Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.301 W Hyman Ave.0073.2009 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0073.2009.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2737 18 2 09 003 PROJECTS ADDRESS 301 E HYMAN AVE PLANNER BEN GAGON CASE DESCRIPTION 5u O REPRESENTATIVE PETER FORNELL DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10 25 .10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 8.10.11 DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. John Cooper, 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 301 W. Hyman Ave., Block 47, North 60' of Lots H and 1 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant received approval of a Zone District Map Amendment, rezoning the property from R -15 to Affordable Housing/PUD; a Final PUD; Subdivision; and Growth Management for Affordable Housing; resulting in the demolition of an existing four -unit (free market) building, to be replaced with an eight -unit affordable housing building. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan Zone District Map Amendment, Final PUD and Subdivision by City Council on 4/12/10; and Growth Management for Affordable Housing by Planning and Zoning Commission on 1/19/2010. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 23, 2010 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 23, 2013 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 14 day of May, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Develop e Directo Chris Bendon, Community Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 301 W. Hyman, North 60' of Lots 1-1 and I, Block 47, Parcel ID# 273512467002, by Ordinance of the Aspen City Council numbered 7, Series of 2010. The Applicant received approval of a Subdivision, Final PUD and Zone District Map Amendment, rezoning the property from R -15 to AH /PUD. The approvals allow the applicant to replace an existing four -unit free market residential structure with a larger structure containing eight units of deed - restricted affordable housing. For further information contact Ben Gagnon, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 429 -2755. s/ City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times on May 23, 2010 b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner r 3C—r THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development Department DATE OF MEMO April 5, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 12, 2010 RE: 301 W. Hyman — Amendment to Zone District Map, Final PUD, Subdivision Second Reading of Ordinance No 7, Series of 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: John Cooper STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The project has been revised and staff recommends REPRESENTATIVE: approval of Amendment to Zone District Map, Peter Fornell Final PUD and Subdivision. LOCATION: SUMMARY: 301 W. Hyman Ave. Applicant requests that City Council determine that the Amendment to the Zone District Map meets CURRENT ZONING & USE standards of review; approve a Final PUD and R -15. Four (4) free market approve a subdivision. residential units on a 3,600 s.f. lot. PROPOSED LAND USE: ' Applicant seeks to demolish -�- r "` " ' existing free market 4 -plex and } replace it with a new and larger'. structure containing eight (8) deed- restricted affordable housing units. " Applicant requests an Amendment { 1 to the Zone District Map to rezone '" '" OW_ - the property from R -15 to AH/PUD, which requires a Final PUD Development Plan. Establishing eight (8) new 301 W.1 - Iyman residential units requires approval as a subdivision. ( tio LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council: 4 • Amendment to the Zone District Map FRezoning] — An application for 4 Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. 4 • Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions 4 or deny the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approval with conditions or deny the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. IJ f . Q ,// __� 121 / �& ' 21U b!F� ��� ' • - 0 Asg4m Jinvi'ern lauty Camer V ,: 212, . - r' IW .l .4 ,0, 63 � �`.4 t 195 y p "t 'UD x0, r a w � 0 200 t '� .,so w r a �/ ` � r �� � V SS, .144C, }� 1 ti ,!2 tz2 1`�" p Y r 1 l �I / _ . 3 - d I F,, { // w Ob. 501 +"V- 1 13: ;;,- 7M' _ 'a 1 2C'5 . ., r / t r 175 "�' _ • / ' ,: 116 I 31: t18 '126 , / /, , Z `, 43' 0 7}l ',D ^ 2 / 101 / 1 a,5. 10a W / i , J / /�� / ,/ F'tQ41N 3r e...77_,.,7 R -15 °' 71 hbP '" ' - r �1 / e / :10" 21e 71 2t1. YS . R-6 .. 210 2 , 7 ^ / .. . 3Yi Y // ' �j/ r'/,/,' I Drain/Trans : / ,,- ...' fr '" i ';',,, "" , / 1 / :i l ` **+ / ,Ib o q f / `" • //4 //0 I '+ok, /�/ vg 145 p . r /// '''',.\\ WO " O � j A 7 7 \ 21 . PUB ? '' hr --... 'tr . _ . 4 e.. j lio 4 4 127 i. _ �, A "•mot '' •...t--...,; l.., \ T, ° J - Il " "`.. �• Govw,wt.20F P \ 40. r - 115111; +`. '� ' , ..., , -• 107 6hy �. -a - 21 FAMNTa MT;t Oki i h r[ � ° / 4 _ a ! erw Fmry / 8 us PUD E � - f P h •. e'.Yt / / / / I / /// 0 ..: • .. / The subject parcel at 301 W. Hyman is indicated by the arrow at left. Note the city ice rink just to the east of the subject parcel. 4 2 4 CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL SINCE 1 READING: The applicant has responded to concerns voiced by staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council regarding architecture. Staff is now satisfied that the architecture meets the required standards of review. Improvements include changing the narrow gables on the roof to longer shed roof forms; significantly expanding the 2 floor decks and creating improved first floor entries on the north and south sides. Also, the previous plan featured a second floor that was wider on the north and south sides than the first floor, creating an unusual "mushroom" element. The new proposal makes the first floor footprint equal to the second floor, and also expands the size of the first floor units to more livable spaces. (Please see Exhibit A for new Elevation drawings; a full "rendering" will be presented at the April 12 public hearing before City Council. Elevation drawings are technical in nature; the full -color rendering will provide a better feel for the new architectural treatment.) In addition, a recent suggestion by the City Engineer has allowed for improvement of the site plan. The City Engineer would like to see the pavement area on Second Street between the Ice Rink and 301 W. Hyman narrowed considerably in order to reflect the dead -end of Second Street. This allows for more buffer space between the proposed structure, a new five foot sidewalk leading to the Midland Trail and a new three -foot landscaped buffer between the new sidewalk and the head -in parking. (Please see Exhibit B; new Site Plan.) Also, rather than a zero -foot setback on the west side of the subject parcel, the new site plan moves the structure three feet off the property line, creating a buffer with city -owned land to the west. Finally, the structure is being moved three feet to the north to create a larger buffer between the structure and the Midland Trail, and a larger backyard area for the first floor residents. This backyard area is an improvement over the previous plan, which included a deck on the east side of the building. Compared to the larger and more private backyard to the south in the new site plan, the deck on the east in the previous plan would not likely have been used due to the direct view of the large mass of the Ice Rink, and shade in the afternoon. The improvements both to the site plan and the architecture has caused staff to change its recommendation of denial to a recommendation of approval. While much of this memo is identical to the memo provided in the First Reading packet, some sections between pages 6 -11 have been changed to reflect the new proposal. As requested by Council at First Reading, a Parking Department staff member will attend the public hearing on April 12 Also, a site visit has been noticed for noon on April 12 at 301 W. Hyman for any Council members or citizens who wish to attend. BACKGROUND: Of the three (3) separate land use reviews applicable to this proposal, this memo will focus first on the proposed Amendment to the Zone District Map fRezoningl and approval of a Final PUD Development Plan. Applicant is asking to 3 rezone 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH/PUD. The AH/PUD Zone District establishes dimensional requirements through the adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan. Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although City Council must review Subdivision criteria in this case, the standards of review for Rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The rest of this memo will examine each land use review separately, focusing on key elements of the proposal, and the most relevant standards of review. Complete staff findings for each standard of review can be found in the exhibits. Before beginning the staff analysis, Table 1 provides basic information on existing and proposed conditions. Table 1: Comparing Existing Condition & Existing R -15 Zoning to Proposed AH/PUD Zoning and Proposed PUD Dimensions Existing R -15 AH -PUD Proposed PUD Minimum Lot 900 s.f. 15,000 for 1- 500 s.f. for 591 s.f. for Area per (4 units on Family; 7,500 one -bed units one -bed units Dwelling Unit 3,600 sf lot) for duplex (7 units) (8 units) 2,240 2,568 for lfam 3,960 4,729 Square Footage existing 2,880 for duplex Front Yard 11' 25' No req. 3' setback (Hyman) Side Yard 8' (to east) 10' + 10' No req. 7'4" (to east) setback 5' (to west) 3' (to west) Rear Yard 17' 10' No req. 7' setback AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP [REZONING]: The two most relevant standards of review for rezoning in this case are: 1) Is this rezoning consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan? 2) Is this rezoning compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses? The staff memo will focus on these two key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit C. Consistency with the 2000 AACP. There is no doubt that the production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. More specifically, the AACP asks "The public and private sectors (to) work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27.) Similarly, the AACP "Encourage(s) greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27.) 4 Furthermore, the AACP seeks to "encourage (affordable housing) within the traditional town site ..." It goes on to say that, "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26.) This desire was reinforced in the Transportation chapter, which stated that, "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21.) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ," staff finds that the scale and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high residential /lodge densities. Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses. The proposed rezoning would change the property at 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH/PUD. According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, a zoning of AH /PUD would actually be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R -15 zoning. Y � f- _ 'u` i -' s r , ' it ,. _ Y �' ; lk . 1 r0 _ „L, s, 4 - - = !'-• ^y 4 -...l- & ~ * -� • Shadow Mtn. Lodge, at 232 W. Hyman. St. Moritz, at 334 W. Hyman. This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties i are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH/PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and `70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff review in Exhibit F.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because il the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and 5 • density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. In addition, the existing city open space directly adjacent to the west creates a 30 -foot buffer with the adjacent neighbor. CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PUD: The most relevant standards in establishing a Final PUD Development Plan for this proposal are: 1) Are the proposed dimensional requirements compatible with the neighborhood? 2) Does the proposal have an impact on traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation and parking? 3) Does the architectural reflect the intended use and does it enhance the visual character of the city? The staff memo will focus on these three key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. (Criteria for reviewing a PUD also includes consistency with the AACP, which was addressed in the previous section of the memo.) Proposed dimensional requirements. Most zone districts specifically establish dimensional requirements and limits. In the AH /PUD Zone District, there are "guiding" standards for floor area ratio and density, but all other dimensional requirements are established as part of a site - specific Final PUD Development Plan. Floor Area Ratio: Mass and Scale The AH/PUD Zone District includes a sliding scale for floor area ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 floor area ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft. structure, reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage was 4,486 — or 526 square feet over what the AH/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. However, this change made the second story of the structure wider than the first floor to the north and south, creating an unusual "mushroom effect." As the applicant continued to work with staff following Council's First Reading on March 22, staff suggested the architecture could be improved if the first story footprint matched the second story, removing the "mushroom effect." After agreeing to the suggestion, the adjusted square footage of the structure becomes 4,729 — or 18% over what the AH/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. This change also has the benefit of creating somewhat larger and more livable affordable housing units. One of the relevant PUD standards of review is whether the scale and massing is "appropriate" for the surrounding area. Again, referencing staffs review of the 6 neighborhood, the proposed 1.3:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is within the range of existing FAR in this part of town. (Please see Exhibit F.) Also, a mitigating factor is the existing city -owned land immediately to the west of the 301 W. Hyman parcel — this 30 -foot strip creates a buffer between the project site and the next (and last) house on the south side of Hyman Ave. According to the Parks Department, this city-owned land has been managed as open space for at least 20 years, and a city ballot election would be required to change its future use. Another reason that staff finds the mass and scale to be "appropriate" is the immediate context of the subject parcel, including the large mass and scale of the city's indoor Ice Rink, directly across Second Street. Staff finds that the existing buffer between the only adjacent residential neighbor, the existing high -FAR characteristic of the built neighborhood and the provision of eight new units of affordable housing all mitigate for the variation from the AH/PUD Zone District Floor Area Ratio "guide." Density The AH/PUD Zone District also establishes a sliding scale of maximum allowable density by assigning a Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit, also to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The guidelines are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Guide for Max. Allowable Density in the AH/PUD Zone District Unit Type Mb. Lot Area Per Unit Dormitory 300 sf Studio 400 sf 1- bedroom 500 sf 2- bedroom 1,000 sf 3- bedroom 1,500 sf 3+ bedroom 1,500 + 500/bedroom According to the PUD "guide," the 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one- bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. PUD standards of review allow for an increase in maximum allowable density "if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints." The PUD standards go on to identify "goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)." 7 By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown and a commuter trail, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this modest increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood. Table 3, next page, spells out the various dimensional "guides" in the AH/PUD Zone District, along with the dimensions proposed for the development at 301 W. Hyman. Please note that many dimensional standards have no requirement and no "guide." Table 3: Dimensional Requirements for AH/PUD Zone District, compared to proposal Dimensional AH/PUD Proposed @ Requirements Zone 301 W. Hyman District Minimum Lot Size No 3,600 sq. ft requirement Min. Lot Area / 500 sq. ft 591 sq. ft Dwelling Unit = "guide" Maximum 7.2 units 8 units Allowable Density = "guide" Minimum Lot Width No 60' requirement Minimum Front No 3' Yard requirement Minimum Side Yard No 7'4" east requirement 3' -- west Minimum Rear Yard No 7' requirement Maximum Site No 66% Coverage requirement Maximum Height No 24' requirement Minimum dist. Not N/A between buildings applicable. Minimum Open No N/A Space Percent requirement Allowable Floor 3,960 sq. ft 4,729 sq. ft. Area = "guide" Minimum Off - Street No 0 Parking requirement Traffic. transit, pedestrian circulation and parking. With regard to impacts on traffic, one salient fact is that the proposal would only generate a net increase of four (4), 500+ square -foot residential units. While this does represent a net increase in potential traffic, it is a very modest increase considering the existing density of the neighborhood. There are no traffic congestion issues in this part of town, and the location of the project within the townsite and close to downtown makes it more likely that people will walk and 8 bicycle to meet a variety of needs. The "commuting" Midland Trail is located right next to the property. There are also Cars -to -Go locations at nearby Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and Third & Hyman. There are currently no parking spaces located on this very small (3,600 square feet) lot. There are six existing head -in parking spaces on the east side of the property inside the City Right -of -Way on 2nd Street. There are 3 -4 parallel parking spaces on the north side of the parcel in the City Right -of -Way along Hyman Ave. According to the land use code, this project should provide four off - street parking spaces, due to the net increase of four residential units. However, a Special Review or the establishment of dimensional requirements in a PUD process can allow for fewer parking spaces. In this case, staff fully agrees with the applicant in requesting that the number of off - street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are several reasons for waiving the requirement for adding off - street parking in this case. If parking were to be located on the east side of the property, access from Second Street would eliminate several of the existing head -in parking spaces currently existing in the City Right -of -Way. The Parking Department does not want to lose any of these parking spaces on 2nd Street, especially considering they are directly across from the City's Ice Rink. , _ w 1 1 , , } , 4*, t . 14 — � 1 ._ These head -in parking spaces are in the City Right -of -Way, on the east side of the parcel at 310 W. Hyman. There is a similar scenario on the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave. If parking spaces were located on the north side of the lot, the access to these new spaces would 9 eliminate most, if not all, of the existing parallel parking spaces on Hyman Street. IN other words, there would be little net gain of parking. At the same time, the Community Development Dept. recommends that there should not be parking on the east or north sides of the property because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not public street, such as Hyman Ave. or Second Street. Parking on the west or south side of the parcel would not be appropriate, as such parking areas would be directly adjacent to city -owned land that is managed as open space. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, Parking Department staff stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity in the neighborhood to accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. Staff said the adjacent ice rink does result in some parking congestion, but noted there is sufficient capacity for on- street parking to the west (on the south side of Hyman Ave.), some capacity along 2 Street and significant capacity available along Hopkins. Due to the Parking Dept. preference to retain on- street parking, the land use code preference to avoid off - street parking that is accessed directly from a public street, the small size of the lot and the absence of an alley, sufficient capacity of on- street parking and the minimal net increase of four, one - bedroom units, staff fully supports the waiver of off- street parking requirements for this project, via the Final PUD Development Plan process. Architectural character. Applicant has worked with Community Development staff through several versions of architecture in recent months to improve the initial architectural proposal. • . ." • • a 4 y S k {YJ • J � � ~ • I F (At?? jf,t h' • • -. . '°"" n t*1? M • T N 22 ▪ ` Q R S ° �: A3 • e nt • • �'� a �lV Y Cy C' � F • O riginal application for 301 W. Hyman. (Color version was Exhibit A in First Reading packet.) 10 The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and replaced with the more common two- pitched roof and gables before the project got to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Applicant also responded to staff suggestions to modify the window treatments to include flower boxes and show some individuality to the units. Staff suggested at -grade patio space for the first floor units, and applicant complied. n" e 4. #ir r "n9X t2 c � ? t rS3�HeS� MINN ? GY � y x .� 4�.7 y. 4 5�" Revised rendering presented to P &Z on February 2, 2010. (Color version was Exhibit B in First Reading packet.) Staff saw some improvements in the version presented to P &Z, but still did not believe the architecture was "compatible with or enhance(s) the visual character of the City," according to the primary PUD standard on architecture. The P &Z recommended Council approval of the Amendment of the Zone District Map, Final PUD and Subdivision, subject to improvements being made to the architecture. At First Reading, City Council also recommended improvements to the architecture, and the applicant ahs worked with staff on several changes, including replaced the narrow gables with somewhat wider shed roofs that do a better job of breaking up the roof mass, expanded balconies and improved first floor entrances. New Elevation drawings are included in this packet as Exhibit A. However, Council should be aware that Elevation drawings are somewhat technical in nature. A full color rendering, to be presented to Council on April 12 will provide a better feeling for the architecture. 11 r ,w '1 Other PUD standards. Staff has called out the above three PUD standards as key standards with regard to the proposal; the full set of PUD standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. SUBDIVISION: Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although the Council must review Subdivision criteria in this case and either approve, approve with conditions or deny, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The only key subdivision standards for this proposal are consistency with the AACP and consistency with the character of land uses in the area: These standards are addressed in this memo under Amendment to the Zone District Map and Final PUD Development Plan. The full set of subdivision standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit E. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve Rezoning, Final PUD. and Subdivision, and itself approved Growth Management review by a 7 -0 vote on February 2, 2010, as part of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2010. Growth Management for Affordable Housing requires compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and recommended approval of the project at 301 W. Hyman, with conditions, including that all units be for sale units, and be sold via the housing lottery. Since that time, APCHA staff has agreed to ask the APCHA Board to allow the applicant to sell two of the units directly to two of the current renters, who have been living at 301 W. Hyman for more than 10 years, if they are APCHA - qualified. The other six would be sold via the lottery. Staff Response to P &Z Conditions The P &Z established several conditions in Resolution No. 4, which have been incorporated into the latest proposal, including architectural changes and adjustments to the site plan. Code Amendments Providing for Affordable Housing Certificates With regard to the housing certificate code amendments that were approved by Council on March 22, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010, approving the project at 310 W. Hyman contains a condition that will generate a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, certifying that applicant has 14 transferrable FTEs, as recommended by the Aspen Pitkin Housing Authority Board on Jan. 6, 2010. SITE VISIT: A site visit will be legally noticed and posted so that City Council members who wish to attend can convene at noon on Monday, April 12 at 301 W. Hyman. The public is welcome. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. 12 e �1 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move adoption of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2010, on Second Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Initial application (provided in First Reading packet) Exhibit Al — New Elevation drawings Exhibit B — New Site Plan Exhibit C — Staff findings for Amendment to the Zone District Map Exhibit D — Staff findings for PUD Exhibit E — Staff findings for Subdivision Exhibit F — Zoning Analysis Exhibit G — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4 (In First Reading packet) Exhibit H — Planning and Zoning Commission minutes 2/2/10 (In First Reading packet) 13 ORDINANCE NO. 7, (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A ZONE DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT, A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 W. HYMAN AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512467002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ajax Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fornell, requesting approval of a Zone District Map Amendment, final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, and Subdivision, to develop eight affordable housing units at 301 W. Hyman Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management,; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of a Zone District Map Amendment, Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 301 W. Hyman Ave. and is zoned Moderate - Density Residential (R -15); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the architectural character requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing, requesting that the applicant return with improvements to architectural character; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2010, by a 7 -0 vote, approving Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for eight (8) one- bedroom units, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Zone District Map Amendment, Final PUD, and Subdivision, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 1 of 7 v Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Zone District Map Amendment, Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the City Council hereby approves an Amendment to the Zone District, rezoning 301 W. Hyman Ave. from R -15 to Affordable Housing /Planned Unit Development. Section 2: Approved PUD Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Req. 301 W. Hyman Minimum Lot Size 3,600 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 591 sq. ft Maximum Allowable Density 8 units Minimum Lot Width _ 60 feet Minimum Front Yard 3' 2 " floor balcony projects to lot line toward Hyman Ave. Minimum Side Yard 7'4" -- east 3' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 7' 2 floor balcony projects 3' into setback toward Midland Trail Maximum Site Coverage 66% Maximum Height 24' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space N/A Allowable Floor Area 4,729 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street Parking 0 Section 3: Subdivision Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, the City Council hereby approves the Ajax Apartments Subdivision, consisting of eight (8) residential units of deed - restricted affordable housing. Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 2 of 7 Section 4: Subdivision Plat & Final PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and a Final PUD Development Plan. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, and utility and surface easements. 2. Reference to the access easement and any trail easements from adjoining property owners. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. The top -of -slope shall be depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to develop the drainage improvements during phase one, thereby minimizing impacts on Rio Grande Trail. 3. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public trail improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Floor plans of each level of each building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 3 of 7 r Section 5: Subdivision/PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project. 2. The agreement shall include a maintenance and operating agreement for public trails located on the property and shall reference agreements with adjoining landowners for public trails and the vehicular access. 3. The agreement shall identify the trees on the property to be affected by each stage of development and those which shall require mitigation. The agreement shall require mitigation be payable at the time of building permit issuance for each phase and shall indicate that permit and mitigation fees shall be determined at the time of each phase and are subject to change. 4. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) acceptable to the Community Development Engineer. 5. In order to secure the construction, installation and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. A construction management plan shall be submitted as part of building permit application. Applicant shall be responsible for installing sidewalk, curb and gutter on west side of parcel, along Second Street, meeting all applicable standards. There shall be no sidewalk, curb and gutter on the north side of the parcel, along Hyman Ave., although City standards for drainage requirements shall be met within the Hyman Ave. Right of Way. City reserves the right to require sidewalk, curb and gutter in the future along Hyman Ave. Section 7: Affordable Housing The eight (8) on -site, one - bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 2. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process, with the exception of two units to be sold by applicant (Ajax Apartments LLC) to APCHA- qualified owners currently leasing on -site; all subsequent owners to be determined through the APCHA lottery process. Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 4 of 7 The sales price of all units shall be as stated in the APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent (3 %) per annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded), whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. Section 8: Certificates of Affordable Housing Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall be issued a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit in the amount of 14 Full-Time-Equivalents, according to Section 26.540 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and as recommended by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors on January 6, 2010. Section 9: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The applicant shall provide an overall access plan for the site with the building permit submittal. Section 10: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will require a new separate sewer service to the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street, as a condition of Certificate of Occupancy. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 12: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 13: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 14: Parks Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 5 of 7 # M hi , / Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for new street trees, with species, location and tree trench preparations subject to approval of the City Forester. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Tree protection fences must be in place on the west and south sides of the property line, and inspected by the City Forester or his /her designee before construction activities commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall be vertical only. Section 15: Parking There is no parking on the property. Owners /renters will be eligible to purchase Neighborhood Permits for on- street parking. Section 16 All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 17 This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 18 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 19: Public Hearing A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on April 12, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of March 2010. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No 7, Series 2010 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit C Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the subject property from R -15 to AH -PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use pattems that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) witO C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH -PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. Regarding road safety, access to the site by vehicles will occur at the end of a dead -end street, limiting conflicts with passing traffic. 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. Staff Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees, upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new affordable housing that would not otherwise be built. Sufficient affordable housing inventory is an important part of the community character. 2 H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the proposed amendment. 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. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable housing, and is therefore in the public interest. 3 Exhibit D PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed PUD would allow for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: This neighborhood is a mixture of high- density lodges, condos and some duplexes and single - family homes. The proposal is a relatively high- density residential use that is consistent with character of existing uses in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements of the propose structure are consistent and compatible with the existing and future land uses in the neighborhood, due to the relatively high FAR and densities existing in the area, as well as those allowed by the number of RMF -zoned properties in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. In addition, the City Engineer would like to see the portion of 2 Street between the subject property and the Ice Rink become a narrower street, due to the fact that this 2 portion of 2' Street is a dead end. There is currently 36' of pavement between the subject parcel and the Ice Rink. The City Engineer proposes and the Community Development Department concurs that the pavement width can be narrowed from 36' to 24'. This adjustment serves to purposes: 1) Drivers and pedestrians are provided a visual cue that 2' Street is coming to a dead end; 2) It provides a greater buffer between the proposed structure and the head -in parking on the west side of 2 Street; buffer includes 4' of lawn area, a new 5' sidewalk and a 3' buffer between the sidewalk and the head -in parking. b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: This small property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways or significant vegetation or landforms. It is a small, flat property. The surrounding area features City of Aspen Open Space that segues into the base of Shadow Mountain. The proposed structure, while larger than the existing one, would have no significant impact on the much larger surrounding open space area. The open space area is primarily enjoyed and viewed while on the Midland Trail, which will not be altered in any way. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. With regard to traffic, there are no congestion issues in this neighborhood. According to the land use code, a multi - family project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit on a net increase basis, or four off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. Both applicant and staff are asking that the number of off - street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reason for waiving the requirement for off - street parking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to lose the six head -in, on- street parking spaces now located in the city right of way on the east side of the parcel along 2 " Street, which would be lost in order to gain curb access to a maximum of four off - street spaces. As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommended that there should 3 not be parking in this area because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off- Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a public street. Also, parking on the north side of the property would provide 3 -4 off - street parking spaces, but would eliminate just as many on- street parking spaces. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, the Parking Department stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity in the neighborhood to accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements for a proposed structure in the AH /PUD Zone District are established as part of a site - specific Final PUD Development Plan, rather than being specifically prescribed, as they are in most other zone districts. However, the AH /PUD Zone District does include a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size of the parcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft., reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage became 4,486 — reflecting a 13% increase above what the AH /PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. After staff and the P &Z expressed continued concerns with the architecture, applicant agreed to make the first story footprint equal to the second story, adding additional square footage. The final square footage request is 4,729 square feet. Staff finds this to be appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, and favorable to the character of the PUD due to the provision of eight (8) new affordable housing units. This final adjustment made the one - bedroom units larger and more livable. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off - street parking space for every new unit. Applicant is requesting zero (0) off - street parking spaces. There are no "nonresidential" land uses. Please see staff response to standard B(1)d above. 4 b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: This is not applicable. One residential structure is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The site is close to public transit stops, is adjacent to the "commuter" Midland Trail and is close enough to downtown so that residents can easily walk or bicycle to important destinations. The applicant will be building curbs and gutters, which are not currently existing along the property, which will help provide a walking path from the neighborhood to the Midland Trail. The city Cars -to -Go program includes vehicles at Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and at Third & Hyman. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. 5 Staff Finding: There is a modest increase in density beyond the "guide" contained in the AH /PUD Zone District. According to the PUD "guide," this 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one - bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown through an innovative private sector initiative, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood (please see Exhibit H). b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: There are no negative physical characteristics of the site as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, regarding infrastructure and natural hazards. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH/PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and '70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No unique features on this lot. 6 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Only one structure. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed structure complies with Residential Design Standards. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: First floor units will be handicapped accessible, as required by the Building Dept. Applicant will be constructing curb and gutters, which do not currently exist on the site, as required by the Engineering Dept. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: Small lot will feature minimal landscaping. Parks Department has reviewed the site plan. 7 r 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Proposal will not negatively impact the adjacent public trailhead for the Midland Trail and adjacent public open space, as reviewed by Parks Dept. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Parks Department requirements. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: Applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the initial architectural proposal. The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more common two - pitched roof, and shed dormers. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. The first floor entries have been improved. Staff now finds that the architecture meets required standards. There are no historical resources nearby. The ice rink across the street is a cultural resource that features a mass and scale much larger than any surrounding residential use, including the proposed structure. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The structure will have a north -south pitched roof orientation. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Structure and site is designed to accommodate storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner. Eaves will shed beyond the balconies and into the grassy areas, without affecting passing pedestrians. 8 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 9 • I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The single lot has direct access to two public streets. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The proposed development would generate a net increase of four residential units in an area where there is no traffic congestion, which is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to- Go program has sites nearby. The Parking Dept. has stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity to handle the modest increase generated by this proposal. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Midland trail is accessed directly from 2 " Street. Applicant will provide curb and gutters along 2 " Street to improve walking access to this trail. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 10 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions. J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 11 Exhibit E Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the subject property from R -15 to AH -PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH -PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all applicable requirements. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The 3,600 square foot subject parcel is small and flat. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is only one lot in this subdivision. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. 2 Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) Staff Finding: No annual allotments are required for affordable housing. 3 Exhibit F Zoning Analysis of Shadow Mountain Neighborhood The following is a brief overview of a portion of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, including detailed information on properties within 1 and 1/2 blocks of the subject property, at 301 W. Hyman. There is a mixture of zoning in this area, including Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Moderate Density Residential (R -15) and Residential Multi - Family (RMF). As staff attempts to determine whether the applicant's proposal meets standards relating to neighborhood compatibility, staff is provide some research on zoning, existing floor area ratio and density. Staff's primary conclusion is that while there are properties in the R -6, R -15 and RMF zone districts in this area, the neighborhood has all the features and characteristics of the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) Zone District. A brief look at Table 1 shows that the R -6 and R -15 zone districts prescribe a relatively low floor area ratio (FAR), which typically translates into relatively modest mass, scale and site coverage. The R -6 and R -15 zone districts also feature low densities, limited to either single - family or duplex units. In stark contrast, the RMF Zone District allows for much higher FAR and far higher densities. The applicant is seeking a zoning from R -15 to AH -PUD, which is comparable to RMF zoning. Table 1: Zoning, FAR & Density Zone Lot Size Floor Area Ratio Density R -6 6K — 9K .41:1 -- .54:1 1/6,000 1/4,500 R -15 9K -- 15K .45:1 -- .3:1 1 /15,000 1/7,500 RMF 4,500 — 6K .75:1 — 1.5:1 1/300 1 /1,500 1/6,000 AH- 4,500 — 6K 1.1:1 1/300 PUD 1/500 1 /1,500 Table 2 (below) is a list of properties within 1 and '/z blocks of the subject property at 301 W. Hyman. Table 2 is ranked according to existing floor area ratio (see FAR Exist in bold): In other words if you have a 3,000 square foot lot and a 4,500 square foot structure sitting on it, your existing FAR is 1.5:1. The higher the FAR, the more mass, scale and site coverage will be apparent. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 2: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked By FAR * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,486 8 units 1.3:1 1/561 PUD 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Cottonwoods approx. Condos 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 Ice Garden PUB 27,000 n/a n/a 1:1 n/a 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam .92:1 1/5530 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 311 S. First RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 322 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1 /555 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shadow Mtn LP Approx. Lodge 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 condos 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9+ .62:1 1/413 Former Kitzbuhel Lodge 221 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 Built 2008 3,346 bt 315 W. R -6 7,500 3448+ 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 Hopkins 1550 bt 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 1 -Fam .33:1 1/1970 City -owned HP 2 Table 3 shows the same properties, ranked by density (in bold). For example, the highest density is at the St. Moritz, where the average room size is 342 square feet. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 3: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked by Density * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9+ .62:1 1/413 Kitzbuhel 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shad Mtn Ldg LP 322 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1 /555 301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,024 8 units 1.3:1 1/561 PUD 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Condos approx. 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 condos _ 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 I -Fam .33 1/1970 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 311 S. First HP RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 221 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 315 W. Hopk R -6 7,500 3448 + 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 1550 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam .92:1 1/5530 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 3,346 bt Generally speaking, this neighborhood features significantly higher FAR and far higher densities than the more typical residential neighborhoods of the West End (R -6) and Cemetery Lane (R -15). As stated above, many of the R -6 and R -15 properties in Tables 2 + 3 have the FAR and density characteristics of the RMF Zone District. 3 � ,, k iimoulpgml .,, - Iva -- -- - • ''‘ ' \t' rfi .... MI 111=, : mob : IIII ' r ill1111111.11111111111.111 . - '.. 'ILZI It - . ' _ N ;, el • a , Slfc • /..; la ,;* - . ; .. , . r ,,, MN ' : la, ___. • f rf .. „J.- t9mpaA► Iitil afa�.r.. ...... . iminew.„ / Jek ... ‘ srsss� arcs...... mimehig ,, .,./. LA , ......_. :. I : \ gm , , ./.. Y . k 1 1 Mr Cr. ' 4 k'Ot .. i . I ' ge, ,:i ' 11M1111V " - --- - 1 --- - .. ,a. . . s i,:,, ,:, , . ,,, ., . ., : , .. , . , Alla t k ' ;. ✓ Y _ �� . ,, 1 in um ____. ,, . .11.11wiwiiirm mow \ if,. / , .� : _ . .+sib i ......, 15 \ .. '4 ''' . I miri �� 1 4. mai An ,_;: , . ..... Mr- / r , i , 7 7 MR . - t . F f i ' i , 1 • • an 101111 1 \ - _.,,........ . • ..„ ......„........_________.... • \ i •SOM Mr IP iiiiit i . . • f , , . : , .' I )t. I , i .'\ \ Alk MC .. i ' / N \,. i aa , \ _ ‘ • o 1 .......... .44L 1 ), z,9-,9z C \`\ ® - - - W ° I-1-1 w Imam ��� -! — I I�t�I�,HI W o M me: l — : ti� � . 9 1 ��� W m-•Cma m ems e �i — i CI° ..... �� a i��� 19� tsI�; °a���Z� >' . . so KA e l Z — rIntip c:) L ..........a..,...nr t&i or on =.1._... i_ g i . 1 MEM11/11 _ in & g spga m pg e i i ..... l — J� — _ - ��aQ����i i. _ J O ..... — NI= W (.„11,:isy _ - Din � �, 0101 B� i i 0 IL,,,ii 40 _ Mil � 1 ii ,� als= a �■ • -e: -a _ — J � =sal am i i m i - a -a -a - a ��a Mm:: :ma lel' y - - - I Aiiiiilqi i , m Gi —.aa.a Zm a i— —a■ i i w cr z O w 1- w (4 U ZO 0 -I O W _ ,. e Z z o f0 c: Q N W O lL W ° - ti Cr 3 j?ii i i T IIIIIII I II il li g l i i I C P r li 1 _ il WilY) CO c - � g � ii E l!hild >, Fiv c ... _ li, i wili of lima, s l 111 ;p iiiiii r— , 10 s a��� ig � 0 ei M Hipchihtqlr pr)91 i gyi s Noll 4T,i,g•1 , i'a®+` 131 ' i + •4. Imptioloq tilliiiiiL ii sti l i c illb , i l li' l i z NR Q it 5� ' 'Sl w ill ii r C I I11 ! 1 1 5 1; : iii i u a j ) ;i _____ i iiIii/Nlil l , 0 — l ca J l il l iril Nil; P i r til a i P ir _____ ilr 9 1IL WILL 1 SiVileJA,ii Pt/ 1 i l l 1 Z z LL ? 0 to U U 2 U 1- lY Li Co U W U H Z 0 \ r f Z % W o ww N 0) — cq Q r W ou. W N i E_== _ T :E=KE= =merpna� iim E-- E-- _E--_a s w ea ra el it ia at , 111[1 riparrilamitai Liar. -�u, CO 16 PMEr E , .. __ .5-1..5- ..,... la....a.24--egi — v in ___ _ _ ,,,i li „,. >, II_ —= , .41,H i ��a • � 1 ►�,'g,l _ _ � � 85 ' co pl = int ,, . . i i -i ■E 1 11 nig = E E- =I = I E _ _ _ lilt 11, iv gassermermep. 0114 Rill ma mom mm ma i . —e i 0 � -.2 .s _ .. �R w . J - = W p _ ,,,„4 ..ii,, ,LiE.,. - -- -- ,;,,� .. _ luRil ......,..„........ .... ... irica! , i il� IdaIR�{�I7 �t m � • Q mQ w z • w w � o �- 0 ❑ W z Lu W C w o cc o fX 51 "Sill i;i �l a i��� ®��1 CO C h ,„ • i s ��� li li , i����®u� ii 11C E — _ ciiii 0 _ ismi >, = clu ,,„ i m _ Imo, — Nimtlir ____ _ _ hiqiil § , , — 111'1,,',s1:Iiii'lill'ill'I;IliiiiificH:'.'0'''',L111;1,1',11'.filc!'li''Llil'Ill'i'icrii,.11.11, , si ,,,,,I. Ifn z ® . 1 1 . 1 11 > _ iiPlrahi. 0 _ , v n _ c J , ._ j ®'�I' - Lij 31 1 �� Ciiiii 1i. C k WRIT' i `l 3 Z Z o „ z✓t s 6-..CZ F w co W W J Z 0 LLB J = > u g c i 0 U c Jft 0,05 � � I I c f g �, e . 0 0 o o w + 1X X , T • 4 L w R & � � i L (n —{ (n,, CO L 0 1 REF REF • - REF REF • M �. 0* 0 `, 10 0 rc • In rC Y $ O F V i F = J • O • O = O O O O - n n n O — E g re R Z = 1 0 O • p O 1 + s s + a Zi o REF REF --- I- -a 0 - < a M ti r L r' LLJ • � o �£ l g c L I _i te oz a Q " i i r' c MI ° �Q W o ti- 0 cc W pi a t !i r irgy. c ..____„ II II 1 d K L f J u8 GO DD s u 1 E a cc LL m m r , i r� J� � co Il�� REF REF LO �p f a LO c r 8 O 0 0 0 O 0 00I rO O 0 l oo I co O 0 n0 E o It H El p x = ® r + J REF REF p 1 LL u u II ' L a t �J Z Co 1 8 8 m H N LL f a 8 n m mn z CO 1 m i I I r a m LI CE 0 --. / V� •� LL I/ / \ L 1 II H (n 0 k . fl 1 Q Cl- I • ti 2 .- .)-_ i u• e , o c 0� V t /--- c a, a L E 1 g tij 2 ri O t H CO <N ° H S S Ct 0 0 o J 6 1• O N 4 Z 1 W G b a (/) L1J t. LL i o Q 1 /ryi % O o (1^) y w y� 1H, CD I Li to in 'Ci V/ js o o V V! ■ Z -Z 4 - c -Ct LLI z 1 = O o-us } 7 z 0 O all 7 w-- 4 1 L let I 1 Leg K L-7' — Q I J d. t 6 6 " + 1 uo co ou 1 r a0 r , Wo s n n � o-.e o-i ri y ' , (/ REF REF H 1°- 1 tK / l W1 II F W Y ' ¢ z ® ® x a y' 1 pp UU E O 00 s co 00 0 100 A I m ce � � 9 e i REF 7REF < l • t u u Q a �- = o N m m LL CO 1 1 1 r (Im . r Ni- co 2 1 1 XX 1 I I— ,I 1 1 1. �, ,� 4 , 1 O . . C O C Cr p O O Z Z 0 Y W < = a r N M "ri LO (D n CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Y Y Y Y Y 2 2 2 rt re cc cc a a a SECDND°ST. a a a a Q . Q __.....„ \----.) ---,-.) _ .______ ,.._ .., ,..,_____ .___. _... _ c 0...._ o Q n \________;_.:_.:_. . , . : i-:, utmisti: i_____ ' iy 1 .1 h j r ' _ PI & 4 � — _ --- _ sic w -C , s _ figlil ,,I i. —. !i i;bl, , D I 1 Ill ii' i i i 5...s •_. �_.,' � 4iljt r , M ; , 1141 A .__. a r / . 1 { � t ` d i S III _. - ` -sta v�.ac:t O 415 ! "i �°;- �_ — ; �Irft�rf 11 ° -r= ': �� 3 ,� Tee. , .,,, il 11 1:4 , :' , ....' ,. ; mss, �� Y . , . - '+ MEMORANDUM v1 t a., TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner \5C 'nn THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development ( h I Department DATE OF MEMO March 15, 2010 MEETING DATE: March 22, 2010 RE: 301 W. Hyman - Amendment to Zone District Map, Final PUD, Subdivision First Reading of Ordinance No , Series of 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: John Cooper STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council remand the REPRESENTATIVE: application back to the applicant to modify the Peter Fornell architecture and continue the public hearing. LOCATION: SUMMARY: 301 W. Hyman Ave. Applicant requests that City Council determine that the Amendment to the Zone District Map meets CURREN I ZONING & USE standards of review; approve a Final PUD and R -15. Four (4) free market approve a subdivision. residential units on a 3,600 s.f. lot. PROPOSED LAND USE: - h, c I r Applicant seeks to demolish ;'" . "" a t { existing free market 4 -plex and J'" replace it with a new and larger a �; �- �- structure containing eight (8) deed- , U .. '? t restricted affordable housing units. = i -la 4. Applicant requests an Amendment / �1 I to the "Zone District Map to rezone `' . `- - 41 ,r the property from R -15 to A1I /PUD, which requires a Final -- - .. - ., PUD Development Plan. Establishing eight (8) new 301 W. Hyman residential units requires approval as a subdivision. a LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council: • Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning] — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approval with conditions or deny the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. T Aey'R 1 "` t 4 21 , .., fir . --42 " 0, fi r ( "+ --- " '- X :7 a w i I Mu "', "T z 1 :.-!.. • 16, p _ R-5� n + a. l o, '< f �'� / a xl/ as • r, y /� " , /Dre Bran 1 / p m:.. gy l/ / / ,� "Aye 1g W 4 ! _ A ti . / i t W R w � ( IL J GJ''u �� fHVM1NIVE� y. yE N •2 t rn�� Wi � ti J9 ��dp E. Y[ . '. /a 7dxt r ,, The subject parcel at 301 W. Hyman is indicated by the arrow at left. Note the city ice rink just to the east of the subject parcel. 2 t BACKGROUND: Of the three (3) separate land use reviews applicable to this proposal, this memo will focus first on the proposed Amendment to the Zone District Map J Rezoningl and approval of a Final PUD Development Plan. Applicant is asking to rezone 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH /PUD. The AH /PUD Zone District establishes dimensional requirements through the adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan. Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although City Council must review Subdivision criteria in this case and recommend approval or denial, the standards of review for Rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The rest of this memo will examine each land use review separately, focusing on key elements of the proposal, and the most relevant standards of review. Complete staff findings for each standard of review can be found in the exhibits. Before beginning the staff analysis, Table 1 provides basic information on existing and proposed conditions. Table 1: Comparing Existing Condition & Existing R -15 Zoning to Proposed AH/PUD Zoning and Proposed PUD Dimensions Existing R -15 AH -PUD Proposed PUD Minimum Lot 900 s.f. 15,000 for 1- 500 s.f. for 561 s.f. for Area per (4 units on Family; 7,500 one -bed units one -bed units Dwelling Unit 3,600 sf lot) for duplex (7 units) (8 units) 2,240 2,568 for lfam 3,960 4,486 Square Footage existing 2,880 for duplex Front Yard 11' 25' No req. 7'6" setback (Hyman) Side Yard 8' (to east) 10' + 10' No req. 9'2" (to east) setback 5' (to west) 1'2" (to west) Rear Yard 17' 10' No req. 7'6" setback AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP (REZONING]: The two most relevant standards of review for rezoning in this case are: 1) Is this rezoning consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan? 2) Is this rezoning compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses? The staff memo will focus on these two key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit C. 3 Consistency with the 2000 AACP. There is no doubt that the production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. More specifically, the AACP asks "The public and private sectors (to) work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27.) Similarly, the AACP "Encourage(s) greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27.) Furthermore, the AACP seeks to "encourage (affordable housing) within the traditional town site ..." It goes on to say that, "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26.) This desire was reinforced in the Transportation chapter, which stated that, "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21.) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ," staff finds that the scale and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high residential /lodge densities. Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses. The proposed rezoning would change the property at 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH /PUD. According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, a zoning of AH /PUD would actually be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R -15 zoning. 4 � y I � ^6 i:. yv �T u i $. f �� v ice' °' JN i � � � w , y . $ "x .w41 4 � Q - tre r. Shadow Mtn. Lodge, at 232 W. Hyman. St. Moritz, at 334 W. Hyman. This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH /PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and '70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the 4 West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff review in Exhibit F.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. In addition, the existing city open space directly adjacent to the west creates a 30 -foot buffer with the adjacent neighbor. CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PUD: The most relevant standards in establishing a Final PUD Development Plan for this proposal are: 1) Are the proposed dimensional requirements compatible with the neighborhood? 2) Does the proposal have an impact on traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation and parking? 3) Does the architectural reflect the intended use and does it enhance the visual character of the city? The staff memo will focus on these three key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. (Criteria for reviewing a PUD also includes consistency with the AACP, which was addressed in the previous section of the memo.) Proposed dimensional requirements. Most zone districts specifically establish dimensional requirements and limits. In the AH /PUD Zone District, there are "guiding" standards for floor area ratio and density, but all other dimensional requirements are established as part of a site - specific Final PUD Development Plan. The AH /PUD Zone District includes a sliding scale for floor area ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 floor area ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft. structure, reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage now requested is 4,486 — reflecting a 13% increase above what the AH/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. One of the relevant PUD standards of review is whether the scale and massing is "appropriate" for the surrounding area. Again, referencing staffs review of the neighborhood, the proposed 1.2:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is within the range of existing FAR in this part of town. (Please see Exhibit F.) Also, a mitigating factor is the existing city open space land on the west side of the 301 W. Hyman parcel — this 30 -foot strip creates a buffer between the project site and the 5 next (and last) house on the south side of Hyman Ave. Also, it should be noted that the immediate context of the subject parcel is the large mass and scale of the city's indoor ski rink, directly across Second Street. Staff finds that the existing buffer between the only adjacent residential neighbor, the existing high -FAR characteristic of the built neighborhood and the provision of eight new units of affordable housing all mitigate for the modest variation ( +13 %, or +526 sq. ft.) from the AH /PUD Zone District Floor Area Ratio "guide." The AH /PUD Zone District also establishes a sliding scale of maximum allowable density by assigning a Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit, also to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The guidelines are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Guide for Max. Allowable Density in the AH/PUD Zone District Unit Type Min. Lot Area Per Unit Dormitory 300 sf _ Studio 400 sf 1- bedroom 500 sf 2- bedroom 1,000 sf 3- bedroom 1,500 sf 3+ bedroom 1,500 + 500/bedroom According to the PUD "guide," the 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one - bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot would have to be 4,000 square feet to meet the guideline, or 11% bigger than it is. PUD standards of review allow for an increase in maximum allowable density "if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints." The PUD standards go on to identify "goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)." By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown and a commuter trail, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this modest increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood. Table 3, next page, spells out the various dimensional "guides" in the AH /PUD Zone District, along with the dimensions proposed for the development at 301 W. Hyman. Please note that many dimensional standards have no requirement and no "guide." 6 Table 3: Dimensional Requirements for AH/PUD Zone District, compared to proposal Dimensional AH/PUD Proposed (u7 Requirements Zone 301 W. Hyman District Minimum Lot Size No 3,600 sq. ft requirement Min. Lot Area / 500 sq. ft 565 sq. ft Dwelling Unit = "guide" Maximum 7.2 units 8 units Allowable Density = "guide" Minimum Lot Width No 60 feet requirement Minimum Front No 10'6" feet Yard _ requirement _ Minimum Side Yard No 9'2" east requirement I'2 "- -west Minimum Rear Yard No 7'6" requirement Maximum Site No 66% Coverage requirement Maximum Height No 24' requirement Minimum dist. Not N/A between buildings applicable. Minimum Open No N/A Space Percent _ requirement Allowable Floor 3,960 sq. ft 4,486 sq. ft. Area = "guide" Minimum Off - Street No 0 Parking requirement Traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation and parking. With regard to impacts on traffic, one salient fact is that the proposal would only generate a net increase of four (4), 500+ square -foot residential units. While this does represent a net increase in potential traffic, it is a very modest increase considering the existing density of the neighborhood. There are no traffic congestion issues in this part of town, and the location of the project within the townsite and close to downtown makes it more likely that people will walk and bicycle to meet a variety of needs. The "commuting" Midland Trail is located right next to the property. There are also Cars -to -Go locations at nearby Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and Third & Hyman. There are currently no parking spaces located on the property. There are six existing head -in parking spaces on the east side of the property inside the City Right -of -Way on 2nd Street. There are 3 -4 parallel parking spaces on the north side of the parcel in the City Right -of -Way along Hyman Ave. 7 o..r According to the land use code, this project should provide four off - street parking spaces, due to the net increase of four residential units. However, a Special Review or the establishment of dimensional requirements in a PUD process can allow for fewer parking spaces. Applicant is requesting that the number of off - street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reasons for waiving the requirement for adding off - street parking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to lose the six head -in, on- street parking spaces on 2nd Street, which would be lost in order to gain curb access for parking on the property itself'. ' , T q f/ �r : $ �l + m < :4 yt� 151 t, •; to • These head -in parking spaces are in the City Right -of -Way, on the east side of the parcel at 310 W. Hyman. The Parking Dept. wants to retain these spaces, which are across the street from the ice rink. Retaining these parking spaces means there would be no access on the east side of the parcel to on -site parking. As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommends that there should not be parking in this area of the property because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a public street. Also, parking on the north portion of the property would provide 3 -4 off - street parking spaces, but would likely eliminate just as many on- street parking spaces. Parking on the west or south side of the parcel would not be appropriate, as such parking areas would be directly adjacent to city -owned open space land. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, Parking Department staff stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity in the neighborhood to accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. Staff said the adjacent ice rink does result in some parking congestion, but noted there is sufficient 8 capacity for on- street parking to the west (on the south side of Hyman Ave.), some capacity along 2 " Street and significant capacity available along Hopkins. Due to the Parking Dept. preference to retain on- street parking on 2 " Street, the code preference to avoid off - street parking that is accessed directly from a public street, the sufficient capacity of on- street parking and the minimal net increase of about 2,000 square feet of living space, staff supports the waiver of off - street parking requirements for this project, via the Final PUD Development Plan process. Architectural character. Although applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the initial architectural proposal, staff finds that the proposed architecture does not "enhance the visual character of the city," according to PUD standards. • • • • • • • • c, • � �7 • 1 94 � � �'V � a �( t cwt H a • aaR04110 l� t r 3 ? a A f • p " • e �Y+ltl��R� . Sr dy • 7' E1 s O irk a { r1 AY Al l P ir- IZA as • r. A • • A • Original application for 301 W. Hyman redevelopment. (See color version in Exhibit A.) There have been some improvements to the first proposal. The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more common two- pitched roof and gables. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Applicant has also responded to staff suggestions to modify the window treatments to include flower boxes and show some individuality to the units. 9 Staff suggested at -grade patio space for the first floor units, and applicant complied, although the patio space should be extended to the west end of the property. In general, it is a difficult proposition for staff to give direct design and architectural suggestions to an applicant, and such a relationship with an applicant is not always productive. Staff believes there is still opportunity for an improved architectural treatment that would reflect in a positive way on the affordable housing program. �wQ Wars ti . (ki3 t 1 ili��� Fa 4.111 'J , t Revised rendering presented to P &Z on February 2, 2010. (See color version in Exhibit B.) Staff sees improvements from the initial proposal, but still does not believe the architecture is "compatible with or enhance(s) the visual character of the City," according to the primary PUD standard on architecture. Staff understands that this can be a subj ective standard. It is staff's position that the initial application was very box -like, and while it has been improved, there comes a point where the basic underlying structure and form simply - can't be transformed into a structure that "enhance(s) the visual character of the City." Staff has reached a consensus that effectively asks the applicant to "start over" regarding the architecture. Staff is providing some images of architecture that we believe reflects a level of originality that would meet the PUD standard. Staff is not suggesting that any of these images is the "answer" to this site — some are on larger sites, some might not work in the neighborhood. Staff does not want to play the role of designer. This is only an effort to display a level of architectural originality that would be appropriate. There is potential for different roof forms, perhaps even a flat roof and higher plate heights on both floors ... A higher standard can be achieved without 10 excessive cost — the modular building industry is turning out much higher levels of architecture than ever before. yy ?i ` ` t • r Al re s x -• - ,.,•.. ygyk.. h Other PUD standards. Staff has called out the above three PUD standards as key standards with regard to the proposal; the full set of PUD standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. SUBDIVISION: Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although the Council must review Subdivision criteria in this case and either approve, approve with conditions or deny, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The only key subdivision standards for this proposal are consistency with the AACP and consistency with the character of land uses in the area: These standards are addressed in this memo under Amendment to the Zone District Map and Final PUD Development Plan. The full set of subdivision standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit E. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve Rezoning, Final PUD and Subdivision, and itself approved Growth Management review by a 7 -0 vote on February 2, 2010, as part of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2010. 11 Growth Management for Affordable Housing requires compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and recommended approval of the project at 301 W. Hyman, with conditions, including that all units be for sale units, and be sold via the housing lottery. Since that time, APCHA staff has agreed to ask the APCHA Board to allow the applicant to sell two of the units directly to two of the current renters, who have been living at 301 W. Hyman for more than 10 years, if they are APCHA - qualified. The other six would be sold via the lottery. Code Amendments Providing for Affordable Housing Certificates With regard to the Growth Management code amendments that were processed in a legally separate but parallel review process, applicant is requesting to be awarded a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs. The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and strongly supported the code amendments. In the case that the code amendments are approved and put into legal effect, the APCHA Board voted to determine that the applicant was entitled to a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs. Staff recommends that the ordinance approving the project at 310 W. Hyman contain a condition that would generate a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit, upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, certifying that applicant has 14 transferrable FTEs, if and when the code amendments take legal effect. Staff Response to P &Z Conditions The P &Z established several conditions in Resolution No. 4, some of which staff agreed with and have been incorporated into the current proposal and ordinance before City Council. Staff disagrees with other conditions. 1) Move the building to the east in order to eliminate the 0' setback on the west side of the parcel, adjacent to city property. Staff and the applicant agree that the building could be moved 3' to the east. This will eliminate the need for stringent fire - related building code requirements, and provide a buffer with the city property. 2) Ask the Parks Department if additional screening is needed between Midland Trail and the proposed structure. Staff agrees the Parks Department can be consulted on this question; any screening would occur on city land. 3) Do not require a sidewalk on Hyman Ave. During the Development Review Committee process, the Engineering Dept. did not place a strong emphasis on requiring a sidewalk on Hyman Ave. Planning staff believes a sidewalk is not necessary, considering there is no sidewalk to the west of the parcel, and proceeding further west, there is almost no potential for a sidewalk in the future as Hyman Ave. curves sharply to the north. 4) Replace parallel parking on Hyman with head -in parking to maximize number of spaces. Staff disagrees with this condition. Although there is some head -in parking in this neighborhood, it is not the desired model in residential 12 w.: neighborhoods. It would also bring vehicles substantially closer to the north face of the proposed structure, degrading the livability of the home. 5) Adjust the balconies so they are further apart; pull gables away from the eaves and closer to the center line of the roof. Staff believes these changes may improve the architecture, but still believes the overall architecture needs significant improvement. SITE VISIT: Staff recommends a Council site visit prior to 2 Reading in order to get a stronger sense of this small, uniquely- located parcel, how the structure would sit on the parcel, and the characteristics of homes /condos /lodges and parking capacity in the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff remains unsatisfied with the architecture of the proposal, staff is recommending that Council remand the application to the applicant on and continue the public hearing so that applicant can generate improved architectural treatments. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the City Council chooses to recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I move adoption of Ordinance No:,, Series of 2010, on First Reading, and request the applicant to explore alternative architectural treatments for the project." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Initial application Exhibit B — Updated application (updated floor plans and rendering) Exhibit C — Staff findings for Amendment to the Zone District Map Exhibit D — Staff findings for PUD Exhibit E — Staff findings for Subdivision Exhibit F — Zoning Analysis Exhibit G — Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 4 Exhibit H — Planning and Zoning Commission minutes 2/02/10 13 ORDINANCE N0. , (SERIES OF 2010 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A ZONE DISTRICT MAP AMENDMENT, A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 W. HYMAN AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 51246 7002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ajax Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fornell, requesting approval of a Zone District Map Amendment, final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, and Subdivision, to develop eight affordable housing units at 301 W. Hyman Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management,; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of a Zone District Map Amendment, Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 301 W. Hyman Ave. and is zoned Moderate - Density Residential (R -15); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the architectural character requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing, requesting that the applicant return with improvements to architectural character; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2010, by a 7 -0 vote, approving Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for eight (8) one - bedroom units, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Zone District Map Amendment, Final PUD, and Subdivision, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 1 of 7 Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Zone District Map Amendment, Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the City Council hereby approves an Amendment to the Zone District, rezoning 301 W. Hyman Ave. from R -15 to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development. Section 2: Approved PUD Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Req. 301 W. Hyman Minimum Lot Size 3,600 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 450 sq. ft Maximum Allowable Density 8 units _ Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Minimum Front Yard 6'6" 2 floor balcony projects 6' into setback toward Hyman Ave. Minimum Side Yard 7'4" -- east 3' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 8'6" 2 floor balcony projects 6' into setback toward Midland Trail Maximum Site Coverage 66% Maximum Height 24' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space N/A Allowable Floor Area 4,486 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street Parking 0 Section 3: Subdivision Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, the City Council hereby approves the Ajax Apartments Subdivision, consisting of eight (8) residential units of deed - restricted affordable housing. Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 2 of 7 1 Section 4: Subdivision Plat & Final PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and a Final PUD Development Plan. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and shall include: 1. The final property boundaries, disposition of lands, and utility and surface easements. 2. Reference to the access easement and any trail easements from adjoining property owners. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right -of -way. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised street and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. The top -of -slope shall be depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A phasing plan describing the sequence of development phases and the improvements for each phase. The City encourages the applicant to develop the drainage improvements during phase one, thereby minimizing impacts on Rio Grande frail. 3. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public trail improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Floor plans of each level of each building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 -year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off -site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 3 of 7 Section 5: Subdivision/PUD Agreement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision/PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. The agreement shall state the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the common areas of the project. 2. The agreement shall include a maintenance and operating agreement for public trails located on the property and shall reference agreements with adjoining landowners for public trails and the vehicular access. 3. The agreement shall identify the trees on the property to be affected by each stage of development and those which shall require mitigation. The agreement shall require mitigation be payable at the time of building permit issuance for each phase and shall indicate that permit and mitigation fees shall be determined at the time of each phase and are subject to change. 4. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) acceptable to the Community Development Engineer. 5. In order to secure the construction, installation and performance of the of public improvements and facilities, including drainage improvements and landscape improvements for each phase, the required performance guarantees shall include and secure the estimated costs of all phases of the development. Section 6: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. A construction management plan shall be submitted as part of building permit application. Applicant shall be responsible for installing sidewalk, curb and gutter on west side of parcel, along Second Street, meeting all applicable standards. There shall be no sidewalk, curb and gutter on the north side of the parcel, along Hyman Ave. Section 7: Affordable Housing The eight (8) on -site, one - bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 2. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process, with the exception of two units to be sold by applicant (Ajax Apartments LLC) to APCHA- qualified owners currently leasing on- site; all subsequent owners to be determined through the APCHA lottery process. The sales price of all units shall be as stated in the APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent (3 %) per Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 4of7 annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded), whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The applicant shall provide an overall access plan for the site with the building permit submittal. Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will require a new separate sewer service to the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street, as a condition of Certificate of Occupancy. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for new street trees, with species, location and tree trench preparations subject to approval of the City Forester. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Tree protection fences must be in place on the west and south sides of the property line, and inspected by the City Forester or his /her designee before construction activities commence. Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 5 of 7 • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall be vertical only. Section 14: Parking There is no parking on the property. Owners /renters will be eligible to purchase Neighborhood Permits for on- street parking. Section 15: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 16: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 17: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 18: Public Hearing A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on April 12, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of March 2010. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 6 of 7 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No , Series 2010 Page 7 of 7 / „Z /6 9 - .8Z . ---, f pm , Ii' 1._. I. . • ) /4-''' . e . 1 1 -• . . . 1 • ....: s ; r CO ____. . .1, ___ ___ . , MI, ... , ... _ . r E .,• ___, ti. ,. ____ i I L i' AI Jt 1 - __ - l /1 . ill,4411,4t '' � , I �.� .1 jj �— I - • • 1 , , — 111;Iu Ia, - II � — 0�� • 1 1 • ---s - -- ( j - , ,u� , ice , + � ' -- -1 _- I ' z _ - - S� II ---j77- } -H ' -- 4 -11-7--1 ":� lit El t 6 ti__ �1�1111��1 n ]] i • , WI ii -7--- __ I .." Y ✓ a , h q • U � �1 ri um / . I. 1 t PR il 1 r El 40 5 ; ,W.' ill = Ns ,• - lilt ■ • i iii ' E 1111 , -10 • i ltit.!N 1,1 I] s• _____I - ii . _A- ____ Ili i . J iiiill ' • _ ' ' '11 11 I I il I [ I _ j_ i' 14 1 • : i , -, _ ___, 41 - 1 isilit W Z , co l:-/-3 W w p _ O uj cr Z O O . W 9�� W W I- ®� 1 7.1 Z > v 01I )( . _ , .. ._ — . . ..1 A11 '. . ._ . ..__ A .44... .,.:• T . r \-71 . . .... ; , r 4 - .., . . . T L ) 1: C V A ■ . ' , or...w■-•homior -- , .- . 4, . . , k -.. • . -) i ty . --I %6ft itit t A 1 . , - , • , ' . A* \ . ' , . (-- _... . , 4. 41101111111111111:4 1 - • f t I VOW= - . awls .. 1 . A . . , • . zo4 __.. I . i 'olio Ihp... 'ems • 1 .. .- ..........,,, ts, . mow ..._1 r 711 -- Pg . \ 1 ..-' . z I—..... ,:. „. ... \ t .• „ ' no 1.:_■ .-----=_-_- , ... . , _..., .• . -----.---....., . , , i!:-I ' J ' 1 MC 121 - 1 %. k ■ • ii _s• . 1 iiiii Milo MIN 11____ !IMP!, \ 416.. 1 ' I ''E \ •it.--• .,1 ....,..... ...-iml... ' ligillia.= \ 'LC.-- i VA' . Mal .-?.. inommunim V, . i /ldIIIIIIMIMIIIIIII ....._ i fi ) '. ./ gt 1011 _ \ --- , ) w snow MIMI . 1 ) 1 . 16.1114 , al , 1 a gm - 7_ ... _ . i, ,, u : : —I \I 8 11 1 ... 1 ,.....,... • _. ._ ': ININ L , . k; 1 __ ... . - -_ . . .__ - _ __ _ • 1 . , , ---. ----------=- 1 ' ' - i ffiw i Ulli 0 . 7 ----- I , , - '- 1 -- --- - -- 1 I 11111 11 :---- , 1,..,...,-. 1 - • , 0 6611111 1 r - - WA -_ — .■ I v I:t I 1 - ..- . . -- , • • i ' • ' lir '4444 m__;_ : : ; : : . ., - . ■ ,_ 4 ' 1 ----- -. I - RA , I; . .. . . / 6 ' ' i .., 12 1 .1 6 \ • • . ..1'. . .i , ■ .../ 1 e, be --- . 40 I-" . -. • ...__ .e. -) ....- r .-.. ,..,.‘, '‘...-..... ..., . i ........ ....-._ - • 1 .4 . 4 -- - ..a. 1 I 1 \ - --- - .-,...— E. • -,-) .---... / '''-'•-•-•...C\,, A i / -.4-.. --... :-. ...ww • k_ l' ' - \ • 1 , . . .: • .% . --\... . + BOO 1 J gl o p ..I. .. ENTRV TO REM' WASTE RF J .. •. RECYCLE MEI a w 503 SQ Fr" +/- 503 [SQ F.T +/- g+� BEDROOM _ LIVING ROOM WINO ROOM _ W _ BE OM d 1 . J t i 1 L o NeM NsM - I ' — / B ATHROOM KITCHEN HEAD IN �l o o c KRONEN B AINRO OM PARKING �� I J Q w CO Q I ,< PATIO : %�/ g IM �� . • . BATHROOM KITCHEN `A O O C KITCHEN B ATHROOM . — 7 aD. D C — �M 1 1� dad � closet • S TS eked ii LI r 0 616 SQ. F.T +1 503 SQ. F.T +/- LI BEDROOM M.nM WNO ROOM WRIO ROOM MaK BEDROOM . :PATK PAhO PROP WRNERQ •.'•` 0 P b • • . . 1/TAT ' . . 0 II lop HYMAN AVE NORTH 301 W. Hyman SITE PLAN 1/S " =1'-0" Exhibit C Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. D ►s sre i t Ma P the City In d Counc l t and t the Planning and Zoning Commission Official shall consider: an amenment to D A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. 13. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing f zoning g is a priority of the 2000 AACP' P. the f subject p amendment to the Zone District would cha current for the conversion of four ) free market units from R -1 to AH PUD g market units to eight (8) ) deed-restricted affordable housing units. The proposed e amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 2 • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 2 • e ncour ag age d so of as t o affordable protect ourr open within the lands." town Ph los phy, pg encourd so to 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on art ce e on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a p town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) or can be served by • "New development should take place only in areas that are, transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community y minimized." Grow t h Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is m (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) compatible with the scale Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be comp and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an All-PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. Regarding road safety, access to the site by vehicles will occur at the end of a dead -end street, limiting conflicts with passing traffic. 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 n limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff c cing: facilities, To tee p of e amendment would result in he form of impact fees on u p gr a d ed a the sup planning. The upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage p g• pr ose to d th amendment rban core and is amenable walking, bicycling and the in an area that mass transit. cl F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new affordable housing that would not otherwise be built. Sufficient affordable housing inventory is an important part of the community character. 2 II. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the proposed amendment. LWhether 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. The proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable hous ng, and s in the public interest. 3 Exhibit D PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. minor PUD sht application comply with the folowingtstandardslandt final or requirements. to the minor PUD shall comply limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed PUD would allow for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • encouraged so as to affordable rotect our open and rural lands." town P Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21 ) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: This neighborhood is a mixture of high- density lodges, condos and some duplexes and single - family homes. The proposal is a relatively high- density residential use that is consistent with character of existing uses in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements of the propose structure are consistent and compatible with the existing and future land uses in the neighborhood, due to the relatively high FAR and densities existing in the area, as well as those allowed by the number of RMF -zoned properties in the neighborhood. (Please l s se e E p .) Also, the h limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) Y the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. 2 b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man - made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: This small property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways or significant vegetation or landforms. It is a small, flat property. The surrounding area features City of Aspen Open Space that segues into the base of Shadow Mountain. The proposed structure, while larger than the existing one, would have no significant impact on the much larger surrounding open space area. The open space area is primarily enjoyed and viewed while on the Midland Trail, which will not be altered in any way. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. With regard to traffic, there are no congestion issues in this neighborhood. According to the land use code, a multi - family project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit on a net increase basis, or four off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be Development Plan, establishing Section requirements for a Final PUD on 26.445 040(C)14 Both applicant and staff are asking that the number of off- street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reason for waiving the requirement for off - street parking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to lose the six head -in, on- street parking spaces now located in the city right of way on the east side of the parcel along 2nd Street, which would be lost in order to gain curb access to a maximum of four off - street spaces. As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommended that there should not be parking in this area because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off- Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a public street. Also, parking on the north side of the property would provide 3 -4 off - street parking spaces, but would eliminate just as many on- street parking spaces. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, the Parking Department stted that acacommodate the net increaserintvehiclleskgenera d capacity neighborhood to by the proposal. 3 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements for a proposed structure in the AH /PUD Zone District are established as part of a site- specific Final PUD Development Plan, rather than being specifically prescribed, as they are in most other zone districts. However, the AH /PUD Zone District does include a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size of the parcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft., reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage now requested is 4,486 — reflecting a 13% increase above what the AH /PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. Staff finds this to be appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, and favorable to the character of the PUD due to the provision of eight (8) new affordable housing units. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off - street parking space for every new unit. Applicant is requesting zero (0) off - street parking spaces. There are no "nonresidential" land uses. Please see staff response to standard B(1)d above. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: This is not applicable. One residential structure is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The site is close to public transit stops, is adjacent to the "commuter" Midland Trail and is close enough to downtown so that residents can easily walk or bicycle to important destinations. The applicant will be building curbs and gutters, which 4 are not currently existing along the property, which will help provide a walking path from the neighborhood to the Midland Trail. The city Cars -to -Go program includes vehicles at Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and at Third & Hyman. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. Staff Finding: There is a modest increase in density beyond the "guide" contained in the AH /PUD Zone District. According to the PUD "guide," this 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one- bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot would have to be 4,000 square feet to meet the guideline, or 11% bigger than it is. By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown through an innovative private sector initiative, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood (please see Exhibit H). 5 b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: There are no negative physical characteristics of the site as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, regarding infrastructure and natural hazards. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH /PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and '70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No unique features on this lot. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Only one structure. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed structure complies with Residential Design Standards. 6 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: First floor units will be handicapped accessible, as required by the Building Dept. Applicant will be constructing curb and gutters, which do not currently exist on the site, as required by the Engineering Dept. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: Small lot will feature minimal landscaping. Parks Department has reviewed the site plan. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Proposal will not negatively impact the adjacent public trailhead for the Midland Trail and adjacent public open space, as reviewed by Parks Dept. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Parks Department requirements. E. Architectural character. 7 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: Applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the initial architectural proposal. But overall Community Development staff still finds that the proposed architecture does not "enhance the visual character of the city." In a general sense, staff believes affordable housing should be designed with a sense of character and uniqueness so that it reflects well on the housing program. There have been some improvements to the initial proposal: The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more common two - pitched roof. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Staff suggested an entry porch feature to comply with Residential Design Standards, and applicant has added a deck on the east side that will serve as a common element to first floor users who do not have balconies. Thus far, applicant has not responded significantly to staff suggestions to modify the window treatments to help show some individuality to the units — rather the window treatment seems excessively symmetrical, again reflecting the style of a motel. In general, it is difficult for staff to give direct design and architectural suggestions, and such a relationship with an applicant is not always productive. In general, staff believes there is room in this case for an improved architectural treatment that would reflect strongly on the housing program. There are no historical resources nearby. The ice rink across the street is a cultural resource that features a mass and scale much larger than any surrounding residential use, including the proposed structure. 2. Incorporate, the the extent olar s, shade and cooling by taking use non- or advantage of the y less - intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The structure will have a north - south pitched roof orientation. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Structure and site is designed to accommodate storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner. Eaves will shed beyond the balconies and into the grassy areas, without affecting passing pedestrians. 8 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 9 I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The single lot has direct access to two public streets. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The proposed development would generate a net increase of four residential units in an area where there is no traffic congestion, which is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to- Go program has sites nearby. The Parking Dept. has stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity to handle the modest increase generated by this proposal. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Midland trail is accessed directly from 2 " Street. Applicant will provide curb and gutters along 2 " Street to improve walking access to this trail. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 10 --4' 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions. J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 11 Exhibit E Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the subject property from R -15 to AH -PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH -PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all applicable requirements. 13. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The 3,600 square foot subject parcel is small and flat. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is only one lot in this subdivision. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. 2 Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007,§ §29,30) Staff Finding: No annual allotments are required for affordable housing. 3 Exhibit F Zoning Analysis of Shadow Mountain Neighborhood The following is a brief overview of a portion of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, including detailed information on properties within 1 and'' /z blocks of the subject property, at 301 W. Hyman. There is a mixture of zoning in this area, including Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Moderate Density Residential (R -15) and Residential Multi - Family (RMF). As staff attempts to determine whether the applicant's proposal meets standards relating to neighborhood compatibility, staff is provide some research on zoning, existing floor area ratio and density. Staff's primary conclusion is that while there are properties in the R -6, R -15 and RMF zone districts in this area, the neighborhood has all the features and characteristics of the Residential Multi - Family (RMF) Zone District. A brief look at Table 1 shows that the R -6 and R -15 zone districts prescribe a relatively low floor area ratio (FAR), which typically translates into relatively modest mass, scale and site coverage. The R -6 and R -15 zone districts also feature low densities, limited to either single- family or duplex units. In stark contrast, the RMF Zone District allows for much higher FAR and far higher densities. The applicant is seeking a zoning from R -15 to AH -PUD, which is comparable to RMF zoning. Table 1: Zoning, FAR & Density Zone Lot Size Floor Area Ratio Density R -6 6K — 9K .41:1 -- .54:1 1 6, / R -15 9K -- 15K .45:1 -- .3:1 1/15,000 RMF 4,500 — 6K .75:1 — 1.5:1 1/300 1/6 000 AH- 4,500 — 6K 1.1:1 1 1/300 /500 PUD 1 /1,500 Table 2 (below) is a list of properties within 1 and '/2 blocks of the subject property at 301 W. Hyman. Table 2 is ranked according to existing floor area ratio (see FAR Exist in bold): In other words if you have a 3,000 square foot lot and a 4,500 square foot structure sitting on it, your existing FAR is 1.5:1. The higher the FAR, the more mass, scale and site coverage will be apparent. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 2: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked By FAR * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Cottonwoods approx. Condos 301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,486 8 units 1.2:1 1 /561 PUD 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 Ice Garden 27,000 n/a n/a _ 1:1 n/a 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam .92:1 1/5530 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 311 S. First RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 322 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1 /555 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shadow Mtn LP Approx. Lodge 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 condos .62:1 1/413 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9 + Former Kitzbuhel Lodge 221 W. Hosk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 Built 2008 3,346 bt 315 W. R -6 7,500 3448 + 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 Hopkins 1550 bt 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 1 -Fam .33:1 1/1970 City -owned HP 2 Table 3 shows the same properties, ranked by density (in bold). For example, the highest density is at the St. Moritz, where the average room size is 342 square feet. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 3: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked by Density * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9+ .62:1 1/413 Kitzbuhel 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shad Mtn Ldg LP 322 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1 /555 301 W. Hyman Ali- 3,600 4,024 8 units 1.2:1 1/561 PUD 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Condos approx. 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 _condos 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 1 -Fam .33 1/1970 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 311 S. First HP RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 221 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 315 W. Hopk R -6 7,500 3448 + 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 1550 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 1/5530 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 3,346 bt Generally speaking, this neighborhood features significantly higher FAR and far higher densities than the more typical residential neighborhoods of the West End (R -6) and Cemetery Lane (R -15). As stated above, many of the R -6 and R -15 properties in Tables 2 + 3 have the FAR and density characteristics of the RMF Zone District. 3 l r✓ RECEPTION #: 567220, 02/25/2010 at 09:26:13 AM, 1 OF 6, R $31.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY CONCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT AT 301 W. AFFORDABLE YMAN AVE, IO T OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATED Parcel ID: 273512467002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ajax Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fornell, requesting approval of final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop eight affordable housing units at 301 W. Hyman Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 301 W. Hyman Ave. and is zoned Moderate - Density Residential (R -15); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the architectural character requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing, requesting that the applicant return with improvements to architectural character; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2010, by a 7 -0 vote, approving Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for eight (8) one - bedroom units, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD, Rezoning, and Subdivision, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 1 of 6 Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fords that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the 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 COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Affordable Housing Growth Management Review, creating eight (8) one - bedroom deed - restricted units; and hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision, subject to the following conditions. Section 2: Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone 301 W. Hyman Ave. from R -15 to AH /PUD. Section 3: Approved PUD Dimensional Requirements Dimensional Req. 301 W. Hyman Minimum Lot Size 3,600 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 450 sq. ft Maximum Allowable Density 8 units Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Minimum Front Yard 7 ' 6 " (2 floor balcony projects 6' into setback) Minimum Side Yard 9'2" -- east 1'2" -- west Minimum Rear Yard 7 ' 6 " (2 floor balcony projects 6' into setback) Maximum Site Coverage 66% Maximum Height 25' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space N/A Allowable Floor Area 4,486 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street Parking 0 Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 2 of 6 Minimum side yard the west and 9'2 to the east, acco according to condition of approval by Planning east; nning and Zoning Commission. Off - street parking requirements established at zero (0) by Planning and Zoning Commission, however condition of approval asks City to design four or more head -in • parking spaces in the adjacent Right of Way on W. Hyman, replacing existing parallel parking, as noted in Section 12 of this Resolution. Section 4: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. The construction management plan submitted as part of building permit will address construction and shall address how all construction activities will not impact all trees that are remaining on the site. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed Right -of -Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, meet all applicable standards. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant will work with the Engineering Department to determine a proportionate share of any costs associated with Right -of -Way improvements on the east side of 2nd Street to the extent this work upgrades the entrance to the Midland Trail. As condition of approval, Planning and Zoning Commission requires no sidewalk on north side of parcel, along W. Hyman Ave. Section 5: Affordable Housing The eight (8) on -site, one - bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 2. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process, with the exception of two units to be sold by applicant (Ajax Apartments LLC) to APCHA- qualified owners; subsequent owners to be determined through the APCHA lottery process. The sales price of all units shall be as stated in the APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent (3 %) per annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded), whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 3 of 6 Section 6: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The applicant shall provide an overall access plan for the site with the building permit submittal. Section 7: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will require a new separate sewer service to the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street, as a condition of CO. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 11: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for new street trees, with species, location and tree trench preparations subject to approval of the City Forester. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Tree protection fences must be in place on the west and south sides of the property line, and inspected by the City Forester or his/her designee before construction activities commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 4 of 6 Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall be vertical only. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Parks Department determine if additional screening between the Midland Ave. Trail and the subject parcel should be established. Section 12: Parking There is no parking on the property. Owners /renters will be eligible to purchase Neighborhood Permits for on- street parking. Sidewalk proposed just north of parcel to be removed from proposal, and four or more head -in parking spaces to be designed in City Right of Way, as prescribed by Planning and Zoning Commission as a condition of approval. Section 13: Architectural Character The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the balconies to the east be shifted further east, and the balconies to the west be shifted further west; and also recommended that the gables to the north and south be pulled back closer to the roof and back from the eaves. Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 15: 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 16: 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. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 2 day of February, 2010. Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 5 of 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: im True, Special Counsel Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: 1 I ■ (Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution No 4, Series 2010 Page 6 of 6 rickA i 414 „ ....., City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 . Comments .... 2 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 301 W Hyman — Subdivision and associated land use reviews 2 2 217/219 S Third St — Rezoning 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre, Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Stan Gibbs and Brian Speck. Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan and Ben Gagnon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Cliff Weiss said that this week was an example of project creep; 2 site inspections, 2 major meetings and a TV thing and he wasn't getting paid. Weiss said that he can't schedule 5 meetings in a single week; it wasn't what he had signed up for. Jennifer Phelan responded that P &Z created a very aggressive AACP meeting scedule. Stan Gibbs said that this could be discussed at the AACP meetings. Jennifer Phelan said that she will be putting the Aspen Valley Hospital application in your boxes and will send an email when they are in there and Jasmine and Bert will get some additional information. Ben Gagnon welcomed Jasmine back to P &Z and the commission agreed. Minutes MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from January 19, 2010, seconded by Cliff Weiss; all in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 301 W Hyman — Subdivision and associated land use reviews Stan Gibbs opened the continued hearing on 301 W Hyman and asked if the notice had been provided. Peter Fornell responded that it had been provided. Ben Gagnon said that it seemed that the Planning & Zoning Commission was comfortable with the standards of review with the exception of the architecture and parking discussion to continue. Gagnon said there were photographs of some other properties in town and this was not meant to be what should be done on this property it just meant to convey that staff felt there was a higher standard that could be reached in the application and staff felt these were examples of higher standards. 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Gagnon said there was one letter from a neighbor, Dennis Sider, of 214 W Hyman and was satisfied with the elevations if the neighbors were satisfied and he suggested underground parking. Gagnon said the underground parking on a 3600 square foot lot was not practical. LJ Erspamer asked if the parking people were coming today. Ben Gagnon replied that he hadn't heard from them so he can only reflect from the DRC. Bert Myrin asked if they were waiving the parking requirement. Ben Gagnon replied that it is but it is certainly in P &Z's power to set a condition to make the right of way for parking. Gagnon said that in the PUD Final Development Plan in the dimensional requirements you would be putting a zero next to required on street parking; the table of dimensional standards is in the original memo. The Parking Department and the City would want to retain the head in parking so that you wouldn't be able to access the lot from that point from the east and from the north staff saying that you would be eliminating on street parking in order to create an access onto the property to park plus in two different places the land use code discourages access off of a public street to onsite parking; you could proceed with that from an alley or private road and in this case there is no such option for this property. Myrin asked if the parking that is on the right of way is that memorialized or do we just ignore that it's there in this application. Gagnon replied technically speaking it would remain what it is, it would be in the public right of way with head in parking as established now. Gagnon said a recommendation could be made to make it clearer, maybe painting stripes and that could be passed onto engineering but technically speaking it's not part of this application aside from the PUD Dimensional Requirement. LJ Erspamer asked if this was zoned parking so people that live there could park on the street with stickers; could the City say people could park on that area with special stickers. Gagnon responded that's not Parking Department policy; you can pass on a recommendation to Parking. Erspamer stated that he understood how difficult that would be. Cliff Weiss said there was now at grade patio space for the first floor units although it should be extended to the west end of the property and is this reflected in this on page 2 or not. Ben Gagnon said that they thought it made sense to extend the patio all the way to the edge. Weiss asked about the 3 pictures on page 3 of the memo that you liked so much that this project conform to; the 7 and Hopkins yellow hardy -plank doesn't make it in his book. Gagnon replied that it was subjective and was a tough standard to get arms around as individuals and it 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 was compatibility with enhancement of the visual character of the City and that's a pretty subjective standard. Gagnon said that staff gets together on a weekly basis and reach consensus on recommendations and the consensus was that it didn't seem to rise to the level of the standard that they like to see and a couple of staff members said a couple of photos that might illustrate a standard of originality or a standard that they were looking for. Weiss said at the last meeting the P &Z concern was snow and snow coming down off of the roof and not so much with aesthetics. Gagnon said that they started with a box and it is definitely better but felt like the underlying form couldn't really be any more gussied up and agree it is subjective. LJ Erspamer asked if this was a higher standard than what was on that block now. Gagnon replied yes. Brian Speck said that sometimes we see something that doesn't come under architectural review standards but it's economical but the burden will be on the individuals and people. Speck said this looks like an economical project. Peter Fornell, applicant, stated that he was very proud of the fact that he was planning on building employee housing and wants this to be a product of success for those people who move into it and the employee housing program in general is a marvelous program. Fornell said that a flaw is take downs in free market buildings and then there's an employee housing unit sitting there and we call that a category 1 or 2 and that person who wins that unit can only make $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 a year and get it for $100,000.00 and then the association wants to go in a do an exterior remodel of the building and is a $150,000.00 per owner association fee and we just put that person in bankruptcy; an unintended consequence of employee housing and a bad one. Fornell said at the Aspen Highlands he knew a lot of people that won 3 bedroom units for $175,000.00 and their association fees were $700.00 a month and there are a lot of problems with the associations out there. Fornell said there were a lot of different ideas that we can have for the design of the structure and there's a lot of different opinions that can be for what's right and wrong for the location design wise but we have to make sure we are building a building that the people that move into it can afford to live in it. Fornell said the 3 photographs on page 3 showed the top left building with the possibility of snow build up in the middle and then freezes and the bottom photo with the flat roof was prone to leaking in Aspen. Fornell said what did they want to put there looks nice and serves the people that we are trying to help. Fornell said that he personally feels that they have a quality project and was sensitive to people's opinions but he 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 didn't think this was so objectionable that it was worth sending back through the process again. Cliff Weiss asked if he would address the snow issue. Peter Fornell stated the roof hangs over further. Jeffrey Halferty said that the 8plex was a nice strong recommendation from staff and consensus from P &Z breaking up the units creating individual roofs, individual decks, and dormer elements to help identify the usage. Halferty said they have extended a porch element on both sides for the entry element to connect; there's already an overhang from each deck. Halferty said they have increased the length of the eave line out. Halferty stated they were planning on using some snow breaks on some of the long pitches and guttering as well as heat tape elements. Fornell said that they are using the shingles that the county asked to use to replace the wood shake shingles; they look like wood shake but they are a longer lasting product and a quality product too; we actually used them on a single family home and they are attractively used throughout the city and county. Halferty said they do great with ice and snow and they are a recycled content. LJ Erspamer asked if they added dormers. Fornell replied they did add dormers. Erspamer asked what changes did you make to create the dimensional; it's not as flat as looking building. Halferty said they added a dormer element and added planter boxes. Bert Myrin asked if it was a zero setback on the west side. Fornell replied that he hoped to hear from the neighbors on that because there was a bit of a choice in how that would exist because there is some concern that it is against the open space on the west side; so here on the east side were are off of the lot line. Gagnon said that there was 29 feet of space between the zero setback and that was city land; it connects to the Midland Trail and that creates a buffer so staff was not as concerned about zero setback. Myrin voiced concern for city open space or land and no known future for that property, if that were built on for affordable housing or something then we have a zero setback against that if it was used for a park; they were sort of encroaching on city property. Gagnon said that there were no plans to build on that and this piece was such a small piece and it was not on the list to build on. Fornell stated that piece of land was land locked so there was no possible off street access to it; that was probably the most important thing. Gagnon said this was open space part of the Midland Trail zoned public. Stan Gibbs said one of the criteria for PUD is in the architectural use of natural heating ability; he said Shadow Mountain was a formidable opponent in this regard 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 but can you talk about your ideas about that; what materials and designs might be used to maximize that. Peter Fomell said that the skylights were changed to dormers but did not contemplate the materials; regarding how the building will be heated will be a centralized gas furnace and it will not be individually electric heated units; there is a mechanical room set in the basement to facilitate all of that so it uses economic energies and scaled for the building. Public Comments: 1. Jordie Gerber, public, stated that he lived exactly across the street and he welcomed this addition to the neighborhood visually, architecturally, off street parking and was a win win for the neighborhood. 2. Ann Mullins, public, said that the neighborhood had a meeting at Michael's house with 10 people representing 8 residences and her comments were from that neighborhood meeting. Mullins said there were 6 questions: the group supported developing the property into affordable housing; the group supported 1 space per unit; the group supported zero lot line on the west with 5 yes, 1 abstention and 1 no; the group supported the zero lot line on the south side with a condition that the developer provide year round screening at the lot line on city property; the group did not support installing sidewalks along Second Street and Hyman Avenue as shown in the site plan; and the group supported off street curb cut parking basically the historic pattern in the neighborhood. Mullins said there was not sufficient parking in the neighborhood to build an 8 unit building without parking. 3. Ann Mullins, speaking on her own behalf, said she did not agree with the zero lot lines on either side. 4. Michael Behrendt, public, said the neighbor most impacted by the movement was to the west and is Jay Kuhne and he salutes the project and has no objection to the footprint. Behrendt said sidewalks to nowhere and because of the embankment from the right of way there was no place to put snow. Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing. Commissioners Discussion: Cliff Weiss said the city wants more affordable housing in the neighborhood then the city has to anti -up more assigned parking not just off street for anybody. Weiss said that he was not thrilled architecturally with the dormers to just add light to a vaulted ceiling adds a lot of mass to this building. Weiss said he was confused about the balconies over doorways; there was a secondary shelter for those doorways and then a balcony above that seemed clunky. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 Bert Myrin asked if the sidewalk on the north side connected with the building. Fornell replied that it was a separate walkway from the building. Myrin asked if they were attached to that sidewalk. Fornell replied that he was responding to engineering. Gagnon said the sidewalk was a recommendation from engineering and community development doesn't feel as strongly about it. Gagnon said that it makes sense when we see projects where there is a gap between existing sidewalks. Myrin said that he still was concerned about the zero setbacks and some screening if parks agreed to it. Myrin reiterated that he wanted to see screening on the city property, no sidewalk on the north side and can't support what staff doesn't support with the architecture. LJ Erspamer said that he liked this design and the dormers and that it was a good job dimensionally. Erspamer said he liked the screening idea. Erspamer that parking there now is on public property, it's not on private property; he asked how many spaces would be lost if parking were put on the north side of the building. Erspamer said it was important to listen to the neighbors and parking was important; he agreed with no sidewalk and the screening. Jasmine Tygre stated that she is not having a problem with the architecture and when a building is a big rectangle there's a limited amount that you can do with the architecture in order to be able to get the maximum number of livable units on the property and they have done a really good job with that. Tygre noticed one of the biggest boxiest buildings in town (North of Nell Building) has become less ugly because of the colors and treatments and textures that they have used but it's still a big square rectangular monolith but it doesn't look as bad. Tygre commended the applicant for the fact that they are putting up 8 affordable housing units right in town, right adjacent to the trail and within easy walking distance of downtown. Tygre said this provides tremendous community benefit and to quibble over architectural style seems to her the wrong thing and there were very easy remedies that would make it more attractive to the inhabitants and to the neighborhood as well. Tygre said that she was conflicted about parking and it was about time that the City get serious about cars and stop building everything to maximum occupancy. Michael Wampler said that everybody knew how he felt about the architecture on this; it is a big box and he is kind of struggling with it but it is employee housing and he was all for that. Wampler would like to bring back a little bit from the 1960s and 1970s and see the decks get bigger and make it more of an old school, old style place that we all grew up with here 30 years ago. Wampler reiterated that he would like to see massive decks. Fornell responded there was the one side patio 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 02, 2010 that they attempted to address the issue. Wampler suggested a place where they could have an 8 unit party with a big grill but outside of that he said that he would probably vote for it. Brian Speck stated that he liked that they were addressing employee housing. Speck asked for the building to be softened up a little but supported this project. Fomell said that they were using some stacked rock at the base and a stucco finish above that and then wood on the second level. Jim DeFrancia shared Cliff's concern about the balconies and supported the affordable housing project. Weiss asked about the screening of the trail because he rides that trail 4 times a day and he did not want the trail to become a tunnel. Weiss said there were a number of homes right there and it really was not a problem but what becomes a problem are the walls when you are riding a bike and there are mirrors up to see around the corners. Fomell suggested some scrub oak or shrubs not tall trees. Gagnon said that if there was a condition P &Z would be asking the Parks Department what they could do along those lines and ultimately it would be a Council decision. Stan Gibbs said the most important thing was the housing being provided by this project. Gibbs said that he would like to see the building moved to the east, whatever amount it could be moved to the east. Fomell said that the building could be centered slightly and the patio could be to the lot line. Gibbs said the patio would not be used like the city open space as a gathering place with a little bit of privacy; he wanted the building moved to the east to split the difference between the 2 lot lines because he did not think that patio would be used. Gibbs said the city is going to have to do the buffer and P &Z could make that a recommendation in the resolution. Gibbs said that the parking was a big deal to him and he thinks the situation is there is no parking for this building; it is all public parking that is used by the people that happen to live there so P &Z will not make the situation worse with zero parking because there is already zero parking and the question is can we make it work better for the city. Gibbs said if those parking spaces on the east are still available and they will probably be used by the people that live there but he would like to see some spaces on the north side of the building as well. Gibbs said you do gain more by having head in parking and the city would have to agree to do that so we are coming back to the City for important anti -ups to get this affordable housing. Gagnon said that P &Z could make a recommendation between here and City Council that staff and the parking department and engineering department and the applicant work together to see if 8 Cit Plannint & Zonin• Meetin: — Minutes — Februa 02 2010 they can maximize the parking in the area considering parallel, head -in or slightly head in so that when staff and the applicant go to Council we can have some options to bring to them. Gibbs said P &Z can always make it a condition because Council can do whatever they want anyhow. Weiss said that he was on the verge of making a motion to continue this to another date because he wasn't sure that he wanted to defer the parking and he wanted the City to weigh in on this a little bit before he can vote on it. Weiss said that was a critical issue. Weiss said the city staff hasn't identified anything in the architecture and would like to give the applicant the time to fix some of those minor issues and he was concerned that there would be a lot of recommendations and then it was out of P &Z. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue this application on 301 W Hyman to a date certain, seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Wampler, no; Speck, no; Erspamer, no; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, no; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, no. Does not pass. Discussion of the motion to continue: LJ Erspamer stated that this process takes forever and he felt bad for the applicant; this is too much time. Erspamer said that he knew what engineering was going to say, forget the parking. Erspamer said as citizens we are going to demand that any of these development projects that creates more units that they provide parking. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission finds for 301 W Hyman the amendment to the zoning map meets required standards of review and recommends City Council approve the final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision and approval of Growth Management for affordable housing with recommendations to include screening on City property, conditioned upon removing the sidewalk on the north side and adding as many head in parking spaces on the north side as can be accommodate and amend the placement of the building to center the property as much as possible, and recommend that the architectural features be fleshed out by staff including the dormers and balconies. Seconded Weiss, yeicWampler, Wampler; es; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED Myrin, Y 0. Michael Behrendt said that traditionally existing off street parking has been recognized by the City like they are grandfathered; he said that he has a temporary easement that the City can take back at any time for the public but have issued for all that have applied temporary easements. 9 rA • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner (— THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community ] Development Department DATE OF MEMO January 28, 2010 MEETING DATE: February 2, 2010 RE: 301 W. Hyman — Amendment to Zone District Map, Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS for Affordable Housing APPLICANT /OWNER: Establishing deed - restricted housing requires John Cooper Growth Management review. REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Peter Fomell Staff recommends that the P &Z remand the proposal back to the applicant to meet PUD LOCATION: standards for architecture. 301 W. Hyman Ave. SUMMARY: CURRENT ZONING & USE Applicant requests that the P &Z recommends City R -15. Four (4) free market Council approval of Rezoning, Final PUD and residential units on a 3,600 s.f. lot. subdivision; and approves Growth Management for Affordable Housing. PROPOSED LAND USE: Applicant seeks to demolish i existing free market 4 -plex and replace it with a new and larger structure containing eight (8) deed - % it lit' restricted affordable housing units. t( a a Applicant is requesting an it Amendment to the Zone District Map to rezone the property from R- 15 to AH /PUD, which requires a PUD Development Plan. 301 W. Hyman Establishing eight (8) new residential units requires approval as a subdivision. r^ BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed redevelopment of 301 W. Hyman on January 19, 2010. At that time, the P &Z approved a motion to continue the public hearing until February 2, so the applicant could address concerns regarding architecture. d t t ,`' ^ h t I i )l 4k 7: r�g 1 kW' .. xy , y 43,ft 4 s i" A • y � ' S ..,E • .xgt A 4 • • ._..- - M I Original application for 301 W. Hyman redevelopment. The initial application was a box -like structure with exterior staircases and second floor walkways along the length of the building, somewhat resembling a motel in appearance. Staff is always reluctant to act in the role of a designer — none of us are licensed architects. However, in practice, applicants often ask staff how they could improve architecture and meet the required architectural standard. Staff made a number of suggestions and applicant revised the architecture before the first P &Z public hearing on January 19. Staff still found that the proposal didn't meet the PUD standard for architecture, emphasizing that architecture for affordable housing should strengthen the perception of the city's affordable housing program and not detract from it. The P &Z discussed the issue extensively and ultimately agreed to ask the applicant to improve the architecture. Applicant again asked staff for ways to improve the architecture, and staff reluctantly made more recommendations. Staff suggested addressing the individuality of the eight units, adding roof forms such as gables, adding patio space, improving window treatments and generally improving "curb appeal." Changes made by the applicant since the Jan. 19 P &Z public hearing (see Exhibit A): • What was once a single shared balcony on the 2nd floor on the north and south sides of the building are now two separate balconies, each accessed separately from the upper floor units • Replaced roof skylights with gables, for each of the upper units. • There is now at -grade patio space for the first floor units, although it should be extended to the west end of the property. 2 m • Window treatments have been adjusted to show flower boxes. • Window treatments on the east and west side have been adjusted. Upon reviewing revisions for the Feb. 2 public hearing, staff sees improvements but still does not believe the architecture is "compatible with or enhance(s) the visual character of the City," according to the primary PUD standard on architecture. Staff understands that this can be a subjective standard. It is staff's position that the initial application was very box -like, and while it has been improved, there comes a point where the basic underlying structure and form simply can't be transformed into a structure that " enhance(s) the visual character of the City." Staff has reached a consensus that effectively asks the applicant to "start over" regarding the architecture. Staff is providing some images of architecture that we believe reflects a level of originality that would meet the PUD standard. Staff is not suggesting that any of these images is the "answer" to this site — some are on larger sites, some might not work in the neighborhood. Staff does not want to play the role of designer. This is only an effort to display a level of architectural originality that would be appropriate. There is potential for different roof forms, perhaps even a flat roof and higher plate heights on both floors ... A higher standard can be achieved without excessive cost — the modular building industry is turning out much higher levels of architecture than ever before. r • r, ✓w l e �s - ._ ..mo t .— 7 Atil ,. I it 3 At the January 19 public hearing, it was staff's impression that the P &Z was ready to determine that the proposal at 301 W. Hyman met the required standards of review, with the exception of architecture. However, towards the end of the Jan. 19 hearing, several P &Z members expressed an interest in adding a condition that would set aside most or all of the head -in parking on the east side of the parcel for future users of the 301 W. Hyman site. Upon reviewing this issue internally, staff believes this an unrealistic proposal. The City cannot allow public Right of Way to be used for private purposes. The only way to "privatize" the use of the parking spaces would be to vacate the Right of Way and turn ownership over to the applicant — a choice the City is highly unlikely to make, especially considering the proximity to the public ice rink. SITE VISIT: A site visit has been scheduled for noon on Tuesday, February 2, meeting in the alley behind City Hall and proceeding to the site; or meet at the site at about 12:10 pm. Please RSVP to Ben.Gagnon(aci.aspen.co.us and specify if you intend to meet behind City Hall or at the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends remanding the proposal back to the applicant, due to concerns on architecture. POTENTIAL MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the land use requests, they may use this motion "I find that the Amendment to the Zoning Map meets required standards of review, I recommend City Council approval of a Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision, and approve Growth Management for affordable housing." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Updated elevation drawings and site plan. 4 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: �i I (AI • n rotAen , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1' a , . ,� • : Is if A , 20 $Q STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, -4Th-Pto\ 9Cc oat t (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: V 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 L 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) 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. ii Signature / The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 2'? day ts of /-t- -fix , 230_, by A —2 - _ _s. St • BLIC NOTICE T,� L� T,i CC T SEAL RE' 0, DNTRI P,ANNEDUNITE. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 2QI E W PUBLIC DISTRICT MAP, PLANNED UNIT DE- VELOPMENT (PUD) AND SUBDIVISION OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing __)) (� will be held on Monday, April 12, 2010, at a meet- My Y �`-I1v ) in to b at soo p.m. b etrre the =VII e M commission expires: , na st Coin uncil Chambers City p r o 13s l Ga , Amendment St_ Aspen, t CO. the review a District M r an 1 C cntlment to the 20 ub Distnicr Mop, Conceptual/Final PUD and Hyman Subdivision for Parc pos, Parcel h able housing 104273512467002. 2. The applican t W. Hym t proposes to re- Avenue, 'I a/ ,`— - 'L�3Lii�i ' ID perly t p la zo the property from R4 5 to AH with antl re- Notary Public struc ne a c eig d ee d - rust ict a large - able o e hc containing units. eight rhebreor e m n, co n- tact Ben Gagnon on her further City of Aspen Community con - tricted affo Depam5 B. ail at b Bt, As- no n, Go, pen. o.us 5 wr 130 be correspondence o . n.ence r elt e d 0 1 the ppl d written d be sen 10 t he related above m it the application l a eoultl be sent to the above a -mail or physical address. Ap T John Cooper c/o Peter Fornell, 402 Mi a Park Place,Aapen,coB,B11. ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: y pehae Council Mayor PHE PUBLICATION z C rbpahe, zom etl [aeo in the aga,] Aspen Times Weekly on March APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 1 !IE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 1 '. 1.: Cl a w s aF w�=° ' a° wz° dw � e z w O � o o ct z HFoa j z va� °a sa 14 . v } t ,.�,,�s a w E: 0 5� g 7,.; z � zap � t W.1 L.) v -1d 4 x3 cso F., r d tit roS. n n 4o a G tv t z x d r � I I'. h >: kC. • En 0 zo5 o d 00 N I `` 4a r - CO Ut N RD y � k t' 0 5 d = O -r- • r;;;;;$";-'-"'; � Kr �a { n Av °h tl�'. .tar 5 a V' 'a {.. Y t^•. , • VI 0y W CA 0 1 .0 Cr ro t�f • ro� z z od n �� n - �' 0 - O vid cc 2 N r H can •3 i L i • I d b t W Pzi X00 N d O N d CA y N 2 _ --- _ — - - ' • - - , , .. ,_ ...:, ........ . ..., . - .. . . -, ....,... ....,-• ... . :- , ' . ' : ''... ' • , . - _ - , ., ,..., ',.. , , . . . . '1. -. ,... . , '.. ..:::::.:::3 ...'.' -‘1..>:;..: ' '''' '..''. ....i., '-,- 7. ....-.. , . -. .. . ...- 1 -- - 1 \ i - i .. '. 1 ' ›. tn i i til tr5 ? 4 z n t r 1 0 n co c.) iit to n ' 1-3 7, ••• 1.-, L.) •< 0 n '.. N 0 e ty, ,.., )-• PP 00 ■ ,-, CP, i 1 1,4 ta trl r4 1 I i . _. , 1 k -: b t 4 w r+ N cit.! A P7 a. 3-■g xp H N Z d Rt z H v ea • - . i ■ riZt 4r a4 b ob d ay z Sy z oN °•Wr r Y2 y 0 1 r N V M CO z I+1 � • 1 44 1I . L y ti 'H �.. -3 CO ar � r� tp t tly n b etl txo xz O n g cr , y w r c L W W W W K 1< LPN - . . . . . . , . ea • . 5 :3 rn en r g Cit • 0 n g t" tri c‘S n g u n g 0 F t 4 g g • cr.1 vs" • 5,e)t n o i •Th • • . - - ... _ • . . . . • "-. • . cc 0 in a. ( *4 1 ;al k * r r) P.( 0 te ct < z Cs) 0 cn U •4 ;Li 4 , . X d ,,. o 5 •tt (in) p t.1 •-• •••-•••;:. • • , s., + -R+Aa � ... i •.,1£"e. " b t4 � ..fi ti = ' +K : -zyC z 3 a N k Lip cr 00 j Cl) R4 zzz � o 0 f to H tit 3 0 z- • U ' K 2o 3w r N N V] N a z &r. .. Ca m ¢ l>0 d a- ° W H© tL Q Z H a tia,„, w g o a � H o ON a axe H I•4 aUF z WJEHI - a��� qU z k H a q X '412.a , r 4 ^ t ." s v 2 a".. +T`' s r n s> w' � ' 5 re � i . i U .a ra W cn H a d e a'Q mw 0zr- o ,. �c �o�a w� i wvo�,d l ' % a +Y $ ., rv.. � � " . tld� `rv.° n 'bt w4 �' M$ �/K+O}'� h ; .Y- a:.� �4 1 I � O it zx re ' N f OOH a . tAl ac ;? ° g a Q 0 n, to z d °a I I 1 I i i 1 1 I . • I I I" 0 R 3 O U t © W Q,a - WW �aU V.Qm a as O w 0 4 � _ a xa U3a F 0 .> PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 301 W. HYMAN AVE., AMENDMENT TO�T DISTRICT PUBL P, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MD) AND HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, April 12, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 5 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review proposals for an Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning], Conceptual/Final PUD and Subdivision at 301 W. Hyman Avenue, Parcel D #273512467002. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R -15 to AH -PUD, and replace affordable a four-unit free market structure with a larger structure containing eight deed-restricted e of Aspen housing units. For further information, contact Ben Gagn on at CO 9 27 sp en Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen by email at — - - -= ). All written correspon related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicant: John Cooper c/o Peter Fomell, 402 4dland Park Place, Aspen, CO 81611 Michael C Ireland MaYOr Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on March 28, 2010 _ City of Aspen Account ti.. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 _ 4 ? 1 L) t M4 A , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ' 1 ' ( 2 ,2f0T 200) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I � , 7121 -PC ` `S\c ( \ (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: t 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 fiftew (15) da s prio to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 1 day of 204 and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted M ice (sign) is attached hereto. ✓ M ailing 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) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, d , return receipt to requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior 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 or other regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map 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 av . ilable for public inspection in the planning agency during all busine•.. 1 , urs for frftell (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. � j .402( Signat re The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac wleded before me this S. day of ?rQ(11 , 2041b by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DENISE CLEVELAND M commission = pires: 3 ZOt NOTARY PUBLIC STATEOE COLORADO pn tfri commission Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 I ____&---------------------------"I l' i oc: s.‘(\(--\\ . { Lie NOTICE c - t f \ zoko 00E TIME IIII: PUB AV 4 ' ‘ . PLA . pURPOSE , . 1 IL elk ° 5 `." re ' . , F -st-i '''' . , C . ... ... \. _ i s. _, , '\0 t- '' \ _ v .,..,, - C \ .... i ..., ), • 4- illikkw" \ � tom. C.? t■ t11 .NE/'') ' INFRM'I 10 � CAN 0,5090 FOR r HA S �N IRS". et (s P2 twe C1TY.� �� SY. A I 0 ■ : _ --•• ■ r - = Ili _ - , . IP.. O Z is ' "" it • 4 i � L. L, _ 1 \ . i 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE • REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF P PERTY: ^_. n 001 W . Y n-n r JL , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: lEZto)c,-- c1cc.n [ 9 4 4-:390w) ,WO/ U STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, / c--, c 0—r - (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: 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 -sic (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in IIL 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) 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. Si ature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of , , 201.0_, by ,1 • PUB IC 1 E WITNESS V HAND LL / i T SEAL I ZONE1l MA D DISTRICT P NNED UNITDE E MY HA1VD AND OFFICIAL SEAL O((PUD) SUBUI ION, GROWTH MAN AGEMEBT C hata public O O�f 1 f NOTICE held HEREBY Tuesday, GIVEN that a 19, 2010, p a a co lJ on I will be hto begin at :3 .m. e re the A at a My / / expires: meeting Meeting to bein m C i t p H.m, b before tae nspen `-/ O / 1 Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister S Glen menttC tneviawGit Map, Con anaAmenal to ment PM, , Subdivision District nd Growth Managementltcr Affordable Housing at 301 W. Hyman Avenue, Par- Notary Public cel ID #2)351246]002. The applicant rezone the P Proponds to `\ properly from &15 t AH -PUh antl re' place a structure containing ni na eig d o ed -resl with a g larer `PF(Y }1U \ ble u tFeightdeed- restricted contact ableGag . For fuller inforril, contact i .�j( ve Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Com De- c t (97 0 ( Department, 5, S. Galena email Aspen. CO O (9] / k Ben gno 429- ®ei.aspencous O by em at •' LAURA ). All written aho come- spondence the o hee ro e to the application shoultl be ( • • MEYER • / sent to t above ve e-mail or physical tldress. f : / Applicant: John Cooper Peter For . 4 I I Midland d Park Park Place, e, Aspen, C081611 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: C081611 HE PUBLICATION ( y . C s'b.J Erapamer,Chair, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) k�� OF � - -�' Published 0 �4466184� in the Aspen Times Weekly on Januar 3, 20y VE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A GENC S' Lit 0811012010 3,201 6 L IYLY[L • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: . // N , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1 d i9 e ! MO 2-010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin q ) I, ,4 €- �/c c� �`� (name, please print) being or repre 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: ✓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 c 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 l 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 P P 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) • Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, retum 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. • Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 5 day • of r ja.r) , 20$ 0 , by ,4-n , £- c' r 3 c CE P IC NOTI WITNESS V iTAAi �T�i CC /r T SEAL RE: SECTIONS Of THE LAND USE DE AIN WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL SECTIONS Or THE LAND USE CODE NOT IS HER Y GIVEN that a public hearing January me to held estlayy p.m. be re the A at a �^ l bed meeting to begin on at 6 C o p.m. before the Aspen X LI may Planning and Zoningg Commiaaion. Sistere City My commission expires: Room, City Hall, s of th 130 S. the Land Use Land: Copen amend 2h 0 47e 1 skder a staff initiated ordinance that the l /,r�_JI ^[,]r ^1Y /_ \` fol lowin Cs e and at a 2At Growth g hapter Manegement Quota System and Chapter ], , an . 26.5]5, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations. 7- J�]Ut� Essentially, the proposed ment amendment allows affordable for the la helhotary us in c to deed r the lo auanicted Notary Public affordable le housing in reange fo pe r baa a upon or nthe number employees e de e be e s housed b the f rhes - ••• '' 3 1I \ fo actJ P n ble hog units For fu yef sd rr a- � P S,Y .'y/�e k nt nnif i el . For City AsS Gal o C ion, contact Jennifer ant Department the of 1300apenCam- . O • " ` SI., A elon spen, 970) 629..2]5ena Ienniler • / I I SL, Aspen, CO, C (]O) 9, 1. • �'' ' . � II • .phelen•ci.aspen.co.us. s4J Erspamer, Chair : LAURA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission • j • MEYER : 5 Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on January ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: , •, 3, 2010 [44661597 THE PUBLICATION h 9 ' � = • rrw uvRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL A GENCMe9(7C /2010 BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24 -65.5 -103.3 © O ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2c (A) _ , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: r ( STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) ss. E lleo — L (name, please being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personaly 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: 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 (11) days Axel to the public hearing and was continuously visible from thea ay of J O A,,c t>r , 20O (6, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A p otograph 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) 0 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 hqurs for fifteen ) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The regoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this &day of , 204 0, by Peghor Fn ic" WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Y ....... My commission expires: QL� ;114" 1 o? taryPublic said ,roF CO ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Easy Fee {t Labels A 'ma Jse Avery® Ternplate 5160® Feed Paper .>me� Bend along Pop-Up EdgeTM i r/�` AVERY® Siso® P expose Pop -Jp Edge V S, BEHRENDT MICHAEL H CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L CITY OF ASPEN 334 W HYMAN AVE 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ATTN FINANCE DEPT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST DHM FAMILY TRST 90% DONATELLI ROBERT A FAMILY TRUST 990 S ROCK BLVD #F MORGAN DONALD 10% DONATELLI SUSAN J TRUST RENO, NV 89502 15 INMAN CIR 6800 JERICHO TURNPIKE #104W ATLANTA, GA 30309 SYOSSETT, NY 11791 EAGLE POINT PROPERTIES LLC FRANKEL KATHY TRUST C/O PATRICIA A MARQUIS KASPAR THERESA D PO BOX 1749 325 W HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 1637 ASPEN, CO 81612 -1749 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 KENDIG ROBERT & SUE KUHNE 2004 FAMILY TRUST LITTLE CLOUD 3 LLC PO BOX 4649 79935 DOUBLE EAGLE WY 750 NE 7TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 DANIA BEACH, FL 33004 LITTLE CLOUD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O KRABACHER & SANDERS PC #201 LPI ASPEN INC MARK CAROL KRAUSS 201 N MILL ST 750 NE 7TH AVE PO BOX 9283 ASPEN, CO 81611 DANIA BEACH, FL 33004 ASPEN, CO 81612 -9283 .MARTEN RANDOLPH MCCARTY DANIEL L MCKENZIE MILTON D & ARETA B 129 MARTEN ST PO BOX 4051 333 THROCKMORTON #1106 MONDOVI, WI 54755 ASPEN, CO 81612 FT WORTH, TX 76102 MULLINS MARGARET ANN PITKIN COUNTY POOLE DAVID A & NIKKI FERRARI 216 W HYMAN AVE 530 E MAIN ST #302 PO BOX 10264 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 REEDER LYLE D TRUST ROSS PAULINE SANDLER FAMILY TRUST 19384 MARKET RD PO BOX 9969 PO BOX 1554 DEWITT, IL 61735 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SANDS CASTLE DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC SEGUIN JEFF W & MADALYN 8 SEIDER DENNIS J & LEAH ELLENBERG PO BOX 1554 PO BOX 8852 TRUSTEE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 26642 LATIGO SHORE DR MALIBU, CA 90265 SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC SWISS CHALET /KITZBUHEL TAYLOR TERRY R & CYNTHIA E 232 W HYMAN AVE PARTNERSHIP ASPEN, CO 81611 1286 SNOWBUNNY LN 515 N FLAGLER DR #P400 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 -4320 Etiquettes faciles a peler • i Repliez a la hachure afin de ' Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® i Sens de r www.avery.com I ri.m...e...,.... reveler le rehnrrl onr_u 1 Easy Peer Labels i. an Bend along line to 1 / / � 1 AVERY® 516Q® ...Ise Avery Template 5160® Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM 1J VAUGHAN 2004 FAMILY TRUST ZAGORSKI JOSEPH & ROBIN C/0 VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL 355 MARQUESA DR PO BOX 390 CORAL GABLES, FL 33156 HEBRON, IL 60034 -390 Etiquettes faciles a peler i Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le ® ® abarit AVERY 5160 Sens de reveler le rebord Po U T. ' 9 ch Sens de nt p P 1 1- 800 -GO -AVERY PUBLIC NOTICE DATE icuiw q j 1 1 , 20 ► c ' TIME ') : 30 P. (IVY PLACE I S 6G l� I/, a_ I �O 2n h 0.� rr � v w 41 • FOR FURTHER EINFORMATION CONTACT: 170 81 GALENA 8 ASPEN COO (97DEPARTMENT 0 1920�SOB0 1'lllllI(. NO1 Il.t 11611- 1 *1 E 11MM11a* 4P:a111.411111Paleal M MEMORANDUM TO: Plans* were routed to those departments checked -off below: Y City Engineer Y Zoning Officer Y Housing Department Y Parks Department Y Aspen Fire Marshal N Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Y Building Department N Environmental Health Y Utilities / Public Works N Holy Cross Electric N City Attorney N Streets Department N Historic Preservation Officer N Pitkin County Planning N County & City Disaster Coordinator N Police N Transportation Y Parking FROM: Ben Gagnon Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone - 429.2755 Fax- 920.5439 ben.gagnon(a,ci.aspen.co.us DATE: December 1, 2009 RE: DRC Review — 301 W. Hyman —An application for rezoning from R- 15 to AH -PUD. This would convert a 4 -unit free market structure on a 3,600 sq. ft. lot to an 8 -unit affordable housing structure. Square footage of structure increases from 2,240 sq ft to 4,024 sq ft. with 4 parking spaces proposed. The proposal includes two, zero -foot setbacks adjacent to City of Aspen land (by Ice Garden and trails) DATE OF DRC MEETING: December 9th @ 1:30 in the Council Chambers *if possible, please return the application to Community Development when finished with DRC review — Thanks. ArcIMS Viewer Page 1 of 2 is/ �1 '331 :r .� ;�,y1 -'F � ` ,,• 133 +. a ,y •fr 7 -N r OSPSPA i `'- 1 3a 308 a V laity of As Pan - ∎ - - -- .. - . -,4, 312, r . ; 11 t'` ' PUD,' ' PUD`SPA s o0 F 1 2a AH ►; ' L LP Y r -- s - - - -` -_, c am , 1 � .. ; .' ;� j R -15 C ` A" e„, d13 206; ; 1 0 -�, - ! ; ,, 4 R-15 ` r` 0 333 -, +1toA w W ._ 211r y 325 !> 3 �L �� A - _— 218 31 5, 7 R -B 219 3c6. ( 217 �� i � 2,..d.- t l�ti� k 1c - i -i� t`. - - ' . : % r O °j 216 31 5, ~� 2t . } `/ "� 301. '--- . :_ -~ PUB f26• _ �'t i -< t' , 1,\ `... 31' Gavammam1 Lai 20 Example ,. t \ 214, L1111a C10u1 11,Z 301 W. Hyman R -15 Zone District - :) c o uv (You will notice that this lot is very under -sized for the R -15 Zone District and probably , should never have been zoned that way. The proposal is to rezone it AH-PUD. The following cheat sheet shows some existing + proposed dimensions, and requirements for AH -PUD Zone District. The south and west sides have zero -foot setbacks proposed — " both sides directly abut City land.) Existing R -15 AH -PUD Proposed Minimum 900 s.f. 15,000 for 500 s.f. for 450 s.f. for Lot Area (4 units on 1- Family; 8 one -bed 8 one -bed per 3600 sf lot) 7,500 for units units Y Dwelling Built in duplex Unit 1960 Allowable 2,240 2,568 for 3,960 4,024 Square existing 1 fam Footage 2,880 for duplex Front 11 25 No req. 10'6" Yard (Hyman) Side Yard 8 (to east) 10 + 10 No req. 7' + 0' 5 (to west) Rear Yard 17 10 No req. 0' httn.//905 170 51 230/wehsite/asnen7one/ManFrame.htm 11/10/2009 Page 1 of 1 0 , t. Ben Gagnon From: tom @aspensan.com Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:32 AM To: Ben Gagnon Subject: Re: DRC 301 W. Hyman 12.9 Ben, ACSD would probably make our standard comments on this rezoning along with the following: The buildings located at 301 and 315 E. Hyman are currently served by a one common old 4" CIP shared sewer service line. The proposed new 8 -plex will need to run a new separate sewer service to the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street. I'II fax you a sketch of the existing conditions. Thanks Tom Original Message From: Ben Gagnon To: Development Review Committee Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:58 PM Subject: DRC 301 W. Hyman 12.9 All, Sorry for the 8 -day (instead of the usual 10 -day) notice. Please open attachment to determine if you are on the invite list and will be receiving the application. If you're not on the invite list and want more info, let me know. The application is pretty simple to look at, but there may be some ramifications. If you are on the invite list and can't make it next Wednesday, please give me a ring and I'll come to you. Thanks, Ben Gagnon X2755 12/2/2009 •/02/2009 WED 9:45 FAX . Q•0 9253601 ACSD = ?001/002 fi ■ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 970 -925 -3601 Fax: 970 -925 -2537 Facsimile Transmission To: Ben Gagnon FROM Tom Bracewell Company: COA Com Dev Date: 12/2/2009 Fax No: 920 - 5439 No. of Pages: 2 Re; Urgent For Review _ Please Comment _ Please Reply _ Please Recycle ?002/002 12/02`/2009 WED 9:45 FAX 9 9253601 ACSD f � b �; r i -' , l R' T� l � _�_` l� { y� )t, i `y r s i N i ,Y r �' r4 Lj f ! 1fJ%1"eN" I ' ' � --------- n' I 'n'r+. y, ` _ '1`e ^ _ 4 ./' vv P:1711 I ■ " fh -- `'"W t :, a., 1 v, ,, n. di i 5 r � 'r1ir � � -----____ all I r' R bf+ - _ _ ,,ev, i s Ilir L, u w r R C 1 r � ft; j Y 'aW� . 4 " ' M 4 '^off q E8.14 MI r J ` , VM/ ' (I. I C Q-1 r,�y/ � ` 1 JV Y , '1 � I q ii M �, V y41� I'1 A AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, January 19, 2010 1:00 p.m. - Site Visit — Aspen Valley Hospital 4:30 p.m. — Sister Cities Room CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Proposed Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit Code Amendment B. 301 W. Hyman — Subdivision and additional land use reviews VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS (SC- VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 3 r . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner is THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community Development Department Of DATE OF MEMO January 14, 2010 MEETING DATE: January 19, 2010 RE: 301 W. Hyman — Amendment to Zone District Map, Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS for Affordable Housing APPLICANT /OWNER: Establishing deed - restricted housing requires a John Cooper Growth Management review for affordable housing. REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Fornell STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P &Z remand the LOCATION: application back to the applicant to modify the 301 W. Hyman Ave. architecture and continue the public hearing. CURRENT ZONING & USE SUMMARY: R -15. Four (4) free market Applicant requests that the P &Z determines the residential units on a 3,600 s.f, lot. Amendment to the Zone District Map meets standards of review; recommends City Council PROPOSED LAND USE: approval of a Final PUD and subdivision; and Applicant seeks to demolish approves Growth Management for Affordable existing free market 4 -plex and Housing. replace it with a new and larger structure containing eight (8) deed- kJ'j - restricted affordable housing units. Applicant is requesting an Amendment to the Zone District ip 6 Map to rezone the property from R- bf % ,'s „ 15 to AH /PUD, which requires a ' 1 Final PUD Development Plan. Establishing eight (8) new ., residential units requires approval as a subdivision. 301 W. Hyman % LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning] — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision- making body. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision- making b � T € y�., �p�' �� �� b � ., > s R15 } w ,r"' ^ 2 "`∎14 ,/ r,Pyg tli� -- P , / / 1 - , ,_. Mi 1 .n F ,,, f °Hlf 64'1 Y. I i iti- ■ i' SW' 8 2 � ° a J j MM'4 I'A L � x �R1MF z 1" 7. y c.+o m B a" /2/i %i % / /// o Aro me 5ra.t.rs 19 ®:; The subject parcel at 301 W. Hyman is indicated by the arrow at left. Note the city ice rink just to the east of the subject parcel. 2 BACKGROUND: Of the four (4) separate land use reviews applicable to this proposal, this memo will focus first on the proposed Amendment to the Zone District Map and approval of a Final PUD Development Plan. Applicant is asking to rezone 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH /PUD. The AH /PUD Zone District establishes dimensional requirements through the adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan. Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although the P &Z must review Subdivision criteria in this case and recommend approval or denial, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. Growth Management for Affordable Housing requires compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines, and addresses issues regarding whether units are for sale or rent. The rest of the memo will examine each land use review separately, focusing on key elements of the proposal, and the most relevant standards of review. Complete staff findings for each standard of review can be found in the exhibits. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP [REZONING]: The two most relevant standards of review for rezoning in this case are: whether this rezoning is consistent with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, and whether it's compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land uses and neighborhood characteristics. The staff memo will focus on these two key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit C. Consistency with the 20000 AACP. There is no doubt that the production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. More specifically, the AACP asks "The public and private sectors (to) work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27.) Similarly, the AACP "Encourage(s) greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27.) Furthermore, the AACP seeks to "encourage (affordable housing) within the traditional town site ..." It goes on to say that, "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26.) This desire was reinforced in the Transportation chapter, which stated that, "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21.) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ," staff finds that the scale and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high residential /lodge densities. 3 Compatibility with surrounding zone districts and land uses. The proposed rezoning would change the property at 301 W. Hyman from R -15 to AH/PUD. According to a staff examination of surrounding zone districts and existing land uses, a zoning of AH /PUD would actually be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the current R -15 zoning. II ' k J" • /`SIC 4 • i i � i �i. ., L` � v_ ._ rte uw au W IN.I t xA„ Shadow Mtn. Lodge, at 232 W. Hyman. St. Moritz, at 334 W. Hyman. This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH /PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and `70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. In addition, the existing city open space directly adjacent to the west creates a buffer with the adjacent neighbor. CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PUD: The most relevant standards in establishing a Final PUD Development Plan for this proposal relate to whether the proposed dimensional requirements are compatible with the neighborhood, whether the proposal has an impact on traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation and parking and whether the architectural character is compatible with the neighborhood and reflects the intended use. The staff memo will focus on these three key issues, while a list of all criteria and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. Proposed dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for a proposed structure in the AH /PUD Zone District are established as part of a site - specific Final PUD Development Plan, rather than being specifically prescribed, as they are in most other zone districts. 4 The AH /PUD Zone District includes a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size of the parcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft. structure, reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage now requested is 4,486 — reflecting a 13% increase above what the A1-1/PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. One of the relevant PUD standards of review is whether the "scale" and "massing" is "appropriate" for the surrounding area. Again, referencing staffs review of the neighborhood, the proposed 1.2:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is well within the range of existing FAR in this part of town. Also, a mitigating factor is the existing city open space land on the west side of the 301 W. Hyman parcel — this 30 -foot strip creates a large buffer between the project site and the next (and last) house on the south side of Hyman Ave. Also, it should be noted that the immediate context of the subject parcel is the large mass and scale of the city's indoor ski rink, directly across Second Street. Staff finds that the existing buffer between the only adjacent residential neighbor, the existing high -FAR characteristic of the built neighborhood and the provision of eight new units of affordable housing all mitigate for the modest variation ( +13 %, or +526 sq. ft.) from the Floor Area Ratio "guide." The AH /PUD Zone District also establishes a sliding scale of maximum allowable density by assigning a Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit, also to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The guidelines contained in Table 1. Table 1: Guide for Max. Allowable Density in the AH/PUD Zone District Unit Type Min. Lot Area Per Unit Dormitory 300 sf Studio 400 sf 1- bedroom 500 sf 2- bedroom 1,000 sf 3- bedroom 1,500 sf 3+ bedroom 1,500 + 500 /bedroom 5 r .. According to the PUD "guide," the 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one - bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot would have to be 4,000 square feet to meet the guideline, or 11% bigger than it is. PUD standards of review allow for an increase in maximum allowable density "if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints." The PUD standards go on to identify "goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP)." By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown and a commuter trail, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this modest increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood (please see Exhibit H). Table 2: Dimensional Requirements for AH/PUD Zone District, compared to proposal Dimensional AH/PUD Proposed @ Requirements Zone 301 W. Hyman District Minimum Lot Size No 3,600 sq. ft requirement Min. Lot Area / 4,000 sq. ft 3,600 sq. ft Dwelling Unit = "guide" Maximum 7.2 units 8 units Allowable Density = "guide" Minimum Lot Width No 60 feet requirement Minimum Front No 7 feet Yard requirement Minimum Side Yard No 10'6" -- east requirement 0 -- west Minimum Rear Yard No 0 requirement Maximum Site No 66% Coverage requirement Maximum Height No 23" requirement Minimum dist. Not N/A between buildings applicable. Minimum Open No N/A Space Percent requirement Allowable Floor 3,960 sq. ft 4,486 sq. ft. Area = "guide" Minimum Off - Street No 0 Parking requirement 6 E ... Traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation and parking. With regard to impacts on traffic, one salient fact is that the proposal would only generate a net increase of four (4), 500+ square -foot residential units. While this does represent a net increase in potential traffic, it is a very modest increase considering the existing density of the neighborhood. There are no traffic congestion issues in this part of town, and the location of the project within the townsite and close to downtown makes it more likely that people will walk and bicycle to meet a variety of needs. The "commuting" Midland Trail is located right next to the property. There are also Cars -to -Go locations at nearby Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and Third & Hyman. There are currently no parking spaces located on the property. There are six existing head -in parking spaces on the east side of the property inside the City Right -of -Way on 2nd Street. There are 3 -4 parallel parking spaces on the north side of the parcel in the City Right -of -Way along Hyman Ave. According to the land use code, this project should provide four off - street parking spaces, due to the net increase of four residential units. However, a Special Review or the establishment of dimensional requirements in a PUD process can allow for fewer parking spaces. Applicant is requesting that the number of off - street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reasons for waiving the requirement for off - street parking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to lose the six head -in, on- street parking spaces on 2nd Street, which would be lost in order to gain curb access for parking on the property itself. l fY f _ s t ' 1 i �; I l -^ ..�r.....r i.. " 1 IN, t .,' `II c 4 , i I / el 1 ` -' f a �.w I ?. , . , �i � These head -in parking spaces are in the City Right -of -Way, on the east side of the parcel at 310 W. Hyman. The Parking Dept. wants to retain these spaces, which are across the street from the ice rink. Retaining these parking spaces means there would be no access on the east side of the parcel to on -site parking. . , — As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommends that there should not be parking in this area of the site because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a public street. Also, parking on the north portion of the property would provide 3 -4 off - street parking spaces, but would eliminate just as many on- street parking spaces. Parking on the west or south side of the parcel would not be appropriate, as such parking areas would be directly adjacent to city -owned open space land. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, Parking Department staff stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity in the neighborhood to accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. Staff said the adjacent ice rink does result in some parking congestion, but noted there is sufficient capacity for on- street parking to the west (on the south side of Hyman Ave.), some capacity along 2 " Street and significant capacity available along Hopkins. Due to the Parking Dept. preference to retain on- street parking on 2 Street, the code preference to avoid off - street parking that is accessed directly from a public street, the sufficient capacity of on- street parking and the minimal net increase of about 2,000 square feet of living space, staff supports the waiver of off - street parking requirements for this project, via the Final PUD Development Plan process. Architectural character. Although applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the initial architectural proposal, staff finds that the proposed architecture does not "enhance the visual character of the city." In a general sense, staff believes affordable housing should be designed with a sense of character and uniqueness so that it reflects well on the housing program. There have been some improvements to the first proposal: The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more common two - pitched roof, though it still remains a rather long mass. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Staff suggested an entry porch feature to comply with Residential Design Standards, and applicant has added a deck on the east side. Thus far, applicant has not responded significantly to staff suggestions to modify the window treatments to help show some individuality to the units — rather the window treatment seems excessively symmetrical, again reflecting the style of a motel. In general, it is a difficult proposition for staff to give direct design and architectural suggestions to an applicant, and such a relationship with an applicant is not always productive. In general, staff believes there is ample room in this case for an improved architectural treatment that would reflect in a positive way on the housing program. 8 w, r, Other PUD standards. Staff has called out the above three PUD standards as key standards with regard to the proposal; the full set of PUD standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit D. As noted previously, some PUD standards of review are identical to those for rezoning, such as consistency with the AACP. Staff addressed these questions in the rezoning section above. SUBDIVISION: Subdivision is required because the proposal would establish multiple dwelling units. Although the P &Z must review Subdivision criteria in this case and recommend approval or denial, the standards of review for rezoning and PUD taken together are more stringent and comprehensive than Subdivision criteria. The only key subdivision standards for this proposal are consistency with the AACP and consistency with the character of land uses in the area: These standards are address in this memo under Amendment to the Zone District Map and Final PUD Development Plan. The full set of subdivision standards and staff findings can be found in Exhibit E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT / AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Growth Management for Affordable Housing requires compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines, mandating that half of each unit be above -grade and addresses issues regarding whether units are for sale or rent. (See Exhibit F for complete staff findings.) The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and recommended approval of the project at 301 W. Hyman, with conditions (see Exhibit G.) Because all of the units in the project are entirely above - grade, the project exceeded the requirements of having at least half of each unit above - grade. The APCHA Board conditions included that all units be for sale units, and be sold via the housing lottery. Applicant was unclear on this stipulation and will be asking APCHA to allow him to sell two of the units directly to two of the current renters, who have been living at 301 W. Hyman for more than 10 years (if they are APCHA - qualified), with the other six sold via the lottery. Staff agrees that the applicant's request is reasonable and otherwise finds that the proposal meets the requirements for approval of Growth Management for Affordable Housing. With regard to the Growth Management code amendments that were processed in a legally separate but parallel review process, applicant is requesting to be awarded a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs. The APCHA Board met on January 6, 2010, and strongly supported the code amendments. In the case that the code amendments are approved and put into legal effect, the APCHA Board voted to determine that the applicant was entitled to a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that he has 14 transferrable FTEs. 9 Staff recommends that the ordinance approving the project at 310 W. Hyman contain a condition that would generate a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit certifying that applicant has 14 transferrable FTEs, at such time as the code amendments take legal effect. RECOMMENDATION: Because staff remains unsatisfied with the architecture of the proposal, staff is recommending that the P &Z remand the application to the applicant on and continue the public hearing so that applicant can generate improved architectural treatments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend approval for the requests, they may use this motion "I find that the Amendment to the Zoning Map meets required standards of review, I recommend City Council approval of a Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision, and approve Growth Management for affordable housing." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Initial application Exhibit B — Updated application (updated floor plans and rendering) Exhibit C — Staff findings for Amendment to the Zone District Map Exhibit D — Staff findings for PUD Exhibit E — Staff findings for Subdivision Exhibit F — Staff findings for Growth Management for Affordable Housing Exhibit G — Housing Authority Board action Exhibit H — Zoning Analysis 10 .,w Exhibit C Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the subject property from R -15 to AH -PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed t structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH -PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AI-I-PUD zoning. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. Regarding road safety, access to the site by vehicles will occur at the end of a dead -end street, limiting conflicts with passing traffic. 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. Staff Finding: To the extent that the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, the applicant will offset those demands in the form of impact fees, upgraded water and sewer infrastructure and appropriate drainage planning. The proposed amendment would allow a net increase of four residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new affordable housing that would not otherwise be built. Sufficient affordable housing inventory is an important part of the community character. Y H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the proposed amendment. 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. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment allows for the development of affordable housing, and is therefore in the public interest. Exhibit D PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed PUD would allow for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: This neighborhood is a mixture of high- density lodges, condos and some duplexes and single - family homes. The proposal is a relatively high- density residential use that is consistent with character of existing uses in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements of the propose structure are consistent and compatible with the existing and future land uses in the neighborhood, due to the relatively high FAR and densities existing in the area, as well as those allowed by the number of RMF -zoned properties in the neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. , b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: This small property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways or significant vegetation or landforms. It is a small, flat property. The surrounding area features City of Aspen Open Space that segues into the base of Shadow Mountain. The proposed structure, while larger than the existing one, would have no significant impact on the much larger surrounding open space area. The open space area is primarily enjoyed and viewed while on the Midland Trail, which will not be altered in any way. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. With regard to traffic, there are no congestion issues in this neighborhood. According to the land use code, a multi - family project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit on a net increase basis, or four off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. Both applicant and staff are asking that the number of off - street parking spaces be established at zero (0) as part of the Final PUD Development Plan. There are two reason for waiving the requirement for off - street parking in this case: The Parking Department does not want to lose the six head -in, on- street parking spaces now located in the city right of way on the east side of the parcel along 2 Street, which would be lost in order to gain curb access to a maximum of four off - street spaces. As for the north side of the lot, along Hyman Ave., the Community Development Dept. recommended that there should not be parking in this area because both Residential Design Standards [Section 26.410.040(c)1(a)], and Characteristics of Off - Street Parking Spaces [Section 26.515.020B] call for parking areas to be accessed off an alley or private road and not a public street. Also, parking on the north side of the property would provide 3 -4 off - street parking spaces, but would eliminate just as many on- street parking spaces. During the Development Review Committee (DRC) process, the Parking Department stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity in the neighborhood to accommodate the net increase in vehicles generated by the proposal. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The dimensional requirements for a proposed structure in the AH /PUD Zone District are established as part of a site - specific Final PUD Development Plan, rather than being specifically prescribed, as they are in most other zone districts. However, the AH/PUD Zone District does include a sliding scale for Floor Area Ratio according to lot size, to be used "as a guide" when considering a Final PUD Development Plan. The lot size of the parcel at 301 W. Hyman is 3,600 square feet, and the sliding scale suggests a 1.1:1 Floor Area Ratio, which translates into a 3,960 sq. ft. structure. The applicant's initial proposal requested 4,024 sq. ft., reflecting a .02% increase over the "guide," in order to include eight (8) one - bedroom units on the site at 500 sq. ft. apiece. After Community Development Department staff reviewed the initial proposal, the applicant agreed to enclose the outdoor stairway to the second floor (improving fire protection and architectural character), and to establish an interior hallway on the second floor (enabling all upstairs units to enjoy outdoor balconies). After agreeing to staff suggestions, the adjusted square footage now requested is 4,486 — reflecting a 13% increase above what the AH /PUD Zone District "guide" suggests. Staff finds this to be appropriate to the character of the surrounding area, and favorable to the character of the PUD due to the provision of eight (8) new affordable housing units. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off - street parking space for every new unit. Applicant is requesting zero (0) off - street parking spaces. There are no "nonresidential" land uses. Please see staff response to standard B(1)d above. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: This is not applicable. One residential structure is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The site is close to public transit stops, is adjacent to the "commuter" Midland Trail and is close enough to downtown so that residents can easily walk or bicycle to important destinations. The applicant will be building curbs and gutters, which are not currently existing along the property, which will help provide a walking path from the neighborhood to the Midland Trail. The city Cars -to -Go program includes vehicles at Paepcke Park, the Limelight Lodge and at Third & Hyman. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. Staff Finding: There is a modest increase in density beyond the "guide" contained in the AH /PUD Zone District. According to the PUD "guide," this 3,600 square foot lot can accommodate seven (7) one - bedroom units. The proposal requests eight (8) one - bedroom units, thereby slightly exceeding the suggested maximum allowable density. The lot would have to be 4,000 square feet to meet the guideline, or 11% bigger than it is. By providing eight (8) new affordable housing units in close proximity to downtown through an innovative private sector initiative, the proposed modest increase in density serves a central goal of the AACP. Also, this increase in density beyond the PUD guide is "compatible with (the) surrounding development patterns ..." due to the comparably high densities in this neighborhood (please see Exhibit H). b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: There are no negative physical characteristics of the site as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, regarding infrastructure and natural hazards. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: This relatively high- density neighborhood includes R -6, R -15 and RMF (Residential Multi Family) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Although many properties are zoned R -6 and R -15, the existing characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and higher densities allowed in RMF or AH /PUD zone districts. This neighborhood was largely built up in the 1960s and '70s with relatively high densities and high FAR — it bears little resemblance to the R -6 neighborhood of the West End, or the R -15 neighborhood in the Cemetery Lane area. (Please see detailed staff examination in Exhibit H.) Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) should be considered because the small lot size inherently limits the overall impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No unique features on this lot. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Only one structure. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed structure complies with Residential Design Standards. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: First floor units will be handicapped accessible, as required by the Building Dept. Applicant will be constructing curb and gutters, which do not currently exist on the site, as required by the Engineering Dept. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: Small lot will feature minimal landscaping. Parks Department has reviewed the site plan. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features,.which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Proposal will not negatively impact the adjacent public trailhead for the Midland Trail and adjacent public open space, as reviewed by Parks Dept. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Parks Department requirements. E. Architectural character. r 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: Applicant has worked with Community Development staff to improve the initial architectural proposal. But overall Community Development staff still finds that the proposed architecture does not "enhance the visual character of the city." In a general sense, staff believes affordable housing should be designed with a sense of character and uniqueness so that it reflects well on the housing program. There have been some improvements to the initial proposal: The initially proposed "pyramid" roof is not typically found in Aspen and has been replaced with the more common two - pitched roof. The initial proposal included exposed, outdoor exterior stairways and exposed, outdoor second floor walkways, which suggested a motel -like appearance. Applicant has made the stairways and second floor hallways interior, which also allowed for more traditional private balconies on the second floor. Staff suggested an entry porch feature to comply with Residential Design Standards, and applicant has added a deck on the east side that will serve as a common element to first floor users who do not have balconies. Thus far, applicant has not responded significantly to staff suggestions to modify the window treatments to help show some individuality to the units — rather the window treatment seems excessively symmetrical, again reflecting the style of a motel. In general, it is difficult for staff to give direct design and architectural suggestions, and such a relationship with an applicant is not always productive. In general, staff believes there is room in this case for an improved architectural treatment that would reflect strongly on the housing program. There are no historical resources nearby. The ice rink across the street is a cultural resource that features a mass and scale much larger than any surrounding residential use, including the proposed structure. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The structure will have a north -south pitched roof orientation. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Structure and site is designed to accommodate storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner. Eaves will shed beyond the balconies and into the grassy areas, without affecting passing pedestrians. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: Upgraded sewer line will be funded by applicant. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The single lot has direct access to two public streets. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The proposed development would generate a net increase of four residential units in an area where there is no traffic congestion, which is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to- Go program has sites nearby. The Parking Dept. has stated that there is sufficient on- street parking capacity to handle the modest increase generated by this proposal. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Midland trail is accessed directly from 2 " Street. Applicant will provide curb and gutters along 2 " Street to improve walking access to this trail. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions. J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. Exhibit E Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff Finding: The production of affordable housing is a priority of the 2000 AACP. The proposed amendment to the Zone District Map would change current zoning on the subject property from R -15 to AH -PUD, allowing for the conversion of four (4) free market units to eight (8) deed - restricted affordable housing units. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) Also, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " staff finds that the size and density of the proposed structure is consistent with a neighborhood that features relatively high floor area ratios and relatively high densities. (Please see Exhibit H.) 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment allows for an AH -PUD zoning designation, which is compatible with a relatively high- density neighborhood that includes Residential Multi Family (RMF) zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. While there are also a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District (please see Exhibit H). Also, the limited size of the subject parcel (3,600 sq. ft.) inherently limits the impacts of the relatively high FAR and density that is allowed under AH -PUD zoning. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial or significant change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all applicable requirements. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The 3,600 square foot subject parcel is small and flat. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is only one lot in this subdivision. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44- 2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §29, 30) Staff Finding: No annual allotments are required for affordable housing. Exhibit F Growth Management for Affordable Housing Staff Findings Sec. 26.470.070. Minor Planning and Zoning Commission Applications: A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed- restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff finding: The proposed units comply with APCHA guidelines. Please see Exhibit G for vote of APCHA Board of Directors in this case. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in- lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff finding: Not applicable. There is no mitigation requirement. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Staff finding: Project exceeds this standard. All units entirely above - grade. d. The proposed units shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the Tong -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi - municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff finding: Owner reserves the right to sell two of the units to APCHA- qualified buyers; the rest will be sold through the housing lottery. Exhibit G APCHA Board Votes and Recommendations MEMORANDUM TO: Ben Gagnon FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager DATE: January 8, 2010 RE: 301 WESTHYMANREDEVELOPMENT Parcel ID # 2735- 124 -67 -002 ISSUE: The proposal is to change the use of the parcel to affordable housing, demolish the existing structure, replace with eight affordable housing units and utilize the units for credits that other developers could utilize for future developments. BACKGROUND: The development of the property provides a 100% affordable housing project — all one - bedroom units — with the units to be utilized as credits for future development. The use of the units for credits requires an amendment to the Land Use Code. The proposal has four units on the first floor and four units on the second floor with eight storage units located in the basement of the structure. The units will be approximately 503 square feet. Although there is no off -site parking proposed there is street parking available in the area. The square footage does not meet the minimum requirements for a one - bedroom unit, but the Guidelines allow for a 20% reduction of square footage if certain criteria are met; i.e., the location of the project, additional storage, the units being provided are above grade, etc. With the ability to have the 20% reduction, the units meet the minimum requirements for Category 1 and 2 one- bedroom units as stated in the Guidelines. Then language being proposed for the Land Use Code would be an additional to paragraph 4 of the Affordable Housing section. The language is as follows: e. The initial owner of one or more affordable housing units that are developed after (EFFECTIVE DATE OF CODE AMENDMENT APPROVAL) and that is not required for mitigation is eligible to receive a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC) fully describing the dimensions of the affordable housing units, to be recorded with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office; such certificate is legally transferable and may be utilized subsequently to satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements in accordance with other applicable sections of this Title. The affordable housing section of the Land Use Code is attached. The Housing Board reviewed the project at their regular meeting held January 6, 2009. The applicant expressed to the Board that the project had been modified per the Community Development Department to satisfy certain requirements of the Land Use Code and per the Fire Marshall to meet fire regulations. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board is recommending approval of the redevelopment of the parcel as well as the additional language to be added to the Land Use Code. The Board is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The units shall be ownership units and sold through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority lottery system upon certificate of occupancy. 2. The applicant, upon Certificate of Occupancy, shall receive the use of 14 mitigation credits (1.75 employee for each one - bedroom unit times 8 units) in the form of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit (CAHC). 3. The units shall be classified as one - bedroom units, 503 square feet for the four units on the first floor and 508 square feet for the four units on the second floor, for a total of 4,044 square feet. 4. The units shall be classified as Category 1 and 2 with the preference for the units to sold as Category 2, but that the credits can be utilized to mitigate at the Category 1 or 2 rate. 5. That the language allowing for the use of the 100% privately constructed affordable housing development be able to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits to sell to future developers to be approved. 6. The Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits shall be required to describe the dimensions of the affordable housing units (size, number of bedrooms) as well as the category, and shall be recorded with APCHA and with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2 Exhibit H Zoning Analysis of Shadow Mountain Neighborhood The following is a brief overview of a portion of the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, including detailed information on properties within 1 and % blocks of the subject property, at 301 W. Hyman. There is a mixture of zoning in this area, including Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Moderate Density Residential (R -15) and Residential Multi - Family (RMF). As staff attempts to determine whether the applicant's proposal meets standards relating to neighborhood compatibility, staff is provide some research on zoning, existing floor area ratio and density. Staff's primary conclusion is that while there are properties in the R -6, R -I5 and RMF zone districts in this area, the neighborhood has all the features and characteristics of the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) Zone District. A brief look at Table 1 shows that the R -6 and R -15 zone districts prescribe a relatively low floor area ratio (FAR), which typically translates into relatively modest mass, scale and site coverage. The R -6 and R -15 zone districts also feature low densities, limited to either single- family or duplex units. In stark contrast, the RMF Zone District allows for much higher FAR and far higher densities. The applicant is seeking a zoning from R -15 to AH -PUD, which is comparable to RMF zoning. Table 1: Zoning, FAR & Density Zone Lot Size Floor Area Ratio Density R -6 6K — 9K .41:1 -- .54:1 1/6,000 1/4,500 R -15 9K -- 15K .45:1 -- .3:1 1 /15,000 1/7,500 RMF 4,500 — 6K .75:1 — 1.5:1 1/300 1 /1,500 1/6,000 AH- 4,500 — 6K 1.1:1 1/300 PUD 1 /500 1 /1,500 Table 2 (below) is a list of properties within 1 and 1/2 blocks of the subject property at 301 W. Hyman. Table 2 is ranked according to existing floor area ratio (see FAR Exist in bold): In other words if you have a 3,000 square foot lot and a 4,500 square foot structure sitting on it, your existing FAR is 1.5:1. The higher the FAR, the more mass, scale and site coverage will be apparent. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 2: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked By FAR * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Cottonwoods approx. Condos 301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,441 8 units 1.2:1 1/561 PUD 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 Ice Garden PUB 27,000 n/a n/a 1:1 n/a 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam .92:1 1/5530 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 311 S. First RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 322 W. 1 -Iyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1/555 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shadow Mtn LP Approx. Lodge 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 condos 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9+ .62:1 1/413 Former Kitzbuhel Lodge 221 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 Built 2008 3,346 bt 315 W. R -6 7,500 3448+ 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 Hopkins 1550 bt 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 1 -Fam .33:1 1/1970 City -owned HP Table 3 shows the same properties, ranked by density (in bold). For example, the highest density is at the St. Moritz, where the average room size is 342 square feet. (Applicant proposal also in bold.) Table 3: Shadow Mountain Neighborhood Ranked by Density * bt = basement Location/Name Zone Lot Size Sq. Ft. Units FAR Exist Density 334 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 9,821 + 36 units 1.1:1 1/342 St. Moritz PUD 2,485 bt 300 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 3,718 9+ .62:1 1/413 Kitzbuhel 232 W. Hyman R -6 9,000 6,590 12 units .73:1 1/549 Shad Mtn Ldg LP 322 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,440 4 -8 units .74:1 1 /555 301 W. Hyman AH- 3,600 4,024 8 units 1.2:1 1/561 PUD 315 W. Hyman R -6 1,102 921 1 -fam .83:1 1/921 124 W. Hyman RMF 15,000 18,840 18 units 1.26:1 1/1047 Condos approx. 104 W. Cooper RMF 9,000 6,318 6 units .7:1 1/1053 condos 204 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 4,366 5 units .73:1 1/1200 211 S. First Koch Townhos 312 W. Hyman R -6 6,000 1,970 1 -Fam .33 1/1970 123 W. Hyman RMF 6,000 6,338 duplex 1.06:1 1/3169 Albano condos 311 S. First HP RMF 6,400 5,531 + duplex .86:1 1/3681 approx. 1,831 bt 221 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 3,737 1 -fam .62:1 1/3737 237 W. Hopk R -6 9,000 7,855 duplex .87:1 1/3927 315 W. Hopk R -6 7,500 3448+ 1 -fam .46:1 1/4998 1550 bt 214 W. Cooper R -15 5,580 5,039 1 -Fam 1.1:1 1/5039 300 W. Hopk R -6 6,000 5530 1 -fam .92:1 1/5530 130 W. Cooper RMF 18,000 26,860 4 -plex 1.5:1 1/6715 Fireside condos approx. 314 S. Second R -15 8,175 4,181 + 1 -fam .51:1 1/7527 3,346 bt Generally speaking, this neighborhood features significantly higher FAR and far higher densities than the more typical residential neighborhoods of the West End (R -6) and Cemetery Lane (R -15). As stated above, many of the R -6 and R -15 properties in Tables 2 + 3 have the FAR and density characteristics of the RMF Zone District. For this reason, staff finds that the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is proposed. It is also important to recognize that the size of the subject lot (3,600 sq. ft.) is the 2 smallest in this neighborhood sample, so that the overall impact of the FAR and density proposed is relatively small compared to many of the larger properties in the area. at RESOLUTION NO. _ , (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 W. HYMAN AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 51 246 70 02 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Ajax Apartments LLC, represented Peter Fornell, requesting approval of final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop eight affordable housing units at 301 W. Hyman Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management Allotments; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 301 W. Hyman Ave. and is zoned Moderate - Density Residential (R -15); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the architectural character requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 19, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2010, by a vote, approving Affordable Housing Growth Management Review for eight (8) one - bedroom units, and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD, Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the 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 THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Affordable Housing Growth Management Review, creating eight (8) one - bedroom deed - restricted units; and hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision, subject to the following conditions. Section 2: Rezoning Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council rezone 301 W. Hyman Ave. from R -15 to AH /PUD. Section 3: PUD Dimensional Requirements Dimensional 301 W. Hyman Requirements Minimum Lot Size 3,600 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / 3,600 sq. ft Dwelling Unit Maximum Allowable 8 units Density Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Minimum Front Yard 7 feet Minimum Side Yard 10'6" -- east 0 -- west Minimum Rear Yard 0 Maximum Site 66% Coverage Maximum Height 23" Minimum dist. N/A between buildings Minimum Open Space N/A Percent Allowable Floor Area 4,486 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street 0 Parking Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 2 of 5 Section 4: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. The construction management plan submitted as part of building permit will address construction and shall address how all construction activities will not impact all trees that are remaining on the site. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed Right -of -Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, meet all applicable standards. Prior to final approval by City Council, the applicant will work with the Engineering Department to determine a proportionate share of any costs associated with Right -of -Way improvements on the east side of 2nd Street to the extent this work upgrades the entrance to the Midland Trail. Section 5: Affordable Housing The eight (8) on -site, one - bedroom affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 2. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process, with the exception of two units to be sold by applicant (Ajax Apartments LLC) to APCHA- qualified owners; subsequent owners to be determined through the APCHA lottery process. The sales price of all units shall be as stated in the APCHA guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed restriction plus appreciation calculated at three percent (3 %) per annum or the Consumer Price Index (simple appreciation not compounded), whichever is less, as of the listing date of the units. Section 6: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). The applicant shall provide an overall access plan for the site with the building permit submittal. Section 7: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 3 of 5 The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will require a new separate sewer service to the district's main line located on the east side of Second Street, as a condition of CO. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 10: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 11: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for new street trees, with species, location and tree trench preparations subject to approval of the City Forester. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Tree protection fences must be in place on the west and south sides of the property line, and inspected by the City Forester or his /her designee before construction activities commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall be vertical only. Section 12: Parking There is no parking on the property. Owners /renters will be eligible to purchase Neighborhood Permits for on- street parking. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal 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 plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 4 of 5 4,J Section 14: 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 15: 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. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of January, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Resolution No , Series 2010 Page 5 of 5 I �1 Memorandum Date: December 8, 2009 To: Ben Gagnon, Planner From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: 301 W Hyman Street, DRC review Sidewalk landscaped area Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. There shall be no plantings within the City ROW which are not approved first by the city parks department. New street trees are required; species, location and tree trench preparation are subject to approval from the City Forester, 920 -5120. A plan is required for review and approval. The plan should detail spacing, species and irrigation. ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, if a system is not in place one will need to be added. An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 920 -5120. 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. Tree protection fencing will be required on the West and South sides of the property line. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed outside of the tree protection fencing. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Over digging into City property (west and south sides) is prohibited, any excavation shall be vertical only, no over digging will be allowed. AC&CHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICA , N PROJECT: Name: sa A. be u :a L 4.0 Location: 3©( k S tt ct V1 ((c" (Jrk L l X I h i< 4 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) n21-55 I M CLA-O APPLICANT: Name: fr S r, CCRIN pczC Yr, / / P » +K � f� C - < Address: 1 /.Oa— AA af .b-H& F A ( mss V . / ( . Phone #: 3;3 REPRESENTATIVE: RECEIVED Name: r�yy � (� /, (JUT 3 U 2009 Address: 1 -E � trsew. c A ? CI TY Ur MSVtN Phone #: 3/cn 3y,3 `/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ' ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ • Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use • EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) - .5" (err, C 1+N 1t S PROPOSAL: descri tion of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) � hCr (9 0h1 � Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: 0 ar Application Conference Summary • [rAttachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project " All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text • (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. • , i r •• 7-w4 • i • . \ w . ' . -. - %4:L ".../.1 - • 4 / ' RJMF Pl1D SPA' ' � • r �', �.. H, s • ' / � �' i ' p . � ' ' ^Z' • • J r o rlsrpra . S s +� 'c, s s r , , r ' ESA / , ,1'' ' y , . . , R! • • 1 '�r 4. 0 R -6 ,, . ' _ _i__ .. . '- AA:: ' Drain , R - 15i �f i1 / 'mo t � , • r 3 _. •/ • { / /i E �1Lt,i ' _� C ""t y . ./ ..•, :7 • ' �/ $ m W 1p • ' not zoned /- LP MU • : :- ,~ -_ --_ E .� - 'i / . , , . SPA' �.. x • • ' � ., , �' • m LP PUD v W r 1 " �, .7.- � l Y sr �' + GRAN,,.. P • /70 ., s 'l'' ' ' '' ' , • , 4 ►, ,� . { c ^ ~G1- -• J / / //) ' e +u,,, h, c PUD SPA �r...; • ti p ,r te ,4, 1 + . 6;,... 0 -, ! y. ,. • _ - R -1 5 Cr- . - . { � /%; • • ": t ,� ' :; '` -- - _ 4 s y f i--,v AH � " Y -- DrainlTrans ^ ., - 1- ` — — i ' ' sr 0e / / J • r a � I' + o 1 I C f t �r j � 7 . r � /., / fta• / lr `Y, _'F� Alna cesadvrri kchIS Co7 {CJ 1932 2079ESRIt. / : )iv'lfll • 1 • • • • • • 0t. w ( -k O.- le • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • http: //205.170.51. 227 /website /aspenzone /MapFrame.htm 10 /5/2009 • • ,, To: Jennifer Phalen From: Peter Fomell Date: October 15, 2009 Re: description of proposal Dear Jennifer, The proposal is to accomplish the change of use of the described parcel to affordable housing, demolish the existing structure and replace 8 affordable housing units on the premises. First is the PUD overlay to the use of AH/MF in order to accommodate the use on the lot. This overlay will facilitate the final use by defining new dimensional requirements on the lot to re- develop. Next we will need to review and approve the contemplated development. As applied for, the development meets all of the requirements of the All zone district with one variance. The development attached is in excess of the allotted FAR in the AH zone district. In order to get 8 units and to have all units in excess of 500 sq. ft., the development exceeds the FAR by 64 sq. ft. This is a variance which I believe we can all live with since it accomplishes an entire additional unit. Finally is the fact that it is an appropriate location in town for such density. Although it is within a residential area, the immediate vicinity includes other multi - family housing, a condo -hotel and a city public amenity, the Aspen Ice Garden. Based on the above and the obvious benefit to the community of the added inventory or deed restricted employee housing I believe the development complies with and surpasses the review standards relevant to the application. Sincerel i P- Peter Fomell Oct. 7. 2009 8:46AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE - No.2147 P. 2 • • • CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that AJAX APARTMENTS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY are the owner's in fee simple of the following described property: THE NORTH 60 FEET OF LOTS H AND I, BLOCK 47, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 301 WEST HYMAN AVENUE - ASPEN, COLORADO ENCUMBRANCES: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. • BY: a ��� . authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: OCTOBER 1, 2009 at 8:00 A.M. Job No. ACCOM • • • 3 Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. No conflict exists with this application. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Employee housing is a major goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighbbrhood characteristics. Multi - family, condo/hotel and other uses exist in the vicinity. This use fits within the neighborhood. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. This location is within the Aspen core and as such, traffic will be largely foot traffic. Being within 5 blocks of the mall the need to drive will be minimal With it's location on a dead end street, traffic in the vicinity will not be affected. 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. The project proposes that approximately 14 persons will reside at the development. Currently 6 live on site. Considering that two hotel- condominium buildings are on that block an increase of 8 persons at the proposed location is small when compared to the increase and decrease of demands on public facilities with changing occupancy of the seasonal hotels. We feel no increase 011 demand of public facilities will occur. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The residential use will not impact the natural enviornment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Low impact employee housing within our downtown is within the commgnity character and designed with consideration of the neighborhood character itself. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. The City of Aspen has reviewed and approved this location as appropriate for employee housing. e uses surrounding the parcel dictate housing +�- g p as an appropriate use. 1 • 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. Employee housing is in the public interest and consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Chapter 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sections Sec. 26.410.010 General Sec. 26.410.020 Procedures for review Sec. 26.410.030 Administrative checklist Sec. 26.410.040 Residential design standards 26.410.040. Residential design standards. A. Site design. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi- public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. 1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street- facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement. One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired. All facade lines are parallel to the lot lines, as it is on a corner. No fences are proposed, no diagonal elements are proposed. D. Building elements. The intent of the following building element standards is to ensure that each residential building has street - facing architectural details and elements, which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building traditions. 1. Street oriented entrance and principal window. All single- family homes and duplexes, except as outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall have a street- oriented entrance and a street facing principal window. Multi- family units shall have at least one (1) street- oriented entrance for every four (4) units and front units must have a street facing a principal window. On corner lots, entries and principal windows should face whichever street has a greater block length. This 2— standard shall be satisfied if all of the following conditions are met: a. The entry door shall face the street and be no more than ten (10) feet back from the front -most wall of the building. Entry doors shall not be taller than eight (8) feet. City of Aspen Land Use Code 1 in every 2 units will have an entrance street facing and a principal window. 4 units will face Hyman and 4 units will face Aspen Mountain. Part 400, Page 14 b. A covered entry porch of fifty (50) or more square feet, with a minimum depth of six (6') feet, shall be part of the front facade. Entry porches and canopies shall not be more than one (1) story in height. c. A street- facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows face street. 2. First story element. All residential buildings shall have a first story street- facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent (20 %) of the building's overall width and the depth of which is at least six (6) feet from the wall the first story element is projecting from. Assuming that the first story element includes interior living space, the height of the first story element shall not exceed ten (10) feet, as measured to the plate height. A first story element may be a porch or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however, accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front facade shall not be precluded. 3. Windows. a. Street - facing windows shall not span through the area where a second floor level would typically exist, which is between nine (9) and twelve feet (12) above the finished first floor. For interior staircases, this measurement will be made from the first landing if one exists. A transom window above the main entry is exempt from this standard. b. No more than one (1) nonorthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building. A single nonorthogonal window in a gable end may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1) nonorthogonal window. The requirement shall only apply to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. One Story Element Principal Window "No window zone" City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 15 4. Lightwells. All areaways, lightwells and/or kt . _ ` k - » - [ , . )�k . ; . ! )\ }\ -- \ , / . n \) y . , % fi . ■■■■■■ -- `l §%) Sr e %q :\ `� ( O % : | • §a. | | % :$ \ M ' ©` § M | . I m g � v \ |j § ) §(q /, -1 Z_ iii . e 5,41 :� / i ` NI opi Sg i p \ / •� | d d ] \ ' - (§ ! 1 1 1 1 +. -3 1 , . 18 . stairwells on the street- facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the front -most wall of the building. The contemplated mulit - family deed restricted development has no spans between floors, and meets all of the requirements above as reviewed on the architectural drawings. Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Yes. Employee housing is a major goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Other multi family uses exist on the block consistent with our proposal. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development will have no impact on development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Deed - restricted employee housing has limit to GMQS allotments and therefore there is no requirement with GMQS. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 102 a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. The proposal is in character with existing uses. The surrounding area is largely built out but the proposed development will have no impact to the surrounding area. tf b) Natural or man-made hazards. No natural or man - made hazards exist on the property. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. There is no slope, waterways and no landforms will be affected. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. The impact is low. Only a few more residents occupy the area than previously. It's location dictates more foot traffic than any other since downtown is within walking distance. Traffic in the area will not be affected since it is a dead -end street. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. The proposed square footage and massing meet the character of the zone district proposed with the exception of a variance of just 64 square feet of living space. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. This is to be determined by the final PUD. Affordable housing has a lower standard than free - market development. In a free market scenario 8 would be required, the proposal includes 4 spaces shared by all owners. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. None is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Many choices for transit exist. Two blocks to Main st., the west end shuttle, sidewalks lead to only 4 blocks to downtown. The location itself disincentives the automible. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. As stated, it is within walking distance to the commercial district. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. All city utilities service the location and the proposal will have no significant impact on r. any utility. -5- b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Downtown city streets service the location. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. No risk of rock or mud flow exists and there is no possibility of avalanche. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. The proposed development will have no impact on the natural watershed. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. The proposal will not adversly effect air quality in or around the area. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 103 d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. None of the design or locations of improvements will impact any natural features. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. A variance to increase the FAR by 38 square feet is requested. This will enable the proposal to include one additonal 503 square foot unit. A worthy consideration to achieve the additional housing unit as employee housing is a goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. The site has no physical limiting characteristics. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Since multi - family developments exist in the vicinity in excess to the FAR requested, it is consistent with the surrounding area. K0 a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. Only one development is contemplated. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Only one lot will exist within the PUD C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. No unique features exist which require consideration. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Only one structure is contemplated. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. The structure is properly oriented to the public streets and pedestrian and vehicle access is from the side street. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The building is accessed easily from the city street (Hyman Ave.). 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. All adequate access is provided. Part 400, Page 104 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. No additional site drainage is required. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Not applicable. 3 a 7 l D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Grass and shrub areas will exist on the lot, the developer will work with the City Forester to determine the appropriate tree possibilities on the right of way. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Nothing of significance exists. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. No existing vegetation win be removed. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. The Architecture is appropriate with the character of the City. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. The location against Shadow Mountain does not lend itself to passive solar, however roof lines, lend itself to more effective cooling/heating for summer shade and winter sun. Non intensive mechanical systems will be used. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Sufficient space will exist for snow storage. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: All lighting standards will be met in the building permit application. 1. All Lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. No lighting is proposed which would cause any hazardous interference of any kind. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, r landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. No lighting will be contemplated outside of the lighting standards for residential development. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Not applicable. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. All city of Aspen infrastructure is in place and no additional burden will be placed on those utilities. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Any impacts will met by the developer is necessary. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. None should be necessary. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 106 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. City streets access the proposed development. -7- � ..7 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. The street access is from the dead end street and will not impact any traffic. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. No trails systems or access to public lands will be effected. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Again, no trails will be effected. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. No streets will be created with the proposed use. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. None are contemplated. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. This development will occur in one phase. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. No phasing in this development. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, §24) No phasing will occur. ''" -!t>— 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 135 a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. All units comply with the guidelines for a category 2 -3 deed restricted units having over 500 square feet and it's associated purchase price. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy -down units. Off -site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26. 470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash -in -lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash -in -lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50 %) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Not applicable as the entire development consists solely of employee housing. d. The proposed units shall be deed - restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long -term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin 1 County or other similar governmental or quasi - municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. The development proposal describes the units as "for sale" units. APCHA shall sell all units in accordance with their guidelines. • Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and "' requirements: A. General requirements. - //-- 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Employee housing is a major goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Other multi - family dwellings as well as condo exist in the immediate vicinity. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The proposal is low impact and will not adversely effect the surrounding area. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The contemplated proposal meets or exceeds all requirements of the Title. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 165 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. No slope, natural or man -made hazards exist on the parceL The lot does not lie within any snow or mud slide areas and poses no risk to health, safety or welfare. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Not present in this application. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and/or the goals of the community. Not necessary for this proposaL 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. All designs provided. i D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. The application consists solely of employee housing, no replacement is required. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Applicant shall comply with all required standards. E Growth management approvaL Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) Growth management allotments are not restricted for the construction of affordable housing, therefore there is no requirement to obtain allotments. ,µ A 4, 1 * r_ LL ( mi l O v 4 o a o G J m W 2 g ° U > . W K 0 6 K L a � � L s Z ES u u t fn + 5 2 ` i— 8 g r L.L. Q < 1 m ti,! !�. m __� ' A n - n + CI ,{�_ H _, r M P.EF REF LL o ° (/) Z 6:' 2 ti_ > Cr) (1 O O 0 0 o .m.> .7./l u �� O 0 00 ! O O O O O 0 0O ° F 0 ° i 0 z z o v ! 0 c v U U 2 i ( 1 J g + REF RED C_ Q J I L_ u u z (n = _ 1- >- LO g n n a • 8 1 1 r u) 0 , y u ,. /t4 6 lir z m a w , Y . , O n m m 3 N Y Y Y a a a Q. a E / .4.09 SECOND ST. II 1 I i„, u„ osr 11_8 I 1 6 s N o i I 1 L . m t u 1 + u f f u O O m a a r n 4 , n + rrc _ A 110-. E∎ x _= , r- - , m o REF REF m r O ^ s Z O U V v / 2 Y Z Y > CO I 00� 00 aO f O O O O l t� ` 0 0 O 0 1 00 00 I Fr 0 1 r 7 U 2 _ z Y J (It + rr_ 0 REF RED O L u u o r I L + u J = LL ll) 8 n ll 0 r "-- n -....\\1 co o Lo II r 1 1 ." _. mi vi.,,, I .LL 0-.59 11 --11 1 .111 11 11 H ° � 1 m L u u z m T .P, 5 8 8 S � T., ( ' J 1 ' L m I — J 11 LI S � C1 0. n + ar AFL 0 -EL n L .L/L 5 M R EF REF J O LL 10 o , z 2 U F c y J O 0 0(.S 0 LO 0 0 0 0 O 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 y z 0 O = rc ��// P, u :' 0 L L 1 j Y Y 0 REF RE/ 0 7 J ' 11— --= _ V U 1— u -J 1 � 1 '- 7 ❑ o g Q T Z - U) _ n n ____ X X CY co O _ it 4 fi y- 0 46 • c 1 \----- [E- 11 1 o K ----___ Wi V : t- in CL m Li o O 1 O Lt Z Z Lo LLaa. D • j 1 n / J / iv O — Z �,Z/ b S 1 �I 6 ,.� v. M REF oo O ci_ 2 i-,-,- ________--i_ in m p z > - - 0 I 121 0 0 › r 11/ - l In n MD 1 1111 IN ! 1 11 11111 1 / { l 111111 Iffill 111111 1 1 �_ 1 1 1 1 1 11111 ■ 1111111111 • i ■ 1 ' wooly' 1111111111111 - gm � � � 11111111 Al 1111111111111 111111 1 1 11 1 11111 a: i II ill i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 i 11= ,� 1 .___, i r I i TM= l I H t 1 1 1 1 ,_. I i — � 1111111111 50.-= — 1111111111 "�'i i i /111111111 �i i 1 Ii i i -- 1111111111 i — 111111111111 i i I1�11111111111 I� 1111 1 �■ -_ 1 1 1 1 1 � i _ 1 1 1 1 1/ 11 1 i ... i 1111 I i moodi z i i i 11111 0 4 i 4.11 i riz i 1111 w o i — 11111 11111111 w n = I _ 1 li dim i 11 �--- 1111111111111 6 1111111111111 O — 1 Z • ii. 11140000 ow e ` 1 — a Imi am 11 1 �! � Volkia -1 1 ' T , 11111 l IIOIUIOOI�J 1 i ii. . / „0-.L L A _ Now 1 .1 1 : : i i . = _ _ A A - - 111111111 111111111 1111 wiliiii A I__ -. �_ i'i ����� _ - �1�1�1�1�1�1 111111111111 1�1 1 111111111111 4 1111 'Irk I 1 I 1 I 1�1 I 1 I 1 i —, AN I — � � J - : 1 :1: ; 1 ; 1 '1 1 i i 11 A - i i i _ 1111 III 1. 1Ii1I - ill 01,.. _ 1 1 1 Al It. I , _ - ___ 1 1 1 1 _ - - 111 Z • ' r -L _1_ 1I1 0 1 _ .. 1 _ 1!1i1I1i f W H 11 Iw 1 = o Ti li _-__==___ ; - i z v o'- IN 111 - 1111 a 11� 1111 • 1 a = - - 1 - W ' _ - 1 - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - _ 1 - 1 1, �1�1 " 11- I P - 11 .0 _ / / „0-1 A I ; I ; I ; I 1 1 11 11 1111111111111 1!1! A 1 1 � � !!!!1 1 1 I J I \ \ 111111 1 1; 1 �;� 11 ;1;1;�;1 \ 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \ !111!11!1!1! A 111111 Ali i . \\ - VIII VIII - 111 A i1i - Ili* , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 k i i - —� Pi 1 mild � Isq 111 ..11 �i \ \11111111, i ll II 1!1!1!1!1!1,1 _ i i i 1 1,1,1,1,1,1, � = 0.11 mi. 1111111111111 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 SIII 11111 1111111 i 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 ;1;1;1;1;1;1; i 111111 i !1!1!1!1!1!1! 11111 1111111111111 V 1 , , , , , , l l i l i l i s i1 'i 'MOM z I i 1� ; a 1 1 11 i MR r a hidPA 411 I II < J P j / ,1,1 J II '1111 4 11 III PME ■ .(7C) ' / /A J ' I I . 1!1 � 1174A 111 11 ill- / / 1;111; 11111 / 4 1 11 1 1 1 1 / A / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / !1!1'1 !1!1! • 1!1!1! 1!1!1 111111 11111 1 111 11111 ..0 l „0-,6Z IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 111111 1111111111111 1 1 AI 1111111111111 • j 11111111 � 1111111111111 I 11 ,'11111111111 =- } i - 1* �� :111111111 �i - i 1 Ia i - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ . 11111 I 1 - i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111111111111 „fel= I 1 i i 1 1 i 0000 1 11 1 -IN i _ 11 a i - 1 ;C;1;C;1;1.1. IIIIM ! 111111111 1111111111111 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1., 1 '11 _ 11 11 1 11111111 IE 1 u 1 I i j I 1 I 1 I 1 I� 11111 0_ = 1111111111111 F- i 11 I 11 11 1 1111111 1 1 1 w i - 1111111111 J wi m , 1111111111 w 1111111111 1 II am— PAIN LL) v r _ 1 • 1111111111111 .A.A. 00,,,,, li c mom 1 - 1111111111 11 woolle 11111 wooly 1_ 1111111111111 YHAY 1 1 1 r / „0_,L L / „0-,6Z - . - '(' ,,,,, ro. 4 .:7- As . ._ . 1 ..a.**S:. ',.:..9... ,-, ..., , , . ., . .... ,.. ;.:--- ''.° ' .."- s • 4 I '-,-......,..nruvf'0A0t . , '4' :1'.. . •„„ , . ,'. '...., . .• . _:1/4......... • - , •'-''' ..;:".. N. ' 4. N. •.,j,, 4 %. .s.i:•-4.1:'e.. . ........- Ir k; I. ''.,.......4..... , ...q7!"-: ':-... •sz„..11,3. ••1 ita ..t""' Ws 1! ., .2,.`,,- - ""7 ' :•.... *5.; ..,;-•1.*-44""I'''-;P' • , tr„',.. - -- '''s• ivrit'I . <a . .4„......-- 4. S •••14, 1 i"..% . ..?., ...----**- * • '`A,: ..., ,..,.• . , • ... ' ''''... •.i'",-' -: - :• - "4.1... 1 .4 . - r '''' ' .•-,. ' .C, v :: ,:- . . . •oe.- , -,• .." ........aleillbeo, 10 - .- . _,4„,.., ... ,...!'• I * .1,..N.44, , \ .:' 4 .4 k ‘. ' ik ) c....<, ______ . ,, . , , .... ....4„,,-- to..... ..... - ,, I, . --•••...:,,,:,‘. , . ; .,, tis ' , -1'... ......_ ■-- . . JOP „41110 •• tt ' .. ....‘ ,...,..,..„.., '1 • • .,..":-.• 1 Ek-1- a•Illk ,..„,,-....... ,... t .... -. .. -„,.. . . •-. • / %...... ._ ` ' .40•-•41....)... N7e, t ',„, --. ' \ , sqp. - . . ; . :...,.. '''''.% • . • - - I ,... r --,..,, . la,"■,_,\N 4.. l ik.'•101011r . ' T - - - ---- •-----,..- 1*....„„ ‘.0 , .... ,_.. . `-... . -., - 7 - .. ,..,....,,, tc..... OM ..... f - -.4 . ,.. • ,,, r' 4 , 1 : - . . 0 w...§- v-,-k " - - is --- i $.: . -m.--/ 2 , -• I, ---' )1 111 II. Ell, . ,.• f ,A a _ 46,, ,,,,, lc tim mo a m m. , c , - It -a , It l . A ,. AIM Ulii , A - n=1 NZ =fiill , tc It ..„. , ...salas - ' trOgeS I . • I . . -. . . rO. ••• % ', • c , . : '" 4dielei7,7.C. hi Pill , 1 ... i ._,,_ .-00 . ,-- . —,..... .... --. IIIB A ..:: -;,--..—/ ... , N ---) / ......-,.. ,t :: ::. '' 1/II • . ... , , , ,..., , ,,..... . c:.......... i ..„.... I ./. ...". A ?'*iiit; In I I. '4;1 4-, i d? A i _____. _,_.. i • -4 - --1 - .4....--,-......,.... I , - 4 rt -1 -- IL •4 _. ,czeb.„-4--...-P .. - , ,.., . Lk 1 a l 1 ,.., . ; 41' -_-.....,, ,-.... , -,- .--- . 411111 • i ; •, , , 1 AAIINCP4".. ,--',•=*'`.' ' .4. A .. _ . ,_ ----- c It .. :4 r.gr 8. ''''." IIMI , . • , 1 - -., ....we: L _....„ - — ^4.160 . ... •.• r' " . . _ • ...... , . ., ...„.;:..,....ftt -41 I , .....44%, ....,:-..-_,..,... .,......_ - , i ,..-.. ..,, , 1 . il 1 .p. ..... .. — , am , ......„...., ...: :„.. r -__,......,,.. , . C.: - " \ .1- %'' IP liti t - i ..• 1,...• .,.... ......),,, - __..... , . 1 . v. . 1 i -- .0'' ' . - J.s. - ..".1%S. ..1 . le 1•1111111, ..... ..._ , ._ Iw ! ,,,.. . '' , w.. '. , k""-- . .. 14 11 ' .. 0 -v0 ,. • 1 19 Ili - '-' .- '- -,.. 'A I - V til__ ' ____ AM Illf -eV II • • i ) ': :'. MM. ... i 0111......... .. t ' ''. • • . 4 \ ,, '1 .44‘...44‘0214 *1 . • 't I ii ..: '; ' ' I .-, ' 4. • • • • r • • .. .. \ It . . - ; L - 1 1 I . ■:. 4 , , . - ,,,,•*.?. " '1.11:7 ., . , •,1 1 i 1 . . .. . , f ....4:-.. , 1 • . ' ' • %..r, \ 7-..ri. ‘ .,..s., .... (1, - . \ ;:.-,.-. . , ,.cy Nt • MK 1 illt\, , , . 4 \ 01 .•. 11■1■_'....., , 1( 1, , . •. , 414414h..,,A , , _ \ ■ \ l a Lli k il t , N . . . . e........ ,, ......(4,_.- .. .^".^=7.• " . -. ' . ‘ . I . "ii; 1 / . ._. ' • t \ ; / -.... .. I -^, \ \ \ \ \ I I lik)k ILI■ L lk . , ,, . ' > 424#1. : - - , \..\\ • ' \ ' 1 i \\ \ , l \ lit 1 l's 1 S. , ,. 41 2,...,.■`,1' .- .. : \ ti ■•-•.. , , --,,4...„-,. .., , ,,a4 ,..sr qui.'"''' e ..c . • -4-rs* 111i, , 1 \ t.........: f 6 ' • , A 1 . .•• ' 4 '7.,„,..A.,, 1. 1 i i' ■ A ‘ A , • ,, li 41Mill..VAIrd • 1 : ,', - '''. . 44 A,. 4 '•:' - - , A. ' . '' '' • -•s4ir 'A, ' ' Iiii11.11W -141 , , , , ,i , \ 4.07‘ IE. r . , .. • : ! .i' 1 111411I4Wi , I.ff ' 1 , • 1 1 / ,,,, f.,1,- . -. . • re „'„'" 4 .4... VA W. Iillir / 1\ . / ---,, 4I lir atiPi ilibr" ., AllPrAINI ' ' " e....-.4i-1, INIEL,+a= 107 ill - /445V ..... , 'I * ji.'"'. ..; .***444 ' ..." -- Ag 1 3 ■ iiMiriAlliir' , ,"..i..? • ,,,..., ' --. , , somiKrae ly. , i '.• ' or ',.. 1111111111Ar , visor •••■••,, . , r ...„ . „,_, •• - ‘111 i ireir 1 t ' w**.4-.0Frif""'"-"` "* .- all .IIIIIII • AI= - . .. i - , 11.... '1%,, ' '''.404, , Z" , if # • • 1 .‘,..‘ 1 ......" ...".. • 1 -.. .4;0 ,,,,......0 ....• . t P - I \ . ..NZ'Atit;,:,4.2. .- : • , r .... - .. . : 1 4 . . . ' - --. - ' - . . ' . I 1 ...-----,... . -,-....-..,-,-. •, .."4,- - . •• --,. . . i \ 1 ..- I + ... 1 '' - .. i': 4. • -,. • .., . \ \ \ -117',.., . a • . • .. • , •,,. 4. 4 1 - . •, II '' '‘ *; ;4• C _WS 7 :' :!1' ', I • __.. • • .... 4;! ••■•"9,0'''''''‘ . ..• ,......b.■ &V.I.'''. 1 4 ; • :::' -1 \ r / ••• .. - -,.,..,(4,A.-,.-- ,r, -■,..- !, .,,.,' •,-• .-e''-' 'f.,',:' - , .. I/ -' .....0.0-0"."" ' '''-' - 1 ,.......--, 1/ .• •,,400.-Y—r.----/70 . '• - A` 1 - ' • .... ." --....,‘„,;.- l el, ''' ..'!'-':: ...rA .:10"* :3 — • l ,,,, .....,..„ . ..6 • -s A... - ..- --- - : - ............0 4 * - ...„,.....r. r • i oriV2 . , .. . , i t,.. ,....... . r`r Z W 0. aX 8a 0 U L 'co -1 .1 0C° co SECOND STREET 75.62' R.O.W. BACK OF CURB CL CC N �0 ^ / a a \U C. \ / ,00'09 ,� ` M,6b,0S.bIS or- o9 \ O Z M i < l b 6 CC J Q J 4, / 1 UTILITIES co 4'8Z z / o ^ / f. W ^0 / o � 0 O / 0 0 p 1- o 6 Gi 6 M -J w M p i g 7- 1/40 g m m g 39Q X - - - U.1 — — CC 2 o O Q d a 3 m ° :U `n d' ' � Z N 8 o 8 N 6 z a m x b'8Z C r) 523)IOO130VUOIS �'1 W rn * / U ac a ® ,00'09 t or- _ � IS ° � $ ® ot ca awag 3.6b,OS.flN 1:i'� <rn s CO U Mk f' W m S CO W d' 0 r i -RECEIVED To: Jennifer Phelan OCT 3 U 2009 From: Peter Fornell CI FY Or r.krtN Date: October 5, 2009 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1 Re: PUD application Dear Jennifer, In response to your pre-app summary, I am providing the following information. Applicant's name is Ajax Apartments, LLC. Mailing address is: 402 Midland Park Place, Aspen CO. John Cooper of Springfield, MO is the owner, member and Peter Fornell is the listed manager, member. All correspondence should be provided to the above address and my contact number is 970 379 -3434. Street address is 301 W. Hyman Ave. The parcel ID# is 273512467002. Account #000791. The legal description is: The North 60 feet of lots H and I Block 47 City and townsite of Aspen. Title certificate attached. This is provided in response to items 2 and3 on the pre -app summary. Sincerel , Peter I � � r OPERATING AGREEMENT OF AJAX APARTMENTS, LLC THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT is made to be effective as of October 18, 2006, among Peter Fomell, as Manager and Member and John T. Cooper as Member. RECITAL /tr"e��s - A. The parties have formed Ajax partments,LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the "Company ") for the , pose of acquisition, ownership, operation, leasing and sale of certain real property. improvements located in Aspen, Colorado and commonly known as the "Aj p• 11, 1 s ", and any other activity that an entity may lawfully conduct pursuant to e aws of the State of Colorado, and all incidental purposes thereto. B. The parties intend to conduct the Company's business pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and subject to the provisions of the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act, as amended from time to time. In consideration of the recitals and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Business of the Company. The business of the Company shall be as described in Recital A, and may include any other business or activities as may be mutually agreed by the Members of the Company. 2. Responsibilities of the Parties. (a) Manager's Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the Manager will have overall responsibility for the management of the business of the Company. The Manager may have other business interests and may engage in other activities in addition to those relating to the Company. (b) Member's Responsibilities. During the term of this Agreement, the Members will fund the capital contributions, if any, required by this Agreement. 3. Governance of the Company; Allocations of Profits and Losses; and Distributions. (a) Manager. The Company shall be governed by its Manager Peter Fomell (the "Manager "). The Manager shall oversee and direct the day -to -day business activities and operations of the Company. {00052084.DOC/ I) • (b) Election of Manager. The Manager shall be designated by a majority vote of the Members, with each Member to hold a vote equal to that Member's Percentage Interest in the Company. (c) Meetings of the Members. The Members shall meet on a monthly basis to review the business operations of the Company and to make decisions as to marketing, finances, business priorities, budgeting and the like. On a quarterly basis, the Members shall meet to review the financial status of the Company and to determine if distributions from the Company to its Members are appropriate and whether additional capital contributions by the Members are advisable and on what terms. Additional meetings of the Members may be held whenever and wherever its members shall jointly determine. A valid meeting of the Members requires the presence in person or by mutual agreement by telephone of a majority of the Percentage Interest of all Members. The Members may also take action through a written consent signed by each Member. (d) Capital Contributions. Each Member shall make a Capital Contribution of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Additional Capital Contributions shall be made if required by the Manager, or upon the unanimous agreement of all of the Members. The Capital Accounts shall be kept in accordance with Schedule A. Peter Fomell shall have Percentage Interest of fifty (50 %) percent, and John T. Cooper shall have Percentage Interest of fifty (50 %) percent. (e). Schedule A Incorporated. Schedule A sets forth tax matters relating to the Company and is a part of this Operating Agreement. (f) : Losses. All losses shall be allocated in accordance with Schedule A. (g) Profits. All profits shall be allocated in accordance with Schedule A (h) Distributions. All distributions shall be made to the Members in accordance with their respective Percentage Interests. (i) Dispute Resolution Process. In those instances where the Members face a deadlock on a particular matter, or where a dispute otherwise arises between the parties as to the interpretation and application of this Agreement or the conduct of the Company's business activities, the following procedure shall be followed: (a) Either party may give written notice to the other party of a deadlock or other dispute not resolved in the ordinary course of business. Within 20 days after delivery of this notice, representatives of the parties shall meet at a mutually • acceptable time and place and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary, to exchange relevant information and to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter has not been resolved within 60 days of the original notice, or if the parties fail to meet within 20 days, either party may initiate mediation of the dispute as provided in Section 3(i)(b) below. All negotiations pursuant to this section are to be confidential and shall be treated {00052084.noc / 11 as negotiations for the compromise or settlement of a dispute for purposes of the applicable rules of evidence. (b) If a dispute is not resolved pursuant to Section 3(i)(a), a party may initiate a mediation proceeding by requesting such proceeding in writing to the other party. The parties will then be obligated to engage in mediation with a single mediator. If the parties cannot agree on the choice of a single mediator within 15 days after receipt of a notice of mediation, then each party will select one mediator and the two such mediators will together select the single mediator who shall preside over the mediation process. Efforts to reach a settlement will continue until the conclusion of the proceedings, which shall be deemed to occur when (I) a written settlement is reached, (II) the mediator concludes and informs the parties in writing that further efforts will not be useful, or (III) the parties agree in writing that an impasse has been reached. Neither party may withdraw before the conclusion of these proceedings. (c) If a dispute is not resolved pursuant to Section 3(i)(a) or 3(i)(b), the dispute shall then be submitted for final settlement by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (the "Rules ") and administered by the Judicial Arbiter Group ( "JAG ") of Denver, Colorado as the arbitrator, with any judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. If the parties cannot agree on the choice of a single arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of a notice of arbitration, then the arbitrator shall be appointed by JAG in accordance with the Rules. The arbitration award shall be in writing, and shall specify the factual and legal bases for the award. Each party to the dispute shall pay their respective proportion of the cost of the arbitrator and be responsible for all of its own other costs. Each of the parties reserves the right to file with a court of competent jurisdiction an application for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary protective order on the grounds that the arbitration award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffective in the absence of such relief. 4. Confidential and Proprietary Information. (a) Access to Confidential Information. Neither party (the "Receiving Party ") shall, directly or indirectly, disclose, or permit any third party to disclose, any Confidential Information, as defined below, disclosed or made available by the other___ party (the "Disclosing Party ") except as necessary in the performance of the Receiving Party's obligations under this Agreement. The Receiving Party shall use all reasonable efforts to protect the proprietary nature of all Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party, and shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that its employees, agents and consultants who are provided access to Confidential Information are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information either within the terms of their respective employment, agency or consulting agreement, or separate confidentiality agreements. The Receiving Party shall make use of Confidential Information, unless otherwise provided herein, only during the term of this Agreement and solely for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Confidential Information" means any trade secrets, financial information, {00052084.DOC / 1) ,^ projections, the existence and terms of strategic ventures, partnerships and/or acquisitions, inventions, technology, products, strategic and business plans, methods, formulas; techniques, improvements, web site content, any information that any party or the Company obtains from any third party under an obligation of confidentiality and any other information received from a Disclosing Party if the disclosure of such information to an unauthorized third party could result in a competitive disadvantage for the Disclosing Party or the Company. (b) Exceptions to Confidentiality. The Receiving Party shall not be liable for disclosure of Confidential Information disclosed or made available to it by the Disclosing Party if the information: (i) can be demonstrated by contemporaneous written records to have been in the Receiving Party's possession or available to the Receiving Party prior to the receipt of same from the Disclosing Party; (ii) can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence to have been received from a third party having no obligation to hold the same in confidence; (iii) can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence to have been generally known or generally available to the public in this specific and particular compilation prior to the date of the disclosure; (iv) becomes generally known or generally available to the public through no act or failure to act on the part of the Receiving Party or its affiliates; or (v) is required by law to be disclosed; provided, that to the extent practicable the Receiving Party shall provide the Disclosing Party with prompt written notice of such request or requirement so that the Disclosing Party may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy and, in the event that such protective order or other remedy is not obtained, the Receiving Party shall furnish only that portion of the Confidential Information which is legally required to be disclosed and will cooperate with the Disclosing Party to obtain assurances that confidential treatment will be accorded such Confidential Information. (c) Specific Performance. The parties agree that breach of this Section 4 by either party would cause irreparable damage to the other party and that monetary damages alone would not provide the injured party with an adequate remedy for such breach. Therefore, if any controversy arises concerning the rights or obligations of either party under this Section 4, such rights or obligations may be specifically enforced by an injunction order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such remedy, however, shall be in addition to any other remedy to which the injured party may be entitled. 5. Withdrawal or Retirement of a Member. A Member may withdraw from the Company at any time, and if the remaining Members of the Company elect to continue the business of the Company then the Company shall not terminate. Upon withdrawal, the withdrawing Member shall be entitled to a distribution of that Member's balance in its Capital Account, plus any undistributed profits. {00052084.DOC / l } 6. Termination. (a) Termination of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the date first written above and continue until terminated pursuant to any of the following: (i) This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of the parties. (ii) Any party may terminate this Agreement in the event of a material breach or default by the other party in the performance of the other party's obligations under this Agreement, provided such default continues for more than 60 days after written notice of default to the defaulting party by the nondefaulting party. (b) Effect of Termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 6(a) above, the parties may agree to sell the Company either to one of the parties pursuant to Section 6(b)(i) or to a third party pursuant to Section 6(b)(ii) below. In the event that the parties do not agree to sell the Company pursuant to Section 6(b)(i) or (ii) below within 60 days after termination, then the Company shall be dissolved pursuant to Section 6(b)(iii) below. If this Agreement is terminated due to a breach or default of one of the parties, the nondefaulting party shall have all remedies available to it at law or equity. (i) The parties may agree to allow one or more parties to purchase the interests of the other parties in the Company. The parties may agree on which party shall be the purchaser and the purchase price. If the parties are unable to agree within 30 days after termination, then the provisions of Section 6(b)(ii) below shall apply. (ii) The parties may agree to continue to operate the Company for a period of time deemed reasonable to allow for a search for a third party to purchase the Company and its assets. If the parties are unable to agree within 60 days after termination, then the provisions of Section 6(b)(iii) below shall apply. (iii) Any dissolution of the Company shall be effected in accordance with applicable law and the organisational documents of' the Company. The parties shall use commercially reasonable efforts to wind up the Company's business, including satisfactory arrangements to refund pre-paid amounts to subscribers. 7. Intentionally Deleted. 8. Restriction on Transfers of Interests. (a) Transfer of Interests. Except as otherwise provided herein, neither party shall pledge, mortgage or otherwise encumber any of such party's interest in the Company, and neither party shall sell, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of any such {00052084.DOC / 1) interest in the Company (any such pledge, mortgage, encumbrance, sale, transfer, assignment or disposition is hereinafter called a "Transfer "). In any event, a party may make a Permitted Transfer as provided in Section 8(c). (b) First Refusal Right. At least 30 days prior to making any Transfer (other than a Permitted Transfer) of any interest in the Company, the transferring holder (the "Transferring Member ") will deliver a written notice (the "Offer Notice ") to the other Members. The Offer Notice will disclose in reasonable detail the identity of the prospective transferee(s), the proposed interest in the Company to be transferred and the proposed terms and conditions of the Transfer. The other Members may elect to purchase all (but not less than all) of such the Transferring Member's interest in the Company as specified in the Offer Notice at the price and on the terms specified therein by delivering written notice of such election to the Transferring Member as soon as practical but in any event within 30 days (the "Election Period ") after delivery of the Offer Notice. The Transferring Member's interest will be allocated among the Members electing to purchase, based on the electing Members' relative Percentage Interests. The transfer of the Transferring Member's interest in the Company will be consummated as soon as practical but in any event within 30 days after the expiration of the Election Period. The purchase price specified in any Offer Notice shall be payable solely in cash or marketable securities at the closing of the transaction or in mutually agreeable installments over time. The transferees of the Transferring Member's interest in the Company must agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the interest so transferred. (c) Permitted Transfers. The restrictions contained in this Section 8 shall not apply with respect to any Transfer to or among a holder's Affiliates (as defined below); provided, that the restrictions contained in this Section 8 shall continue to be applicable to the interest after any such Transfer and provided further that the transferees of such interest shall have agreed in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement with respect to the interest so transferred. "Affiliate" of a person means any other person controlling, controlled by or under common control with such person and any partner of such person that is a partnership. 9. Intentionally Deleted. 10. Miscellaneous Provisions. (a) Relationship of the Parties. This Agreement does not give either party any right to act as a representative or agent of the other party or any authority to incur or create any obligation in the name of or on behalf of the other party. (b) Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. {00052D84.DOC / I) (c) Notices. Notices permitted or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed sufficient if sent by mail or other delivery service, facsimile, or, if promptly confirmed in writing, by telephone, addressed to the parties as set forth below. Notices so given shall be effective upon receipt by the party to which notice is given. Notices shall be addressed as follows: If to the Manager. Peter Parnell 402 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 If to John T. Cooper: c/o Peter Fornell 402 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 • or to such other address as the parties may designate in writing. • (d) Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire understanding between the parties with reference to the subject matter hereof and no statements or agreements, oral or written made prior to the signing of this Agreement shall vary or modify the written terms hereof. No amendment or modification of this Agreement or release from any of the provisions hereof shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. (e) Waiver. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other party of any provision hereof will in no way affect the right to require such perfonnance at any time thereafter, nor will the waiver by either party of a breach of any provision hereof constitute a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or any other provision, or constitute a waiver of the provision itself. (f) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the parties agree that such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, the remaining terms, covenants and provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. (g) Governing Law. This Agreement and any disputes hereunder shall be governed and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the state of Colorado. (h) Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience and reference purposes only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. {00052084.DOC / 1 } • • (i) Cumulative Rights. Except as specifically set forth to the contrary in this Agreement, any remedy of any party under this Agreement shall be cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy available to such party under this Agreement, at law or in equity. (j) Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, which taken together, shall constitute a single instrument. Counterparts signed by a party and returned to the other party via facsimile shall be deemed to be an original signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have ex . ted this Operating Agreement as of the day, month and year first above writt. Peter Forne Manager and Member • • • {00052084.DOC / 1 } ICI IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Operating Agreement as of the day, month and year first above' _:. Jo; T.C'or - ember (00052084.DOC / 1) CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429 -2759 DATE: 9/29/09 PROJECT: 301 W. Hyman Ave. REPRESENTATIVE Peter Fornell OWNER: Ajax Apartments, LLC TYPE OF APPLICATION: Affordable Housing /Planned Unit Development DESCRIPTION: The subject property consists of an existing fourplex located in the R -15 zone district on an approximately lot of 3,600 sq. ft. the applicant would like to redevelop the site with a new building containing affordable housing units. The dimensional standards of the project (including parking) are memorialized through the PUD 0 _ Z z review process. UJI 7 N n S The applicant is only interested in developing the affordable housing if a code = 0 amendment allowing an affordable housing credit is passed by the city council. The U D applicant has indicated an interest in demolishing the existing building prior to w > z receiving a site specific development order for the proposed affordable housing CZ '7 development; however, the city cannot permit demolition of the building. Currently, o the building is considered free - market residential and any proposed demolition would trigger a growth management review under demolition or redevelopment of multi - family housing. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 4 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map 326.410 Residential Design Standards *26.445 Planned Unit Development hif 26.470.070 4. Affordable Housing *26.480 Subdivision 26.515 Off - Street Parking (for reference) 26.710.110 Affordable Housing /Planned Unit Development zone district teMR e 4 <) a ge s Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations if necessary Public Hearing: Yes, before P &Z and City Council Planning Fees: $2,940.00 (for 12 hours of staff time additional hours billed at $245.00). Referrals: (Parks, Housing and Engineering each at $212.00) Total Deposit: $3,576.00 Total Number of Application Copies: 20 Copies To apply, submit the following information: I71'Total Deposit for review of application. 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. ©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 a ply for the Development Application. ompleted Land Use application and signed fee agreement. Pre - application Conference Summary. El An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. n Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. El Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. n Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man -made site features. D 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. 0 List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as a PDF of the application. 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. 'RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2009 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENL Ty NITY DEVELOPMENT Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and � , (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS. 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for P c3-b / N N Af wIzt 1c Cl (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted 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 make 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 Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning 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 $ .Th•pr which is for /az- 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.pro - • ing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICAN By: By: / Chris Bendon /e 01; p� Community Development Director Date: Billbp Address and Telephone Number: - �rl dltie. _ 1 : _t-g � S ?Cr\ Ln SG C i 27 3/ - 18 - 2 - 0 °1 -(20 3 — ocr? 3 , . As c-LA "xat r ";„..., xd7 ,,, * x E .;a " t.TTya ii riiA ; #z ‘a�' tr E Die Edit @ecord tie`rigate Firm Reports Farp)at Iab de €Op 'J ► x► + ho 41Alt ® S 4 IC Ath,Priv1 :S[ oIOt G * lid j ® to . , . $ jj G TJ i9 Da Man yduation 'Custom Fields 'actions IFen IParcels I Fee Rowney 'Sub Derails 'Attachments 'Roiling StaWs 'Routing 1 ■ Permit * 10073.2009.ASLU 1 Permit Type laslu JASpen Land Use f Address 1301 E HYMAN AVE =:1 B uie IB ASPEN Rate ICO J Zip 151611 J COY l Permit kiformation .. Routing Queue Iaskio7 Aped 110,130/2009 J Master Permit I J Project J Status 'pending Approved I J Description FINAL PUD Issued I J' Fnall J Submitted IPETER FORNELL 379 3434 Clock Running Days [ Expires 110/2512010 J Owner F ist Name (JOHN I PO BOX 1747 Last Name !COOPER + I SPRINGFIELD MO 65801 Phone I I Owner Is Applicant? _ Applicant I ; Last Name !AJAX CONDOMINIUM A5SO J First Name 1 PASPEN CO 8 O BOX 9766 1612 Phone s t 124508 'Lenast: 1 jj _ _ _ _• Last Name 1 � First Name i Phone I -- -- -- - -. _ — AspenGold @l —,, Record:1 o11 Fees Ck_st 2 'lg6 6 35 ?L Ve-c.-tV 261 Lt 1 ,�.� -�k r -ice Aov 2 at"-- 1 ,r