to allow the lot line adjustment area gain of 4,380 to be used in floor area calculations. The area to be dedicated to the City is similar in size, 4,151 square feet. Keep in mind that 2,940 square feet of the right -of -way to be dedicated is already encompassed by a Warranty Deed in favor of the County for road improvements. If the property is annexed and the applicant dedicates property for the right -of -way dedication, the location of the east property line will change. When the right -of -way is removed from the lot and designated to the City, the remaining setback will be only 16 feet if the right -of -way dedicated is as indicated on the application. Normally in this zone district the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to allow a minimum setback of 16 feet on this lot. There are many constraints on this lot that will make redevelopment a challenge. The current location of the structure on the lot represents a setback of 16 feet from the proposed lot line after the right of way dedication is removed. This setback is comparable with the properties located to the north and also compatible with affordable housing development on the east side of the street. (See Exhibit A for a diagram) The potential development rights and the current use of the property are compatible in that neighborhood. The potential development and density will be suitable for the transition zone between the properties in the County and in the City, from single family dwellings to duplexes, Revised 11/13/2008 Page 8 of 20 affordable housing and mixed uses. There will be changes to the traffic patterns that will provide safer and more efficient flows with the extension of the trail, street improvements and the additional crosswalk. The property is currently hooked up to City services and the sanitation district. There will not be any increased demands on City infrastructure from the property that cannot be accommodated. This dedication is an important benefit to the City. It will allow the Parks Department to develop more of the linkage of the West Hopkins Avenue Trail towards the Marolt Bridge. It will also provide space for street improvements including sidewalks, curbs and improved drainage. Currently the drainage on S. 7` Street needs attention. The right -of -way will also provide more area for snow storage. Staff feels that the trail extension is a very important step to achieving the goal of providing safe, efficient pedestrian and bike paths. Financial Impacts There are no impact fees due at this time. If the applicant chooses to redevelop the lot after annexation, impact fees will apply. Costs to the applicant will include upgrading the portion of 7 Street to the W. Hopkins Avenue intersection where the lot has frontage to City standard including curb, gutters, and sidewalks. Potential impacts to the City could include developing a portion of trail in the requested right -of -way requested by the Engineering and Parks Departments. The property is currently serviced with City water and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer. No additional impacts are predicted as a result of annexing the current development. The property could potentially increase burdens on the City infrastructure if the applicant altered the existing development depending on the development rights that are agreed upon during annexation negotiations. There are no other negative financial impacts forecasted. There will be increased revenue from property taxes to the City and potential Real Estate Transfer taxes. Based on numbers for 2008, the property would provide $15,708.93 in property tax revenue. RECOMMENDATION: When the Council considers a property for annexation, it is important to consider the benefits to the City when compared to the benefits to the applicant. In this case, the benefits to the City include: increased property taxes, potential real estate transfer taxes, land dedication for the West Hopkins Trail, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, potential application of the design standards, and simplified City boundary. The benefit to the applicant includes greater development rights including: ability to construct a duplex or two detached residential dwellings and greater above grade allowable floor area than permitted in the County. Community Development Staff recommend that the City Council approve the annexation and zoning application with conditions. a) To approve the annexation and the zoning designation request; or b) To approve the annexation and the zoning designation request with conditions; • All allowable floor area and density calculations will be based on a lot size of 33,945 square feet; • The minimum front yard setback will be 16 feet; • All other dimensional requirements would be based on the reduced lot size; Revised 11/13/2008 Page 9 of 20 • The applicant will be required to construct the curb, gutter and sidewalk along the 7 Street frontage; • A letter of credit will be required to insure the proposed street infrastructure; • The applicant will be required to dedicate 4,151 square feet of lot area for right -of -way along S. 7` Street; • The applicant will provide a safe crossing of S. 7` Street from the West Hopkins Avenue Trail satisfactory to the City Engineer c) To deny the annexation and the zoning designation request PROPOSED MOTIONS: The Community Development Staff recommends that if the City Council is satisfied with this annexation and zoning application that they may use these motions. "I move to approve Ordinance No., Series of 2008, to approve the petition for Annexation for the parcel located at 201 S. 7 Street." "I move to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2008, to approve the zoning designation of Moderate Density Residential (R -15) at 201 S. 7 Street with and according to the conditions established by Option B. (3)." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff findings Exhibit B — Resolution of Substantial Compliance Exhibit C — Resolution No. 20 of Series 2008 and Minutes Exhibit D — Land Use Code Section 26.710.050 Moderate Density Residential (R -15) Exhibit E — Current site conditions as per City Code requirements Exhibit F — Existing Conditions Exhibit G — Petition and Application Revised 11/13/2008 Page 10 of 20 Exhibit A ANNEXATION COMBINED WITH A ZONING APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.310.020 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for amendments to the official zoning map shall be processed in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Standards of Review. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed zoning designation is in conflict with any portion of the Land Use Code. The proposed zone will be compatible with the pattern of residential development that exists around the lot in the City boundaries. A review of the applicant's analysis of the conformance with the City's dimensional requirements shows that the height of the building is not in conformance with the Code, but can be considered a legally established non - conforming structure. The height of the existing house is non - conforming according to the City Land Use Code. When measured by the using Code Section - Calculations and Measurements 26.575.020 (B), the height of the structure is 26 feet 6 inches. The maximum permitted height in the Moderate Density Residential (R -15) zone district is 25 feet. The chimney is 31 feet high. If the applicant redeveloped the lot, the new development would be required to meet the Code requirements. As a result, when the right -of -way is dedicated to the City, the front yard setback will be non- conforming. Currently the front yard setback is 35 feet. After a reduction to facilitate the right -of -way, the front yard setback will be only 16 feet, though 25 feet are required. The Community Development stafffeels that a minimum setback of 16 feet is appropriate on this site. The distance for minimum setbacks is something that can be negotiated during the annexation process. When aligned with the property to the north, the facades of any new development will be similar to the northern lot and the existing duplexes. As shown in Figure 1, the line drawn across the front of the buildings is an approximation of the location of the minimum setback. It fits well with the properties located to the north. Across the street, the affordable housing units have an even smaller requirement for front setbacks, as shown in Figure 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 11/13/2008 Page 11 of 20 • t * I D� 'WI *- * 11I N J I - I 'l l 1 .1 ij N , MINA >1 A ll r h S i `I ' t u =€ ! r• A I_ 7 � t lot r �• r �J THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: March 5, 2008 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 00011.2008.ASLU (201 S. 7' Street (Mal) Amendment /zone district designation). The planner assigned to this case is Errin Evans We have tentatively scheduled the hearing on the Map Amendment request for July 1 51 before the Planning and Zoning Commission. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. 2. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. our Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, to begin the land use review process. then your application has been deemed complete Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429 -2759 if you have any questions. Than < You, Jennifer Phe eputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department C: \Documents and Settings \jennifep \Desktop \organized \G Drive \Templates \Completeness Letter Land Use.doc OPERATING AGREEMENT ! GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET, LLC THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT OF GUYSUTA SEVENTH STREET, LLC (the "Agreement ") is dated as of the 29th day of December, 2007, by and between Guyasuta Seventh Street, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Company "), and Guyasuta Development Company, a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as the sole member of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Member "). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Member and the Company desire to set forth in this Agreement certain matters relating to the management and control of the Company and to set forth the basis upon which future members may be admitted to the Company. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: Article I Intent of the Parties 1.1 Entity Disregarded for Tax Purposes It is the specific intent of the parties to this Agreement to form a limited liability company that is to be treated as a disregarded entity until additional members, if any, gain membership and then the intent is that the entity be classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. Article R Oreanizational Matters 2.1 Principal Office and Mailing Address The initial principal office of the Company is located at 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15215. The Company may have such other offices, either within or outside the State of Colorado as the members may designate or as the business of the Company may require. The mailing address of the Company is 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15215. 2.2 Registered Agent and Registered Office The initial registered agent of the Company as required by the Act to be maintained in the State of Colorado is Michael Shook, 1685 Graceland Drive, Carbondale, CO 81623. The registered agent may be changed from time to time by the members. APO* OON 2.3 Name The name of the Company shall be Guyasuta Seventh Street, LLC. The Company's business may be conducted under any other name or names deemed advisable by the members. Article III P urpo s e 3.1 Purpose and Business. The Company is formed for the object and purpose of engaging in any lawful act or activity for which limited liability companies may be formed under the Act. 3.2 Powers The Company is empowered to do any and all acts and things necessary, appropriate, proper, advisable, incidental to or convenient for the furtherance and accomplishment of the purposes and business described herein and for the protection and benefit of the Company. Article IV Duration of the Company 4.1 Duration Bruce B. Weiner formed the Company by filing articles of organization on December 28, 2007 (the "Effective Date ") with the Colorado Secretary of State. The period of duration of the Company commenced on the Effective Date and shall continue until terminated pursuant to Section 16 of this Agreement. Article V Allocation of Profits and Losses 5.1 Allocation of Profits and Losses In any year in which there shall be only one member, the Company and that member intend that the Company shall not have any standing to be treated as a partnership for United States federal income tax purposes but, rather, the Company shall be disregarded as a separate taxable entity and the sole member shall treat all of the profits and losses of the Company for federal income tax purposes as income and loss of the member directly. In such case, and as the case may be, the member shall include such profit and loss on such member's tax return. In any year in which there is more than one member, all items of profit and loss' shall be allocated among the members in proportion to their respective membership interests in the Company. For any membership interest not owned for an entire fiscal year, any such allocations shall be prorated for the time such membership interest was owned during that fiscal year. 5.2. Allocation of Items for Federal Income Tax Purposes Subject to Section 5.1 above, to the extent permitted by law, all items of Company taxable income, gain, loss, credit and deduction recognized or allowable for Federal income tax purposes shall be allocated and credited or charged to the members in the same manner as the revenues, income, receipts, costs or expenses giving rise to such item of taxable income, gain, loss, credit, or deduction are allocated and credited or charged. Any member allocated and charged a particular cost or expense shall be entitled to such deductions or credits as are attributable to such cost or expense in computing such member's taxable income or tax liability to the exclusion of any other member. Upon the sale or other transfer of any asset of the Company, any recapture of depreciation deductions or other deductions previously taken shall be allocated to the member to whom such credit was originally allocated. Article VI Capital Contributions 6.1 Capital Contributions When, if ever, there is more than one member, then the members shall agree as to the capital contribution required to become a member. 6.2 Capital Accounts When, if ever, there is more than one member, a separate capital account shall be maintained for each member to which shall be maintained in accordance with applicable Treasury Regulations, including but not limited to the requirements of Treasury Regulation Section 1.704, and each such capital account shall be credited for each such member (i) its capital contribution and (ii) its share of all Company revenues as allocated to it under this Agreement, and shall be debited with (iii) its share of all costs, expenses, and losses of the Company as allocated to it under this Agreement and (iv) the amount of any distributions made to it. Article VII Management 7.1 Representative Manaeement The Company will be managed by a Manager or Managers as appointed by a majority vote of the Members. The initial Manager shall be Bruce B. Weiner. The voting members of the Company, by majority vote can appoint additional managers at any time. 7.2 Time Devoted to Business Managers will devote only the amount of time to the Company's activities as is reasonably necessary to discharge the managers' responsibilities. 7.3 Powers and Authority (a) General Scope The Manager shall have full power, authority and discretion to manage and direct the Company's business, affairs and properties, including, without limitation, the specific powers referred to in Article 3.3(b). (b) Specific Powers (1) The Managers are authorized on the Company's behalf to make all decisions as to (i) the development, sale, lease or other disposition of the Company's assets; (ii) the purchase or other acquisition of other assets of all kinds; (iii) the management of all or any part of the Company's assets and business; (iv) the borrowing of money and the granting of security interests in the Company's assets (including loans from Members or Affiliates); (v) the prepayment, refinancing or extension of any mortgage affecting the Company's assets; (vi) the compromise or release of any of the Company's claims or debts; (vii) the employment of Persons for the operation and management of the Company's business; and (viii) all elections available to the Company under any federal or state tax law or regulation. (2) Each Manager on the Company's behalf may execute and deliver (i) all contracts, conveyances, assignments, leases, subleases, franchise agreements, licensing agreements, management contracts and maintenance contracts covering or affecting the Company's assets; (ii) all checks, drafts and other orders for the payment of the Company's funds; (iii) all promissory notes, mortgages, deeds of trust, security agreements and other similar documents; (iv) all articles, certificates and reports pertaining to the Company's organization, qualification and dissolution; (v) all tax returns and reports; and (vi) all other instruments of any kind or character relating to the Company's affairs. (c) Delegation (1) The Managers may delegate the right, power and authority to manage the day -to -day business, affairs, operations and activities of the Company to any officer, employee or agent of the Company, subject to the ultimate direction, control or supervision of the Managers. If the Managers appoint an officer of the Company with a title that is commonly used for officers of a business corporation, the assignment of such title shall constitute the delegation of the authority and duties normally associated with that office, subject to any specific delegation of authority and duties made by the Managers. Any number of offices may be held by the same person. Any delegation hereunder shall be revocable at the sole discretion of the Managers. 7.4 Manner of Acting (a) General A Manager may act with respect to any matter within the scope of his or her authority if there is one Manager or if there is more than one Manager at a meeting of Managers or pursuant to formal or informal procedures adopted at a meeting of Managers. Procedures that may be adopted at a meeting of Managers include, without limitation, the establishment of dates and times for regular meetings, procedures pursuant to which the Managers may approve a matter without a meeting and the delegation of duties and responsibilities with respect to which the delegate may act without approval or ratification by the other Managers. (b) Meetings If there is more than one Manager: (1) Right to Call Any Manager may call a meeting of Managers by giving written notice to all Managers not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the meeting. The notice must specify the date of the meeting and the nature of any business to be transacted. A Manager may waive notice of a meeting of Managers orally, in writing or by attendance at the meeting. (2) Proxy Voting A Manager may act at a meeting of Managers through another Manager authorized by signed proxy. (c) Written Consent The Managers may act without a meeting by written consent describing the action and signed by Managers whose voting power is at least equal to the minimum that would be necessary to take the action at a meeting at which all Managers were present. (d) Required Approval The Managers' unanimous approval is required for any matter arising within the scope of their authority, subject to any procedures adopted at a meeting of Managers pursuant to Section 3.4(a). (e) Participation by Non - Member Managers The fact that a Manager is not also a Member in no way limits the Manager's right to vote on any matter properly within the scope of the Managers' authority under this Agreement. 7.5 Agency Power and Authority A Manager apparently acting for the Company in the usual course of its business has the power to bind the Company and no person has an obligation to inquire into the Manager's actual authority to act on the Company's behalf. However, if a Manager acts outside the scope of the Manager's actual authority, the Manager will indemnify the Company for any costs or damages it incurs as a result of the unauthorized act. 7.6 Fiduciary Duties (a) Standard of Care (1) Liability for Wrongful Acts A Manager is liable to and will indemnify the Company for all costs, expenses or damages attributable to an act or omission that constitutes a material breach of this Agreement, gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of law. (2) Justifiable Reliance A Manager may rely on the Company's records maintained in good faith and on information, opinions, reports or statements received from any Person pertaining to matters the Manager reasonably believes to be within the Person's expertise or competence. (b) Competing Activities A Manager may participate in any business or activity without accounting to the Company or the Members. A Manager may not however, accept a business opportunity for the Manager's own account that the Manager believes or has reason to believe the Company would accept if brought to its attention. A Manager must disclose to the Company any business opportunity of which the Manager becomes aware. If the Company declines to accept the opportunity, the Manager may pursue it for the Manager's own account. If the Manager fails to disclose the opportunity, the Manager will account to the Company for any income the Manager derives from the opportunity and will indemnify the Company for any loss the Company incurs as a result of the failure to disclose. (c) Self - Dealing A Manager may enter into a business transaction with the Company if the terns of the transaction are no less favorable to the Company than those of a similar transaction with an independent third party. Approval or ratification by Members having no interest in the transaction constitutes conclusive evidence that the terms satisfy the foregoing condition. 7.7 Indemnification of Managers The Company will indemnify each Manager for all expenses, losses, liabilities and damages the Manager actually and reasonably incurs in connection with the defense or settlement of any action arising out of or relating to the conduct of the Company's activities, except an action with respect to which the Manager is adjudged to be liable for breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the Company or the Members under the Act or this Agreement. 7.8 Compensation The Company may, with the approval of the Members, compensate any Manager for services to or on behalf of the Company. The Company will reimburse each Manager for reasonable expenses properly incurred on the Company's behalf. 7.9 Tenure (a) Term. A Manager will serve until the earlier o£ (1) the Manager's resignation; (2) the Manager's removal; (3) the Manager's Bankruptcy; (4) as to a Manager who is a natural person, the Manager's death or adjudication of incompetency; and (5) as to a Manager that is an Entity, the Manager's dissolution. (b) Resignation A Manager at any time may resign by written notice delivered to the Members at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of the resignation. (c) Removal The voting members of the Company may remove a Manager at any time upon a majority vote of the voting membership interests of the Company, with or without cause. (d) Vacancy If a Manager for any reason ceases to act, the voting members of the Company, by majority vote will promptly elect a successor, to serve until a successor is elected and qualified. S. Title to Company Property All real and personal property shall be acquired in the name of the Company and title to any property so acquired shall vest in the Company itself rather than in the Manager or the Member. 9. Reimbursement of Member The Member may be reimbursed for all expenses incurred on behalf of the Company. tt 10. Distributions Distributions shall be made to the Member (in cash or in kind) at the times and in the aggregate amounts determined by the Manager and as permitted by applicable law. 11. Elections The Manager may make any tax elections for the Company allowed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the tax laws of any state or other jurisdiction having taxing jurisdiction over the Company. 12. Assignability of Membership Interest The economic interest of the Member in the Company is assignable, in whole or in part, either voluntarily or by operation of law. 13. Admission of Additional Members Additional members of the Company may be admitted to the Company at the direction of the Manager. If a new operating agreement or an amendment and restatement of this Agreement is not executed by the members in connection with the admission of the first additional member, this Agreement shall terminate upon the date the fast additional member is admitted. 14. Liability of the Member The Member shall not have any liability for the debts, obligations or liabilities of the Company or for the acts or omissions of any other member, manager, officer, agent or employee of the Company except to the extent provided in the Act. The failure of the Member to observe any formalities or requirements relating to the exercise of the powers of the Member or the management of the business and affairs of the Company under this Agreement or the Act shall not be grounds for imposing liability on the Member for liabilities of the Company. 15. Indemnification The Company shall indemnify the Member and those authorized officers, agents and employees of the Company identified in writing by the Member as entitled to be indemnified under this section for all costs, losses, liabilities and damages paid or accrued by the Member (as the Member or as an officer, agent or employee) or any such officer, agent or employee in connection with the business of the Company, except to the extent prohibited by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In addition, the Company may advance costs of defense of any proceeding to the Member or any such officer, agent or employee upon receipt by the Company of an undertaking by or on behalf of such person to repay such amount if it shall ultimately be determined that the person is not entitled to be indemnified by the Company. 16. Dissolution (a) The Company shall dissolve, and its affairs shall be wound up, upon the fast to occur of the following: (i) the written direction of the Member, or (ii) the entry of a decree of judicial dissolution under Section 8972 of the Act. The death (or dissolution in the case of a member that is not a natural person), retirement, insanity, resignation or bankruptcy of the Member or the occurrence of any other event that terminates the continued membership of the Member shall not cause a dissolution of the Company. OUVA (b) Upon dissolution, the Company shall cease carrying on any and all business other than the winding up of the Company business, but the Company is not terminated and shall continue until the winding up of the affairs of the Company is completed and a certificate of dissolution has been filed pursuant to the Act. Upon the winding up of the Company, the Company's property shall be distributed (i) first to creditors, including the Member if the Member is a creditor, to the extent permitted by law, in satisfaction of the Company's liabilities; and (ii) then to the Member. Such distributions shall be in cash or property or partly in both, as determined by the Member. 17. Conflicts of Interest Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the right of the Member to enter into any transaction that may be considered to be competitive with, or a business opportunity that may be beneficial to, the Company. The Member does not violate a duty or obligation to the Company merely because the conduct of the Member furthers the interests of the Member. The Member may lend money to and transact other business with the Company. The rights and obligations of the Member upon lending money to or transacting business with the Company are the same as those of a person who is not the Member, subject to other applicable law. No transaction with the Company shall be void or voidable solely because the Member has a direct or indirect interest in the transaction. 18. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without reference to the conflicts of law rules of that or any other jurisdiction. 19. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Member with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, express or implied, oral or written, with respect thereto. The express terms of this Agreement control and supersede any course of performance or usage of trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof. 20. Amendment This Agreement may be amended or modified from time to time only by a written instrument executed by the Member. 21. Rights of Creditors and Third Parties This Agreement is entered into by the Member solely to govern the operation of the Company. This Agreement is expressly not intended for the benefit of any creditor of the Company or any other person other than the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Member. Except and only to the extent provided by applicable statute, no creditor or third party shall have any rights under this Agreement or any agreement between the Company and the Member, with respect to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, has adopted this Operating Agreement as of the date of filing the Certificate of Organization, to be effective for all purposes as of the filing of the Certificate of Organization. MEMBER: Guyasuta Development Company By: Airway Park, Ltd., its general partner Brube B. Weiner, Pre)ident MANAGER: G Bfuce B.1 iner Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Prepared for: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Prepared by: Bluegreen October 24 2008 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request table of contents I. introduction page 2 a. annexation request b. authorization letter c. operating agreement II. petition page 13 a. completed petition b. property legal description /proof of ownership— attachment a c. affidavit of circulator d. proposed annexation map (four (4) full -size copies attached) III. annexation statement. page 21 a. description of how request meets the statutory and local criteria b, proposed land dedication map (ten (10) full -size copies attached) IV. development rights summary page 30 a. description of entitlements granted by Pitkin County to be maintained after annexation V. initial zoning page 33 a. completed application form b. pre - application conference summary c. general statement on zoning request /vicinity map and other graphics d. proposed zoning map (twenty (20) full -size copies attached) e. improvement survey (one (1) full -size copy attached) f. compact disc containing digital files (one disc attached) bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 1 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request I. Introduction A. Annexation Request This application contains a request for two actions • Annexation of the subject property, located at 201 South Seventh Street, into the City of Aspen —a portion of the property was previously annexed into city in 2003, and • Establishment of the newly annexed property's initial zoning as R -15— moderate density residential. The subject property, also known as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision, is currently zoned R- 15— moderate density residential —in Pitkin County. The lot is 33,945 square feet in size and was created before June 12, 1978, pre- dating Pitkin County's subdivision regulations. The minimum lot size for the R -15 zone district is 15,000 square feet. The lot's current land use is residential and it is improved with a single - family residence. The applicant has met with the City Attorney and city planning, engineering and parks staff, as well as Pitkin County planning and zoning staff, to understand the benefits and constraints of this annexation request. The benefits to the applicant include: • Providing design flexibility under the city's land use code. • Legally being contained within the City of Aspen, rather than just appearing to be within the town limits by proximity and existing municipal utility services. • Clearing up a confusing title issue The benefits to the city include: • Ensuring neighborhood compatibility and community character through the city's land use code, including residential design standards. • Simplifying the city boundary to improve emergency service response. • Enabling the remaining portions of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood to become a part of the city through future annexation. • Capturing additional real estate transfer taxes without the need to extend city services or infrastructure. • Clearing up a confusing title issue. • Creating pedestrian and bicycle improvements on Seventh Street to complete an important missing link of the Hopkins Avenue Bikeway and city sidewalk network through a land dedication and new sidewalk and curb and gutter. • Enabling future street and drainage improvements through a land dedication. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 2 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Authorization Letter 04 February 2008 Bruce Weiner Guyasute Seventh Street LLC 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 RE: Annexation Request Authorization Dear Bruce: This letter serves to authorize Bluegreen to act on your behalf to prepare, submit and process a request for annexation of your property Into the City of Aspen, Colorado. The property to be annexed is located at 201 South Seventh Street in Pitkin County, Colorado. The property Is legally described as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision. If there are any questions regarding this authorization, you can be reached at (412) 782 -0200. Sincerely, Sheri Sanzone,AICP /ASWLeedAP Accepted by: x'/-08 LLC bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 3 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. Operating Agreement OF THIS OPUATINO AORMIENT OF OUYKMA SSVSNfH SMWr, LLC (dw "Apmcaotot7 is chid as of dw 296 dip of Dswmbac, 2007, by and bkwsa OaFaauk Somk Street. LLC, a Cokrado lb*od liability oaapaa7 (" " Y'L and Oryaaa► Dwdopmeat Campaoy, a PaoorA ads 16adard parmaabip, a tbs wk member of 60 Campow(b4mbAftsrm dtoathe "lfocow). RZMALS WIMPEA3, the Mamba and the Cam"" dedra to asst forth is his Apetnoent catdn mauma rdadog to to maaymad end eosoml of the Cmopagy and to sat forth the basis upon vdd& fiche members may be admhlad to the Caapm. NOW THEREM 13, In e000kku ion of to metal eovesants haelo codaioed, and otbw vak bie conddsradm, the WAipt and wlOieoey of whkh ac hemhy actmotvlodlrod, doe pwdes heteeo aBcee a R&wr. ArddeI IwUrAof 66 Pudol 1.1 Ym*v nlamaardad for Tors Htr , It is tir spaeifle Wad of the parties to ibis Agmsmmt to Sxm a Ymllyd liabi5ty oattpaay &C Is 10 be hated as a dtaceynded sa[tty until additional rocnbeM if ate, yin and thm dw tdcae i1 *0 be eadty be chmilkd w apatttaa bdpA1r 0001 o-:e 2.1 Peiwioal OfRm and Ma_oim Addm& The Ild id prioeipal of5w of the Owupaay is loaded at 139 Freeport RM4 Snit 20% PWAKIlly PA 1521S. Tke Compaty rw Dove sack cow often eldw wM& or oubd& do Stan of Coloeado a to mambm my doWSuoe at as the bxdmms of t to CompM may require. The me addtea of the Cbempsmy Is 139 Praport Road, Suite 200, Maio *4 PA 15215. The initial re0domd ayod of tin Company to rsodnd by tin Act a M molutdo i in IAe Saco c(Colomdo b)&dw4 Skooll , IM Orauland Ddvq Carb� 00 91623. The reSbtered aRmt may be e8ayd fi am dowto time by tic members. bluegreen 04 february 2006 revised 24 october 2008 4 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request 2.LXM The now of La Company shall be Clayauxa Smrdh SOW, I.I.C. The Compoq"s bmdnas may be oohed omder my other name or names domed a6lubia by the n mmbdcL The Company b formed ox the o4m and purpose of in any kwlbl act or nadvhy for whd6 linked Habit ampmia may be bred under the Act. 32 Pows The Company L aaparrad b do any and all acts sd Map tuna ay mvpropdna proper advinablI4 %ddmhl in or convaoied kc the 6mthaaea and coca pushma t of de papoem and badness I e I bide and for 6o p vtoodo n and benefit of dam company. Amflele TV 4.1 jam. Bnm B. weioa k med do Company by Min Kd*s of orPollan kn on December 20, 2007 (oho "EillillineQve Ddt wI6 oe Col rado Saecaary of State. The period of de cation of the Company oom o mead on Le Effalive Dab and deti om mane anal knoiaoned pasuaa b Sedon 16 of 6k Agromocd. Ardds V 5.1 AHbmd a of PrdW and twma to ray year in wildch here *AH be only one member. the Company acrd *at masher km adl &a the Company mW not have any shmdll ` to be hawed as a patoaa6fp for Udted Suft federal leoome tax p rpoaee bon, athm, 6e Compaq shell be dagneded as a sepasbs taxable mtlty and Le vole mamba dill heat alt of oat prorb and loom doe Company IN faded koome its purposes a Woome and tern of the member fimcoy. in such come, ad w the owe may be, oat member"iodmde sudm profle and Iwo on neh membah tax ream bi any year in wwbidm Loan to am Am one member, aB kams d pmo6 and loss dell be aUoa/ed gong Lae mambas b peoporllon to 6* ompeedw meabenhip linemats in the Company. For any membmxabip I I not owed fer on cndw fiscal yea, my arch dkcdkoa shag be pmmakd fx ono time web m omimildp items, was owned diming Let oval yaw. 51 Allocation of lUm for Pamhea traemra Tie Pararaa. Subject b Section 5.1 Move, to 6e mlemt pemmkfed by law, al {hems ofCxwW taubk koome gale, IOM credit and deduction roeor6od or stowable Iles Fedatd peoam to purposes d all be alocaad and credited or ohwged b der members k the ease maear a 60 MVWAWa, keome, radpts, coma or cq msw ghkg the to such ism of aeoble kcem, gale, loss, croft or dedoodon bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 - 5 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request sw atloaeed and creditd or dmqp& Any member albcalad wd aged a partioolr cost or espmw shill be enfitled b each dedoe iass or raedito as we amMoble to such cost at asperse in aompuft mcb mcmbds tssablc ino*no or wx liability b the emelodon of any ather smrmI Upon 6o alc a other i amfaa of say grad of the fbmpwy, any recepWe of depredation deductions or ostler dc&wdom pwdoody Ween shall be sllocatod to the member to whom such credit won oridiatly allocbed. When, haver, there b more than one member. than the mnbers shall agree as to the capital oontrN ion ralo d to became a member. 6.2 Camttal A=ut When, if ever, dm is more than oar member, a separate apiW swoon shall be m oinroimed for each member to which shell be maintained in socordamce with sppFA" Tm=y RWkfiaus, imeluft but mot limited b Ow requirements of Treasury Re{ hdon Section 1. 701, sod each such *Vitt soconnt shall be credited &r each such member (i) lts cWIWW eamldbutim and (11) its slate of all Company revemtes as slloa to it wda Sds Agwoman% sad shall be debited with (iii) W dare of all eosb, =vow=, and Imes of the C.ompony as albowd to it umkr this Agreement amd (iv) fhesmountofany &AMbUtIOM madebk. ArBele VII t Tlw C*»pmy will be mmaged by a MaaVer or MsoncessaanvintodbyanWo tyvoceoftheMembers .TheWWtMasgashat(beBruce EL Weiner. The voting members of the Compwy, by ma)arlty vow an appoint alp umal M . At any dme. 73 Tbm Rigim d ro Bas m Masters s will devob only the arwum of d me to the Company's wtintm a is reasonably necessary to discharge the manWe mporoPoil iaL (a) Gwgw . The Meta a shall havo fall poursr, sudxk* and diaaolbmto mmsgc and dhootho Compeco business, sp *5 and prop erda, bwta8og, without lisdWion, the spedfic powers refereed b in Ardele 330). l r = 71 (1). The MamaVasaewhoriadadMeCompmysbandfvomdm all decisions as b (i) ibe dovaiopmmt, ado, lease or other dupaitiom of the Compays asset; (6) do pusebete or other wquWdon of odwrusers of all kinds; (ili) the mmgpmem of all or any part of the C.wTw3 s ands end business; (iv) the borrowing of money and don bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 6 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request AffiIIamP.(V ) arq Yom. vdmndm O ofany marow dbdlng dw Cempmpra ,tab; (vi) the oompmmlm or talisman, Many of 6e Caaapap'a chilies or debt; (v* the empbymentof Pasms IN 6a aperadon and mm11geomt of tke Compsles ba bow and (vHD all eledima wmld Ja b 6e Campcp coda coy I m aaae tax iew or rardodom (2) Fach MmW an dw Ono pamys beW my acaaib and dedvw Q) an 00e11eds, conveyance, awpanada, James. sAksms, agtasAemb, maoyamant ooshaW cad msJalfmaoe toahaets eowxiea or a ffewme the Compaq's accts; 00 a8 checks, drafts and o6a mdse for dwppamaofdw CmprW� (6 @ Y �� to dw and calmr Campmq+s acg�aUos apol8atlonad dimoldlos5 (`) d 41111 m11m wd rape,; ad (vq dletbuuhuhtmmbofanykindterdwacla svhthagb6cCampary'sa III ra (c) lkn (t) 7LeMmopmOaydelepda the ftX POW ledmWwdtyto masse the day b.day bmaaess. of ms. "Ww m and **Abe crow Co vwso my office, employee or spas of dw Caayany, subject to 69 dlaate d redlm, 00111104 of supervision afdwbk ym IfdwMmgmeppobtam officer ONO C aapanywidratith tkM b oomanabmed ibrotBcas of a bns(sas mcpetatlon, the aaadp�meot of sucit$de>bag emmitkotaft deJaoA tithe sudw ad &d c nmm qr associated with6d COMM vAjad ofet�oete of my person_ Any dekNdom6vemeder "beravvoc"at� 6e We disaetioa of6e Mamgera. 7A (a) AMmw may adwifh MT" to may matter wbNndw scope , fhb at her anEmrityif6ae is one Mamgerar if*m is mac 6m tae Maaga at It medlagafMamgm or pmmmto Reeml or Romnal peocadam adapted at amomingaf Mam as. lkoa da ethatmaybeada pteda taaaaeett11goi Maaagmhdudgwitkoat lbaitatin dw eMabtlahmetofdab sadtimelbrrwAwmeedr4p poeednesprasmdb W bI c l k t b(MM smayoppmamadewhbmdatoo tmddadebgalimofdo"ad smpomibilide wi6 teipectto wbkh6o Mosaic momy ad WAM yaprmA or 1811116011140 by 600 otba Maoagm. (b) . 4f6eeIs mom tb noneMmoga: ltivhttnCall. Any Mesya may cog ammftofMaw4mby *WOE wdttm actke loan Mmagm not lea 60 sm (1q) aor am 6m sixty (M days p11m to 6e date of&* aedird. The xetiee mm spoils dw date of*A m ellims and IM aI re of any bacbm to be ,.named. A mlaw may main nice of a rmedng ofMaaagers wily, bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 7 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request in writing or by attendance at the meeting. (2) ppgyyadnn A Mansgermay act a s meeting of Manages through another Managa+udwrbad by signed posy. (c) W klsii Cameet 73he Managers may act without a meaiog by wdtka oosemt describing the action and signed by Managers whose voting power is at teast egod to the miaimmn that would be necessary to tales the action at a at which dl Managers were present. (d) 7ha Msmag aoanimous appmvd is required for Soy matteradsbyiwitbia tha scope atthdr nabarity, sob)ect to any procedures adopted are meeting of Managers pursuant To Section 3.4(e). (c) The fret that a Maosger is not duo a Member in no way baulk Me Manapefs do to vote an any mater properly wlttbh the mope of the Mmagera' autbodty under thin Agreement. 7.5 Are E=zA&UjftW Company In the umdcamo eofitsb oloaa has t rppa�Y ifar4e pow: b bead The Company and no person has an oblW" to iogma into the Mmoves SonW auTaruy To act on the Company'sbehsl£ Howova, ffa Manager acts eshaidedo amp oftheMansW oadual Authority, the Manager wig indann* the Company for any costs or damages It Incurs as a rauhofthe unauthorized act. 7.6 gam. (a) Standard of (1) A Massager Is liable b and will Wdanmlfy the Company fees an coMa expenses or damages emibhdoble to an at or cociasilon tbd constitutes a msanld beach of this AgreemaN, pose negtgatrs, wlllfbl misconduct or a violation of law. (2) . A Mssaagamayrdy on dw Company's recoxb maintained In good Seim and on hdomatce. opimams, repots or owname ceoeived f3rcm Amy person perhlming to haTers the Manner rauosibiybelieves to be widdo the Pa sonbexpertimarcompafeaee. (b) . A Manage may pwdWPMC in any business or activity wihout accounting to The Company or be Membm. A Mmaga may not, however. s rapt a bunions Opp r ashy *C 60 MUMMW9 own anooum the Abe Manager believes or has reason to Whavo tbC Company wotdd accept If bmaghtTo ks almtfoo. A Msmper must disdow b mC Ccmpaoy any busiseas opp honky otwhiob the hfanagcrboacron same. V The Caenpsoy deeHms to WOW the eppodmily, the Manager may ptrrane it far The Managers OwnSCCOont If the Wow fiftsto disdaeto opportunity, the bUnW witl account to bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 ocfober 2008 8 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request theCowpug for aghumrthebhoWdaivah m 6c c"actoofty andwill iadmnif7 the Company for any low de Cmipny loans ere a m* of me hHure to dkelome. (c) 9dERlWW& A Mwilnr may a wInto a twdum Umm on with mo Compaq if the Inns ofd o tmoMefift M to ime frwmbie to the Compnpr the rhos¢ afaeimileraa� >imwlManNdepmde,m�lprty. Appoalaotd6atlaabyMcmboa hn* no 1/06 te 000011 in dIe rnadbn conadhtm emchdsa addace and mm WMAR taidy fm fotepuiq aodliao. 7.7 Thetbmpmywill bft=4 each MEW forma ; baea, Habilitia and damps b Maeyu scut efly and reasonably bans hi comootionwithMd WI -Or Olt&WA tc fagac8oaaetebgate[0rmiasmato0m cood mapWlowdbhtheManapr add to be lisbla far ketch of a Mucky duly owed 10 dun Campuq or me Mawbere under the Act or Lds Atramat. 7A Mm C oopmymay ,wimm oapprovat ofthe Maobmm , refirborm oub WINOW fee Nunn mogweer Property Incurred m 60 Company'$bdox 79 Isom (a) I= AMmoadmwiLLaavaeotilldw aeNaroL (l)tlaMONVes rs ipmft( 2) the Mamym' smon" 4 (T)dwMtmader'tBm0uasty,(4)a pr who is anwAW pw=6 mo Maaga's domha aOWkWa dhrampaaeoar,, and (5) as to a Macaw mac is an Entity, Poo MmusgWIa dool tioa (b) RUWalda AMmaprat say thtmamwsltbywA notice ddivaedtodmblw* sat Wed miay(30) days priorto deoffoodw damn of ineYCKPSUon. (c) Aamw6 The vdngzowb®afiwCempmor mow MMMa Mmater at ay dame Ww amuoodty vote of tdm rododmmmbarhtp b"co efine Company, wit orwilboat cause. (d) Yxaocdt If* Meeapem 'faaymarnaasestm act, mevoft mm*m of 0m Compay, by auQehy vo6e wM po m *G W a emoarm, w save until a owcarar is dee6ed and gwbW S. Tide to Con omew Prearie Ali rad and personal property dad" be acquired is th nummo rime CunpM ad"to day propmp' a aogahed ahaH ved lathe Company iWfnoer mm to dm Mumpror me Member. 9. Tho Wo6or any bo roimbormad for all cxpaom Inaated en behdfdmc COamplW . bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 9 of 44 guyasuta seventh street plc annexation request 10. n apsmom"be made to Poo Member (in omb or in kind) al the times e sm owes determined by do Manager and as pemmhad by applicable law. 11. $ bdisio. 1EoMwgermgmaioeagyuxale�iiomfortheComy�myalbwod Under the Idomal Revame Code of 1986, as amended, or the tae laws of any shoe or other Ica wktim having taxing jorisma ion over do Company. 12 JIMUd. The oomomic laaest oftho Member in the Cwmpany is aaignabk, in Whole or in part, dlhar volwtwily or by operation of law. 13. . Additional members of der Company may be a bnkted to the Company atthe dbeedm oftbe Manager. Ha new opantimg agieemao m an amm&la t and mWmmd of this Agreement is mi cxecutod by the members m connccdon with Poe admisa[mofilm Amt additional member, this Agreement shell immisee upon the date the fhit additonai manta is admitted. 14. teat .ott *A1Na. r . The Member shall m have say llnAk for the debt, obHgadona or Habilides of the Company or for the acts or amiadaas of any other member, manager, officer, area or employes of the Company accept to the asked povided in the Act. The failure of the Mrmberto observe my formalities or raphemmh rc a ingto the exomim of the powers of der Member or the atamagemesrt of the business and dWrs oftee Company wrier this Agreement or be Act shelf amt be Vowels eels for imposing liabilityoo der Member for liabilities of Poe Caapay. IS. 12JOUddida. The Company shall indemify the Mcmbcr amd throe adhaizod officers, egcmq and employees of Poo Company idmtifod in wridn8 by the Mambas ontided to be iodUVmriAal under gds emotion for all coat, banes, Habilitlea sed damages paid aeommdby the Member (at the Member orasan officer. agemeremployee) at any such officer, again or employee In connection with the business ofthee Company, except to the exleotprobibMed by Poo laws of Poe Commonwahh of pawylvaala. in addition, the Company may advance orals of I oma of any proceeding to the Member or any such officer, alma or employee ape receipt by the Company of on undertaking by or on behalf ofsuch parson to repay a"amamt if it sbalf uhimetely be docemined that die person is not emkled to be hdaratMedby the Campaey. 16. pi . (a) The Company abed diaofiq and its affairs shall be wand vA Wpm the Ana to ooeaof1hefohbwio& (1) the wMandkaUonof the Member ,or(IL) the etryof& deem of ) u&Wdissobdimemdrr Section IMofdwAct Thedodb (or dissoMminft cam ofa member that is note owed prim), rdirom os, breezily, rosigsadm orbantmplcy of the Member or Poo oaarramm ofay other oven that tmndaaas dm oaaimmd membership of the Member shelf not cow a dissoldim of the Company. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 10 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request (b) Upon dismlotlae, coo Caapry"eme.) on my and an buabep other menthe wladiog up otdw Camptgv ba I but coo CWM is and ttemimted and shallOm11 aobTcoowlndi ng apotthoaf '1'rimoftheCompagitsamptandanda oatifloateof &mloim has been SWpwmAto60AOL Uponfrwiodin{npofths Compmy, me Company's pmpaty shall be d odbowd(i) first lo emdhaa, Waft me MembertfAebf ®Ixrisaria 9 loybfifeeatenps®" bybw,bwiWatbmofthe CouPO7h HAWN; and (})dwsbthoMember. So&distAutlomsbdlbeinOAor p vpmty orparliy 1m both, se ddambW by me Member. 17. CmfikkAhAwm& N4109in dig AVemod3hsllbeCCD*ucdto6adt th rWof*e Member tosuerfoiesaytrm ecdcmtbdmaybeamddmadtobecompedtive with, or abminewonmrlomby dot mybebeoa &WONd oCompe y. Ile Umber dece mw violab ad* or obliwtionto to Company mer* Wow Qx ow" of me Member fathom be i ftoo of the Member. Tao MwAft my lard money a and oeamact Omer bmbewwlmm6Compsuy. Tbesl0 0ndobUSMbmof*A Member upon haft MMY b of tmem efm8 bmhrm waft Cmpomy we the same as fim of a Pam who is not the Member, addea b other ap ac" law. No tmwotlm wlmfhe Compw shall be void of voWbie eddy boom= the Member has adireof or Wired irmeral in me traw AOm 18. Governing law 7hb ASmmwm sbdl be tJnnfined bY. wd ioonpreted and w1broed in accordance wlm, to wbwntive baa of me Cmmmmnwalm of Pemrylvaeie6 widow feCerwto to the eomafcbaf kw nuke ofdmd or cry Omer jwbdicdom. 19. Aa9m.Af MWW- ToiaMorwmtomdrateafheomherVeueatotdre Member with raped to the solloct m" hereof ad Rgewd" OR FW Oaeemoms eaprcw or implied,Ordaswittem , wNhreopatthaew. TbeeaI wemaatmbASreemedconkol *ad a wmede any own ofpafoam moeorwWoftrode komddmt with any of the farm hemot 20. Alm. This ASrwneat may beamemdodorrooditiedhomtimetodme only by awrittet b*omert m muted by due Member, 21. This ASfeementb emteod ioa by dw Member wkly W pv m dw % aatlm dtbe CompaE. TMs ASteemam b aspearly not huemI fofthebcwMof=ycovOwof die CompOWOeanyethsrptawnode 'mancoo hdw, pmomi rapramtMfva, wocciam and amps of coo Member RwW and only b the anewpovidedbyapplicabbOh oocr" tororthWpatyafadihavamYdAbwndar cob Agaemew ormy agreemed between On Compey and me Member, um rowed llo me subject mdeer hereof. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 11 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request IN WM4M Wfl1 MF, the ander4=4 toMmUm lo be kpity booed, bn Adopted thin OperWag Apoomeet a of the dde ofBlbg the Ceet &ab of Orpabwdon, to bceffe dwfordlpxpcmneof16ANNoftheCadiad cc(Orpabation. MEMB6tt: GVuvft DmlopmsW CompmW Br Ahwaf Park, Ltd, its penad puma v oR Webmr. ftWmt MANAGER: 6 7 - L_ eeB. kra bluegreen - 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 12 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request II. Petition A. Completed Petition PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN PURSUANT to the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 ( "Act "), Part 1, Article 12, Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, as amended the undersigned (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner') hereby petition the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 33,945 square feet (.78) acres and as Lot 3 of the Adams Subdivision, is more particularly described on Attachment "A," attached hereto. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, the Petitioner alleges: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -108, C.R.S., exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one -sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen, Colorado. 5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 7. In establishing the boundaries of the territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate, has been divided into separate parts or parcels. 8. No annexation proceeding has commenced for the annexation to the municipality other than the City of Aspen, Colorado, of all or part of the area described above. 9. The annexation proposed in this petition will not result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same area to another school district. 10. That the Petitioner herein comprises more than fifty percent (50 %) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50 %) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen, Colorado. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment "A," legal description of the land. The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures there from at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 13 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment "A." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Petition for Annexation this Ck day of February, 2008. Petitioner's/Owner' Signature >3s C e 6. W �7-7, KE VL Petitioner's /Owner's Printed Name 139 roeEEPOPT 2V Address P, i15BL)Qw4 r PA is a i s City, State, Zip bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 14 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Legal Description of the Annexation /Proof of Ownership — attachment A CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitldn Comity Title, Inc.. a duty licensed Title hLwrnce Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certiSes that GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET, I.LC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY are the 0wrices in fee simple of the foilowiog described property: LOT 3, ADAMS SUBDIVSION, woordhV to ft Ptk Inraof worded May 14, 1973 in Plat Book 4 at Papa 385. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 201 South Seventh St., Aspen, CO 51611 Dead of Tn* born : GUYASUTA SEVENTH STREET, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY To 6w PubkMusias of the County of PITION For the us* of : SIT BANK Original Amount 14,367.600.00 Dated : Jsmwy 3, 2006 Recorded : January 3,20M Reception No_ ;646469 AssWWd of Rents recorded M connedion with the above Deed of Trust was neowded Januery 3, 2006 as Reeeptcn No 646470. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guaranke of tide and is fitmished for infoematiawl purposes ordy. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: authorised signamra CERTIFIED TO: Jnumy 31, 2008 at 6:00 A.M. Job No. 21786CO bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 15 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request Onowbtyfssit26A0 WARRANTY DEED TINE DEED. mint.p U"3.20M BOOM DANIEL!. AMRT�JIU rd AMY N.E. MOMINEAU Glff*c t*4t Must GRkVm AMIOWASMASEYENINSTREET. LMAGOLORAOOLONTEDLIABIL Y COMPANY ORWM MIOM Rttt1a41wfM: tltfllleglT llW�.iUTl t7i�PR101MG1. PA tRti MIMCanAiN .ftOWPA SiKI1ATURES ON PAGE 2 AKrm 1K 1 P.QnKsm t110WMAti NLtAOf CO t16ti bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 16 of 44 Lora OAMWttDfiAUOK wept I Ob UN 14 .111TibPIR wlOk rti�yNtO ra 101110111 -9 t wild M4►I ODWttb febtlssitwMAitAwttaNtissWppitln fW&" ttrtiplgnee ab07 w1yu .tUrwb QAIdinpadnmddJsM1'11977 lettak r PSMRt, guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request RATE Or OOAONAOO ) • DOUR" OF FRNN ) TM1 'W f" rWIfeYAAW1/�0lAAiVf 11MN1 � YfT dJANUARY >. DIVII&1AA RIMMI rd WYNAWATIMI M1. TITA11lM fyTfnOfMoAArfMflfl �. frjoamfpia�fMPMt klflaRT }yfUO 1. ST F <O PCT21TOK4 bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 17 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request V"mrr w t. teww Wwpls'1�24Oa nOl yNdwaMyMr . 2 1!}1htKwp elawrwbrbalerr tanwlsww ab ao MM S W ek O he Male A kwelb w►ap.»ane 0rimMrA /MOFN.Oook�r� tAada BYil.►rneneaaaNNrl. /RBgn a. ammeeft as bnbw Dewo Mao"" UNION CmpwwmlwawAW Oeredls21. 1M01h look 177N Pills 13, N 1 mw) �IreelwatdtlwCpRplsy. a leeelwP1l 111d dpbtafM�MMaINkgl/rweiwbnor dwYRiaiM bls KplbOl�Mlpewk�e blby Clore Eler81CIMmamm. Awl. n wetraNet Now" m Mask M rwn W. 6 Bwwmewkt' N eH Nrwamla 6ldtklq Wwot!'rdledblbel ally eaeewxRwblW popert /IM,r daelrea an P4lctwl#ct PopwytmktdaMtll H.1R3 N RIt 9aok /N PpeJ16. R sow town nt N ON be N mokw4m reeoaea&Q W2At1MkM0M*4r2wl►pe2t2. 7. TimN, oowabone. piwWred Neat b'dINPaNbn gaxdwd 441.lMin BoMS13 ro mdLelrrareeewaNlaY1.111! leokil2eePapwaaiotaOeMNemeeaAd71 , Ingle moo 013st Pop !11 and Lab" ww 1,11MN Irk 111 N pop IM. R TMw, ewaiidw4 pvvwm MW clop me a 49 N M Y FAmlsNrmbWHNy13,IMlFBOek977St Peperm, R F�enrrdewtl �pllo }rylbranikN4:tetpnirebepdo4iodm Ue w welam r a to 0*Cwms Eleek(C MxNBm,kq. Nks4weeareOtatl Jr,Yy 17.11HUlodclBrwtWgw 71. 1a fenaycrm EkeWANOWA A MG, N alebwlsrawNarbd SWWftw4111l b g" M MPaM 725. 11. T emla.. ewrllwA pindems aN r Ntta11 h AeleNkRFOO Dmswm nOMW Aqi 21,20110 so neerpam kka 44755111 Or�rd i2 BrMe AMO .ft.hWpOmwlwmded Awmell.20MMRweepl WZ121 bNOy CnOe 13. Twm mletalse, MvliewOra nla eelyalowran dxa+ r+enoA. Crdat er 1Mil[ Aar«memwn 1hy Uals ewwie ANCCWW. Ills.. nmr' AOptl bk2000M Rweprwtb. 411012 14 Wwww—cm�md lsw wdWmwOftdkherlsw dwwoabNlyd aeaW paglsyMsAtlew an SWW7by A1pw BWwr Eptm m bo.salad Dww-W=7. M Job rin 2RMOMM bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 18 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. Affidavit of Circulator STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states: That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature therein is the signatur f the person whose name it purports to be. c Ci culator's Signa ure :4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this t day of February, 2008, by W &V(C R in WITNESS my hand and official seal. dia" � gneNl Comm ss�xpiration Notary Public COMMONWEAL OF PENNSYLVANIA Notam, Seat Mom Pub C joftg r. ; , r J my My Cortxnssiori Expues Mar. 4, 2010 MVrkV' P""ylvania Msoriaoon of Notad" bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 19 of 44 Y N d J Q N C 0 X v c c Y v A � u Y T m w Wr O. 10 C c O Y x x d c C 10 w 0 O CL 0 a �r /U Ot nr � ~ I r W a . m s z �' - Q ?es g43 3 W E 3 Y Z s? V z � -7 Ir� Ir ! z ! � Y•'e O a e O .J �S U ` r- P. � nr } y U �7 ka x� r I� _ HtN i J k' a I` I I 4 Fk SE §5: Pu x M�z 3t i yy �j 8 € £k k 8 s Y� $ z q J P $$6 :as ;9:s $ aka �r /U Ot nr � ~ I r W a . m s z �' - Q ?es g43 3 W E 3 Y Z s? V z � -7 Ir� Ir ! z ! � Y•'e O a e O .J �S U ` r- P. � nr } y U �7 ka x� r I� _ HtN i J k' a y:. F. I I - (. N .� I ° Y o I E I 4 weaz� - § "s g Waq P. F4 z I` I I e° 9 r u Y u Pu y:. F. I I - (. N .� I ° Y o I E I 4 weaz� - § "s g Waq P. F4 z �' Gt•S ZLE I = a) f 4 4 Y a F Z 4& g cg <� x L Eb IT Q O O N 0 O N W a i O N v W W O O N J a w a 0 d O1 OI v J UW 1 I` I I �' Gt•S ZLE I = a) f 4 4 Y a F Z 4& g cg <� x L Eb IT Q O O N 0 O N W a i O N v W W O O N J a w a 0 d O1 OI v J UW 1 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request III. Annexation Statement A. Description of how request meets the statutory and local criteria STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA 31 -12 -104 Eligibility 1. That not less than one -sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right -of -way area, public lands (except county -owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man -made waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed. Subject to the requirements of CRS 31 -12 -105, contiguity may be established by the annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed simultaneously and considered together. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation meets this requirement. The perimeter of the area proposed for annexation which is contiguous with the City of Aspen municipal boundary is 41.35 percent, or 770.08 feet, of the total perimeter. 2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are shown to exist: a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area propose to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality; recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not apply. b. One half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. c. It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi - municipal corporation. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation meets the contiguity requirement. The criteria above do not apply to the proposed annexation. 31 -12 -105 Limitations 1. Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 1 to the contrary, the following limitations shall apply to all annexations: bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 21 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request a. In establishing the boundaries of any territory to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, shall be divided into separate parts or parcels without the written consent of the landowners thereof unless such tracts or parcels are separated by a dedicated street, road, or other public way. b. In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting of one tract or parcel of real estate or two or more contiguous tracts or parcels of real estate, comprising twenty acres or more (which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax purposes for the year next preceding the annexation) shall be included under this part 1 without the written consent of the landowners unless such tract of land is situated entirely within the outer boundaries of the annexing municipality as they exist at the time of annexation. In the application of this paragraph (b), contiguity shall not be affected by a dedicated street, road, or other public way. c. No annexation pursuant to section 31 -12 -106 and no annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31 -12 -107 shall be valid when annexation proceedings have been commenced for the annexation of part or all of such territory to another municipality, except in accordance with the provisions of section 31 -12 -114. For the purpose of this section, proceedings are commenced when the petition is filed with the clerk of the annexing municipality or when the resolution of intent is adopted. by the governing body of the annexing municipality if action on the acceptance of such petition or on the resolution of intent by the setting of the hearing in accordance with section 31 -12 -108 is taken within ninety days after the said filings if an annexation procedure initiated by petition for annexation is then completed within the one hundred fifty days next following the effective date of the resolution accepting the petition and setting the hearing date and if an annexation procedure initiated by resolution of intent or by petition for an annexation election is prosecuted without unreasonable delay after the effective date of the resolution setting the hearing date. d. As to any annexation which will result in the detachment of area from any school district and the attachment of the same to another school district, no annexation pursuant to section 31 -12 -106 or annexation petition or petition for an annexation election pursuant to section 31- 12 -107 is valid unless accompanied by a resolution of the board of directors of the school district to which such area will be attached approving such annexation. e. (I) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), no annexation may take place that would have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year. Within said three -mile area, the contiguity required by section 31 -12 -104 (1) (a) may be achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right -of -way, a public or private transportation right - of -way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Prior to completion of any annexation within the three -mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. Such three -mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have the effect of dividing a parcel of property held in identical ownership if at least fifty percent of the property is within the three - mile limit. In such event, the entire property held in identical ownership may be annexed in any one year without regard to such mileage limitation. Such three -mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone. (II) Prior to completion of an annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31 -12 -104 (1) (a) is achieved pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (e), the municipality shall bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 22 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request annex any of the following parcels that abut a platted street or alley, a public or private right - of -way, a public or private transportation right -of -way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway, where the parcel satisfies all of the eligibility requirements pursuant to section 31 -12 -104 and for which an annexation petition has been received by the municipality no later than forty -five days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31 -12 -108 (1): (a) Any parcel of property that has an individual schedule number for county tax filing purposes upon the petition of the owner of such parcel; (b) Any subdivision that consists of only one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within the subdivision as determined pursuant to section 31 -12 -107; and (c) Any subdivision filing within a subdivision that consists of more than one subdivision filing upon the petition of the requisite number of property owners within the subdivision filing as determined pursuant to section 31 -12 -107. (e.1) The parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) shall be annexed under the same or substantially similar terms and conditions and considered at the same hearing and in the same impact report as the initial annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31 -12 -104 (1) (a) is achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right -of -way, a public or private transportation right -of -way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Impacts of the annexation upon the parcels described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) that abut such platted street or alley, public or private right -of -way, public or private transportation right -of -way or area, or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway shall be considered in the impact report required by section 31 -12- 108.5. As part of the same hearing, the municipality shall consider and decide upon any petition for annexation of any parcel of property having an individual schedule number for county tax filing purposes, which petition was received not later than forty -five days prior to the hearing date, where the parcel abuts any parcel described in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (e) of this subsection (1) and where the parcel otherwise satisfies all of the eligibility requirements of section 31 -12 -104. (e.3) In connection with any annexation in which the contiguity required by section 31 -12 -104 (1) (a) is achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right -of -way, a public or private transportation right -of -way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway, upon the latter of ninety days prior to the date of the hearing set pursuant to section 31 -12 -108 or upon the filing of the annexation petition, the municipality shall provide, by regular mail to the owner of any abutting parcel as reflected In the records of the county assessor, written notice of the annexation and of the landowner's right to petition for annexation pursuant to section 31 -12 -107. Inadvertent failure to provide such notice shall neither create a cause of action in favor of any landowner nor invalidate any annexation proceeding. (f) In establishing the boundaries of any area proposed to be annexed, if a portion of a platted street or alley is annexed, the entire width of said street or alley shall be included within the area annexed. (g) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (f) of this subsection (1), a municipality shall not deny reasonable access to landowners, owner of an easement, or the owner of a franchise adjoining a platted street or alley which has been annexed by the municipality but is not bounded on both sides by the municipality. (h) The execution by any municipality of a power of attorney for real estate located within an unincorporated area shall not be construed to comply with the election provisions of this bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 23 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request article for purposes of annexing such unincorporated area. Such annexation shall be valid only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article. RESPONSE: None of the limitations described above are applicable to this annexation request. LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA AACP Compliance Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan's goals, objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed properties should be assigned zoning supporting public policy directives of the AACP. RESPONSE: The Future Land Use Composite Map indicates that the property should be a residential land use. The property is also located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The city zone district that would best support the AACP 's policy directives for the residential land use designation is the R -15 district. The Transportation Improvements Map envisions the portion of Seventh Street immediately adjacent to the property (between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street) to be closed as a part of the Entrance to Aspen Improvements. The proposed annexation meets the goals and objectives of the AACP's "Managing Growth" chapter in that it contains growth —an existing residence and its potential redevelopment — within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is served by existing infrastructure, Including city water and district sanitary sewer. The "Transportation " chapter contains goals and objectives for encouraging the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes. The proposed annexation area supports this goal because it is located a block from Main Street, the city's primary transit corridor, and immediately adjacent to the Hopkins Avenue bike and pedestrian route. The annexation request proposes to dedicate a portion of the property to the city to allow for pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements. This lot area is located adjacent to Seventh Street and is illustrated on the "Proposed Dedication" map. The dedication allows the extension of a sidewalk from Hopkins Avenue and Main Street to be constructed by the applicant. The dedication also provides for future trail and street improvements to be constructed by the city sometime in the future. Action items 75, 77 and 78 are addressed with this land dedication. The AACP's "Housing" chapter promotes the development of housing to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary and to reinforce good city form. The proposed annexation supports this goal. The property looks and feels like it is already within the city's limits. It is located on the edge of the city's traditional pattern of blocks and lots. Any redevelopment of the property will comply with the Residential Design Guidelines, further supporting the intent of this goal. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary via adoption of the 2000 AACP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the city's urbanized area and should be considered appropriate for annexation. Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non -urban character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 24 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request RESPONSE: The property contemplated for annexation is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, is already urbanized and should be considered appropriate for annexation. A portion of the property is already located within city limits. Significant Annexations Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the city in it analysis of a significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the city can require complex administration of development rights, especially when amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner. Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and quasi - governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As necessary, formal referral comments or work session - format meetings can be held to identify these concerns. RESPONSE: The property contemplated for annexation is not considered a significant annexation, as defined above. Fiscal Impact Analysis The city should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands upon each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special fund revenues that are gained. Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent countywide sales tax, including a provision distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered as more service responsibilities shift to the city. RESPONSE: Again, the property proposed for annexation is not considered significant and will not require a fiscal impact analysis as described above. Further, the property is already developed and is served by city water and district sanitary sewer. The property is located on Seventh Street and will not require additional infrastructure improvements that could cause a fiscal burden on the city. The city will benefit by the application of the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) on the property for all future transactions. The city will also benefit if the property is redeveloped as the various impact fees assessed at building permit issuance will be in effect. Development Rights /Zoning Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County versus those if the property is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the city weighs an increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals available through annexation. A complete understanding of a property's development potential, prior to annexation, should include a zoning build -out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as growth management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 25 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the regulatory structure upon the city should be considered. Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation, unless a site - specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The creation of non - conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address special interests can further complicate the city's regulatory environment. The city should encourage the legalization of "bandit units" through the city's Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding Aspen. RESPONSE: The subject property is currently zoned R -15 in Pitkin County. The current development condition of the property is summarized below: General Information Name Lot 3 of Adams Subdivision Zone District R -15 Moderate Density Residential Use Single - family residence Special Considerations Pre- Existing Lot (created prior to June 11, 1978) and located within the Urban Growth Boundary Dimensional Information Total Lot Area 33,945 sf Minimum Lot Size 15,000 sf Front Setback 30 It Side Setback 10 ft (if lot size is less than 30,000 sf) Rear Setback 10 It (if lot size is less than 30,000 sf) Principal Building Height 28 ft Accessory Building Height 20 ft Lot for Floor Area 19,565 sf Floor Area Ratio .16 Gross Exemption 5,750 sf Existing Gross Floor Area 4,470 sf (per Building Permit application, dated July 1989) Potential Floor Area 8,470 sf (existing gross floor area plus 4,000 sf with use of TDRs) Floor area exemptions allowed in the county include: • Crawl spaces if less than 5 1 6' height. • Subgrade space if no walkouts, no deeper than 20 feet and no more than a single story. • Garage up to 750 sf. Transferable development rights (TDRs) can be purchased to allow using these floor area exemptions. TDRs on the current market are available for $300,000 in 2,500- square foot increments. No special review is required for the use of TDRs. With the purchase and use of TDRs, the property's ultimate floor area could be 8,470sf. Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights Certain lands in the County within the city's annexation area are eligible for increased development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs). Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of TDRs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs necessitating acknowledgement of the realized increased development right. biuegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 26 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request Until the city adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County transferable development rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR- contingent land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area. RESPONSE: The development potential described above identifies the opportunity to use one or more TDRs if the property remains in the county. The proposed annexation request does not contemplate the use of Pitkin County TDRs once annexed into the city. Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations As Aspen city limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental constraints and hazards on development increase. Pitkin County's 1041 regulations address development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard areas, and within wildlife corridors. The city's Environmentally Sensitive Area review standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040 -foot elevation. The County's regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the infrastructure and operational effects of development. The city's land use code encourages the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural character. In transition areas, the city's PUD regulations should be used to establish an appropriate balance. Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each jurisdiction's development regulations and design standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be considered. The city may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation. Alternatively, the city may require a cash payment to accommodate expected city capital improvement and operational expenses. The city currently has no experience administering remote backcountry and Forest Service lands. These lands could require significant changes to the city's emergency services. The public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals of such an action. Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District to administer development at the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing, recreational, commercial, and tourist - oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit Development. This zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be appropriate for the Buttermilk Ski Area base, upon annexation. RESPONSE: The area proposed for annexation is not affected by Pitkin County's 1041 regulations. It is located outside of steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas, rockfall and avalanche hazard areas and wildlife corridors. It is also not encumbered by the city regulated flood hazard areas or 8040 -line development review. The property is immediately adjacent to the original townsite and its distinct block and lot form. Any redevelopment of the property, once annexed, will comply with city residential design standards ensuring the compatibility of its architectural character. The property is already served by city infrastructure provided within the Seventh Street and Hopkins Avenue rights -of -way and no upgrades are anticipated. Infrastructure and Ability to Serve Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 27 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request extension of the city's municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a significant annexation issue. Currently, there are several small water districts serving residences located outside the city's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may present a problem for the city as their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable standards of service. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the responsibility of the city following annexation. The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the city's municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed by the City Council and found in compliance with the AACP in order to obtain city water service. In these cases, the city often requires compliance with city development regulations. Property owners developing a property eligible for annexation should consult the city's Community Development Department and consider annexation. RESPONSE: The property proposed for annexation is already served by city municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. No extensions of service are being requested. Simplicity of City Boundary The city /county boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of city police officers. Annexations simplifying the boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be avoided. RESPONSE: The annexation of the proposed property will help eliminate the city/county boundary confusion that exists today along Seventh Street. As stated earlier, the subject property looks and feels like it is already a part of the city. A portion of the property is already contained within the city's limits. An added benefit to the city, if this property is annexed, is the ability to annex similarly constrained properties in the future. The remaining county properties located immediately adjacent and to the west of this property also appear to be a part of the city and are already served by municipal services. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 28 of 44 v J Q v C O X v c c m u x� d v L Y C O1 U! V a J H 10 J m w�ylwe��rswim�rri�wi�rti+r� wr_wrr m ra+rir��rs ! MIS y4uanas � © 0 J 0 ai N 00 O O N L N d O i V O Q N a v v 0 0 N O J d w V O C N T d J R T L CL ra m C O Y u _V Ul C N 0 O CL O CL m 1 ' 1 � N ' ti I guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request IV. Development Rights Summary Pitkin County Current Conditions The subject property is currently zoned R -15 in Pitkin County. The intent of this designation is to provide areas for moderate density, single - family residential dwelling units with customary accessory uses. This district designation can only be used on properties located adjacent to the City of Aspen. The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. The lot area is 33,945 square feet. The allowable floor area is 3,814 square feet. The current residence's floor area is approximately 4,470 square feet. The amount of floor area which exceeds that allowed is grandfathered in Pitkin County. The following chart summarizes the lot's current development conditions. Current Development Conditions Total Lot Area 33,945 sf Lot Area for Calculating Floor Area 23,835 sf Existing Floor Area 4,470 sf Allowed Floor Area 3,814 sf Grandfathered Floor Area 656 sf A lot line adjustment and minor plat amendment was approved in 2000 which transferred 4,380 square feet to the subject parcel from the adjoining Lot 2 of the Sanddunes Subdivision. A condition of this approval is that the additional lot area cannot be used to Increase the allowable floor area of the subject parcel. This reduces the lot area for purposes of determining floor area to 29,565 square feet. Easements exist on the property and per county guidelines further reduce the lot area by 5,780 square feet. The lot size for purposes of calculating allowed floor area is 23,835 square feet. The two driveway easements provide access to three improved lots located to the west of the subject parcel. An approximately 2,940 square foot area located along the lot's eastern boundary is the subject of a warranty deed. This deed was created to convey the land to Pitkin County in the event the county would initiate improvements to Seventh Street. The deed was recorded in 1988 but the land is still legally considered a part of the subject parcel. The applicant proposes to dedicate the warranty deed area, plus additional lot area, to the city for similar purposes as a part of the annexation request. In 2003, the city annexed a portion of this area, along with Seventh Street and Hopkins Avenue, in the Seventh Street /Hopkins Avenue Corridor annexation. Since the Seventh Street corridor is now completely contained within the city limits, it is more appropriate that the warranty deed be conveyed to the city. The applicant requests that the area of the dedicated land still be included in the lot area for purposes of calculating floor area. Pitkin County Development Rights The permitted uses under the County's R -15 zone district include: • Single- family residences. • Customary accessory uses. The minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet would allow the creation of two lots, combined with the GMQS process or the purchase of a Transferable Development Right (TDR). bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 30 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request The County's R -15 zone designation includes a .16 floor area ratio, which as described above, sets a cap of 3,814 square feet. The district also includes a floor area exemption of up to 5,750 square feet. In addition to the grandfathered floor area described above, the applicant has the ability to construct up to 4,000 square feet of additional space through the use of a Transferable Development Right (TOR). A TOR provides up to 2,500 square feet of floor area. This would enable the construction of up to 8,470 square feet of floor area. More than one TOR may be used. The County's floor area calculation exemptions include • Crawl spaces if less than 5'6" in height. • Subgrade space if no walkouts, no deeper than 20 feet and no more than a single story. • Garage space up to 750 square feet. City of Aspen Development Rights The permitted uses under the County's R -15 zone district include: • Detached residential dwelling. • Duplex residences. • Two detached residential dwellings. • Customary accessory uses. The minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet would allow the creation of two lots, combined with the GMQS process, or the creation of two single - family residences or a duplex residence on a single lot. The total floor area allowed in the city's R -15 zone district for a single family residence is 5,636.7 square feet, and for a duplex is 6056.7 square feet. The city's floor area calculation exemptions are more restrictive in many ways compared to the County's exemptions and include: • Decks, balconies, stairways, gazebos (unless total area exceeds 15 percent of allowed floor area). • Porches and landscaped terraces. • Garage space up to 250 square feet, 251 -500 square feet of space is discounted 50 percent. • Subgrade space if completely below grade, otherwise percent of exposed wall deducted from allowed floor area. • Linked pavilion if no more than one -story tall, 6 -feet wide and 10 -feet long. TDRs in increments of 250 square feet are available through the city's historic preservation program. One may be used per residence. Any potential remodel or redevelopment of the property would be required to comply with the city's residential design standards. The County does not include a design review of this level of depth and specificity. Summary A comparison of the county versus city development rights is summarized below. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 31 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request County v City Development Conditions Total Lot Area Lot Area for Calculating Floor Area Allowed /Grandfathered Floor Area Potential Floor Area (w/TDRs) County City Single Family City Duplex 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 23,835 sf 33,945 sf 33,945 sf 4,470 sf 5,636.7 sf 6,056.7 sf 8,467 sf 5,886.7 sf 6,306.7 sf bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 32 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request V. Initial Zoning A. Completed application form 1PPLICANT: Conditional Use Name: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Location: 201 South Seventh Street, Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Parcel ID #: 2 7351231 5003 IRPRESENTATIVE: Name: Sheri Sanzone Location: Bluegreen, 300 South Spring St. Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 9 42 - 7499 'RO7ECT: Conditional Use Name: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC Annexation Request Location: 201 South Seventh Street, Lot 3 Adams Subdivision Phone #: N/A ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA -8040 Greenline, Stream, Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment 0 Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Lot 3 of Adams Subdivision is located in both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen and is currently zoned County R -15 for moderate density residential areas. Lot is Improved with a single - family residence and is served by municipal utilities. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Request to be annexed completely within the City of Aspen and to establish city zoning under the R -15 district for moderate density residential areas. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S 2.940.00 ® Pre - Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement N/A Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 33 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for annexation and zoning map amendment (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT makes payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and /or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit In the amount of $2,940 which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the Initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and In no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Jennifer Phelan Community Development Deputy Director APPLICANT B a+— Mce Weiner/ - Guyasuta Seventh Stre LLC Date: = Bill To: 139 Freeport Road, Suite 200 Pittsburgh PA 15215 (412) 782 -0200 bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 34 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request B. Pre application conference summary CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429 -2754 DATE: 1/28/08 PROJECT: 201 S. 7th Street REPRESENTATIVE: Sheri Sanzone, Bluegreen OWNER: Guyasuta Seventh Street LLC APPLICATION TYPE: Annexation DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property, currently located in Pitkin County, is considering annexing into the City of Aspen. Annexation is governed by Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS 31 -12 -102 et.seq.). An overview of the annexation process and an example petition for annexation can be found at: http: / /www.as eennpitkin.com /pdfs /debts /41 /annex_ I�Ddf It is important to note that a property's perimeter boundary must have a minimum amount of contiguity with the City's boundary to be able to annex and that the subject property is urban or is urbanizing and is capable of being integrated and serviced (utilities, etc.) by the City. The applicant may wish to schedule a development review committee meeting to understand if any improvements would be required of the property as part of an annexation agreement prior to submitting a petition for application. If the Applicant is not securing any development approvals in conjunction with the annexation (other than zoning of the property) it will be important to include a summary in the annexation proposal on the existing development potential of the subject property within the County compared to the development potential within the City. Once an annexation petition is filed with the City Clerk, the City (through the City Attorney's office) Initiates the annexation process as outlined in the City's Annexation Plan. As part of the annexation process, the City concurrently initiates zoning of the property to a City zone district. Land Use Code Section 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures (as applicable) 26.310 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map CRS 31 -12 -102 et.seq. (The City follows Colorado Revised Statutes with annexation) Review By: - Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - City Council for the annexation process - Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation on the zone district designation of the property to City Council Public Hearing: Yes at City Council and P & Z Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) associated with applicant initiated zoning of subject property Total Deposit: $2,940.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 4 copies of petition and map (state requirement) 20 copies of zoning (Map Amendment) application bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 35 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request C. General statement on zoning request /vicinity map The applicant proposes an Initial zoning of the property, once annexed into the City of Aspen, of R -15— moderate density residential. A zone designation of R -15 is the most appropriate zone district because the surrounding neighborhood is currently zoned County and City R -15 and City AH -PUD, and the property conforms to the dimensional requirements of the city's R- 15 zone district. The vicinity map below identifies the subject parcel and illustrates the neighboring zone districts. The Intent of the R -15 zone district is to provide areas for long -term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Lands in the R -15 zone district typically consist of additions to the city town site. This zone district designation was applied to the 2000 annexation of the Sanddunes LP parcel, located immediately adjacent to the subject property. In approving this previous annexation and recommended zoning, the city found that R -15 zone designation was the most compatible classification for the neighborhood and the transition from the city town site to Pitkin County. The proposed zoning map, included at the end of this section, illustrates the applicant's request for the R -15 zone designation. The responses to the following review criteria support this request. Section 26.310.040 Review Standards A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title RESPONSE: The proposed zone designation of R -15 is not in conflict with any applicable portions of the Land Use Code. The zone designation is the most appropriate for the property in that the intent is to provide areas for long -term residential purposes and customary accessory uses. The property is located immediately adjacent to city R -15 zoned properties, and is located directly across the street from properties zoned and developed for the more intensive purposes of AH -PUD. This request does not represent new land use policy or a change in policy for the City of Aspen. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 37 of 44 city of aspen zoning /vicinity map guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application (as applicable) and Annexation Petition. 5. Signed fee agreement (if applicable - there is no fee associated with submitting a petition for annexation and if staff initiates the zoning of the property; however, if the applicant submits the request for zoning the fee is $2,940.00). 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. An annexation plat. 30. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 11. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 12. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man -made site features. 13. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 36 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request RESPONSE: The proposed amendment supports all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), and in particular, the future land use, growth management, transportation and housing elements. The Future Land Use Composite Map indicates that the property should be a residential land use. The property is also located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The city zone district that would best support the AACP's policy directives for the residential land use designation is the R -15 district. The Transportation Improvements Map envisions the portion of Seventh Street immediately adjacent to the property (between Hopkins Avenue and Main Street) to be closed as a part of the Entrance to Aspen Improvements. The proposed annexation meets the goals and objectives of the AACP's "Managing Growth" chapter in that it contains growth —an existing residence and its potential redevelopment — within the Urban Growth Boundary. The property is served by existing infrastructure, including city water and district sanitary sewer. The "Transportation" chapter contains goals and objectives for encouraging the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle modes. The proposed annexation area supports this goal because it is located a block from Main Street, the city's primary transit corridor, and immediately adjacent to the Hopkins Avenue bike and pedestrian route. The dedication to the city of a portion of the property will allow for the extension of a sidewalk from Hopkins Avenue and Main Street. The applicant is proposing to construct this sidewalk as a part of this request. The dedicated land area also presents opportunities to the city for improving the Hopkins Avenue bikeway and for improving the street and drainage system. Action items 75, 77 and 78 will be addressed with this land dedication. The applicant is committed to working with the city engineering and parks department staff to maximize the opportunities presented by this land dedication. The AACP's "Housing" chapter promotes the development of housing to occur within the Urban Growth Boundary and to reinforce good city form. The proposed annexation supports this goal. The property looks and feels like it is already within the city's limits. It is located on the edge of the city's traditional pattern of blocks and lots. Any redevelopment of the property will comply with the Residential Design Guidelines, further supporting the intent of this goal. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed zone designation increases the subject property's compatibility. The surrounding city zone districts are R -15 or the more intensive AH -PUD designation. The surrounding city land uses include single- family residential, duplex residential and multi - family residential. The transition the proposed amendment would create to Pitkin County zone districts and land uses is identical to the transition created by the Sanddunes LP property located immediately next door on South Seventh Street. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The subject parcel has an existing driveway onto South Seventh Street. The property also includes a private access easement for a driveway servicing three developed properties located immediately to the west —Lots 1 and 2 of the Adams Subdivision and Lot 2 of Sanddunes LP. The proposed amendment will not increase traffic generated or decrease road safety. As a part of the request for annexation, the applicant is offering a land dedication and pedestrian improvements to the City of Aspen to greatly improve road safety. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 38 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. RESPONSE: The subject property is developed with a single- family residence, and is already served by public facilities including municipal water and district sanitation utilities. The applicant is contemplating a remodel or reconstruction of the existing residence. No increase in demand for these services is anticipated. At the time of building permit processing all city fees, including school and parks mitigation, will be captured. An existing ditch crosses the property and will not be adversely affected by the proposed amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: If approved, the proposed amendment will not create adverse impacts on the natural environment. Although located within an area of potentially steep slopes as identified by Pitkin County the lot is very flat with slopes of less than 10 percent. The lot is located outside of any city regulated environmentally sensitive areas. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the city. RESPONSE: The proposed amendment to the R -15 zone district ensures that the property is consistent and compatible with the city's community character. In its current condition, the subject property looks and feels like it is already located within the city limits. Following annexation, any remodel or reconstruction of the existing single - family residence will be required to be designed according to the city's residential design standards which will further enable consistency and compatibility. The R -15 zone district's intent is to provide areas for long -term residential purposes and has been used to amend neighboring properties as they were annexed into the city. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing two actions in this request. The first is to annex the subject property into the City of Aspen. In 2000, the neighboring Sanddunes LP property was annexed into the city limits. In a meeting regarding this application, the City Attorney expressed an interest in creating the ability for the remaining Pitkin County properties located in this area to be annexed into the city. The successful annexation of this property will create the required boundary contiguity to allow the remaining properties to be considered for annexation. Establishing an initial zoning is required as a part of an annexation. The recent successful annexation of the neighboring Sanddunes LP property was designated R -15. The properties immediately surrounding the subject parcel are zoned County and City R -15, both moderate density residential, and AH PUD, a higher density district intended for affordable housing. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and Intent of this Title. RESPONSE: The applicant does not believe that the proposed amendment will be in conflict with the public interest or the purpose and intent of the city's Land Use Code. The proposed amendment is required by Colorado statute to occur in concert with the proposed annexation. The proposed R -15 zone designation will ensure the compatibility of the property with its bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 39 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request surrounding neighborhood. The amendment will also be consistent with the action taken by the city in the recent Sanddunes LP annexation and initial zoning. Elements of the AACP will be met with the proposed amendment, and in particular, the future land use, growth, housing and transportation elements. bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 October 2008 40 of 44 v 12 c 0 X W C C A U UI N N L C d U1 N 10 5 N 10 T 01 ov.wm •.m.. , wm aY....w� �« dw wm"I, ,..Mw „ 4aaa4s g4Uanas Q s 1 r 2 ` 13�a1r H1 Nal^� S >Iz I y U f I 1 � i 0 I 2 I 7 O p � U O I ti 1ro U cz I C I _ I ; IM1 [c� R �e® F O J � 0 O O N l d a 0 L U O R N a W VI Gl l 0 O O N 10 a 0 c v v v W m O A fU Q C d N O O OJ C N Q A O O O N l N O 4 A O A A e A57 1115Y7 ' 3 s - 3 p Y S ' xxC $s5� �3 R iR B x + a 3' xg * vy, /\ \\ H s z 2 IM . � b %ate 3 age • a$ �EN ?di " 1 n ro �Y b Q a. hI b t qq]R ' < e b9 f e Y S � 3 P �R �is � Z L {eY Ft V 'z a <3 I HogRode. O T a s Ell s 'see.€ E^e C' 3 • i Y ' 9 O N C d N m S X r O fD G fD guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request F. Compact disc containing digital files (one disc attached) bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october2008 43 of 44 guyasuta seventh street Ilc annexation request bluegreen 04 february 2008 revised 24 october 2008 44 of 44