Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1301 E Cooper Ave.A62-92 . CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 7 /9 /92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: -/ 2137-al- DO - Di°/ A 62-92 £ y Ccc. ey STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Affordable Housing 44-71C0-0 .0 PuD Project Address: Parcel A&B, Riverside Addition, Aspen Legal Address: APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Cgrlendenninq Applicant Address: 300 E. Hyman, spen, CO 81611 925-1952 REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group Representative Address/Phone: 418 E. Cooper, Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 925-6717 FEES: PLANNING $ 2584 # APPS RECEIVED oZ ENGINEER $ 225 # PLATS RECEIVED r \--N\ HOUSING $ 140 /V(J_(/ of ENV. HEALTH $ 55 V TOTAL $ 3004 - j3 AID: (YES) NO AMOUNT: $ 3 , 004 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 1 / 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION:: a 1 STEP: 2 STEP: 1- A P&Z Meeting Date I/O PUBLIC HEARING: YES _ VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO v//� CC Meeting Date / hS PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn Bell School District . City Engineer -T Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas ■ Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW) . Aspen Water X Fire Marshall State HwyDept (GJ) ■ City Electric Bldg Inspector . Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork )7 Other C..001- . Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center Clean Air Board DATE REFERRED: 1/24/41 Z O t NG� �,/ I � INITIALS: 514) � g ) ti w rJ FINAL ROUTING: N? DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc •r FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: October 26, 1992 RE: Consent Agenda - Resolution No. (Series 1992) Documenting Approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Development Plan Staff is returning this resolution for Council ' s ratification per the commitment made on October 13 , 1992 , the date of the Conceptual PUD Development Plan public hearing and approval. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR THE APPROVAL OF A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PLAN FOR THE EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL LOCATED ON A 2 .35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL ON EAST COOPER AVENUE, IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION. Resolution No. (Series 1992) WHEREAS, on an application was submitted to the Planning Office by C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. for a mixed residential development under the AH (Affordable Housing) zone district requirements; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) and must be rezoned to AH prior to or concurrent with the Final PUD Plan approval ; and - WHEREAS, in order to obtain a level of assurance that the proposed rezoning was acceptable to the City, the Applicant requested that rezoning to AH be discussed as a threshold issue during Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office received referral comments from the Engineering Department, Housing Office, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Parks Department, Water Department and the Fire Marshal ; and WHEREAS, because the Applicant desired input from the surrounding neighbors potentially affected by the proposed development, an informal public meeting was held on August 27 , 1992 ; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the application and the referral comments the Planning Office recommended approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Development Plan with conditions; and WHEREAS, at two meetings held on September 8 and September 15, 1992 , the Planning and Zoning Commission heard comments from the public regarding the proposed development; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the application and the concerns of the public, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that Riverside Drive should not be used as access into the any portion of the proposed development, and that the density of the site was too great and negative impacts to the area would potentially result; and WHEREAS, at the September 15, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the East Cooper Conceptual PUD with 23 conditions; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that as a threshold issue, the proposed rezoning of this parcel to AH was acceptable; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on October 13 , 1992 , the Aspen City Council considered the recommendations forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the comments expressed by neighbors of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Council agreed with the rezoning as a threshold issue, and was also concerned that the impacts of the project on the surrounding properties would be too great; and WHEREAS, the Council voted 5-0 to approve the East Cooper Conceptual PUD Development Plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and added a condition to require that the Final PUD Development Plan reduce the impacts of the development on the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council that the East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Development Plan is approved with the following conditions to be satisfied within the Final PUD Development Plan: 1. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the project' s access driveway and emergency drive. 2 . The parking design for the townhomes shall be re-worked to eliminate conflicts with the emergency access corridor. Parking spaces shall be indicated on the Final PUD submission. 3 . Any curbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. 4 . There shall be utility easements over all underground utility installations. 5. The Riverside Ditch Company must enter into an agreement with the developer including but not limited to reconstruction and relocation, maintenance, and general liability. Maintain contain with Parks staff regarding these items. 6. Holy Cross shall provide more information on what easements it is interested in acquiring. Each utility must be specific as to its easement requirements. 7 . Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. 8 . A complete drainage plan and calculations must be submitted .,2 with the Final PUD Development application. Each free market lot will have to provide the same with submission of building permit applications. 9. The grading plan and report by CTL/Thompson must be finalized regarding fill material removal/replacement. The project shall then be designed around their specific recommendations. 10. In addition to standard Final submission requirements, the following must be addressed or included: - designated common areas - parking spaces - trash access areas - snow storage areas - exterior site lighting 11. All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. 12 . Any changes to deed restriction category mixes resulting from P&Z or City Council review must be reconsidered by the Housing Office prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 13 . If necessary for a water line extension, the developer must receive a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium from City Council concurrent with Final PUD Plan approval . 14 . The proposed 8" waterline from Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 shall be extended to Hwy. 82 to complete a loop. All installations shall be according to established City standards. 15. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. 16. Trees must be at least 30 ' from the Hwy. 82 intersection. • 17 . Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. 18. Connection to Sanitation District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. 19 . Submission of a Final PUD Development Plan must be submitted within one year of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to do so will nullify the Conceptual approval unless an extension is granted by the City Council. 20. Within the Final PUD submission, the Applicant shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of affordable units. 3 21. Engineering reserves the right to further review the Highway 82 right-of-way with the Applicant and the CDOT. 22 . The Applicant shall include in the Final PUD submission a parking and service plan which will address keeping vehicle impacts off of neighboring roads and properties. 23 . All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 24 . The impacts of the East Cooper AH Development shall be reduced by incorporating any or all of the following methods (but shall not be limited to) : reduction of density, FAR, setbacks, or height. RESOLVED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held , 1992 . Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager U THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: October 13 , 1992 RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing - Conceptual PUD Development Plan (public hearing) SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission forwards a recommendation to approve the Conceptual PUD Plan with 23 conditions to be satisfied within the Final PUD Plan submission. Rezoning the subject parcel from R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) was considered as a threshold issue alongside the Conceptual PUD Plan. The Commission was favorably inclined towards this rezoning, which will be officially reviewed along with Final PUD/Subdivision hearings. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None BACKGROUND: This is the second private sector AH development to undergo City Council 's review. The Applicants, C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , have a purchase contract on the subject parcel. The 2 . 35 acre site will be developed into two areas. The upper bench will be platted as 7 single family lots ranging between 7 , 500 s. f. and 10, 500 s. f. , averaging 8, 710 s. f. Each free market home will be limited to no more than three bedrooms per the project' s compliance with AH zone bedroom percentages. Access for the lots will be off of Hwy. 82 , within a shared private roadway with the affordable townhomes. The lower portion of the site will consist of one 42 , 366 s. f. lot containing 16 deed restricted townhomes within four buildings. There are proposed to be four 1-bedroom units, four 2-bedroom units and eight 3-bedroom units for a total of 36 bedrooms. Access into the property is proposed from the northwest corner of the site. There will also be an emergency egress driveway with a breakaway barrier further east onto Hwy. 82 . The developer will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct sixteen deed restricted townhomes within four multi-family structures. The affordable units will be a mix a 1, 2,and 3 bedrooms for a total of 36 bedrooms. The ratio of deed restricted to free market units will be 70: 30. The 1 complete application booklet is attached for your reference. Please refer to the blue line print dated 9/15/92 for the revised site plan, and note that because of the access change the lot areas had to be altered from what is presented in Table 2 , page 11 of the application booklet. Process: The 4 step PUD review process including associated reviews is as follows: Step 1 - P&Z Conceptual PUD and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 2 - Council Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 3 - P&Z Rezoning recommendation, public hearing; Final PUD recommendation, public hearing; Subdivision recommendation, public hearing; GMQS Exemptions for Free Market and Affordable Housing recommendation; Special Reviews for parking, open space and FAR for the affordable housing, one step. Step 4 - Council Rezoning, public hearing; Final PUD; Subdivision; GMQS Exemption for Free Market and Affordable Housing Units; and first reading of ordinance. In an effort to provide as much public input as possible, the Applicants met informally with staff and the neighbors of the proposed development on August 27, 1992, prior to the commencement of PUD hearings. Please refer to the summary of this meeting, Exhibit "A". On September 8 the project was officially introduced to the Commission. Although not a designated public hearing, the Commission Chair allowed public comment. Public comments focused on the impacts of traffic/construction parking caused by the proposed Riverside Drive access and the proposed density on the parcel. A few comments were made on the urban character of the proposed affordable townhomes. The item was continued to September 15, 1992 when the Applicant presented a revised access plan based on the public and Commissioner comments made at the previous meeting. The revised plan was approved by a 6-0 vote. Rezoning from R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) was also discussed and supported by the Commission. CURRENT ISSUES: Rezoning from R-15 to AH: Rezoning to AH is the basic premise for this development. Official approval/denial of rezoning occurs along with the Final PUD Plan submission. However, discussion of the appropriateness of this rezoning is necessary at this 2 Conceptual PUD review. Staff has attached the review criteria contained within Section 24-7-1102 as Exhibit "B" . In summary, staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed rezoning to AH meets the purposes established for the zone district and is also in conformance with the rezoning criteria. Please refer to Exhibit "B" for the specific criteria and staff discussion. PUD (Planned Unit Development) Review Criteria: The proposed rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Review of a Conceptual Development Plan, followed by review of a Final Development Plan, is required for each PUD parcel. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. After evaluating the proposed Conceptual PUD Plan pursuant to the criteria established in Section 24-7-901, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the Plan with conditions. Please refer to the list of review standards and staff discussion is contained in Exhibit "C". Referral memos from various agencies are compiled in Exhibit "D" . Below is discussion of the larger issues associated with this project. The conditions forwarded by the Commission are listed below in the recommendation portion of the memo. Access: In response to the public's and Commission' s concern about the original access proposal utilizing Riverside Drive, the Applicant revised the Conceptual PUD Plan to show all access into the site from Hwy. 82 . This action seems to have satisfied the neighbor' s concern. The neighbors also asked the Commission to include a condition of approval requiring a "parking and service plan" which will address impacts of the development on the adjacent 3 roads and properties during construction and afterward. Density: The proposed density of the affordable townhomes was of moderate concern to the Commission. The Commission and staff want the Applicant to incorporate more usable open spaces and guest parking on the site for Final PUD Plan submission. Locating the play area across the access road concerned the Commission also. The open space and on-site parking for an AH site are determined by Special Review by the P&Z. A few of the neighbors from the Riverside Drive area maintain that the density of the free market lots is too great. They would prefer reducing the number of lots. Please refer to Exhibit "E" , minutes of the 9/15/92 Planning Commission meeting, and Exhibit "F" , letters from neighbors. Additionally, staff received a phone call from a neighbor across Hwy. 82 who discussed density, highway icing caused by tall structures, and the apparent groundwater situation on the lower part of the site. Affordable Housing: The proposed affordable housing types and deed restrictions are supported by the Housing Authority. The townhomes (all sale units) will be a mix a 1, 2 , and 3 bedrooms, categories 2 , 3 , 4 and R.O. (resident occupied) . The Housing Board is cautiously in favor of trying the R.O. restriction on a limited number of units. If any changes to the proposed affordable housing component occur, the Housing Office wants to review them prior to final approval. Please refer to the Housing Office referral memo in Exhibit "D" . One item that must be addressed within the Final PUD submission is the mechanism for assuring the completion of the affordable housing. Philosophically, the City expects housing mitigation at such time when free market development creates the housing needs. When the free market component is intended to financially subsidize the land and/or development costs for the affordable component, a catch-22 occurs. In the only approved Private sector AH project to date, the Ute Park Subdivision, the Applicant was able to secure a letter of credit to guarantee funds for the affordable housing component and the City of Aspen will be named on First Deeds of Trust for the free market lots as a alerting mechanism for commencement of construction on the affordable housing units. The East Cooper project must tailor an acceptable assurance plan to be included within the Final PUD submission. The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. Highway 82 Right-of-Way: As a result of their review of the Conceptual PUD Plan, the City Engineering Department has revealed that the Hwy. 82 right-of-way is substandard according to the subdivision regulations. Existing r-o-w width is 50 feet. The CDOT did not indicate a desire for additional r-o-w at this time. A r-o-w width acceptable to the City Engineer is 80 feet. The Applicant and the City Engineer have agreed to create a 12 . 5 foot 4 "reserve for right-of-way" along Hwy.82 which will not be dedicated to the public until such time that the City (or CDOT) undertakes a comprehensive roadway improvement project. The Applicant has also agreed to provide for a clear pedestrian access area across the road frontage of the parcel. Because of non-conforming r-o-w situations such as this, the City Engineer has determined that a comprehensive review of the r-o-w requirements within the Subdivision regulations should be reviewed. Over the next several months, Engineering will be formulating code changes for Council' s consideration. Contemplated is a variance process for sites where full r-o-w is not applicable or practical. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No apparent impacts to the City are expected. RECOMMENDATION: By a 6-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Conceptual PUD Development Plan with the following conditions to be satisfied within the Final PUD Development Plan: 1. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the project' s access driveway and emergency drive. 2 . The parking design for the townhomes shall be re-worked to eliminate conflicts with the emergency access corridor. Parking spaces shall be indicated on the Final PUD submission. 3 . Any curbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. 4 . There shall be utility easements over all underground utility installations. 5. The Riverside Ditch Company must enter into an agreement with the developer including but not limited to reconstruction and relocation, maintenance, and general liability. Maintain contain with Parks staff regarding these items. 6 . Holy Cross shall provide more information on what easements it is interested in acquiring. Each utility must be specific as to its easement requirements. 7 . Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. 8 . A complete drainage plan and calculations must be submitted with the Final PUD Development application. Each free market lot will have to provide the same with submission of building permit applications. 5 9 . The grading plan and report by CTL/Thompson must be finalized regarding fill material removal/replacement. The project shall then be designed around their specific recommendations. 10. In addition to standard Final submission requirements, the following must be addressed or included: - designated common areas - parking spaces - trash access areas - snow storage areas - exterior site lighting 11. All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. 12 . Any changes to deed restriction category mixes resulting from P&Z or City Council review must be reconsidered by the Housing Office prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 13 . If necessary for a water line extension, the developer must receive a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium from City Council concurrent with Final PUD Plan approval. 14 . The proposed 8" waterline from Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 shall be extended to Hwy. 82 to complete a loop. All installations shall be according to established City standards. 15. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. 16. Trees must be at least 30 ' from the Hwy.82 intersection. 17 . Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. 18. Connection to Sanitation District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. 19 . Submission of a Final PUD Development Plan must be submitted within one year of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to do so will nullify the Conceptual approval unless an extension is granted by the City Council. 20. Within the Final PUD submission, the Applicant shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of affordable units. 21. Engineering reserves the right to further review the Highway 82 right-of-way with the Applicant and the CDOT. 6 22 . The Applicant shall include in the Final PUD submission a parking and service plan which will address keeping vehicle impacts off of neighboring roads and properties. 23 . All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Conceptual PUD Development Plan approval with the following conditions: ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to support rezoning to AH, the proposed densities or deed restrictions, or access into the site. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Development Plan with the 23 conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Application Booklet and Blueline Prints Exhibits: "A" - Summary Of August 27, 1992 Neighborhood Meeting "B" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for Rezoning "C" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for PUD Development "D" - Complete Referral Memos "E" - P&Z Minutes from 9/15/92 "F" - Letters from Project' s Neighbors "G" - Affidavit of Public Notice 7 ■asity Council Exhibit A- Approved , 19 By Ordinance _ East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Summary of Neighborhood Meeting - August 27, 1992 This meeting was attended by 20 citizens comprising of residents of Riverside Drive, surrounding neighborhoods, and prospective buyers of the proposed free market lots and affordable townhomes. Kim Johnson of the Planning Office made a brief presentation on the four step PUD process and how this project fits into these steps, ie timeframe, public hearings, and associated reviews. Leslie Lamont of the Planning Office gave a short history of the AH zone district including its purpose of encouraging private development of affordable housing, the incentives of GMQS exemption, dimensional variations, and density bonus. Also present was the applicant Craig Glendenning and his project team of Tom Stevens, Yvonne Blocker, Bob Daniel, and Michael Gassman. Tom Stevens displayed a site plan and discussed the project in terms of layout, unit types and restriction categories, and access. The following comments were expressed by the citizens: - Park Avenue as a public r-o-w is contested. - The existing condition of Riverside Dr. is dangerous, with a blind curve. The only reason serious accidents have not occurred is the sensitivity and caution of the residents there. Putting more traffic on the road will increase hazard. - Making safety improvements to Riverside Dr. (ie. removing vegetation for sight distance and/or widening pavement) is not wanted by the residents. - The real problem is not really 20 or so more vehicle trips per day from the seven new lots, but the construction traffic and activity that will impact the neighborhood for the next several years. The neighborhood has endured construction impacts from other sides recently - the Aspen Club Subdivision and 1010 Ute. - Access from Highway 82 should be the only access into the free market lots, regardless of the internal impacts of the roadway cutting through the site and through the hillside. - Bulk and massing of new single family homes is a concern. Lot sizes are typically smaller than on Riverside Dr. , with homes that can be larger than currently exist on Riverside. (However, overall allowable home size in AH is less than in the current R-15 zoning) . - The setbacks shown for the new lots (10 ft. as allowed in AH) will allow homes too close to existing residences (R-15 has same 10 ft. setbacks) . 1 - The numbers of units, both restricted and free market, should be reduced. - The possibility of groundwater problems should be explored for ramifications on extent of development of the site. - The townhomes as proposed offer a too dense, very urban design which is not applicable to Aspen or this neighborhood. In response to the comments from the neighbors, the applicant has offered to study the following: 1. Increase the setbacks along the project perimeter to lessen impacts of new homes adjacent to existing homes. 2 . Access the free market lots from the Hwy. 82 driveway rather than from Riverside Dr. (provide costs and physical implications of cutting through the slope) . 3 . Provide information on the density of the Riverside Dr. area and surrounding zones for comparison with proposed zoning/densities. Planning staff will be evaluating the site in terms development under the existing R-15/Growth Management scenario. 2 Sty Council Exhibit 3 Approved • 19 _. By Ordinance EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL Rezoning from R-15 PUD to Affordable Housing (AH) POD Zone District (threshold discussion) : Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following review criteria and responses must be considered along with the Conceptual PUD review by P&Z and City Council. Final recommendation/approval of rezoning will take place at the Final PUD Development Plan review. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: This rezoning is not in conflict with the provisions of the Land Use regulations. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The 1973 Land Use Plan map shows this site and the area across Hwy.82 as single family homes. Latest discussions within the Housing Subcommittee for the Aspen Area Community Plan indicates that this parcel is a desirable location for affordable housing development. It also is in agreement with the purpose statement of the AH zone as it: is within walking distance to the commercial core; is on a mass transit route; and lends itself to infill on small neighborhood scale rather than being a major housing project. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The AH zone is intended to be used as infill zoning scattered throughout the community within residential neighborhoods. Site design is critical to the compatibility of a proposed development and its immediate surroundings. This project proposes single family development adjacent to the existing Riverside Dr. neighborhood which is zoned R-15. Zoning to the west is R-6, but the area is developed as a mix of multi-family (Aspen Edge Condominiums) and single family residential. The property to the east is zoned LP (Lodge Preservation) and is occupied by the Crestahaus Lodge. Across Hwy. 82 is the Alpine Lodge zoned LP and single family homes zoned R-15A. Following the site' s topography, the proposed multi-family structures are placed in the lower portion of the site along the highway frontage. This is closer to multi-family/lodge developments on the west, north and east sides and is less desirable for single family development. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The proximity of this site to the downtown area will promote walking to the core, especially by employee occupants of the townhomes. The report prepared by the Applicant's engineer Banner Associates indicates that access from Hwy. 82 is obtainable through CDOT with limited improvements such as a deceleration lane. The access for the free market lots from Riverside Dr. is acceptable according to the City Engineering Department. The records researched by Engineering indicate that Park Ave. is a public r-o-w although this is contested by an adjacent owner. Regardless of that issue, the application shows the access to the new lots is from the Riverside Dr. r-o-w, which is recommended by the Engineering Department. As mentioned earlier, the Riverside Dr. neighbors were strongly against using their street as the route into the new lots. They stated that the road was dangerous already and increased traffic, especially construction traffic and parking, will make a poor situation worse. At the scheduled site visit prior to P&Z ' s review of the Conceptual Plan, Commissioners will see that the roadway is narrow with dense vegetation coming right to the pavement edge. Staff has requested that the Engineering Department accompany the P&Z on their site visit prior to the P&Z meeting. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The Water Department has indicated that water capacity is sufficient for this project but that a waiver of the Water Main Extension Moratorium must be granted by Council. The Applicant' s Engineer will formally request this at Final PUD Plan review. At this time, "will serve" letters have been submitted by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Holy Cross Electric,Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and U.S.West Communications. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The rezoning will not, on its own, have a negative effect on the natural environment. Sensitivity of the site development is a function of PUD review. The major issue that is under consideration for the Conceptual Plan is how the seven new lots will be accessed - through existing Riverside Dr. or via a new road up the slope from the highway. Please refer to the PUD review criteria below. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: This rezoning meets the location criteria for AH properties, those being "within walking distance to the center of the city or on transit routes" . The character of much of the east end is that of a mix of residential types. This rezoning requires a mix of deed restricted housing to accompany the free market development. This Applicant is providing different ownership opportunities as well as a mix of housing types: single family and multi-family. The other details of the project such as the specific affordable/free market ratios, dimensional requirements, etc. shall be considered within PUD review. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: As mentioned above, the 1973 Land Use Plan map shows the subject parcel and extensive area surrounding it as single family residential. Since then, one finds that two lodges have been zoned LP in an effort to retain smaller accommodations in the community. In more general terms, the affordable housing market has gotten much tighter hence the creation of this particular zone district. Also, traffic has increased on the highway which lessens the applicability of single family development adjacent to the road. Since 1973 , mass transit has been established and now serves this site regularly. Z . Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: Rezoning this site will not be in conflict with the public interest nor with the Land Use Regulations. City Council Exhibit e' Approved , 19 _ By Ordinance EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) : The proposed rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Review of a Conceptual Development Plan, followed by review of a Final Development Plan, is required for each PUD parcel. Pursuant to Section 24-7-901 if the Aspen Municipal Code, a PUD development application shall comply with the following standards and require- ments: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: As presented in the rezoning section above, the 1973 Plan is not reflected by actual development and zoning in this vicinity. Growth patterns and affordable housing deficits are guiding more pro-active measures for the AACP update currently being finalized. This proposal more accurately reflects current conditions rather than the 1973 Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Mixed types of residential and lodge accommodations in varying degrees of density within the neighborhood is consistent with the proposed single family and townhome development proposed in this application. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: This is the last developable parcel in the direct vicinity, so future development will not be compromised. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: Free market development associated with AH projects are exempt from GMQS up to fourteen units per year as an incentive to AH development by the private sector. To date in 1992 , only three free market units have been approved (Ute Park Subdivision on Ute Avenue) . Deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt upon City Council approval. 2 .Density. Response: The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. The application booklet provides development data, including density, on page 11, Table 2 . The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from land area for density calculation purposes. Engineering has requested that the slope calculations be signed off by a registered engineer or architect prior to Final Plan submission. Staff has reviewed the application and found that further density reductions are not necessary for the following concerns: insufficient water pressure or other utilities; inadequate roads; ground instability; mud flow; rock falls and avalanche dangers; natural watershed quality; air quality; or that the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. 3 . Land Uses. Response: The land uses proposed are those allowed in the AH zone district. 4 . Dimensional Requirements. Response: The dimensional requirements submitted in the Conceptual Plan are those established for the AH zone district. Variations may be permitted within PUD development. The only variation requested within the Conceptual Plan submission is an FAR variation by Special Review for the townhome parcel (to be considered at Final Plan review) . Allowed by right in the AH zone is FAR of . 33 : 1. The designed FAR for Lot 8 is .49: 1. Special Review can consider FAR up to 1: 1. Due to response from some of the neighbors at the August 27, 1992 meeting, the Applicant has created greater setbacks along the perimeter of the parcel to limit impacts to adjacent properties. 5. Off-street parking. Response: The number of required off-street parking spaces for the AH zone is one space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per dwelling unit, approved by Special Review. Two spaces are provided for each of the affordable units. Half of the proposed 16 townhomes are one and two bedrooms units, the rest are three bedrooms. Staff and the Planning Commission expressed concern over the lack of guest/overflow parking on the 9/15/92 plan. The project is located on a RFTA route and is within walking distance to downtown. Parking for the individual free market homes will be assessed by Zoning when building permits are issued. 6. Open Space. Response: The proposed open space for the AH zone is established by Special Review. For Lot 8, the townhome lot, all owners will be granted a proportional undivided interest in the open space on that lot. The revised plan dated 9/15/92 shows a playground space in the southwest corner of Lot 8 . The Commission and staff have asked the Applicant to further study an area(s) for children and provide more space if possible. 7. Landscape Plan. Response: The Final Development Plan submission will include a landscape plan as required by the PUD regulations. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Response: The application contains sketches of the proposed exteriors and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be predominantly brick structures and will be of a level of quality and detail to compliment the proposed free market lots on the bench above. The buildings are tucked into the existing hillsides to reduce their overall bulk and to provide semi-underground parking and storage for the units. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Engineering requires that an exterior lighting plan be submitted with the Final Plan. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The townhome buildings are clustered to the north of the irrigation ditch. The "brownstone court" concept readily applies to the clustering concept. The proposed free market lots are located unto themselves on the upper bench. It should be noted that the larger lots are placed adjacent to the perimeter of the parcel against the Riverside subdivision in order to provide a density buffer. 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: No additional public facilities will be required because of this development. The Applicant is aware of the Sanitation District 's requirement for funding for improvements to be made downstream of this development. The Fire Marshal has approved the provision of the emergency access driveway. The proposed cul-de- sac meets emergency vehicle turn-around requirements. 12. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. a. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Response: The access off of Hwy.82 shall comply with the CDOT. No looped streets are created to allow through traffic. b. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: Impacts to Hwy. 82 will be negligible because of the relative limited density proposed. Riverside Dr. is no longer being proposed as the access for the free market lots. As mentioned by a neighbor, the Applicant must consider any shadow effects/icing hazard on the highway which may be caused by this development. c. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60 ' ) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: This is accomplished within the Conceptual Plan. d. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. Response: Not applicable. e. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. Response: The proposed private road off of Hwy.82 will be an access easement. The Applicant commits to comply with the above requirement for compliance with City regulations and ordinances. Jity Council Exhibit D Approved , 19 _ By Ordinance Referral Comments from: Engineering Department Housing Office Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Water Department Fire Marshal AUG 2 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer(WSI Date: August 20, 1992 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. The applicant should provide more detail, establishing where the street to the free market lots connects with Riverside Drive. There has been some confusion as to whether Park Avenue as it extends from Riverside Drive is a public right-of-way or not. The engineering department's records indicate that it is public right-of-way. It is recommended that the new street enter within the Riverside Drive right-of-way. In addition, lot 3 needs to have an access easement across lot 2. 2. Access to the affordable units off HWY 82 is contingent upon an access permit from CDOT. As requested in the DRC meeting, CDOT needs to comment on the emergency access drive. The permit should be included in the final submission. 3. The Fire Marshall needs to review and comment on the emergency access to HWY 82. It is presumed that the exit is in lieu of an adequate turnaround. If acceptable to the Fire Marshall, it should be on the condition that it be kept clear of snow in the winter. 4. The application has allowed each unit with the option of a one car garage with storage or two cars parked in tandem in the garage. Regardless of the owners choice, reality is that the occupants will more than likely park in front of their units, as depicted in the application renderings. The existing design does not allow for a parking space in front of each unit without encroaching into the area designated for 20 feet clear access. The design should be worked so that one 81/2 x 18 foot space will fit in front of each unit without encroaching into the 20 foot clear access. This must be shown on the final submission plat. 5. All curb and gutters, streets and parking areas, whether private or dedicated as public right-of-way, must be designed and constructed in accordance with city specifications. 6. The application has exhibited that all utilities will remain private. It was not mentioned as to who is responsible for maintaining and repairing these utilities. Staff believes this is could be an unnecessary burden on the affordable housing units. Staff recommends that there be an easement across the affordable housing parcel and that the free market lots take the burden of any repairs and restoration except for private service lines to the affordable units. 7. If there is an existing easement in place for the Riverside ditch it should be noted on the plat. If there isn't, one should be acquired. Due to stepping the affordable housing into the hillside the Riverside ditch will be elevated 8 to 10 feet in the air, as depicted in the application renderings. There is concern that this could be a potential hazard for the affordable housing units. It should be made clear as to who is responsible for maintenance and care (i.e. the flume breaks). 8. Holy Cross has expressed an interest in acquiring an easement for the overhead power line that currently exists on the property. Their letter to service the development should be expounded and discuss easements. In addition for final submission, each utility should be specific if an easement is necessary to service this development. 9. It is preferred that the topographic map for slope reduction is prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor, although a registered architect is also acceptable. In either case, the calculations and/or method of approach must be provided. 10. As indicated in the application, a complete drainage plan and calculations will be submitted with the final submission. Staff wants to point out that each free market lot as it is developed will have to provide the same with its building permit application. 11. There is concern with the site grading plan. CTL/Thompson's report said that all existing fill should be removed and replaced per the site grading section of their report. The site grading recommendations only includes cuts and fills to level building areas and construct access roads and driveways. Staff does not believe that this adequately addresses whether or not all the existing fill has been removed and replaced. Further, their report is preliminary and not intended for design purposes. The report should be upgraded so that the project is designed around their specific recommendations. 12. Aside from the standard requirements for final submission the following is elements that staff would like to see addressed and/or included in the final submission: • designated common areas • parking spaces • trash access area • snow storage area ▪ exterior site lighting • all required easements must be recorded prior to the plat being recorded cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer CASELOAD92020 MEMORANDUM AUG 13 TO: Kim Johnson, Planner FROM: Tom Baker, Executive Director DATE: August 13 , 1992 RE: Referral Comment: East Cooper "AH" Residential Development NOTE: These referral comments are designed to focus on issues specifically related to Housing Office concerns. Issues revolving around broader land use, neighborhood character, density concerns are the expected to be the purview of the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. The Housing Board's lack of comment on issues of this nature does not constitute acceptance or rejection. BACKGROUND: The applicant has proposed a 23 unit (16 affordable/7 free market) development on 2 . 35 acres west and adjacent to the Cresta Haus on SH 82 . In total there are 16 deed restricted units: 2 one-bedroom cat #2 townhomes @ 792 sf @ $ 69, 000 2 one-bedroom cat #3 townhomes @ 792 sf @ $106, 500 4 two-bedroom cat #3 townhomes @ 1080 sf @ $116, 500 1 three-bedroom cat #3 townhouse @ 1332 sf @ $126, 000 4 three-bedroom cat #4 townhomes @ 1332 sf @ $193 , 500 3 three-bedroom Res Occ townhomes @ 1332 sf @ Market All 16 units are proposed as sales units. The affordable units are being designed to reflect an urban setting reminiscent of urban brownstones. HOUSING ISSUES: Following is a discussion of several issues which staff finds need to be addressed during referral comments. Unit Mix - In terms of unit mix, we have two issues: type of unit and category of unit. In terms of unit type, the applicant is proposing 8 three-bedrooms, 4 two-bedrooms, and 4 one-bedrooms. All of these units are configured as townhouses. This mix is attractive to staff because 50% of the units are three-bedrooms (West Hopkins has 2 three-bedroom units out of a total of 11 units) . This mix is consistent with the AACP direction of providing family oriented housing and staff finds the mix of unit types acceptable. In terms of category mix, the applicant is proposing two category #2 units, seven category #3 units, four category #4 units, and 3 Resident Occupied units (West Hopkins has seven category #2 units and four category #3 units) . When the AH Zone was created there was a general understanding that the affordable units which were provide through this mechanism would be concentrated in the higher categories. In this proposal the applicant has nine of the 16 units in categories 2 and 3 . It is clear that the applicants have gone out of their way to provide housing in the lower categories and should be commended for this effort. The applicant is also proposing three Resident Occupied units. In the past, both the City Council and the Housing Board have indicated that they are interested but cautious regarding the RO concept. Staff finds that this may be an appropriate test case for RO units. While the Housing Board supports this proposal, there was considerable discussion about the appropriateness of three RO units. The Board had a very energetic debate about the proposed RO units and narrowly decided to support the existing proposal with the caveat that if the program changed at P&Z or City Council, then the Housing Board should review the new category mix. Rental/Sales - The applicant proposes all 16 units as sales units. This is consistent with staff's finding that we should concentrate on ownership housing. An additional advantage for ownership is that these units are configured as townhouses rather than condominiums. Unit Sizes - All of the units comfortably exceed Housing Office minimum standards set forth in the 1992 Guidelines. General Livability - The applicant is proposing to create an urban solution to this design problem. Without appearing to delve into land use and planning issues, staff finds the concept to be different from our typical approach, but acceptable. All of the units are large; they all have private decks; and the paved surface which connects all of the buildings will not prohibit this area from being used as a play area. Further, in comparison to the West Hopkins the development is less dense. The comment regarding density is made in response to an evaluation of livability, not neighborhood compatibility. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: In conclusion, staff finds the proposal acceptable from a Housing Office perspective. Staff finds the proposal provides a significant component of family oriented, ownership housing, with large units. In terms of the three RO units, the staff and Board have indicated that the proposal is acceptable; however, this is a cautious 2 recommendation because there are still many unknowns regarding the RO concept. If the program for this proposal is changed at P&Z or City Council, then the Housing Board requests that they review the new category mix. ref.eco 3 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District AUG 13 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303)925-3601 FAX #(303)925-2537 Sy Kelly - Chairman Albert Bishop John J. Snyder- Trees Frank Loushin Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. August 10, 1992 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re : East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual Dear Kim: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed East Cooper Affordable Housing project. There are two downstream constraints in the collection system which we will address with funds derived from connection fee surcharges on development in this drainage area. The method by which the development is connected to the District system must be approved by the District Line Superintendent prior to review of final plans. If the proposed on site collection system is to be deeded to the District for maintenance and repair, then the system must be designed to meet District specifications. District line specifications are on file at the District office. Total connection charges can be estimated once detailed plans for the development are available. A tap permit must be completed at the District office, and all associated fees must be paid prior to connection to the District system. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Rebecca Baker Postmark: Aug 11, 92 1: 32 PM Status: Previously read Subject: East Cooper AH Conceptual PUD Message: Comments for this application include: 1) Ensure that trees are thirty feet from intersection 2) Developer meets with Parks regarding irrigation ditches and flumes. Thank you. Call if questions. Also, we have set up a requisition for transfering the $200 tool shed money to Planning. Do we need to wait til the PO is rolled (or whatever they do) ? Or can we go ahead and get started? Thanks again. --------x--------------- ri 3 $ TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Service Supervise RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD DATE: July 29, 1992 The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable water to serve the proposed project being submitted by Tricor Resources. All design, material and construction shall be in accordance with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The City is requesting that the new 8" water line from Riverside Drive to Lot 4 of the proposed subdivision must be extended to Highway 82 to finish a loop. The Developer shall be responsible for all Tap Fees, Water Rights Dedications, and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. The Developer will need to approach City Council/City Manager for a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium pursuant to Resolution 45, Series 1991, if an extension of existing water main is required. cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Wayne Vandemark Postmark: Jul 27 , 92 3 : 06 PM Status: Certified Urgent Subject: EAST COOPER AFORDABLE HOUSING Message: I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE APPLICATION AND HAVE HAD THEM ANSWERED BY TOM STEPHENS. SECURING THE BRAK-A-WAY IS NOW NO PROBLEM AND FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. 5000000 TO MAKE A LONG STORY SOARING I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. I AM SURE SPRINKLERING TO STRUCTURES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. X City Council Exhibit C Approved , 19 _ By Ord®frAFT ( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 Following site visits to Meadows bridged and the City shop: Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4 : 50 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, ini,..,)Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Kim mumbled something. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PUD Kim made presentation as attached in record. Staff comments: I would like to voice my concern that we have lost some extra parking spaces from the original plan submitted and discussed last week. Specifically referring to not identified parking for each individual affordable town home unit. But that we have lost 4 guest parking spaces on the affordable town home site. I think that we need to try and find a few spaces available. Another thing that I would like to comment favorably upon is based on last week' s discussion has included a dedicated open space and play area which I think is important to the future residents of this project. The site is still very tight. Yvonne this afternoon had indicated that in a safety measure they would do some decorative things to try and keep the kids out of the open ditch area. Chuck Roth, Engineering: The Eng Dept received comments from some of the citizens and it is our intention to pass those on to P&Z and share the concerns of the citizens. We are happy that the access point has worked out to be what it is. We have noticed that the ROW width appears to be deficient. We spent considerable time among staff discussing what the ROW width should be. This is on Hwy 82 . The Municipal Code is pretty specific about proscribing what the ROW width for an arterial collector a local and an alley is . For DRAFT PZM9. 15. 92 an arterial it is 100feet. For a collector it is 80 feet. For a local street it is 60 feet. For an alley it is 20 feet. We haven't determined yet what the City is going to require for that ROW expansion. I do know we will want to see a sidewalk put in there in front of the project. And we would like some of the mapping to be improved a little to show the ROW lines on both sides of the HWy 82 and labeled dimensions to the existing curb and gutter that is adjacent to the property. We might want to have RFTA take a look at the area. There are bus stops up hill and down hill from the site. They might want to look whether they want to have a new bus stop or re-locate an existing bus stop. That might be something that could figure into the ROW analysis of the project. We went out and looked at the parking out there on Cooper Ave/Hwy 82 . Downhill from the project there is parking on the street. You go up hill from the project to me it appeared that there was parking. But then we had trouble discussing whether it was acceleration, deceleration lanes for adjacent properties. There is very wide pavement. I don't think staff is going to recommend that there be on-street parking in front of the project. But P&Z might want to consider that for their own recommendation. Bike lane is another factor in what makes up the ROW. Snow storage for in the winter. Kim: When Chuck mentioned he wants to see dimension drawings of the whole ROW width and what all is included in that--I would also like to see that in section form to get an idea of the topography. Across the street there is a slope and here there is also a slope. Rob Thomson, Engineering: I would want to check whether that diameter of the turn-around is there in the access area to determine whether that meets with current code. Even though it is going to be maintained as private access it still needs to be built to specifications of code. Brian Denning: At the conceptual level here what we are trying to reach here is is it basically OK with everybody. We didn't have as a group enough time to go and do a finished product. We basically took the blocks that were there before and spread them across the site to show that it could work. We might be able to add a block or 2 on top of other blocks and maintain the same square footage and the same number of affordable houses and not come up with this same basic design. This is not his best work because of the shortage of time. We proved by this that it can work. We tried to with concerns 2 DRAFT PZM9 . 15. 92 about play area-give up a little more ground to put that little play area in there. It may be that we could get our 4 parking spaces off the very narrow portion of the park. There are additionally includes some spaces inside the parameter of the affordable housing site. These are things we will spend considerable time and money to try to perfect it so it is the best for everybody that is involved. Chuck to answer your concerns, the sidewalk is not a problem with us. We figure someone needs to start ones through there anyway. There is not much of a sidewalk on that side of the bridge. We did go to the Hwy Dept and that was one of our threshold concerns as to the feasibility of the project to get access to it. And the Hwy Dept and they gave us a permit which we will have to go back and renew. So that at final if you see this thing the way we do that we go back and work with you and the Hwy Dept very closely to make sure everybody is satisfied. As we get further into the final we want to make sure that we address all the City and County specs that we are required to. Yvonne: Lot #8 has increased in size to accommodate the access going through there for all the free market lots and the restricted units. We still have a 7 lot configuration for the free market lots. The lots have been reduced in size. They now average between 8, 200 and 10, 200sgft. That is the range. This gives you for the FAR it is 3 , 200 to 3 , 500sgft which is compatible with the average Riverside Subdivision. The underlying R-15 would allow a 4 , 500sgft home on these lots. What we also have done to meet some of the concerns that were voiced last week was we have located building envelopes on each lot specific to the buffer that had been requested from any of the abutting lots in Riverside Subdivision. We currently have these shown at a 25ft setback. In talking with the Planning Dept we may need to look at that a little bit because of the turn radius. Also the affordable housing units have not changed in either number or size. That has remained the same. We have lost a few of the parking spaces but have looked at dedicating as open space a play area which has already been discussed with you. David: What is the grade on the driveway? Bob: It is our attempt to maintain a grade less than 8% . David: At the bottleneck here at the interior corner what is the width of these driveways? 3 DRAFT" PZM9 . 15 . 92 Bob: We have to maintain 20ft for fire lanes. David: I guess part of that is you are still looking at double parking. Are these flat so you are parking under the deck? Bob: Right. David: So you guys have a 30ft with a loft deck and you are parking under the deck. Michael Gassman: No. The deck is doesn't stick out. It is enclosed. So the parking the lower floor--the basement floor- David: So the second parking space is inside. Gassman: Yes. Denning: Once again this is our conceptual. There will be some changes in it. Gassman: We have done enough design to assure ourselves that this access will work. We didn't show any parking because I think when we get to final grading we are probably going to have to have some retaining on that driveway. t Roger: I assume part of your problem is going to be--there is a major grade change here and probably somewhere over around the ditch might be a change. What you might consider is lowering the roadway over the ditch and then syphon. Bob: There is a syphon 1, 200 feet down the road across 82 . Jasmine asked for public comment. Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 in Riverside adjacent to the subdivision. I want to congratulate the developer for the modification of the access and we are real pleased to see that. We are also real pleased to see that they came up with 25ft buffer between us and Riverside. We urge that that should be maintained. We do however still think that the density of 7 free market units is too much for the area. We think that the affordable housing project could be spread out and made a lot more attractive and a lot more functional if it were moved back into the hill and the ditch re-located and the density of the lots cut back. Sara: I agree with staff. This is a very tight site. I raised children in an affordable housing complex. I don't think I would want to raise children in this one. It is too tight. There is too much traffic and it is right off of the highway. 4 DRAFT PZM9 . 15 . 92 We always have to work with the developer that it is not going to pencil. But I guess that isn't our job to manage the profit. Our job is the best planning for the community. For the best planning of the community I would like to see affordable housing here. I would like to see mixed use for the private lots but it is too dense. Jasmine: So you would recommend reducing the density? Sara: I would like to change it to affordable housing--the rezoning is agreeable to me. I like the mixed use concept. But it is too dense. The density would prevent me from giving conceptual approval. David: I agree with staff on everything they have said. I agree with Sara. I tend to agree with Lennie if you are willing to subsidize the difference in the density. I also applaud the developer and the applicant and the team for bringing this to the table. And even though I think less would be better than more, I think they have followed everything that City guidelines have set out to do in promoting the affordable housing with this type of a mixed use. It would be nice to have some more parking. I think it could use some more parking. It could use some more open space. It could use a few more things. Couldn't we all? And I am willing to grant the conceptual approval. Tim: I am willing to grant this conceptual approval . And I am willing to change it to AH Zone. I think this is a good plan. It is not as pleasing to my eye because it is dense but yet I think that in order to maximize the employee units we have to give the developer a chance to recoup his investment. I think that if we have 4 big lots, they are going to have to be big and expensive lots and big and expensive houses and I would as soon give other people in the community an opportunity to build free market houses there. So even though it is not the sweetest deal all the way around it does accomplish the most important it gives us the employee capability that we want. Richard: It does seem a bit jammed in here. And that may be site constraint as much as anything else. It is as far as I am concerned part of the City so that the density purse is not a problem for me. I am curious as to how within the building envelope of the affordable units that compares with other projects. Say the West Hopkins or larger projects like Lone Pine or Hunter Creek. 5 DRAFT PZM9 . 15 . 92 C Denning: Way less. We have got 42 , 000sgft within this envelope. We are looking to build 18, 000sgft. The FAR is 1. 1 to . And it looks really jammed up here because we just took those boxes and placed them back over. But if we go up 1/2 a floor--we are going to be able to take half of this off. It looks rough like it is right now. But believe me by the time we get back through and around it is going to be a different affordable housing project. Richard: I am ready to approve it. We have looked at other projects. Harley brought in an affordable housing project for the Scrabble Pit area and we looked at that before. And he brought in a spa before that which was a lot more development than we see here. I am concerned about the play area being across the driveway. That doesn't look very workable to me. Kim: Prior to final we should look at that. Jasmine: It seems to me that probably there is going to be some re-arranging and another area may emerge that would work better when we get to the final . Considering the time constraints that the applicant has had I am willing to believe that this is not their final approach to this project. Denning: These things are in the next go around. We wanted to hurry up and get something that we could show the folks of the neighborhood that we--we want to suit them because we are going to be their neighbors. I want to live here. That is my whole reason for spending my last nickel and having a heart attack in front of you folks here. Roger: I will support the rezoning. With respect to the numbers and the size of the lots in the free market area I agree with Tim that if you start going up to 15, 000sgft lots for example to match the rest of Riverside which now I don't consider this part of Riverside at all--there is very little relationship between this project and Riverside. But if you follow that rational you would end up with a 45, 000sgft houses probably well beyond the means of most people you want to attract to that area. So I might even throw up the ball that maybe another lot should be put in there to get the size of the houses down. Jasmine: I agree with the rezoning. I think this is an excellent parcel despite it's constraints for mixed use project. I think Tim's comments and Roger' s comments are very well taken even though it is not part of the Riverside Subdivision. One of the things that makes Riverside so nice is that people there have yards. Second home people tend not to have yards. I can tell you from my 6 DRAFT PZM9 . 15 . 92 own street where 2 monster houses have just gone up with about 6 inches of yard on each side. And that is OK because if you don't have children and you aren't living here year around what do you need a yard for? You want media rooms and things like that. This kind of project is designed to that even affordable houses will be meant for people who will be living in this community. Ideally they might want yards also. And by limiting the size of the lots you will be limiting the size of the houses and I think it does make it much more possible that this is going to be a real neighborhood with people who are in affordable housing projects that are subsidized by the free market. And the free market people who are not millionaires but who just want to live here with their families. So for that reason I support the number of lots that we have now. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Kim: The first 3 conditions are specific to the Riverside configuration. Roger: And #4 should be changed permit for access and emergency drive as opposed to the driveway. Kim: Access drive and emergency drive. Roger: And why don't we just say "the project" instead of isolating the affordable townhouse. Kim: What about #5, Rob? Thomson: That goes back to some of the reconfiguration of the blocks that even though you are parking 2 spaces inside, whether they use one or not in all likelihood they will park in front as your rendering showed. I just wanted to make sure that that 20 foot access that there is parking in front of each unit--a little space. I am not looking for 2 spaces out front but out so that it wasn't encroaching into that 20 feet. Kim: How about "Parking design for the townhomes shall be reworked to eliminate conflict between emergency access corridor. " Roger: The #6--no problem. Bob: Are you going to, require curb and gutter on the access. Rob: No. Roger: So then all curbs and gutters utilized in streets and parking areas. 7 DRAFT PZM9 . 15. 92 Rob: Are you not putting curb and gutter in here too? Bob: No. We are not. Rob: The original plan did. Bob: If we could just put "any" instead of "all" . Kim: Bob, are you still planning to bring utilities across Lot #8 . Right? For the free market units? Bob: No. Actually there will be an access and utilities between the road. We will have a clear corridor so there is no sense to cut any vegetation. Denning: If it is required by the Water Dept to finish that loop we will do that in the lot line up in the free market. Like on Lot #1 if we are required to finish the loop into Riverside to that fire hydrant that is existing in the cul-de-sac. Kim: Shall we omit #7? Bob: I would just say that there should be utility easements over all underground installations. Roger: In other words "There shall be utility easements for underground utility installations" . Rob: A lot of these are conditions to be looking at for final approval than they are actual conditions of the conceptual and rezoning. Kim: The last half of #7 Bob: We intend to design everything to the satisfaction of the utility companies and given the ability to dedicate easements to meet their requirements that will be conveyed to the utility companies in perpetuity. Kim: So they will be considered public lines except for the service lines. Bob: Correct. And the service lines will be the responsibility of the home owner's association. Kim: So we could scratch the last half of that condition. Roger: So "There shall be utility easements for underground installation" . 8 DRAFT PZM9 . 15. 92 Kim: 8 stands. 9 stands. 10 and 11. Bob: In #10--is that a provision of the code? Rob: Yes. Jasmine: #11--fine. #12--OK. #13--#14-- Bob: On #14, we would like to state that will be on the plat instead of recorded prior to the plat so that we are not doing things by separate instrument so they are recorded on the plat. Rob: They can be recorded at the same time. I just want to have the book and page recorded on the plat. Bob: Can the easements not be recorded on the plat? So we don't have to do separate instruments. And that way they will be shown- Rob: No. We need that to be separate instruments. Bob: Is that a new requirement? Rob: That is a new policy. Yes. It has been something we have been trying to put in place. Because you are just saying that as far as just--if it was recorded on the plat it would show that there is an easement. But according to--unless John wants to work differently with that and you can get all that language on a plat that he wants to see there-- Bob: We will do it to your satisfaction. Rob: My biggest concern is being able to track it once you are pulling out the plat is to look and see where the easements are recorded. Bob: But if it is on the plat then it is on the recorded plat. Jasmine: #15 is pretty standard. I don't know what happened to #16. Jasmine: #17 Kim: You will have to work that out now and between final . Denning: We are prepared to do that. Jasmine: #18 is OK. #19 . #20 21, 22 and 23 . r., 9 DRAFT ( PZM9 . 15. 9" Sara: I would like to see more open space. Denning: This will be a lot different when you see it again. Tim: I am wondering if we use language on one of the other fre market and affordable projects that puts the developer in position where you have to have so much funding or so much construction or so much done on the affordable before you start building or before you can have the free market stuff done. What. I would like to do is see the commitment and the construction tc a certain point so before the construction and development of free market. Denning: That is going to be the first part to start. We hope tc build next spring. We will give you the proper assurance that that is going to be one of the first ones because I have already--A.J. Albright with Colorado First is working with us and A.J. wanted to get into it after we got through with this meeting. Sara: This would be more at final but I would like to have some sort of a parking plan and storage for construction during the construction period for the construction vehicles. Kim: I have a condition #24 . Applicant shall include an appropriate financial assurance plan for the affordable housing units. The open space situation--do we want to include that as a condition that the applicant shall further study the play area open space. Roger: I think that was his representation here. I don 't think we need to include that as a condition. We will remember. Rob: I think one that we need is to reserve the right for further review of the ROW and will continue to work with the applicant any Cdot and bring that to Council . Tim: Are you planning on having any restrictive covenants withir the free market units so that the houses are somewhat compatible . Denning: We have 7 potential homeowners that are all full time folks. Tim: So protective covenants of the association-- Denning: They have got to work with both the affordable housing- MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the East Cooper Affordable 10 DRAFT PZM9 . 15 . 92 Housing project conceptual PUD development plan with the following conditions using as the base the Planning Office memo dated September 8, 1992 . Conditions #1, 2 , and 3 have been deleted. Condition #4 modified to read: Colorado Department of Transportation must grant access permit for the access drive and emergency drive. Condition #5 modified to read: The parking design for the townhomes shall be re-worked to eliminate conflicts with emergency access and parking spaces shall be indicated on the final PUD submission. Condition #6 modified to read: Any curbs, gutters, streets and parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. Condition #7 modified to read: There shall be utility easements for underground installations. Conditions #8, 9, 10, 11, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15, 16, 17 , 18 , 19 , 20, 21 corrected 22 and corrected 23 are as in the Planning Office memo. New Condition #24 : By final submission applicant will come up with a method of guaranteeing construction of the affordable housing units. New Condition #25 : By final submission applicant will have a parking and service plan for construction to keep vehicles off neighboring property and streets. New Condition #26: The Engineering Department reserves the right to further review the ROW. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 7: 00 PM. Commission then continued with work session on the City Shop Master Plan. Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk 11 City Council Exhibit HELEN}WAN KLANDERUD Approved , 19 ATTORNEY AT LAW By Ordinance 1001 EAST BAYAUD AVENUE,#1001 BOX 1558 DENVER,COLORADO 80209 ASPEN.COLORADO 81612 (303)722-8680 c; 7;-- --S.: t\ (303)925-2796 k, . 1401 . , 1 \r,--', .\• h --- .--:,ep:ember H. ic3H2 ,\A:):\P . .' L 0 sEP Ms . Kim Johnson Planning 2tfice ?iaLning and Zoning CommissionfLrF Msycr City Council City of Asp-s.n 130 South Caleta Str..:*et Aspen, Cc:LG.:ado :11:H: A 2e : Eas:. C.:op-2r Affordable E-IcuF± lig Reslc1::ntlal pe'Telopy2,eilt Deai- Kam , Fialan1h4 and 7,Dning ',Icm.rniF::;..0nerH , i-laycr ; and City ounciL : My r.L:.sidenze 15 a: 178. 0 R17er:ite Crave Pot 2 ; Pav,= ..-siie Subdivision , , A5.-pen , JT,iorad.:D , ad: aceut TO ShE. aiDave-referelic proposed project . I am wait inc„; my c.imment::- chi t .is proposal to y&u , a* 1 am hit cu:rently ln Asper. full-time , -=Y,-Id ma;. be u:labi re attend i-uhalc hearin:Th an this propcsa ..,n (7e;.--tenher 8 , ] .7192 , ar,c, • eptemb2.- LS , ..99.. . 1 : axe n.-.., ob-jectipnE. to this prop-al--al in gene:-Al but 1 e.j.:;:l have. the following spEciflc cncer11., ai: c.1 otjec-tion::::. , pursum,.: to the Clty of Asp-2n 1.cunizipE-.1 Code I . Lani, Suitability The siyteen ( -1 ) .-ied-17est7lctec.. unit,:, are lccate:I prinlarity is. the former gravel p...t. area . No bi,:r;clinm..-e , tercgnitior. , SDI' planitinq has seen pr .,vlded for tL.He hi :,-:Jrical water accumulatl= it this. r- -*a , Tr -Fr. ,.:p7sailg, u..:--ually about tiac- second weec in June , and ..-fte.n .,litc, ln I -3 :e suner , thl.=-: coca tills with 1,,i .ter , y ict : ;:pprox..r.lat6,1y rhe ,--.a7,e pl ,-variDn a.,-.*- the urave: plt area , ha: historically siffe.sed the same probLam . I: Augus ar..-,' S€ ptemter. 11,77 , Cher. at Ai- si)ctes , In . pertprmted. a, So:.1 ani .70,11r.daticH Inv..-stigi-tn,1 ,m, .:w property. One teat hoLe was- hr ilid. Ore:: snd Associ:JtF.s rep-art Indicates tile t€ st. tole was drilled 0;:. Au:: at 2:::: 1977 , „Et.:J. "por, ing. w:tei: v71F, tc,H1.1d or thc= north .. ide '. 3f The 1.7-soperty . ,l_t, the Lime cf thIs iLvestigatlrm , "the Wdt.:-t-f table w.a.:, don ad at depth 1: ,-;,:.,t 't-' --,,J !-.1e ground sur.tace . On S<:-pte.,:iper 1 . 7 , 1 :1 , and 1=1 , 11)77 , the water tabl* was neaureL at [:,eptns at 11 . 1 ' , 13 . 9 : 1: . : : and -17- . 7f ' 7.-es,pe. 7.iv-ily . Ti- c indcates tn::ut the .7,tabili7e(j water tabj.e at prEsent. ::J_ abort 1C . S ' elow toe • ioLihd hurfase . The applicant , for the • bove-referenced :project performed test di-Dllins in Dctoher . outside the se-asonn.41 peri• -i for water cumulat1on , and did ED drilling on the portion of poperty where water accumulates . Therefore , the proTiosal fails to -Jrdi:. 7.e Thformation as to potential hazardous pocading ocndeton in tnoo are,a . The Code would stem to require the applicant to provide information as to the oatire of this pcohjem , and informtion necessary to detaTonne whether thiE site 13 suitable for dveloprent . In addition , snouid &hlitability for deveLopment depend. upon on-site mitDgatlon , the Cde wand soon to require the 103110 to. disoJcEe on-site mitiyatLon teohnique , and a3sunacoo thoi;t tese tecCniquas will solve the pn-site pp:D.:leo , arid Will cause no ad7erse ipact oh • dcacent proipecties or watHr :esources by divert in the natural course of toe watec taole or iaterfering oil naturhl unLtheri:rcund anc:' surface watec flow. The Code.: requirem. disclo.sure end fe. 31uticol raf this water haEcro7. prior 70 appreval of this project . 2 . 3. ning I have to objectica to the proposed rezonig to c::ovd1 for t deed-restricted unies . However , T. do object to rEzoncncl to allow for :even H ) tl- ree-Icedrocm single-family res: derices , w;tere , I believe , current R-1E nonhng !.,2oult permit approxlmately five ( 3 ) resIdences. , The proposer. site is adjac*at to tne Riveroidro SubdIviscon . :(coaed R-1.E . The proposef.. smaller site permittinol more singie-fam11.1 cesance& than cut entli allowed ore ahcompatThie wath the adjacent divers: he Ducdivision . Also, I caject to :,..rly F . A. T . for the three Cedrocm Ein'ple-family reciCien.c...eo greater thna the F .A. P . in the Riverside subdivisicn . A reductror by 7WO nuts , If. t.i. an increase , ty nearly awc-thDrdc , in 107. si-_. e . and an F .A . R . cpnsiste:t with tn.: 7 . A . F . for the adjacent R.- 1T, Riverside Subdiviolicn wcuid not mane this orojHct financially intcasotle . 3 . ;n:cesc I con cc : to the prociocaD to :access the single -tamely residences .crcolgR Civeroide Pr: ye . Rive..mide Drive provides the sole veicuiar acceso to the tweety-flve re,cirCences it the Rivercide Dubdavl.= ion , nEd siii::s in a (.111-a.e- ao . The street curves / a Ras. umercc,s bliad 31 eo3 . 'Icing chilOOreh play in th:is nelght.c.Thoopd . and el.;treFe caution, ani. o:low speeds are regaird whea drivinoj the streat . CdfS frEqUelltly exit fuer, Highway S2 at speeds hicfner th3L iS oafe , end fm vers do act see pedo.strianor coh children f-alayinc nntal .D:Jey are richt on fre:..t of them . Pt-a ideute who; live in this- negnboo-hoce. . are failiar with this c:Ituati,on , but Thcreacinc traffic an :iversill.e Drive w11 elc:,e-eacbate the COangerou • . situation . The applicant ' s piipsai adds ?even ( 7 ) Riditional three bed ,Dom res hector to rh Riverside Drive access , a re.,:identlal unit ::crease of 28,:,; . However , tne redicnir incRecise is ever. greater ( wnen you consider each rasideice will likely cohtnitute at least three additiona_ venic-1,3s plus cuet • r..±1 se;. ice traffic . Tne traffic ImpaRt on Riverside Drive during construction, and on a regular iasis following compleion flf tin?. project Cr,:: consIderable . I can tbink at no rational argument 3:5 to way the Riferside subdivision should bear thee ilnpacts c)f: this new development . 1 find no IC 57: in altering the char,Ecter of one cf the few remaining affordable residential neegbhf.-Lopds an Aspen th make another residential neighborcpcd wore desirable . The nehi development should bear its own impacts , and access should. be tnrrugn the developnient it *elf . This requirement 1:: crRusistent with the Code , and does not make the pro: ect infeasible . I am shhmitting tnese comments and oijecticns for your opnsid*ration duning the approval process for tie East Cooper Affordable Holisir.‘“ Res1csnt: F'I DovElopment . Very truly yours , ' 7- / Helen , alin ri anderud I _... . S 2-2- Z p 60 S(r�v A\I P 2 5 1992 S ' Asp , Co . Bllpll -p:2-A,L k.cAth b. ) 7 031oc.L .1, Lot 8 ) , (AA pit � v (< v�c� L c�1 � bunco," by ( I 6-ear, teL 4f-� -1 ( q(zaj� -t- 42 Cs p emv-e . u' +6 b- ,( s CO 1.-- s L Sic {tom ' U' - " c cud);, A ktilA Esc-F _ ',Ltd S u.e,-c t rt s ( ( vim 4..d ( c� (.0-„u i-Z o3 Cu,_ Ce 04 , 006 s etr-t-Q`-e 13-64y:in Sy . L rultoisu c W uyez 9x 1:1 h /7 S 14 J2 etti frVts J212 -1-11-4 re pa!LC- LS to Rx_i__(,j, tk-S T0(UES t3O Ply 5ta? btlit.-( fkSp,(2-u) , Co 81(0 ( I AUG 2 8 August 25 , 1 992 P. O . Box one , Aspen, CO 81612 To : City of Aspen City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Re : The East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development As a resident of Riverside Drive , Aspen, Co. , (Lot #12 , Riverside Subdivision) , I would like to express my concerns regarding the above mentioned project, which was presented at a meeting with the developer and city staff personnel on August 27th. The provision of sixteen "affordable" housing units is a worthy goal of city policy. However, access to the seven free market lots through Riverside Subdivision, as now proposed, presents a major difficulty. At this meeting we were told that these free market lots would sell in the range of $400, 000. 00 and up. We were also told that this $3 , 000 , 000 . 00 plus return on these lots was necessary to provide amenities for the"affordable housing" and we were told that the developer has no obligation to defend this assertion or reveal his cost figures. . . we are to take this on faith. In the 35 plus years since Riverside Subdivision was developed it has been the home and neighborhood of Aspen resident employees -- shopkeepers, ski instructors, carpenters, lawyers , business and service people and people in the arts . This is employee housing. If the seven free nar.• ket lots and the concomitant service and construction traffic are given access through Riverside Subdivision, the safety of neighborhood children and the quality of life for twenty-four households now living on Riverside Drive will be sacrificed for the foreseable future . - 2 - The bottom line for the developers argument for doing this is -- the "bottom line" --dollars . It is cheaper and easier for him to come through Riverside Subdivision instead of coming in from Highway 82 . So, to provide sixteen "affordable" units, the City council and planners are being asked to degrade the neighborhood of twenty-four local resident families -- a bad trade-off in my view. I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission tuum down this applicant' s request for rezoning the land in question until this issue is resolved and access to the free market lots is made from Highway 82 , and the existence o one of Aspen' s few remaining family neighborhood- is •reserved. ou s sincerely, / 4 � ■ . Dor•thy Kell-her , li 1-1\; \ 1 SEP S September 3, 1992 Kim Johnson, Staff Planner Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Department 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Riverside Drive Access to Proposed East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Dear Ms. Johnson and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: It has come to my attention that there is pending before the land use authority of the City of Aspen an application for approval of a project called The East Cooper Affordable Housing Project and that access for the seven (7) free-market units proposed Riverside Drive is to be the access. Please be advised that I was the developer of Riverside Subdivision in the mid-1950s and it was at all times my intention that access along Riverside Drive be limited to the owners of lots and occupants of Riverside Subdivision. It was never my intention that any portion of the property proposed for development as the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project have access by Riverside Drive. Additionally, given that I have made conveyances to adjoining Riverside Subdivision owners of portions of what is shown on the recorded Subdivision Plat of Riverside Subdivision as Park Avenue, which said Park Avenue was never built, never existed in place and never was dedicated, I believe that careful investigation needs to be made in respect of claim of ownership to any portion of Park Avenue made by any party who did not receive a conveyance thereof from me. If I may be of any further assistance in providing you with information which I might have reasonably available, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Fredric Benedict beadict\ping-p&z.hr • I N C O R P O R A T E •D City Council Exhibit e1 Approved 119 By Ordinance \\I Lti 2 2 )992 September 21, 1992 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Affidavit of Public Notice East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development Conceptual Submission Dear Kim, As representative of The C & G Mustard Seed Company, Ltd, Applicant of the above referenced project, I hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing ( Exhibit "A", as attached) was mailed to property owners within a three hundred foot radius (300') of the project on September 21, 1992, and that signage was posted on the property notifying the public as to the time and date of the Public Hearing. Said notice was placed on site on September 21, 1992. A photo is included as Exhibit "B", as attached, verifying said posting of the property. Attached is the certified mailing list of owners within the required three hundred foot radius of the project (Exhibit "C", as attached) with copies of letters mailed to those owners (Exhibit "D", as attached). Sin rely you C�/ ,, Its /`�,v/ Yv nne Blo Stevens Group, Inc. SUBSCRIBED IFIED AND SWORN TO ME in the City Of Aspen an Pitkin County, State of Colorado thi ' day of September, 1992, by Yvonne Blocker. My commission expires: 7—X— (14 �/ � �� �(� gitli n I, X / -i/`Z„" 9, Notary Public Rod ())ion onu,,, 118 I_ (aop I Av( Sulu 205, i1N)o0, (0101,1(1) ESI()11 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the Aspen City Council, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted by C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , 300 East Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, CO requesting approval of Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a housing project on East Cooper Avenue which will be 70% free market and 30% affordable housing. The 2.35 acre parcel is located on State Highway 82, about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. The property is currently zoned R-15 PUD. The applicant will be requesting approval of Map Amendment for rezoning to Affordable Housing Zone District, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption and Special Reviews as part of the Final PUD application. The applicant proposes 7 free market single family lots_ and 16 deed restricted -_ _ s within four multi-family structures. For further information contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, 920-5090. s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on September 25, 1992 . City of Aspen Account. Exhibit "A" 1 a•1�.4rlf4 svl �j ' T '+I4 �;F ✓ ! r t�• ? `•k tt rot;N '.+,, iii6ddi;01 frI �r 1 i1!f.' j,til fr i f d �!� �- .7. '1•••. ,k r ', - i r lsap rl,'. 14-Wi.. 9irta^vi t r� ' rrr' > F- ,�L{ ♦N, ! C '•�� ' 4 � ,{te�:4,1 1�,4t.kI p}tlp�F7, tt • 4I. as V• . ! it f.„. it T� > ttl`rrny StT :T ii,.4 v' ,.arysk:!vT,,a� ' V t A�"1 IY•_ s,,''�'�rI rstf ;1/ f,•IY{.� f teem t,,c ��L�•' m,. ,` .r F�i�,:� :,4 t t t” "• I E { :2 sr tT rl1 �G;d #' �' yry 'r. ' .1::•: 4,�. { 4 I,� X t t �. '^41r . r. .i t, ' a;X:';;;...'4* t Rt A �� r t� " , . 1 '1���t FT f n•y �a r 1 ry I r i f ,t).-..,' t r'r I f F �,.h r I C Vi t' t 51! j t,Ip S ( . 4 z ( i 4.r i 1 7 �f f !! t ^ u 1 ,'r n tt"'1 .: RI T t :. atl EI. T _} 4.t(" t—:*I I' ' 4 f 7 � '- l .., r.:-,--.4,71:- � .�.--..,.ti - • i a Al. ?1C s i'�.�* ..•T .der t.., h .yf t I,• , _ . A!" `s` `rye ei, .-sr „ F e y} _ ,�<. x% _ , p Y � }�_ VV Y_ f ' • • •' r _om it t I'n' "fit�.� 4-v ii4h�,tirs. +[D+ ''° "FC,. t .. - 6.'`'' a,.• Exhibit "B" I N C O R P O R A T E D The Fikeeitrerrifellii iP221992 September 21, 1992 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Affidavit of Public Notice East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development Conceptual Submission Dear Kim, As representative of The C & G Mustard Seed Company, Ltd, Applicant of the above referenced project, I hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing ( Exhibit "A", as attached) was mailed to property owners within a three hundred foot radius (300') of the project on September 21, 1992, and that signage was posted on the property notifying the public as to the time and date of the Public Hearing. Said notice was placed on site on September 21, 1992. A photo is included as Exhibit "B", as attached, verifying said posting of the property. Attached is the certified mailing list of owners within the required three hundred foot radius of the project (Exhibit "C", as attached) with copies of letters mailed to those owners (Exhibit "D", as attached). Sin rely yours I�IGtr� , 6C(�/' Yv nne Blo T Stevens Group, Inc. SUBSCRIBED IFIED AND SWORN TO ME in the City Of Aspen an Pitkin County, State of Colorado thi• . day of September, 1992, by Yvonne Blocker. My commission expires: 7`)i t4 - GGXtil_ X L�cJ Notary Public Roil (lnlon OIUcer, 118 I (bnpor.Aro.. ',Lute 2 Y ,A.p(n. (:olnradu Mid ■11.)! 9!i-b-C I:AA: )1);1 '1') l)-()- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SUBMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 13, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M. before the Aspen City Council, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider an application submitted by C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , 300 East Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, CO requesting approval of Conceptual Planned Unit Development for a housing project on East Cooper Avenue which will be 70% free market and 30% affordable housing. The 2.35 acre parcel is located on State Highway 82, about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. The property is currently zoned R-15 PUD. The applicant will be requesting approval of Map Amendment for rezoning to Affordable Housing Zone District, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption and Special Reviews as part of the Final PUD application. The applicant proposes 7 free market single family lots. and 16 deed restricted townhomes within four multi-family structures. For further information contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, 920-5090. s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on September 25, 1992 . City of Aspen Account. Exhibit "A" I y'� (`''Ir J sw �_{ F ' i yR R •'^1 1)•.1'+3 ;'.� N ' 1 ' ' h - L ti: ' E. I I l r'' Y C p •X94 '` ' ' l �'' 9 �. l :Y i� .mot. •r tit- '" ' I' ':.;I\.14,;;;;114:P4Milje'ti4 N°:"CIIC :."rI'7 tI''''....11::f;4:::*11? i : : II'llI I. ' , f lr P wr iA'1, J .II 7. , 4 '+ . 1 -afaCliiYwt■ft ' — ' --7 — �.i'fl.► I • .� 77AA , t >A`y�.r -.�'. may .lZ: .� - - •te--,; 1• �'� sip ,y.y- y ...i - i. ls.,-a;�i� Exhibit "B" i_ A k Sanctity of Contract STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HUMAN • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-3577 December 23, 1991 Stephens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Surrounding property owners search of Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc. described on the enclosed Exhibit "A" Sirs: A search of the records of this office and those of the Assessor and Treasures Office of Pitkin County, Colorado reveals the owners of property surrounding the above described on the attached Exhibit "B" Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. , neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligations or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Sincerely, • Hazel I. Herwick Title Examiner Enclosures Exhibit "C" EXHIBIT "B" Terry M. and Molly Swanton Helen Ann Klanderud Box 1403 Box 1558 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Lizabeth Kerr Duson Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. 9030 Greenville Ave. 600 East Hopkins Dallas, TX 75243 Aspen, CO 81612 Jay D. Lussan Richard and Joan Osur Rt. 1, Box 199B 17 Tobey Brook Aldie, VA 22001 Pittsford, NY 14534 Fowler P. Stone, III Judith G. Jones 611 Fred Ln 1230 Riverside Drive Aspen, Co 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Russell Trust of 1980 U.D. T. Magillicutty Corporation Box 327 1280 Riverside Drive Provo, UT 84603 Aspen, CO 81611 Cherie G. Oates Dorothy Kelleher 1205 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 1 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Bette J. Kallstrom Robert E. Cadger, Jr. 1225 Riverside Dr. Box 4712 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Elliott Robinson Donald M. and Judith P. Morris 0025 Blue Bonnet Trail 4016 Picardy Aspen, CO 81611 Northbrook, IL 60062 Robert Murray Douglas G. Michalowski 439 Carnation 1240 E. Cooper Ave. Corna Del Mar, CA 92625 Aspen, CO 81611 Lorna Alta Corporation Ellen Sandler 6210 North Central Expressway 100 Midland Ave. Dallas, TX 75206 Dallas, TX 75206 Jack A. Robinson Albert W. Anderson 1589 Kirkway 1825 Crest Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013 Williston, North, MI 48013 Riverside Joint Venture Russell B. Penning C/O Ted Enloe 1201 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 655644 Aspen, CO 81611 Dallas, TX 75265 Joseph M. Samalion Karin C. Speck 540 Solado Prado Box 9912 Coral Gables, FL 33156 Aspen, CO 81612 Kent Stephens Donald L. Lee 1195 East Cooper Ave C/O Audrey M. Lee Aspen, CO 81611 450 South Riverside Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Betty A. Johnson Robert L. Orr 2414 Hidden Valley Drive #2 500 Paterson Road Grand Junction, CO 81503 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Terry F. Goodrich Roberta Goodrich 2249 North Burling P.O. Box 11842 Chicago, IL 60614 Aspen, CO 81611 James Crown Diana L. Bauer P.O. Box 11842 7 Oak Hill Drive Aspen, CO 81612 Newmmonte Springs, FL 32714 James J. Costley Michael Alan and Gail M. Craig 80 Summerhill Place 1195 East Cooper Ave. Newman, GA 30263 P.O. Box 26250 Kansas City, MO 64196 Lantz Welch Crestahaus Limted Partnership City Center Square 5150 Overland Ave. P.O. Box 26250 Culver City, CA 90230 Kansas City, MO 64196 Joan Leatherbury John Prosser P.O. Box 1420 Box 2539 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Nahum Amiran Selma Feldman P.O. Box 1114 P.O. Box 4550 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 William P. Lucchesi Rocky Mountain Natural Gas P.O. Box 11412 113 Atlantic Ave. Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Con Sullivan Estate The Alan S. Englander Revocable Tr C/O Mrs. Sullivan 190 Taconic Road 12486 Viewcrest Road Greenwich, CT 06831 Studio City, CA 91604 Elyse Elliott Jeanie A. Rechard 717 Cemetary Lane Box 9296 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 z I } MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Conceptual PUD Development Plan and Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) - Continued from September 8, 1992 DATE: September 15, 1992 At the September 8 , 1992 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, this item was opened with presentations by Planning staff on the PUD process, the AH zone district, and public input to date. Staff stressed that alongside consideration of the Conceptual PUD Plan, the Commission needed to discuss the proposed rezoning to AH as a threshold issue. The project design team then presented the specific plan. Although not an official public hearing, the P&Z Chair accepted short statemcnts from several interested citizens in attendance. Major concerns expressed by the public included the impacts of traffic/construction parking caused by the proposed Riverside Drive access and the proposed density on the parcel. A few comments were made on the undesirable urban character of the proposed affordable townhomes. The Commission was also concerned with the increased impacts to the Riverside Dr. neighborhood. In response, the Applicant committed to revise the Conceptual PUD Plan to show all access into the site from Hwy. 82 . The Commission decided through discussion to table this item until September 15 to allow the project team to work on the revised access and site layout. The Commission also discussed the threshold issue of the proposed rezoning to AH. The majority opinion was in favor of the rezoning. Opposition was based on the concern over the lack of an acceptable Conceptual PUD Plan to accompany the rezoning. At the writing of this memo, the revised drawings were not complete for forwarding to the Commission or the concerned neighbors. The Applicant hopes to have revisions done on Monday September 14 , but is not able to guarantee this. Please contact staff to see if drawings are available prior to the meeting. *** To reduce copying needs, please bring your staff memo from the September 8 meeting to the September 15 meeting. . .thanks! ( vrik_ `.f D,0 wiei,.l'tp1/4. 14 dfuct.,tita mil' t tk c-n L ,' (Net A.0-41,614AInakike_ pAikr-1 ,h‘Lei ,a-41/42t.) pea. Vre_ AlazzLa -fin 12-e- .:TteltE) (PrlAk SAbitlVd 1 1 /e43:,:a -fa& ty4v1v1 GU,GO imp. . b (/ '` 'fie R+^"^"'° "A-ll .oria Vtgiovzr" 5w.� . imr fir, f� m /a-ttAte. 44:4 -460, Tezaa-c cteAta9;-4) PorA,;-7 67/Lee4tirels „ .00 --DtvirJ r -1;6- h 4k, wi:05044Ja70 / hat-tor 2/ *SA a_fry- ivoix veoft ork stef- t wi:€11;7 7v4.6.„.7- Tit* - ry)14,--, 0K_,, 'Ater Wu. 111.414(':0424° Y- .7 /4/41 -ea,pnaAM -4() Pia - 5-e00(4) 14 biJ ra-vt 5O- 70-4A cowr, LAS/ 60-41'1- Alkiet4:4 C-nutci 4.44 F11104 10,0 Prn 441) 'te og fiet6. a/tiet 42-e-ge-d i- /so.A/' co tycro-yiAti-4. fir _ iee-776,;_ 61- e (;).761- 26;(1) euttitri4 • 0/�� --yam • it ,-6K 111A , . � r-- / ��K since fir. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Conceptual PUD Development Plan DATE: September 8, 1992 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this Conceptual PUD Plan with conditions. As a threshold discussion during Conceptual review, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the proposed rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) . If rezoning as a threshold issue fails, Conceptual PUD approval cannot be approved. APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Craig Glendenning, represented by Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. LOCATION: The 2 . 35 acre parcel is located on Highway 82 , about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. This vacant site is just west of the Crestahaus Lodge. ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel is R-15 PUD. The requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing) . APPLICANT' S REQUEST: The project entails subdivision of the site into seven free market single family lots and one lot designated for affordable housing. The developer will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct sixteen deed restricted townhomes within four multi-family structures. The affordable units will be a mix a 1, 2 ,and 3 bedrooms for a total of 36 bedrooms. The ratio of deed restricted to free market units will be 70: 30. The complete application booklet is attached for your reference. PROCESS: The 4 step PUD review process including associated reviews is as follows: Step 1 P&Z Conceptual PUD and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 2 - Council Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. Step 3 - P&Z Rezoning recommendation, public hearing; Final PUD recommendation, public hearing; Subdivision recommendation, public hearing; GMQS 1 Exemptions for Free Market and Affordable Housing recommendation; Special Reviews for parking, open space and FAR for the affordable housing, one step. Step 4 - Council Rezoning, public hearing; Final PUD; Subdivision; GMQS Exemption for Free Market and Affordable Housing Units; and first and second readings of ordinance. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments form the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Engineering: 1. The applicant should provide more detail for the new street connection with Riverside Drive. Engineering records indicate. that Park Ave. is a public r.o.w. as it extends from Riverside Dr. It is recommended that the new street enter within the Riverside Dr. r.o.w. 2 . Lot 2 must be served by an access easement across Lot 3 . 3 . CDOT must grant an access permit for the driveway and emergency drive for the affordable townhomes. This must be included in the Final PUD Plan submission. 4 . If the emergency access is approved by the Fire Marshal, it should remain clear of snow all winter. 5. Regardless of the allowance for two stacked parking spaces in ithe garages, parking will likely take place on the apron in front of the garages. This will encroach into the area designated for 20 ' clear access. The design should be re- worked to accomplish a 18 'x8. 5 ' parking space in front of the 0 garages. Parking spaces shall be indicated on the Final PUD submission. 6 . All curbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. 7 . It is recommended that rather than all utilities on site remaining private, there should be an easement across Lot 8 (the townhome parcel) and the free market lots take the burden of repairs and restoration except for private service lines to the affordable units. 8 . The Riverside Ditch flume is a great concern as it is 8 ' -l0 ' above grade. Who is responsible for maintenance/repair? 9 . Holy Cross should provide more information on what easements it is interested in acquiring. Each utility must be specific as to its easement requirements. 10. Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. It is preferred that these be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. 11. A complete drainage plan and calculations must be submitted with the Final Development application. Each free market lot will have to provide the same with submission of building permit applications. 2 12 . The grading plan and report by CTL/Thompson must be finalized regarding fill material removal/replacement. The project shall then be designed around their specific recommendations. 13 . In addition to standard Final submission requirements, the following must be addressed or included: - designated common areas - parking spaces - trash access areas - snow storage areas - exterior site lighting 14 . All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. Housing Office: 1. The mix of 8-three bedrooms, 4-two bedrooms, and 4-one bedroom units is attractive to staff because 50% are three bedroom units. This is consistent with AACP discussion of providing family oriented housing. 2 . The deed restriction categories proposed by the Applicant should be commended. Nine of the sixteen units are categories 2 and 3 , indicating that the Applicant is providing housing in lower categories than expected for private development AH zone projects. 3 . Regarding the 3 proposed Resident Occupied (RO) units, staff believes that this may be an appropriate test of these type of units which are cautiously regarded by P&Z and Council. The Housing Board narrowly supports this proposal and had considerable discussion about the appropriateness of three RO units. Their support was conditioned by the expressed desire to review any changes to category mixes resulting from P&Z or City Council review. 4 . Offering all of the 16 units as sale units is consistent with staff 's finding that concentration should be made on sale housing. The sale unit program is bolstered by the proposed townhouse configuration. 5 . Unit sizes comfortably exceed Housing Office minimum standards from the 1992 Guidelines. 6. The density of the affordable units is less than the W. Hopkins affordable project currently under construction. The proposal is an urban design solution which is different from our typical approach. The size of the units and the private decks enhance the project. The paved surfaces may be used for play areas. Water: 1. If necessary for a water line extension, the developer must receive a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium from City Council. 2 . The City requests that the proposed 8" waterline from Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 be extended to Hwy. 82 to complete a loop. All installations shall be according to established City standards. 3 3 . The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Fire Marshall: 1. Hydrant locations, turn around, and break-away barrier are satisfactory. Parks: 1. Ensure that trees are at least 30 ' from the intersection. 2 . Parks is concerned about the irrigation ditch and proposed flume. The Riverside Ditch Co. controls the ditch. Maintain contain with Parks staff regarding these items. Sanitation District: 1. Sufficient capacity exists for this project. 2 . Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. Connections charges can be estimated when detailed development plans are available. 3 . Connection to District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. PROPOSAL: The site will be developed into two areas. The upper bench will be platted as 7 single family lots ranging between 8, 250 s. f. and 11, 200 s. f. , averaging 9 , 320 s. f. Each home will be limited to no more than three bedrooms per the project's compliance with AH zone bedroom percentages. Access for the lots will come off of the cul-de-sac end of Riverside Drive on the southwest corner of the parcel. The lower portion of the site will consist of one 37 , 131 s. f . lot containing 16 deed restricted townhomes within four buildings. There are proposed to be four 1-bedroom units, four 2-bedroom units and eight 3-bedroom units for a total of 36 bedrooms. Access into the townhome area will be from Hwy.82 at the northwest corner of the site. There will also be an emergency egress driveway with a breakaway barrier further east onto Hwy. 82 . STAFF COMMENTS: This is the second AH project proposed by the private development sector to formally reach the P&Z since the AH zone was adopted in 1989 . Earlier this year, the Ute Park AH rezoning and Subdivision/PUD received approval for three free market single family lots and seven deed restricted townhomes at the far east end of Ute Avenue. This project was a four step PUD review as is the subject East Cooper AH proposal. Rezoning was also considered as a threshold issue during the Ute Park Conceptual PUD review. 4 Although the official approval of rezoning will occur at Final PUD review, staff has included all rezoning review criteria within the Conceptual PUD memo so that the P&Z and Council may make informed considerations of the rezoning to AH. Final approval of the rezoning is slated for Final PUD review because if official rezoning approval were to occur with Conceptual PUD review but Final PUD approval was denied, the property would be rezoned without an acceptable AH proposal . Conversely, if rezoning at the threshold level was not acceptable to Council, the Conceptual PUD review would not be approved. Thus, the Applicant would not proceed with Final PUD submission. Public input to date: The Planning staff and this applicant recognize the value of neighborhood input towards the success of a project of this type and scale. Prior to presentation to P&Z as the first step in the four-step PUD review (for which a public hearing is not required) , is was decided to invite the neighbors and interested citizens to a presentation and discussion of the project. A meeting was held on August 27 and was attended by 20 citizens, staff and the project team. A summary of the comments is attached as Exhibit "B" . The principal concern of the neighbors was the access from Riverside Dr. for the free market lots. The belief was reiterated that all access to the subject property should be contained within the boundaries of the site. Additionally, the Planning Office has received one letter from a Riverside Dr. resident who expresses the same concerns about road safety (Exhibit "C") . Rezoning from R-15 PUD to Affordable Housing (AH) PUD Zone District (threshold discussion) : The following review criteria and responses must be considered along with the Conceptual PUD review by P&Z and City Council. Final recommendation/approval of rezoning will take place at the Final PUD Development Plan review. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. Response: This rezoning is not in conflict with the provisions of the Land Use regulations. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: The 1973 Land Use Plan map shows this site and the area across Hwy. 82 as single family homes. Latest discussions within the Housing Subcommittee for the Aspen Area Community Plan indicates that this parcel is a desirable location for affordable housing development. It also is in agreement with the purpose statement of the AH zone as it: is within walking distance to the commercial core; is on a mass transit route; and lends itself to 5 tua "106,,c tt:h 01 4i l'ul4FAR F�° infill on small neighborhood scale rather than being a major housing project. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: The AH zone is intended to be used as infill zoning scattered throughout the community within residential neighborhoods. Site design is critical to the compatibility of a proposed development and its immediate surroundings. This project proposes single family development adjacent to the existing Riverside Dr. neighborhood which is zoned R-15. Zoning to the west is R-6, but the area is developed as a mix of multi-family (Aspen Edge Condominiums) and single family residential. The property to the east is zoned LP (Lodge Preservation) and is occupied by the Crestahaus Lodge. Across Hwy.82 is the Alpine Lodge zoned LP and single family homes zoned R-15A. Following the site's topography, the proposed multi-family structures are placed in the lower portion of the site along the highway frontage. This is closer to multi-family/lodge developments on the west, north and east sides and is less desirable for single family development. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: The proximity of this site to the downtown area will promote walking to the core, especially by employee occupants of the townhomes. The report prepared by the Applicant's engineer Banner Associates indicates that access from Hwy. 82 is obtainable through CDOT with limited improvements such as a deceleration lane. The access for the free market lots from Riverside Dr. is acceptable according to the City Engineering Department. The records researched by Engineering indicate that Park Ave. is a public r-o-w although this is contested by an adjacent owner. Regardless of that issue, the application shows the access to the new lots is from the Riverside Dr. r-o-w, which is recommended by the Engineering Department. As mentioned earlier, the Riverside Dr. neighbors were strongly against using their street as the route into the new lots. They stated that the road was dangerous already and increased traffic, especially construction traffic and parking, will make a poor situation worse. At the scheduled site visit prior to P&Z ' s review of the Conceptual Plan, Commissioners will see that the roadway is narrow with dense vegetation coming right to the pavement edge. Staff has requested that the Engineering Department accompany the P&Z on their site visit prior to the P&Z meeting. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would 6 result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Response: The Water Department has indicated that water capacity is sufficient for this project but that a waiver of the Water Main Extension Moratorium must be granted by Council. The Applicant' s Engineer will formally request this at Final PUD Plan review. At this time, "will serve" letters have been submitted by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Holy Cross Electric,Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and U. S.West Communications. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: The rezoning will not, on its own, have a negative effect on the natural environment. Sensitivity of the site development is a function of PUD review. The major issue that is under consideration for the Conceptual Plan is how the seven new lots will be accessed - through existing Riverside Dr. or via a new road up the slope from the highway. Please refer to the PUD review criteria below. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Response: This rezoning meets the location criteria for AH properties, those being "within walking distance to the center of the city or on transit routes" . The character of much of the east end is that of a mix of residential types. This rezoning requires a mix of deed restricted housing to accompany the free market development. This Applicant is providing different ownership opportunities as well as a mix of housing types: single family and multi-family. The other details of the project such as the specific affordable/free market ratios, dimensional requirements, etc. shall be considered within PUD review. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: As mentioned above, the 1973 Land Use Plan map shows the subject parcel and extensive area surrounding it as single family residential. Since then, one finds that two lodges have been zoned LP in an effort to retain smaller accommodations in the community. In more general terms, the affordable housing market has gotten much tighter hence the creation of this particular zone 7 district. Also, traffic has increased on the highway which lessens the applicability of single family development adjacent to the road. Since 1973 , mass transit has been established and now serves this site regularly. I . Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Response: Rezoning this site will not be in conflict with the public interest nor with the Land Use Regulations. Planned Unit Development (PUD) : The proposed rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Review of a Conceptual Development Plan, followed by review of a Final Development Plan, is required for each PUD parcel. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. Pursuant to Section 7-901 if the Land Use Regulations, a PUD development application shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: As presented in the rezoning section above, the 1973 Plan is not reflected by actual development and zoning in this vicinity. Growth patterns and affordable housing deficits are guiding more pro-active measures for the AACP update currently being finalized. This proposal more accurately reflects current 8 conditions rather than the 1973 Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Response: Mixed types of residential and lodge accommodations in varying degrees of density within the neighborhood is consistent with the proposed single family and townhome development proposed in this application. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: This is the last developable parcel in the direct vicinity, so future development will not be compromised. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: Free market development associated with AH projects are exempt from GMQS up to fourteen units per year as an incentive to AH development by the private sector. To date in 1992, only three free market units have been approved (Ute Park Subdivision on Ute Avenue) . Deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt upon City Council approval. 2 .Density. Response: The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. The application booklet provides development data, including density, on page 11, Table 2 . The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from land area for density calculation purposes. Engineering has requested that the slope calculations be signed off by a registered engineer or architect prior to Final Plan submission. Staff has reviewed the application and found that further density reductions are not necessary for the following concerns: insufficient water pressure or other utilities; inadequate roads; ground instability; mud flow; rock falls and avalanche dangers; natural watershed quality; air quality; or that the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Please note that this last item is based on the current design showing access for the single family lots off of Riverside Dr. If access to these lots is taken from Hwy. 82 , the project's densities would have to lowered because of limitations imposed by the roadway traversing the site. 3 . Land Uses. Response: The land uses proposed are those allowed in the AH zone 9 district. 4. Dimensional Requirements. Response: The dimensional requirements submitted in the Conceptual Plan are those established for the AH zone district. Variations may be permitted within PUD development. The only variation requested within the Conceptual Plan submission is an FAR variation by Special Review for the townhome parcel (to be considered at Final Plan review) . Allowed by right in the AH zone is FAR of .33 : 1. The designed FAR for Lot 8 is .49 : 1. Special Review can consider FAR up to 1: 1. Due to response from some of the neighbors at the August 27, 1992 meeting, the Applicant will study creating greater setbacks along the perimeter of the parcel to limit impacts to adjacent properties. 5. Off-street parkins(. Response: The number of required off-street parking spaces for the AH zone is one space per bedroom with a maximum of two spaces per dwelling unit, approved by Special Review. Two spaces are provided for the affordable units. Half of the proposed 16 townhomes are one and two bedrooms units, the rest are three bedrooms. The project is located on a RFTA route and is within walking distance to downtown. Parking for the individual free market homes will be assessed by Zoning when building permits are issued. 6. Open Space. Response: The proposed open space for the AH zone is established by Special Review. For Lot 8, the townhome lot, all owners will be granted a proportional undivided interest in the open space on that lot. 7. Landscape Plan. Response: The Final Development Plan submission will include a landscape plan as required by the PUD regulations. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Response: The application contains sketches of the proposed exteriors and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be 10 predominantly brick structures and will be of a level of quality and detail to compliment the proposed free market lots on the bench above. The buildings are tucked into the existing hillsides to reduce their overall bulk and to provide semi-underground parking and storage for the units. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Response: Engineering requires that an exterior lighting plan be submitted with the Final Plan. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The townhome buildings are clustered to the north of the irrigation ditch. The "brownstone court" concept readily applies to the clustering concept. The proposed free market lots are located unto themselves on the upper bench. It should be noted that the larger lots are placed adjacent to the perimeter of the parcel against the Riverside subdivision in order to provide a density buffer. 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Response: No additional public facilities will be required because of this development. The Applicant is aware of the Sanitation District's requirement for funding for improvements to be made downstream of this development. The Fire Marshal has approved the provision of the emergency access driveway. The proposed cul-de- sac meets emergency vehicle turn-around requirements. 12 . Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. a. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. Response: The access off of Hwy.82 shall comply with the CDOT. No looped streets are created to allow through traffic. b. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding 11 collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. Response: Impacts to Hwy. 82 will be negligible because of the relative limited density proposed. Riverside Dr. is not considered an arterial or collector street, but the concerns of the Riverside Dr. neighbors about current and projected road safety and construction parking are valid. Planning has asked Engineering to give these concerns more study. The Commission will have the opportunity to view the Riverside Dr. conditions firsthand. Planning has included a condition for Conceptual PUD approval which states "The Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and Riverside Dr. homeowners to devise a program for safety improvements to Riverside Drive. This program may include but is not limited to widening of pavement, provision of overflow parking areas, and vegetation control for sight distance improvements. " c. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60 ' ) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. Response: This is accomplished within the Conceptual Plan. d. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. Response: Not applicable. e. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. Response: The proposed road off of Riverside Dr. to the seven new lots is proposed to be an access easement. The Applicant commits to comply with the above requirement for compliance with City regulations and ordinances. ith LC- 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning the subject parcel from R-15 (Moderate Density Residential) PUD to AH (Affordable Housing) PUD. The Planning Office also recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Conceptual PUD Development Plan with the following conditions to be satisfied within the Final PUD Development Plan: The Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and Riverside Dr. homeowners to devise a program for safety yVW%improvements to Riverside Drive. This program may include but v 12 is not limited to widening of pavement, provision of overflow parking areas, and vegetation control for sight distance improvements. X The applicant shall provide more detail for the new street connection with Riverside Drive. XLot 2 must be served by an access easement across Lot 3 . 4. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the 'drivejf¢pp.. and emergency drive for the kfrisiarriltut. • } 5 . The parking design for the townhomes shall be re-worked to tkr:s & , .e mpltsh\a--ra`x2c5L pack irlq spa hE ara es, / Parking spaces shall be indicated on the Final PUD submission. LiPLL 4° 6. �911,$110 rbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. d) /Lfi �r rOA 0-6 7 . There shall be e;Q utility easements a • he • ee -rke to - al tak- he • d- • i rep,)- ' .n• r- • a 'o - cy. for • iv. - se . ice A n t• e a for. - . e u s. 8 . The Riverside Ditch Company must enter into an agreement with the developer including but not limited to reconstruction and relocation, maintenance, and general liability. Maintain contain with Parks staff regarding these items. 9 . Holy Cross shall provide more information on what easements it is interested in acquiring. Each utility must be specific as to its easement requirements. 10. Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. 11. A complete drainage plan and calculations must be submitted with the Final PUD Development application. Each free market lot will have to provide the same with submission of building permit applications. 12 . The grading plan and report by CTL/Thompson must be finalized regarding fill material removal/replacement. The project shall then be designed around their specific recommendations. 13 . In addition to standard Final submission requirements, the following must be addressed or included: - designated common areas - parking spaces - trash access areas - snow storage areas 13 - exterior site lighting 14 . All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. 15. Any changes to deed restriction category mixes resulting from P&Z or City Council review must be reconsidered by the Housing Office prior to Final PUD Plan approval. 16. If necessary for a water line extension, the developer must receive a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium from City Council concurrent with Final PUD Plan approval. 17 . The proposed 8" waterline from Riverside Dr. to Lot 4 shall be extended to Hwy. 82 to complete a loop. All installations shall be according to established City standards. 18. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. 19 . Trees must be at least 30 ' from the Hwy.82 intersection. 20. Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. 21. Connection to District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. 2j. Submission of a Final PUD Development Plan must be submitted within one year of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to do so will nullify the Conceptual approval unless an extension is granted by the City Council. 2*. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning commission and City council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditiontis„ L,A, 6,. 5--tirrw14-4w r�c R.w L +a.r cea 1.C.. J Exhibits: �y U/y `V . L 4 �? .aC. . Exhibits:s:P.v -r t^� -ft L 1 '�SL-U -i�.f 6 U Z v -x. C72tf 4 0(� ' Application Booklet and 1Blueline Prints \ "A" - Complete Referral Memos "B" - Summary Of August 27 , 1992 Neighborhood Meeting "C" - Letter from Neighbor Kelleher cgoper.pu enrol ft t,(27 4"52cv-c1µ60-� 1 tt Y A ' \T C-1 OMt 4 c fir, -414114P,vN-1 r 0 _, Exhibit "A" Referral Comments from: Engineering Department Housing Office Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Parks Department Water Department Fire Marshal • AUG 2"1 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer(RS I Date: August 20, 1992 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. The applicant should provide more detail, establishing where the street to the free market lots connects with Riverside Drive. There has been some confusion as to whether Park Avenue as it extends from Riverside Drive is a public right-of-way or not. The engineering department's records indicate that it is public right-of-way. It is recommended that the new street enter within the Riverside Drive right-of-way. In addition, lot 3 needs to have an access easement across lot 2. 2. Access to the affordable units off HWY 82 is contingent upon an access permit from CDOT. As requested in the DRC meeting, CDOT needs to comment on the emergency access drive. The permit should be included in the final submission. 3. The Fire Marshall needs to review and comment on the emergency access to HWY 82. It is presumed that the exit is in lieu of an adequate turnaround. If acceptable to the Fire Marshall, it should be on the condition that it be kept clear of snow in the winter. 4. The application has allowed each unit with the option of a one car garage with storage or two cars parked in tandem in the garage. Regardless of the owners choice, reality is that the occupants will more than likely park in front of their units, as depicted in the application renderings. The existing design does not allow for a parking space in front of each unit without encroaching into the area designated for 20 feet clear access. The design should be worked so that one 81/2 x 18 foot space will fit in front of each unit without encroaching into the 20 foot clear access. This must be shown on the final submission plat. 5. All curb and gutters, streets and parking areas, whether private or dedicated as public right-of-way, must be designed and constructed in accordance with city specifications. 6. The application has exhibited that all utilities will remain private. It was not mentioned as to who is responsible for maintaining and repairing these utilities. Staff believes this is could be an unnecessary burden on the affordable housing units. Staff recommends that there be an easement across the affordable housing parcel and that the free market lots take the burden of any repairs and restoration except for private service lines to the affordable units. 7. If there is an existing easement in place for the Riverside ditch it should be noted on the plat. If there isn't, one should be acquired. Due to stepping the affordable housing into the hillside the Riverside ditch will be elevated 8 to 10 feet in the air, as depicted in the application renderings. There is concern that this could be a potential hazard for the affordable housing units. It should be made clear as to who is responsible for maintenance and care (i.e. the flume breaks). 8. Holy Cross has expressed an interest in acquiring an easement for the overhead power line that currently exists on the property. Their letter to service the development should be expounded and discuss easements. In addition for final submission, each utility should be specific if an easement is necessary to service this development. 9. It is preferred that the topographic map for slope reduction is prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor, although a registered architect is also acceptable. In either case, the calculations and/or method of approach must be provided. 10. As indicated in the application, a complete drainage plan and calculations will be submitted with the final submission. Staff wants to point out that each free market lot as it is developed will have to provide the same with its building permit application. 11. There is concern with the site grading plan. CTL/Thompson's report said that all existing fill should be removed and replaced per the site grading section of their report. The site grading recommendations only includes cuts and fills to level building areas and construct access roads and driveways. Staff does not believe that this adequately addresses whether or not all the existing fill has been removed and replaced. Further, their report is preliminary and not intended for design purposes. The report should be upgraded so that the project is designed around their specific recommendations. 12. Aside from the standard requirements for final submission the following is elements that staff would like to see addressed and/or included in the final submission: ▪ designated common areas • parking spaces • trash access area • snow storage area • exterior site lighting • all required easements must be recorded prior to the plat being recorded cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer CASELOAD92.020 MEMORANDUM AUG TO: Kim Johnson, Planner FROM: Tom Baker, Executive Director DATE: August 13, 1992 RE: Referral Comment: East Cooper "AH" Residential Development NOTE: These referral _comments are designed to focus on issues specifically related to Housing Office concerns. Issues revolving around broader land use, neighborhood character, density concerns are the expected to be the purview of the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. The Housing Board's lack of comment on issues of this nature does not constitute acceptance or rejection. BACKGROUND: The applicant has proposed a 23 unit (16 affordable/7 free market) development on 2. 35 acres west and adjacent to the Cresta Haus on SH 82 . In total there are 16 deed restricted units: 2 one-bedroom cat #2 townhomes @ 792 sf @ $ 69, 000 2 one-bedroom cat #3 townhomes @ 792 sf @ $106,500 4 two-bedroom cat #3 townhomes @ 1080 sf @ $116,500 1 three-bedroom cat #3 townhouse @ 1332 sf @ $126, 000 4 three-bedroom cat #4 townhomes @ 1332 sf @ $193,500 3 three-bedroom Res Occ townhomes @ 1332 sf @ Market All 16 units are proposed as sales units. The affordable units are being designed to reflect an urban setting reminiscent of urban brownstones. HOUSING ISSUES: Following is a discussion of several issues which staff finds need to be addressed during referral comments. Unit Mix - In terms of unit mix, we have two issues: type of unit and category of unit. In terms of unit type, the applicant is proposing 8 three-bedrooms, 4 two-bedrooms, and 4 one-bedrooms. All of these units are configured as townhouses. This mix is attractive to staff because 50% of the units are three-bedrooms (West Hopkins has 2 three-bedroom units out of a total of 11 units) . This mix is consistent with the AACP direction of providing family oriented housing and staff finds the mix of unit types acceptable. In terms of category mix, the applicant is proposing two category #2 units, seven category #3 units, four category #4 units, and 3 Resident Occupied units (West Hopkins has seven category #2 units and four category #3 units) . When the AH Zone was created there was a general understanding that the affordable units which were provide through this mechanism would be concentrated in the higher categories. In this proposal the applicant has nine of the 16 units in categories 2 and 3 . It is clear that the applicants have gone out of their way to provide housing in the lower categories and should be commended for this effort. The applicant is also proposing three Resident Occupied units. In the past, both the City Council and the Housing Board have indicated that they are interested but cautious regarding the RO concept. Staff finds that this may be an appropriate test case for RO units. While the Housing Board supports this proposal, there was considerable discussion about the appropriateness of three RO units. The Board had a very energetic debate about the proposed RO units and narrowly decided to support the existing proposal with the caveat that if the program changed at P&Z or City Council, then the Housing Board should review the new category mix. Rental/sales - The applicant proposes all 16 units as sales units. This is consistent with staff' s finding that we should concentrate on ownership housing. An additional advantage for ownership is that these units are configured as townhouses rather than condominiums. Unit Sizes - All of the units comfortably exceed Housing Office minimum standards set forth in the 1992 Guidelines. General Livability - The applicant is proposing to create an urban solution to this design problem. Without appearing to delve into land use and planning issues, staff finds the concept to be different from our typical approach, but acceptable. All of the units are large; they all have private decks; and the paved surface which connects all of the buildings will not prohibit this area from being used as a play area. Further, in comparison to the West Hopkins the development is less dense. The comment regarding density is made in response to an evaluation of livability, not neighborhood compatibility. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: In conclusion, staff finds the proposal acceptable from a Housing Office perspective. Staff finds the proposal provides a significant component of family oriented, ownership housing, with large units. In terms of the three RO units, the staff and Board have indicated that the proposal is acceptable; however, this is a cautious 2 recommendation because there are still many unknowns regarding the RO concept. If the program for this proposal is changed at P&Z or City Council, then the Housing Board requests that they review the new category mix. ref.eco 3 • Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District `l , AUG 13 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303)925-3601 FAX #(303)925-2537 Sy Kelly Chairman Albert Bishop John J. Snyder-Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish-Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. August '10, 1992 Kim Johnson :. Planning Office 130 ;.5. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual Dear^ Kim • .__ _ F. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed East Cooper Affordable Housing project. There are two downstream constraints in the collection system which we will address with funds derived from connection fee surcharges on development in this drainage area. The method by which the development is connected to the District system must be approved by the District Line Superintendent prior to review of final plans. If the proposed on site collection system is to be deeded to the District for maintenance and repair, then the system must be designed to meet District specifications. District line specifications are on file at the District office. Total connection charges can be estimated once detailed plans for the development are available. A tap permit must be completed at the District office, and all associated fees must be paid prior to connection to the District system. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Rebecca Baker Postmark: Aug 11, 92 1: 32 PM Status: Previously read Subject: East Cooper AH Conceptual PUD Message: Comments for this application include: 1) Ensure that trees are thirty feet from intersection 2) Developer meets with Parks regarding irrigation ditches and flumes. Thank you. Call if questions. Also, we have set up a requisition for transfering the $200 tool shed money to Planning. Do we need to wait til the PO is rolled (or whatever they do) ? Or can we go ahead and get started? Thanks again. X lo 3 t TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Service Supervise RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD DATE: July 29, 1992 The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable water to serve the proposed project being submitted by Tricor Resources. All design, material and construction shall be in accordance with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The City is requesting that the new 8" water line from Riverside Drive to Lot 4 of the proposed subdivision must be extended to Highway 82 to finish a loop. The Developer shall be responsible for all Tap Fees, Water Rights Dedications, and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. The Developer will need to approach City Council/City Manager for a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium pursuant to Resolution 45, Series 1991, if an extension of existing water main is required. cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Wayne Vandemark Postmark: Jul 27, 92 3 : 06 PM Status: Certified Urgent Subject: EAST COOPER AFORDABLE HOUSING Message: I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE APPLICATION AND HAVE HAD THEM ANSWERED BY TOM STEPHENS. SECURING THE BRAK-A-WAY IS NOW NO PROBLEM AND FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. 5000000 TO MAKE A LONG STORY BOARING I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. I AM SURE SPRINKLERING TO STRUCTURES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. X •NNING &pZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT "1t3" , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Summary of Neighborhood Meeting - August 27 , 1992 This meeting was attended by 20 citizens comprising of residents of Riverside Drive, surrounding neighborhoods, and prospective buyers of the proposed free market lots and affordable townhomes. Kim Johnson of the Planning Office made a brief presentation on the four step PUD process and how this project fits into these steps, ie timeframe, public hearings, and associated reviews. Leslie Lamont of the Planning Office gave a short history of the AH zone district including its purpose of encouraging private development of affordable housing, the incentives of GMQS exemption, dimensional variations, and density bonus. Also present was the applicant Craig Glendenning and his project team of Tom Stevens, Yvonne Blocker, Bob Daniel, and Michael Gassman. Tom Stevens displayed a site plan and discussed the project in terms of layout, unit types and restriction categories, - and access. The following comments were expressed by the citizens: - Park Avenue as a public r-o-w is contested. - The existing condition of Riverside Dr. is dangerous, with a blind curve. The only reason serious accidents have not occurred is the sensitivity and caution of the residents there. Putting more traffic on the road will increase hazard. - Making safety improvements to Riverside Dr. (ie. removing vegetation for sight distance and/or widening pavement) is not wanted by the residents. - The real problem is not really 20 or so more vehicle trips per day from the seven new lots, but the construction traffic and activity that will impact the neighborhood for the next several years. The neighborhood has endured construction impacts from other sides recently - the Aspen Club Subdivision and 1010 Ute. - Access from Highway 82 should be the only access into the free market lots, regardless of the internal impacts of the roadway cutting through the site and through the hillside. - Bulk and massing of new single family homes is a concern. Lot sizes are typically smaller than on Riverside Dr. , with homes that can be larger than currently exist on Riverside. (However, overall allowable home size in AH is less than in the current R-15 zoning) . - The setbacks shown for the new lots (10 ft. as allowed in AH) will allow homes too close to existing residences (R-15 has same 10 ft. setbacks) . 1 - The numbers of units, both restricted and free market, should be reduced. - The possibility of groundwater problems should be explored for ramifications on extent of development of the site. - The townhomes as proposed offer a too dense, very urban design which is not applicable to Aspen or this neighborhood. In response to the comments from the neighbors, the applicant has offered to study the following: 1. Increase the setbacks along the project perimeter to lessen impacts of new homes adjacent to existing homes. 2. Access the free market lots from the Hwy. 82 driveway rather than from Riverside Dr. (provide costs and physical implications of cutting through the slope) . 3 . Provide information on the density of the Riverside Dr. area and surrounding zones for comparison with proposed zoning/densities. Planning staff will be evaluating the site in terms development under the existing R-15/Growth Management scenario. 2 PLANNING & nZONING COMMISSIOI EXHIBIT „`' , APPROVED _ 19 BY RESOLUTION RIG 2 9 August 28 , 1792 P. O. Box one , Aspen, CO 81612 To : City of Aspen City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Re : The East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development As a resident of Riverside Drive , Aspen, Co. , (Lot #12 , Riverside Subdivision) , I would like to express my concerns regarding the above mentioned project, which was presented at a meeting with the developer and city staff personnel on August 27th. The provision of sixteen "affordable" housing units is a worthy goal of city policy. However, access to the seven free market lots through Riverside Subdivision, as now proposed, presents a major difficulty. At this meeting we were told that these free market lots would sell in the range of $400, 000. 00 and up. We were also told that this $3, 000 ,000. 00 plus return on these lots was necessary to provide amenities for the"affordable housing" and we were told that the developer has no obligation to defend this assertion or reveal his cost figures. . . we are to take this on faith. In the 35 plus years since Riverside Subdivision was developed it has been the home and neighborhood of Aspen resident employees -- shopkeepers, ski instructors, carpenters, lawyers, business and service people and people in the arts. This is employee housing. If the seven free ntar:. ket lots and the concomitant service and construction traffic are given access through Riverside Subdivision, the safety of neighborhood children and the quality of life for twenty-four households now living on Riverside Drive will be sacrificed for the foreseable future . - 2 - The bottom line for the developers argument for doing this is -- the "bottom line" --dollars. It is cheaper and easier for him to come through Riverside Subdivision instead of coming in from Highway 82 . So, to provide sixteen "affordable" units, the City council and planners are being asked to degrade the neighborhood of twenty-four local resident families -- a bad trade-off in my view. I respectfully request that the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission tuara down this applicant' s request for rezoning the land in question until this issue is resolved and access to the free market lots is made from Highway 82, and the existence o one of Aspen' s few remaining family neighborhood- is 'reserved. ou s sincerely, • 4 / Dor.thY Kell-her MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Rob Thomson Postmark: Aug 31, 92 3 : 55 PM Subject: Reply to: E. Cooper PUD Reply text: From Rob Thomson: Sorry for not replying sooner, but I was gone. I checked with Jed and John on this, while it is preferred that the lot front on a dtreet it is ok to do an easment that is recorded prior to the plat. Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: I recall your concern about one of the free market lots not having direct access to a public street, and being contrary to the subdivision regulations - I am plugging in the PUD criteria into my memo and ran across the requirement that every development parcel shall have access onto a public street via public or private access provisions (that's not a quote) . . . I'll show you this section and it may make things ok, maybe? X A A G E N D A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE JULY 30, 1992 2 : 00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Conference Room 3rd Floor Courthouse Plaza Building 530 East Main Street I. COUNTY PR0JECTS. 2: 00 - 3:30 P.M. 1. Peters Caretaker Dwelling Unit, Randy Stouder Attorney, Housing, Environmental Health, Zoning 2 . Records Caretaker Dwelling Unit, Mary Lackner Engineer, Housing, Environmental Health, Zoning 3 . Avalanche Associates Rezoning, Mary Lackner Attorney, Engineer, Environmental Health, Zoning 4. Thomasville Fire Station Rezoning, Mary Lackner Attorney, Engineer, Zoning, Environmental Health 5. Urschel Tract C Rezoning General Submission, Suzanne Konchan Attorney, Engineer, Zoning, Environmental Health, Housing, Fire Marshal 6. Urshcel Tract D Rezoning General Submission, Suzanne Konchan Attorney, Engineer, Zoning, Environmental Health, Housing, Fire Marshal, Aspen Water, 7. Columbine Moving & Storage GMQS Exemption, Ellen Sassano Attorney, Aspen Water, Environmental Health, Zoning, Fire Marshal II. CITY PROJECTS 3 : 30 - 4: 00 P.M. A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Conceptual PUD, Kim Johnson Engineer, Housing, Water, Environmental Health, ACSD, Parks, Fire Marshal, Zoning / Oft © w 4i9 /teem' y /f yam- 7`v�". 7f, 1' h , I 2 1 N rt-- S 1 &L.E-HOME it 3 W ' al / /af5, • - -/, D . 9025- 14eff 5 / l 7/,/ /1a05- ����u e) D • 9�3-- 6 !j/ 3 ' "..... die .. , - ,c 13‘r2kcUh t, c:\::)\_ ci zS— z\ 1 `i 'irk /0775 � -z, c.2s - 2753 Q 'V /yFlo g s M I1cr1PeL _ ,w2 +Ry-5-trL •OSpCI•• G. 'le -`l'SOo oI M nNa-Tu Su-tfapcw to), llpS7gl I\speM `t 2S 5860 1, Ada/ cc/eto 3 o 9 3t '7 F )04 orvize i 145-5-- r ,✓ecs,Je Dr 9 5-7S— 7 ,3 i Ylec? N-Ow l w ZO S 5. 'cd_e-n,r 720- / G ? 14 ry J M-() ( rini,'n1 e. f c-k L-2_2_ 2 v' 2 7 r 15 fa 9967 /, 92�-y9c ,5 1 ?7r 14/A-L cr 6 p. o , 4o 6 /4-/4-.1/4e< 1'2_5--- sq 9 7 air-2 i ?ikP1 -1.0\k-Q- ll t rE L . ?.2. s--- C„,3-2_b 13 I K' A 2/omsd 1"Gh �o 65 )4 /5Sl As�J 4 gzi' 90q 3 r� 19 , 4 s. -, // ,,n, ) C dAX. /l _/1 / �l,2 i' 7 7-5-- i/ ‘I e213 4 21 cyo 'I 044 is 1s ic DA 9a -66/1 22 1 // g , /Z o, E.,u xit.1 toc PIZ zy 'i'SN7• 23 1 ( c_C-01.46tt c L 9s0 ‘.t 9zs�--- 6 ad 2,1 I 25 11 26 27 23 S -;,h 7_% , I �Q ft % �,u Vl f-1 > 1 , C c: Ii , , t .,Sk i _ 0.I ,I - -A_ (ki A,, c c/i - ( =7 : ''_� ) 4-I —1 y re �c<,�� i tS �L cJ_�l� �r''� / i - l� c I r ti— GL �c-c I I h -e-Q- IA CL t ([ L ycc C ) t� ,,,..„ 1.1 1 ; 77 - L.t'_. &_,.,61,4•52). ' ti� } V 4 1 1) • 1' .- ( LC( .(\ t , 1,1 !_ >C'� CJ' 'ltk, t ±' fit,—,_z/ 1t `15I �_ i 1 cc ti I E `. SLAM 1/U l%LLt.- .Scc ' c/` LI S /iy S( x lac � CC I. s /� (5(..,!\ l(,7,,,/ i t f ' " �_: /:,‘,1_ , z i S +i_14,1 _ i_' . L L C I, w�l Li I ♦ f - � --,- g `1.1 __ t 1,1 ,Lire, ,, z-\._ ' -c . �" 1I :---' ' cif ,t_ ac I.IILQ.�l�/-� � ,r i � (l t� X1;1,� i L'(. C� , -C (",t cc Fitt '-.1 c i /IAc__()_,'-ktj'L ( ; k l - 1,. ,c y IC , �T u_i� i i Ft_ ,. (.'(`5 I d 5;`; 1.2. ! u-ets l CXV ? 'v t V( Pg74.7e2 So • Kern RECEIVED OCT 1 3 1992 Date: l c: Oct 'City Masager/Mayor's Office ber 1592 To: Aspen City Council Mayor John Kennett, Margo Pendleton. Rachel Richards. Augie Reno, Frank Peters From: Robert Murray, 1275 Riverside Drive Re: Proposed East Cooper Affordable and Free-Market Housing Pro.iects I loin my neighbors on Riverside Drive in applauding the effort to provide affordable housing in the area adjacent to The Crestahaus. I do so aware that the proposed plans seem more a gesture to gain approval for seven up-market homes than for any truly altruistic interest in providing attractive or adequate affordable housing. The architect ' s whimsical and probably all-too-accurate description of his vision for the affordable housing as "Catfish Row" seems to provide a crowded and inhospitable area wedged against Highway 82 - a potential insult to those whose standards for affordable housing do not preculde privacy and ambiance, and a potential eyesore at the entrance to Aspen. This project might prove to be more attractive and liveable if • it were not so crowded. If the community of Aspen recognizes affordable housing as a genuinely desired goal instead of merely a means to gain favors for more lucrative housing, a higher standard of plannning and design would go into this project. The more substantial residences planned to be placed above "Catfish Row" are considerably diminished in quality as well. To crowd seven large residences in this space illustrates how Aspen' s values have been eroded in recent years. A market willing to pay large prices for houses with little or no land surrounding them seem more at home in one of America' s much-reviled suburbs than in the Rocky Mountains. But then I strongly believe that those offices and their clientele in modern Aspen do not sufficiently respect the land they so eagerly long to possess. I suggest that City Council might be serving the community and its values -- and serving the developer and his potential new residents as well by limiting this area now proposed for seven homes to as few as four. .- . If the immigration to Aspen is in search of a better quality of life it seems imperative that our government nelp ensure that quality for both affordable housi.no anc luxury housing -- And that the powerful landscape provided by the Rocky mountains Is • r P, not insulted by patronizing and unimaginative efforts to make money. Re De t^ y, -t r*ti r y 275 Riverside Drive Aspen 81611 925-8793 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LACET SUBDIVISION (F.K.A. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION) CLARIFICATION OF USE OF AREAS OUTSIDE OF BUILDING ENVELOPES ON THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 Barb' s Way) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 27 , 1994 at a regular meeting to begin at 5 : 00 PM before the Aspen City Council, Council Meeting Room of City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to interpret the scope of restrictions or activities and structures permitted outside the building envelopes shown on the Lacet Subdivision Plat, recorded at Book 32 , Pages 15- 29, Reception No. 359037 . The conditions imposed on the use of the areas outside the platted building envelopes may be consistent with or more restrictive than those applicable to setbacks as defined by the Aspen Municipal Code. The property is located in the Riverside Addition on East Cooper Avenue. For further information contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 920-5100. s/John Bennett, Mayor Published in the Aspen Times on June 10, 1994 . City of Aspen Account • 7 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: LACET SUBDIVISION (F.K.A. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION) CLARIFICATION OF USE OF AREAS OUTSIDE OF BUILDING ENVELOPES ON THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 Barb' s Way) I hereby certify that on this /4‘ day of / j , 1991 , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice �If P Public Hearing/ r was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public Notice. By: Michelle White Administrative Secretary frm.mailing rdPEN/PITKIN PLANNINC 1305.GALENA ASPEN.CO 81611 Douglas G. 140,talowski 1240 E . Coope4 Avenue ,y"5° Aspen, CO 81612 S- -S 651- Apy,w -lace - ex gilm t-� 7 ft& v;,, kr/ - D , 7D1'1 S CC* 36V7 /81- andAVLD 309 6 , Ibructen S- ., c fir 3/4 /( 4/3 - ACe 300 e - 5,..24 E. ton - A E- ,P.ei - Sao At J0-4 --r_ tti1 c.c K .lo E r" Art U'!' M r I Co Mtn rirkrhkow g X1-61113S 30o E 5 g- • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and C#6/0,�1A72 ` 22 (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for l,c2,1 P uv∎Eio l (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office 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 to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, 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 $ 306 (7, 7-6 which is for /7 hours of Planning Office 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. 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. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT • By: A By: Aa A • Di a Moore City Planning Director Date: fit For Planning Office Use Case Number Case Name Deposit or Flat Fee Amount: Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health: 2 East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development Request for Conceptual Submission Approval For Planned Unit Development, Text/Map Amendment, Subdivision, Growth Management Quota Exemption and Special Review June 1992 Submitted to: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Applicant: C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. 300 East Hyman, Suite E Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: The Stevens Group, Inc. Thomas G. Stevens • 418 East Cooper, Suite 205 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Architecture Michael Gassman Michael Gassman Architect 215 S. Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2695 Civil Engineering/Surveying Bob Daniel, Jr. Banner & Associates 605 East Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-5857 Geotechnical Report John Mechling, P.E. CTL/Thompson, Inc. 234 Center Drive Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-2809 Title Information Hazel Herwick Stewart Title 602 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-3577 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GENERAL SUBMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION II. PROJECT SITE 2 A. Location 2 B. Existing Use 2 C. Vegetation 2 D. Slope 2 E. Geology 3 F. Existing Utilities 3 G. Access 4 H. Easements and Restrictions 5 IH. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 A. Rezoning 6 B. Site Capacity 7 Table 1 - Slope Reduction Analysis 7 C. Site Grading 8 D. Program Description 9 Table 2 - Development Summary 11 E. Deed Restricted Sales Rates 12 F. Architectural Description 13 G. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities. 14 1. Access. 14 2. Grading and Drainage. 14 3. landscaping. 15 4. Easements. 15 5. Utilities. 16 H. Waiver of City of Aspen Moratorium on Water Main Extension. 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CON'T) SECTION PAGE NUMBER IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 17 A. Planned Unit Development (Section 7-903) 17 B. Text/Map Amendment (Rezoning) (Section 7-1101) 25 C. Subdivision (Section 7-1004) 30 D. Growth Management Quota System Exemption (Section 8-104(C)(1)(c)(e) 45 V. EXHIBITS: A. Land Use Application Form B. Pre-Application Meeting Form C. Letter of Authorization to Represent D. Title Commitment E. Warranty Deed F. List of Adjacent Landowners G. Will Serve Letters H. Utility Service Investigation Prepared by Banner & Associates I. Property Access Report Prepared by Banner & Associates J. Grading/Drainage Improvements Report Prepared by Banner & Associates K. Soils Report Prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc. VI. PLAN INDEX: 1. Existing Alta Survey 2. Site Development Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading and Drainage Plan 5. Slope Reduction Plan 6. Water and Sanitary Sewer Plan 7. Private Utilities Plan 8. Highway 82 Access Plan MIMI ter..-- I 1 _ .1 ' hiliAtik . .. .1,N,..,_14■7:1r, firtZi' ,!, , .7', %. ■•1 i..... , . -' y:• i'. tt. ' ' it I .1 1 • 1 ..- f.1 '4 i 1111111""21. - •5` Ain L ' `� r 54, 0• 01.1. 401,410...40,-916.- ................„,,,,/"I' 41'.""%ligiellAt.--„,,,,....4111.1_491.4A- ! • �r � `mi. 0-: tl �� •e � S• . AttritiNVI 1 I‘ t. r j P ----s-ziesoll I : _.-- -. r ,--1 B. - ---7.4- ���i,J' �' t 41 -''N,"0"" \\'"wr" milr--dt, iv-- . - --.';',' pi i.:\ ,tk, \Ilirji te,„0,1. Arj ..„, . ,, ,.. .., ..• ..4111..!..,,.. 41-#1-:,) 1 1 I ____, • imi&j. 1,,,3„-›....... ...i- ....: •,ib‘ iwolittifrA , . . -- — f r' 041. 11".''_.. 11.- .�1�iFi►� • . . im- i '21'i. ., )11 ,-,0-k..-...,-.,. 4,..' 111141111PII_,...._'. .39. Ilill --,:i.ii--- -:.......-.4-,:.'ir,ii:1,AO . •' 111154:4V1.:7-41.':::V...VIH., ""lt:-V.71g: /.4, ...-,'. '77 -, . . - . _ ''*,i::-.z,:-_.-t.4.,w'.,•:,7 ,-.,. ---- - . 111*---Fi '..:_.::::..•., . ' . • I • la( A'''''.•" : 0• '■ _ om t (R iti! � `%•.ti / •Y^ 4"4-C .4 a' ', '! c{ik it.4*,4 ?i;u, 40gn1u1!. . .- ' ''',.4. t':::" -.:-.:::::::' :-...;-. ...7. 110.01:-Ii- :' - 1. « 111 ..4..� ; r7' I , ,, ---", c--z\. 4'''''''...7-..,,,,. .o7-',1F--.". -‘-:".."-- "v, ' ''-` ce--- „ I,74,1 . • 1 .. ' 4 \ C_ . 1. ..ter `^�� titt44/144 `TA�IP g&F�z, F 1'.!y S ("'S :'r • ��. • \� Sri 4, ••:,..., t •-•41"144--=-1,.t461',.:-.1414N 441 s.%‘_ •,'.1 ito . .V5.-a.- . ..SC' .”1111111N.,, ft,-,',.,_..•-• 7 ltd iq. .¢. r I' py-„ .D ` �:a , _. l /"'fir d � ' . - r l v / itbi �~\%*+ _.s. � ■y . / , t 1 f-1� . ,ri,(�'�i 'i ;tr . .` zill. f k ' . - _ -.I IVune „1,, !r w, I I I • I I • I . I CAA/ � V • f /3 ' '5 i I il_ • I II I l • { • � a 11,tiri w lir n1r. 4 \ \ _ Ste . ?� _t '\ I .\ 1,1 I.I` �If =�`. i��'_��11'�/ ., ... , ,,,,..... .., __..„,„ ,..., . .,...„. . , ifff,,91._ •1123•',-I%, a i ,, • i ----' •Nii.._'',1 ! Or ---.. 'iz... ,..-- . „....,..-• „....::--- 0 f 1 1 . ,. .__ elf otill i )1S10, r .....,.. ... .... ii., .„, ..,..,,v,,,, ...,.....:.„......,,,.4„,!,,,i,,,. ,,, , ,f,-- 1 _ ,.• 141 fik—� pQ� �ti� .r A-' .r;,„,,„,,,,. ,�j,„!t d.,,,,,� eit I ai Ili 114 G';II Vtli `�. : ,..!-_—..---11 llI .r� 'r±.j� �I11�11 gI 4 � � ,1� �`�� ��I� -1 i1r`�}�°1 ���j1''�'�� .�(~;;a���' VII� ��l'�it'�L. -:t., 101 �!} 111,•11 s_,4- {j d �,. '4 'III. 1 �u f� Pr . I �FS�I ; v,.,' r -2 i�. 'sal. '44'4'+ .0 111Wi,,K.- - ,!pi,.,,N,,. . „ .0. -i,relllt-- , 42.4!4',,i4".•,,r,z4i.) .-...,,:-. to rAill'hilr, 111."-- ---.,. . -.....4._. .e..;.-N,,r.-"4144Pb".%..1 "?..-4.1,:_lic....7:›J'..... i ".0..".4%-...... ....; i . �j +fi t -7 -• 4., li •�: +/• jr� 4 4 ,44 A, - ---- '''- ;-,..-1..-,,..• -...v-, .. ..t,..... ..:',,.1.46,- - . . ,,le,,g„..nli.;:fr,.. i ki ra.._ :::t.* ,.. .i.,.0fai.,c:‘,7,,.,...,,,I,it ,:,,,,.,4,,,,t4f.‹-S,jsel. . i --40* — I /` ' �• 'W 1 til . ,. i ••. ( ' w' + ! r ` ` . t; •�mo� y k 1 • - 0,47 immmilb 11 I • . - ' :,r, _•,..- Alift,‘....--;•,, •s,/ 'o-.Wk....,�1 ve 'i4 - •Y i ,, i . .*•,!,,Za.,4)e.4.';141.01:4et 4--ri '' .f.Ffeitti 4116iiii...„,-\\ //\\,-,_. . _, .,?4*.. ;;F:;,„,;ril 14.-101Y.".0... ._ '--.- / \ i r�. ' '°.i1f•)1, :, • „� =_ 1rk'P �;4:��F."mitat t ..) , . /fAli( cr I I I I I I . GM 1213771 I24 ------" '2. !4' 4,1 L____ c 7Z.d t 63k 1 I 1 ■I 1 — .J � . 1 i rzw,1 r k k _ i . ' („, )- _ ii 1 i r ' I 1 '�� , 1 - 1 - , ■ glsr Qom. one r I I gC A.0411 772, I 131 # 2(... UMW ' 11,0"„jj ---... -=--- : ,,,,,,p, -.1........----........,.---, 1 ,,, D , i Orl On ( E 1 ,.. , • , , , 1 ,..., cei _ 1 1,2), `� . MINI �- lig/—ri if 101. i pa e II C:15. t i _ may. II �� ue_.. ' IF .R /k° w,� 111111.1i 111.11.11 I saw — i .- ..- -- - � •• i- -- I . . 11_....__ ._,...:., r ' -- am— . '#a . . ,' : WI ����� 11111111111111111111 ,• Alt-1 ' I im,i. it• '4 Cf "u saw E - 4.. 1 4■!L ?". ' •Y a #ryrr�✓_f 5 f ter '` t •,'• .. -I ,*--!'.-'•;:_; ..,,z-414:$.*I-;...,.; $74:41 w Jr(R941; ,w--,r467-741 -,...'-, ;i3,_..:•' .-..i-..-. .• ' ..,;- .-:- . -,N. -04-- -trer,..343-„. 4,12,..,,•..... i...,..,,. ..0..,.....i.....1 1.4;kt...wit, ..-4.,,r., ,.,.. - ;f. ,... ..• . , ,..... s ),,c.1 � 5 e � ...Si - s%.,=-'-';,;c:;,, - ice$„ .. .... . ... _.,...... _...„....,,...::-:„.6-y-t, ,,,,,f•-?,.4.0p.,.:,--, .,,,.. –.:,,,i...i.--.0,---. ..' , :,..1•!.21„....,-*..• ”. I ' y1 . (. t 1 4 _t • u,: . i.- 1 1 , (3/52 27 L `f /k I - y5ti 1 (b14/it yt/oers . tem_ A faltf±:11/ - ; /silo gm- -- / h el IIN -es .fg, , 1/ -- apt ■riti, at , ..:-,...,,r,„ A fv, „----- ii _ 1121 _ %/�i kirciiEN sal 1. —y OA .mi at frOlat. ■ ki."11.2411 CiecK NI _' al �UJ,. �� � 1 L I nrGHE.N/Livwc, ¢Zocre ALL UnPri a //bet ii rte'= - ✓ 0 74U r 3 r 4 , _ MO 0 IL MI= iII ?I O .y 4 Illj���� In j:.; 1 -2 / i nairect2frl i I --, _ II : r i 1 11:1117- — 1 I , 1 I -i I u - Z 0602oon FtcoC 2 3,e 33e UNlr_5 vs1,// u GZ4192 n6/ 321, 27y S 4177C, H Ma I� p J L� _ 0 (i , .... I, ill 8cc v-i - [-- °Thr _ l I I 1 CEGK 1 h I ii 1 , i 1 1I III LI cw,eVer4 fix', 2 6C a# 33' UNrm /bir,/1 ECAH 6 I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests Conceptual Submission approval of Planned Unit Development (Section 7-903), Text/Map Amendment [Rezoning] (Section 7-1101), Subdivision (Section 7-1004), Growth Management Quota System Exemption (Section 8-104[C][1][c][e])and Special Review to permit the construction of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Residential Development. The Applicant, C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd., is proposing development of seven free market lots and sixteen deed restricted units. The deed restricted units will be designed, constructed and sold in conformance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority guidelines for Categories #2, #3, #4 and Resident Occupancy and income guidelines. As stated above, the Applicant is requesting a rezone of the property from its existing R-15 PUD zone district to the recently established Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. Throughout this application, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the parameters of the AH zone district as well as the regulations as set forth by the City Land Use Code. While the application has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Land Use regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of this application, questions may arise which may result in the staffs request for additional information and/or clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide such information as may be required in the course of the applications's review. 1 II. PROJECT SITE A. Location. The 2.35 acre (102,336 sq.ft.) project site is located on State Highway 82 about one-half mile southeast of downtown Aspen and east of the Cooper Street Bridge over the Roaring Fork River. The site is located in a narrow steepsided part of the Roaring Fork Valley. The topography adjacent to the site includes the steep slopes of Smuggler Mountain to the east, Red Mountain to the north and Bell Mountain to the south. Comparatively gentle grades of the valley floor were to the west towards Aspen. The parcel is an undeveloped site that is adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge and is located within the Aspen City Limits. The proposed development provides easy pedestrian access to the center of the city and is presently located on the RFTA transit route. B. Existing Use. No existing uses are associated with this site, as well there are no existing structures on site. C. Vegetation. Vegetation on site consists primarily of aspen tree while the entire site is covered with native field grasses. D. Slope. A slope analysis has been provided in the drawing package. In summary of this analysis, the site is divided into north and south parts of Riverside 2 Ditch. North of the ditch is a large depression remnant of gravel pit operation. Based on visual observations and topographic mapping by Banner Associates, Inc., the pit slopes are 25 to 40 percent (25 -40%). The north part has an undulating ground surface with grades estimated at 5 to 35 percent (5 - 35%). No remnants of past site usage other than gravel pit excavation were observed and the understanding of past usage is based on published mapping only. E. Geology. CTL/Thompson, Inc. have prepared a soils report for the project site and is included in this application (see Exhibit "K"). In summary of that report, the site offers no substantial constraints on development. Recommendations of that report on foundation loads on the order of 2000 to 2500 pounds per lineal foot along exterior walls and 50 to 100 Ups on the interior columns are anticipated. F. Existing Utilities. Currently, all required utilities exist in close proximity to the proposed development. Gas is available in a 3 inch line located in the south right-of- way of Highway 82. Additionally, a 14 inch water line is located in State Highway 82. The service will provide potable domestic water as well as fire protection. At present, a City of Aspen moratorium exists on the extension of water mains required to service this AH project. A waiver of request will be presented later in the text for consideration of waiver approval by the Aspen City Council. 3 There currently exists a 10 inch sanitary main in Highway 82. The applicant will provide a manhole which will be constructed on the main line in State Highway 82 to facilitate connection of the on-site collection system. The on-site collection system will be constructed in accordance with the ACSD standards and will be granted in perpetuity to the District for ownership and maintenance. Telephone and television cable are located adjacent to the proposed project. The Applicant will underground the current aerial lines as part of the approval for this project. All utility companies have been contacted in regards to capacity to serve this proposed development (see Exhibit "G"). G. Access. There are two access points for the project, Riverside Drive and State Highway 82. Access off of highway 82 to the deed restricted portion is under the review of the CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) for an access permit. Banner & Associates have met with Charles Dunn of the CDOT and have prepared a proposed access plan to address the improvements to State Highway 82 (See Exhibit "I"). Banner & Associates have concluded that based upon the project location, unit mix, and traffic generation, that only a deceleration lane for right turns to the site is required. This determination is based upon the limited amount of westbound traffic on State Highway 82 which would enter the project will not warrant any type of left turn into the 4 property. Additionally, the proximity of this project to the central Aspen core combined with the strong transit system of RFTA's Mountain Valley route will drastically reduce automobile trips. Access to the free market single-family lots is proposed off of Riverside Drive. Riverside Drive is a paved asphalt road which is within a City right-of-way which abuts the southwest portion of the site near Riverside Drive cul-de-sac. This access is proposed because of elevation differences between the free market portion of the project and State Highway 82. H. Easements and Restrictions. The only existing easement associated with the subject property is the Riverside Ditch Easement. Not included in an easement however is an overhead power line along the west property line. 5 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. Rezoning. The project property is currently zoned R-15 PUD. In order to facilitate this development, the Applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to Affordable Housing. This is a threshold issue which must be dealt with by staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. Although the specific review criteria is dealt with later in this application (see Section IV.B.), the purpose for requesting this rezoning will be reviewed at this time. The Council adopted the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone district to initiate the development of Categories #1, #2, #3, #4 and Resident Occupied affordable housing units while recognizing the reality that for private developers to build these units, they must be accompanied by a portion of free market units to create an economically viable project. Additionally, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office is currently pursuing the development of Categories #1, #2, #3 and #4 affordable housing units, again recognizing the economics of development. The Applicant continues to work with the Housing Office in achieving this attainable goal for the community. Lastly, the Housing Office as well as the Applicant believes that development represents less community impact as well as creates a better living environment when done in smaller "pocket" developments. This type of development disperses housing inventory around the community and does not create the "large project" neighborhood. 6 This proposed development fits these goals precisely. The program complies to the zone district requirements exactly with no need for any type of variance. The development of free market lots allows an internal subsidy to be applied to the deed restricted units which increases their quality and livable space without increasing the end sales price. Additionally, the proposed development is located in an area for which it will be compatible in terms of size and density. (See Section III. A. Rezoning) B. Site Capacity. Reviewing this site for it's development capacity required analysis of reduction in density for slope consideration and proposed site grading for the filling of the remnant gravel pit on the north part of the site. Site grading is discussed in entirety further in this application. The PUD process requires a slope reduction analysis which is addressed in the following: TABLE 1 SLOPE REDUCTION ANALYSIS CATEGORY PERCENT GROSS SF PERCENT NET SF AREA ALLOWANCE 1 0 - 20 76,366 sf. 100% 76,366 st. 2 21 - 30 8,960 sf. 50% 4,480 sf. 3 31 - 40 7,680 sf. 25% 1,920 sf. 4 41+ 9,360 sf. 0% 0 TOTAL 102,366 sf. 82,766 sf. 7 To summarize the aforementioned table, the site consists of approximately 2.35 acres or 102,366 square feet. After slope reduction as per the Land Use Code, 82,766 square feet remain available for development. The proposed development program calls for a total of 43,764.0 square feet of constructed livable space assuming maximum F.A.R. for the free market lots (See Table 2) and 18,144.0 s.f. for the deed restricted units. This yields a floor area ratio of .49 for the deed restricted Lot #8 while the zone district allows for .33:1 and 1:1 by Special Review. Based on this, his application request Special Review for the purpose of varying the F.A.R. to its proposed .49:1. C. Site Grading. Site grading will include filling the remnant gravel pit (partially complete at this time) at the north part of the site and may involve minimal cuts and fills (5 feet or less) to construct access roads to the south of Riverside Ditch. The anticipated cut and fill quantities will nearly balance on the southern portion of the site. Import fill will be provided to fill the remanet gravel pit to grade. It is important to note that the gravel pit area consists of man-made grades. As these grades are in excess of 30% in some areas, the Applicant requests that development be allowed. Upon completion of filling the pit area, 8 to 10 feet of vertical change will remain to the ditch area. This will allow for the units to step into the hillside, and the garage/storage areas to be buried at the backside allowing at grade egress from the living area. 8 The ground beneath the fill will be stripped of any organic matter and topsoil prior to placing fill. On-site soils free of oversize rocks and organic matter or deleterious materials will be used for fill. Fill will have 100 percent (100%) passing the 3 inch (3") screen and contain less than 50 percent (50%) silt and clay size particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). The fill will be well graded and non-expansive. Fill below buildings, roads and drives will be placed in loose lifts of not more than 8 inches (8"), moisture treated to within 2 percent (2%) of optimum moisture condition and compacted to at least 95 percent (95%) of the maximum density obtained from a modified Proctor density test (ASTM D 1557). Fill will be compacted with heavy construction compaction equipment. A large vibrating smooth drum roller has been recommended for this purpose. A test for probable barrow sources prior to purchase by Applicant is recommended before importing material to site. D. Program Description. As stated above, the proposed development calls for the construction of seven free market lots of 9,320.0 square feet each (average). Additionally, sixteen deed restricted units are to be constructed in one-, two-, and three-bedroom configurations for a total of 18,144.0 net livable space and 36 bedrooms. This program yields the zone district requirement of 70% deed restricted units to 30% free market units as well as 63% deed restricted bedrooms as compared to 37% free market bedrooms. 9 The seven single-family free market lots will provide one three-bedroom residence per lot. Stipulations will be provided in the Subdivisions Improvements Agreement requiring that each free market single-family residence be required to provide a maximum number of parking spaces which shall not exceed one space/bedroom or two spaces per residential dwelling unit, whichever is less. Access to the subdivision will be provided at two points, Riverside Drive for the seven free-market single-family lots and State Highway 82 for the sixteen deed-restricted townhomes. Additional parking of three spaces has been provided for guests and has been located at the entrance of the subdivision. Parking for the deed restricted units will be provided at a maximum of two spaces per unit. The design of each unit will allow the construction of a one car parking garage with storage or two cars parked tandem in the garage per owner option. The requirement of one space per bedroom or no more than two spaces per unit, whichever is less, is thereby met with a total of 32 spaces. All access roads comply with the design standards as set forth by the Pitkin County Road Standards in terms of maximum gradient, horizontal alignment and width with minimum site distances at intersections. Internal access roads will however remain private and be contained within access and utility easements. 10 TABLE 2 DEVELOPMENT DATA 1. Existing Zoning R-15 (PUD) 2. Total Land Area 102,366.0 sf. 3. Land After Slope Reduction 82,766.0 sf. 4. Minimum Lot Area/Per Dwelling Unit: Single Family Detached 3,000 Townhomes - 1 Bedroom 400 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,200 5. Proposed Program: Free Market Lots 7 Deed Restricted Units 16 Unit Mix: 70/30 Free Market Bedrooms (Assuming 3 Bedrooms/Lot) 21 Deed Restricted Bedrooms 36 Bedroom Mix 63/37 Parking: Deed Restricted Units 2/Unit Free Market Lots N/A 6. Proposed Lot Area: Land Area Less Existing Easements Net Land Area Allowed Floor Area Lot 1 11,200 sf. 0 11,200 sf. 3,808.5 sf. Lot 2 8,265 sf. 0 8,625 sf. 3,607.5 sf. Lot 3 8,250 sf. 0 8,250 sf. 3,555.0 sf. Lot 4 8,610 sf. 0 8,610 sf. 3,605.4 sf. Lot 5 8,925 sf. 0 8,925 sf. 3649.5 sf. Lot 6 10,125 sf. 0 10,125 sf. 3,731.0 sf. Lot 7 9,500 sf. 0 9,500 sf. 3,663.5 sf. Lot 8 37,131 sf. 0 37,131 sf. 40,844.1 sf. 11 E. Deed Restricted Sales Rates. As mentioned prior in this application, it is requested that this project be classified in the Categories #2, #3, #4 and Resident Occupied of the current 1992 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The net livable square footage of the one bedroom sales units is 792.0 square feet, the two-bedrooms units are 1080.0 square feet and the three- bedroom units comprise a total of 1332.0 net livable square feet. According to the current 1992 Affordable Housing Guidelines, the proposed net livable square footage of the deed restricted units exceed the minimum net livable buildout requirements for each unit type and category. Under the current classification, the maximum allowable sales price of the units, if accepted by the APCHA, will be as follows: 2 - One-Bedroom Category #2 Townhomes @ 792.0 sf. @ $69,000 2 - One-Bedroom Category #3 Townhomes @ 792.0 sf. @ $106,500 4 - Two-Bedroom Category #3 Townhomes @ 1,080.0 sf @ $116,500 1 - Three-Bedroom Category #3 Townhome @ 1,332.0 sf. @ $126,00() 4 - Three-Bedroom Category #4 Townhomes @ 1,332.0 sf. @ $193500 3 - Three-Bedroom Resident Occupied Townhomes @ 1.332.0 sf. @ Market 36 18,144.0 sf. All deed restrictions applicable to these units will insure the units remain affordable. The Applicant will work with the Housing Office to draft the deed restrictions and will present them for review at Final Submission. 12 F. Architectural Description. In recognition of the proposed density, the architecture has used the density to establish the character of the project. Rather than attempt to hide the density and make the units look like single family homes and landscape their perimeters, this plan instead calls for paving the entire area between the buildings with the only exception of trees in tree grates, and designing the buildings reminiscent of urban "brownstones". This will in effect create outdoor spaces which are actually usable by the residents, similar to the sidewalks of brownstone neighborhoods. Materials for the units will be predominately brick. Located on the ground level will be the garage/storage areas while access to the units will be up a one story flight of stairs, again similar to the brownstone concept. While the existing gravel pit will be filled in, this will leave approximately 8 to 10 feet of vertical change to the irrigation ditch level. This has been used to step the buildings into the hillside. The garage/storage level will access at the circulation drive elevation while the rear of the unit will be buried. This in turn leaves access out at grade for the level above, the living level. 13 G. General Site Improvements/Public Facilities. 1. Access: Access will be provided from two access points, Riverside Drive for the free market single-family lots and State Highway 82 for the deed restricted portion of the project. Riverside Drive is a paved asphalt road within the City right-of-way which abuts the property at the Riverside Drive cul-de-sac. The road once within the project property boundary will be private and maintained by the homeowner's association. This road will be contained within a non-exclusive access and utility easement. An access permit has been prepared and submitted to the CDOT for the addition of a right turn land to accommodate the eastbound traffic for the deed restricted portion of the project. A left hand turn lane will not be required due to the limited westbound traffic on Highway 82 for the project, the close proximity to the City, and the RFTA Mountain Valley transit route. Again, the access road within the project will be private and maintained by the homeowner's association. 2. Grading and Drainage: Site drainage patterns currently provide for runoff from the northern portion of the site to the lower portions adjacent to Highway 82. A minimal amount of site drainage runoff reaches Highway 82. It will be necessary to accommodate runoff from the developed parcel in the same historical patterns. Additional runoff will be generated by the creation of impervious surfaces for parking and the proposed buildings. A comprehensive 14 drainage plan for the deed restricted parcel will be generated as a part of the Final Submission/Final Plat. This plan will conform with the City of Aspen criteria and the Aspen Environmental Health Department. The free market parcel will need to have a drainage which will address areas improved by the developer (i.e., roadways, etc.). The individual free market lots will have plans which will address specific drainage patterns and as each lot is developed, the owner will be required to address runoff impacts within the context of the residential design. The three dry wells located on the deed restricted parcel will collect the runoff from the paved surfaces and building roofs through inlets and pipes. The runoff from the roofs will be carried in swales through the landscaped area which in turn will reach the paved areas. Use of vegetated sales will provide natural percolation into the soil. No additional storm water runoff beyond the current level will be discharged into the existing irrigation ditch located on-site or will be discharged onto adjacent properties as a result of this development. 3. Landscaping: As mentioned previously, the site is predominantly vegetated with aspen trees and native grasses. In an effort to preserve the natural character of the site, the Applicant proposes to landscape the areas disturbed by construction with the same native materials. the introduction of such material a flowering trees and shrubs and ground covers will be confined to the courtyard areas of the deed restricted units. 15 4. Easements: Easements to accommodate the proposed utility service extensions will be provided as may be required. All utility easements will comply with the width requirements Land Use regulations and will be depicted on the Applicant's Final Plat. A forty foot (40') access and utility easement will be granted through the seven free market lots providing access to each of the lots. 5. Utilities: As previously noted in Section II. F. all utilities are provided within the existing area of the proposed project. A request for waiver of moratorium on extension of water main to service this project has been addressed in previous text. H. WAIVER OF CITY OF ASPEN MORATORIUM ON WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS. Banner Associates, Inc. will be formally requesting waiver of water main extension to provide water to this project from the Aspen City Manager and City Council Members. 16 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 7-903) As previously noted in the application, the program for development complies with all aspects of the AH zone district. For this reason, no variance to the Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses or the Dimensional Requirements as specified for the AH zone district are being requested. As the current underlying zone district is R-15 PUD, this application shall comply with all provisions of PUD approvals. Consequently, the review contents have been included in this application. The minimum submission contents for Planned Unit Development approval have been included in this text as well as specific submission contents for Conceptual Development Plan. Item 1.a.(4) of the specific submission contents is contained within the drawing package attached hereto. REVIEW STANDARDS. A development Application for PUD shall comply with the following review standards. 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the request for amendment is not in conflict with any portion of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 17 b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in surrounding areas. The project site is located next to the Crestahaus Lodge and the River side Subdivision. The affordable housing townhomes will be built adjacent to the Crestahaus and the free market single-family home lots will be built next to the single-family homes of the River side Subdivision. Therefore, proposed uses are consistent with all existing uses. c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The existing tract is the last developable parcel within this area. Therefore, there are no future development possibilities. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Not applicable. This application is exempt from GMQS allotments pursuant to the provisions of the AH Zone District. 18 2. Density. The proposed density for the project is in compliance with the AH zone district requirements in terms of number of units, number of bedrooms and ratio of deed restricted to free market. Additionally, included herein is a slope reduction analysis for the subject parcel. The Aspen City Land Use Code allows for reductions of proposed densities may be reduced if: (1) There is not sufficient water pressures and other utilities to service the proposed development; Sufficient water can be provided to the project as confirmed by Larry Ballenger. The Applicant will be required to request waiver of moratorium for water main extension from the City to serve the property. (2) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development; Access, fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance are all adequate. (3) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of its slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche dangers: Not applicable. Possible ground instability and slopes are being mitigated through filling of remnant excavation pit with acceptable fill materials. 19 (4) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; Not applicable. Historic runoff will be maintained and therefore not be detrimental to watershed. (5) The proposed development will have a deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City; and Not applicable. No wood burning fire places will be provided within the construction of the deed restricted housing units or the proposed free market houses. (6) 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. With the exception of filling in the man-made gravel pit, all existing grade has ben incorporated into the design of the project. b. Reduction in Density for Slope Consideration. A slope reduction plan has been provided within the drawing set. Based on the minimum required lot area per the requested zone district, as represented in Table 2, Development Data, the site has adequate area for the proposed development. 20 ■ 3. Land Uses Multi-family development ratio parameters specified within the AH zone district are considered a "permitted use". Therefore this multi-family development proposal complies with the permitted uses of the underlying zone district. 4. Dimensional Requirements. This application will comply with all dimensional requirements of the Ah Zone district to be: a. Minimum distance between buildings; 5 ft. b. Maximum height(including viewplanes); 25 ft. c. Minimum front yard; 10 ft. d. Minimum rear yard; 10 ft. e. Minimum side yard; 0 ft. - 15 ft. minimum for both side yards f. Minimum lot width; 30 ft. g. Minimum lot area; See Table 2. h. Trash access area; N/A i. Internal floor area ratio; and N/A j. Minimum percent open space. By Special Review 5. Off-street Parking. No variation of off-street parking requirements are being requested. Parking will be provided at two spaces per affordable dwelling unit at a total of 32 spaces. 6. Open Space. A proportionate, undivided interest shall be granted in perpetuity to each affordable housing dwelling unit owner within Lot # 8 of this PUD. The Protective Covenants for the subdivision will restrict any future residential, commercial 21 and industrial development. Each respective homeowners association shall provide requirements which will ensure the permanent care and maintenance of the open spaces within the development. 7. Landscape Plan. As part of the Final Development Plan a landscape plan, will be provided for designed treatment of exterior spaces. The site is predominantly vegetated with very dense native grasses, bushes, flowers and small aspen trees. In an effort to preserve the natural character of the site, the Applicant proposes to landscape the areas disturbed by construction with the same native materials. 8. Architectural Site Plan. Although not required until the Final Development Plan, a conceptual architectural site plan has been provided at this level. To facilitate the review of the rezoning and subdivision, this information has been provided on the Site Development Plan (Plan Index, Sheet 2). 9. Lighting. All development outdoor lighting will be low level and will be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. 10. Clustering. The free market lots have been designed to be compatible with the existing Riverside Subdivision. The deed restricted portion of the project however has been clustered north of the irrigation ditch (see Site Development Plan). 22 11. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, building shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. All public utilities/facilities are sufficient to service this project at time of development. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has required that the Applicant participate in the rehabilitation of two downstream constraints, which will be reviewed further with them prior to filing of Final Submission for proportionate share costs of that rehabilitation. A twenty foot (20') through lane has been designed for the affordable dwelling units with "knock-out" bollards for emergency access. The free market lots are created around a seventy foot(70') diameter cul-de-sac meeting emergency vehicle access requirements. 12. Traffic and Public Circulation a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. The road through the subdivision will be private and contained within an access easement, providing legal access of each lot to a public street. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. The access points have been designed to meet this criteria as well as that 23 of the Colorado Department of Transport. c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved that they will not be adversely affected. Due to the size of this development, no additional congestion should be created. Also the proximity of the project to town provides easy alternative transportation. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60') feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. No residential building will be farther than 60' from a public or private access roadway. e. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. There are not any non-residential land uses in the proposed PUD. f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. The streets will comply with the PUD requirements established in the review process. 24 B. TEXT/MAP AMENDMENT [REZONING] (Section 7-1101) As stated previously in this application, in order to facilitate the proposed development, the property which is currently zoned R-I5 PUD must be rezoned to Affordable Housing. This application requests that the project site in it's entirety of 2.35 acres be rezoned. The specific review requirements, and the proposed developments compliance therewith, are summarized as follows; 1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter." To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, this request for amendment is not in conflict with any portion of Chapter 7, Division 11, the chapter of reference. 2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site is within the "Single Family Home" land use category and within close proximity to the "Mixed Residential" land use category. The proposed development calls for a mix of deed restricted units and free market units all in multi- family configuration. Additionally, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority has identified an interest in dispersing deed restricted development around the Aspen area in as close proximity as possible. This proposed development accomplishes this goal. To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no other element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to the proposed development. 25 3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." The surrounding area consists of mixed residential uses, including the Riverside Subdivision and the Crestahaus Lodge. From both a use and density standpoint, this proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The single family residential lots have been located adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision while the deed restricted townhomes are adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge. 4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety." Provided in this application is a property access analysis (see Exhibit"I") for the area. The result of this analysis states that the existing road system has the capacity to serve this proposed development. Additionally, the Applicant believes that due to the proximity to the central business district and the shortage of parking in that district, that residents will walk to town. In the case of the deed restricted units where residents must be employed, this nearly represents the closest parking available for workers in the central business district. This will increase the number of pedestrians and decrease the number of motorists. 5. "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 fatalities including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities." As noted above in Section III. 5, Banner Associates has contacted the utility companies in regards to impacts on the existing utility facilities and all facilities do have adequate capacity to serve this 26 project. Due to the limited size of this proposed development, no significant impacts on the remaining above referenced facilities will result from this development. 6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment." Due to the architectural character of the proposed development with all buildings being clustered and stepped into the hillside, minimal disturbance will occur on site. Additionally, once the development is completed, all areas of the site which are disturbed will be revegetated with native plant material. No other impacts to the natural environment are anticipated. 7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen." The surrounding neighborhood is made up of mixed residential types. These uses establish the character of this neighborhood. The proposed development blends with the mixed residential in not only density but architectural character. More importantly however is the employee housing element of this proposed development. As noted earlier in this application, it is the goal of both the Housing Authority and the Affordable Housing zone district to disperse development in the community. The ultimate result of this will not only be additional inventory for employee housing but a more balanced community. 8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." In past years, residential development has been built out with the exception of this parcel which 27 has changed the character of the neighborhood. This development has created a mixed density residential community. The development program proposed lends itself well in terms of compatibility. 9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter." Due to the extreme lack of affordable employee housing in and around the Aspen area, this project will serve the public interest rather than be in contrast with public interest. The availability and cost of land in the Aspen area and specifically within the City limits, limits the potential for affordable housing development. With the adoption of the AH zone district, the mechanism is in place to enhance the development of affordable housing. The benefits to the community go beyond providing inventory. This type of development literally brings employees back up valley, lessening the traffic on State Highway 82, placing voting employees back in the town they work and keeping tax dollars in the area which they work. The positive impacts to the community for this type of development are far reaching. REVIEW REOUIREMENTS. Any application proposing amendment to the City of Aspen Land Use Code or amendment to the Official Zone District Map shall include the following: A. The general application information required in Section 6-202. General application information is contained in Exhibit "A". 28 B. If the application requests an amendment to the text of this chapter, the precise wording of any proposed amendment. The following amendment is proposed to afford the private sector the ability to "offset" the costs of the development of the affordable housing created by the AH Zone district. C. If the application requests an amendment to the Official Zone District Map: 1. The present Zone District classification and existing land uses of the real property proposed to be amended. The present zoning is R-15 (PUD) with permitted uses of detached residential dwellings, duplex, farm buildings and uses, home occupations and accessory buildings and uses. 2. The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet or acres, or a major faction thereof; and Lot area to be amended is 2.34 acres. 3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment. See Plan Index, Sheet 2. 29 C. SUBDIVISION (Section 7-1004) The proposed development establishes eight separate lots for ownership by the respective homeowners associations. This division of ownership requires review under the subdivision regulations. The minimum submission contents have been included within this application. The specific review standards are as follows: 1. General Requirements A. "The proposed subdivision shall he consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan." To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan. B. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of' existing land uses in the area." The proposed free market single family home lots are consistent single family homes within the Riverside Subdivision. The affordable housing townhome dwelling units are consistent with the Crestahaus Lodge inasmuch as bulk, massing and anticipated trip generation. Additionally, the affordable townhomes are located consistent with the multi- family developments found in the Park Avenue and Park Place areas of the city. 30 C. "The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas." Although the area is approaching it buildout capacity, this proposed development will not adversely affect the potential for future development. All public facilities such as utility line are immediately adjacent to the subject parcel and are of a size to adequately serve the proposal. Adjacent parcels will not be affected in terms of access. D. "The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter." See following text. 31 2. Suitability of land for subdivision. A. "Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or 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." As noted in Section I. of this application, the existing conditions of the site reflect no conditions which render it undevelopable. The proposed development has been located on portions of the site which are free from steep slopes. B. "Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplications or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs." As proposed, this project requires no extension of any public facility and therefore represents no expense to the public. All services to this project are in the form of secondary service lines which are to be constructed at the sole expense of the developer. 3. Improvements. (1) Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins. These have been provided in existing conditions plan (See Section IV. A.). 32 (2) Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. All street improvements will be coordinated with the Aspen Engineering Department and comply with all applicable standards. As well road plans and profile will be provided in this application. (3) Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Curb and gutter shall be provided. Within the deed restricted portion of this development sidewalks shall be provided. (4) Paved alleys. Not applicable. (5) Traffic-control signs, signals or devices. Shall comply with CDOT requirements on signage for right turn lane. (6) Street lights. Not applicable. (7) Street name signs. Although street names have not been chosen at this time, signs will be erected for their identification. 33 (8) Street trees and landscaping. See Landscape Plan. (9) Water lines and fire hydrants. An existing City of Aspen Water Department fourteen inch (14") water line is located in State Highway 82 which can serve this project. This service will consist of potable domestic water supply as well as fire protection via an 8 inch line. Additionally, there is an eight inch (8") waterline adjacent to the southeast corner of the property in the Riverside Drive right-of-way. The on-site system will be constructed in accordance with the City of Aspen standards and will be granted in perpetuity to the City Water Department. (10) Sanitary sewer lines. A ten inch (10") sanitary sewer main exists in Highway 82 which currently has service capacity for this project. A manhole will be constructed on the main line in State Highway 82 to facilitate connection of the on-site collection system. The on-site collection system will be constructed in accordance with the ACSD standards and subsequently deeded in perpetuity to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. (11) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. See Public Improvements, Grading and Drainage within Section II. of this text. 34 (12) Bridges or culverts. Not applicable. (13) Electrical lines. Currently, an overhead power line exists along the western portion of the parcel. This line can provide service to the project. As part of this approval, the Applicant will underground this line and place it within a utility easement in an accessible portion of the project. (14) Telephone lines. Telephone service is currently provided via an aerial line. As part of this approval, the Applicant will underground this line for the provision of service to the property. (15) Natural gas lines. A three inch (3") gas line exists in the south right-of-way of State Highway 82 which will provide gas service to the property. This line will be tapped and brought into the project for distribution to the proposed dwelling units. (16) Cable television lines. Cable television service is currently provided via an aerial line. As part of this approval, the Applicant is willing to underground this line for service to the subject property. 35 4. Desien standards. The following design standards will be provided for the approval of the proposed subdivision: a. Street and related improvements. The following standards shall apply to streets regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk. (1) Conform to plan for street extension. The proposed streets conform to existing streets and have been designed to follow existing grade. (2) Right-of-way dedication. As the access roads will be private and contained within an easement, no R.O.W. will be dedicated. (3) Rieht-of Way width. Not applicable. (4) Half-street dedications. Not applicable. (5) Street ends at subdivision. As the street serving the free market lots ends in the subdivision, the area will be dedicated to the City. 36 (6) Cul-de-sacs. As the street serving the free market lots ends in a cul-de-sac, turning movements must he accommodated. The easement has been sized at 70 feet which will provide more than adequate turning movement for the proposed residential uses. (7) Dead end streets. Not applicable. (8) Centerline offset. Not applicable. (9) Reverse curves. Not applicable. (10) Changes in street grades. Not applicable. (11) Alleys. Not applicable. (12) Intersections. The proposed intersections comply. 37 (13) Intersection srade. The proposed intersections comply with the 4% grade standard. However, the parking access drive for the deed restricted units begins to increase in grade prior to 100 feet in an effort to more closely match existing grade. (14) Curb return radii. This proposal complies (15) Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Turn lane from Highway 82 into the deed restricted parcel have been designed in compliance with CDOT standards. (16) Street names and numbers. No street names have been identified at this time. (17) Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, or driveways. No construction scheduling has been set at this time. It is anticipated that the Applicant will comply or provide mitigation measures. (18) Sidewalks. Paved area to serve as sidewalks will exceed minimum standard due to the configuration of the project within the deed restricted portion. No sidewalks are proposed for the free market portion. 38 (19) City specification for streets. This application complies. (20) Range point monuments. The applicant shall comply. (21) Street name signs. The Applicant shall comply. (22) Traffic control signs. The Applicant shall comply. (23) Street lights. No street lights are proposed as part of this application. (24) Street tree. See Landscape Plan. h. Easements. (1) Utility easements. This application is in compliance with all standards for utility easements. 39 (2) "T" Intersections and cul-de-sacs. This application complies where applicable. (3) Potable water and sewer easements. This application complies. (4) Planned utility or drainage system. This application complies. (5) Irrigation ditch, channel, natural creek. An easement currently exists for the Riverside Ditch and will be maintained. (6) Fire lanes and emergency access easements. This application complies. (7) Planned street or transit alignment. No plans for transit within the subdivision currently exist. (8) Planned trail system. Although no trails have been identified for this property, pedestrian access can he provided through the property along the Riverside Ditch upon City request. 40 c. Lots and blocks. (1) General. This application complies. (2) Side lot lines. This application complies. (3) Reversed corner lots and through lots. This application complies. (4) Front on street. This application complies. (5) State Highway 82. This application complies. (6) Block lengths. Not applicable. (7) Compatibility. This application complies. 41 (8) Mid-block pedestrian walkways. Not applicable. d. Survey monuments. (1) Location. All property corners have been located and monumented per specification. (2) C.R.S. 1973 38-51-101. Monuments have been set in accordance with this section. (3) Range points and boxes. The Applicant shall comply. e. Utilities. (1) Potable waterlines and appurtenances. All water lines and hydrants have been designed in compliance with City Standards. (2) Size of waterlines. Water lines have been sized in accordance with this section. 42 (3) Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants have been located in compliance with this section(see Water and Sewer Service Plan). (4) Sanitary sewer. All sanitary sewer lines have been designed in accordance with Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District standards. (5) Underground utilities. All proposed utilities have bee located underground in accordance with this section. (6) Other utilities. All private utilities have been located and designed in accordance with the specific companies standards. (7) Utilities stubbed out. Not applicable. f. Storm drainaee. (1) Drainage plan. Drainage has been designed in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan as historic flows have been maintained. 43 (2) Detention storaee. Short term detention has bee designed to maintain historic runoff rates. (3) Maintain historical drainage flow. All historic drainage have been maintained. (4) Calculations and quantities of flow. See Exhibit '7", Drainage Report, prepared by Banner Associates, Inc.. g. Flood hazard areas. Not applicable. 44 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION (Section 8-104)(C)(1)(c)(e). Pursuant to Ordinance 59 establishing the Affordable Housing zone district, deed restricted units shall be exempt from GMQS. Additionally, an annual allotment of 14 free market units exempt from GMQS will be available when proposed in compliance with the AH zone district. There is no scoring system outlined for the selection of these 14 units. The Applicant encourages to City Council to allot all seven free market units and subsequent development of 17 deed restricted units described in this development application. The subject parcel is unique in that it is one of the few site available within City limits, and consequently walking distance to the central business district, that is still out of the primary impact area in terms of roads, parking and scenic impacts. Therefore it is the opinion of the Applicant that this development proposal best accomplishes the intention of the AH zone district while resulting in the least amount of impact to the general community. 45 EXHIBITS Land Use Application Form LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 2) Project Location Parcel A and B, Riverside Addition (indicate street address, lot& block number, legal description where appropriate. 3) Present Zoning R-15 PUD 4) Lot Size 2.35 acres 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone# C & G MUSTARD SEED. LTD. Craig Glendenning, 300 East Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1952 6) Representative's Name, Address, & Phone # THE STEVENS GROUP, INC., Tom Stevens, 418 E. Cooper. Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-6717 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): _Conditional Use _Conceptual SPA _Conceptual Historic Dev. _Special Review _Final SPA Final Historic Dev. _8040 Greenline X Conceptual PUD _Minor Historic Dev. _Stream Margin _Final PUD _Historic Demolition _Mountain View Plane X Subdivision _Historic Designation _Condominiumization X Text/Map Amendment _GMQS Allotment _Lot Split/Lot Line X GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Vacant land. 9) Description of Development Application Requesting approval for General Submission PUD, Subdivision, AH Rezoning, GMQS Exemption. Text/Mao Amendment, and Requested Variances for the development of seven (7) free market single- family lots and sixteen (16) deed restricted affordable dwelling units, and Park Development Impact Fee Exemption for the affordable sales units. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents. X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents. X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Pre-Application Form /2/// CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATI[OyN CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT: £; 4 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: /7t/J-74 REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ..67"-- y717-- OWNER'S NAME: / &Geri /i - ._ LTD SUMMARY ✓� `f/1/(4 A,ttA-c> 30 2 24ft 4A CA/ 1. Type of Application: (A7ii-r5r4,14., K H9/S4' 'r / $r 2s_50 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: l(0 -b2 T rM /,b-6 -C, stile bwt ) 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments �,/, ', - . -9 /1 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) Qp&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES >Cc_ (NO) Z I 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted: 7% What fee was applicant requested to submit: 3 ZSO) ZZS /` SS 8 . Anticipated date of submission: /// ? 6 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CON E• ass. I.. & ' - I L1 ! i /. r frm.pre_app LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 2) Project Location Parcel A and B, Riverside Addition (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate. 3) Present Zoning R-15 PUD 4) Lot Size 2.35 acres 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone# C & G MUSTARD SEED, LTD. Craig Glendenning, 300 East Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-1952 6) Representative's Name, Address, & Phone # THE STEVENS GROUP, INC., Tom Stevens, 418 E. Cooper, Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-6717 7) Type of Application(please check all that apply): _Conditional Use _Conceptual SPA _Conceptual Historic Dev. _Special Review _Final SPA _Final Historic Dev. _8040 Greenline X Conceptual PUD _Minor Historic Dev. _Stream Margin _Final PUD _Historic Demolition _Mountain View Plane X Subdivision Historic Designation _Condominiumization X Text/Map Amendment _GMQS Allotment _Lot Split/Lot Line X GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). Vacant land. 9) Description of Development Application Requesting approval for General Submission PUD, Subdivision, AH Rezoning, CMOS Exemption, Text/Map Amendment, and Requested Variances for the development of seven (7) free market single- family lots and sixteen (16) deed restricted affordable dwelling units, and Park Development Impact Fee Exemption for the affordable sales units. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents. X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents. X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Letter of Authorization to Represent June 15, 1992 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department Planning & Zoning Commission City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT To Whom It May Concern: This letter shall confirm that The Stevens Group, Inc., is authorized to act on behalf of C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. for the above referenced property. Representation shall include all land use regulatory planning required for Conceptual and Final Submission land use approvals as governed by the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Sincerely, • C & b Mustard I, Ltd. / Date Craig Glendenning, Vice-President Tide Commitment SCHEDULE A ORDER NUMBER: 000)0642 1 . EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13 , 1991 AT 9 : 00 A.M. 2. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: AMOUNT OF INSURANCE A. ALTA OWNER' S POLICY S 1 , 600 , 000 . 00 PROPOSED INSURED: TRICOR RESOURCES, LTD. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION B. ALTA LOAN POLICY S PROPOSED INSURED: C. ALTA LOAN POLICY S PROPOSED INSURED: D. 3 . THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND :^ITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN: HARLEY BALDWIN ASSOCIATES, INC. , A NEW YORK CORPORATION AKABALDWIN ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED. A NEW YORK CORPORATION 4 . THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL OWNERS : $ 2 , 370 . 00 TAX CERT. S 10 . 00 FORM DEL. 1-4$ 50 . 00 STEWART TITLE OF , / ASPEN , INC . �,'. f✓�'32x 602 L . UTHORtZED SIGN=TURE ASPEN . COLOitADO 81611 303 925-3577 3n3-01.5 _1 ?R4 STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 ORDER NUMBER: 00018642 REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: ITEM (A) PAYMENT TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE GRANTORS OR MORTGAGORS OF THE FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO EE INSURED. ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUMENT(S ) CREATING THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD, TO WIT: 1 . Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance, City of Aspen that the following taxes have been paid , or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes : ( 1 ) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and ( 2 ) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 199n ) , 2. Certificate from the Secretary of State or other appropriate officer of its State of Incorporation showing that Tricor Resources, Ltd. , a Minnesota Corporation is a duly organized and existing corporation under the laws of said State. 3. Release of Deed of Trust dated March 1 , 1990 , executed by Harley Baldwin Associates , Inc. , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $700 , 000 . 00 . in favor of Alpine Barak, Aspen, recorded March 2 , 1990 in Book 615 at Page 207 as Reception No. 320501 and re-recorded March 2.9 1990 in Book 616 at Page 414 as Reception No. 320995 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of Trust to September 1 , 1990 , recorded July ? e990 in Book 624 at Page 345 as Reception No. 324122 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of Trust to December 1 , 1990 , recorded October 5 , 1990 in Buoh. 631 at Page 424 as Reception No. 326966 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of Trust to March 1, 1991 , recorded December 10 , 1990 in Boca; 635 at Page 747 as Reception No. 320665 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Deed of Trust recorded March 22 , 1991 in Book 642 at Page 367 as Reception No. 331240 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above Dc.ed of Trust recorded July 12 , 1991 in Book 651 at Page 477 as Reception No. 334563. 4. Release of Deed of Trust dated March 1 . 1990 . executed by Baldwin Associates , Incorporated (a New York Corporation ) , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County , to secure an indebtedness of $300, 000. 00 , in favor of Gael Greene, recorded April 25 , 1990 in Book 619 at Page 5B as Reception No . 322088 . Continued on next PSrrEwVART TITLE OUARANTT COMPANY CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE H - SECTION 1 ORDER NO: 00010642 NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded May 36 , 1990 :n funk 620 at Page 559 as Reception No. 322647 . 5. Release of Deed of Trust dated April 25 , 1990 , executed by Harley Baldwin Associates , Inc. aka Baldwin Associate.''. , ItO . , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County , to secure an •tr.debtedness of $2 , 300 , 000.00, in favor of Central Bank of Aspen . N .A. , recorded April 26 , 1990 in Book 619 at Page 103 as Reception No . 322111 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment of above r'ai'd of Trust to May 30 . 1990 , recorded August 24 , 1990 in Book t,:'E' at Page 109 as Reception No. 325590 . NOTE : The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust ;,:> assigned of record to PBS Credit Services , lnc . by Ccrretr,:j Lank Aspen , N .A. f/k/a Central Dank of Aspen , N .A. recorded ?;, c 34 , 1991 in Book 647 at Page 190 as Reception No. 333052 . 6. Release of Deed of Trust dated April 25 , 1990 , executed Harley Baldwin Associates, lnc . aka B-sldwin Associates , .ac . , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County . to secure an indebtedness of $3 , 400 , 000 . 00, in favor of Central Bank of Aspen, N. A . , recorded April 26 , 1990 :Al Book 119 at Page 113 as Reception No. 322114 . NOTE: Agreement extending the date of payment. :,f _rd of Trust to June 15 , 1990 , recorded Nay 30 , 1990 in Lo,, : 6'2I at. Page 510 as Reception No. 323055 . NOTE: Loan Modification Agreement recordec Aunut.t 'U it Book 628 at Page 85 as Reception No. 225593 , <•+ ••rr, with the above Deed of Trust . NOTE : Agreement e>.tendi.ny the sate of payment c,nc e -cd or ?rust to May 30 , 1991 , recorded August 24 1990 it ;?•,,.•.. at Page 119 as Reception No . 325602 . NOTE: The Len.tficial interest under said Dec: __ . rust assigned of recorc to PBS Credit Serc_ces , Inc . la- . -. _ - ` .. Bank Aspen , N.A. fka Central Bank of Aspen , N .A. recorded nay 1991 in Bock 647 at Page 132 as Receptor. No . 37: 30-_2 . 7 . Release of Deed of Trust dated August 23 , 1990 , executed tic Baldwin Associates , Incorporated ( a New York Corporation ; , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County , to secure an indebt , nesz of 5100 , 000. 00 . in fa:•or of Garfie c a Hecht , P.C. , rec August 24 , 1990 in Book 628 at Page 131 as. :eceptior. No . 3:51:Oi, . NOTE: Subordination Agreement recorded December 6 . 1990 in book 635 at Page 493 as R•_cept loo No. 2:5552 . 3 . Release of Deed of Trust dated Noverl.,er 15 . 1990 , e::ecutr i by Continued on ne::t oacie S'I'EWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY • CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 ORDER NO: 00018642 Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc. aka Baldwin Associates , Inc . , to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County , to secure an indebtedness of $700, 000 .00, in favor of Central Bank Aspen , N .A. , recorded December 6 , 1990 in Book 635 at Page 467 as Reception No. 320548 . 9 . Improvement Survey of the subject property, completed in the last six months approved by Stewart Title of Aspen , Inc. . this survey is to be retained in the files of Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. and Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. reserves the riuht to add further requirements and/or exceptions to this commitment upon receipt of said survey. 10 . Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts , Liens and Leases , duly executed by the borrower and approved by Stewart Title of Aspen , Inc . 11 . Deed, executed by the President or Vice-President of Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc. aka Baldwin Associates , Incorporated and attested by the Secretary of said Corporation ( in Lieu of said Secretarial attestation the Corporate Seal may be affixed to the Document) , conveying fee title to the purchaser ( s ) . STEWART TITE-E GUARANTY COMPANY • SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS ORDER NUMBER: 00018642 THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOLLOWING UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPANY: 1 . RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 2. EASEMENTS , OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS , NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 3 . DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES , SHORTAGE IN AREA, ENCROACHMENTS, AND ANY FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY AND INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WOULD DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS . 4 . ANY LIEN , OR RIGHT TO A LIEN , FOR SERVICES , LABOR OR MATERIAL HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED , IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 5 . DEFECTS, LIENS , ENCUMBRANCES , ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS , IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR ATTACHING SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR TO THE DATE PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES OF RECORD FOR VALUE THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT. 6. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; WATER RIGHTS , CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER. 7 . ANY AND ALL UNPAID TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ANY UNREDEEMED TAY SALES. 8 . THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION , SOII. CONSERVATION OR OTHER DISTRICT OR INCLUSION IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA. 9 . Any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing an r ! c. silver , cinnabar , lead , tin . copper or other valuable deposit claimed or known to exist on March 23 , 1885 , and the riaht of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore tnerefron, should the same be found to penetrate cr intersect/ the premises , as reserved by Patent recorded June 17 , 1949 it Book 175 at Page 246. 10. Easement and right of way for Riverside Ditch as shown on Alpine Survey dated July 10 , 1989. NOTE: Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen , Inc . records the documents of conveyance in the proposed transaction the status of title will be updated from the time of this commitment to the time of said recording . If said update reveals no intervening liens or other changes in the status of said t:tle L::c•ection No. 5 herein will be deleted; if said update reveals intervening liens or changes in the status of said title appropriate action ( s) will be taken to disclose or eliminate said change prior to the recording of said documents. C ntinued on next ;'S'I'E\VART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY • CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE B - SECTION 2 ORDER NUMBER: 00018642 NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms , conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 1970 Policy form. Copies of the 1970 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclusions , will he made available upon request . • • STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY SCHEDULE A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ORDER NO: 00010642 PARCEL A: A tract of land lying in that part of the Hi';erside Addition , more particularly described as follows : Beginning at a point an the North line of Vick Avenue in said Riverside Addition whence Corner Nc . 5 of the Riverside_ (lacer, U.S.M.S . No. 3905 AM, being also Corner No. 14 of Tract C, Aspen Townsite Addition, a U. S . Brass Cap, bears N 50 degrees 41 minutes 30 seconds W 776 . 43 feet ; and whence Corner No. E'• of said Riverside Placer, being also Corner No. 11 of said Traet B, a U.S . Brass Cap, heats N 05 degrees 08 minutes 34 e coeds 552. 99 feet ; Thence S 89 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds li 268 . 89 feet along the North line of Fick Avenue to a 4 N 4 wood post on the centerline of Park Avenue in said Riverside .-Addition ; Thence N 00 degrees IS minutes 52 seconds W 325 . 02 feet alone said centerline; • Thence departing from said centerline N 89 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds E 24 . 99 feet to a re-bar and cap stamped L. S . 9018 on the East line of said Park Avenue ; Thence N 00 degrees 15 minutes 52 seconds W 66 . 97 feet along said East line to the intersection with the East right-of-wavy line of the former Denver and Rio Grande Railroad ; Thence along said right-of-way line 103 . 39 feet along tie arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 945 . 25 _feet and whose chord hears N 46 degrees 16 minutes 47 seconds ti 103 . 34.. . - 4 ,_e the intersection with the South right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway No. 82 ; :'hence along said right-of-hay line 217 . 52 feet &long_ the arc of a curve to :hr• right having a radius of 140' . 0 fee'. cur: .:hose: chord bears S 55 degrees 02 minutes 39 seconds E 217 . 30 feet ; Thence along seid right -of-way line S 50 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds E 4;1 . 9? feet to the intersection ;lit.. the Nor': iwesterly boundary of land described in deed to Bal !:e recordc: ' n DOOR 440 at Page G27 of the i' tkin Co�iit.� =�� eCDi'd5 : Thence along said boundary the following courses and distances : S 6B degrees 24 minutes 15 seconds W 24 . 92 feet ; S 37 degrees 34 minutes 04 seconds W 51 . 45 feet ; S 78 degrees 22 minutes 05 seconds W 33 . 31 feet; S 13 degrees 13 minutes 32 seconds W 40 . 54 feet ; S 14 degrees 06 rinutes 59 seconds E 122 . 0: feet and S 15 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds E 91 . 89 feet to the intersection with said North line of Vick Avenue , the Point of Beginning . PARCEL B : Continued on iieit page STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY SCHEDULE A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONTINUED ORDER NO. 00010642 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONTINUED A tract of land lying in that parr of the Riverside Addis ion, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway No. 82 whence Corner No. 5 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905 AM, being also Corner No. 14 of Tract 11, Aspen Townsite Addition, a U .S. Brass Cap, bears N 71 degrees 23 minutes 03 seconds W 752 .19 feet : Thence 159.20 feet along said right-of-way line along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 357 . 00 feet and whose chord bears S 37 degrees 39 minutes 30 seconds E 157 .88 feet ; Thence S 06 degrees 5b minutes 00 seconds E 26 . 17 feet along - said right-of-way line; Thence departing from said right-of-way line 39 . 12 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 26:1 . 09 feet and whose chord bears N 30 degrees 02 minutes 21 seconds h 39. 09 feet ; Thence N 39 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds W 141 . 87 _`,teL to the Point of Beginning . County of Pitkin , State of Colorado _ Y -.424111 S'I`EWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY Warranty Deed TheprIatd Pamleas of Ole kr.sPPmed by the ... __ .Coloreds Neal kS1als Cowmiukn it US)-5491 THIS IS A LEGAL INSTRUMENT.IF NOT UNDERSTOOD,LEGAL,TAMOR OTHER COUNSEL SHOULD SE CONSULTED BEFORESIGNING. VACANT LAND/FARM AND RANCH CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE Seller's remedy Liquidated Damages or Specific Performance(Section 16) 92 April W 7/ CAG Mustard Seed, Ltd., ,19_ I.PARTIES AND PROPERTY. n f 'Ind/or aaviSna .Iaucbne,lx)IPUrch.wl.(' , siren lobay.ad the a'nleraiinnedJk1rt senate)'Sella I.agrees instil.on the ken and conditions M futh in this cmrraG.lhe Following dracribcd real estate Inge Comity of h .C,ibudo.mla+: . The Property described on Exhibit'A hereto as provided in the Addendum hereto it loosen a No ram,Asa. .acs,.Sipe.ne 1 • weenier with all:serest or Seiler in vacated Hreea and alley.djaam thesan,all ememeau W Whet apportaranca thereto.all improvements thereon and all attached Damn thereon.except a Stela exckded.and called the Pharr'/. ins. 2.INCIAISIONS. The patcbae Rise Melaka the w e fallowing Nl . g ' aWalbinah ldakE' ` _ pro .aysenu . t ,, ..,.windows;atormdn,Na.eimkr a„ - - • - d• any surveys, traffic studiesi engineering reports or analyses and other documents or items described in Paragraph 20.$,hereof, if any such items exist. . r id — 61)wan wow POehae puke lolnclakput fdWa'ingwatcr dehea All water and water rights associated with the Property, which shall be conveyed by quit claim deed. N/A (e)Growing Craps.\VNM1,nRclwthe mowing crops Seller and Purehnser agrecnsdlvrrs: • ,( ' except water and water rights �elat?Fr warranty The at,une.,beribd included ten"(lnclusimw)arc m he rummer w Purchaser by Seller M bill of sale. R et provided in section 10. decd or other applicable legal instmnemisl at Me riming.flee and c'karof all taus.liens and encomba The billowing attached fixtures ale eacluded true this sale: I3.INIRI:IIASK PRICE AND TEN SIR. Ore purchase licc shall he 1 Ryabk inU S.hdlan ly Purchaser as SI . follows Iro plett the applicable lama below): (a) a personal check ,nur,est rani deposit and pan paYneat,atM purchase g in lheller ( wt •prise.payable wand held by SPIIPT ... , _ _ (b)Cash at Closing. $$e.–Addeta duns—to be paid by Purchaser at cluing in cars.electronic transfer funds.certified check.savings and loan teller's check.or caatriai ick. -- t pdn(elimer $ ,y Pn,T1.,s..d+ ' - gat'^^kw.,.'fLb b....dl l,.«....lba.0.4.2.4,.h.l / eat aninsaldy$ per The new loan to lYrtW cl shall be ncila(v l interest rat toe pry Purchases kndcr. including principal anlimaeslMmexcecJ ' %per animas. be , Id try a deposit of of the esimaied aerial real estate taxes.properly imu„ ' lions,and mortgage insurance premium. If the loan is an djuslahle interest rale or graduated payment ban,the I ynams and rale initially shall not exceed the brims set for th above. %d the total loan amount l.nndiacvatpdNS,if any,shall bapawlokalaetcbsingnd ' 'cued —. The limo.2.ee.) sendisconm pints , • timidly end the balance.if any.shall be paid by PmebaaraNllbt a n origination fee pal to exceed %tithe loan mourn and Purchase slo n cans.Carl of any appraisal for loan u to be obtained after thh dale shall be paid by . (..-_^� $ per including principal.Interco presently at Pee annum,anam,ad including escrow ter the followings indicated: 0 real was pun. ❑papery instils= . • m nangageinaunns premium. and .Purchaser area so pay•loan transfer fee not to exceed .Al the ti... „ mpeion,the new imam rate shall not ease per annum and the few payment shall not tweed plus escrow.if say. Sell ❑shall ❑shall not .. an liability m uidkaa.Ifapdkabk,eompliante with to requirements forrelease Ism hiabiliy shall Ix evidenced. don's • ng d appmpus lass from knda Cal payable b release of liability Wall be paid by (e)Seller ar Private Thlyd•Parly Flanking. S - by Purchaser Inman a promissory note pyable,a SPllrr sup note and Awed nF rarest forms prepared by Seller and reasonably ncreornhle rev ur[d'IaseM ( , , C amp 55110 p Ifj See Addendum for orovisi non regarding the terms nF Seller Fingnviug . IrrlaBng principal and iaaat at to sae Of A pains.Payments shall emnmen e and shall be deem the day of each succeeding If not lamer paid.the balance of principal and woad Sag shall be die and payable after closing.Payments 0 shall ❑than n be rased by dwimaledd anal sal caste law.and ❑ all ❑shall not be loomed by of wimsled areal property iraaas pemirn. The Si shall also contain the following am as indicated:If any paymsere is n received within_calendar• seta is due date.a late charged %of such payment shall be due.kraal on lender dsssswmes at the dad of trust shall be % Per arm.Ikrak interest rack shall be %pa annum. Punhsa wet prepay]w ihou a penally p I 4.FINANCING CONDITIONS ANDOBLIGATIONS. (a)Lan Applkatb(al. If Purchaser' •pay allcepaof the pashas pike uset 1 forth in section 3 by obtaining a new ken or if an easpiag lam is not so be dead r deaeg, [required by slob lender.Jell mkt wriest application within_calendar days from acceptance Edda evmrel.Purchaser shall... .-a with Seller and rain re Main ken approval. 1 .diligently and handy pursue same in good faith.awns all docum see ad Smith all lnkrnuf, std dhwlem squired by the lake ad.subject b 1 section 3.timely pry the cos of obtaining such bier hada comae. I' (b)Lana Approval. IfPurchver is topay all apart of purchase lake byobesini .a new baslspslfd In main 3,Ihscomracl iscondiiwul upon kdalapprwdd the new loon ma before .19_.If nab approval by saildre,this moans(shape ! Iwmaal.If the Ion is b append.but suchpaabareha anal* ' - •as soaked in section 3(Good Fugal.Oshmeddring.ckmng I� Jail be encoded one lime for =knitwear(not lo acted(5)f I.If surlicierit fads are not then imitable,lids contract shall terminate. (e)Waling-Lao Review. If an among W is atop to be closing,Sella shall provide copies of the S.documents(including mole. deed of mar.nodirkaeme)to Foshan within Ca. - days from acceptance of his Contact.This canal s condiemal ups Per- chases review and swami tithe provisions d seek low dam .heehasrcasena lathe provisional suck bat donning*if no nines objection is received by Sella or Using Company hum Palos w' a_calrnkr days flan Purchawl receipt of suck dsumera.If the kola's j• 1 approval cis naming(the Properly is naked.this scodiloal upon Purchasers obtaining urbappgval without change in Os tarns((such ken.sag as s firth in satin 3.lfIsrael .• • is nor obtained ma before .19 .this meths than be ansinrda arkdas.If Set• abbe released homisbisy ads such awing loan and Purchases don nee drain such compliance I as st forth in swim 3.this maraca may. renamed at Sellerl apnea. (diAssumption Balance. If Pus -is so pay all or parted the purchase ghee by assuming Maiming ban and if the KIWI principal balanced ' the misting bat as the dale of dmin, less than to anus in section 3 by more than - 1 t. then Purchaser may!cinema this mesa(effective upon receipt• kr or Listing Company of PUShaserl written slake of termination. (e)Credit lnbmallon. If Purchaser is topy all span of the purchase price by eseculing•lamiaory nos in honor Selkrew ifanexisting ken is not to be;e sd n c 'ng,this comas is coalitional upon Selkrl approval d Purchaal financial ability and creditworthiness.which approval 11 shall be at Segal b and absolutediscretb.la such nom(1)Purchaser shall supply b Seller on or before I• 19 rchasees expense.information and Mamas concerning Purchasers Financial,emplormeoa said credit mditim:(2)Purchaser coma that 'Ikr num verify Purchases financial Jiliy and cmlewnhines;(3lary such information and documents received by ScllershaII he ink) by Sella's confidence.and not released to others well to protect Sellal irmnt in this Imuactioa:(4)if Seller does not provide warren spice of Sri disapproval to Purchaser on or before ,19 ,that Sdla waives this cadiion.If Seller dues 5.GOOD FUNDS. All payments required at closing shall be mak in funds which comply wih all applicable Colorado awe ! 6.NOT ASSIGNABLE. This contract shall as be assignable by Purchaser without Seller%prim writer eases.L / 1.snits coral shall inure to the benefit of and be binding span the heirs,personal relaesmalites,successors ad aligns of parties. 7.EVIDENCEOF TITLE. Sella shall finish to Purchases Seller's expense,shwa current commitment for Emmet peek insurance policy in an amount equal to the purchase piconwasleikeinolmilowneolsermeettantle certified to acuries le or herons a prnoi dad in A rid e1 s'tialr Jirpyit�e 19 .Ifa title insurance oommimentsfnvaishell.P.,d � rSdla W�opes mrtrvmem(a abstracts dinurvnewl listed in the schedule of exceptions(Exception in the tilt mammas commensal also be furnished to Purchase M Seller's opens.This requirement shale pertain only to instruments shown of mead is the office of villa clerk and reorder d'de deugnaled county or co=Mies.The title insurance conmitmenr.together whh anycopies or abstracts of iwrvmers furnished pursuant 10 this scion 7.oomliule the pipe documents(Tale Documents). itheelatinneveMmeeehowaiehothloirsomosanonsiranst.If Seller furnishes a tilt insurance commitment.Seller will have the title insurance policy �.. delivered to Purchaser u soon as practicable da closing and pay the premium a closing. S.TITLE. (a)Title Review,Purchaser shall hate the right to inspect the Title Documents or abstract.Written nice by Purchaser of unnerclvntrlsiliy of tile or of any other umaisfhtory pile tension shwa by the Tale Docuners a abstract shall be signed by or on behalf of I! Purchaser and given to Seller or Listing Company as or Whet _calendar days after Pmhascrl receipt of Tale DocumeMS ant absiaxt or within live(3)calendar days alter receipt by Purchaser of any The Document)a edpmmen(s)adding new Exception(s)to the title mmmhmeM • together with a copy of to Tele Document adding new Escepiugs)to ink.l f Seller or Luting Company does not naive Purchaser's notice by the dale(s) 1 specified above,Purchaser shall be deemed to have sectored the condition of tide u disclosed by the Tele Documents as satisfactory. **See Addendum -.. .._ . _ . _. (h)Mellen Not Skews by the Peek Rands. Seller Pull deliver to Purdue on a before the dale a forth In soaks 7,um copies of all leans)asel servey(s)in Sellek pwevion pertaining b the Property and shall dirtiest wretches.all easements.lima odor ride mama shown ' by to peak records of which Sclkr hassaknowkdpe.Purchase Yell bavethe right bimport the ProertybdNamine if any third pany(s)ap riga In the Prolerty not shown Pike publ k moms(sock as an unscarded eaaanl.umeeaded lam.or Wonders line discsepay).Wm i In noticed stay waldmtaycaNkiwls)diademd by felkramvokd by such inspection shall be signed by es behalf of Pe nnmrand gins so SaiaaliWog Company ors or before as orovi dad in Addpndsfa9_.If Sala or Listing Compete does not mein Paclustrl notice by said date,Purchaser shall be deemed to have mend lisle subject to such rights,If any.of INN parties of MOM Purchae has actual knowledge. (c)Rlghtoam. If Seller aListing Cnnpnyreoaves notiaduaechaa.Nlky of tidier any otrumalkkntay lkleaotlhkgpa provided In mboectbn(a)or(b)above.Seller shall use reasonable effort to correct said nebfmiery tide endings)prior to the dm debsing.If Sella lalb le carts said sesathfactay tick aWiiond on or before the date ei&riot,this mmr.a shall dm emirate.subject to stair 17:provided,bowevw. Purchase may.by written notice received by Seller et listing Company on or befns codes,waive objection to said unsmisfackry title tan Monk. ore rov Gee in..A� endi, 9.DATE OF CLOSING. The amdcbing shall be Tannery t4 .19�1,a'r Pg _ d. The Mew and place dcbdng shed be as designaled by Parrhanor IL TRANSFER OF TITLE. Subject to order or payment an doing a'squir d heels and consonance by Purchaser with due other lens and provisions heed,Seer shall table and deliver a Indeed sufficient Rpnorn1 Y itl aPivcrrt¢ Anr 6iaemytnk the Property free and elardall am emcee the game to b the year of closing.and amp as prow eG PTA S.* fm ad dot or on liens for meal imprtnemeetsinstalkd as of the due of Pmhaek signature hecn.Maher u edam;amp diuriuke utility asemusa.including nee TV;except doe mean refkaed by the i The Donne**accepted by Purchase in acceedaace with subsection N.):es to dam rights,If any,tithid parties in the Property not showy by is public Beads In accordance with submtke Mb);and sabred to building ad tang regulation. II.MYMENI OF ENCUMBRANCES. Any eodemmengairtd lobe paid shall be paid Mabelaa the tme deamam fondle pecan of this uaeaion or Awn any ma Man. Ii.CLOSING COSTS,DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES. Pekin W Selo sal pay their respective closing cons et closing,acne as otherwise provided been.Peens=.d Seller shall sip and ankle all ensarasy or required documents at or bekne cbing.fen for real estate chr�a tlkteemsgvainseh}Il a emcmlf and shall be paid M doing by • one half by Purchaser and U.PROBATIONS.AAS General lees fa W:year d closing.bred on the most neat levy and emon Dent memm,rtes.water and sewer dmvge..owmri model*.dun.end istaal au contimiog bop).If any,ad ti shall be prorated Iodate of elmisg. • Any sales.use and trade the that may wave because dthis Inmate shall be paid by °ur^k-vr^^ N.POSSESSION. Mansion of the Property shall be delisted to Purchase as blbwe upon delivery of deed ' nd subject to provisions of Addendum. subject to to following kase(s)or knancy(s): None. I ,i— alk--- If Sella,afar closing.fails Ic on is date herds specified.Seller sal be subject to eviction and shall be additionally liable to I I Purchase far pymera of 5 pm day from the dale sinned pmmb ail pnmie n is delivers. IS.CONDITION OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. The Property as lwdaslom del be conveyed In their part condition,ordinary I I war and err emceed.In the event the Property dull be damaged by the or other casuaby pub to rime of cbing,:_.__�.__c� rea.L__ is r • v• .....4-, , Seller shall be obligated to epic W seta Wrote the nth elcioing.In to eves such damage is ore repired 1: wild said time .f' ' ' ' .this arms ember semdad a We option d Purchaser.Slaw Purchaser era:to carry a this mama despite such damag.Pmhae tall he milled b credit for all the insurance puce ds resulting fm such damage to the Propery and Innsba,a weeding,however,the total padre prim.Should any Inclusions)or evialq fail or be damaged between the date of this ware and the dm d closing or the date of possession,whichever shall be slier.Nor Seller shall be liable for the repair a replacement of such Inekoien(s) a snkdsl wdh•sail of similar silt.age end quality,or an equivalent credit less any insane proceeds received by Purchaser covering such i repairer replmnnm.The risk of lea fa any damage to growing crops,by fire or other casually,dull Interne by deputy ailed to the growing crops, •if any,as pined in section 2 and such puny shall be trend to such i.,ssnm proceeds or benefits for the growing sops,if any. M.TIME OF ESSENCE/REMEDIES. Tim is of the eawe heed.If say note or check received as earnest money hereunder or any alha • payment don hesemnlcr is not paid.hoaxed or Wderd when due,or if any ale obligation heremla is not performed or waived as herein prvvkkd. I dote ads be the had Waving emdiw: il (a)IP PURCHASER IS IN DEFAULT: Igrvrr\..r,r SP Tm5a5fghh1N_ _ . .- .. . - . 10 Firm w cllnc unarm nAL mane) T 019 S erilk2..n...,.,.... ! . (2)Llgsideled Damages. . All metres and things of value received hammier shall be forfeited by Pe chaser retained on behalf of Sella and ahpnio shall keafler be dead ha all obiiemen hereunder.It is agreed Ire such payment and things of Moe ale LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and(east as I provided in subsection(e))are SEU RS SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY For Purchaserk failure to performdm obligations of this coerm.Seller apedy w aives the remedies of specific penance and additional damages. (b)IF SELLER IS IN DEFAULT: Purchaser may elect no teat this comma as cancelled.in which case all payments and things done received hereunder shall be marred and Purchaser may recover such damages as may be proper,a Purchaser may elect to mg this cams as being in(all force and effect an Purchaser shall have the right to specific performance oranges.or both. (e)COSTS AND EXPENSES. Anything to the contrary Mein notwithstanding,in sheerer day klguion a abandonment of this contract the court sttallswath to the prevailing parry all reasonable cast and apense.Incbdagatleenry fm. - IT.EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE. Notwithstanding lay.emiaion of thle cars.Purchaser sad Seller agree that.in the eves of any contemn)regarding the earnest homy and triennial vale had by booker*relating agent,unka mutual waters inaratkn are received by the hokler ' of the earnest hoary and things of value,bran or closing age shall not be required to lake any sec la may was any proceeding.or at bmkakor closing ages option end sole discretion,may imerplead all parties and deposit any moneys or thing dvab is a oral Stemmer"(jurisdletb and shall meow tan cats and reasonable attorney fm. lg.INSPECTION. Purchaser Of any designee.shun haw die right to hueinspeetimlal of the physical condition of the l'mpeity and Richwine.. at Purchaser's expense. If writ enmt)ee uf a y unytisfactory condition.signed by Purchaser.is not received by Seller to Listing Company on orbehue as proviuc 1R AU oenUUm .19 .live physical condition dthe Pluperty and inclusiuu dull be deemed to he satisfactory to lurchascr.If written notice of any uaaatefcoy condition.signed by Purchaser.is given to Seller n Listing ComlwaY as set forth above in this section.pod if Purchaser and Seller have not reached a written agreement in settlement thereof on or before as provided in Ad Uen um .ibise wecs shall then lermitwe.subject msection O.Purchaser is responsible and shall pay he any damage which occurs to the I'mpeey and Inclusions as a rewK of such inspeerite. and as is .no Riming Company I represent Seller.The Listing Comm"owes moo of true.loyalty and coolidenr to Set le ' hilt the Listing Company , ity to(Teat Puohawr Iau.csiiy.the Listing Company is Sellvt ages and ix acting to behalf t awl'me Purchaer. BY SIGNING BELOW.I' ' • ER ACKNOWLEDGES PRIOR TIMELY NOTICE BY LISTING OR SEI. i . I'ANY rum LISTING COMPANY IS SELLERS AGENT. The selling Nuke. and is seta nano(Selling Company npresen: C HE IND(IN . -CT ION(bl IS CHECKED,SELLING COMPANY REPRESENTS PURCHASER ONLY.AS SET FORTH IN •• -. PION 161. IF THE BOX IN SUBSECTION(b)IS NOT CHECKED.SELUNO COMPANY REI'RESFNTSS- - a LY.AS - as II IN SUBSECTION(all (a)Mkt-. The Selling Company owes d•' r Iron.loyalty and confidence to Sella• While the Selling Company has a duty to treat Purchases honestly.the Selling Coenpan ' rk agar and is acting on behalf of Sala and me Pure t- ) SIGNING BELOW.PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES PRIOR •• - a K:L'UY SELLING CCMPANY THATSL'LUNO COMPANY IS SUL " - • ENT. ❑ (b) floe bas Is checked:The Selling Company eta finks of Iron.loyalty and emit.to Purchaser on the Selling Cane a duty to treat Selkrhmally.the Selling Canpmy is ening on behalf of Purchaser and not Sella.SEDER AND LISTING .a .Y . __.. • oraC CIMICnmlt stint t to raR DnaeSTIGEr.t. 20.ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of the Addendum attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 21.RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL COUNSEL By signing this document.Purchaser and Seller aowledge that the Selling Company or the Listing Company has recommended Mat Purchases and Saks obtain the advice of their own kph counsel regarding examination of tick and the outran. 22.TERMINATION. In the event this nom is terminated.all payment and things of value mjcivd hereunder shall he returned and the parties shall be elka+lof all obligations hereunder.whjal to amour It pis.—J.. e.' C_✓g/ 23.NOTICE.OF ACCEITA CEICOU TERMItTS. If dots portal is accepted feller in writing and rin's noire d such acceptance o n behove AI" `/ tp e7 ,19 .PIsistovnen dallbnrnneaconurnes letwnn Seller and Purchaser. A copy oilS document may be a vied le elm party sepaoely.and whatech party has executed a Copy thereof.such miles taken together shall be deemed to he a full and complete morel hetwsem the parties. C&G MUSTARD, V, LTD/ n 1 Vdf2 Jl .F*i r C .mow rib-w, Presi enC I ^.eaa'^ °" Purtlusa'l&wmu 300 E. Ilyman, Suite E, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ro la: ILErii1)WI SELLER AND LISTING COMIMNYI 24.ACCEPTANCE/COMMISSION. r caps the show proposal this day of ,19 92 .,. r ' ..d., .. . . _w . .. t .. .....• aa..ca.. S ■• yhiw.d.Wownewtnd EALISAllr • 'OL ES, IN&DtitPORATED / u By: p1rc 4/2//I/,J. uhl* liar ey a Baldwin sale Oat Selkr'a A&Wreas • The un kneed Selling Company acknowledges receipt of the earnest nosey deposit specified in moon d and both Selling Company and Listing Company coal inn the respective agency disclosure set forth in semen l9. Sting Caaany ** Seller Ily: mensal Om Address Listing Company Ily: is—_SI Ilse Address List of Adjacent Landowners ■ Jana/t of Contract STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HUMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303)925-3577 December 23, 1991 Stephens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Surrounding property owners search of Harley Baldwin Associates, Inc. described on the enclosed Exhibit "A" Sirs: A search of the records of this office and those of the Assessor and Treasures Office of Pitkin County, Colorado reveals the owners of property surrounding the above described on the attached Exhibit "B" Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. , neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligations or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Sincerely, Hazel I. Herwick Title Examiner Enclosures SCHEDULE A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ORDER NO: 00018844 EXHIBIT "A " PARCEL A: A tract of land lying in that part of the Riverside Addition, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of Vick Avenue in said Riverside Addition whence Corner No. 5 of the Riverside Placer, U.S.M.S. No. 3905 AM, being also Corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, a U.S. Brass Cap, bears N 50 degrees 41 minutes 30 seconds W 776. 43 feet; and whence Corner No. 8 of said Riverside Placer, being also Corner No. 11 of said Tract B, a U.S. Brass Cap, bears N 85 degrees 08 minutes 34 seconds W 552. 99 feet; Thence S 89 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds W 268.89 feet along the North line of Vick Avenue to a 4 X 4 wood post on the centerline of Park Avenue in said Riverside Addition; Thence N 00 degrees 15 minutes 52 seconds W 325. 02 feet along said centerline; Thence departing from said centerline N 89 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds E 24. 99 feet to a re-bar and cap stamped L.S. 9018 on the East line of said Park Avenue; Thence N 00 degrees 15 minutes 52 seconds W 66. 97 feet along said East line to the intersection with the East right-of-way line of the former Denver and Rio Grande Railroad; Thence along said right-of-way line 103. 39 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 945.25 feet and whose chord bears N 46 degrees 16 minutes 47 seconds E 103.34 feet to the intersection with the South right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway No. 82; Thence along said right-of-way line 217. 52 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 1407.50 feet and whose chord bears S 55 degrees 02 minutes 39 seconds E 217.30 feet; Thence along said right-of-way line S 50 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds E 48. 93 feet to the intersection with the Northwesterly boundary of land described in deed to Balke recorded in Book 440 at Page 627 of the Pitkin County records; Thence along said boundary the following courses and distances: S 68 degrees 24 minutes 15 seconds W 24. 92 feet; S 37 degrees 34 minutes 04 seconds W 56. 45 feet; S 78 degrees 22 minutes 05 seconds W 33. 31 feet; S 13 degrees 13 minutes 32 seconds W 40.54 feet; S 14 degrees 06 minutes 59 seconds E 122. 02 feet and S 15 degrees 41 minutes 00 seconds E 91 . 89 feet to the intersection with said North line of Vick Avenue, the Point of Beginning. Continued on next page SCHEDULE A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONTINUED ORDER NO. 00018844 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONTINUED PARCEL B: A tract of land lying in that part of the Riverside Addition, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Colorado State Highway No. 82 whence Corner No. 5 of the Riverside Placer U.S.M.S. No. 3905 AM, being also Corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, a U.S. Brass Cap, bears N 71 degrees 23 minutes 03 seconds W 752.19 feet; Thence 159.20 feet along said right-of-way line along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 357. 00 feet and whose chord bears S 37 degrees 39 minutes 30 seconds E 157.88 feet; Thence S 06 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds E 26.17 feet along said right-of-way line; Thence departing from said right-of-way line 39.12 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 260. 00 feet and whose chord bears N 30 degrees 02 minutes 21 seconds W 39. 09 feet; Thence N 34 degrees 21 minutes 00 seconds W 141 . 87 feet to the Point of Beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado EXHIBIT "B" Terry M. and Molly Swanton Helen Ann Klanderud Box 1403 Box 1558 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Lizabeth Kerr Duson Music Associates of Aspen, Inc. 9030 Greenville Ave. 600 East Hopkins Dallas, TX 75243 Aspen, CO 81612 Jay D. Lussan Richard and Joan Osur Rt. 1, Box 199B 17 Tobey Brook Aldie, VA 22001 Pittsford, NY 14534 Fowler P. Stone, III Judith G. Jones 611 Fred Ln 1230 Riverside Drive Aspen, Co 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Russell Trust of 1980 U.D. T. Magillicutty Corporation Box 327 1280 Riverside Drive Provo, UT 84603 Aspen, CO 81611 Cherie G. Oates Dorothy Kelleher 1205 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 1 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Bette J. Kallstrom Robert E. Cadger, Jr. 1225 Riverside Dr. Box 4712 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Elliott Robinson Donald M. and Judith P. Morris 0025 Blue Bonnet Trail 4016 Picardy Aspen, CO 81611 Northbrook, IL 60062 Robert Murray Douglas G. Michalowski 439 Carnation 1240 E. Cooper Ave. Corna Del Mar, CA 92625 Aspen, CO 81611 Lorna Alta Corporation Ellen Sandler 6210 North Central Expressway 100 Midland Ave. Dallas, TX 75206 Dallas, TX 75206 Jack A. Robinson Albert W. Anderson 1589 Kirkway 1825 Crest Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013 Williston, North, MI 48013 Riverside Joint Venture Russell B. Penning C/O Ted Enloe 1201 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 655644 Aspen, CO 81611 Dallas, TX 75265 Joseph M. Samalion Karin C. Speck 540 Solado Prado Box 9912 Coral Gables, FL 33156 Aspen, CO 81612 Kent Stephens Donald L. Lee 1195 East Cooper Ave C/O Audrey M. Lee Aspen, CO 81611 450 South Riverside Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Betty A. Johnson Robert L. Orr 2414 Hidden Valley Drive #2 500 Paterson Road Grand Junction, CO 81503 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Terry F. Goodrich Roberta Goodrich 2249 North Burling P.O. Box 11842 Chicago, IL 60614 Aspen, CO 81611 James Crown Diana L. Bauer P.O. Box 11842 7 Oak Hill Drive Aspen, CO 81612 Newmmonte Springs, FL 32714 • James J. Costley Michael Alan and Gail M. Craig 80 Summerhill Place 1195 East Cooper Ave. Newman, GA 30263 P.O. Box 26250 Kansas City, MO 64196 Lantz Welch Crestahaus Limted Partnership City Center Square 5150 Overland Ave. P.O. Box 26250 Culver City, CA 90230 Kansas City, MO 64196 Joan Leatherbury John Prosser P.O. Box 1420 Box 2539 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 Nahum Amiran Selma Feldman P.O. Box 1114 P.O. Box 4550 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612 William P. Lucchesi Rocky Mountain Natural Gas P.O. Box 11412 113 Atlantic Ave. Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Con Sullivan Estate The Alan S. Englander Revocable T C/O Mrs. Sullivan 190 Taconic Road 12486 Viewcrest Road Greenwich, CT 06831 Studio City, CA 91604 Elyse Elliott Jeanie A. Rechard 717 Cemetary Lane Box 9296 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 Will Serve Letters BANNER MEMORANDUM TO: Affected Utility Companies, Aspen Service Are FROM: Robert E. Daniel, Banner Associates- c. I RE: TRICOR Resources Proposed Development DATE: June 18, 1992 Enclosed is a copy of the previous will serve letters that we had provided. For your information the Tricor Resources parcel is currently being submitted to the City of Aspen under the title East Cooper Affordable Housing. The parameters of the project as well as the physical boundary are consistent with previous correspondence from Banner Associates, Inc. ■ • Cit , �� en jj rPretr 130 ztAiia�r 'H ;ttai� l". treet DEC 0 3.1901 I As it: a,. �`Ont.-fp14'; 611 IL J tr )5ecember 2, 1991 Mr. Bob Daniel Aspen Project Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 605 East Main Street, Suite 6 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bob: SUBJECT: TRICOR RESOURCES — 2.35 ACRE PARCEL ASPEN, COLORADO The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable water to serve the proposed project being submitted by Tricor Resources. All design, materials and construction shall be in accordance with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The Developer shall be responsible for all Tap Fees, Water Rights Dedications, and all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. The Developer will need to approach City Council/City Manager for a waiver of the Water Mainline Extension Moratorium pursuant to Resolution 45, Series 1991, (see attached), if an extension of existing water mains is required. Please call me if you have any questions. Sin y, l Larry Ballenger, Director of Water City of Aspen, Water Department LB:11 4icor.pu * recycled paper '..` .;aspen Consolidated Sanitation Distlrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303)925-3601 FAX #(303)925-2537 Sy Kelly-Chairman Albert Bishop John J. Snyder-Tress Frank Loushin Louis Popish -Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. p t1tr f ' NOV 2 91961 4 November 27, 1991 Bob Daniel Banner Associates 605 E. Main Suite 6 Aspen CO 81611 RE: Sewer Service for TRICOR RESOURCES Dear Bob, At the present time the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient wastewater treatment plant capacity to serve the project. The applicant will be required to participate in the rehabilitation of two downstream constraints on the wastewater collection system. S' rel Thomas R. racewell Collection Systems Superintendent EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. 3799 HIGHWAY 82 P. O. DRAWER 2150 (303) 945-5491 FAX:945.4081 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO 81602 r !U1 I 1.2..li - tl � November 26, 1991 , £ --- Nov 2 9 so I I M > �w......�...���r s `' - .. C , ab"'r Mr. Bob Daniel ' ,ATM % ii-40 � ;.�^ _ Banner Associates,°„Inc " � ` P ,C - 605 East Main, suite -6 t ° * . ''',„#. Aspen, Colorado8!`1..6�117'�'i ,.! ' RE: Tricor Resources Parcel, . t s �„N. - Aspen,` Colorado -.. -1a4,- --r ( ; 4, Dear Bob: - 41,,,,, -%,,, The above mentioned development is within the certificated -` x: service area of Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. has existing power , ., facilities located on or near the above mentioned project. These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to the development, subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. , Sincerely, _ :- ;t- 4 , - HOLY S,:ELE C i. -•CIATION, ;INC. Jeffre IA. Fra e, Staking Engineer JAF:rjm <r / '1v--:' l ROCKY {1 1 I �J( { �i Rocky Mountain Natural Gas r MOUNTAIN U J A Division of K N Energy,Inc 401 27th Street NATURAL Gas DEC 0 71991 PO.Box 670 •MUM OF Glenwood Springs,CO 81602-0670 HT� (303)945-8617 December 5, 1991 Banner Association, Inc. Attn: Robert E. Daniel, Jr. , P.E. 605 East Main, Suite 6 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tricor Resources in Aspen Dear Mr. Daniel: - - This is in reply to your inquiry concerning Tricor Resources in Aspen. Please be advised that the project is within the service area of Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (RMNG) . It is RMNG's understanding that if RMNG installs any facilities to serve this development, said facilities will be installed on franchise property as governed by the franchise agreement. If some unusual circumstance arises that requires the installation of our facilities on a utility easement, the utility easement area must be accessible to the grantee for the purpose of construction, installation, maintenance, renewal, repair and operation of pipelines installed thereon; therefore, grantor shall not construct nor cause nor allow to be constructed surface structures over the easement area. Surface structures shall include, but not be limited to, fences, walls, buildings of any type, shrubs or trees. All service provided will be subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file and upon completion of contractual arrangements. We do not, however, consider this an application for natural gas service for this development. If the developer desires natural gas service, he must submit written applications for such service to the local RMNG distribution office. A decision will then be made as to whether or not natural gas service can be rendered. Very truly ��y^^ours, � / Ray aRR ��,,tch Aspen District Manager RP/sbj pc: John Wilson - Glenwood Springs U .S . West Communications P.C . Box 220 Glenwood Spgs. , Co . 81602 Date: 1I-26-91 Re: LAND DEVELOPEMENT AGREEMENT Subdv. : TRICCR RESOURCES It is the responsibility of the Developer of an approved subdivision to contact U .S . West at appropriate time intervals if the Developer desires to have U .S .West provide for telephone facilities. The following are a few general guidelines which will help with a smooth and timely flow. 1. It is the developers responsibility to provide trench in accordance with the A4 tarriff on file with the Public Utilities Commision, throughout the subdivision for placement of cable and service terminals . 2. Joint trench with power may be utilized, however, an approved telephone plan must have been agreed upon and a LDA executed prior to any telephone construction activity. 3 . A reasonable amount of time must be provided in order to insure a smooth flow. The following intervals are suggested: A. Developer contacts the U .S . West Engineer with Final Plats and agrees upon a cable distribution plan. B . Within 30 working days the U .S . West Engineer will have the subdivision design completed and submitted to our LDA staff in Denver for processing. C . Within 15 working days the LDA staff will process the proposed plan and notify the developer of up front costs . D. The Developer has 90 days to accept this agreement. -2- E. From the date the Developer agrees to the terms of the contract and notifies the LDA staff group a minimum of 10 working days are required for issuance of job prints . F . The Developer should notify the U .S .West Engineer at least 15 working days prior to opening of trench. 4. The U .S . West Engineer for this project is : Gary Gibson, and may be reached at 945-7435. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Li 4444r---) Gar e ibson Manager U .S . West Communications tIANNER CON•ULTINO \NCI a ANCNIT•CT� BANNER ASSOCIATES.INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction.Colorado S150e ISOM 243.2242 FAX 1130212434510 November 25, 1991 605 Eat Ma Suite e b0an.Colorado 61e11 13031925-5557 Mr. Mark Campbell United Artists Cable Vision 201 AABC .- Aspen, CO 81611 . • RE: TRICOR RESOURCES, 2.35 ACRE PARCEL ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Mark: Enclosed is a copy of a boundary survey for the subject parcel. At this time, my client is preparing a submission to the City of Aspen for development of this property. This development will consist of approximately 20 employee housing units and seven single • family lots. As a part of this submission, I need to provide a letter of availability from the ,.United Artists.Cable Television. As you can see,this project abuts existing development.on the east and west which have cable television service. ,.-Please provide me with.a letter of.senTice::availbility--from .United Artists Cable Vision for this project Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure RED\clk wp-doc\8251\wlsrvss Utility Service Investigation Prepared by Banner & Associates BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS S. ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. June 18, 1992 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction, Colorado 81508 1303)2032262 FAX 1303)243 3810 Mr. Tom Stevens 605 East Main.Suite 8 Aspen.Colorado 81611 The Stevens Group, Inc. 1303)9255857 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UTILITY SERVICE ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated utility service to the subject 2.35 acre parcel on State Highway 82 east of the Cooper Street Bridge. Enclosed is a brief summary of my findings regarding domestic water, sanitary sewer, electric, telephone, cable television and natural gas service to the proposed project. Also enclosed are copies of the letters I have written to the individual utility companies regarding service to this project. Should you have any additional questions or comments upon review of this information, please feel free to call. Sinc%cell"erely, ' Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Craig Glendenning; C & G Mustard Seed Ltd. RED\cjb wp-doc\8251\cprutil.svc BANNER EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UTILITY SERVICE INVESTIGATION ASPEN, COLORADO General The subject parcel is located on State Highway 82 east of the Cooper Street Bridge over the Roaring Fork River. The parcel is an undeveloped piece of property that is situated adjacent to the Crestahaus Lodge. The property is within the Aspen city limits and has service from all of the major utilities either on or adjacent to the parcel. Water Service There is an existing City of Aspen Water Department 14 inch water line located in State Highway 82 which can serve this project. This service will consist of a potable domestic water supply as well as fire protection. Additionally, there is an existing eight inch water line adjacent to the southeast corner of the property in the Riverside Drive right-of-way. Currently there is a City of Aspen moratorium in place on the extension of water mains. It will be necessary to approach the City Council/City Manager to request a waiver of this moratorium. This request should probably be a part of the submission application so that it can be reviewed in the context of this individual project. The on-site system should be constructed to the City of Aspen standards and subsequently deeded to the water department in its entirety for perpetual ownership and maintenance. Sanitary Sewer Service The proposed project is within the existing service area of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. A 10 inch sanitary sewer main exists in State Highway 82 which currently has service capacity for this project. There will need to be a manhole constructed on the main line in State Highway 82 to facilitate connection of the on-site collection system. The on-site collection system should be constructed in accordance with the ACSD standards and subsequently deeded to the District for perpetual ownership and maintenance. Natural Gas A three inch gas line exists in the south right-of-way of State Highway 82 which will provide natural gas service to this project. This line will be tapped and brought into the project for distribution to the proposed dwelling units. BANNER EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING UTILITY SERVICE INVESTIGATION ASPEN, COLORADO Electric Service There currently exists an overhead power line along the western portion of the parcel. This line will provide electric service for the proposed development. It is suggested to underground this line and place it within a utility easement in an accessible portion of the project. Telephone & Cable Television Both telephone and cable television service exist adjacent to the proposed project. Again, these services are currently from aerial lines which should be undergrounded as a part of this project. Property Access Report Prepared by Banner & Associates BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6 ARCHITECTS O (1((11 BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. June 18 1 2» 2777 Crossroads Boulevard I G Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 1303)243.2242 FAX(303)243-3810 Mr. Tom Stevens 605 East Main.Suite 6 Aspen.Colorado 81611 The Stevens Group, Inc. (303)9255857 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have investigated access to the subject parcel in conjunction with the proposed site plan. There are two proposed access points for the project, Riverside Drive and State Highway 82. Access off of State Highway 82 to the deed restricted portion of the project falls under the review and direction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Prior to the development of a project site plan and program, Banner Associates applied to the CDOT on behalf of Tricor Resources for an access permit. This permit was granted based upon some very general improvements which would be required to State Highway 82. Since the development of the site plan and project program, I have met personally with Charles Dunn of the CDOT to discuss the access permit and proposed improvements. Based upon these discussions, we are preparing a proposed access plan to address the improvements to State Highway 82. It is our feeling that based upon the project location, unit mix and traffic generation, there only needs to be deceleration lane for right turns into the project. The potential limited amount of westbound traffic on State Highway 82 which would enter this project does not warrant any type of left turn into the property. Additionally, the proximity of this project to the central Aspen core, coupled with the strong transit system of RFTA's Mountain Valley route, will drastically reduce automobile trips. Access to the free market portion of the project is proposed off of Riverside Drive. Riverside Drive is a paved asphalt roadway which is within a City right-of-way. This right- of-way abuts the southwest portion of the site near the Riverside Drive cul-de-sac. This access is much more desirable due to the elevation differences between the free market portion of the project and State Highway 82. BANNER June 18, 1992 Tom Stevens Page 2 of 2 Should you have any additional questions regarding access to the proposed project, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Robe . Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Craig Glendenning; C & G Mustard Seed Ltd. RED\cjb wp-doc\8251\cprprop.acs BANNER CONSULTING •NOINSa1Ra1 a AMCMITIECT! BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction.Colorado 81508 13001 243-224 2 FAX 17071241-3810 605 East Main.Suite 6 Aspen,CoIo,aao 81611 170019255857 December 19, 1991 Charles Dunn Colorado Department of Transportation P.O. Box 2107 Grand Junction, CO 81502 RE: D.O.T. ACCESS PERMIT NO. 391100 TRICOR RESOURCES PARCEL ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Charles: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday regarding the subject access permit. As discussed, Banner Associates will be generating a drawing reflecting a 50 foot (50') long, 12 foot(12') wide, right turn/deceleration lane into the project. This will serve as the access to the property from State Highway 82. Upon receipt of the drawing, I would ask that you amend the current permit requirements to reflect the approved plan. Again, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Tom Stevens; The Stevens Group, Inc. Craig Glendenning; Tricor Resources Michael Murray; Tricor Resources RED\clk wp-doc\8251\8251acc.let Grading/Drainage Improvements Report Prepared by Banner & Associates BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 1303)243.2242 p FAX(3031243 3810 June 18, 1992 605 East Main.Suite 6 Aspen.Colorado 81611 1303)9255857 Mr. Tom Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have made a preliminary review of the drainage improvements necessary for development of the subject parcel. The site drainage patterns currently provide for runoff from the southern portion of the site to the low portions adjacent to State Highway 82. A minimal amount of site generated runoff reaches State Highway 82. Based upon these existing conditions, it will be necessary to accommodate runoff from the developed parcel in the same historical patterns. Additional runoff will be generated by the creation of impervious surfaces for the parking areas and the buildings themselves. A comprehensive drainage plan for the deed restricted parcel will need to be generated as a part of the final submission/final plat. This plan will have to conform to the City of Aspen criteria as well as that of the Aspen Environmental Health Department. The free market parcel will need to have a drainage plan which addresses those areas improved by the developer, i.e., roadways. The individual lots should have plans which only generally address drainage patterns. As each lot is developed, it will be required to address runoff impacts within the context of the residential design. At this conceptual submittal level, some general provisions should be made for increased runoff due to the development process. These provisions should include the three dry wells as identified on your site plan for the deed restricted parcel. These dry wells will collect the runoff from the paved surfaces and the building roofs. The preferred method of collection for the paved surfaces will be through inlets and pipe. The runoff from the building roofs can be carried in swales through the landscaped areas which in turn would reach the paved surfaces. By use of vegetated swales, natural percolation into the soil can occur. It should be noted at this time that no additional storm water runoff beyond the current level can be discharged into the existing irrigation ditch on-site. Also, no additional runoff can be discharged onto adjacent properties as a result of this development. BANNER June 18, 1992 Mr. Tom Stevens Page 2 of 2 As we proceed with this project, it will be necessary to provide specific calculations, design, and drawings to address the parameters outlined in this letter. Should you have any additional questions or comments prior to that time, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Craig Glendenning; C & G Mustard Seed Ltd. RED\clk wp-doc\8251\cprdran.imp Soils Report Prepared by CTL/Thompson, Inc. BANNER CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction. Colorado 81506 3031 243 2242 FAX(3031243 3810 December 17, 1991 505 East Main Swte 6 Aspen.Colorado 81611 3031 925 5857 Mr. Tom Stevens The Stevens Group, Inc. 418 E. Cooper Ave. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: TRICOR RESOURCES PARCEL, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Tom: Pursuant to your request, I have made a preliminary review of the drainage improvements necessary for development of the subject parcel. The site drainage patterns currently provide for runoff from the southern portion of the site to the low portions adjacent to State Highway 82. A minimal amount of site generated runoff reaches State Highway 82. Based upon these existing conditions, it will be necessary to accommodate runoff from the developed parcel in the same historical patterns. Additional runoff will be generated by the creation of impervious surfaces for the parking areas and the buildings themselves. A comprehensive drainage plan for the deed restricted parcel will need to be generated as a part of the final submission/final plat. This plan will have to conform to the City of Aspen criteria as well as that of the Aspen Environmental Health Department. The free market parcel will need to have a drainage plan which addresses those areas improved by the developer, i.e., roadways. The individual lots should have plans which only generally address drainage patterns. As each lot is developed, it will be required to address runoff impacts within the context of the residential design. At this conceptual submittal level, some general provisions should be made for increased runoff due to the development process. These provisions should include the three thy wells as identified on your site plan for the deed restricted parcel. These dry wells will collect the runoff from the paved surfaces and the building roofs. The preferred method of collection for the paved surfaces will be through inlets and pipe. The runoff from the building roofs can be carried in swales through the landscaped areas which in turn would reach the paved surfaces. By use of vegetated swales, natural percolation into the soil can occur. It should be noted at this time that no additional storm water runoff beyond the current level can be discharged into the existing irrigation ditch on-site. Also, no additional runoff can be discharged onto adjacent properties as a result of this development. December 17, 1991 Tricor Resources Parcel, Drainage Improvements Page Two As we proceed with this project, it will be necessary to provide specific calculations, design, and drawings to address the parameters outlined in this letter. Should you have any additional questions or comments prior to that time, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, z o-^ _y1 . C_L�\ Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Craig Glendenning; Tricor Resources RED\clk wp-doc\8251\8251 drn.rep _13d_C44cI;4 1 CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UNNAMED PARCEL Highway 82 PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Mr. Craig Glendenning P.O. Box 11596 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Job No. 18360 December 19, 1991 234 CENTER DRIVE • GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO/316O1 • (3031945.2809 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . SITE GEOLOGY 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . • • . „ . 3 SITE GRADING . . . . . 4 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FIGURE 1 - LOCATIONS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 • SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS FIGURES 3 AND 4 • GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS -`-NI E(:cTL-1--=mF50n IrC. , ._-L°-42 -.Ji Fin. ; l-r'=of°T'd.- - CCITT : T; SCOPE This report presents the results of our preliminary geologic and 703technlcal investigation for an unnamed property adjacent to State Highway 82 in Pi-'n County, Colorado. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface cuNndltions to develop opinions about suitability of the site for the planned residential davel;prhent We present preliminary opinions of foundation types and slab-on-grade construction. The report discusses general geologic and subsurface conditions and presents our recommendations for site development. • The criteria presented In this report were developed considering conditions disclosed by widely spaced test pits, results of laboratory tests and ocrr experience. Recommendations were developed based on our understanding of the planned construction and site development. Design level geotechn cal investigations should be performed to provide individual design criteria for foundations for individual structures. SITE CONDMONS The property is adjacent to Highway 82 about cne-hsl' m,le southeast of downtown Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado. The site is located in a narrow steep sided part of the Roaring Fork Valley. The topography edlacsnt to the site ,Icludes the steep elopes of Smuggler Mountain to the east, Red Mountain to the north and Bell Mountain to the south. Comparatively gentle grades of the valley floor were to the west towards Aspen. The site is dlvidad Into north and socith parts by the Alverside Ditch. North of the ditch is a large depression (see Figure 1) remnant from a gravel pit operation. Based on visual observations and topographic mapping the pit slopes of the sides are 25 to 4' :'. . q . percent. The excavation was as deep as 20 feet. Vegetation or the norm portion of the site was relatively sparse native grasses and weeds with some aspen trees adjacent to Highway 82 and the property's east boundary. The north part of the site had an undulating ground surface with Grades estimated at 5 to 35 percent. Vegetation was very dense native grasses, weeds, bushes, flowers and small aspen trees. No remnants of past site usage other than the gravel pit excavation were observed and our understanding of the past usage is based on published mapping only. SITE GEOLOGY We evaluated site geology by reviewing portions of available geologic maps. We used the following maps; 1) "Geologic Map of the Aspen Quaorangle, Pitkin County, Co;orado" (Bruce Bryant USGS 1971); 2) "Map Showing Types of Bedrock and Surtlelal Deposits in the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado' (Bruce Bryant USGS 972), 3) 'Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential Geologic Hazard:; In the Aspen (1uadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado' (Bruce Bryant USGS 1972): a) "Map Showing Relative Ease of Excavation in the Aspen Cue rengle, Pitkin County, Colorado" (Bruce Bryant USES 1972); 5) 'Map Showing Groundwater Potential in the Aspen Cuairangle, Pitkin County, Colorado" (Bruce Bryant USGS 1972). Mapping Indicates the site is underlain by glacial deposits from tr a Pleistocene period. Mapping described the deposit as poorly Boned moraine deposits ranging from slit to boulders. Our borings generally confirmed the mapped soils. Potential geologic hazards from mapping indicates properties to the northwest and southeast are flood 2 plains which are subject to flooding from the Roaring Fork River, We suggest a record search be performed to verify flooding has not occurred on the subject site. Our test pits were not deep enough to find bedrock below the surficlal soils. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand the site will be subdivided Into single family lots to the south and and for multi-family residential structures to the north. We have assumed the single and multi-family structures will be two to three stories tall and wood framed. The single family structures may have basements. It Is more likely than not the multi-family structures will be constructed without basements but with crawl spaces. Foundation loads on the order of 2000 to 2500 pounds per lineal foot along exterior walls and 50 to 100 kips on the Interior columns were anticipated. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions were investigated by excavating three (3) test pits at the locations shown on Figure 1 . Test pits were excavated using a backhoe. Our representative told the client the area in which we wanted an excavation and the client directed the backhoe to or near the location. Test pit excavation and sampling was directed by our representative. We planned to excavate five (5) test pits, however, access was not provided to the northern portion of the site and therefore excavations were not made north of the Riverside Ditch, 3 We found approximately 6 inches of -topsoil' at our TP-1 and TP-2 locations and 2 feet of manmade fill at our TP-3 location. The surticlal 'topsoil and fill were underlain by sandy gravels with cobbles and boulders to 3 feet in diameter to the bottom of the excavations, No free groundwater was found the day of excavation. Laboratory testing to confirm field classification of the soils were performed. Gradation analyses determined 47 to 66 percent gravel and 6 and 9 percent silt and clays (passing No. 200 Sieve). Liquid limits ranged from 29 to 32 percent and plastic indices from non plastic to 7 percent. SITE GRADING Site grading will Include filling the remnant gravel pit at the north part of the site and may involve minimal cuts and fills (5 feet or less) to level building areas and construct access roads and driveways to the south of the Riverside Ditch. We anticipate cut and fill quantities will nearly balance on the southern portion of the site. A large quantity of import fill will be required to fill the remnant gravel pit to grade, The ground beneath fill should be stripped of any organic matter and topsoil prior to placing fill On-site soils free of oversize rocks and organic matter or deleterious materials can be used as fill. Fill should have 100 percent passing the 3-inch screen and contain less than 50 percent silt and clay size particles (passing the No. 200 sieve). The fill should be well graded and non-expansive. Fill below buildings, roads or drives should be placed in loose lifts of not more than 8 Inches, moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture condition and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density obtained from a modified Proctor density test (ASTM 0 1557). Fill should be compacted with heavy construction compaction equipment. We recommend a large 4 vibrating smooth drum roller. We should test material from probable barrow sources prior to the owner purchasing or importing the material to the site. Utilities will need to be constructed beneath roads, We recommend trench backfill consist of materials slmllar to those recommended for overlot fill operations. Trench backfill should be placed In loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of modified Proctor dry density. FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS In our opinion the site can be developed for single family and multi-family residential structures. Our major concerns are existing fill at the site and the 1111 placement under the multi-family structures within the bounds of the remnant gravel pit. Compacted fills can Consolidate under its own weight between one-half percent and one percent of the thickness of the fill even atter being densely compacted. The longer the time period between fill placement and foundation construction the less the fill consolidation will affect structures built thereon This must be considered during development planning to reduce the risk of damage to new structures from foundation settlement. No new constructon. 0- fill should be placed on existing fill at this site. All existing fill should be removed and replaced as recommended In the "Site Grading" section of this report. It appears the existing fill can be reused to construct new fill. Good fill placement procedures is Important to the performance of buildings and roads above and all fill placement should be observed and tested by a representative of our firm during placement. We anticipate spread footing type foundations supported by the natural granular 5 soils or densely compacted fill constructed of granular soils will provide satisfactory performance. Allowable bearing pressures n the range of 3000 to 5000 psi are anticipated. in our opinion slab-on-grade floors can be used on the site it precautions to avoid significant moisture increases to the soils supporting the slabs are followed. Below grade wads will need to be designed to resist lateral earth pressures. We suggest the owner assume a lateral earth pressure value of between 35 and 50 pcf for preliminary • calculations. SURFACE DRAINAGE Performance of foundations and concrete flatwork is influenced by the moisture existing in the subgrade Solis. We recommend that areas within 10 feet of structures not be landscaped. if landscaped areas are next to structures we recommend native vegetation that requires minimal irrigation. Overall surface drainage should be designed to provide rapid runoff of surface water away from the proposed residences. LIMITATIONS This report is preliminary and not Intended for design purposes. Our test pits were widely spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface. Variations in subsurface conditions will be found. Site specific investigations should be performed for Individual lots and structures. Our report was based on the conditions disclosed by exploratory test pits. results of laboratory testing, engineering analyses and our experience. We should be advised 6 if our understanding of the site development differs from what the owner is planning to permit us to re-evaluate our conclusions, we su9gest till not be placed at this site without or being informed to determine if the fill would be appropriate to support new construction. This investigation was conducted In a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. If we can be of further service or if you have questions regarding this report, please call. CTLITHOMPSON, INC. John Machling, P.E, Branch Manager Reviewed by: Frank J. Holliday, P.E. Principal Engineer JM:FJH:gs (5 copies sent) 7 -_, - ASPEN MOPKIN3 PARK AVE. AVE, w MIDLAND AVL COOPBR AVL m/ SITE c3KIMMiN3 RD. RIVERSIDE 3T. ��% WEtDR.it RtVE0R106 y1./my ROAR FCq IONR R01 / ,, 1 RI ywr • /, DRr3TAL of / / t % \ \ ' LAKC RD. // / / I \ 1 / /1 , LAKE ' EASTWOOD RD. / / / . r , / // ,/� ,// /! / ' '� VICINITY MAP / / ,/ /,• // / / / //1 I VICINITY SCALE / / //I 1 f / / / / / // // , ill \.^ _ \ 1 I // // / . //// //1/ /I` I '1111/°� \ I I `I I / / / / I I o / 1 1111 \ f / II 1 / / / / 11 I 1 II 1 \ \ • i l 1 / / / IR 1 I 11 � 1 FILL C / , \ \ \ \ \\ DUMP / \ N. I\ I i/// / I \ \ \ \\ AREA / \ 1 \ \ \ /' iqR: . ,:r::.. \ U I I \ \ \ 1 to III J`'`•+Y:;:', 4Y,�q••• \ ' \ I Iq 1 1 1 eiiii.:".+/.:err 0}!1•r:/,V/i ` I I l 1 1 11 'iyri4.rr )Ay�:r'•ti: irrirr%:i':i:•:'rr::v:.:.: . 1 f l :1•'�i'y }�r;�`'f.`n`'iye'4'iy.`;w ir':r: . . . . . . i � \ c / / / I I / I 1 r;} c':,I4:, i:'i,•ii;44 ':kirriyi'?:"'A ily T7);. 1 0 1 I 1 I 1 1 I l )a:1§:i:;"'::i? :::::::j�:� ::::: :,1i` ::+ %:``;'r, - ' ■ \\ 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 '} :t es,;f w ,' !Y 17 t; ` *.` . 1 \ \ III I I ;;f, !�i'•; /rr : rr rrr rr; +r . r ,r \j j 1 III 1 1 1 1 ' '4� rr:;';: .:: r , r i r (�,), ... `. 1 I1IIIII 4 4r yRr ti �tc 1 I I 1/ I j i r r '/a llir.a 1.4. ►++ .J 1.'." i 1 / /! Ill ti':';:::....r......,::;://../... ., f•1 / l I / I1 I r:';riti k) GRAVEL :`:i ;:;;;: i...." , ■ , LEGEND: I 11 1/ 1 111 I :•;'av:k;i: `' P..,T'': ?);::'.:; ;)a #/i / ! ::::;;;:;.:::,::::,:::::';.::::::::,M:44.,! :ti:! 3 INDICATES EXPLORATORY III l l I .Fiti ! : :; :�9:•:�n:•: ::; i:•;•} , ;j Q/ ` ;r: : TEST PIT 11t1 H`h P APPROXIMATE BOUNDS \ \\\1 tP'L'..'.....•....•`,.w . yr . // `7 0 OF FORMER GRAVEL 111 ! , ..:://.,r. / � PIT OPERATION - � 1 yw 'r v + r \ 0 \ \ %-:•-•N \ SIPHON EXPLORATORY TESL' PITS '£fl? E'r': :-L- _iroF5:r I . -._. -_r-=' ___r__ r SCALE: I" • 40' PARK AVENUE �° I r 1 / 1 I 1 / / �0° V I / L / / , 1 ' _ — — �_ - _- -a • 1 1 ^I / / / I J / / / / / / / 1 / . : J I / i / / _� • . ' - r '`I I / I / / // // / ' I / / ' (' I I 1/ / // // // � / / ( I / / / / / / // �/ I I 1 1 I I I / / / / i 1 X /,/, - - �`S �\ I I / / / // // // // // // II II I .` 1 J I l ! / / , / / I 1 • c , - � \ � ./ , I , 1 I r I -, �� I I II ' , , I' l I : . \ \ _ . ' / / I I I / / ad / I O ' 1 1 I 1 A. I I I \ > ' % ....• ` ,� � / �'�. � 0/ /, / 1 \� `� — N. \ I II II C Ii1 5. \ ` �- to / I •• •..' .S I I I 1 , r•` N i• / \ ' I I 1 1 •, I ;; W %. \ \ . \ \ \ 1 5_ N. 4 e 1 .. _, _ _ \ \ \ \ I \ / 1 i- - \ 1 1 1 I I 1 I I ` - ` 0 l N. ' II 1 I i I I I .... • • 1 \ • / 01 , 111 I li / ` \ � ` _ eo°° - - � / r / I I I•/ I / ( '-. -; ^ ...• - / I ,Ill/ 1...: r -� kr.................................. / \ PROPERTY LINE ` II/r 1 LOCATIONS 05 .MA No. Ie.3e0 7970 "" 7970 . ■ 7965 — 7965 ;1 T ,• ► — no ::-. y WC=10.9 11, 4 .� r+i �'''' LL=30 7960 — m H — 7960 •`,, PI=7 WC=3.2 ni w j•;;. LL=32 r G LL •,. -200=9 Pl=np w -A-1 r ''1 -200w9 r p O r 1 ,,, ■ jIc 7455 -� — 7955 i; WC=8.7•r ; w LL=2 9% m `k•. PI=4 n -200=8 - ti. i —'.c•;, 7950 -- 7950 .*;y r r r 7945 ■.� 7946 LEGEND' NOTES' ® TOPSOIL, CLAY, SILTY, 1 . QUR TEST PITS WERE EXCAVATED ON ROOTS, SOFT, MOIST. DECEMBER 3, 1991 WITH A BACKHOE. BROWN (C1) 2. The ELEVATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FURNISHED BY BANNER CO Flu., AND ASSOCIATES. lir LL, SAND, SILTY, WITH "A GRAVELS. LOOSE, MOIST, BROWN (SM) 3. NC GRCI.NDWATER WAS INTERCEPTED BY TEST PITS. GRAVEL, SANDY WITH 4. LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO T1E EXPLANA- CQC SAND,AND SILTY LEN, TIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS " DENS SA MO, TILTA LCRSES, CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. OE7.ISE, MOIST, TAN tP BROWN (GP,SM) (Y 5. WC=INDICATES NATURAL MOISTURE CON LL■INDICATES LIQUID LIMTT (%) Igil SULK SAMPLE PI=INOICATES PLASTICITY INDEX (%) -200=INDICATES PERCENT PASSING THE NO. 20C ' SIEVE SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIG . 2 r JOB NO . 18 , 360