Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.1301 E Cooper Ave.A4-93
Alpine Bank s3 1.4, Aspen, CO 81611 C /o *C September 29 , 1993 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT This Letter of Credit will expire on September 28 , 1994 City of Aspen, Colorado Attention: Amy Margerum 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Letter of Credit Number 000-396 Gentlemen: We hereby establish our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor in the maximum amount of $1, 604, 473 . 00 . The purpose of this Letter of Credit is to secure the performance of the terms and conditions of Paragraphs 3 , 6, 7 a. excepting the provisions set forth in the last two sentences, 8 , 9 d. , 10 , and 11 set forth in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision) , dated July 20, 1993 , between Lacet Limited Liability, Co. , therein referred to and hereinafter referred to as the "Owner" , and the City of Aspen, Colorado, therein referred to and hereinafter referred to as the "City" , which was filed for record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado on July 21, 1993 in Book 718 at Page 477 , hereinafter referred to as the "Subdivision Improvements Agreement" . You shall promptly notify us when a default or event of default of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement occurs. Your notification shall include any notice or order required to be sent to the Owner pursuant to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Notice shall be in writing to: Alpine Bank, Aspen Attention: Louise Brainard, Vice President 600 East Hopkins Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 You are hereby authorized to draw on sight on Alpine Bank, Aspen, by draft not to exceed the amount of $1, 604, 473 . 00 commencing on September 29 , 1993 . Partial drawings are permitted. 600 East Hopkins Avenue,Suite 001 •Aspen, Colorado 81611 •(303) 920-4800•Fax(303)920-4274 City of Aspen, Colorado Letter of Credit Number 000-396 September 29, 1993 Page 2 The conditions for payment of any draft drawn against this Letter of Credit are as follows: 1 . The original Letter of Credit shall be indorsed on the reverse side with the words: "Drawn by the City of Aspen, Colorado, in the amount of $ " , then signed by the City Manager of the City of Aspen, Colorado; and 2. The draw, evidenced by the indorsement of the original Letter of Credit, shall be attached to a letter, upon the letterhead of the City, executed by the City Manager of the City, stating that "There exists a default under the terms of Paragraph of the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision) , dated September , 1993, between Lacet Limited Liability, Co. and the City of Aspen, Colorado, which was filed for record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado on July 21, 1993 in Book 718 at Page 477, entitling the City to draw upon this Letter of Credit" . The letter shall set forth the nature and extent of the default which entitles the City to draw upon this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit is not transferrable. Alpine Bank, Aspen, agrees that drafts presented and negotiated under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation and delivery of documents as specified above, if presented on or before September 28 , 1994, at 2 : 00 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time. Upon the completion of the performance of the terms and conditions of portions of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement secured by this Letter of Credit a release shall occur automatically causing a decrease in the amount of this Letter of Credit as hereinafter set forth. Upon the effective date of such release, the amount of this Letter of Credit shall be automatically reduced in the same amount of the release or, if no amount is specified, the cost identified in Table I , Schedule of Security Payments to the Subdivision Improvements Agreement identifying the improvement which has been completed and approved. Such releases shall occur as follows: City of Aspen, Colorado Letter of Credit Number 000-396 September 29, 1993 Page 3 a. Upon approval and acceptance by the Aspen City Engineer of the landscaping in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. b. Upon approval and acceptance by the district representative of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District or the representative of the Aspen City Water Department in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 7 a. of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. c. Upon approval and acceptance by a representative of the respective utility companies in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. d. Upon approval and acceptance by the Aspen City Engineer of the grading and drainage improvements in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 9 d. of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. d. Upon approval and acceptance by the Aspen City Engineer of the private road improvements in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. f. Upon approval and acceptance by the Aspen City Engineer of the Highway 82 intersection improvements in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. The City Manager shall promptly acknowledge a release and the corresponding decrease in the amount of this Letter of Credit to Alpine Bank, Aspen by completion of the attached Notice of Letter of Credit Reduction. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by Article V of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in the State of Colorado. This Letter of Credit is subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce, Publication No. 400 ( 1983 Revision) , except as otherwise expressly stated herein. • City of Aspen, Colorado Letter of Credit Number 000-396 September 29, 1993 Page 4 Any communications with respect to this Letter of Credit shall be in writing and shall be addressed to Alpine Bank, Aspen, as set forth above, to the attention of the undersigned. Sincerely, ALPINE BANK, ASPEN By: �- Louise Brainard, Vice President NOTICE OF LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION Letter of Credit Number 000-396 Alpine Bank, Aspen Attention: Louise Brainard, Vice President 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Notice is hereby given that the Letter of Credit securing the performance of the terms and conditions of Paragraphs 3, 6 , 7 a. excepting the provisions set forth in the last two sentences, 8 , 9 d. , 10, and 11 set forth in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvements Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision) , effective July 20 , 1993, between Lacet Limited Liability, Co. and the City of Aspen, Colorado, which was filed for record in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado on July 21, 1993 in Book 718 at Page 477, has been reduced by the amount of $ , pursuant to the attached release. Dated on the day of , 199 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: City Manager • ASPEN•PITKIN E.J. Olbright PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT Lacet Limited Liability Co. Suite 204 160 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO. 80498 July 18 , 1994 RE: Documentation of Buyers in Lacet Subdivision Dear E.J. , It looks like the Lacet Subdivision has leapt some major hurdles! Since things seem to be on an even keel now and the townhomes and :Lots are being transferred, I need to ask you to send to the Housing Office a list of the new owners. This was condition of approval number 16 of Ordinance 18 , 1993 , in an effort to track this Affordable Housing subdivision: "16 . The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. " I understand that some units are planning to close next week, so it would make sense to make the list current through July 31 . I would also appreciate it if you would forward a copy to me so that I may keep the Planning file up to date. Thanks very much. Sinc rely, Kim Johnson Planner • cc: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office 130 S06'TH GALENA STREET • ASPEN..COLOR EGG 81611 • P00 303.920.5090 • FAv 303.9205197 Ec00..i mr raper RESOLUTION NO. 5 Series of 1994 l e A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, INTERPRETING THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT AND PLAT FOR THE LACET SUBDIVISION (F/K/A EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION), LOTS 1-7 OF THE LACET SUBDIVISION, 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 BARB'S WAY, ASPEN, COLORADO, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF. WHEREAS, By Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, the City Council of the City of Aspen approved the subdivision and rezoning of that certain real property (hereinafter referred to as "Lacet Subdivision") described in the Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision), recorded at Reception No. 359036, Book 718, Page 477 of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County ("the Subdivision Agreement") and the recorded plat therefor ("the Plat"); and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat indicate "building envelopes" on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 which were intended by City Council to create a buffer space between the Lacet Subdivision and the Riverside Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not state any intent or restrictions regarding the uses permitted in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces outside of the building envelopes; and, WHEREAS, On June 27, 1994, after written notice to owners of affected real property and published notice to the public, the City Council held a public hearing to consider whether the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat required amendment or clarification to accurately reflect the actual terms of approval granted by Ordinance No. 18; and, WHEREAS, at that Public Hearing, the City Council reviewed videotaped portions of the Public Hearing at which Ordinance No. 18 was approved, heard the testimony of affected and interested landowners, and considered written comments submitted by interested parties; and, WHEREAS, Based on the evidence presented at the June 27, 1994 Public Hearing, and the recollections of the members of City Council, which is comprised of the same members as when Ordinance No. 18 was enacted, and review of the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat, City Council has determined that the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat do not reflect the nature of the restrictions on the uses allowed in the twenty-five foot buffer areas outside the building envelopes shown on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat ("hereinafter referred to as "the buffer spaces"), which restrictions were the subject of material representations to City Council at the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 18 and approval of the Subdivision and the Plat; and, WHEREAS, The Subdivision Agreement and the Plat require supplementation to clarify the scope of restrictions applicable to the buffer areas; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. No permanent improvements of any sort whatsoever, other than underground utility lines, may be built, constructed or placed in the twenty-five foot buffer spaces between the building envelopes on Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and Riverside Subdivision (all as shown on the Plat and the Subdivision Agreement). The buffer spaces may not be paved or improved other than by landscaping. Nor shall any of the following types items be allowed in the buffer spaces: building eaves, architectural projections, balconies, fire escapes, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, fences and walls. 2. All other spaces shown in the Subdivision Agreement and the Plat outside of the building envelopes shall be subject to those restrictions applicable to setbacks under the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, except as otherwise specifically indicated in the Subdivision Agreement or the Plat. • 1 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ." day of , 1994. 5. John S. Bennett, Mayor J, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. er aka Kath n S. Koch, City Clerk i ' r! (etc,.-C� iga.res • 1 x C' yl QUIT CLAIM DEED Lacet Limited Liability Company ("Grantor") , whose address is P. O. Box 2152 , Silverthorne, CO 80498 , for Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby sells and quitclaims to East Cooper Limited Liability Company, whose address is P.O. Box 2152 , Silverthorne, CO 80498 , the following real property in Pitkin County Colorado: Lot 8 , East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded July 21, 1993 in Plat Book 32 at Page 15 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado and the Amended Plat of the Lacet Subdivision recorded July 15 , 1994 in Plat Book 3.5 , at Page /p /J of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado together with all its appurtenances and all the estate, right, title, and interest of Grantor. Dated: July , 1994 •... . STATE OF COLORADO ) 7/ ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me A ' / , 1994 , by E.J. Olbright as manager of East Cooper Limited liae ' lity Company. . My commission expires <VI4,i 94_ . Witness my hand and official seal . No Public 4 olbright\3quitclm.dee k ��- �; i� ; ; ' I TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN WORCESTER DATE: JULY 5, 1994 RE: LACET SUBDIVISION (EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION) BUFFER SPACES Attached is a proposed resolution intended to embody the findings made by Council at its June 27, 1994 public hearing regarding the scope of activities and construction permitted in the 25 foot "buffer spaces" outside of the building envelopes shown on the plat for the Lacet Subdivision. The resolution prohibits construction of any permanent improvements in the buffer space. It also prohibits intrusions normally allowed in "setbacks" , such as balconies and fire exits. If the resolution is adopted, it will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder to provide record notice to present and future owners of the property. IL 6) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager / THRU: Leslie Lamont, Interim Planning Directo, , FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Lacet Subdivision (F. K.A. East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision) Clarification of Yard Areas in Single Family Lots - Public Hearing DATE: June 27 , 1994 Staff is bringing this issue back to City Council to interpret the scope of restrictions or activities and structures permitted outside the building envelopes shown for the single family lots on the Lacet Subdivision Plat . This issue came back to Council ' s attention because neighbors in the adjacent Riverside Subdivision are not in agreement with Planning and Zoning staff ' s determination that the building envelope lines on the subdivision plat are setbacks as defined by the land use regulations . The neighbors believe that the building envelope lines represent an impenetrable area of no development, to the extent that decks, patios, pools or other common yard amenities as allowed by the code could not intrude into this area. During the original review of the subdivision, Planning staff made no determination that the area between the property lines and the building envelope lines as proposed would be anything above or beyond that which is common to any other residential lots in the City such as setbacks defined in the Code. If staff understood that Council had intended at that time to restrict the activities or amenities of the new lots, staff may have objected on the basis that it would not be fair or equitable to treat one single family lot different from its adjoining neighbors . Alternatively, staff would have better defined the 25 ft. "buffer" as a prohibition against any development and labeled it so with notes on the subdivision plat and within the subdivision agreement thus making it very clear for potential property owners. Staff believes that the City ' s setback requirements are specific enough to protect, in a reasonable manner, a neighbor ' s rights to privacy as well as common usage of one ' s own property. As defined in the land use code, Section 24-3-101 - "Setback means an open space at grade between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located. The setback shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except for fences or as 1 de otherwise provided in this chapter. In measuring a setback, the horizontal distance between the lot line and the closest projection of the principal or accessory building shall be used. " For guidance as to what is permitted in a rear, side or front yard setback the definition of a Yard is used. Section 24-3-101 defines Yard as "an open space which is not wholly or partially enclosed by buildings, not in an alley or street, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground skyward, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, provided it meets the following requirements: A. Projections into required yards. Yards shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following allowed projections: 1. Building eaves-Eighteen (18) inches; 2 . Architectural projections-Twelve (12) inches; 3 . Individual balconies not utilized as a passageway (provided they do not project more than one-third ( 1/3) the distance from the exterior wall to the property line) -Four (4 ) feet; 4 . Fire escapes required by the Uniform Building Code- Four (4) feet; 5 . Uncovered porches , slabs, patios , walks and steps, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade shall be permitted to project into the yard without restriction. Projections may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be required by the chief building official for window egress; 6. Fences, hedges and walls less than six (6) feet in height-No restriction on location. " Attached is a memo previously distributed by Assistant City Attorney Dave Bellack as an information item to City Council . In addition to reviewing this memorandum, staff will ask Council to view a couple of minutes of a videotape of the final subdivision hearing before City Council so everyone may see the exact representations made by the development team. If it is Council ' s wish to establish a list of allowed or prohibited uses or structures for the yard areas outside of the building envelopes on the single family lots, it must be very specific. Something to consider would be which yard areas are affected (sides , rear, front) and on which particular lots. Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the Council find that the City ' s setback regulations shall dictate what allowed uses and structures (ie. patios, decks, pools) may be located between the platted building envelope lines and the property lines on the single family lots in the Lacet Subdivision. 2 Attachments: Memo from Dave Bellack Public Notice Public Notice Affidavit of Mailing coop. 6 . 27 3 21 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER FROM: DAVE BELLACK, ASST. CITY ATTORNE CC: BILL EFTING, JOHN WORCESTER, ea, LESLIE LAMONT DATE: MAY 26, 1994 RE: EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION SUMMARY The PUD approval documents for the East Cooper Project are ambiguous regarding limitations on the uses allowed in the 25 foot spaces between the project and the Riverside Subdivision. We had initially anticipated that the Planning & Zoning Commission could perform an interpretation of the PUD approval documents to resolve these issues. The Municipal Code does not grant P & Z authority to perform such a function, requiring City Council to interpret the documents. We will schedule a City Council hearing on the subject as soon as public notice requirements allow, which will probably be June 27, 1994 . INTRODUCTION In response to concerns raised by neighbors in the Riverside Subdivision, I reviewed the Planning Dept. files on the East Cooper Project. The review focused primarily on two issues raised by the neighbors: 1) Limitations on the use of Riverside Drive for access to the project; and, 2) Limitations on the use of the 25 foot space outside the "building envelopes" shown on the recorded plat. Also discussed below are the procedures available under the Municipal Code for interpreting any ambiguous provisions of the recorded plat or subdivision agreement. 1. Limitations on the use of Riverside Drive for project access. The final recorded plat shows permanent access to all of the units in the project (free market & AH) from a private road connecting to Highway 82 . The ordinance approving the final submission for the project [Ordinance No. 18 , Series of 1993] requires that the site plan for the project must show a pedestrian easement to Riverside Drive. That easement appears only on the full size recorded plat, and not on the reduced plat attached to the recorded subdivision agreement. Neither the plat nor the subdivision agreement contain any mention of any prohibition against use of Riverside Drive during construction. The Subdivision Agreement, paragraph 23 , requires the project owner, and his successors, to be bound by "all material representations made by the Owner on the record to the City. " At a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission, Tom Stevens, the designated project manager for the applicant, made the following representation: "In terms of the actual site plan all access is now off Highway 82 . " This representation is reflected in the findings of the City Council supporting the resolution approving the conceptual PUD for the project: 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 any portion of the proposed development. Resolution No. 55 (Series of 1992) . The verbal representations of Mr. Stevens, and the implied representation arising out of the recorded plat (showing access only from Hwy 82) can be fairly characterized as "material" under the terms of the subdivision agreement. These material representations provide a basis for prohibiting access to the property from Riverside Drive, except for the pedestrian access expressly required by the approving ordinance. 2 . Limitations on the use of the space outside of the 25 foot building envelopes. The recorded plat shows "building envelopes" on each of the approved lots. The space outside the envelopes is not labelled on the plat. Nothing in the subdivision agreement or any of the resolutions approving the final PUD discuss what uses are allowed in the space outside the building envelopes. "Building envelope" is not a defined term in the Aspen Municipal Code. During the approval process, the areas outside the building envelopes were variously referred to as "setbacks" or "buffers" . Nowhere in the record do either the developer or city staff make any statements regarding what, if any, improvements are allowable _ outside the building envelopes. In describing the "buffers" to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr. Stevens made the following comments: In addition to loosening up the density on these lots, we have provided a 25 foot buffer that is identified by prescribed building envelopes that provide a buffer along the Riverside Subdivision. At the same hearing, Mr. Leonard Oates made the following comments: Basically, we would like to see a commitment of no other structures like accessory buildings outside of the building envelopes. . . and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated. We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan. No commitment prohibiting structures outside the building envelope appears in the record. The East Cooper Final Submission states the following: "A 25 foot buffer has been provided between the free market lots and the Riverside Subdivision", without any explanation of any restrictions applicable to the "buffer. " Final Submission, p. 23 . The Final Submission does provide that all areas disturbed by construction will be revegetated. It also contains a landscaping plan covering only the AH portion of the project. Based on the multiple, undefined terms used to describe the same 25 foot spaces, ambiguity exists as to what was intended by the developer and City Council in the approval process for the subdivision. 3. Interpretation of the PUD approvals. There are no specific provisions of the Municipal Code which address interpretation of PUD approvals and related plats and subdivision agreements. Section 4-101 of the land use section of the Municipal Code reserves to City Council power: To take such other actions not delegated to the [Planning & Zoning] commission, the historic preservation committee, the board of adjustment, or the planning director, as the city council may deem desirable and necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter. Under this section the City Council could conduct a hearing to resolve the uncertainty regarding the intended impacts of the "building envelopes" and "buffers" identified in the approval. process for the East Cooper project. Such action would not be inconsistent with the "vested rights" provisions of the Municipal Code and Colorado state statutes. Both allow subsequent reviews to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the original approval, if such subsequent review is not inconsistent with the original approval. Here, the subsequent review is solely for the purpose of determining the intended meaning of undefined terms in the project approval documents. Any formal action by the City Council on these subjects should be conducted in careful compliance with prior council resolutions establishing procedures for quasi-judicial proceedings. 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 • 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 //‘ day of J i , 199/ , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice f Public Hearing 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 E.Cooper AH Chronology and Summary 9/15/92 and 11/9/92 : P&Z and City Council approval of Conceptual PUD Plan (see attachment "A" for sketches submitted with Conceptual application, and attachment "B" for conditions of Conceptual approval) . 1/93 : Submission of Final PUD Plan (see attachment "C" for sketches submitted) 3/16/93 : Public Hearing at P&Z for Final PUD Plan 4/12/93 : First reading of Ord. 18 at CC (see attachment "D" - condition #22 states that the "natural grade" shall be measured from the grades presented in the engineering report within the Final PUD application. ) 4/15/93 : Applicant re-requests hearing for Special Review (FAR) after realizing that P&Z did not specifically address FAR on 3/16/93 . Special Review may be requested by the applicant for FAR increase on lots between 27 , 001 and 43 , 560, and parking. The AH zone district ' s dimensional requirements require Special Review for percent of open space and parking. Special Review is a category of site specific review by the Planning and Zoning Commission which is allowed in various zone districts to "maintain the integrity of the city' s zone districts and compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses . " Types of Special Reviews include reductions of open space, trash service areas or parking, and increases in FAR or height (see attachment "E" for review criteria) . 4/20/93 : P&Z approved Special Review for FAR of . 45 : 1 by a 4-0 vote** . 4/26/93 : Second reading approval of Ordinance 18 by CC, including mention of the FAR Special Review by P&Z. Second motion approved 4-1 (Reno against) directing staff to expedite building permit process for the AH townhomes. The approvals included acceptance of a landscape plan. See attachment "F" of this plan. Landscaping is to be completed no later than one year after completion of construction. At second reading, project architect Michael Gassman clearly pointed out that the facade materials would be changed to wood siding and cedar shake roofs to better fit with the surrounding homes and the character of the 1 east side of town. He mentioned that the brick siding originally contemplated would be too urban, considering the comments he heard from the neighbors. 5/21/93 Submission of affordable townhome plans for building permit. 5/24/93 Zoning receives building plans. 6/30/93 Zoning receives additional topographic information for building permit plans check relative to height. The maximum height of a structure in the AH (Affordable Housing) zone district is 25 ' , and may be raised to 30 ' by special review pursuant to Article 7 , Division 4 . , according to Section 24-5-206 . 2 (D) (7) . Section 24-7- 405 of the Municipal Code sets forth the procedure that must be followed for special review approval by referring to the "Common Procedures, Article 6 , Division 2 . " Section 24-6-205 outlines the requisite procedures for a variety of development reviews (i . e. development in Historic Overlay District, conditional uses, development in environmentally sensitive areas, etc. ) . Special reviews are discussed at Section 24-6-205 (A) (2) (b) . This section requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission but does not require public notice. Special Reviews should not be confused with variances, which are considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and are based on code-induced hardship to the applicant do to unique conditions of the project. Staff determined that special review was required to allow up to 30 ' height due for buildings A and B to the configuration of the land and buildings . Maximum height of 7/1/93 : Submission of additional information to Planning to process the Special Review for height. Height is defined in Section 3 of the land use regulations as: "The maximum possible distance measured adjacent to the building at right angles from the natural undisturbed ground slope and natural grade to the highest point of a structure. . . . Exceptions: measured to the mean height between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or similar pitched roof . . . the ridge shall of a gable, hip, gambrel or similar pitched shall not exceed over 5 feet above the specified maximum height limit. " Building A (the tallest) is 29 ' as defined in the code Building C needs no P&Z consideration as it meets the AH 2 zone district height limits. 7/13/93 : Special Review before P&Z for a 5 ' height increase (from 25 ' to 30 ' ) . See attachment "G" for staff memo. The Final PUD application addressed a height allowance based on the unique existing grade of the gravel pit on the site** . Approved 4-0 . See resolution #93-31, attachment "H" . What was not addressed in the review was that the "natural grade" (pre-gravel pit) would not be restored (filled in) before the buildings were constructed. In effect nearly the whole garage level is exposed because it was below the "natural grade" line contemplated and accepted by Ordinance 18 . 9/30/93 Issuance of the townhome building permits. 3/10/94 Verification of building heights by project architect and engineer. ** The sizes of the buildings and their elevations did not change from Final PUD application through building permit process. 3 PZM3 . 16. 93 David seconded the motion with all in favor. GORDON CALLAHAN RESUBDIVISION SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Leslie: This is to be tabled. We are bringing it back to you on April 20. There is a change in the application so there is not need to open the public hearing. It has to be renoticed. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FINAL PUD SUBDIVISION, REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. v-1 Kim made presentation as attached in record. p mr i Tom Stevens, applicant brought Commission up to date on the project. Michael Gassman, architect gave a description of the dwelling units in the project. Stevens: In terms of the actual site plan all access is now off Hwy #82 . The conditions that CDOT put in access to the site is a right turn lane 'off Hwy 82 heading east out of town. That has been incorporated into the plans. Once you are into the project the roads are private. The main road that leads up to the free market homes ends in a cul-de-sac. We have reviewed the cul-de-sac with the Fire Dept. It is in excess of their turning requirements. The road which leads into the deed restricted portion accesses the parking as well as fire access. Grading and drainage on the project really falls into 2 different categories. The free market lots will obviously be reviewed at the time the plans for homes are submitted for building permit. One of the conditions that the Engineering Dept wanted on the project was that there is a note on the plat that all drainage within the free market lots is contained on that lot. We will comply with that. Within Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel all drainage is also being self contained. The landscaping for the project will obviously revolve mostly 2 PZM3 . 16.93 around Lot #8 of the deed restricted parcel . There are a couple of things we need to accommodate. In trying to minimize the effects of Hwy 82 we went about it 2 different ways. One is we are fencing along Hwy 82 as well as adding considerable evergreen plants. We have a kid' s play area and the fence will provide some level of safety for that play area as well as sound and visual to the highway. Within the project we have got shade trees planted just outside the entries to the units. Then as we move out past the units we get back to native vegetation and as we get closer to the ditch we get more into riparian vegetation. We really had to make a decision as to how we were going to handle the ditch. Right now we are not comfortable with the ditch not leaking. So we want to line the ditch. We have met with the Riverside ditch representatives and cleared this with them. While we are going to the expense of lining this thing, we are also going to go to the expense of turning it into an amenity for the project. We also met with the Parks Dept in terms of acquiring tree removal permits when it comes to removal of trees. We will replace those trees on a caliper per caliper inch trees. The areas directly around the units are sod while as you move out beyond the units you get into more native areas. Easements on the property--all access and utility easements are contained within the appropriate easements. That has been reviewed with the Engineering Dept. The Parks Dept has requested a pedestrian easement which gets from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82 . We are willing to grant that easement. We would just like for them to say which of the 3 possibilities they prefer. A pedestrian easement and a walk will be constructed along the property line at Hwy 82 on our property but within the setback. At conceptual submission it was requested that we provide easement. At final it was requested that we actually build the walk. That is fine. We will comply with that. The setback along Hwy 82 has been increased to 12 and 1/2 feet per the Engineering Dept. Utilities to service the project--all the utilities are directly adjacent. We will be utilizing Aspen Water & Consolidated San and one of the advantages of this project is that the water line that services the Riverside Subdivision is a dead end line and ends in the cul-de-sac directly adjacent to this project. As part of the construction of his project we propose to loop that line, connect from Riverside Subdivision to Hwy 82 resulting in a loop from Riverside and improving their service. One of the issues that came up at the last meeting was Homeowner' s 3 PZM3 . 16. 93 Association. We have taken a look a that. The deed restricted portion for the project units #1 through #12 will be in a separate association. Their responsibility will include exterior building maintenance, court maintenance and snow removal, common area maintenance and taxes. The free market lots including the resident occupied lot #4 will be in a separate association from the deed restricted units and their responsibility will revolve around maintenance and snow removal. Regarding the issues that were brought up at the last meeting: First is density. This project received unanimous approval on a 16 and 7 program. 16 deed restricted and 7 free market. We are now at 13 and 6--Lot #8 to be deed restricted parcel is within the allowed FAR for the AH zone district. The AH zone district allows by special review for this FAR to be varied up. We are not asking for that. Lots #1 through #7 are significantly larger than required by the AH zone which requires a minimum of 3 , 000sgft. We have for the free market portion 9,700sgft and the RO lot is 6, 600sgft. So all aspects of this project propose less density than what is allowed. In order to look at FAR we really need to compare what is allowed vs what is allowble--not what is allowed on this project vs what is in Riverside Subdivision. I think that we have all come to the realization that at some point in time Riverside Subdivision will probably expand to it's maximum allowed FARs. For this reason we think it would be poor planning to voluntarily reduce the FAR on this project while not looking at a similar situation on Riverside Subdivision. Essentially all we would do is in the future years create an enclave of small and perceptually substandard homes. We don't want to do that. We want to make this compatible--not segregated. The other issue that came up was the 70/30 ratio of deed restricted vs free market. We are currently at 68 and 28. We are not sure at this point whether Council has the ability to vary it down to 68% or not. What it really comes down to is whether or not we have a 3-bedroom unit or we replace that 3-bedroom unit with 2 units and any other 2-bedroom configuration mumble What that does it gives us the same number of bedrooms so we house the same number of people. It will get us to the 70/30 split. Our concern is that it gets us away from what has consistently been told to us is the requirements for housing and that is family housing. We are willing to do either one. And we will rely on your recommendation and Council 's final judgement on this. It is our 4 f . j PZM3 . 16.93 preference to house in 3-bedroom configuration because we think that that is what the community needs. But physically the change from that 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom or 1-bedroom above can be handled within the current building footprint and parking footprint. So it is not a big deal. This project has gone above and beyond the requirements of the approval process and the specific zone district. I think we have demonstrated that throughout the course of this project. Meetings and discussions were held with the neighbors and it has produced a significantly changed plan for revisions to access, revisions to density, additions of open space. This project not only fits the intent of the AH zone district but it fits the dimensional requirements of the zone district. But more importantly it fits within the goals of the community. It fits the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan exactly. It keeps density within the metro area. It keeps it along the established transit route, has minimal impacts to the community based on it's location. When looked at in terms of community good this project fits. The bottom line is that this project will realize no increase in free market lots. We have an allowed use by right of 6 lots on this piece of property via the current zoning. All that is being afforded by the rezoning on this project is deed restricted housing. That is a clear community asset. Bruce: Can you show me exactly where the Riverside Subdivision ends and begins in relation to your project. I know the Cresta Haus is on the bottom side. The applicants showed on drawings locations of these properties. Bruce: So east of your subdivision is all Cresta Haus, south and west is Riverside. What are these small lots right here? Tom: That is Buckwheat. Kim: Since we found that the ratio didn't quite meet the 70/30 I have had talks with Tom Baker about it. And he feels that the really close number to be making a call that the code establishes the minimum ratio and that the applicant is bound to meet those ratios as part of this project. And there are a couple of options available including breaking down one of the units into 2 units. It looks as though the density can be met by doing that a studio unit rather than 1-bedroom. But we should get together and double check my numbers. I think at this point so that we can get forward on this that we really can't be discussing 2% one way or the other. Tom: That' s fine. We are going to make that conversion very easily. 5 PZM3 . 16. 93 Tim: Because of what I understand about RO. It seems to me that they are not as restricted as say a category #3 would be. Or a category #4 3-bedroom. And it might be a proposal that, and I am for the restrictions, I am for having it as employee oriented as possible. Having the resale value restricted as much as possible. It may be instead of having resident occupied condominiums in the complex we ask them to change from RO designation which we really don't have a handle on, to the well-defined category #3 or category #4 3-bedroom, 3-baths. And that might be some way for us to restrict the project even more to keep the cost to potential buyers down even more, to keep qualified families focused on having the ability to have 3 bedrooms so that they can have kids or they can have whatever kind of space they need. This might be something we can propose in order to keep the 3 bedrooms which I think are more valuable in this project than studios or 1 bedrooms. To take an RO unit and make it a category #3 I think is going to make it more available to people who have less income or less assets or fit a lower income stereo type and make this available to a more unfunded buyer. Richard: I raised the trial balloon of further reducing your FAR caps and I think Michael Gassman raised the point "Well we will reduce it if Riverside will reduce it" . And I haven't seen a response from Riverside. They just keep asking for more without offering anything. And that debate is really outside of our purview. We were kind of involved in it just to try to keep everybody happy. Larry Fredericks point of the sidewalk--I think any improvement along the street there is helpful and if you do have to go out by the wall at the Cresta Haus--I walk up there or ride my bike up there frequently and just having another couple of hundred feet of sidewalk would be a major help. I hope we can continue improve- ments along Cooper Street as soon as possible. And the issue of the fence--I think you should do at least a thumbnail shading study to see if it would shade the sidewalk and you leave ice there. Look at the height and the setback of the fence and the materials you use so that it works to keep the kids in but doesn't block any more sunlight than necessary on the sidewalk. Tim: I am in favor of the AH zone. I think this is a good application of it. The debate between Riverside and this project I just don't see. The weight of the opinion from Riverside that it should be less dense--I think it balances for me. It has a basic compatibility for me. And I think with the other things that 6 Y . PZM3 . 16.93 are in the neighborhood I live in that area this is very compatible. I think it is a great opportunity for the City to take advantage of the adventure of an investor to provide opportunities for people to have the ladder of affordable housing to climb. I think it is a good project. It fits. I think the houses that are in the free market side are going to be restricted in who lives there and how much they are worth because it is part of this project. I think those people are going to be local people and I think that helps balance it out. I like the project. Sara: I am so happy to see private parties come in and offer something like this instead of building Godfather estate homes. You are answering a community need. You are not ghettoizing employee housing. It is in with a mixed community in there and I think that is wonderful. It is going to be lively there. Jasmine: I agree with the members of the Commission. I think this is a very good project and I think this is the kind of project we were hoping to see when the idea of the AH zone was first proposed. I think the density is appropriate because of the location close to downtown. Part of the thing that is going to make it possible for local residents to be able to live near the City and be able to raise families near the City is to have greater density near bus routes so that people with children can still have their kids be adjacent to the City environment but also be a protected play area. I think the size of the units are built on a larger scale with greater width, greater liveability is certainly a wonderful thing. I think your responses to the concerns of the people who live in the Riverside Subdivision is very commendable. By increasing the setbacks on the Riverside Subdivision side and the fact that you have a completely different access. While you are adjacent they are really very much separated as far as the 2 communities are concerned. I think the applicant has addressed a great deal of the concerns of the neighborhood. I think this is a project that the neighborhood can live with and the community can be happy with too. I am very enthusiastic about it. Bruce: What is the square footage size cap for the homes in the free market? Tom: We haven't calculated them. There was some discussion on this. Bruce: So 3 , 660 is the outside cap. There is no guarantee that the homes that will be built will be that size. They could be 2 , 000. They could be 2 , 500. The price of the lot is going to be -. a function of what is going to determine the size of the house. 7 PZM3 . 16. 93 Tom: The 3 , 660 absolutely cap to the sliding scale. mumble So while this project is subject to that --- Leslie: Then you go up to 9, 000 and then that is it. But the road easement comes out of the lot size for allowable floor area and any other except the pedestrian easement. Bruce: So it is unlikely that there is going to be a 3 , 600sqft house. Jasmine: So all representations made by the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise stated. "All material representation made by the applicant in the application and during the public meetings with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions" . So that is Condition #23 . MOTION Richard: I make a motion to rezone the subject parcel from R-15 moderate density/residential PUD to AH Affordable Housing PUD. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Richard: I make a motion to recommend approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project final PUD development plan, Special Review for Open Space and Parking in the AH zone and GMQS Exemption for the 6 free market lots, 12 affordable town homes and one RO affordable lot as deed restricted per Housing Office's approval with the 23 conditions included in Planning Office memo dated March 2 and March 16, 1993 . Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL SPA MASTER PLAN ADOPTION Leslie made presentation as attached in record. What we are going to be asking Council to do--we are asking for your recommendation to Council on this is to extend that deadline in the code that says conceptual plan only lasts for 2 years unless you do a final plan. And if you think about some of the uses that are being proposed for this site--the valley-wide rail, the trolley--will not take place in another 2 years. And I would hate to see all this Work that we 8 #1359O36`°t 7/2i./921 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 718 PG 477 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (LACET SUBDIVISION) THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (hereinafter "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule charter city (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and the Lacet Limited Liability, Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") on the dates as indicated below. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recording a Final Planned Unit Development and Subdivision Plat (hereinafter referred to as the "Plat") pertaining to the development of a residential project consisting of six free-market single-family lots, thirteen deed- restricted townhomes, and one deed restricted single family lot known as the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lacet Subdivision) (hereinafter collectively known as the "Project") on real property owned by the Owner which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A", as attached and incorporated herein. A reduced copy of Plat is attached as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein. WHEREAS, the Project received approvals pursuant to the following sections in the Aspen Municipal Code: Rezoning from R-15 PUD to AH (Affordable Housing) pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 11; Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 10; Final Planned Unit Development pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 9; Growth Management Exemption for Free Market Development in an AH Zone District pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 8, Section 8-104 C.Le.; Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 8, Section 8- 104.C.1.c.; Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 7, Division 10, Section 7-1008; Vested rights pursuant to Chapter 24, Article 6, Division 2, Section 6-207 and Exemption from Ordinance 1, Series of 1990 for the free market lots. WHEREAS, prior to entering this Agreement, the City fully considered the development applications dated June, 1992 and January, 1993, filed by the Owner with the City Planning Department, the plat for the Project and the anticipated benefits and burdens to neighboring or adjoining properties by reason of the Project. Further, the City has considered the requirements, terms and conditions of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and such laws, rules and regulations as are applicable. WHEREAS, the City has imposed on the Owner conditions and requirements in connection with the approvals described above such conditions and requirements being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare. Such conditions are set forth in Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1993), attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein. WHEREAS, under Section 7-904 and 7-1005 of Article 7, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "Land Use Regulations"), the City is entitled to assurance that the matters agreed to herein will be performed by the Owner and its successors or assigns. I #359038 07/2., , 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 8K: 71 =S 478 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Ginty Clerk: , Doc $. 0'- ' WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into such Agreement with the City and to provide the assurances set forth herein to the City. WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept for recordation the Plat. WHEREAS, this Agreement, the Plat and Ordinance No. 18, (Series of 1993), shall constitute the final development plan and development regulations for the Project pursuant to Section 7-906, of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. Description of Project. The Project consists of eight(8)lots,the legal description for which are set forth on the attached Exhibit "A". Lot sizes are as follows; #1 - 9,626.76 sq. ft. #2 - 9,801.00 sq.ft. #3 - 8,973.36 sq.ft. #4 - 6,708.24 sq.ft. #5 - 9,539.64 sq.ft. #6 - 9,626.76 sq.ft. #7 - 11,194.92 sq.ft. #8 - 37,374 .48 sq.ft. Lots #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, and #7 have been approved as free-market single-family lots. Lot#4 has been approved as a deed restricted Resident Occupied single-family lot. Lot #8 shall contain thirteen (13) affordable deed-restricted condominiums which will be sold to qualified buyers meeting the buyer qualifications of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines with the following development mix: A. Category 3 Deed Restrictions: i. Two (2) approximate 804 net livable square foot one-bedroom condominiums. ii. Two (2) approximate 960 net livable square foor two-bedroom condominiums. B. Category 4 Deed Restrictions: i. Four (4) approximate 1,284 net livable square foot three-bedroom townhomes. ii. One (1) approximate 804 net livable square foot one-bedroom condominium. iii. One (1) approximate 960 net livable square foot two-bedroom condominium. 2 #359038 07 /93 11 : 18 Rec $2290. 00 BK 8 P6 479 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc 3.00 C. Resident Occupied Restrictions i. Three (3) approximate 1,284 net livable square foot three-bedroom townhomes. ii. One (1) approximate 6,708.24 square foot single family lot. 2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and upon approval of the final plat by the Engineering Department and Planning Office, the City agrees to approve, and execute the final plat for the Project submitted herewith, which conforms to the requirements of Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The City agrees to accept the Plat for recording in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment of the recordation fee and cost to the City by Owner. Reduced size copies of the following documents, representing plats and plans that have been approved as part of this Subdivision Improvements Agreement, are attached as the following Exhibits: A. Legal Description, Exhibit "A". B. Reduced Copy of Plat, Exhibit "B". C. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1993), Exhibit "C". D. Recordation Information of Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant, Exhibit "D". 1. Legal description, Lot #8, Attachment 1. 2. Categorization of Units and Net Livable Square Footage, Attachment 2. 3. Reduced Site Plan, Attachment 3. E. Letter from Colorado First Construction, Inc. for Townhome Construction Cost Estimates, Exhibit "E". F. Final PUD Development Plan, Exhibit "F". G. Final Grading and Drainage Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "G". H. Final Landscape Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "H". I. Private Utilities Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "I". J. Water Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "J". K. Sanitary Sewer Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "K" L. Barb's Way Road Plan, Lacet Court Road Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "L". M. Highway 82 Intersection Plan and Cost Estimate, Exhibit "M". 3. Construction and Phasing. The City and Owner mutually acknowledge that exact construction schedules cannot be determined for the development on Lot#8 at this time. Therefore, per this Agreement, the Owner shall provide financial assurances to the City for the construction of the affordable housing situate on Lot#8 at the time of issuance of a Building Permit of the first free market residence within Lacet Subdivision in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit payable to the City of Aspen in the amount of $1,172,135.00. A letter from Colorado First Construction, Inc. is attached as Exhibit "E" verifying the estimated cost of construction for the affordable housing units located on Lot #8. 3 #359038 Cf ?1/93 11 : 18 Rec 3290. 00 bk 18 PS 480 Silvia Da':Js, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc -4:1. 00 If construction of the affordable housing units required under this Agreement by the Owner has not begun within two (2) years of recordation of the Final Plat, the City may redeem the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units within one (1) year. All architectural and engineering plans shall also transfer to the City. Said affordable housing units shall be sold by the City, or its Designee, to qualifying employees and so much of the net proceeds of the sales shall be delivered to Owner by the City as are necessary for the repayment of the Owner's promissory note to the bank issuing the Letter of Credit. The Owner acknowledges that the sole source of repayment of the Letter of Credit shall be limited to the Net Proceeds derived from the sale, lease or other disposition of Lot #8 or the affordable housing units constructed thereon, as more particularly described as follows: "Net Proceeds" are hereby defined as any funds received by the City from the sale of Lot #8 or the affordable housing units to be constructed thereon, less all costs incurred by the City in the development and construction of said units, including, but not limited to, planning, legal, architectural, engineering, interest and financing costs, and all costs of construction including materials and labor. The City shall in no manner be responsible for Owner's obligations, if any, to reimburse funds drawn on the Letter of Credit. In the event that the City takes possession of Lot #8 and redeems the Letter of Credit in order to construct the affordable housing units, the Owner's obligations under this Agreement shall be deemed fully satisfied. 4. Parking. Owner agrees to construct thirteen (13) surface parking spaces and seven (7) garage covered parking spaces as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan, attached as Exhibit "F", as parking for the affordable townhome units of the Project. 5. Landscaping Plan. The owner agrees that it shall landscape the Project in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "H", which plan shows the extent and location of plants to be installed, all landscape features, flowers and shrub definition, the proposed treatment of all ground surfaces (paving, sod, etc.), and the other elements of the landscape plan, including associated irrigation systems and revegetation of all disturbed areas. The landscaping shall to be installed no later than the first planting season for the type of plants involved following the completion of the construction of the Project. The Owner or its successor homeowners' association will promptly replace any plants which have not survived for a period of one growing season following the final Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. 6. Security for Landscaping. The City is entitled to and requires the provision by the Owner of financial assurances for the landscaping of the Project. Prior to issuance of full building permits for the Lot 8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of $37,545.00 securing to the City the installation of the landscaping described on Exhibit "H", as attached. A letter from The Stevens Group, Inc. is attached as Exhibit "H" for the estimated costs of landscaping for the project. Such security document shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not fully have installed the landscaping as represented herein, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete and pay for installation of such landscaping. This security document shall provide that on completion of the landscaping, the Owner may obtain the release of the security document for the cost of landscaping. 7. Public Improvements. The Owner agrees to construct the following site improvements in relation to its construction of the Project: 4 #359038 0, -21 /93 11 : 7.8 Rec $290. 00 BF t18 PCB 481 Silvia Davis, Pi tki.n Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 a. Security for Public Improvements (Water and Sewer). In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the public improvements for Sanitary Sewer and Water System Improvements, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of$135,944.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Project. The documents shall give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such public improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, the district representative of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and representative of the Aspen City Water Department shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. The Owner shall require all contractors to provide a warranty that all improvements were constructed to accepted standards of good workmanship for the benefit of the City for the installation of the public improvements described herein for one (1) year from the date of acceptance. In the event that any existing municipal improvements are damaged during the Project construction, on request by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and/or the Aspen City Water Department, a bond or other suitable security for the repair of those municipal improvements shall be provided by Owner to the City. b. Sewer Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer tap fees to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District(ACSD) in the amount of$26,380.00 for the development of the affordable housing project located on Lot 8 containing three buildings and thirteen units of one, two and three bedroom configuration. Fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to connection of any sewer service hook-ups to Lot #8. c. Water Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay to the Aspen Water Department a tap fee surcharge in the amount of to be determined at the time of Building Permit Plans Review for the development of the affordable housing project located on Lot #8 containing thirteen (13) townhomes of one, two and three bedroom configuration. Payment shall be paid by Owner to the Aspen Water Department at the time of issuance of full building permits for townhome units on Lot #8. 8. Private Utilities. The Owner agrees to extend the utility lines to provide connections through the Project as shown on the Private Utility Plan, Exhibit "I" as attached. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of the private utilities described hereto, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of$87,200.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of any excavation, foundation or building permits for the total Project (deed restricted and free market). Said guarantee will give the City the unconditional right, upon default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for the installation of such private utilities. As portions of the improvements are completed, a representative of the respective utility companies shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. 9. Site Drainage. The Grading and Drainage Plan, attached as Exhibit "G" shall be submitted to the City in accordance with Section 24-7-1004 (C)(4)(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code and shall be approved by the Engineering Department. The Owner will continue to coordinate drainage and snow storage design and plans with City staff. Any improvement work will be performed in accordance 5 443590_ 07/^1/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 0 it:: 718 PC 482 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt:.y Clerk , Doc_ $. 00 with the Aspen Municipal Code and City specifications. The Drainage Plan includes the following information: a. All proposed slopes in excess of 2:1 shall receive erosion control netting to minimize erosion. b. Drainage improvements on Lot #8 will consist of grading to allow the natural historic pattern to continue across the property. Swales will be created a minimum of 15 feet from the structures to allow for positive drainage away from the foundations. These swales will be vegetated and maintain a minimum of 2% gradient. The vegetation will minimize any erosion potential and create a natural percolation area for the roof runoff. The paved surfaces will be graded to allow a sheet flow drainage to the ditch adjacent to Highway 82. c. Prior to issuance of full building permits for the townhomes, the Owner shall satisfy the City Engineer regarding storm drainage calculations. Storm drainage calculations must be provided for the free-market single-family homes at the time of individual building permit applications. d. Security for Grading and Drainage Improvements. In order to secure performance of the grading and drainage improvements described above, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee on a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the sum of$125,129.00. Said guarantee shall be delivered to the City prior to issuance of full building permits for the Project. The documents will give the City the unconditional right , upon default by the Owner in its obligations specified herein, to complete and pay for installation of such improvements. As portions of the improvements are completed, The City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance, the City Engineer shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. 10. Private Road Improvements. The Owner agrees to provide private roads meeting City road construction specifications, identified on the Final Plat as Barb's Way and Lacet Court, providing access to Lots #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6,#7 and #8 from Highway 82. Prior to issuance of the first full building permit for Lots #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 or #8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount of$38,400.00 securing to the City the installation of the common private access roads. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for Lots #1, through #8, the common access roads from Highway 82 to Lots #1 through #8 shall be completed by the Owner. The security provided at issuance of the first full building permit for any lot shall provide that in the event the Owner shall not have fully completed the common access private roads to the lots, the City shall withdraw funds against such security sufficient to complete the proposed work. As portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize the release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed road improvements. 11. Highway 82 Intersection Improvements. The Owner agrees to provide Highway 82 intersection improvements meeting City and State road construction specification, identified on the Highway 82 Intersection Plan, Exhibit "M". Prior to the issuance of full building permits on Lots #1 through #8, the Owner shall provide a bond, letter of credit, cash or other guarantee in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney in the amount of$8,003.00. As all or portions of the improvements are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect the same and, upon approval and acceptance, shall authorize 6 #7591038 07) 71/93 11 : 18 Sec $290. 00 k: _1B F's 483 Silvia Davis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. itia release of the agreed estimated costs for the completed improvements. TABLE I SCHEDULE OF SECURITY PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENT FEE TIMEFRAME Condominium Construction $1,172,135.00 Prior to issuance of building permit for first free market home on either Lot #1, #2, #3, #5, #6 or #7. Public Improvements A. Sanitary Sewer System 78,585.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits. B. Water System 57,396.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits. Private Utilities 87,200.00 Prior to issuance of any building permits. Common Access Roads (Private) 38,400.00 Prior to issuance of full building permits. Grading and Drainage 125,129.00 Prior to issuance of full building permits. Landscaping 37,545.00 Prior to issuance of full building permits. Highway 82 Intersection Improvements 8,003.00 Prior to issuance of full building permits. TOTAL $1,604,473.00 TABLE 2 TAP FEES (Lot 8) Sewer Tap Fees $26,380.00 Prior to connection 12. Dust Control Plan. Prior to any construction, and as a condition of building permit issuance, a fugitive dust control plan must be obtained from the Colorado Pollution Control Division and the Environmental Health Department. 13. Park Development Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 5-601, et.seci., of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City is entitled to a park development impact fee for construction of the new residential townhome units. The Owner agrees to pay a park development impact fee in the amount in effect at the time of issuance of any building permits for the townhomes. Free market lot park development impact fees shall be payable at the time of individual building permits for each lot. 14. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Pursuant to Section 24-7-1007 (a)(c)(2) of the Aspen Municipal Code, the affordable housing impact fee applies to condominiumization of new residential units. The townhome units on this Project are to be condominiumized. However, the Owner has demonstrated the net effect of the Project is to increase the number of units available as affordable housing in the community and, therefore, the condominiumization of this Project will have a positive 7 #359038 07/2., 3 i. i. : 18 Rec $290. 00 Bh 71 'G 484 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00R impact on the availability of affordable housing in the community and the City has exempted the Project from the affordable housing impact fee. 15. Exemption from Ordinance 1, Series of 1990. Pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, it is the determination of the City Planning Director that the proposed AH development will have multiple deed restricted units prior to or concurrent with the free market development and there will be no affordable housing mitigation (cash-in-lieu or accessory dwelling units) required of the individual single family Lots #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, or #7. 16. Deed Restrictions. Attached as Exhibit"D" is the recorded Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Agreement, and Covenant to be used for the thirteen (13) affordable townhomes units and one (1) deed restricted lot of the Project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall execute and record in the Pitkin County Real Property Records a Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction. Prior to sale of any individual deed restricted unit in the Project to a purchaser, such purchaser shall be required to execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Resale Agreement and Deed Restriction, which shall then be recorded in the Pitkin County Real Property Records and placed on file with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Nothing herein shall require the immediate sale of the thirteen (13) affordable housing townhome units and one (1) single family lot. The Owner may retain ownership of such units and rent them for a period not to exceed one (1) year while the units are being marketed for sale to qualified buyers. If the affordable housing townhome units are not sold within one (1) year, they may be offered for sale by the APCHA to qualified buyers. While being marketed, the affordable townhome units may only be rented to persons who qualify under the APCHA guidelines as Category #3, #4, and Resident Occupied income residents, and such rentals shall be subject to the price and income guidelines. 17. Wood Burning Devices. Any combustible devices shall be built in accordance with the regulations in effect at issuance of building permits. 18. The subdivisions residents shall be responsible for expenses of any road improvements to City standards if the road is dedicated to the public (Ordinance 18, Condition 5). 19. Building heights shall be measured per "natural grade" established per CTL Thompson for Lot 8. 20. Hazard Notifications. Any hazardous or toxic soils must be stabilized and revegetated or removed to a site acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Environmental Health Department. 21. Condominiumization. The City approves the exemption of condominiumization of the Project subject to the execution of deed restriction upon the condominiumized townhome units to the price, income, occupancy, and asset limitations imposed by the Master Housing Authority Deed Restriction(attached as Exhibit "D")of this Agreement. The master deed restriction shall restrict the use and occupancy of the townhome units as the sole and exclusive place of residency of qualified buyers or initial Owner's renters. The townhome units cannot be rented without prior written approval of the APCHA. 22. Condominium Map. Upon substantial completion of the townhomes, a condominium map and condominium declaration for the townhomes must be prepared, reviewed and approved by the 8 #359038 0 21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290, 00 BE„ d'18 PG 485 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 Engineering Department and the Planning Office. The condominium map and declaration shall be approved and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the conveyance of any of the individual units within the Project. 23. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owner on record to the City in accordance with the approval of the Project shall be binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns. 24. Notice. Notices to the parties shall be sent by the United States Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addresses set forth below or to any other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of mailing of same. To the City: c/o City Manager 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 To the Owner: Lacet Limited Liability, Co. E.J. Olbright, Manager Suite 204 160 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO 80498 25. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 26. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof. 27. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute a burden on the land on which the Project is located and shall be binding on and enure to the benefit of the Owner, its successors and assigns and the City, its successors and assigns. 28. Enforcement. In the event the City determines the Owner is not in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the final plat, the City may serve a Notice of Non- Compliance and request that the deficiency be corrected within a period of six (6) months. In the event the Owner believes that it is in compliance or that the non-compliance is insubstantial, the Owner may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged non-compliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to standard procedures and take such action as or then deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and/or receive damages for any non-compliance with the Agreement. 9 #359038 07. /93 11 : 18 Rec: $290. 00 DK S P8 486 Silvia Davi5, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc C110 29. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 30. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective from the latest date of signature as illustrated below. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year below CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation k I / 7/.o,/t 3 John Bennett, Mayor Date AT (EST: ft . iir!! J. 7 Zo - 3 'Katherine le , City Clerk Date LAC ' „s . '1 LIABILITY, CO.Afit____________ 1 E.f/ ig1f, I anager Date APPROVED / ROVED AS TO/�FORM: Edward M. Caswall, City Attorney Date 10 EXHIBIT A #359038 07/21 /93 i 1 : 18 Rec $290; 00K 718 PG 487 Silvia Davis, P'itkin Cnty Cler4:: , Doc 3. 110 DESCRIPTION OF EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION • - A tract of land located In that portion of Riverside Addition that was annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado on March 20, 1967 In the NE 1/4 of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West, 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, said tract being a part of Parcels A and B as set forth In Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. Order Number 00018642 doted September 13, 1991 and which Is more porticulary described as follows; Beginning at the southeast corner of EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION whence Corner No. 5 of Riverside Placer, M.S. No. 3905 AM Identical with Corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, a Bureau of Land Mangement brass cap, 1954, bears N 50' 39' 40" W, 777.02 feet; I. Thence S 89' 51' 03" W, 269.64 feet; 2. Thence N 00" 15' 52" W, 325.17 feet; 3. Thence N 8r 37' 27" E, 24.98 feet; 4. Thence N 00' I5' 52" W, 66.97 feet; 5. Thence norlheosteriy 103.39 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 945.25 feet, a central angle of 06' 16' 01", and a chord bearing N 46' 16' 47" E, 103.34 feet; 6. Thence southeasterly 217.86 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 1407.50 feet, a central angle of 08' 52' 06", and a chord bearing S 54' 54' 13" E, 217.64 feet; 7. Thence S 50' 35' 35" E, 49.01 feet; 8. Thence S 68" 07' 54" W, 23.76 feet; 9. Thence S 37. 36' 30" W, 56.28 feet; 10. Thence S 78' 30' 12" W. 33.23 feet; II. Thence S 13' 37' 41" W. 40.84 feet; 12. Thence S 14' 03' 32" E, 122.12 feet; 13. Thence S 15' 37' 29" E, 91.96 feet to the Point of Beginning. East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision as described above contains 2.360 acres more or less. • „,, EXHIBIT B „.,,I ,.,1,,, , t • ! I z 0 . a : it a a• •' I • t; tat , ti •• ; S• M ; alli .t. S;; ; ' II; •”, •s° ; ; . tarE. a ;; J; a ' e' a • • — SS a ; I •S a f• t a — • cc; ••••• t aa !al ' 2 i 0 ■ Si 2 • ; tal Si ' 0 1:. a • a: ; ; ,•11 a• .0;0 b ; i 1 ' t • 'a ;••a ° ^ 1.; t t ti "; i s'S • •; „ Yr. -: ' !I ‘r ktii l• 0 o c i i I :: ., ; ; : pi : . , , : _ :1 t; 1 t: Y.;it. ; i t • ;Et 1 .; s • alkb ' IX a ttt i 1 ' 2 a • a. '1" SC • ^ • • • • a •• = • :I ••••1 1 ; (II ES - s 'a • 1 '' a • 1 r• i a ,0 _! s rt • ;AS • ; • ••••• ;••• • • • • ° • IS a a; : r : . 1 t t 3 V _22 ta , .,h: 6 ; ; !, - . . : :• : : ; , ; ; t.. ” ), : = .i. ; IA ; Ii ; .; ; tY;: tit ..;.. 1 i t ,; ' ; ,i i, it i 2 ; ;IS " " !S i• 2! i SS ; ttt ; .S; • a t• • - " — - . - • • • ' — Liz L.;D Co (2) Li Z a 2 o 1- o- o. 03 CO 0 a .▪“, C ci_ .. al Li a. 0 , To 0 4 •••■ 0 02 1••• • _i ttS < Z...• E i.0 U 0 . trt 0` L N rn * '4 U U W >- ir -P C OD L-3 •,--: 1 . t 1 1 . -P R' I • _ - 11. 11 II o- EL Pi''1' 21 s--i ''' aZail I E. 1 Ili lit a, _, ,. 1 , (-1 ill ' ',11 ; I PO Iil : 111 :II 1 , g ,-;!.., 13 m r!1 ' , 1 H lig I re 11 11! a- > aigo ---; to -4 ge• # in III ;1 . i ta P ! s : t ! ; ' ° a• ; ;V. asa at '11X • "'XI'S•••-22-- -;•// ,,it !=s•W2241,4 •-=',” ;t f ••19.7' •••••ta ; ! Si ' 2S-ta/lEY,• •;"911 79-'-',e. 0_ s'S• ' Set 4 ... vtc----t-it...'tit-Tzt fir4ptsit -.Y.,,tent- -tit:- it•! +I .4 Y .;;;; t ; ; ; • -tot' - tete-ay: .49> t'; --- . : t, ; i 4 . : : .: t ; i ; , I m33 ; ; I a• ° 4, ISSInti / eteES•S ',4••••• • ,s S. s ISSItt4 4-•;•• ;SS:c4S-24-4•S•aS;;;E•17‘AS al #4359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Sec $290. 00 BK 718 PG 489 Silvia Davis, Fitk: ' Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 N -1" Jw. - -- t_ a1 0 2 .e _ o a: o • s 1 O on Co 99222 7 2 00 M0 a wCC J O 1 CO J tl_r _ w o D Z 1202 0,V ° { a o m -- CC 0 ..((, a a d z / <4\ +A v dg a - '� `+ �dd08 o a CJ CO 2 _ p \a\ .n N. 1S OObb� a otl �\ L `\ \\y ,OJ a Q LT `sz m 2\ \C 52 m¢ 1 _ �: w sse a ¢ � Um) r a �'°\ CO \ o \' Y '�L a\ > O ▪ 3 ., . • . .22v • 2. L x , N I � C f ,-.-A 7°2allo Z. w 1- i 'I 1 . h z ,2- ° JV a" 4- Oa o O N\ o N w .6> arc " I. O a o I ''t 22222 CO "22 za271 F- f �, cr .ii K �0 111 � ,..x I�� v > z ilK Oa /z \N\ 5 HNC . �t. 5 , “,-,,- \ 9 .; I r � w 0 �I Ctl 9 I 3 I z J OO 0 V a M a O r° \ so a w 7Z 22 O — - _ F � �/ a a a I JO et Goon . n ^ __ o0 a.a: se r -v3"35<3 An"-n n xd .. 1 ee Ln a NOISIAI09f1S 301Stl3A - EXHIBIT C #356441 x5/03/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 BE 710 PG 980 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 ORDINANCE NO. 18 (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2 .35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989 , the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2 . 35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH ) PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations, for rezoning of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9 , 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special 1 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 BK 718 PG 490 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Do_ $. 00 #356441 /03/93 09: 40 Rec %50. 00 PI '10 P6 981 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc "$. 00 Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205 (A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article 7 (Planned Unit Development) , Division 10 of Article 7 , l (Subdivision) , Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review) , Division / 11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments) , Section 8-104 (C) of Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by City Council) , the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended final approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone district; and WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from 12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and I 2 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 19 Rec $290. 00 RV 718 P6 491 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 4#356441 3/03/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 i 710 PG 982 Silvia i;avis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Dc_.^ $. 00 WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in ) effect at the time of final review by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan' s planned unit development component: 1. The Developer ' s final plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2 . The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 . The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4 . The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. \ 5. The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which 3 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Sec $ 90. 00 BK 718 PG 492 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 4#356441 05/, /93 09: 40 Rec $°ir, irir BK: 7' .. ' PG 983 S:il ✓ia Davis, Pitkin Cnty clerk Doc GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. Section 2 : Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the East Cooper project subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2 . A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy. 82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision ' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82 and Barb' s Way. 9 . Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 11 . Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 14 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15 . Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 4 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 13 k: 718 f'8 493 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Dor $. 00 #336441 03/'`3/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 BK 7 ` PG 984 Silvia Day... , Ritkln Cnty Clerk , Doc $-10 Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18 . A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 19. Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22 . Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23 . In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24 . 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. 25. If, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the 5 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 1.8 Rec $290. 10 BK 718 RG 494 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 #35644 )5/03/93 09: 40 Rer_ $50. 00! 710 PG 985 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. O0 Resident Occupied units or single family lot the City has adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictions. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan' s subdivision development component: 1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas. 2 . The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial compliance with all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 3 . The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the topography of the area and will not present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision. 4 . The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary public costs. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer' s request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2 . The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. 3 . The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. 4 . The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest 6 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290, 00 BK 718 PS 495 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 #356441 05/03/9: 39: 40 Rec $50. 00 BK 710 PE :86 .Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. O0 and character of the City of Aspen. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103 , and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City Council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 7: Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan' s condominiumization component: 1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2 . Six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3 . The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. Section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to the Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein: 1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8 . 2 . Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these deed restricted condominium units. Section 9 : The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 10: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. 7 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rer $290. 00 SF( 718 P6 496 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00: #356441 05/C 93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 BK 71, „PG 987 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. O0 Section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in Section 6 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 12 : Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 13 : This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded 8 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 BK 718 PG 497 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Glen :: , Doc $. 000 #356441 05/C 93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 BY 71 ='s 988 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. oJ under such prior ordinances. Section 14 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- ` described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17 : A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the cet. day of 40442-,, 1993 at 5: 00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. 9 #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 BK: 718 R6 498 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 # 56441 05/0 3 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 13F:: 710 'S 989 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 0, INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by�the City Council of the City of Aspen on the �2 day of C: 4. , 1993 . . 9/..7 13„—. `— of 4s�° John Bennett, Mayor A 0 to . : :t. , W,_°_,c_., Kat4igj�pb'.,r'koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this °net= day of ( , 1993 . ,�+"",.11m`,„.', John Be_ nett, Mayor '-C1 4. 43' „ At to:t: 'r,' Kathryn •/ Krich, City Clerk 1. : 18 Rec b290. iii Bt:. 718 Fe 499 #359038 "/2"9%„n my Clerk , Doc S. Silvia Davis, F' C: coop. fin.ord • 10 #3587' 07/14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. Oc , 717 PG 763 XHIBIT D K Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 MASTER DEED RESTRICTION,OCCUPANCY AND RESALE DEED RESTRICTION, AGREEMENT, FOR EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (LACET SUBDIVISION) THIS MASTER DEED RESTRICTION, OCCUPANCY AND RESALE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this wir day of T-1. , l993 , by Lacet Limited Liability, a Colorado partnhrship ("Declarant") , for the benefit of the parties and enforceable by the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "APCHA") , a duly constituted Multi- jurisdictional Housing Authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (the "City") and Pitkin County, Colorado (the "County") , dated September 26, 1989 and recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Declarant owns the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. For purposes of this Agreement, the real property and all dwellings, appurtenances, improvements and fixtures associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Property" ; and WHEREAS, as a condition of the approval granted by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado for subdivision approval of the Property, the Declarant is required to enter into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Declarant agrees to restrict the acquisition or transfer of the Property to "Qualified Buyers, " as that term is defined in this Agreement, who fall within the respective Categories 3 , 4 and Resident Occupied income range established and adopted by the APCHA from time to time in its Affordable Housing Guidelines. In addition, the Declarant agrees that this Agreement shall constitute a resale agreement setting forth the maximum sale price for which the Property may be sold ("Maximum Sale Price") , the amount of appreciation and the terms and provisions controlling the resale of any portion of the Property should Declarant's purchaser desire to sell its interest in the Property at any time after the date of this Agreement. Finally, by this Agreement, Declarant agrees to restrict the Property against use and occupancy inconsistent with this Agreement. WHEREAS, "Qualified Buyers" are natural', ersons meeting the income, residency and all other qualificati ' set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Afforda Housing Guidelines ("the Affordable Housing Guidelines") , or it !substitute, as adopted by the APCHA, or its successor, and In effect at the time of the closing of the sale from Declarant to' the Qualified Buyer and who must represent and agree pursuant to this Agreement to #359038 07/21/93 11 : 1.8 Rec $290. 00 Bk. 718 PG 500 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 358r9t ') /1 }:9.3 116: 00 Rec95. C;n 8K Silvia Day , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc 2 10FG 764 N,358797 occupy the Property as their sole place of residence, not to engage in any business activity on the Property, other than that permitted in that zone district or by applicable ordinance, and not to sell or otherwise transfer the Property for use in a trade or business. WHEREAS, an "Owner" is a person or persons who is/are a Qualified Buyer who acquires an ownership interest in the Property in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed an "Owner" hereunder only during the period of his, her or their ownership interest in the Property and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. WHEREAS, a "Unit" is any of the units AlA through C4B which comprize the property. NOW THEREFORE, for value received, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Declarant hereby represents, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The use and occupancy of the Property and all units shall henceforth be limited exclusively to housing for natural persons who meet the definition of Qualified Buyers and their families. 2 . An Owner, in connection with the purchase of this Property or Unit, must, (i) occupy any Unit within the Property as his or her sole place of residence during the time that such unit is owned, (ii) not engage in any business activity on or in such Unit, other than that permitted in that zone district or by applicable ordinance, (iii) sell or otherwise transfer such Unit only in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines, (iv) not sell or otherwise transfer such Unit for use in a trade or business, and (v) not permit any use or occupancy of such Unit except in compliance with this Agreement. 3 . (a) It shall be a breach of this Agreement for an Owner to default in payments or other obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust encumbering the Property or a Unit. Owner must notify the APCHA, in writing, of any notification received from a lender, or its assigns, of past due payments or default in payment or other obligations due or to be performed under a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust, as described herein, within five calendar days of Owner' s notification from lender, or its assigns, of said default or past due payments. -2- #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 BK 718 PG 501 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 #358797 / 14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 E _717 PG 765 Silvia Dc. !Is, PitF::in Cnty Clerk , Doc 3. 00 (b) Upon notification from a Owner, as provided above, or other notice of such default, the APCHA may offer loan counseling or distressed loan services to the Owner, if any of these services are available, and is entitled to require the Owner to sell the Property or a Unit to avoid the commencement of any foreclosure proceeding against the Property or a Unit. In the event that the APCHA determines that sale of the Property or a Unit is necessary, the Owner shall immediately execute a standard h Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission with the APCHA, providing for a 30-day listing period. If a sales contract has not been roo executed within the initial 30-day period, the Owner N • shall extend the listing period for an additional 180 days, provided such extension does not conflict with the w o statutory rights of any secured creditors. The APCHA shall promptly advertise the Property for sale by compet- itive bid to Qualified Buyers. The Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an amount equal to two caa percent (2%) of the sales price. In the event of a a listing of the Property or a Unit pursuant to this Paragraph 3 . , the APCHA is entitled to require the Owner P to accept the highest of any qualified bids which pr, satisfies the Owner's financial or other obligations due c under the promissory note secured by a first deed of • H trust and deed of trust in favor of the APCHA, as . described herein, and to sell such Property to such qualified bidder. �• tL v N (c) Upon receipt of notice as provided in paragraphs 3 (a) ; and (b) , APCHA shall have the right, in it's sole ore discretion, to cure the default or any portion thereof. In such event the Owner shall be personally liable to the r,'• r APCHA for past due payments made by the APCHA together > with interest thereon at the rate specified in the D1 -1 promissory note secured by the first deed of trust, plus *• r% one percent (1%) , and all actual expenses of the APCHA incurred in curing the default. The Owner shall be required by the APCHA to execute a promissory note secured by deed of trust encumbering the Property or Unit in favor of the APCHA for the amounts expended by the APCHA as specified herein, including future advances made for such purposes. The Owner may cure the default and satisfy it's obligation to the APCHA under this subpara- graph at any time prior to execution of a contract for sale, upon such reasonable terms as specified by the APCHA. Otherwise, the Owner's indebtedness to the APCHA shall be satisfied from the Owner's proceeds at closing. 4 . This Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the real property, described in Exhibit A, as a burden thereon, for the benefit of, and shall be specifically —3— #353 'Q7 07 /14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. BK Silty, Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk /Doc $. 0 PG 766 1 , 'Doc $, tiU enforceable by the APCHA, and the Aspen City Council (the "Council") , and their respective successors and assigns, as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including but not limited to specific performance, injunction, reversion, or eviction of non-complying owners and/or occupants. 5. In the event that an Owner desires to sell the Property or Unit, Owner shall execute a standard Listing Contract on forms approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission with the APCHA providing for a 180-day listing period, or Mo such other time period as required by the APCHA Afford- V7 able Housing Guidelines in effect at time of listing. The APCHA shall promptly advertise such Property or Unit for sale by competitive bid to Qualified Buyers. The w Owner shall, upon closing, pay a fee to the APCHA in an ' ' amount equal to two percent (2%) of the sales N • q P ( ) price. If FNMA type financing is used there may be a fee charged by x u the APCHA, based on the amount financed. The amount of this fee to be paid by the subsequent Owner shall be as set forth in the current Affordable Housing Guidelines and will be distributed to the APCHA Mortgage Fund Account. to iJ T MAXIMUM SALE PRICE if ++ w 6. In no event shall the Property or a Unit be sold for an c amount ("Maximum Sale Price") in excess of the lesser of: ri (a) $** , plus an increase of three per- t() -t cent (3%) of such price per year from the date of purchase to the date of Owner's notice of intent to N f sell (prorated at the rate of . 25 percent for each whole month for any part of a year) ; or v, v n (b) an amount (based upon the Consumer Price Index, All • m Items, U. S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners and > clerical Workers (Revised) , published by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics) 'x• '" calculated as follows: the Owner's purchase price multiplied by the Consumer Price Index last pub- lished prior to the date of Owner's notice of intent to sell divided by the Consumer Price Index current at the date of this Agreement. In no event shall the multiplier be less than one (1) . For purposes of this Agreement, "date of intent to sell" shall be the date of execution of a listing contract when required by this agreement, or if a **To be determined by a later recorded memorandum encumbering each individual unit. -4- Cl . . c. 14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BK 17 PG 767 Silvia Davis , Pitk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 listing contract is not otherwise necessary, the date shall be determined to be the date upon which a requirement for the Owner to sell is first applicable. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE BY THE APCHA, THE CITY OR THE COUNTY THAT ON SALE THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM SALE PRICE. 0 N 7 . (a) For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale m Price in accordance with this Section, the Owner N • may add to the amount specified in Paragraph 6 above, fifty percent (50%) of the cost of Permitted Capital Improvements, as defined in Exhibit "B" , attached hereto and incorporated herein, in a total amount not to exceed $** , which is ten U m percent (10%) of the initial listed purchase price set forth in paragraph 6 (a) above. All such Permitted Capital Improvements installed or w T constructed over the life of the unit shall qualify. However, the allowance permitted by this WC) subsection is a fixed amount, which shall be • c calculated on a cumulative basis applicable to the owner and all subsequent purchasers, and shall not exceed the maximum dollar amount set forth in this ri a C- subsection 7 (a) . • `0 (b) Permitted Capital Improvements shall not include any changes or additions to the Property made by ca the Owner during construction or thereafter, except in accordance with Paragraph 7 (a) above. Permitted Capital Improvements shall not be included in the ai — APCHA's listed purchase price, even if made or * cc installed during original construction. (c) In order to qualify as Permitted Capital Improvements, Owner must furnish to the APCHA the following information with respect to the improvements which the Owner seeks to include in the calculation of Maximum Sale Price: (i) Original or duplicate receipts to verify the actual costs expended by the Owner for the Permitted Capital Improvements; ** To be determined by a later recorded memorandum encumbering each individual unit. -5- #358797 0- 14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BF: '17 PG 768 Silvia Da'e _s, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc -. 0n (ii) Owner's affidavit verifying that the receipts are valid and correct receipts tendered at the time of purchase; and (iii) True and correct copies of any building permit or certificate of occupancy required to be issued by the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department with respect to the Permitted Capital Improvements. 0 0 V) Lr; (d) For the purpose of determining the Maximum Sale Price in accordance with this Section, Owner may coo also add to the amount specified in Paragraphs 6 and 7 (a) , the cost of any permanent improvements • constructed or installed as a result of any requirement imposed by any governmental agency, provided that written certification is provided to OO the APCHA of both the applicable requirement and the information required by Paragraph 7 (c) (i) - (iii) . t}? u J (e) In calculating the costs under Paragraphs 7 (a) and 7 (d) , only the Owner' s actual out-of-pocket costs and expenses shall be eligible for inclusion. Such amount shall not include an amount attributable to Owner's "sweat equity" or to any appreciation in the value of the improvements. ro .-4 Er `` 8 . All disputes between Owner and the administrative staff r m of the APCHA shall be heard in accordance with the grievance procedures set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. a C) rp 9 . Owner shall not permit any prospective buyer to assume any or all of the Owner's customary closing costs nor rrp accept any other consideration which would cause an 4 0-1 increase in the purchase price above the bid price so as to induce the Owner to sell to such prospective buyer. 10. In the event that one qualified bid is received equal to the Maximum Sale Price herein established, the Property or Unit shall be sold to such bidder at the Maximum Sale Price; and in the event Owner receives two or more such bids equal to the Maximum Sale Price, the Qualified Buyer shall be selected according to the priority for Sale Units set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines; and, in the event that all such qualified bidders are of equal priority pursuant to the Affordable Housing Guidelines, the Qualified Buyer shall be selected by lottery among the qualified bidders, whereupon the Property or Unit shall be sold to the winner of such -6- 1358797 r '14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BF -717 PG 769 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk: , Doc 3. 00 lottery at the Maximum Sale Price. If the terms of the proposed purchase contract, other than price, as initially presented to the Owner, are unacceptable to the Owner, there shall be a mandatory negotiation period of three (3) business days to allow the Seller and potential buyer to reach an agreement regarding said terms, including but not limited to the closing date and 0i u financing contingencies. If, after the negotiation period is over, the Seller and buyer have not reached an agreement, the next bidder's offer will then be presented m y to the Seller for consideration and a three (3) business day negotiating period will begin again. The Seller may reject any and all bids, however, the Owner is subject to o the provisions in the Affordable Housing Guidelines pertaining to the listing fee. Bids in excess of the Maximum Sale Price shall be rejected. If all bids are LL below Maximum Sale Price, the Owner may accept the ° i w highest qualified bid. If all bids are below Maximum Sale Price and two or more bids are for the same price, .r the Qualified Buyer shall be selected by lottery from ;t a among the highest qualified bidders. Q) Li c 11. In the event that title to Property or a Unit vests by descent in individuals and/or entities who are not Qualified Buyers as that term is defined herein, (hereinafter "Non-Qualified Transferee(s) ") , the Property or a Unit shall immediately be listed for sale as N provided in Paragraph 5 above (including the payment of the specified fee to the APCHA) , and the highest bid by c a Qualified Buyer, for not less than ninety-five percent w (95%) of the Maximum Sale Price or the appraised market value, whichever is less, shall be accepted; if all bids 6- ' are below ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sale o Price or the appraised market value, the Property shall continue to be listed for sale until a bid in accordance with this section is made, which bid must be accepted. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the Non- Qualified Transferee (s) . (a) Non-Qualified Transferee(s) shall join in any sale, conveyance or transfer of the Property or a Unit to a Qualified Buyer and shall execute any and all documents necessary to do so; and (b) Non-Qualified Transferee (s) agree not to (i) occupy the Property or a Unit, (ii) rent all or any part of the Property or a Unit, except in strict compliance with Paragraph 15 hereof; (iii) engage in any business activity on or in the Property or a Unit, (iv) sell or otherwise transfer the Property or a Unit except in accordance with this Agreement and the Affordable Housing Guidelines, or (v) sell -7- #353797 '14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 8, .717 PG 770 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 or otherwise transfer the Property or a Unit for use in a trade or business. (c) The APCHA, and the City, or their respective successors, as applicable, shall have the right and option to purchase the Property or a Unit, exercisable within a period of fifteen (15) calen- dar days upon notice of transfer, and, in the event of exercising their right and option, shall O purchase the Property or Unit from the Non- Qualified Transferee(s) for a price of ninety-five percent (95%) of the Maximum Sale Price, or the m0' appraised market value, whichever is less. Notice • , of option to purchase shall be made by the Non- - "' Qualified Transferee within fifteen (15) days of n acquisition of the Property or Unit. h (d) Where the provisions of this Paragraph 11 apply, the APCHA may require the Owner to rent the - '- Property or Unit in accordance with the N P Y provisions * of Paragraph 15, below. OWNER RESIDENCE 0) U 12 . The Property and all Units shall be and is to be utilized only as the sole and exclusive place of residence of an Owner. .' cr. 2 13 . In the event an Owner changes domicile or ceases to utilize the Property or Unit as his sole and exclusive cM w place of residence, the Property or Unit will be offered t- > for sale pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 11 of 0 G this Agreement. Owner shall be deemed to have changed Owner's domicile by becoming a resident elsewhere or ac- cepting permanent employment outside Pitkin County, or > residing on the Property or Unit for fewer than nine (9) ri months per calendar year without the express written r vi approval of the APCHA. Where the provisions of this Paragraph 13 apply, the APCHA may require the Owner to rent the Property in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 15 , below. 14 . If at any time the Owner of the Property or Unit also owns any interest alone or in conjunction with others in any developed residential property or dwelling unit (s) located in Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties, Owner agrees to immediately list said other property or unit for sale and to sell Owner's interest in such property at a sales price comparable to like units or properties in the area in which the property or dwelling unit (s) are located. In the event said other property or unit has not been sold by Owner within one hundred twenty (120) days of its listing, then Owner shall immediately list this Property or Unit for sale pursuant to the -8- #358797 07 ' 4/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BK Silvia Day. , Pitk:in Cnty ClerE:: PG 771 Doc 8° 00 provisions of Paragraph 11 of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed between the parties hereto that, in the case of a Owner whose business is the construction and sale of residential properties or the purchase and resale of such properties, the properties which consti- tute inventory in such a Owner's business shall not constitute "other developed residential property" or "dwelling unit(s) " as those terms are used in this Paragraph 14 . 0 In u m V RENTAL I'.— 15 . Owner may not, except with prior written approval of the APCHA, and subject to the APCHA's conditions of approval, o rent the Property or Unit for any period of time. Prior ❑ to occupancy any tenant must be approved by the Homeowner's Association, if applicable, and the APCHA in accordance with the income, occupancy and all other iv qualifications established by the APCHA in its Affordable w u Housing Guidelines. The APCHA shall not approve any rental if such rental is being made by Owner to utilize the Property or Unit as an income producing asset, except as provided below, and shall not approve a lease with a rental term in excess of twelve (12) months. A signed copy of the lease must be provided to the APCHA prior to occupancy by any tenant. Any such lease approved by the r, APCHA shall be the greater of Owner's cost or the monthly a rental amount specified in the Affordable Housing Guide- lines for units which were constructed in the year in N m which the subject unit was deed restricted at the • > appropriate income category. Owner's cost as used herein Q includes the monthly expenses for the cost of principal n-, and interest payments, taxes, property insurance, • r condominium or homeowners assessments, utilities remain- • > ing in owner's name, plus an additional twenty dollars ri ($20. 00) and a reasonable (refundable) security deposit. The requirements of this Paragraph shall not preclude the Owner from sharing occupancy of the Property or Unit with non-owners on a rental basis provided Owner continues to meet the obligations contained in this Agreement, including Paragraph 12 . 16 . IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OWNER CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THE PITKIN COUNTY OR CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE, IN OR ON THE PROPERTY. 17 . NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO PROTECT OR INDEMNIFY THE OWNER AGAINST ANY LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RENTAL INCLUDING (NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION) NON-PAYMENT OF RENT OR DAMAGE TO THE -9- #=58797 c7/ 14/93 16: 00 Sec 195. 00 BF':: 717 P6 772 Silvia I is, Pit4in Cnty Cler4 , Dc $. 00 PREMISES; NOR TO REQUIRE THE APCHA TO OBTAIN A QUALIFIED TENANT FOR THE OWNER IN THE EVENT THAT NONE IS FOUND BY THE OWNER. BREACH Po 18 . In the event that the APCHA has reasonable cause to believe the Owner is violating the provisions of this Agreement, the APCHA by its authorized representative may inspect the Property or Unit between the hours of 8 : 00 to A.M. and 5: 00 P.M. , Monday through Friday, after .40 providing the Owner with no less than 24 hours' written notice. -a- 0 19. The APCHA, in the event a violation of this Agreement is discovered, shall send a notice of violation to the Owner detailing the nature of the violation and allowing the 6; t Owner fifteen (15) days to cure. Said notice shall state c'. that the Owner may request a hearing before the APCHA " c within fifteen (15) days to determine the merits of the allegations. If no hearing is requested and the T. 4) violation is not cured within the fifteen (15) day period, the Owner shall be considered in violation of this Agreement. If a hearing is held before the APCHA, the decision of the APCHA based on the record of such hearing shall be final for the purpose of determining if r; :-4 a violation has occurred. m REMEDIES c4 ..4 20. There is hereby reserved to the parties hereto any and A all remedies provided by law for breach of this Agreement m ti or any of its terms. In the event the parties resort to > litigation with respect to any or all provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to * U) recover damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 21. In the event the Property or Unit is sold and/or conveyed without compliance herewith, such sale and/or conveyance shall be wholly null and void and shall confer no title whatsoever upon the purported buyer. Each and every conveyance of the Property or Unit, for all purposes, shall be deemed to include and incorporate by this reference, the covenants herein contained, even without reference therein to this Agreement. 22 . In the event that the Owner fails to cure any breach, the APCHA may resort to any and all available legal action, including, but not limited to, specific performance of this Agreement or a mandatory injunction requiring sale of the Property or Unit by Owner as specified in Paragraphs 3 , 11, 13 , and 14 . The costs of such sale shall be taxed against the proceeds of the sale with the -10- #358797 07'14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 Bf. 717 P6 773 Silvia Da•,. . , Piti::in Cnty Clerk , Doc 00 balance being paid to the Owner. 23 . In the event of a breach of any of the terms or conditions contained herein by Owner, his heirs, successors or assigns, the APCHA's initial listed purchase price of the Property or Unit as set forth in Section 6 (a) of this Agreement shall, upon the date of such breach as determined by the APCHA, automatically cease to increase as set out in paragraph 6 of this Agreement, and shall remain fixed until the date of cure of said breach. FORECLOSURE w M1 a• If FNMA type financing is used to purchase the Property or Unit, as determined by the APCHA, the APCHA and the Board may, x o pursuant to that certain Option to Buy executed and recorded of even date herewith, the terms of which are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully set forth herein, agree to release and waive their ability to enforce the resale c4 y deed restrictions contained herein, in the event of foreclosure, provided that said Option to Buy grants to the APCHA and the Board, as the designee of the APCHA, the option s to acquire the Property or Unit within thirty (30) days after c the issuance of a public trustee's deed to the holder (includ- u ing assigns of the holder) of the promissory note secured by a first deed of trust for an option price not to exceed the redemption price on the last day of all statutory redemption period(s) and any additional reasonable costs incurred by the r^. T U. holder during the option period which are directly related to the foreclosure. c; in 1^ In the event that the APCHA or the Board, as the designee of Q the APCHA, exercise the option pursuant to the terms of that w certain Option to Buy, described above, the APCHA, and/or its "m designee, may sell the Property or Unit to Qualified Buyers as that term is defined herein, or rent the Property or Unit to P Y qualified tenants who meet the income, occupancy and all other Frn qualifications, established by the APCHA in its Affordable Housing Guidelines until sale to a Qualified Buyer is effected. GENERAL PROVISIONS 24 . Notices. Any notice, consent or approval which is required to be given hereunder shall be given by mailing the same, certified mail, return receipt requested, properly addressed and with postage fully prepaid, to any address provided herein or to any subsequent mailing address of the party as long as prior written notice of the change of address has been given to the other parties to this Agreement. -11- 4358797 C'—/14/93 16: 00 Rec 395. 00 BV 717 PG 774 Silvia D,: is, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doi 4. 00 25. Said notices, consents and approvals shall be sent to the parties hereto at the following addresses unless otherwise notified in writing: To Declarant: Lacet Limited Liability, Co. c/o E.J. Olbright Suite 204 160 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO 80498 N c To APCHA: Director co .. . Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 x o Q To Owner: To be determined by a later recorded memorandum encumbering each individual unit. °, m 26. Exhibits. Exhibit A, attached hereto, is incorporated herein and by this reference made a part hereof. w + 27 . Severability. Whenever possible, each provision of this m 5 Agreement and any other related document shall be c interpreted in such manner as to be valid under applicable law; but, if any provision of any of the foregoing shall be invalid or prohibited under said rn applicable law, such provisions shall be ineffective to c the extent of such invalidity or prohibition without invalidating the remaining provisions of such document. r 28 . Choice of Law. This Agreement and each and every related document is to be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. P'. it > 29 . Successors. Except as otherwise provided herein, the ri provisions and covenants contained herein shall inure to m and be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. 30. Section Headings. Paragraph or section headings within this Agreement are inserted solely for convenience of reference, and are not intended to, and shall not, govern, limit or aid in the construction of any terms or provisions contained herein. 31. Waiver. No claim of waiver, consent or acquiescence with respect to any provision of this Agreement shall be valid against any party hereto except on the basis of a written instrument executed by the parties to this Agreement. However, the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted herein shall have the unilateral right to waive such condition. -12- #358797 "7/14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 P" 717 PG 775 Silvia vis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk , D, $. 00 32 . Gender and Number. Whenever the context so requires herein, the neuter gender shall include any or all genders and vice versa and the use of the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. 33 . Personal Liability. Owner agrees that he shall be 0 personally liable for any of the transactions O contemplated herein. 11 m ,• ', 34. Further Actions. The parties to this Agreement agree to t� execute such further documents and take such further actions as may be reasonably required to carry out the o provisions and intent of this Agreement or any agreement Q or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. .6-- a m 35. Modifications. The parties to this Agreement agree that * U any modifications of this Agreement shall be effective only when made in wrtiting signed by the Owner (s) of the t applicable Unit (s) and APCHA or its successors and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, mu Colorado. Notwithstanding the foregoing, APCHA reserves ▪ c the right to amend this Agreement unilaterally where deemed necessary to effectuate the purpose and intent of r.• .� this Agreement, and where such unilateral action does not P a- materially impair the Owner's rights under this Agreement. m36. Owner and Successors. The term "Owner" shall mean the person or persons who shall acquire an ownership interest cc in the Property or a Unit in compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; it being understood that such person or persons shall be deemed a "Owner" r. hereunder only during the period of his ownership w interest in the Property and shall be obligated hereunder for the full and complete performance and observance of all covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein during such period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this -13- #358797 ''/14/93 16: 00 Sec $95. 00 By 717 PG 776 Silvia D._.vis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Dc $. 00 instrument on th- .ay and year above first written. M / / N DECLARANT: By: - m E.J�.4.z- * is:i*- c. N . _ N N . TITLE: FOR: Li ited Liability, Co. on Mailing l : Suite 204 1 60 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO 80498 N i i, U y >. CC -4, n U ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY c The foregoing Master Deed Restriction of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Occupancy and Resale Deed Restriction, Q-• 0- Agreement and Covenant and its terms are hereby accepted by The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. N N THE ASPEN/PI COUNTSING q AUTHORIT rnN By: / i • " / ff A YI // n Title: e-7 - n a trnno.n 0' -i u . 2.c -' STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing g instrument was acknowledged before me this /1 N day of .- I.) , 19i5, by rr/nr Witness my hand and official seal. ` 1d/4"^ My commission expires: - (212 ' Notary P blic . /O LP:, -14- #756797 07/14 '-'3 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BK 717 ^9 777 Silvia Davis, itkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 0 ATTACHMENT 2 The following is a list of approximate net livable square footage of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lecet Q Subdivision) Units Al through C5. V] U Additionally, the units shall include the affordable housing sales EL categories #3 or #4 or R.O. to which either 1) qualified employees co ,;, of Pitkin County, or 2) resident seniors who have been an employee -t =' of Pitkin County for two years, or 3) a handicapped person or a r` t dependent therof shall be pre-qualified to purchase the w u condominiums. a Please refer to Attachment #2 to show the location of the units • ° within the condominium buildings and Lot 4 . 6 L N m UNIT# AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROX. NET MAXIMUM u !6 SALES CATEGORY LIVABLE S. F. SALES PRICE m >� AlA 3 950 m u A1B 3 950 $116, 500 c A2A 3 804 $106, 500 -1 ...-1 A2B 3 804 $106, 500 T r-' B1 RO 1, 284 Market LL B2 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 [d s B3 4 1. 284 $193 , 500 r- > B4 RO 1, 284 Market ,, m m Q Cl RO 1, 284 Market r; rn C2 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 P '> C3 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 n C4A 4 950 $183 , 500 r-; t C1j C5B 4 804 $173 , 500 Lot 4 RO 6, 664 . 68 (lot) Market -15- #358797 0'. .4/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 81: ,7_PG 778 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT8 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ASPEN, COLORADO CL CO C. ti Being a tract of land located in tract portion of Riverside Addition that was annexed to the u City of Aspen, Colorado on March 20, 1967 in the N/E 1/4 of Section 18 Township 10 o South, Range 84 West, 6ih Principal Meridian City of Aspen, County of Pitkin Colorado said tract being a part of Parcels A and B as set forth in Stewart Title of Aspen Inc. order Number 00018642 dated 9/13/91 and which is more particularly described as follows: cd m COMMENCING at the southeast corner of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE m T HOUSING SUBDIVISION whence corner No. 5 of Riverside Placer, M.S. No 3905 AM a • identical with corner No. i4 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, A Bureau of Land c Management Brass Cap 1954, bears N 50° 39' 40" W, 777.02 feet; THENCE N 15° 37' 29" W, 91.96 feet; ii THENCE N 14° 03' 32' W, 122.12 feet; u? THENCE N 13° 37' 41" E. 40.84 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 8 out of the — EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION and the POINT OF ': u BEGINNING; THENCE N 78° 30' 12" E, 33.23 feet; to f .y THENCE N 37° 36' 30" E, 56.28 feet; in THENCE N 68° 07' 54" E, 23.76 feet; C) THENCE N 50° 35' 35" W, 49.01 feet; THENCE Northwesterly 217.86 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 140.50 feet, a central angle of 08" 52' 06" and a chord bearing N 54° 54' 13" W, 217.64 feet; THENCE southwesterly 103.39 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southwest with'a radius of 945.25 feet, a central angle of 06" 16' 01" and a. chord bearing S 46° 16' 47" W. 103.34 feet; THENCE S 00° 15' 52" E, 66.97 feet; THENCE N 89° 37' 27" E, 31.25 feet; THENCE southeasterly 2.5 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 58.46 feet, a central angle of 02° 27' 01" and a chord bearing S 37° 44' 10" E, 2.5 feet; THENCE S 38° 57' 40" E, 21.81 feet; THENCE southeasterly 69.14 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 190.31 feet, a central angle of 20° 48' 59" and a chord bearing S 28° 33' 10" E, 68.76 feet; THENCE N 89° 25' 46", E 120.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said Lot 8 containing 0.858 acres, (37,374 square feet) more or less. wp-docs2.51Ucg.u18 #358797 07.-. 4/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BK. ' PG Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ASPEN, COLORADO Being a tract of land located in tract portion of Riverside Addition that was annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado on March 20, 1967 in the N/E 1/4 of Section 18 Township 10 South, Range 84 West, 6'h Principal Meridian City of Aspen, County of Pitkin Colorado said tract being a part of Parcels A and B as set forth in Stewart Title of Aspen Inc. order Number 00018642 dated 9/13/91 and which is more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southeast corner of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION whence corner No. 5 of Riverside Placer, M.S. No 3905 AM m identical with corner No. 14 of Tract B, Aspen Townsite Addition, A Bureau of Land M1 Management Brass Cap 1954, bears N 50° 39' 40", W 777.02 feet; 0 THENCE N 15° 37' 29" W, 91.96 feet; THENCE N 14° 03' 32" W, 122.12 feet; LL THENCE N 13° 37' 41" E, 40.84 feet; cam THENCE N 78° 30' 12" E, 33.23 feet; THENCE N 37° 36' 30" E, 56.28 feet; m THENCE N 68° 07' 54" E, 23.76 feet; ai THENCE N 50° 35' 35" W, 49.01 feet; THENCE Northwesterly 217.86 feet, along the arc of a circular curve concave to the northwest with a radius of 1407.50 feet, a central angle of 08° 52' 06" and a chord bearing N 54° 54' 13" W, 217.64 feet; THENCE southwesterly 103.39 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the P a- t- southwest with a radius of 945.25 feet, a central angle of 06° 16' 01" and a chord bearing S 46° 16' 47" W, 103.34 feet;. THENCE S 00° 15' 52", E 66.97 feet; w cc THENCE N 89° 37' 27", E 31.25 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 4 out of the EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION and the POINT OF ' BEGINNING; a «a THENCE southeasterly 2.5 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 58.46 feet, a central angle of 02° 27' 01" and a chord bearing S 37° 44' 10" E, 2.5 feet; THENCE S 38° 57' 40", E 21.81 feet; THENCE southeasterly 69.14 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the southeast with a radius of 190.31 feet, a central angle of 20° 48' 59" and a chord bearing S 28° 33' 10" E, 6836 feet; THENCE N 89° 25' 46", W 103.97 feet; THENCE N 00° 15' 52", W 80.00 feet; THENCE N 89° 37' 27", E 56.23 feet; to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said Lot 4 containing 0.154 acres, (6,708 square feet) more or less. ,,pd«•,Sullen# #358797 0- '14/93 16: 00 Rec $95. 00 BK ?17 PG 780 Silvia Dat s, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc ,. 00 ATTACHMENT 2 The following is a list of approximate net livable square footage of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Development (Lecet N Subdivision) Units Al through C5. In Additionally, the units shall include the affordable housing sales o categories #3 or #4 or R.O. to which either 1) qualified employees LL of Pitkin County, or 2) resident seniors who have been an employee mmc of Pitkin County for two years, or 3) a handicapped person or a " = dependent therof shall be pre-q ualified to purchase the * condominiums. It u o Please refer to Attachment #2 to show the location of the units within the condominium buildings and Lot 4 . m UNIT# AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROX. NET MAXIMUM o SALES CATEGORY LIVABLE S. F. SALES PRICE u C..• u AlA 3 950 $116, 500 c AlB 3 950 $116, 500 mu A2A 3 804 $106, 500 .. c A2B 3 804 $106, 500 -u B1 RO 1, 284 Market r. ,H 0. B2 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 .. B3 4 1. 284 $193 , 500 N w B4 RO 1, 284 Market .-1 N > Lw. Q Cl RO 1, 284 Market m C2 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 • ro C3 4 1, 284 $193 , 500 o> > C4A 4 950 $183 , 500 r, C5B 4 804 $173 , 500 # co Lot 4 RO 6, 664 . 68 (lot) Market -15- NlN----/ I ll ÷ . - , C" • ,- • -"\\ ■ Z 1 N'N t 1 1 ''' • N I 1 i .■ t 1 t 9 6 /0 • i t I Z i / IN/ i ii. E La 1 i' Q E4 2 :q 1 E 3 3 -, . ., I ei -1 a • 3 v 3 •I' :',1 I. m ; ,. N , g co is"\e'', e• i 'it \,..,41*.\... 0 - j t • - 4. ,,,,,4_ --,,e„. Np, • , . \iiire , „ e ' N •• t's i. , , •1/2: ... , 7,.. .••,„ (2 li. v. 1 CO a, "--- L.c c . co al u o_ II . , - - - -t- _ - t 4 1,1- I :I; - ------• Nis: f••• :: .. - ', 2 ;t i‘ ;- ' I - • i. - — j-- Qv, --) i H ti , o 1 \ :-' i I ,_ o iii- 0 G e- . in 1_ a- al .14 -. (2 _ u 8 i k U II al > r, -4 , , ■ cc -,u c i t ?. r 141/4 4,ir r0 -. , 1 11, ,c.i t : r tii t t ktit Cr r. I I__L..------- I / r- > 1 a a, nJ CO > ID# Mr..9 ■ • r n 'mi.A nnne anetnAni Exhibit E Colorado First Construction Co. May 20, 1993 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear Tom: The anticipated construction cost for the East Copper townhouses is $1,172,135. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Mike Cuthbertson Preconstruction Services Manager #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 Bk:: 71@ F'6 519 Silvia Davis , Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstBank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468-6760 • FAX(303)468-8488 EXHIBIT F en s` • m ri ,' wg t L II VVV u y > m ° i L n ° g � F P p i o 7 S l j I n 1 2 a .� ,' "- � /J Le t p .,§ - F 7 rs s ,, ? LL i LL �e F '''..„ 4 5 a al >, y� S CJ U \ 9 _ �d� 37. _J. — ; " ° . a f a m II< CV u 5 o ti 3 Er > 0 83 ��`._ Au a k d — g b i � _ xi s L -- uosLp9n5 aPKxan;a N EXHIBIT G _: rn k _ . f .� 8 LL F7- R I — 1-J , / . I pii` . 5 - oa i Y a1, F a Z Q =n 00 X. 1 W 9 wo \ \ s jr`j' 'uz V U Q „ \\ I Y 0 Lu fu W i. 1 !S I / i I ''''-,33,, re 9 14 x .,« 22 � v N w / % a��,,. / -re�� ��V v to L u 'e a-v�y / / �� orb ` '' V W \ .\ A , ems, ., ''/.�Nora. \N, /d1 ob N.,;,3' `\\,�,`' Ie 3 off ...... ; 1 ��_� I 1 27 a a°I .x I Ei /-s \rr i / i 1 Sx 4 x . / 8:`a GZ 1 C.4 01 --\ L ---‘ \ '` drask\ey, s zd Alt tA. - q T\ \ \1#41; 3 , - o ` = - It Pte' IL .2k 1 N- ?-`m 1=rC y`�i . -. -\ -1 N. g i 1 - --I -i\� � —V = § a s■ .__..11 Le vo -.5.i! 1 i� II / _, 3 . , „ W.83 . av .`A 1 fr � i.z �I / 1 I 1 31, °. _ awl°- ii N Q _� N �. v _� I I _ .0 1888yS w Qry� 3 Ifs N I L ' rf•� 1\ CC i o$`\ ahL _ 01� I�� / F / /` I _\\ sc.a.I ac —I Q )�1p3 11 / I I/1 1§i / I \ \ 3- 4,n � - / o/ y I i v li 1 `I f l / 1 I 1 1 , I ti \ ' r �yy I\ o \ - 3 1 _ O p \I 8 y € 6 ffi / \ i I1,I I 7 i I - s at g°si tr. #35908 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 BK 718 PG 522 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 Colorado First Construction Co. June 3, 1993 Mr. loin Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear Torn: The anticipated earthwork, paving and site concrete construction costs for the Lacet and East Copper projects in Aspen are: Grading and drainage for East Cooper - $66,484. Asphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for East Cooper - $18,591, - t255 !Z' ." Grading and drainage for Lacet, including Barbs Way - $58,645, 1 (Asphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for Lacet, including Barbs Way - $19,809. Asphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for the work on Highway 82 - $8,003. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, uX' & a%1. Mike Cuthbertson Preconstruction Services Manager Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 First8ank Center • Silverthorne,CO 80498 • (303)468.6760 • FAX(303)468.8488 EXHIBIT H -i i #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec $290, 00 BK 718 PG 523 1M Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 r5 7 a` z 1 3 A I o a o i LL I' a a El P' 2 . I � 7 LL �� P VA I,i 1*---n I.———.\ . M.Ske 4 11\1147S,2 tris* Olt .4%..4 2 te,,i ' . PAIIiiiiiihrt t4 480U : , II I` j ) ( ! - 1 1 I` 4 IL , �. k O i 1 ...1-- I io 1 Ili § 9 r - __—t - V 9 C i ? -, 1 S k K 0 d -- f i U i 1■■1 i t i` 3 LL 4 r __ \ 3 g i 3 L 0 z J L j b is: +X r O T r - — r 7, 77 tterrPr- '' - ;INCORPORATED. #359038 07/21/93 11 : 18 Rec °x290. 00 Lit'. 718 PG 524 Silvia Davis, PItI.in Cnty Clerk: , Doc $. 0C> May 18, 1993 E.J. Olbright Lacet Limited Liability, Co. Suite 204 160 Highway 6 Silverthorne, CO 80498 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING Dear E.J. Pursuant to your request I have prepared a cost estimate for landscape construction for the above referenced project. This estimate is based on the Landscape Plan prepared by my office and included as part of the final submission approved by City Council on May 26, 1993 by Ordinance 93-18. 31 spruce @ $350/ea. $10,850 33 cottonwood @ 100/ea. 3,300 15 aspen @ 75/ea. 1,125 5 ash @ 250/ea. 1,250 27 dogwood @ 20/ea. 540 17 potentilla @ 20/ea. 340 12 cotoneaster @ 20/ea. 240 25,000 s.f. seed @ .10/s.f. 2,500 12,000 s.f. sod @ .30/s.f. 3,600 37,000 s.f. irrigation (12 zones @ 900/zone) 10,800 350 yd topsoil @ 5.70/yd 2,000 5 outdoor lights @ 200/ea. 1.000 Total $37,545 Please contact me if you have any questions or comments concerning this information. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens ASLA 312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center,Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6717 FAX (303) 925-6707 EXHIBIT I � M iL „\ s o w.„____ m S �„ N 9 a eg ' < - , O a v 1 w in \ U IA z - i : ,1_ • - •. T ID k NN CO C• A p NN Q e \ N. o ' N. 0 i C \ \ —i fl/ / / S \ "N. x .. C \ \ NN �•bo G i v v bo '^ • r \ I / 4 Cr N. L 1 o \ \' I.; ill c \ A \ T x II � ,1I b : I �; I° 'I I / W.AR o I �.y, lei I ! s ° � '\ ° j1 � \ _ ggg gal e3 1 .r—u°' \ _ uoE Hk\ V I i8 �«\a ' x . a II v C t I IT= �e #35903:0:21 /93 11 : 15 Rec $290. 00�„t1: 718 PG 526 Silvia s, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 JColorado F Construction Co. May 20, 1993 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear Tom: The anticipated construction cost for the private utilities, (electric, gas, telephone and cable TV) for the Lacet and East Copper projects in Aspen is $87,200. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Mike Cuthbertson Preconstruction Services Manager Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstBank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468-6760 • FAX(303)468-8488 { EXHIBIT J r— il co • N a C e f w N � r - \ \ �v 6' c _ 5 ICI \ • \ \ I ,£ 33 6♦ a F• • • e t9 A \'t^t %1/4. CO '�' A \��1'1 - � v , w V a A ,, o E, u h o : o d nocc � ,, / -1,. v qa '* sR .1 k, -/ < / /V r.- ka, o 'a` °o A a. mU H , gs - .� ��N �\• ,_, C /// \II I y jj ,; '� ., m. .z N. \\ // �\ i \ �, S• o f "'��" \.' _J CO U > ; � - '\ ��' 1 ! # CO \ \ \ 1 L o VI ( Wn, Pil , , 4 R0 ry S V / l M iii ii2 L iii t o „, a a I , I '—' / . alt J lIli. #354038 x'/21 /43 1 1 1.8 Rec $240. 00 1 718 PG 528 Silvia Davis, Pi tkin Cnty Clerk , Doc: S, 00 Colorado First Construction Co. May 20, 1993 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear Tom: The anticipated construction cost for the water utilities for the Lacet and East Copper projects in Aspen is $57,396. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Mike Cuthbertson Preconstruction Services Manager Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstBank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468-6760 • FAX (303)468-8488 EXHIBIT K _1 CI M l 6 B e Q N • Ram s N \ z w \ III U ' 47 £I a E o am 8' I\ w CC u T >: CO U ; N� N . a V - S \ 00 2:4,,p,,, \ --, \ A .N. --., , L-1 ka p 00 \ ---\-- # \ /cm ...-.s, 2/9 44 /2 to (G ‘,L� A r . :S4 / , P > Y ! I I I;W K.'. 0 ....!! L LI IL / Th\\ . s I II r r� - - i- - 1 .g @ I J , �� N �1 \ �� LII h, /' 1v 1k - — '----- x r-I _ }I ;_'N i — 0 \ \ 1 ,1 1 lr 1 / 1 . , rra% ono; I) L _ m ` — — --- --, s\ e t t Bye cig¢ S #359038 07,..f1/93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 13K' 1B PG 530 1111/ Silvia Davis , PitV::in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 Colorado First Construction Co. May 20, 1993 Mr. Tom Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear Tom: The anticipated construction cost for the sewer utilities for the Lacet and East Copper projects in Aspen is $78,585. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Mike Cuthbertson Preconstruction Services Manager Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstBank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468-6760 • FAX(303)468-8488 1 EXHIBIT L , I N s e0 • M \ .\f 0 o� ., e 2 ED b V A l b1S \ .— A I I O \ h Ob 17. U a 11'V A bEfiCaE d 3 i 1 ; o. �\ / \� � —tee �_ m IZ N a ' . U ,+ / /� x - lam\ N I 1 Cr 4-I C /P�� )% \ I I I• ' f� \\ .. A /� J 311 es9c� co a La < ao 1 \0 \ \•• 72,. #; u7 1 I J P ? \ \-7'/2. 3 - 1 3k to —\\\I °� a I I I 1 1 I '11 "I � �LJ / ICI l�e €1111 L J I �I ez6 I^ I I till T. y s / <I © I \�\ o! I I 1 .1 1 _ Pita-Ih , ,I n o„ „ , „ „ „;„ Li i , __, ., , , , _ _,,, „\\p, 1 1 L'k : ` la spa, , ,, , 1 911s,__ y , ,_ ° -� , , , 1 . , , , ot:4 Y / a _6 L h S` I 6 ¢ 5 #339038 1/21 /93 11 : 18 Rec $290. 00 L-s 718 PG 532 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc_ $. 00 Colorado First Construction Co. June 3, 1993 Mr. Torn Stevens THE STEVENS GROUP 312 E Airport Business Center Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Dear loin: The anticipated earthwork, paving and site concrete construction costs for the Lacet and East Copper projects in Aspen are: Grading and drainage for East Cooper - $66,484, TAsphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for East Cooper - $18591 Grading and drainage for Lacet, including Barbs Way - $58,645, Mgr�o 001 Asphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for Lacet, including Baits Way - $19,809.1 Asphalt paving, roadbase, and site concrete for the work on Highway 82 - $8,003. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Xe.,‘ Mike Cuthbertson Prcconstwction Services Manager Drawer 1099 • 160 Highway 6 • Suite 204 FirstEank Center • Silverthorne, CO 80498 • (303)468.6760 • FAX(303)468-8488 EXHIBIT M - / Ji I ■ \\ 1- °� M \ `\ as \ \ \ ..1.1i g \ �/ .. I � € =I co a 1 J \ / ,M1 • , -- �l \ _o` / / Ln a oo --- \P g_ _ E3� _L \ \ / / / /C.1 N e I II U > — m *4 rl U /• ` �U t Y w -\ ` \ ///\ \/ 2� o N >, a � E /Imo_ V V S Il ) !(�/ / / *:*T: 'm5 I g w m II / /e / / / / Ni 1 , \ (s , IT 1111 P i A / w A V / 7-/ go it s IS 7 6- / / j, ?k '� av oon ( - 'Throe/ S53JJb V a III 16 ' 1 1,ox I Ig& 1 \ 111•aa 11 1 = M€ \ L \.\ �'I \ W.9 e d Yea gg I ll -; s ! \ rl a I \ a ai i= 6¢ 'i i �r11 I �I -v\ I ' o s. I � �I w K 1n' V, / ° ° 51 _ a La t1 cr . Ii \ °I isp N I , ' ' x- .° ---i. � °'f TI � I1 z = acii 03 0 rii 1-1 l \ z' s r i O 1 ..1 ef I w i° — 3 W '^ o it o %j 3 d d � i Li g 1 i�'- - I I° 1 Sig c . 111 II III - I 11 X`i 1 = g :11 . g rl k ri ° '`i ssa°°v° i %L (- V y o ¢ k I i. g - & e CS Cr . e <I --� a 3 o e i s ! s P— > � - ' f t .r °= e ! s E l ; a I q � F2 e € r O 5 122 22.� r1 I Z P a 'k.�Y 1p I Y` U > i p �% "'� r Sf ! �e 1� f� �xld U 1!f 8 +# \ i� �' i 13 i iS wk.; a .1 - gga i h Sel I t mn: :1 I�l". / v �': °'ffis°w.� c - X59■ -:7-1 -'11111'I I Li pc 1 - e p[�. -; 1 Iii €i at !! I S LI ! � .i1 r I ' f � f �! x ie. `p •� _ i181; . z .e s f S 8 h. 1 II 7 °3 A e r g r g Y • Bz1zIl6 e PZM3 . 2 . 93 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL PUD, SUBDIVISION REZONING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. David stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. Kim: There was an error in the public notice requirement. So this is not a bonified public hearing. What we are going to do tonight is have a brief introduction by the applicant and then try and get through the growth management exemption for affordable and free market housing and special reviews for open space and parking because those are aspects of this project that are not bound to public hearings. Tom Stevens: Based on the previous approval of 16 deed-restricted units and 7 free-market lots there was also a condition that we look at any means available to us to reduce the density on the site. What really worked best was actually reduce the numbers on the project. We got rid of an expensive parking garage but at the same time we started to get more of a site opening up and usable as open space. We started to get units pulling back off of Hwy 82 . The plan as proposed right now deals with 13 deed restricted units and 6 free market units. Of those 13 deed restricted units 12 are townhomes and 1 is a lot. Access to the project was approved by this Commission at that conceptual--coming off Hwy 82 . (demonstrated on drawings) As we started to go through this what happened is that building these units into the hillside and taking advantage of that grade change worked really well. By reducing the numbers we were able to pull it completely off the Hwy. In addition to the parking garage and storage in what is essentially a basement there is also parking and it is oversized parking tandem behind on the road level. At conceptual this parking was really tight and began to infringe on the fire lane. With the reduction of units that has all been able to spread out. Now the units are loft by 25ft which is really generous for a parking space. As we did with the conceptual submission fire access can move through here with a gate with what is called a knox box which the Fire Dept has a special locking mechanism that only they can get out. This can only be used in emergency situations. It cannot be used for day-to-day traffic. 2 r. 0..• PZM3 . 2 .93 The access still comes up from Hwy 82. What we have done though is loosened all of this up from the 7 lots which are now 6. We have a deed restricted lot now which has moved down to the lower bench. This lot is 6, 600sgft where these average over 9,000. In addition to loosening the density up on these lots we have also provided a 25ft bumper that is identified by prescribed building envelopes that provides a bumper along the Riverside Subdivision. In order to accommodate this we need to relocate the ditch. We talked to the Riverside people. That is fine with them. We have coordinated construction schedules with them. We are going to turn the ditch into an amenity. These units all back out onto this as well as this home, this home and this home. And if done right really can be an amenity to the project. One point that I do want to make is that without the deed restricted component on this thing--this is 2 . 35 acres. At 15, 000sgft lots the zoning allows for 6.8 units. We are asking for 6. The rest of the project is deed restricted. Within the AH parameters these are significantly larger than need be. The AH specifies a 3 , 000sgft lot at minimum. These are over 9, 000ft. But we have had to try and match densities with the Riverside Subdivision as best as possible. They would like to see less up there. We can't do less up there. It is that simple. We are not asking for an increase in free market density. What we are asking for is an increase in deed restricted density. For us to go beyond the numbers that we have right here it means- -right now lot and home, we are going to come on the market for $657 , 000 and that is considerably less than a million two. And the ^ ,( crowd that that has attracted are all locals. They are local working people. If the cost of the lot goes up via the number of I-/ - lots going down, that crowd disappears and we get in second home Wm/e 4 buyers. And from day one that is just not something we are �X` interested in doing. l7" r If you go down below the 6 lots it becomes much larger homes. if you are going to put a 3 , 600sgft house on a 20, 000sgft lot i �, it is getting away from what the Affordable Housing Zone District was created for. Roger: I much like how this has evolved. I think you have been relatively sensitive to what we have had to deal with there. I like the project now whereas I had some real qualms about it before. 3 PZM3 . 2 .93 Jasmine: The 25 foot setback from Riverside Subdivision is something I am sure the neighborhood will be very happy about. You have proposed building envelopes for the free market houses. I assume there is going to be some mechanism for actually enforcing that to see that they are not exceeded. Tom: As a matter of procedure that building envelope goes on the plat and then the plat is reviewed against the drawings that are submitted to the Building Dept with the plans. So once this project is approved those building envelopes get platted and that n is it. �ef& , �6 Jasmine then asked for public comment. "6 hem Doug McCullough: I am a resident of Riverside Drive. I grew up on Riverside Drive. First of all I would like to say I appreciate the efforts the developers have made in trying to reduce the density here. It has been our past argument of our concern to the size of the density. Unfortunately we are dealing with the difference between a 9, 000ft lot and a 2 ,500sgft house as compared to a 15, 000sgft lot and a 2 , 5005; ft house as compared to a 9, 000sgft lot and a 3, 50osgft house. And my concern is where does the house go. It doesn't go out. We are not talking about 3 , 500sgft single story dwelling here. I think this is going to be similar to what has happened at 1010 Ute. And another thing I think would be the best interest of the Housing Authority would be to take into consideration the unit that was just built on the back of the Cresta Haus. It is a 2 ,700sgft unit. It is an employee housing unit and multiply that by 1/3rd and then put 6 of those units up in that area. I just think it is going to be a huge development. I know that we talked in the interest of 5 units up there in that area which would expand the size of the lots and give a bigger envelope it might increase the height size. Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 and some adjacent property. I agree with Doug. I would like to see you, between now and the real public hearing, go up and take a look at the free standing unit that was built up there as part of the Cresta Haus. He said multiply it by a third and I say multiply it by 1 and 1/3 and get the scale instead of going down to get the true perspective on it and then visualize--or 6 units going in there. From the standpoint of the neighbors I want to remind you that neither at the P&Z level or at the City Council level that we object to the size of the employee housing or the affordable housing aspect of this. They have cut back on that area. That has been their own choice. That is not what we have complained about. 4 — m% PZM3 . 2 .93 It was the number of lots that were the free market lots. They have remained the same. There are 7 whether you call one resident occupied or not. The only restriction on a resident occupied is it requires a resident to live there. And that is the deed restriction and that is it pure and simple. They haven't changed the configuration to less than 7 . Also I think given the relative scale and the size of their lots which incidentally if you take the lots they include the road and the cul-de-sac. They are not out of it. So their roads in the cul- de-sac are parented in. You go back and look at Riverside, Riverside' s aren't included in. If you add them into the Riverside properties there is a hypothetical, you get a tremendous disparity. Leslie: Any roads or easements--surface easements come out of your allowable lot area for floor area purposes. Oates: I am saying for comparison sake with Riverside--you could make the other argument and say look at Riverside. Each one of these lots has an addition of area that they have shown on the map the area which counts for roads. Pete Stone: I live in Riverside. I think the changes that you have made in the affordable housing portion of the project are terrific. But I have come to a couple of other meetings and have some concerns too about the free market units. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear the developer say that the bottom line is now 6 free market lots, 1 RO lot and 12 units and that is the least that we can go or we are going to go broke. I don't if that is the case or not. But I think that that is putting pressure on you to tend to pass or recommend something that ought to really stand on it' s own. And I think that is what you have got to do. I think you have to take a hard look at that. I thought that the object of affordable housing was to create more affordable housing. And my objections have been over the free market portions. I feel like what is happening right now is that we have reduced the affordable housing which is exactly what the whole point of this was to develop. And we haven't met really at all on the free market portion. I don't think that when P&Z and City Council talked about reducing density in both the free market and affordable housing I don't think that has happened as much as perhaps it should. /7 I am actually one of the applicants. I would like to address A,f�M""' some of the remarks. The model of our development has 2-story �iWd free- market units built at the maximum allowable. And if you take a look at the upward visual impact it does not seem any greater than what is already in the neighborhood. I think addressing the 5 PZM3 .2 .93 density issue we have reduced voluntarily the FAR on the lots and what is allowed. We have opened up open space by putting 25 foot setbacks when we didn't have to but that again helps the project. I just think that visually when you look at this it does not seem like an impact like a 1010 Ute. I think that is an over-exaggeration. I think there is also 6, 000 and an 8, 000sqft lot in the Riverside neighborhood also. And across the street there are some very small lots. Jasmine: I think all of us on the Commission are aware of the fact that most of the homes in development of Riverside Subdivision occurred in days when people used to have smaller houses on larger lots. And that is the way people like to live. Especially people who lived here and had children and families. The trend as we all know now is to have the maximum size house on as small as possible lot with very little stuff around the edges so that you can have media rooms and things like that. So we know that that is the case. There are not people who are going to build the way they built Riverside anymore. That is just not the style. I think we have to try to see how this particular project is going to be less like 1010 Ute--everyone's favorite subdivision. It' s done a lot of good things for other developers because they can always point to 1010 Ute and say "See it is not as bad as that" . It would be interesting to see how this does tend to fit in with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Admittedly you are not going to get the same kind of ratio of building size to lot size that you did have and you still have in Riverside Subdivision. Tom: What we need to look at is allowed FAR vs allowed FAR--not allowed FAR vs what is right now. As soon as someone sells out here this could go to maximum FAR. And if history is any lesson it will go to maximum FAR. Maximum FAR in Riverside is considerably more than maximum FAR in here. So to talk about houses dwarfing houses I don't think is necessarily accurate. This map shows 1010 Ute. So rather than speculate as to how this project relates in terms of design and density to 1010 Ute you can see it. And right off the bat you can see it is nowhere close. So that ought to be a fairly easy reference. We didn't bring up economics because we don't want to talk about economics. We don't want economics to be a pressure in this thing. Everybody understands development is driven by economics. And we would rather not review this project based on economics. I don't think it is a viable tool in the evaluation of this. 6 PZM3 .2 . 93 Jasmine: We have heard this kind of thing before and we have always just put that aside in our deliberations. Economics is something that we just cannot consider. Whether the developer makes a profit or does not make a profit is not something that we have any determination in one way or the other. ?: I live in Riverside too and I am not particularly passionate about the individual issues here. My comments are more an observation on the process that I have seen. I would like to nominate that we name the street Loophole Lane. The reason I would like to do that is it seems to me that he just made the comment "The rules allow. The rules allow" . Well we have a community plan. We have a GMP. We have exemptions. We have a petition here to rezone. And clearly frankly the pawn in this little chess game, to my observation, we are going to use the pawn of employee housing to get what we want to get. Now you can develop this property and the current rules that exist subject to the growth management quotas and all the things that go on. But we are asked that we should bend those rules and rezone this and frankly all I have seen and all I have heard and it has been 6 or 8 months is "We will do this and we will do that but we will play the game of using this pawn of affordable housing to get the development that we want" . My observation is that this thing has been cut up and cut down. It has been billed as something good for the community. The fact is that we have a group of people that want to build houses on lots. The lots are there. They are zoned. They want to get rezoned. They want favorable treatment. And presumably it is to provide affordable housing. I, for one, am not convinced. Tom: I think we can eliminate all the affordable housing and stick with 6 lots. It is zoned for that right now. The loophole, if you want to call it that, is that the AH provides, if you do affordable housing you are exempt from GMQS. We have followed the rules on this thing from day one to the letter. We are not asking for anything special. Again this site is zoned right now, today, for 6. 8 lots. So we are asking for the 6 that are currently available on the site. We are going through the process that is designated for this thing. We are not asking for anything. The benefit to this community is only affordable housing because 6 lots are allowed there anyway. Jasmine asked if there were any further comments from the public. There were none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Did you try to build the model of the private home within the building envelope? 7 PZM3 . 2 .93 Tom: Yes, they are within the building envelope and they represent maximum square footage. They are all 2-story construction and conform with the height limit of the AH zone district. That is 25 feet available to 30 by special review. We have not asked for special review. Richard: FAR ratios what is the ratio of allowable FAR to the lot size compared to what you are doing over here? Leslie: On a 15, 000sgft lot in the R-15 zone district you can go 4 , 500sgft of floor area plus a 500sgft garage. Anything below grade doesn't count. Richard: And you are restricted to 35 here? Tom: A little less. Richard: So it is a little larger ratio than-- Tom: Yes. We are at about 38%. The resulting home will be a little less than 1, 000sgft less than allowable area. Richard: The AH zone does allow a little larger FAR ratio than the R-15. My main concern with this--within limits you have volun- tarily reduced it but it still creates a little more bulk for the given area than the adjoining neighborhood. Tom: We propose this right now is in accordance with the AH zone which allows a 38% compared with 33% that is allowed in R-15. Leslie: It is based upon the size of the lot. It is sliding scale. Tom: And again some of the lots in Riverside are not 15, 000ft. So the maximum allowed FAR on those lots is less than 45. So that is not something we want to try and represent. Some of the lots are bigger than 15, 000ft and can expand beyond 45. Tim: Is there a lot in Riverside that is for sale? And what is it listed for? ? : There are no lots in Riverside for sale at this point. I would say that if there was a lot available in Riverside, 14 , 000sgft, would sell for more than these lots just because it is a larger lot and you are permitted larger FAR. Eventually you are going to see those lots selling for lot value, people are going to be tearing down their houses and building bigger houses. That is inevitable. Tim: I think there is some comparison to the relative value--a lot or a house in Riverside and a finished completed house on a lot 8 [I PZM3 . 2 . 93 in East Cooper free market. I am trying to look for if this is going to distort your property values immediately and create a margin where there is going to be suffering on the part of Riverside homeowners and real estate owners, I don't know if I can figure that out. ? : I see it the other way around. I think it is going to help the value of Riverside. Tim: One of my ideas about restricted covenants is that homeowners may want to consider the word that we throw around a lot is "mass" . And do you want very contemporary high-ceiling houses. What we all feel is disturbing us in the west end are some of the "Steve Marcus development houses" . They are very ill-created for the compatibility of the neighborhood. But are simply totally created for resale value. I would like to see the mass of the houses kept under control . Tom: The Steve Marcus house can't be built anymore because the City changed it's building codes. Something to keep in mind is that the majority of buyers in here are people who are going to live here. And as a result we are very concerned with not having the visual density of a 1010 Ute. I think that is a very important fact and we will address mass. It will be done. Tim: We want to do it. I think as a Commission we want to do it. So if you guys are going to do an RO--that's never been done. If you are going to try and do this project as uniquely as you say maybe that is something you can tackle for us also. I can tell you that when I first saw this I went out and immediately ran the numbers on it. And there is obviously profit here. There is obviously risk. So I don't know how to balance that out either. I am very aware of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be made in a project like this but I am also aware of the time, the effort, the capitol investment that has to come about in order to conceptualize the thing and really bring it up to what we see now. And I frankly think that venture capitalists should be rewarded for trying to do things like this in this community. With going through GMQS I am not an exemption person. I am a fairly exacting person. I think everybody should march by the rules here. Leslie, if it goes through GMQS it is going to have Ord. #1 restriction so if the affordable housing is eliminated-- Leslie: If it went through GMQS GMP competition they would be required to mitigate 35% of their employees generated. We figure that through GMP we get a 50/50 split in numbers of units. 50% free market units and 50% deed restricted units. That is one of the reasons why the AH zone is 70/30 because our feeling is that we get more deed restricted units for AH than we would if someone 9 PZM3 . 2 . 93 went throughout the GMP process. The second element about GMP is that this project meets threshold. You cannot say you have to reduce your numbers of units because we don't like how it looks on the site at threshold. And we haven't had a project in 4 years that has not met threshold. Tim: My point is I don't think we would be creating as comfortable and affordable living space if we required them to mitigate or them to do Ord #1. I think that the size of the spaces, the 3 bedroom configurations are going to give people a place to grow with families in the community. I think that the parking is better than having an ADU tacked onto the back of somebody' s house and that AdU having a party one night and 10 cars being there. I think this organizes it better. I think it gives a much more progressive scale of life improvement for people who want to grow in the community. I think that that is our reward for allowing these guys to take the risk. I think that this is a dangerous intersection and I really think that that landscaping is going to have to be unique here. It is a steep hill. People are turning as they come down the hill. I am always trying to creep out of Park Ave. I think that whatever happens in this open space should be very focused on the intensity of the traffic coming down the hill . Bruce: I am trying to get a handle on how to work this project through. I think all of us have similar kinds of goals. The folks who live in Riverside want their neighborhood to stay as nice as it possibly can be. You guys want to develop a nice project that will hopefully get some employee housing. I asked the hard question a while ago--"Is this the bottom line? Is there any more slack to be cut?" I want to ask the Riverside folks a similar kind of question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project? The reason I ask that question--back early on when we began reviewing this project and we all went on the site visit, I heard very little concern from the Riverside folks about density. The concerns I heard at that time were "We don't want the access through here. We don't want our kids getting run over" . And I feel like the developer has responded. So I ask you guys the hard question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project. Lennie Oates: I don't think that the density issue is a new issue from our standpoint. I think we expressed it to both P&Z and to 10 0.. PZM3 . 2 .93 the City Council. The City Council in their approving resolution asked the developer to go back and look at his density. I don't think we had a concern about the affordable housing density. The concern that we had was the density on the free market which was then 7 and I still say it is 7 even with the resident occupied. There are some things that we would like to ask them to do. They don't want to bring up tonight things like a vegetary screening and some of the utility concepts and things like that. What would make us happy would be to see this--the 6 lots up above be reduced to some lower number that still allows them to go forward with their project. Bruce: Do you have a number? Is it 4 or-- Oates: Yea, 4 . Bruce: So the money we are talking about is--I know we are not supposed to talk economics. But it is a reality. It is a fact of life here. Instead of 6 lots at $400, 000 each, we are talking about 4 lots at $600, 000 each. And the applicant is saying that changes the mix of the potential buyers. But 4 is the number that makes the Riverside folks happy? ?: I feel a little different about that. My biggest concern was the access and I genuinely appreciate your having solved the access problem. And I say let them develop the property. I am a little bit apart from the neighborhood. I do not have as much a concern about the density as regards our neighborhood. I really think they showed deep concerns for the neighborhood when they solved the access problem and I am happy with that. I would leave the question of density on a more global scale of what is appropriate to the community. I may not agree with all my neighbors. I am not so adamant about the density. I counted on the process. I observe what is going on here--just how little employee housing can we build to get away with this deal. And I would want to make that as an observation. But on the density subject I think that the community scale should dictate the density and not the neighborhood scale. The neighborhood was saved in my opinion when they solved the access problem. Dottie Kelleher: I live in Riverside Subdivision and my comment actually goes back a little way. When I heard an awful lot of locking barns after horses were gone and what terrible things Steve Marcus did but he doesn't do them anymore. And how awful 1010 Ute is but we are not going to let that happen again. And my concern is just that you think this through very carefully before it gets approved and don't go driving up Hwy 82 a couple years from now and 11 PZM3 . 2 . 93 say "Oh my God, look at that! " . There is an awful lot of 20/20 hindsight type of thinking going on. Leslie: First off 1010 Ute was growth management project. It received the highest score of any growth management residential project. Secondly it had a PUD overlay. So because of the PUD overlay at the time it allowed them to trade their open space out of where the development is across the street to the park that is right across from the entrance there. So that is why you don't see a lot of open space in the 1010 Ute subdivision. It is all on the other side of the street. And the PUD allowed them--they have 5ft setbacks. There is 10feet in between each of those buildings and 5ft rear yard setback which looks bigger because there is the City property that goes down to the river. Those are 3 things that happened with 1010 Ute. So that is really different than the kind of setbacks you are seeing on this proposal and the open space that is required in the AH zone is integrated into this project. Roger: I have a problem with reducing the density of the lot assuming our gain here is to try to get more of the locals to purchase free market property. If we reduce the number of the lots and get it out of the affordability of the locals that is not accomplishing our mission. If we have 4 lots, think of the bulk of the individual units on those 4 lots. Then look at it from the other direction. If there were 1 or 2 more lots added there reducing the square footage of the lots that does necessitate reducing the bulk of the individual building. However the bulk of the whole project would probably increase. But the buildings would become smaller in that project. The smaller lots would probably be affordable by locals. So there is this balancing act we are playing with here. And now that access is no longer in Riverside. It borders on Riverside but it is not a social connection to Riverside. It is a different project than Riverside. I wouldn't have a problem with adding another RO lot in that upper section reducing the size of the rest of the lots so that it stays farther out of the realm of the second homeowner thereby achieving the goal of finding more residents to be able to live up here. Jasmine: I have been very impressed throughout this process that the Riverside neighbors have not been nearly as concerned with the affordable housing component. And have not started the not-in- my-back-yard, no-employee-housing-near-me thing. This has been very gratifying to this Commission. Their criticisms have been restricted to the free market units. What I have heard tonight is that the Riverside neighborhood has been appreciative of the additional buffering and the change of 12 PZM3 . 2 .93 access which really does tend to remove this project from being such an impact on the Riverside Subdivision. The size of the free market lots would seem to be the big issue. Or that the Commission should consider in terms of the community in general as well as the Riverside Subdivision. I think to that extent Roger's comments about the kind of development that you are likely to get are larger lots as opposed to smaller lots is something that we might want to have some more discussion on. ?: This is not only an affordable housing district with many people in this valley who have lived here and worked here for a long time wanting to be a part of these units being developed up front. But the people who are buying the perspective lots in back are all people who live in this valley and work in this valley. They are opening up their units, which are not second homes either, to other people in this valley. So in essence we are creating 6 free market homes for residents and those 6 free-market homes or apartments that they are renting are now available to other people in this town who can afford it. ? : I would add that for someone who wants to live there as far as affordable housing goes it is probably one of the nicest projects I have ever seen here. So for someone who can't afford to move into a full house it provides very comfortable living at an affordable price. Tim: I think that the homeowner's association should be focused on the long-term maintenance of what the employee or the affordable section of the development really looks like. Kim: As part of the condominiumization approval that will occur at the Council the applicant could propose any specific line items that their condo declarations will eventually establish. Richard: While I would really like to see more affordable housing that building backing onto #82 is really crammed in there. And on the free market lots I would like you to look at reducing the FAR cap to 3 , 000. You are looking for 6 locals to buy the lots. You probably aren't going to build them to the maximum so that if it were restricted to a slightly smaller FAR I think it would satisfy my concerns about neighborhood compatibility and be more in scale with the kind of community we want to maintain here. Sara: I think it is much improved. I am amazed at the size of the deed restricted apartments. I hear what Roger is saying. I also understand what Riverside is saying about the number of lots. But unless FAR were completely changed there is no way we wouldn't have very huge houses on 4 lots. That is the economics of the cost of building and the cost of land these days. 13 PZM3 . 2 .93 Tom: One thing that is happening on this thing is when you get out of the second home-buyer market and you get into local 's buyer market all of a sudden you are in a buyer's market who is on a budget and is going to be looking at a mortgage on these things. Our conceptual architectural plans have been kicked around already by people that are interested in the lots to see how they could figure homes on the lot that they are interested in. And they are all coming in at about 22 to 25 hundred square feet because that is what their budgets are. That is something that you don't see in a second home market. A second home market is how much can they get on. In this market it is how much can we afford. Sara: On an RO can the RO restriction goes with the deed forever? Leslie: It goes with the land. Kim: The Housing Office is still having on-going discussions about RO restrictions because they are so new. Tomorrow they are going to meet on RO restrictions. Some of the things they are kicking around are size limits to any RO structure, a yearly inflation count which could affect eventual levels of increased value. Pete: Bruce asked us about how to get the neighbors to buy in. I think the Riverside access was a big issue and we really appreciate everything that these people have done in that respect. I think the idea that a 3 ,000ft cap, the FAR, I think that that is a giant step. The last question is whether or not according to these October 13 minutes when Council persons Peters, Richards and Reno and also Mayor Bennett all stressed the idea of reducing density. And they weren't just talking affordable housing. I think they were talking about the free market portion of it. I think that is all it takes certainly for me. Gassman: I just want to expand about the housing categories. To get a category #1 or #2 takes a big public subsidy. I think on West Hopkins on the order $100, 000 a unit. So there is a big difference. You are getting affordable housing with no subsidy with this project. Oates: Basically we would like to see a commitment of no other structures like accessory buildings outside of the building envelopes. We would like to see a restriction against dogs in the affordable housing portion of the project--not the free market but the bigger buildings and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated. We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan since this is the last time everybody is going to get a chance to look at it and an opportunity to comment on that. 14 f PZM3 .2 .93 t I would like to see an explanation of why you would bury utilities which you propose to do right next to overhead power lines which you intend to leave there. Bruce: I don't have any direction to give the developer except to say to the developer and the neighboring homeowners that the rol Y - that I feel I fill at this table is to try to get the best project. One of the residents actually said it himself--is try to get the best project we can for this community to meet all of our common goals. It looks like a great project. And it has come a long way from when we were talking about coming in on Riverside Drive. I think you have made a lot of improvements. Pulling it back off of #82 is a great improvement. Tim expressed a really good concern about the access off of #82 and making sure that that is safe. I like the project but I am not ready to buy off on it right now. One thing I do object to is your calling those free market lots because it doesn't sound like to me there is a free market. The market is already set and the prices already seem to be set. And they are not really free market. Tom: Non deed-restricted. Bruce: But they are not going on the market as it sounds to me. Jasmine: Well, free market is kind of an illusion anyway. Sara: I see that you have applied to CDOT for access but they haven't responded yet. Fo 7 : The answer is yes. We have a plan that they have signed off on for access on Hwy #82 . Tom: We do have to install a right turn lane coming from town east because that is where they consider the majority of traffic to be coming from. Jasmine: Some of my questions have more to do with what I need to ask the Housing Authority. I am beginning to think that the explanation is more appropriate that this location is more appropriate to have the higher categories. It is more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and it will blend in better. I think you have made tremendous improvements in your site design. I thank the applicants for being very responsive. It has made this whole project a lot less acrimonious than it could have been. And 15 PZM3 . 2 . 93 I think we will get a better project out of it for everybody. TRELLISES Tim: I think that in letter K--this is my pet peeve through the whole thing--"Such approved structures shall not be considered additional floor area ratio" . I think in certain situations in the commercial core specifically for a restaurant it can be considered an asset to their floor area ratio. It is going to enhance their gross, their traffic, their ability to do business, their numbers of staff. Kim: Are you talking about existing restaurants outside or proposed restaurants outside. Tim: Both. Anybody who wants to restructure their patio with overhead structure to me they are creating a building site. They are enclosing it so that it is more compatible with their interior space. And I think it enhances their ability to merchandise their commercial venture. Kim: I don't really agree with that. If they can have a restaurant outside now currently and mitigated or pre-dated the mitigation requirements having an overhead structure isn't in any perceptible way that I could estimate increase growth--is that the basis to start calling something complete floor area. Leslie: The question is it considered net leasable. And if we start terming it net leasable shall we start requiring mitigation for their increased size as a restaurant which is an issue that when we start discussing growth management and exemptions in growth management process and what we define net leasable you look at the definition of net leasable in the code it is interior space. It is floor area in a structure that is completely enclosed. So this is not considered net leasable. Tim: This is basically enclosed on 3 sides. Kim: All we are talking about is an overhead structure. Sara: I am concerned too. I just think lawyers would have a field day. We would completely have to redefine floor area ratio. A lawyer would take that in and say "There is no way a trellis can be called a substantial building" . And a floor area ratio applies to substantial buildings. And there is where a lawyer would grab us and say "You can't do that" . David: I think you can easily do it by adding it to a definition of net leasable so that it describes seating outdoors. The Cantina does have a not very sizeable outdoor area but at least it is used. 16 IMIDAVID MUCKENHIRN IIENTURES P.O.Box 8352 WEST spen, 88or do 81612 May 11, 1994 Mr. Francis Krizmanich Planning and Zoning Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Krizmanich: Regarding the zoning question relative to the retaining wall on Lot 1, Lacet Subdivision, I am requesting a review of this issue by the city Board of Adjustment. The reason for this request is sec . 13- 102 B in the city Land Use Regulations which states "However, if, subsequent to and in reliance upon the issuance of the permit, an applicant has so substantially changed his position or incurred extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired by issuance of the permit, then such permit shall not be invalidated and the approved development shall be allowed to proceed to completion if it is not otherwise unlawful. " As we discussed there are areas in the building and zoning code which require interpretation. I specifically (albeit briefly) discussed this particular question with the city zoning official prior to issuance of the building permit and I was left with the impression that it complied with the egress in setback requirements. Now upon closer examination, after issuance of a building permit and the concrete has been poured, it has been determined that it is not in compliance. Of course redesign and removal of concrete at this stage is difficult and costly. Additionally there is the further question as to whether the actual setback is not ten feet from the property line as set forth in the city AH zoning code. I will work with you as I best can to seek a graceful and equitable solution to this issue. Sincerely, David Muckenhirn Owner, Ventures West Building Contractor DM/ca au DAVID MUCI\ 4HIRN N, UEIftURES P.O. Box 8352 C WESTAspen,Colorado 81612 �\ WEST Cs May 27, 1994 ' 'g Mr. William Drueding Planning and Zoning Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: Regarding the correction notice you posted on my jobsite at Lot 1, Lacet Subdivision, I have no knowledge of any personnel working for me accessing the lot from Riverside Drive. I have emphatically directed my crews and subs not to use that access . Additionally no one working directly for me was on the property this past week because of work being done by the subdivision developer. As I indicated to you, the subdivision developer is still working on the subdivision infrastructure and specifically on the gas line and grading. Apparently personnel associated eith this work have accessed the property from Riverside Drive. I have no control over this work as they have a right to use the easements on my jobsite. Regardless, I have installed a construction fence across the area to prevent further unauthorized access. I am trying to work within the guidelines and codes as I am aware of them and I feel falsely charged in this instance. I wish to be cooperative. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to comply with your codes and to help create harmony in the neighborhood. Sincerely, vid Muckenhi n, Owner, Ventur s West Building Con actor DM/ca • 0 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS ION/, FOR THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL REVIEW FOR HEIGHT IN AN AF RD 1549,041L HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION (A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO) Resolution No. 93- WHEREAS, in January 1993 C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , submitted an application to the Planning Office for Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Rezoning and other reviews including Special Review for height in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district; and WHEREAS, during the review process before the Planning and Zoning Commission in March and April 1993 , the Special Review for height was not officially addressed by mistake and therefore no approval action was granted by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, during review of the building permit application it became apparent that the height of some of the affordable townhomes exceeded the AH zone limit of 25 ' and that the Special Review to allow a 30 ' height limit was indeed necessary; and WHEREAS, Section 24-5-206 . 2 D. 7 . of the Aspen Municipal Code allows the Commission to grant an increased height in the AH zone pursuant to Special Review criteria in Section 24-7-404 A. l and 2 ; and WHEREAS, because the represented heights of the structures remained consistent throughout the Final Development Plan reviews, and the Special Review was part of the original application, the Planning Office recommended to the Commission approval of the Special Review for a 30 ' height limit without conditions; and WHEREAS, the Commission heard presentations by the project representative and the Planning staff at a meeting on July 13 , 1993 ; and WHEREAS, by a vote of 4-0 the Commission approved without conditions the Special Review for a 30 ' height limit for the affordable townhomes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission: that it does hereby grant approval of Special Review for a 30 ' height limit for the affordable townhomes of the East Cooper AH Subdivision without conditions. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 13 , 1993 . W. Bruce Kerr, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk 1 MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSON,CITY PLANNER FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUPER T NDENT DATE: JUNE 1, 1993 = SUBJECT: EAST COOPER HOUSING The City of Aspen Water Department does have sufficient supplies and capacities to provide water to the East Cooper Housing Project. The Water Department does have a concern with language used to describe the mainline connection. The Conceptual Submission states that the 8-inch connection will be made to the City's 14-inch water main. This is incorrect. The connection will be made on the City's 8-inch water main. The proposed drawings show the correct connection. The request for water service must be submitted to the Water Department so that all provisions of the City's Water Policy can be followed. The City no longer has a moratorium on water main extensions. The Applicant must request water service from the City. LB:11 cc Bob Daniel, Banner & Associates Judy McKenzie, Customer Service Supervisor Iab10\eacoop.hou M E M O R A N D U M To: Chuck Roth Lee Cassin Kim Johnson From: Stephen Kanipe%I g Date: May 10, 1993 Subject: East Cooper Affordable Housing I met with Michael Gassman and Paul from Colorado First Construction to review plans for this project. My intention is to expedite the process as directed by Council. I suggested work may begin with a "site improvement" permit (earthmoving) . The scope of this work includes: grub and clean; cut road; fill "pit" ; lay services (sewer, gas water, electric, phone, cable) ; and relocate irrigation ditch. These documents are prepared and they expect to submit May 11. I will coordinate the review meeting when all the site information is received and presubmittal is complete. Please let me know how this approach will work for you and any "particulars" I need to be aware of. cc: Diane Moore Bill Drueding Judy McKenzie Wayne Vandemark #356441 k-, '03/93 09: 40 Rec *50. 00 BF: :10,PG 980 ) /U^"mYt, Silvia Davis, P:i. tk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc • Ou FIIC J 1 ORDINANCE NO. 18 CAN- (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2 .35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2 . 35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations, for rezoning of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special 1 K #354441 0:7100110/97 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 EiK: 7,0 PG 9B1 Silvia Dav,, . , Pit4in Cnty Clerk: , Doc .>u Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of lark Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205 (A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993 ; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article 7 (Planned Unit Development) , Division 10 of Article 7 , (Subdivision) , Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review) , Division 11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments) , Section 8-104 (C) of Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by City Council) , the Planning. and Zoning Commission has recommended final approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone district; and WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from 12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and 2 #356441 05/07/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 Dk: 710 PG 982 Silvia .vis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , D $. 00 4 WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in effect at the time of final review by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan' s planned unit development component: 1. The Developer ' s final plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2 . The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 . The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4 . The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 5. The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which 3 #356441 05/04,123 Bilvia Davis, it4in .Cnty ri9: 40 Rer 504 O,Q DBoK c 7 10 G 983 k GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. Section 2 : Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the East Cooper project subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2 . A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy. 82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8 . The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 and Barb' s Way. 9 . Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 14 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 4 11 ° ),J1 1. 05/03/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 90 BK 710 PS 984 Silvia Dav•- ' , Fit4:::in -Cr-qty Cler4 , Doc ' l0 Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18 . A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 19 . Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. ) 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22 . Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23 . In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24 . 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. 25. If, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the 5 *55644.1 "05/95 09: 40 Rec $50, 00 E:K 1O (='s 985 Silvia Dc. Cnty Clerk , Doc . . . 0O r it Resident Occupied units or single family lot the City has adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictions. Section 3 : Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan 's subdivision development component: 1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas. 2 . The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial compliance with all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 3 . The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the topography of the area and will not present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision. 4 . The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that J cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary public costs. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer' s request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2 . The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. 3 . The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. 4 . The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest 6 #356441 05/03/93 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 BK 710 PG 986 Silvia Davis, P <in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 and character of the City of Aspen. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103 , and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City Council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 7 : Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's condominiumization component: 1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2 . Six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3 . The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. Section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to the Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein: 1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8. 2 . Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these deed restricted condominium units. Section 9 : The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 10: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. 7 4#356441. 05/03/A 09: 40 Rec $50. 00 Df 710)A91217 997 Silvia Davis , tkin Cnty Cler4 , Doc $. 00 Section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in Section 6 above and such amendment shall be promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 12 : Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 13 : This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded 8 i#356441 05/03 /93 09: 40 Per $50. 00 DK 710 F'S 988 Silvia DaviF Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. �_ -' under such prior ordinances. Section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- _ ) described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17 : A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on theca; day of(2LL4�E � Hall, , 1993 at 5: 00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City /, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. ) 9 #356441 05/0:siv.:, civ . m.:, _� Silvia Davis, Pi6in Cnty Clerk , Do{- $' '`��- .0%,, INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 42 _ day of 1993 . 4-- . 92— (3 OF .4$o ,'% John Bennett, Mayor Ate'. Katlriit .,:`Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this c>fleg; day of 62,44--t 1993 . _ ,011Hylln..,, John Be nett, Mayor IA%te tt t: Kathryn _I 'tech, City Clerk - 0/ ;.:. , - ,,, coop. fin. ord 1 ) 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc •r FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: April 26, 1993 RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing, and Vested Rights Second Reading of Ordinance 18, Series 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission forwards a \ recommendation to approve the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final review subject to 24 conditions. In the Current Issues section of this memo, staff discusses items of concern which have occurred since first reading. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First reading of Ordinance 18 was approved by a 5-0 vote on April 12, 1993 . Conceptual PUD approval was granted on October 13, 1992 by Resolution 55, 1992 . Rezoning the subject parcel from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) was considered as a threshold issue during Conceptual PUD Plan review. Both the Commission and Council were favorably inclined towards this rezoning. BACKGROUND: This is the second private sector AH development to undergo City Council 's review. The Applicant is C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. Since Conceptual review, and at Council's direction to reduce the project' s impacts, the density of the project has been reduced by four units. The 2 .35 acre site is now proposed to be developed into 6 single family free market lots on the upper bench and on the lower bench, 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted (R.O. ) single family lot. The free market lots have been enlarged since Conceptual review to range between 8,973 s. f. and 11, 107 s. f. (up from 7,500 to 10,500 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, sharing a private roadway with the affordable townhomes. The lower portion of the site will consist of one 37, 548 s.f. lot for the 13 townhomes and one 6, 664 s.f. single family lot. The number of multi-family structures has been reduced from four to 1 ......• eoKiv,tbs: • t i Dot\p\v,..flerEl (J kv, (A.:71J 0--tqc, ere' (j C , rtaJ : cc( ) rP Li Milicsiti rOffre S z•-tigiff "7 1 t I f" 1 '' 6,71:: 1 •2 ILitlt. -Pc i2ger-g , L yv\ __..._ ,...„ - r 4_ e 1144M.A.0 /11 0 Ltr")-1.C.I -- 5 est.t?eil) /27,14,-cHt. // cr.:2 rj kele oNlc -ire/. 1 pro b/ern i-_— -'--.k-,•.) , de i • ,.. , . c „ _-.).at s•-61,6 -1 .144}1- is Npt--3a 2 LILA ci4 6.,;(3,5. exi4,,,,,kr,\ Sialicti cleaLtti 1,0^ c,t. - 0,-. 1errk C $ Lc %ie. 0-1774 kie4-t— A;realee iatinat-#' C elf"i''t( iii-zi el * A i 1 c ,r' ;tt.,(:......: lip(:t. L .(t,, 4-Y•4-- -hot 1,A.,,••c!co.! L,', .a.,-,kerif: 1„ , „. , ? tra>. /1r,c iffe' (Ate 6.44{t-tiv 7 I,( 77,..! ,..,:14,,,dc;;,,„ 1„,-Li6( 4f. b , 4, kriat afelti— k4Ac tip rid hel4.:17 7lie 44.6.tit: r i v ,iirs,o /Pp 0, :,"• ;:), .,i, -, k CLX; it..' V . 1 -- Am €422. .„, ----v(rit; frr '3/4..41.,,re '' — ‘-,, 1-.,I herti:ttx t c"7 k4 / /1';f aSt I ' . -- I . ....,2 / A 7 /At( (6';_t7tALe,c,e( \ f i • • Pe rel. ,..c.•a c -/-6.c 1...7f;) 90 three buildings. The developers will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct the deed restricted townhomes themselves, with plans to begin construction this summer. 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 (refer to Exhibit "A" for a revision to the application packet) . The complete Final application booklet is attached for your reference. Process: Ordinance adoption is the last of 4 steps required for PUD review. CURRENT ISSUES: Since first reading: Concern was raised at first reading regarding the Resident Occupancy (RO) deed restrictions for the one single family lot and three townhome units. Specifically, how will the City and the Housing Office deal with enforcement of the residency requirements for RO units. The goal is to provide some level of self-enforcement of the restrictions, but this is inherently difficult. Elements of an enforcement program should include: - appropriate residency documentation submitted to the enforcement agency (Housing Office) ; - a remedy clause outlining the enforcement agency's right to require documentation to investigate violations, seek a cure, recapture legal costs and explain penalties; and a time limit for the violators to resolve the situation themselves prior to official action begin taken. The Housing Board, Planning Office and other staff have spent many hours working on RO concepts. The issues are complex and will require additional time to iron out the final details. This Applicant is seeking timely approval of the subdivision/PUD in order to begin construction of the subdivision' s infrastructure and the affordable townhomes. Projected sales/occupancy of the townhomes will occur 6-9 months from approval of the project. In an effort keep the project moving forward and to give Council a level of comfort for approval of the project without the final RO regulations in place, the Applicant is offering to proceed with the understanding that project's RO units will comply with any future RO regulations enacted between project approval and Certificate of Occupancy of the units. Certificate of Occupancy issuance is the time that the master deed restrictions (recorded prior to the Final Plat) must be converted to individual deed restrictions. In effect, the City and Housing Board have 6-9 months to finalize the RO requirements. If new regulations are not 2 in effect by that time, the RO deed restrictions currently in effect will preside over the units. At this point, the Land Use Code contains a definition for RO and allows them in the AH zone. The recently adopted Housing Guidelines also establishes qualifications for RO units. The Planning Office and the Housing Office support this offer proposed by the Applicant. If Council accepts the applicants proposal, Ordinance 18 will be amended to include a condition of approval requiring adherence to this representation. Also since first reading, the Applicant had to return to the Planning Commission to revise the project's FAR pursuant to Special Review. The FAR increase from . 32: 1 to .45: 1 came to light when slight changes were made to the unit sizes and a three bedroom unit was reconfigured into a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit as required to maintain the AH zone ratio of free market to affordable units. On April 20, 1993 the Planning Commission approved Special Review by a 4-0 vote finding that the change is consistent with the previous representations and the 70/30 ratio required by the AH zone, and that the . 45: 1 FAR is still substantially less than the maximum allowed by the zone district. Please refer to Exhibit "H" for the Special Review request from the Applicant. For Final Plan submission, the project was required to respond to the 24 conditions imposed by the Conceptual PUD approval. Staff and the Commission have reviewed the Applicant's responses and the Final Plan based on these conditions. Exhibit "B" lists the 24 conditions and staff's comments on each. In summary, staff finds that the project has been refined and reduced pursuant to the Conceptual approval conditions. Rezoning: Rezoning to AH is the basic premise for this development. Discussion of the appropriateness of this rezoning was discussed at Conceptual PUD review. Staff has attached the review criteria contained required by Section 24-7-1102 as Exhibit "C" . 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. Neighbors of the proposal do not object to the proposed use of the site, but are still concerned that the rezoning allows more density than does the current R-15 zone. /%-7*N PUD (Planned Unit Development) Review Criteria: The proposed! rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Review of a Final Development Plan is the last step for each PUD parcel. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to 3 I 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 Final PUD Plan pursuant to the criteria established in Section 24-7-901, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Plan with 23 conditions. Please refer to the list of review standards and staff discussion is contained in Exhibit "D" . Referral memos from various agencies are compiled in Exhibit "E" . One concern raised by neighbor Fred Stone since the P&Z review of the Final Plan is the need for a fence between the proposed development and the Stone's lot. The fear is that by creating a pedestrian easement between Lots 1 and 7 and along the south lot line of Lot 7 to the Riverside Dr. r.o.w. , "we may find many of the 50 or so residents of this [subject] project using this planned access path directly through our property onto Fred Lane. . . " . Please see Mr. Stone' s letter, Exhibit "F". The Parks Department responded that "a fence may be appropriate, but the size and style can be worked out between them [Applicant and neighbor] . " Staff contacted the Applicant and at this time, the response is that the project does not anticipate constructing a fence in conjunction with a pedestrian easement being required through Subdivision for the benefit of the Riverside residents to be able to walk to Hwy.82 through the East Cooper Subdivision. The Code does not address such amenities, so the City cannot require the Applicant to perform as requested by Mr. Stone. Subdivision: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following general requirements. The technical aspects of the subdivision review are attached as Exhibit "G" . In summary, staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the code. 4 General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. response: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area Community Plan adopted in early 1993. b The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. response: The single family lots are consistent with the adjoining Riverside Subdivision. The multi-family development is consistent with the lodge and apartment developments adjacent to and across the highway from the proposed subdivision. c The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. response: This is the last remaining vacant parcel in the vicinity, so future development will not be adversely impacted. d The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. response: The proposal is following through with all required land use and technical approvals. All conditions of approval must be addressed before recordation of development documents of prior to issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Free Market Housing in an AH (Affordable Housing) Zone District: Up to 14 free market units in the City are exempt from Growth Management per year as per Section 8-104 (C) (1) (e) which was amended by Ordinance 59 / 1989. This proposal includes 6 free market units. For the rest of 1993, there will be 8 units remaining units available under this code section. Pursuant to Section 8-104 C. 1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. The affordable housing package before Council is: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 5 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of the housing package for the deed restricted apartments and the one single family lot. The Applicant found it necessary to submit a change to the affordable housing program because the original submission barely missed the required 70:30 ratio of affordable to free market units. Please refer to the Applicant's letter regarding the change in the number of units, Exhibit "A" . Tom Baker has considered this amendment and believes it adequate, although his preference would be to divide a two bedroom unit into two 1 bedroom units, leaving the three bedroom unit intact. One item that must eventually be addressed is the mechanism for assuring the completion of the affordable housing. The AH zone district does not dictate when, or even if, an approved affordable housing component must be constructed. With a Growth Management approval, the City requires housing mitigation at such time when free market residential or commercial development creates the housing needs. However, an AH development does not "require" the affordable units to mitigate for free market development. On the contrary, the AH zone allows the free market development as an incentive (GMQS Exemption) for private development of affordable units. Philosophically, staff and the P&Z want to insure that the affordable units become reality prior to or concurrent with the free market component. Otherwise, the community could be left with new free market units absent the affordable units. Staff realizes that the AH zone district requirements will have to be amended to address this gap in the regulations. However, during meetings with staff, this Applicant has agreed to provide a Letter of Credit equal to the construction costs of the affordable units and infrastructure on Lot 8. In case the Applicant cannot complete the project, the Letter of Credit will be payable to the City to complete the construction. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring that a specific financial assurance mechanism be included in the Subdivision Agreement, which must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits on the property. Condominiumization: The Applicant seeks approval to condominiumize the multi-family buildings in anticipation of selling the units. Pursuant to Section 7-1007 condominiumization shall be approved by City Council. Because this project is not built yet, there are no existing tenants to offer first options to buy. If rented, the units must be restricted to 6 month minimum leases because of the 6 deed restriction requirements. The units are exempt from affordable housing impact fees because they themselves will be deed restricted prior to construction. Vested Rights: The applicant has also requested vested rights for the proposed project pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code. This provides vested status for a site development plan for a period of three years upon approval by ordinance. Vested rights approval by Council is non-discretionary. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No apparent impacts to the City are expected. RECOMMENDATION: By a 5-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final PUD Development Plan. Special Review for FAR up to .45: 1 was also approved on April 20, 1993 . The following recommended conditions apply to this project: '24-/ �n4T!,Cre, 04- / ? 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the recorded Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 7 8. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 and Barb's Way. 9 . Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 14 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18 . A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 8 19 . Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22. Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23 . In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24. 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. In addition to the 24 conditions above, Council could include the following condition: ; 25, If prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and recordation of the individual deed restrictions for the Resident Occupied units or single family lot, the City has adopted changes to the RO regulations, these new regulations shall be incorporated into the individual deed restrictions. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to support rezoning to AH. The Council could also require different densities or deed restrictions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve at first reading Ordinance , Series 1993 , the East Cooper Affordable Housing Final PUD Development Plan, Rezoning from R-15 (Medium Density Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) , Subdivision, Condominiumization, GMQS f p a, pl y G lc-e / r� %,, �� 'i L 6 t t,:1tt '4 mot,v Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Units within an AH Zone, and Vested Rights with the 24 conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and amended by staff. " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Application Booklet and Blueline Prints Exhibits: "A" - March 23 , 1993 Letter Amending the Affordable Units "B" - Conceptual Approval Conditions and Responses "C" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for Rezoning "D" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for PUD Development "E" - Complete Referral Memos "F" - Letters from Fred Stone "G" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for Subdivision "H" - Request for Special Review for Increased FAR "I" - Affidavit of Public Notice jtkvj/cooper. Iin.ccmemo2 10 ORDINANCE NO. (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2.35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2 . 35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations, for rezoning of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special 1 Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the development of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205 (A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993 ; and WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article 7 (Planned Unit Development) , Division 10 of Article 7, (Subdivision) , Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review) , Division 11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments) , Section 8-104 (C) of Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by City Council) , the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended final approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone district; and WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from 12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and 2 WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in effect at the time of final review by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plants planned unit development component: 1. The Developer's final plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2 . The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 . The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4. The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 5. The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which 3 GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the East Cooper project subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the 4j Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2 . A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7. The =,i*,_P_^ � must show the required sidewalk along Hwy.82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy.82 and Barb's Way. 9. Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy.82 intersection is handled. 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT acc ss S permit. rim 14. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 4 Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 9 19. Language regarding the sanitation system within th PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22 . Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23. In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24. 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. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code, 5 and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan' s subdivision development component: 1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas. 2 . The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial compliance with all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. 3 . The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the topography of the area and will not present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision. 4. The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary public costs. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer' s request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2 . The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. 3 . The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. 4 . The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103 , and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City Council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does 6 designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 7: Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's condominiumization component: 1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2 . Six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3 . The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. Section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to the Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein: 1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8 . 2 . Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these deed restricted condominium units. Section 9: The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East Cooper Subdivision. Section 10: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in Section 6 above and such amendment shall be 7 promptly entered on the official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 12 : Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 13: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or 8 portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title. 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1993 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993 . 9 John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1993. John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk coop. fin.ord 10 lb The lifirAtiter- T. ,l. • "l tv Council Exhibit C 0'R PAO "RNA •pproved 19 ay Ordinance • MAR L 4f093 March 23, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Dear Kim, • Pursuant to action by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission I would like to amend the Final submission application for the above referenced project to include the program change discussed at the hearing. As originally proposed,the housing mix provided a 68/28 split of deed restricted to free market. The directive of the Commission was to maintain the 70/30 split dictated by code. The revised program will be 13 deed restricted townhomes, 1 deed restricted lot, and 6 free market lots. This involves replacing a three bedroom, category 4 unit with a two bedroom, category 4 and a one bedroom category 4 units. This revision will produce the correct split. Additionally if fits within the dimensional footprint and height of the three bedroom unit being replaced so no modification is required of the plan. Per this letter, I would request that the application be amended. However, I would like the opportunity to discuss this matter with the City Council as I believe the original program, providing family units, is a superior program. If you could address this in your memo I would appreciate it. I will contact you late next week to set up a meeting for a final review of the project prior to the Council meeting for first reading. Thank you for your time and please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens cc: E.J. Olbright Tom Baker, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office >rill ).i I('n 1 J I IIt eS, 4 dl I ( Hlit.'A' - ',mix _'ii . A�;�rri t iil∎q,II!.' .,I' City Council Exhibit B Approved , 19 _ By Ordinance RESPONSE TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS: EAST COOPER FINAL PUD 1. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the project' s access driveway and emergency drive. response: The CDOT has received the access permit application. Full acceptance of •the project's access by CDOT is required prior to the Streets Department issuing permits for work in the right- of-way. 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. • response: The entry drive to the townhomes has been reconfigured to provide more maneuvering room between parking spaces and the emergency access lane. . Parking spaces have been added to the PUD Plan. 3 . Any curbs, gutters, streets, and . parking areas must be designed and constructed to City specifications. response: There are no curbs or gutters within this project. Per agreement with the City Engineering Department, if the private road is ever contemplated to be dedicated to the City, it must be upgraded to meet City standards at the expense of the owners within the subdivision. 4. There shall be utility easements over all underground utility installations. response: The final plat indicates the easements as required. 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. response: Per the application, the ditch company has reviewed and accepted the proposed plans and construction schedule. 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. response: Holy Cross has reviewed the proposed easements. The overhead line along the west boundary will be undergrounded where possible. 7. Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. response: Banner Associates, Inc. has prepared the slope analysis. The recorded prints will contain the original engineer's stamp. 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. response: The application contains drainage information provided by Banner Associates. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement stipulates that individual lots shall provide drainage plans to Engineering within 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. response: Information specifying fill material is included in the application. 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 response: These items have been included in the PUD Plan drawings. 11. All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. response: The Plat indicates easements for Engineering's review. 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. response: The revisions to the affordable housing proposal were reviewed and unanimously approved by the Housing Board on 1/20/93 . The Resident Occupied deed restriction is gaining familiarity and acceptance for use on a limited basis. Three of the eight 3- bedroom condominiums and one single family lot are proposed to be restricted to R.O. The Applicant commits to provide sales documentation for all properties in the development through the first round of sales. Documentation of second round sales seems problematic however as the developer will have little connection with the project years into the future. 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. response: The application contains the waiver request. However, since Final submission, the City Council has adopted a water policy. The moratorium was enacted due to the lack of a water policy, therefore the moratorium has been rescinded and .waiver of such is not necessary. 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. response: This loop has been -.provided. 15. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 16. Trees must be at least 30 ' from the Hwy. 82 intersection. response: The landscape plan indicates that this condition has been accomplished. 17. Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 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. response: The system will be deed to the district, and all service plans have been included in the application. 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. response: This condition has been met. 20. Within the Final PUD submission, the Applicant shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of affordable units. response: The Applicant has provided a draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) which provides for a letter of credit in the amount necessary to construct the deed restricted townhomes. All architectural and engineering documents will go to the City in case of default by the Applicant. Final City approval of the SIA will occur prior to its recordation with the County Clerk concurrent with the Plat and Final PUD Development Plan. The SIA must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits on the parcel. 21. Engineering reserves the right to further review the Highway 82 right-of-way with the Applicant and the CDOT. response: Per the application, the application represents the requirements of the Engineering Department to date. If further requirements are needed, the. Applicant will review them and make comments. 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. response: Riverside Drive is no longer proposed as access to this project so overflow parking is not critical to this neighborhood. Two guest spaces are provided for the townhome parcel. 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. response: The Applicant acknowledges this statement. 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.' response: Density on the 2. 35 acre parcel has been reduced by 'three units. This has allowed one townhome structure to be eliminated, increasing green space. and play area along the frontage of the parcel. The site now has a more open arrangement with the revised site plan. Six lots are now arranged on the upper bench compared to seven lots proposed during Conceptual review. The FAR on the townhome lot, has been reduced by over 10% since Conceptual review and meets tbe ,.32: 1 limit established in the AH zone without Special Review approval. Rear setbacks adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision have been expanded to 25 ' (the AH zone requires 10 ' minimum rear setbacks) . Pedestrian access has been improved by the Applicant' s commitment to construct a sidewalk •along the highway frontage and by providing a pedestrian easement between Lots 1 and 7, and following the southern property line of Lot 1 to the Riverside Drive right-of-way. (The sidewalk and easement was agreed upon between staff and the Applicant after the Final Plan was submitted. ) City Council Exhibit C Approved , 19 By Ordinance EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL Rezoning from R-15 PUD to Affordable Housing (AH) PUD Zone District: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following review criteria and responses must be considered. 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. Access for the entire parcel is from Hwy. 82 . based predominately on concerns of the Riverside neighborhood. An access permit for the main entrance and emergency access from Hwy. 82 has been submitted to CDOT. • Pedestrian access in the vicinity is being improved by the addition of a sidewalk along Hwy.82 and by the inclusion of a pedestrian easement from the rear of the cul-de-sac to the Riverside Dr. r.o.w. (between Lots 1 and 7, then along the south property line of Lot 1) . 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. Since submission of the Final application the City has adopted a water policy which rescinded the Water Main Extension Moratorium. Therefore, a waiver of the moratorium is no longer needed for this project. The Applicant' s engineer has been in contact with the various utility providers regarding "will serve" letters. 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 which affects the natural state of the parcel is the access road cutting through the hillside to serve the free market lots. Please refer to the PUD review criteria. 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 single family and multi-family units. The other details of the project such as the specific affordable/free market ratios, dimensional requirements, etc. are 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. 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. 3 site Council Exhibit D • Approved , 19 _ By Ordinance Planned Unit Development Approval East Cooper Final PUD Plan Pursuant to Section 7-903 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 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. There have been no free market units approved in 1993 under the AH GMQS exemptions. The deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt upon City Council approval. 2.Density. Response: The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the AH zone district. The application booklet provides development data and density reduction on pages 6 and 8. The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from land area for density calculation purposes. Staff finds 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 1 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. Tha Applicant requests that the elevation of the existing terrain not be used to establish heights of the townhome buildings because of the peculiarities of the existing topography. The site was used decades ago as a gravel pit, lowering the natural elevation by approximately 8 ' in the center of the pit. Exhibit "0" of the application booklet includes a topographic sketch of the approximate area of the old gravel excavation. Pursuant to the Land Use Code definition of "natural grade", the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade prior to disturbance, and measure (structures) from that grade. Stephen Kanipe, the Acting Building Official, has reviewed the application and has determined that the original natural grade was approximately as the level shown in the shaded area on the sketch in the soils report by CTL Thompson, Inc. For purposes of measuring building heights, the applicant shall be bound to this report and its findings. Please see referral comments for Mr. Kanipe' s memo. FAR for the townhome lot as allowed in the AH zone is . 36: 1. The FAR for Lot 8 per the application is . 32 : 1. Due to response from some of the neighbors at the August 27 , 1992 meeting, the Applicant has created 25 ' setbacks along the perimeter of the parcel adjacent to the Riverside Drive 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 three bedroom affordable units. One space is provided for each one and two bedroom unit. Two guest spaces are provided on La Cet Court. 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. 2 7 . Landscape Plan. Response: The Final Development Plan submission includes a landscape plan. The Parks Department has made comments regarding this plan. Overall, the townhome lot has adequate landscaping for visual interest and buffering between parcels and the highway. 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 exterior and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be wood and 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 and surface 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: Exterior low-voltage lighting has been included on the landscaping plan. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The number of townhome buildings has been reduced to three from four as submitted in the Conceptual application. The structures 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, with the building envelopes situated away from the adjacent 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 3 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. The subdivision will be responsible for road upgrades if the private ' road is ever dedicated to the City. 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. 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 Final PUD 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 Hwy.82 is a private road. Per Engineering's comments, if the road is ever dedicated to the City, the property owners will be responsible for any costs required to upgrade the road to City standards. 4 • City Council Exhibit C Approved - , 19 By Ordinance MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Rebecca Baker Acting for: George Robinson Postmark: Apr 01,93 9: 40 AM Subject: Fred Stone/ East Cooper AH Message: In regards to the letter submitted to you from Fred Stone, concerning the pedestrian only easement at the end of the cul-de-sac, George feels the homeowner's concerns are valid, yet should be worked out between the developer and homeowner. A fence may be appropriate, but the size and style can be worked out between them. Thanks! X • MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: January 25, 1993 RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Development Revisions The Housing Board reviewed the changes that Tom Stevens proposed for the East Cooper affordable housing project on January 20, 1993 . The following unit mix was approved by the Board: 2 one-bedroom Category 3 Units 2 two-bedroom Category 3 Units 5 three-bedroom Category 4 Units 3 three-bedroom Resident Occupied Units 1 single-family lot Resident Occupied Lot The only condition that the Housing Board requested was that the developer document buyer information for all the types of units -- deed restricted units, resident occupied unit and lot, and the free market units. This will provide the Housing Office with valuable information as this is the first time a project containing this type of unit mix has been attempted. This information is to be provided on the first round of sales and on the second round of sales for all the units, including the free market lots. The developer agreed to provide a memo to the Housing Office summarizing information on these units. The information is to include purchase price, income, residency information, and any other pertinent information requested by the Housing Office. The deed restricted units will be qualified by the Housing Office per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. ecah.mein ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 fir; r: - l MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer • • • Housing Director Aspen Water Department • 'Environmental Health Department • Parks Department . Zoning Administration • Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District Holy Cross Electric Rocky Mountain Natural Gas FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission/Final Plat Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-014 DATE: February 1, 1993 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. Please return your comments to me no later than February 15, 1993. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on Thursday, February 4, at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Thank you. (on)f t AS 5147-nc ps E D ST4Tr1 4- 7 D 1 FEB 23 '93 16:51 ASPEN/vr R DEPT. P.Sil MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSON, PLANNING FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUP ' I DIA DATE: FERRUARY 23, 1993 SUBJECT: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT — FINAL SUBMISSION/FINAL PLAT The City of Aspen Water Department has several concerns regarding the West Cooper Housing Development. Our concerns are related to engineering and design requirements that can be easily worked out with Banner Engineering. As requested in the December 2, 1992, letter to Mr. Bob Daniel, Principle Engineer with Banner, all construction shall be in accordance with City Standards. • We are confident that TYicor Resources will instruct their engineers to be in compliance with our request. labOlusteaapsono • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Larry Ballenger Postmark: Feb 25,93 2 :40 PM Subject: EAST COOPER HOUSING Message: The water main for E.Cooper Housing will costitiue a main line extension. The water line will serve only the E.Cooper Housing and will in no way provide a means for additional growth. It is my opinion that City Council does not have to review this as water extension under the Extension Ordinance. The Planning Dept can also varify that this extension will not promote growth in this area and its sole purpose is for E. Cooper Housing. Council has previously approved the housing. Water service was an understood/prescriptive part of that approval. X ASPEN♦PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMEP1T MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, -Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department i F I3 ! 93 Date: February 18, 1993 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-014 • The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this • review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: This project is to be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) . There is a ten-inch sanitary sewer main in the Highway 82 right-of-way with the capacity to accommodate the anticipated sewage flows from the project. Further, the applicant plans to construct a mew manhole on the existing central collection line and extend the on-site collection system from this point into the project. All project sewer lines are to be designed and constructed according to the ACSD specifications and deeded in perpetuity to the Distridt when construction of the utilities is completed. This plan conforms with policies of this office. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The project is to be served by the city water system. There is a fourteen-inch water line in the highway directly in front of the site. There is sufficient capacity to serve the units at the flows anticipated. The applicants plan to install the interior 8-inch water lines of the project to City of Aspen standards and loop the connection into Riverside Drive, providing an additional connection to this area of town, a benefit to the entire neighborhood. The water mains are to be granted to the City Water Department in perpetuity. This plan conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system" and conforms with policies established by this office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 recycled paper East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat February 18 , 1993 Page 2 AIR DUALITY: The location of the proposed development provides easy access to town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. This development will only have a minimal effect on air quality. No woodburning fireplaces are allowed anywhere in the metro area, but woodstoves and gas log fireplaces are still allowed, and the application has not addressed or prohibited these on the free market units. The plans for the deed-restricted employee units do not show any devices at all . Other measures to reduce the air quality impacts are not addressed, including the energy efficient construction methods and appliances . The applicants are reminded of the requirements for a fugitive dust permit and proper dust control measures during the initial site preparation and excavation work. In summary, while air pollution impacts have been or can be mitigated. The project location close to town and the bus route should lessen its air quality impacts. NOISE: Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood. , long term impacts are not anticipated given the reidential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303)925-3601 V F FAX #(303)925-2537 Sy Kelly-Chairman �J . 0 Albert Bishop John J. Snyder-Treas. 4/ on Frank Loushin Louis Popish-Secy. C , � "e_ ( Bruce Matherly, Mgr. February 12, 1993 e�\�■fJ\ Kim Johnson qS>rri4'/ Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission Dear Kim: . The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to provide service for this project. Total connection charges for the development can be estimated once detailed plans for the dwelling units are available. I would suggest that the PUD/ Subdivision agreement item 8. part b. be revised as follows : Sewer Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer total connection charges to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the amount equivalent to EQR' s. Preliminary calculation for the total connection charges shall be provided by ACSD once ,detailed construction plans are available and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD at is%uance of building permits. The preliminary calculations will be verified with a final inspection of completed construction. Fees associated with downstream constraints will be determined from the approved final submission development plans and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to issuance of building permits. Building lots approved at final submission will be charged a stand-by service charge once service lines are stubbed to the lots. The applicant states that the on-site collection system will be deeded to the District for future maintenance and repair. A formal request for a line . extension and a collection system agreement need to be completed once the final submission plans are approved. The plans attached to the final submission for the on-site collection system appear-to -meet District. specifications. The District' s engineer will inspect the construction of the on- site system to ensure compliance with the District ' s specifications. The costs of this inspection will be added to the applicant' s total connection fees. EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL • • East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Sub. February 12, 1993 page 2 All other District concerns appear to have been adequately addressed in the application. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Mather ] District Manager f • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From:. Rob Thomson, Project Engineer SC Date: February 12, 1993 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission/Final Plat • Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Application Drawings: Sheet 2: a. The parcel immediately adjacent to the northwest property line of the subject property needs clarification. Is this part of the of the Buckwheat Subdivision? h. A note describing the area and conditions of the R.O.W. reservation must be added. Sheet 3: a. As a general comment the dumpster enclosure should be sized to meet the needs of the project. In addition, consideration should be given for sizing the enclosure to include recycle containers. b. A note must he added stating the emergency fire access route must be maintained and free of any blockages at all times, i.e. snow removal, from the parking area to S.H. 82. This should also be stated in the condominium documents. c. The cul-de-sac shows a turn around diameter of 70 feet. The municipal code states that all streets must be built in accordance with the city specifications, which means a cul de sac diameter of 100 feet. At this time the road is to remain private. However, there is the possibility that future residents may want to dedicate the road to the City. The Fire Department has indicated that they can turn around in the cul-de-sac as it is currently sized. Therefore, the subdivision agreement should state something to the effect that, if there is ever a request for dedication of this road as public right-of-way the current residents adjacent to the road, excluding the deed restricted units, will be responsible for • the expense cif bringing the cul-de-sac and road to current code prior to dedication. d. The site plan must show the agreed upon pedestrian easement. e. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. f. The site plan must show a street light at the intersection of Barb's Way and S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. Sheet 5: a. Amend note two indicating it is the residents of lots 1-7 responsibility to maintain any storm runoff above the historical rate of runoff for the developed lot, generated by any development they might add. h. The drainage plan must address how the drainage is handled for the intersection of the access road and S.H. 82. c. The calculations provided in the application must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. In addition, must also include the sizing of the drywells. Sheet 6: a. As stated in the application this sheet must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Sheet 7: a. A general comment, it appears the CTV could have a junction box in the parking area of the deed restricted units that could cause problems. Sheet 8: a. There must he language on this plan detailing the conveyance of the water line to the City of Aspen, and the conditions of the easement, that meets the satisfaction of the City of Aspen's Water Superintendent and the City Attorney. Sheet 11: a. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. It is recommended than the applicant make the above corrections and/or changes and review with the engineering department prior to signature of final.plat. It is preferable that this be a condition before final approval, however, if this is unreasonable then definitely prior to issuance of any permits. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). 3. Prior 'to issuance of any permits for lots 1-7, storm drainage plan and calculations must be provided and approved by the engineering department. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer • • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Stephen Kanipe Postmark: Feb 23,93 5:06 PM Subject: East Cooper Subdivision Message: We reviewed the issue of natural vs. existing grade and the gravel pit area on this site plan. I agree with the proposal to fill the shaded area as indicated in the soils report and let that level establish the height measurements for the multi-family units. X - • aty Council Exhibit-_. _P F. P. STONE Approved 19 611 FRED LANE CO 61611 BY Ordin4p,�e • K2c oq'4. • March 25, 1993 • Rim Johnson • Planning Department 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Dear Kim; • I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed access for a foot traffic path approaching our property line on lot 7 in Riverside Subdivisionwbetween lot 1 and lot 7 of the adjoining East Cooper AH project. The developer has already agreed to provide a 25 foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the project. This area I think by definition should remain natural and be densely planted with trees and bushes as`a sound barrier and to ensure our mutual privacy. No lawns should be permitted in these areas either. The proposed foot path would violate this objective and probably should be kept outside this buffer zone. I am also concerned that we may find many of the 50 or so residents of this project using this planned access path directly through our property onto Fred Lane, (Short St.), on their way to Riverside Drive, The Aspen Club, East Aspen pi?z and the Independence Pass area Therefore I would like the developer to erect an acceptable privacy fence approxi- mately 6 feet in height to keep our properties private along the entire south border of the project. As you are also aware, there are overhead utility lines along this same border that should obviously be buried at the same time that the project's underground utility lines are installed. • F. P. STONE 611 FRED LANE ASPEN. CO 81611 I would appreciate these requests being considered ';_9r,,?j?�r.. "•: '..;: ;,} �,: and included in the Planning Department's requirements for this development. Please call me at home at 925-6320 or at work at 920-2126 if you would like to • discuss this further. • Sincerely, .iii./ 1 /rift F.P. Stone Hr :,n, > r YSnLhiR p i x;n;ra'. City Council Exhibit 6 Approved _ , 19 By Ordinance SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS East Cooper AH Subdivision/PUD 1. 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 sub- division. There are no unsuitable lands proposed for development within this subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. No duplication of public facilities will result from this subdivision. 2. Improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. The Applicant and the consulting engineer have been working with staff to finalize the locations for the following items where needed within the proposed subdivision: (1) Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins. (2) Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. (3) Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. (4) Paved alleys. (5) Traffic-control signs, signals or devices. (6) Street lights. (7) Street name signs. (8) Street trees or landscaping. (9) Water lines and fire hydrants. (10) Sanitary sewer lines. (11) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. (12) Bridges or culverts. (13) Electrical lines. (14) Telephone lines. (15) Natural gas lines. (16) Cable television lines. 3. Design standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions: Streets and related improvements. The access road within the subdivision will be private, so many of these standards do not apply. The Applicant understands that if the road is ever contemplated for dedication to the City, it must be upgraded to City Standards at the property: owner's expense. (1) Conform to plan for street extension. (2) Right-of-way dedication. (3) Right-of-way width. (4) Half-street dedications. (5) Street ends at subdivision. (6) Cul-de-sacs. (7) Dead end streets. (8) Centerline offset. (9) Reverse curves. (10) Changes in street grades. (11) Alleys. (12) Intersections. (13) Intersection grade. (14) Curb return radii. (15) Turn by-passes and turn lanes. The turn lane into the parcel from the highway has been designed in compliance with CDOT. (16) Street names and numbers. The roads in the subdivision are named Barb's Way and La Cet Court. (17) Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, or driveways. (18) Sidewalks. The Applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk along the Hwy.82 frontage according to the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. (19) City specifications for streets. (20) Range point monuments. (21) Street name signs. (22) Traffic control signs. (23) Street lights. (24) Street tree. a. Easements. All necessary easements have been entered onto the plat except for the pedestrian easement to Riverside Dive, which must be included on plat before recordation. b. Lots and blocks. a. Survey monuments. d. Utilities. All utility plans have been reviewed by the appropriate utilities. e. Storm drainage. f. Flood hazard areas. 2 • errr- '-' I N C O R P O RATE D ''1 City Council Exhibit te • Approved , 19 By Ordinance April 15, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINAL SUBMISSION AMENDMENT #3 Dear Kim, The program change, as well as continued refinement of the architecture for the deed restricted units, for the above referenced project have resulted in an increase in floor area ratio. Due to this increase, we must request that F.A.R. be included in the Special Review segment of required approvals for the project: As you may recall, we requested Special Review for F.A.R. within the Final Submission (see page 1, paragraph 1, Introduction) and addressed the review criteria for Special Review in Section V (I.) of that application. Although this request for Special Review was made, the anticipated F.A.R. at the time of submission was .32:1. The lot area is 37,548 square feet which allows .36:1 F.A.R., increasable to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. This ratio was produced in error(based on 12,000 sq.ft. of floor area), as the revised number is actually .45:1 (based on 16,800 sq.ft. of floor area). Although the revision in program, as well as slight modifications to the floor plans, has contributed to the higher ratio, (see amendments dated 3/23/93 and 4/9/93), the .32:1 ratio was in error as the project has not changed as much as the numbers imply. Please amend the application to include a .45:1 F.A.R. for Lot 8, the deed restricted units. It is my understanding that this issue will need to go back to Planning and Zoning for review which may in turn cause scheduling problems for the project. Anything you could do to assist in maintaining the current schedule would be greatly appreciated. There is an alternative to this floor area ratio requiring special review. By reducing the area of Lot 8 to 27,000 sq.ft., the allowed F.A.R. is 1.1:1. This would require no special review for F.A.R., only an amendment to the application for reduction of lot area to Lot 8. It is not our preference to reduce the size of Lot 8 as we do not feel it best serves the employees that purchase these units, but it is clearly an alternative to this situation. Please advise me as soon as possible on the process for proceeding. If you have any questions or comments, or should require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Plr Thomas G. Stevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Red Onion Offices, 418 E. Cooper Ave., Suite 205,Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6717 FAX (303) 925-6707 • I N C O R P O R A T E D °•< 1 • , a April 16, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 18611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT #2 CLARIFICATION Dear Kim, Pursuant to your request for additional information to Amendment #2 dated 4/9/31, I provide the following: Unit Type Original Net Livable Revised Net Livable 1 Bedroom Unit 700 Sq. Ft 804 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedroom Unit 950 Sq. Ft. 960 Sq. Ft. 3 Bedroom Unit 1,200 Sq. Ft. 1,284 Sq. Ft. If you should require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, pomas G. Stevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Red Onion Oltices, 418 E. Cooper Ave., Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-6717 I AS: (10 31 925-6707 -1,-- _ _.. , • "' , 0 . . • 4,' i",..•..0 , - ' -",,,- 17 --. -- 1--4,,r,...-.. .,0')._,.. :....4.•.,14f,' .-:': ' ..,,..., ,. .sk , ,J ' ' .. 10:t■ ' - , !'; 1 , j. ''.:-". '14 •v,,..3/ A 41,ii •1 4 ' e . f' • ':' •P° ... II• . r) . , ct. .. 4. • . 1- . • : - . " iiiit b. .i I:. . %, lw- 1• _. . . DAT TIM - , NI—ACE C = TY .iAL, k ..,--- -.... • . . rew.,..L.IgeyEw . , or.net. ---341t7,•—• • . . , • . r..........---- ,— ----____________ • . ..;....,,i,..4. ,_1,r•-••,- . v, • -—-. - _-_',--.T.I,v,••)• -; :!.. . -law ‘• - r9.-- pf,..,.•-•••••• )1Ir `" - :40:•• vogiii. , — . . . ••,., ... •:••- 'I•Vi:' . . , .•-447. ... • .. •• ..:Ilit4.".'.:i.7}...,...•- . •:. •-■ a? -',•• : .. ' ..VICil L • z..,;..... — . ...... * --1v44; • -. . • -:.,..c., 7w,..• - ,,..• — •-•-•z> •*---.I': , --.. . • 1 -- - .1. , • . .." • .• i I , • ' -4 I ,Illiekt. .. .' . 1,'' s , . 0111-4 . . . • •,..?, ...,.. . a. ,I •- 1 r •t' ......4 i 1.'4 . s. 'V. ■..), - ' ' • &IC,' - -' : , .. ',.. 4 'r...-- ...• .. . . . . . '.•....°Igar4;. ... Aso./ • ., - - ' ■"1 _ PPP'''. • e•.7 t, . „ ...'N.' ; .‘•4 hfre•••' •.$ ,f,f!: ,,k ., • , . .4'7•SU ••7. I ..s. 4 t,i. ., I . ... i.i 4; , . . , 1 • -- ...-- . • ,.•• . . . .... . ... • . JIL---...,..:-_-___ • , .-.. —_ ..... _ "%I", - - • —... .110 . .. -- _.7"•e-.1.0.11. . --. , . . . .. . ...... . .. . PUBLIC NOTICE RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, April 26, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by the C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , 300 E. Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, CO, requesting Final Submission approval of Final Planned Unit Development, Map Amendment to rezone the parcel to Affordable Housing zone district (AH) , Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for six free market units and thirteen deed restricted units, Condominiumization of the affordable housing townhomes, Exemption from the Park Development Impact Fee, Vested Property Rights, Special Review for Open Space and parking, and waiver of water line extension moratorium. The applicant proposes six free market lots, one deed restricted lot, and $3 deed restricted condominiums, on a 2 .35 acre metes and bounds parcel in the Riverside Addition. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100 s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on April 9, 1993 City of Aspen Account 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. I 9030 Greenville Ave. 600 East Hopkins Dallas, TX 75243 Aspen, CO 81612 AJay 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 N Russell Trust of 1980 U.D. T. Magillicutty Corporation I Box 327 Provo, UT 84603 1280 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Cherie G. Oates Dorothy Kelleher 1205 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 1 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 1 Bette J. Kallstrom Robert E. Cadger, Jr. 1225 Riverside Dr. Box 4712 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612 IElliott 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. ICorna Del Mar, CA 92625 Aspen, CO 81611 Lorna Alta Corporation Ellen Sandler I 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 1 Dallas, TX 75265 Joseph M. Samalion Karin C. Speck 540 Solado Prado Box 9912 I 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 Tru 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Special Review for Increased FAR (Floor Area Ratio) in an AH Zone District DATE: April 20, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of Special Review for increased FAR on the townhome parcel (Lot 8) of the proposed AH subdivision. The application was originally presented to the Commission with an FAR of . 32 : 1. The increase is necessary because of slight revisions to the floor plans that have been made, and also that an error was made in calculating the original FAR. The footprints and heights of the buildings have not changed since the Commission reviewed the East Cooper Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and other reviews on March 16 and 30, 1993 . APPLICANT: C&G Mustard Seed, Craig Glendenning, represented by Tom Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc. LOCATION: The entire East Cooper parcel is 2 . 35 acres located on Highway 82 , about one-half mile east of the Cooper Street Bridge. Lot 8 is the 37, 548 s. f. townhome parcel on the lower portion of the proposed subdivision, adjacent to Highway 82 . ZONING: The current zoning of the parcel is R-15 PUD. The requested zoning is AH (Affordable Housing) . APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project seeks Special Review as permitted by the AH zone district to increase the FAR on Lot 8 from . 32 : 1 (as - presented in the Final PUD application) to . 45: 1. The AH zone dimensional requirements limit external FAR on lots between 27, 001 and 43 , 560 to . 36: 1 unless Special Review is granted. Maximum FAR by Special Review is 1: 1. The FAR difference was discovered by the project architect after making slight changes to the deed restricted townhomes necessitated by the division of a three bedroom unit into a one bedroom and a two bedroom unit. All of the townhomes were enlarged slightly also. It became apparent while calculating these FAR differences that the original FAR of . 32 : 1 as included in the Final PUD application was in error by several percent. It is noted that the size of the buildings and their position on the site do not change because of the FAR recalculation. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the FAR information dated April 15, 1993 . 1 REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office contacted the Housing Office regarding the new FAR figures. Tom Baker commented that the Housing Office supports the slight enlargement of the deed restricted units and the reconfiguration of the three bedroom unit. The change in the FAR does not matter to the Housing Office. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office believes that the FAR change is acceptable based on the fact that the building sizes and site layout does not change from the plan submitted in the Final PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning application. The Commission has already approved Special Review for parking and open space for this project. Staff has determined that these approvals do not have to be amended as a result of the FAR Special Review. The Applicant alerted Planning staff immediately when the calculation errors were discovered. The tight timeframe for this project requires this Special Review to be accomplished prior to City Council 's second reading of an approval ordinance for the project already scheduled and published for public hearing on April 26, 1993 . This change in FAR will be noted at the public hearing at City Council. Special Review for Increased FAR on an AH zoned parcel: Lot 8 of the proposed East Cooper AH Subdivision is 37 , 548 s. f. Per the AH dimensional requirements, parcels of this size have an allowable FAR of . 36 : 1. The code allows FAR to be increased to 1: 1 by Special Review. Sections 7-404 .A. 1 and 2 read: Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to Special Review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. response: The Final PUD Plan which was reviewed by the Commission on March 16 and 30, 1993 does not change as a result of this FAR increase. The Commission liked the Plan and made comments supporting the layout, size and livability of the deed restricted multi-family units. The . 45: 1 FAR is still fairly low in the eyes of Planning staff. Considering that this is basically a "paper change" , staff finds that the new FAR is compatible with the surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the AH zone district. 2 . The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate 2 those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. response: No adverse impacts or changes to the, vicinity will result from the .45: 1 FAR because the buildings are virtually the same as originally proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Special Review for the FAR increase to .45: 1 for Lot 8 of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision. No conditions of approval are recommended. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Special Review for an FAR increase to . 45: 1 for Lot 8 of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Subdivision as allowed by dimensional requirements of the AH (Affordable Housing) zone district, pursuant to the criteria in Section 24-7-404 of the Aspen Municipal Code. " n / {i 16 , ti CAI /-c) Exhibit "A" - Information from Tom Stevens regarding the FAR changes 3 APR 15 '93 10:16 STEVENS GROUP 1.// H. 1/1 lorINCORPORATEI) PLANNING & ONING COMMISSION April 15, 1993 EXHIBIT � APPROVED 19 _ BY RESOLUTION Ms. Kim Johnson �F Jr (993 Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena _ Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINAL SUBMISSION AMENDMENT #3 Dear Kim, The program change,as well as continued refinement of the architecture for the deed restricted units,for the above referenced project have resulted in an increase in floor area ratio. Due to this increase, we must request that F.A.R. be included in the Special Review segment of required approvals for the project. As you may recall, we requested Special Review for F.A.R. within the Final Submission (see page 1, paragraph 1, Introduction) and addressed the review criteria for Special Review in Section V (I.) of that application. Although this request for Special Review was made, the anticipated F.A.R. at the time of submission was .32:1. The lot area is 37,548 square feet which allows.36:1 F.A.R., increasable to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. This ratio was produced in error(based on 12,000 sq.ft.of floor area), as the revised number is actually .45:1 (based on 16,800 sq.ft. of floor area). Although the revision in program, as well as slight modifications to the floor plans, has contributed to the higher ratio, (see amendments dated 3/23/93 and 4/9/93), the .32:1 ratio was in error as the project has not changed as much as the numbers imply. Please amend the application to include a .45:1 F.A.R. for Lot 8, the deed restricted units. It is my understanding that this issue will need to go back to Planning and Zoning for review which may in turn cause scheduling problems for the project. Anything you could do to assist in maintaining the current schedule would be greatly appreciated. There is an alternative to this floor area ratio requiring special review. By reducing the area of Lot 8 to 27,000 sq.ft., the allowed F.A.R. is 1.1:1. This would require no special review for F.A.R., only an amendment to the application for reduction of lot area to Lot 8. It is not our preference to reduce the size of Lot 8 as we do not feel it best serves the employees that purchase these units, but it is clearly an alternative to this situation. Please advise me as soon as possible on the process for proceeding. If you have any questions or comments, or should require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, arie Thomas G. Stevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Red Onion Offices,418 E.Cooper Ave.,Suite 205,Aspen,Colorado 81611 (301)925-6717 FAX; (30.1)92.5-6707 APR 16 '93 09:15 STEVENS GROUP, ey "e,.. N C_" O R P C) R A T E D April 16, 1993 s� Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitl:in County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 18611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT #2 CLARIFICATION Dear Kim, Pursuant to your request for additional information to Amendment #2 dated 4/9/31, 1 provide the following: Unit Type Original Net Livable Revised Net Livable 1 Bedroom Unit 700 Sq. Ft 804 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedroom Unit 950 Sq. Ft. 960 Sq. Ft. 3 Bedroom Unit 1,200 Sq. Ft. 1,284 Sq. Ft. If you should require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely mas G. Stevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Red Onion Offices,418 E.Cooper Ave., Suite 205,Apon,Colorado 131611 (303)925-6717 FAX: (303)925-6707 I N C O R P O R A T E D. 77e riktietro--- our aqr `- City Council Exhibit Approved . 19 _ By Ordinance April 15, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINAL SUBMISSION AMENDMENT #3 Dear Kim, The program change, as well as continued refinement of the architecture for the deed restricted units, for the above referenced project have resulted in an increase in floor area ratio. Due to this increase, we must request that F.A.R. be included in the Special Review segment of required approvals for the project. As you may recall, we requested Special Review for F.A.R. within the Final Submission (see page 1, paragraph 1, Introduction) and addressed the review criteria for Special Review in Section V (I.) of that application. Although this request for Special Review was made, the anticipated F.A.R. at the time of submission was .32:1. The lot area is 37,548 square feet which allows .36:1 F.A.R., increasable to 1:1 by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4. This ratio was produced in error (based on 12,000 sq.ft. of floor area), as the revised number is actually .45:1 (based on 16,800 sq.ft. of floor area). Although the revision in program, as well as slight modifications to the floor plans, has contributed to the higher ratio, (see amendments dated 3/23/93 and 4/9/93), the .32:1 ratio was in error as the project has not changed as much as the numbers imply. Please amend the application to include a .45:1 F.A.R. for Lot 8, the deed restricted units. It is my understanding that this issue will need to go back to Planning and Zoning for review which may in turn cause scheduling problems for the project. Anything you could do to assist in maintaining the current schedule would be greatly appreciated. There is an alternative to this floor area ratio requiring special review. By reducing the area of Lot 8 to 27,000 sq.ft., the allowed F.A.R. is 1.1:1. This would require no special review for F.A.R., only an amendment to the application for reduction of lot area to Lot 8. It is not our preference to reduce the size of Lot 8 as we do not feel it best serves the employees that purchase these units, but it is clearly an alternative to this situation. Please advise me as soon as possible on the process for proceeding. If you have any questions or comments, or should require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, neVir Thomas G. Stevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Red (1nlun ()eke,,-{IS r COOpor.Ave•., Suite 20 , Aspen, (()lewd() 81611 10 31 925-1)-I- FVX :.1(1)1 92 i-O(1;. I N C O R P O R A T E D ogir April 16, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 18611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT #2 CLARIFICATION Dear Kim, Pursuant to your request for additional information to Amendment #2 dated 4/9/31, I provide the following: Unit Type Original Net Livable Revised Net Livable 1 Bedroom Unit 700 Sq. Ft 804 Sq. Ft. 2 Bedroom Unit 950 Sq. Ft. 960 Sq. Ft. 3 Bedroom Unit 1,200 Sq. Ft. 1,284 Sq. Ft. If you should require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, omas rartevens President cc: E.J. Olbright Craig Glendenning Idol Oninn UllirCS. -4IR I (lv,por:Avr ., SurtC '03 \-ion, l ()I( r 1 lc BHI I A i r . . �, / / / .r a 'r'. t. S . wN Ik i MEMORANDUM - — - --. . i TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: April 12 , 1993 RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing, and Vested Rights - First Reading of Ordinance 13 , Series 1993 �i� SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission fo ards recommendation to approve the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final review subject to 24. conditions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Conceptual PUD approval was granted on October 13 , 1992 by Resolution 55, 1992 . Rezoning the subject parcel from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) was considered as a threshold issue during Conceptual PUD Plan review. Both the Commission and Council were favorably inclined towards this rezoning. BACKGROUND: This is the second private sector AH development to undergo City Council ' s review. The Applicant is C&G Mustard Seed, Ltd. Since Conceptual review, and at Council ' s direction to reduce the project' s impacts, the density of the project has been reduced by four units... .. The__2 . 35 acre site is now proposed to be developed into 6` sin•le famil free p.r et—ots on the upper ]te ch µti6 and on the lower- bench, -- , towrifibins an "one dee Y restr • _ .d 0. ,._s-] : __amily .t. The free market ibts have • -n enlarge. s • - .tual review to range between 1, 973 s. f, and 11, 107 s.f (up from 7 , 500 to 10, 500. s. f. ) . Each l-- ree market fiome 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 , sharing a private roadway with the affordable townhomes. The lower portion of the site will consist of one 37, 548 s. f. lot for the 13 townhomes And one 6, 664 s. f. single- `family Sot: Z1i number" tmalti family structure, has been reduced from four to tksree - . ____ ..- _-.`-- The developers will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct the deed restricted townhomes 1 themselves, with plans to begin construction this summer. 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 (refer to Exhibit "A" for a revision to the application packet) . The complete Final 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. (September 15, 1992) Step 2 - Council Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. . (October 13 , 1992) 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. (March 16, 1993) Step 4 - Council Rezoning, public hearing; Final PUD; Subdivision; Condominiumization; GMQS Exemption for Free Market and Affordable Housing Units; Vested Rights; readings of approval ordinance. CURRENT ISSUES: For Final Plan submission, the project was 7/ required to respond to the 24 conditions imposed by the Conceptual PUD approval. Staff and the Commission have reviewed the !% ._._ Applican onse esps'and the Final. Plan based. on these conditions. �- Exhibit "B" lists the 24 conditions and staff ' s comments on -each. to summary, staff finds .gj„e, _ bas been refined and reduced pursuant to the opceptual .approval _conditioo -, Rezoning: Rezoning to AH is the basic premise for this development. Discussion of the appropriateness of this rezoning was discussed at Conceptual PUD review. Staff has attached the review criteria contained required by Section 24-7-1102 as Exhibit "C" . 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. Neighbors of the proposal do not object to the proposed use of the site, but are still concerned that the rezoning allows more density than does the current R-15 zone. PUD (Planned Unit Development) Review Criteria: The proposed 2 • rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property: Review of a Final Development Plan is the last step 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 Final PUD Plan pursuant to the criteria established in Section 24-7-901, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the Plan with 23 conditions. Please refer to the list of review standards and staff discussion is contained in Exhibit "D" . Referral memos from various agencies are compiled in Exhibit "E" . One concern raised by neighbor Fred Stone since the P&Z review of the Final Plan is the need for a fence between the proposed development and the Stone' s lot. The fear is that by creating a pedestrian easement between Lots 1 and 7 and along the south lot line of Lot 7 to the Riverside Dr. r. o.w. , "we may find many of the 50 or so residents of this [subject] project using this planned access path directly through our property onto Fred Lane. . . " . Please see Mr. Stone ' s letter, Exhibit "F" . The Parks Department responded that "a fence may be appropriate, but the size and style can be worked out between them [Applicant and neighbor] . " Staff contacted the Applicant and at this time, the response is that the project does not anticipate constructing a fence in conjunction with a pedestrian easement being required through Subdivision for the benefit of the Riverside residents to be able to walk to Hwy. 82 through the East Cooper Subdivision. The Code does not address such amenities, so the City cannot require the Applicant to perform as requested by Mr. Stone. Subdivision: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal 3 Code, a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following general requirements. The technical aspects of the subdivision review are attached as Exhibit "G" . In summary, staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the code. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. response: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area Community Plan adopted in early 1993 . b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. response: The single family lots are consistent with the adjoining Riverside Subdivision. The multi-family development is consistent with the lodge and apartment developments adjacent to and across the highway from the proposed subdivision. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. response: This is the last remaining vacant parcel in the vicinity, so future development will not be adversely impacted. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. response: The proposal is following through with all required land use and technical approvals. All conditions of approval must be addressed before recordation of development documents of prior to issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable. GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housing and Free Market Housing in an AH (Affordable Housing) Zone District: Up to 14 free market units in the City are exempt from Growth Management per year as per Section 8-104 (C) (1) (e) which was amended by Ordinance 59 / 1989 . This proposal includes 6 free market units. For the rest of 1993 , there will be 8 units remaining units available under this code section. Pursuant to Section 8-104 C. 1 (c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City' s need for such housing, considering the proposed development' s compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units proposed, specifically 4 regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size 'of the dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. The affordable housing package before Council is: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Categcry 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of the housing package for the deed restricted apartments and the one single family lot. The Applicant found it necessary to submit a change to the affordable housing program because the original submission barely missed the required 70 : 30 ratio of affordable to free market units. Please refer to the Applicant' s letter regarding the change in the number of units, Exhibit "A" . Tom Baker has considered this amendment and believes it adequate, although his preference would be to divide a two bedroom unit into two 1 bedroom units, leaving the three bedroom unit intact. One item that must eventually be addressed is the mechanism for assuring the completion of the affordable housing. The AH zone district does not dictate when, or even if, an approved affordable housing component must be constructed. With a Growth Management approval, the City requires housing mitigation at such time when free market residential or commercial development creates the housing needs. However, an AH development does not "require" the affordable units to mitigate for free market development. On the contrary, the AH zone allows the free market development as an incentive (GMQS Exemption) for private development of affordable units. Philosophically, staff and the P&Z want to insure that the affordable units become reality prior to or concurrent with the free market component. Otherwise, the community could be left with new free market units aLsent the affordable units. Staff realizes that the AH zone district requirements will have to be amended to address this gap in the regulations. However, during meetings with staff, this Applicant has agreed to provide a Letter of Credit equal to the construction costs of the affordable units and infrastructure on Lot 8. In case the Applicant cannot complete the project, the Letter of Credit will be payable to the City to complete the construction. Staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring that a specific financial assurance mechanism be included in the Subdivision Agreement, which must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits on the property. 5 • Condominiumization: The Applicant seeks approval to condominiumize the multi-family buildings in anticipation of selling the units. Pursuant to Section 7-1007 condominiumization shall be approved by City Council. Because this project 'is not built yet, there are no existing tenants to offer first options to buy. If rented, the units must be restricted to 6 month minimum leases because of the deed restriction requirements. The units are exempt from • affordable housing impact fees because they themselves will be deed restricted prior to construction. Vested Rights: The applicant has also requested vested rights for the proposed project pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code. This provides vested status for a site development plan for a period of three years upon approval by ordinance. Vested rights approval by Council is non-discretionary. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No apparent impacts to the City are expected. RECOMMENDATION: By a 5-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final PUD Development Plan with the following conditions as amended by staff: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the recorded Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2 . A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster (s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy.82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the 6 Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8. The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 and Barb's Way. 9 . Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10 . The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer • registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 14 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be 7 qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18. A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 19 . Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22 . Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23 . In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24. 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. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to support rezoning to AH. The Council could also require different densities or deed restrictions. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve at first reading Ordinance Series 1993 , the East Cooper Affordable Housing Final PUD Development Plan, Rezoning from R-15 (Medium Density Residential) to AH (Affordable Housing) , Subdivision, Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Units within an AH Zone, and Vested Rights with the 24 conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and amended by staff. " 8 • CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Application Booklet and Blueline Prints Exhibits: "A" - March 23 , 1993 Letter Amending the Affordable Units "B" - Conceptual Approval Conditions and Responses "C" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for Rezoning "D" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for PUD Development "E" - Complete Referral Memos "F" - Letters from Fred Stone "G" - Review Criteria / Staff Response for Subdivision jtkvj/cooper. fin.ccmemo 9 ORDINANCE NO. (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM R-15 (PUD) MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO AH (PUD) AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SUBDIVISION, FINAL PUD, GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN (AH) AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT AND FOR DEED RESTRICTED HOUSING,CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE EAST COOPER SUBDIVISION, AN 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 2.35 ACRE METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL SITUATED IN THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, in September 1989, the (AH) Affordable Housing zone district was created to promote private sector development of deed restricted affordable housing by allowing limited free market residential development within a project; and WHEREAS, C&G Mustardseed, Ltd. (Applicant) submitted an application (the "Plan") for rezoning of a 2 . 35 acre parcel on East Cooper Avenue from R-15 PUD (Moderate Density Residential) to AH PUD (Affordable Housing) in conjunction with an application for Conceptual PUD review; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Conceptual PUD Plan for the subject parcel, with conditions, on September 15, 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Conceptual PUD Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission' s recommendations, for rezoning of the subject parcel to (AH) Affordable Housing and approved the Conceptual Plan with conditions on November 9 , 1992 ; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an application for Rezoning, Subdivision, Final PUD Development Plan, Growth Management Exemption for free market development in an AH zone and for affordable housing, Condominiumization, Vested Rights, Special 1 Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH zone, waiver of Park Development Impact Fees, and Waiver of the Waterline Extension Moratorium for the develcpment of 12 deed restricted affordable townhome units, one deed restricted lot, and six free market' lots for single family residences; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the development proposal in accordance with those procedures set forth at Section 24-6-205 (A) (8) (c) of the Municipal Code and did conduct a public hearing thereon on March 16, 1993 ; and _ WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the plan, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division 9 of Article 7 (Planned Unit Development) , Division 10 of Article 7 , (Subdivision) , Division 4 of Article 7 (Special Review) , Division 11 of Article 7 (Zoning Map Amendments) , Section 8-104 (C) of Article 8 (Growth Management Quota System Exemptions by City Council) , the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended final approval of the East Cooper Subdivision subject to conditions, to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for parking and open space in an AH zone district; and WHEREAS, prior to final consideration by City Council, the Applicant increased the number of deed restricted townhomes from 12 to 13 in order to meet the deed restricted/free market percentage requirements of the AH zone district; and 2 WHEREAS, the waterline extension moratorium was no longer in effect at the time of final review by City Council; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Plan, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 B. of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions off approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's planned unit development component: 1. The Developer' s final plan submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval. 2 . The Plan is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 3 . The Plan is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4. The Plan will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 5. The Plan approval is being granted only to the extent to which 3 • GMQS allocation/exemptions are obtained by the applicant. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1 above, the City Council grants Final PUD development plan approval for the East Cooper project subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the deed restricted townhomes, the Applicant shall include within the Subdivision Agreement financial assurances in a . form acceptable to the City Attorney for the completion of the affordable housing component of the project. The amount of the financial assurances shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Planning Director. 2. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 3 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 4. Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy. 82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 5. The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 6. The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 8 . The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 and Barb' s Way. 9 . Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 10. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 11. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 12 . Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 13 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 14 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 15. Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 4 • Deed Restriction for the 13 deed restricted townhomes and one deed restricted lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shal]. execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. The deed restrictions on the affordable units shall be as follows: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 1 - one bedroom Category 4 unit 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 1 - two bedroom Category 4 unit 4 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom Resident Occupied units 1 - single family lot, Resident Occupied 16. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for the first round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis. 17 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must .be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 18 . A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 19. Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 20. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of any building permits on the parcel, the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. However, failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid, unless reconsideration and approval by both the Commission and City Council is obtained before their acceptance and recording, or an extension or waiver is granted by City Council for a showing of good cause. 22 . Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 23 . In the case of opportunities .to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 24 . 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. Section 3 : Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 C. of the Municipal Code, 5 • • and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's subdivision development component: .1. The proposed subdivision in consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and is, furthermore, consistent with the Character of existing land uses in the adjoining areas. • 2 . The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas and will be in substantial compliance with all requirements of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code. • 3 . The proposed subdivision is compatible and suitable with the topography of the area and will not present of create a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents or neighbors of the subdivision. 4 . The proposed subdivision does not create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies , duplication, or premature extension of public facilitates or unnecessary public costs. Section 4 : Pursuant to Section 24-8-104 C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds compliance in regard to the Developer's request for Growth Management Quota System development exemption for affordable housing and free market dwelling units in the Affordable Housing zone district. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the zoning map amendment component of the Plan: 1. The proposed zoning amendment as set forth in the Plan are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2 . The proposed zoning amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses . 3 . The proposed zoning amendment will not adversely impact traffic generation or road safety when taken into consideration with the other aspects of the Plan. 4 . The proposed zoning amendment will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 and 24-7-1103 , and Division 2 of Article 5 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, and findings set forth in Section 5 above, the City Council does grant the following amendment to the Official Zone District Map and does 6 designate the following zone district for the development subject to the conditions as specified below: 1. Affordable Housing (AH) shall be applied to Lots 1-8 of the . East Cooper Subdivision. Section 7: Pursuant to Section #24-7-1007 B. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Plan's condominiumization component: 1. The 13 proposed townhomes to be condominiumized are not currently leased on a long term basis. 2 . Six month minimum leases shall be required for the condominium units. 3 . The proposed condominiumization will not adversely affect the availability of affordable housing. Section 8: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 7 above, and in accordance with Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code, the City Council grants and awards condominiumization approval to the Plan as follows, subject to the conditions as specified herein: 1. Thirteen proposed townhomes on Lot 8. 2 . Affordable Housing Impact Fees shall not be required for these deed restricted condominium units. Section 9: The requested waiver of the Park Development Impact fee shall not be granted for the East Cooper Subdivision. section 10: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the Plan approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission and or City Council , are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 11: The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to reflect the rezoning action as set forth in Section 6 above and such amendment shall be 7 • promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section 24-5-103 B. of the Municipal Code. Section 12 : Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, the City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the East Cooper Subdivision and Final PUD Plan as follows: 1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3) years from the date of final adoption specified below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record all plats' and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested rights. 2 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 3 . Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4 . The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 13 : This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14 : If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or 8 portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 15: The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a. newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. , Such notice shall be given in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation .of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68 , Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. Section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1993 at 5: 00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1993 . 9 John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1993 . John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk coop. fin.ord 10 'I N C O R P O R A T E D The 17511eirerr,V70— City Council Exhibit Approved , 19 _ By ordinance April 9, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE East Cooper Affordable Housing Development Final Submission Dear Kim, As representative of C & G Mustard Sees, Ltd., the applicant of the above referenced project, I hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing, attached, was mailed to property owners within a three hundred (300') foot radius of the project on April 8, 1993, 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 the site on April 3, 1993. A photo is included verifying said posting of the property. Attached is a mailing list of owners within the required three hundred foot radius of the project with a copy of the public notice mailed to those owners. Sincerely, Thomas G. Stevens President SUBSCRIBED, CERTIFIED AND SWORN TO ME in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, State of Colorado, this 9444' day of April, 1993, by Tom Stevens. My Commission expires: A/pvcinj1'' 2. 9) l 999 Notary Public d '/- ROd ().ion OMlicc,, -118 1-_ ( copor.Aco., SUil • !U:■ A�pcn, Cnlnrarin 711611 ∎ ;IR r)21-b-17 h,1 S_ !it)1'. 92'i-b-U7 I N C O R P O R A T E D The rteletteragiejUnil w April 9, 1993 Ms. Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINAL SUBMISSION Dear Kim, As the architecture for the above referenced project continues to develop, two changes have developed which will revise representations made previously. The first change is that the units have been enlarged slightly. The current square footage calculations are as follows: 1 bedroom unit 804 sq. ft. 2 bedroom unit 960 sq. ft. 3 bedroom unit 1,284 sq. ft. These calculations represent finished living space only and do not reflect interior storage space which actually counts towards net livable space. We have always represented that the units would be spacious and exceed the minimum requirements but these final numbers have changed slightly from those outlined in the application. This revision will not represent site design revisions. The second revision is in the exterior materials. We had represented that portions of the facade would be brick. This has been eliminated and replace with wood siding. In attempting to integrate the brick and wood siding, we have decided that the buildings will look cleaner sided in all wood. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, r l ThomaS G. Stevens Red Onion Uiii(e,, -J 18 F. (ooper Ave., Suite 105, A,pen, Colorado 81611 30;! 423.6;17 IAX: 01 9_3-6707 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson CC Larry Ballenger From: Jed Caswall Postmark: Apr 05, 93 9 : 51 AM Subject: Reply to: Forwarded: Reply to: waterline moratorium Reply text: From Jed Caswall: The moratorium was to stay in effect until such time as Council adopted the overall water policies and that was done in February,hence, moratorium was effectively rescinded at that time. IN any event, I have prepared a reso to formally memorialize the recission so there can be no question. It will be on next CC consent agenda. Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: I'm just checking, Jed. . . please confirm. thanks. Previous comments: From Larry Ballenger: I don't know?? I wasn't aware that Council voted it out?? ! ! This one is Jed/Bob/Amy/City Councils level. I can't say. Sorry! ! From Kim Johnson: Jed sez that the moratorium doesn't exist anymore - is this true? Shall I then remove any reference to a moratorium waiver from the E. Cooper approval ordinance? (going to CC this month?) THanks for a quick reply! X BANNER SEW CONSULTING ENGINEERS S ARCHITECTS April 4, 1993 BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction,Colorado 81508 (303)2432242 FAX 3032433810 Mr. Chuck Roth 605 East Main,Suite 6 Aspen,Colorado 81611 City Engineer 303)925-5857 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St., 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: EAST COOPER P.U.D. Dear Chuck: This is written in confirmation of the discussion that you and I had regarding the infrastructure improvements on the subject project. As we discussed, my client has requested that we proceed with the final engineering drawings necessary to facilitate the construction of the roads, utilities and grading on the project. Realizing that there may be some additional changes to the project as we go through the first and second reading of the project with City Council we are proceeding with the work and incorporating the previous comments from the engineering department. In order to begin construction of the infrastructure improvements as soon as possible after the final reading in front of City Council I want to reiterate our understanding of the process to accomplish this schedule. Banner Associates will submit the plans for the improvements to the appropriate utility companies, CDOT, and the City for review. Based upon our discussion, the improvements do not require an excavation permit from the City to begin work because the work will not be performed within the City right-of-way. However, we will need to coordinate with the various utilities and the CDOT to insure that we are in compliance with their requirements. Obviously as the construction of the foundations and buildings commences we will have to have the Final Plat filed and comply with the standard requirements established in the building code, as well as the conditions of approval that reference "prior to building permit". BANNER Chuck Roth 4/4/93 page 2 of 2 Please let me know immediately if you have any questions or comments regarding my understanding of the permit process for the construction of the infrastructure improvements on this project. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr., P.E. Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. red\red e:\wp51\doc\8251\infra.per cc: Kim Johnson - City of Aspen Planning Dept. Rob Thomson - City of Aspen Engineering Department - MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Debbie DuBord Postmark: Mar 18 , 93 4 : 37 PM Status: Previously read Subject: Reply to: E. Cooper payment Reply text: From Debbie DuBord: Will do. Preceding message: From Kim Johnson: Craig Glendenning just dropped off a check for $2, 242 . 00 to finish the balance due on the E.Cooper Conceptual PUD/SUB. Since we go to Council in April for Final approval, please keep me posted if they start accruing another outstanding balance - they will be filing plats as soon as second reading is approved and we want them to be paid up before we sign off on plats. Thanks. X PUBLIC NOTICE RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 16, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by the C & G Mustard Seed, Ltd. , 300 E. Hyman, Suite E, Aspen, CO, requesting Final Submission approval of Final Planned Unit Development, Text/Map Amendment to rezone the parcel to Affordable Housing zone district (AH) , Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for six free market units and thirteen deed restricted units, Condominiumization of the affordable housing townhomes, Exemption from the Park Development Impact Fee, Vested Property Rights, and Special Review for Open Space, the FAR requirements of the Deed Restricted Units and parking. The applicant proposes six free market lots, one deed restricted lot, and twelve deed restricted condominiums, on Parcels A and B of the Riverside Addition. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920-5100 s/Jasmine Tvgre, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing, and Special Review for Open Space and Parking (public hearing) DATE: March 16, 1993 SUMMARY: This item was first presented on March 2 , 1993 . The public hearing was put off until March 16 due to a notification error. At the March 2 meeting, Planning staff and the Applicant gave brief introductions to the project. The Commission also heard comments from many members of the audience which included neighbors of the property and prospective owners of the property. Staff reminds the Commission to bring their original staff memo and application booklet to the March 16 meeting. Full size prints will be available at the meeting. The Commission also asked staff to invite Housing Director Tom Baker to attend the public hearing. He has confirmed that he will be there to explain the Housing Board' s policy on deed restriction categories for private sector development of affordable housing. Also, Tom will discuss the 67 : 33 ratio of deed restricted to free market units, and give background on the 70: 30 ratio established by the AH zone district. Commission comments from the last meeting included praise for the extra size of the affordable units, the need for a homeowner' s association for the townhomes including covenants emphasizing good maintenance and cleanliness of the complex, support for the increased setbacks to buffer this project from its neighbors, and the need to make sure the landscaping at the corner of the highway does not block sight distances. The public comments ranged from the need to limit FAR on the East Cooper free market lots, not enough impact reductions benefitting the Riverside Dr. neighbors, lowering free market density, and restrictions on landscaping, dogs, and accessory buildings on the East Cooper property. Since March 2 , staff has added two new conditions of approval to the list of twenty conditions in your packet: 1 21. Building heights for the townhomes shall be measured from the "natural grade" as presented in the CTL Thompson, Inc. report, as supported by the Acting Building Official. 22 . In the case of opportunities to underground existing primary and/or secondary aerial utilities where new trenches are to be dug for new utilities work, the applicant shall work with adjacent property owners and with the subject utility companies to accomplish such utility undergrounding. 2 )(-16 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing, and Special Review for Open Space and Parking (public hearing) DATE: March 2, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning to AH, Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, and the associated reviews with conditions. The Planning Office and Parks Department to not recommend waiver of the Park Development Impact fee. During Conceptual review of this project, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council supported the proposed rezoning to AH as a threshold issue. Council passed Resolution 55, 1992 (Exhibit "G" in the application booklet) which granted Conceptual PUD approval and outlined the conditions required of the Final PUD submission. 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 seeks subdivision of the site into six free market single family lots, one lot restricted to Resident Occupancy (R.O. ) , and one lot designated for twelve deed restricted townhomes. The developer will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct the deed restricted townhomes within three multi-family structures. The R.O. lot is reserved for the developer's residence. This assortment of lots and units has been reduced from the Conceptual PUD proposal of seven free market lots and sixteen restricted townhomes. The affordable units will be a mix a 1, 2,and 3 bedrooms for a total of 33 bedrooms. The ratio of deed restricted to free market units will be 70: 30. Each free market lot is capped at three bedrooms each. The bedroom ratio will be 65: 35 restricted to free market. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: East Cooper Affordable Housing Project - Rezoning to AH (Affordable Housing) , Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, GMQS Exemption for Affordable and Free Market Housing, and Special Review for Open Space and Parking (public hearing) DATE: March 2 , 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning to AH, Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, and the associated reviews with conditions. The Planning Office and Parks Department to not recommend waiver of the Park Development Impact fee. During Conceptual review of this project, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council supported the proposed rezoning to AH as a threshold issue. Council passed Resolution 55, 1992 (Exhibit "G" in the application booklet) which granted Conceptual PUD approval and outlined the conditions required of the Final PUD submission. 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 seeks subdivision of the site into six free market single family lots, one lot restricted to Resident Occupancy (R.O. ) , and one lot designated for twelve deed restricted townhomes. The developer will sell the free market lots for individual development but will construct the deed restricted townhomes within three multi-family structures. The R.O. lot is reserved for the developer' s residence. This assortment of lots and units has been reduced from the Conceptual PUD proposal of seven free market lots and sixteen restricted townhomes. The affordable units will be a mix a 1, 2 ,and 3 bedrooms for a total of 33 bedrooms. The ratio of deed restricted to free market units will be 70: 30. Each free market lot is capped at three bedrooms each. The bedroom ratio will be 65: 35 restricted to free market. 1 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. (9/15/92) Step 2 - Council Conceptual PUD, public hearing; and review of rezoning as a threshold issue. (11/9/92) step 3 - P&Z Rezoning recommendation, public hearing; Final PHD recommendation, public hearing; Subdivision recommendation, public hearing; GMQS Exemptions for Free Market and Affordable Housing recommendation; Special Reviews for parking and open space for the affordable housing, one step. Step 4 - Council Rezoning, public hearing; Final PUD; Subdivision; Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Free Market and Affordable Housing Units; Vested Property Rights; Waiver of Park Development Impact Fees and Waiver of Water Line Extension Moratorium. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Engineering: Sheet 1. - A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added. Sheet 2 . - Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. - Add note regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy. 82: year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) - If the road were ever dedicated to the City in the future, City specifications require the cul-de-sac to be 100 ' in diameter (not 70 ' as proposed) . The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision' s residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. - The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. - The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. - The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 2 and Barb's Way. Sheet 5. - Amend note 2 to state that individual development on lots 1- 7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. - The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. - Calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. Sheet 6. - Must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Sheet 7. - It appears that the CTV junction box is in the parking lot of the townhouses, causing potential problems. Sheet 8. - Language must be included detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. Sheet 11. - The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. General Condition: The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. Housing Office: The Housing Board approved the following housing mix: 2 - one bedroom Category 3 units 2 - two bedroom Category 3 units 5 - three bedroom Category 4 units 3 - three bedroom R.O. units 1 - single family lot, R.O. The Housing Board requests that the developer document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for both first round and second round of sales (including free market lots) . This reporting to the Housing Office will provide valuable information regarding this new generation of mixed housing project. All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. Water: - The Water Department is working with Banner Associates on engineering and design requirements. All construction shall 3 be done in accordance with City standards. Fire Marshall: - The cul-de-sac radius meets fire equipment requirements. - A Knox Box lock system is recommended for the emergency access. - All weather maintenance of the emergency access is required. Parks: - Parks staff has no involvement with the Riverside Ditch Co. who controls the ditch. - Council has directed sidewalk construction along the highway frontage per the Pedestrian Plan. (Applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk since the application was submitted. ) - A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any building permits. - The proposed evergreens on the south side of the townhomes will eventually shade the townhomes, blocking southern windows. Sanitation District: - Suggests revised language for PUD/Subdivision Agreement per 2/12/93 memo (Exhibit "KL") . - A formal request for line extension and a collection system agreement shall be completed once the final submission plans are approved. The District Engineer shall inspect construction, costs of which will be added to the applicant 's total connection fees. Environmental Health: - A fugitive dust permit and proper dust control measures are required. Building Department: - Regarding natural vs. existing grade of the gravel pit area, the ground level indicated in the soils report to be filled should be considered existing grade for purposes of measuring heights of the townhome structures. PROPOSAL: The site will be developed into two areas. The upper bench will be platted as 6 single family free market lots averaging 9,721 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 entire subdivision lots will come off of Highway 82 on the northwest corner of the parcel. There will also be an emergency egress driveway with a breakaway barrier further east onto Hwy. 82 . The lower portion of the site will consist of one R.O. lot of 6, 665 s. f. Twelve deed restricted condominiumized townhomes within three 4 buildings will occupy the remaining 37 , 549 s. f. lot. The unit mix has been changed from the Conceptual submission. Currently proposed are two 1-bedroom units, two 2-bedroom units and eight 3-bedroom units. Including the three bedroom R.O. lot, restricted bedrooms total 33 for the project. 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. During Conceptual review, the applicant listened to concerns voiced by the neighbors regarding vehicle impacts, construction impacts, densities, open space, and building size. The Final PUD submission has revised the site plan to include more landscaped play/open space. The total number of units has been reduced by four (one free market lot, three restricted townhomes) . One townhome structure was eliminated by rearranging the units. The free market lots have increased slightly in size, with the Applicant establishing extra deep 25 ' rear setbacks abutting the Riverside Subdivision to buffer those properties. Rezoning from R-15 (PUD) to AH (Affordable Housing) (PUD) : The criteria for rezoning is attached as Exhibit "B" . Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council considered rezoning to AH as a threshold issue during Conceptual review pursuant to the review criteria in Section 7-1101. The rezoning request received favorable responses from both groups and staff, hence the Final PUD application was submitted. Based on application of the review criteria, staff recommends rezoning the East Cooper parcel to AH (Affordable Housing) concurrent with approval of the Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat. RESPONSE TO CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL CONDITIONS: 1. The CDOT must grant an access permit for the project' s access driveway and emergency drive. response: The CDOT has received the access permit application. Full acceptance of the project' s access by CDOT is required prior to the Streets Department issuing permits for work in the right- of-way. 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. response: The entry drive to the townhomes has been reconfigured to provide more maneuvering room between parking spaces and the emergency access lane. Parking spaces have been added to the PUD Plan. 3 . Any curbs, gutters, streets, and parking areas must be 5 designed and constructed to City specifications. response: There are no curbs or gutters within this project. Per agreement with the City Engineering Department, if the private road is ever contemplated to be dedicated to the City, it must be upgraded to meet City standards at the expense of the owners within the subdivision. 4. There shall be utility easements over all underground utility installations. response: The final plat indicates the easements as required. 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. response: Per the application, the ditch company has reviewed and accepted the proposed plans and construction schedule. 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. response: Holy Cross has reviewed the proposed easements. The overhead line along the west boundary will be undergrounded where possible. 7 . Calculations/methodology for slope density reductions must be provided. These shall be prepared and stamped by a registered land surveyor or registered architect. response: Banner Associates, Inc. has prepared the slope analysis. The recorded prints will contain the original engineer' s stamp. 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. response: The application contains drainage information provided by Banner Associates. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement stipulates that individual lots shall provide drainage plans to Engineering within 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. response: Information specifying fill material is included in the application. 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 6 - exterior site lighting response: These items have been included in the PUD Plan drawings. 11. All required easements must be recorded prior to the City Engineer approving plats for recordation. response: The Plat indicates easements for Engineering' s review. 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. response: The revisions to the affordable housing proposal were reviewed and unanimously approved by the Housing Board on 1/20/93 . The Resident Occupied deed restriction is gaining familiarity and acceptance for use on a limited basis. Three of the eight 3- bedroom condominiums and one single family lot are proposed to be restricted to R.O. The Applicant commits to provide sales documentation for all properties in the development through two rounds of sales. Documentation of second round sales seems problematic however as the developer will have little connection with the project years into the future. Prior to final approval by Council, the Applicant and staff should work out a more definitive reporting method and timeframe for the sales documentation. 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. response: The application contains the waiver request. The Water Superintendent indicates that this waiver should be granted as the new service does not promote growth beyond existing waterline service areas, serving only the limited number of units within this specific subdivision. 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. response: This loop has been provided. 15. The Applicant is responsible for all tap fees, water right dedications, and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 16. Trees must be at least 30 ' from the Hwy. 82 intersection. response: The landscape plan indicates that this condition has been accomplished. 17 . Connection fee surcharges will be required to address two downstream constraints in this drainage area. response: The Applicant acknowledges this requirement. 18 . Connection to Sanitation District system must be approved prior to review of final plans. If site collection system 7 will be deeded to the district for maintenance/repair, it must meet District specifications. response" The system will be deed to the district plans have been included in the application, and all service 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. response" This condition has been met. 20. Within the Final PUD submission, the Applicant shall include appropriate assurances guaranteeing construction of affordable units. res onse: The Applicant has provided a draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement which provides for a letter of credit in the amount necessary to construct the deed restricted townhomes. All architectural and engineering documents will go to the City in case of default by the Applicant. Final City approval of the SIA will occur prior to its recordation with the County Clerk concurrent with the Plat and Final PUD Development Plan. 21. Engineering reserves the right to further review the Highway 82 right-of-way with the Applicant and the CDOT. response• Per the application, the application represents the requirements of the Engineering Department to date. If further requirements are needed, the Applicant will review them and make comments. 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. res onse: Riverside Drive is no longer proposed as access to this project so overflow parking is not critical to this neighborhood. Two guest spaces are provided for the townhome parcel. 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. response" The Applicant acknowledges this statement. 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. response" Density on the 2 . 35 acre parcel has been reduced by four units. This has allowed one townhome structure to be eliminated, increasing green space and play area along the frontage of the parcel. The site now has a more open arrangement with the revised site plan. Six lots are now arranged on the upper bench compared 8 to seven lots proposed during Conceptual review. The FAR on the townhome lot has been reduced by over 10% since Conceptual review and meets the . 32 : 1 limit established in the AH zone without Special Review approval. Rear setbacks adjacent to the Riverside Subdivision have been expanded to 25 ' (the AH zone requires 10 ' minimum rear setbacks) . Pedestrian access has been improved by the Applicant' s commitment to construct a sidewalk along the highway frontage and by providing a pedestrian easement between Lots 1 and 7, and following the southern property line of Lot 1 to the Riverside Drive right-of-way. (The sidewalk and easement was agreed upon between staff and the Applicant after the Final Plan was submitted. ) Planned Unit Development (PUD) : The proposed rezoning to AH will retain the PUD overlay already existing on the property. Approval of a Final Development Plan is required for each PUD proposal. 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. Through the Conceptual review process, it was found that these goals have been met or will be met upon satisfaction of 24 conditions for Final PUD submission. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for the review standards and responses for Section 7-903 , Planned Unit Development Approval. In summary, Planning staff believes that the PUD standards have been met by this Final PUD submission. Based on referral comments, staff proposes conditions of approval to be met before or during development of this project. SUBDIVISION: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following general requirements. The technical aspects of 9 KO G72/33Z ro- -(— ..- ( calei frit -Y-LAThif1 -450 _ Luafri % A1 baits- tut 37(e friIL7 4 0L r ! the subdivision review are attached as Exhibit "D" . In summary, staff finds that the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the code. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. response: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the development and housing goals adopted within the Aspen Area Community Plan adopted in early 1993 . b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. response: The single family lots are consistent with the adjoining Riverside Subdivision. The multi-family development is consistent with the lodge and apartment developments adjacent to and across the highway from the proposed subdivision. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. response: This is the last remaining vacant parcel in the vicinity, so future development will not be adversely impacted. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. response: The proposal is following through with all required land use and technical approvals. All conditions of approval must be addressed before recordation of development documents of prior to issuance of building permits, whichever is applicable. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FREE MARKET HOUSING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) ZONE DISTRICT: Free Market Units: Up to 14 free market units in the City are exempt from Growth Management per year as per Section 8-104 (C) (1) (e) which was amended by Ordinance 59 / 1989 . This proposal includes 6 free market units. For the rest of 1993 , there will be 8 units remaining units available under this code section. The actual exemption will be a Council action at Final PUD. Pursuant to Section 8-104 C. 1 (c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a determination of the City' s need for such housing, considering the proposed development' s compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling units propo0sed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in each unit, the size of the 10 dwelling unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted. Response: The Housing Office and Planning staff recommends approval of the housing package for the deed restricted apartments and the one single family lot. Please refer to the amendments pertaining to housing contained in Exhibit "A" . SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE AND PARKING IN AN AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) ZONE DISTRICT: Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to Special Review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. Sections 7-404 .A. 1 and 2 : (open space) 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying Zone District. response: The Final PUD Plan shows substantially more open space than the Conceptual Plan due mainly to the elimination of one townhome structure. As viewed from Hwy. 82, the site appears more open. Increased landscaping on this development will meet or exceed landscaping of the surrounding area. The elevations of the townhome buildings are well articulated to provide visual interest and lessen the bulk of the structures. The increased rear setbacks of the free market lots lessens impacts to the Riverside neighbors. 2 . The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated viewplane. response: The only anticipated impact under this section is some shading onto the highway right-of-way. However, property owners are already required by law to keep sidewalks cleared of snow during the winter. The townhomes comply with the parking requirement for the AH zone (not to exceed 2 spaces per unit) with 2 additional spaces for guest parking. 7-404 .B. 2 : (parking) 2 . In all other zone districts where the off street parking requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the 11 • downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 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 recommends approval of the East Cooper Affordable Housing Project Final PUD Development Plan, Special Review for Open Space and Parking in the AH zone, and GMQS Exemption for the six free market lots, twelve affordable townhomes and one affordable lot as deed restricted per the Housing Office's approval. The following conditions shall apply: 1. A note regarding R.O.W. reservation conditions must be added to the plat. 2 . Trash enclosure must meet size requirements for dumpster(s) and recycling containers. Provide letter from BFI on capacity needs. 3 . Add note to plat regarding emergency access from parking lot to Hwy. 82 : year-round maintenance, no snow blockages. (State in condo documents also. ) 4 . The Subdivision Agreement shall include a statement to the effect that the subdivision's residents will be responsible for the expense of bringing the road up to current City standards prior to dedication. 5 . The site plan must show the pedestrian easement to the Riverside Drive r.o.w. agreed upon between the City and the Applicant. 6. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along Hwy. 82 to be installed by the Applicant. 7 . The site plan must show the street light location at Hwy. 82 and Barb's Way. 8. Amend note 2 on Sheet 5 to state that individual development on lots 1-7 shall maintain historic runoff rates. 9. The drainage plan must address how the Hwy. 82 intersection is handled. 10. Drainage calculations must be stamped by an engineer registered in Colorado. Drywells must be sized on plan, and must be maintainable. 11. Language must be included on Sheet 8 detailing conveyance of the water line to the City, and the conditions of the easement which satisfy the City Attorney and Water Superintendent. 12 . The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. 13 . The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations for development in the right-of-way. Permits are required from the Streets Department for any work, including landscaping, within the right-of-way. 14 . Prior to recordation of the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, Final PUD Plan and Subdivision Plat, the Master 12 Deed Restriction for the deed restricted townhomes and lot shall be recorded with the County Clerk. Prior to sale of any deed restricted property, the buyer shall execute a Memorandum of Acceptance of the deed restriction. 15. The developer shall document buyer information for all the units/parcels within this development, for both first round and second round of sales (including free market lots) and shall forward this information to the Housing Office on an annual basis 16 . All occupants of the deed restricted and R.O. units must be qualified by the Housing Office prior to sale or rental occupancy. 17 . A tree removal permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 18 . Language regarding the sanitation system within the PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be approved by the Sanitation District prior to recordation. 19. A fugitive dust permit is required prior to issuance of any excavation or building permits. 20. The Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision Agreement and Plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the Plat within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the Plat invalid. Exhibits: Application Booklet and Blueline Prints "A" - Complete Referral Memos "B" - Rezoning Review Criteria "C" - PUD Review Criteria "D" - Subdivision Review Criteria cooper. fin.memo 13 MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer.?SC Date: February 12, 1993 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission/Final Plat Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Application Drawings: Sheet 2: a. The parcel immediately adjacent to the northwest property line of the subject property needs clarification. Is this part of the of the Buckwheat Subdivision? b. A note describing the area and conditions of the R.O.W. reservation must he added. Sheet 3: a. As a general comment the dumpster enclosure should be sized to meet the needs of the project. In addition, consideration should be given for sizing the enclosure to include recycle containers. h. A note must he added stating the emergency fire access route must be maintained and free of any blockages at all times, i.e. snow removal, from the parking area to S.H. 82. This should also be stated in the condominium documents. c. The cul-de-sac shows a turn around diameter of 70 feet. The municipal code states that all streets must be built in accordance with the city specifications, which means a cul de sac diameter of 100 feet. At this time the road is to remain private. However, there is the possibility that future residents may want to dedicate the road to the City. The Fire Department has indicated that they can turn around in the cul-de-sac as it is currently sized. Therefore, the subdivision agreement should state something to the effect that, if there is ever a request for dedication of this road as public right-of-way the current residents adjacent to the road, excluding the deed restricted units, will be responsible for the expense of bringing the cul-de-sac and road to current code prior to dedication. d. The site plan must show the agreed upon pedestrian easement. e. The site plan must show the required sidewalk along S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. I. The site plan must show a street light at the intersection of Barb's Way and S.H. 82 to be installed by the applicant. Sheet 5: a. Amend note two indicating it is the residents of lots 1-7 responsibility to maintain any storm runoff above the historical rate of runoff for the developed lot, generated by any development they might add. h. The drainage plan must address how the drainage is handled for the intersection of the access road and S.1-I. 82. c. The calculations provided in the application must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. In addition, must also include the sizing of the drywells. Sheet 6: a. As stated in the application this sheet must be stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Sheet 7: a. A general comment, it appears the CTV could have a junction box in the parking area of the deed restricted units that could cause problems. Sheet 8: a. There must be language on this plan detailing the conveyance of the water line to the City of Aspen, and the conditions of the easement, that meets the satisfaction of the City of Aspen's Water Superintendent and the City Attorney. Sheet 11: a. The emergency access must be included with the CDOT access permit. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. It is recommended that the applicant make the above corrections and/or changes and review with the engineering department prior to signature of final plat. It is preferable that this be a condition before final approval, however, if this is unreasonable then definitely prior to issuance of any permits. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). 3. Prior to issuance of any permits for lots 1-7, storm drainage plan and calculations must be provided and approved by the engineering department. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer • MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Stephen Kanipe Postmark: Feb 23 , 93 5: 06 PM Subject: East Cooper Subdivision Message: We reviewed the issue of natural vs. existing grade and the gravel pit area on this site plan. I agree with the proposal to fill the shaded area as indicated in the soils report and let that level establish the height measurements for the multi-family units. X P:LANNIN,. .. ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT .2 , APPROVED 19 _ BY RESOLUTION EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPOSAL Rezoning from R-15 PUD to Affordable Housing (AH) PUD Zone District: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following review criteria and responses must be considered. 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. Access for the entire parcel is from Hwy. 82 . based predominately on concerns of the Riverside neighborhood. An access permit for the main entrance and emergency access from Hwy. 82 has been submitted to CDOT. 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 has been in contact with the various utility providers regarding "will serve" letters. 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 affecting the natural state of the parcel is the access road cutting through the hillside to serve the free market lots. 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. 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. 3 PLANNIN<. ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT (/ , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • Planned Unit Development Approval Pursuant to Section 7-903 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 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. There have been no free market units approved in 1993 under the AH GMQS exemptions. The deed restricted affordable housing units are also exempt upon City Council approval. 2 .Density. Response: The maximum density is no greater than that permitted in the AH zone district. The application booklet provides development data and density reduction on pages 6 and 8 . The site does contain sloped areas which have been subtracted from land area for density calculation purposes. Staff finds that further density reductions are not necessary for 1 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 Applicant requests that the elevation of the existing terrain not be used to establish heights of the townhome buildings because of the peculiarities of the existing topography. The site was used decades ago as a gravel pit, lowering the natural elevation by approximately 8 ' in the center of the pit. Exhibit "O" of the application booklet includes a topographic sketch of the approximate area of the old gravel excavation. Pursuant to the Land Use Code definition of "natural grade" , the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade prior to disturbance, and measure (structures) from that grade. Stephen Kanipe, the Acting Building Official, has reviewed the application and has determined that the original natural grade was approximately as the level shown in the shaded area on the sketch in the soils report by CTL Thompson, Inc. For purposes of measuring building heights, the applicant shall be bound to this report and its findings. Please see Exhibit "A" (referral comments) for Mr. Kanipe ' s memo. FAR for the townhome lot as allowed in the AH zone is . 36: 1. The FAR for Lot 8 per the application is . 32 : 1. Due to response from some of the neighbors at the August 27 , 1992 meeting, the Applicant has created 25 ' setbacks along the perimeter of the parcel adjacent to the Riverside Drive 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 three bedroom affordable units. One space is provided for each one and two bedroom unit. Two guest spaces are provided on La Cet Court. 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. 2 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 includes a landscape plan. The Parks Department has made comments regarding this plan. Overall, the townhome lot has adequate landscaping for visual interest and buffering between parcels and the highway. 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 exterior and floor plans of the townhomes. They will be wood and 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 and surface 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: Exterior low-voltage lighting has been included on the landscaping plan. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Response: The number of townhome buildings has been reduced to three from four as submitted in the Conceptual application. The structures 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, with the building envelopes situated away from the adjacent 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 3 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. The subdivision will be responsible for road upgrades if the private road is ever dedicated to the City. 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. 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 Final PUD 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. 4 Response: The proposed road off of Hwy. 82 is a private road. Per Engineering's comments, if the road is ever dedicated to the City, the property owners will be responsible for any costs required to upgrade the road to City standards. 5 IrLANNINC ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT 12 , APPROVED 19 BY RESOLUTION • SUBDIVISION REVIEW STANDARDS East Cooper AH Subdivision/PUD 1. 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 sub- division. There are no unsuitable lands proposed for development within this subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. No duplication of public facilities will result from this subdivision. 2 . Improvements. The following improvements shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. The Applicant and the consulting engineer have been working with staff to finalize the locations for the following items where needed within the proposed subdivision: (1) Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins. (2) Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. (3) Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. (4) Paved alleys. (5) Traffic-control signs, signals or devices. (6) Street lights. (7) Street name signs. (8) Street trees or landscaping. (9) Water lines and fire hydrants. (10) Sanitary sewer lines. (11) Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. (12) Bridges or culverts. (13) Electrical lines. (14) Telephone lines. (15) Natural gas lines. (16) Cable television lines. 3 . Design standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions: Streets and related improvements. The access road within the subdivision will be private, so many of these standards do not apply. The Applicant understands that if the road is ever contemplated for dedication to the City, it must be upgraded to City Standards at the property owner's expense. (1) Conform to plan for street extension. (2) Right-of-way dedication. (3) Right-of-way width. (4) Half-street dedications. (5) Street ends at subdivision. (6) Cul-de-sacs. (7) Dead end streets. (8) Centerline offset. (9) Reverse curves. (10) Changes in street grades. (11) Alleys. (12) Intersections. (13) Intersection grade. (14) Curb return radii. (15) Turn by-passes and turn lanes. The turn lane into the parcel from the highway has been designed in compliance with CDOT. (16) Street names and numbers. The roads in the subdivision are named Barb' s Way and La Cet Court. (17) Installation of curb, gutter, sidewalks, or driveways. (18) Sidewalks. The Applicant has agreed to construct a sidewalk along the Hwy. 82 frontage according to the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan. (19) City specifications for streets. (20) Range point monuments. (21) Street name signs. (22) Traffic control signs. (23) Street lights. (24) Street tree. a. Easements. All necessary easements have been entered onto the plat except for the pedestrian easement to Riverside Dive, which must be included on plat before recordation. b. Lots and blocks. c. Survey monuments. d. Utilities. All utility plans have been reviewed by the appropriate utilities. e. Storm drainage. f. Flood hazard areas. 2 ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department ht(' fg Date: February 18 , 1993 Re: East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-014 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: This project is to be served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) . There is a ten-inch sanitary sewer main in the Highway 82 right-of-way with the capacity to accommodate the anticipated sewage flows from the project. Further, the applicant plans to construct a mew manhole on the existing central collection line and extend the on-site collection system from this point into the project. All project sewer lines are to be designed and constructed according to the ACSD specifications and deeded in perpetuity to the District when construction of the utilities is completed. This plan conforms with policies of this office. ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The project is to be served by the city water system. There is a fourteen-inch water line in the highway directly in front of the site. There is sufficient capacity to serve the units at the flows anticipated. The applicants plan to install the interior 8-inch water lines of the project to City of Aspen standards and loop the connection into Riverside Drive, providing an additional connection to this area of town, a benefit to the entire neighborhood. The water mains are to be granted to the City Water Department in perpetuity. This plan conforms with Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system" and conforms with policies established by this office. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-6070 recycled paper East Cooper Affordable Housing PUD Final Submission/ Final Plat February 18, 1993 Page 2 AIR QUALITY: The location of the proposed development provides easy access to town by walking, biking, or riding the bus. This development will only have a minimal effect on air quality. No woodburning fireplaces are allowed anywhere in the metro area, but woodstoves and gas log fireplaces are still allowed, and the application has not addressed or prohibited these on the free market units. The plans for the deed-restricted employee units do not show any devices at all . Other measures to reduce the air quality impacts are not addressed, including the energy efficient construction methods and appliances. The applicants are reminded of the requirements for a fugitive dust permit and proper dust control measures during the initial site preparation and excavation work. In summary, while air pollution impacts have been or can be mitigated. The project location close to town and the bus route should lessen its air quality impacts. NOISE: Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the residential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303)925-3601 ` V FAX #(303)925-2537 ti Sy Kelly-Chairman (� O Albert Bishop John J. Snyder- Treas. 029 Frank Loushin Louis Popish -Secy. ,� 1P,-" Bruce Matherly, Mgr. February 12, 1993 4ilOQ`� Kim Johnson `� g� Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re : East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Submission Dear Kim : The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has sufficient capacity to provide service for this project. Total connection charges for the development can be estimated once detailed plans for the dwelling units are available. I would suggest that the PUD/ Subdivision agreement item 8. part b. be revised as follows : Sewer Tap Fees. Owner agrees to pay sanitary sewer total connection charges to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) in the amount equivalent to EQR' s. Preliminary calculation for the total connection charges shall be provided by ACSD once detailed construction plans are available and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD at issuance of building permits. The preliminary calculations will be verified with a final inspection of completed construction. Fees associated with downstream constraints will be determined from the approved final submission development plans and fees shall be provided by the Owner to ACSD prior to issuance of building permits. Building lots approved at final submission will be charged a stand-by service charge once service lines are stubbed to the lots. The applicant states that the on-site collection system will be deeded to the District for future maintenance and repair. A formal request for a line extension and a collection system agreement need to be completed once the final submission plans are approved. The plans attached to the final submission for the on-site collection system appear to meet District specifications . The District' s engineer will inspect the construction of the on- site system to ensure compliance with the District' s specifications. The costs of this inspection will be added to the applicant' s total connection fees. EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL c ,`1 East Cooper Affordable Housing Final Sub. February 12, 1993 page 2 All other District concerns appear to have been adequately addressed in the application. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherl ) District Manager . February 24, 1993 Mr. Robert Daniel, Jr., PE • • Aspen Projects Director • li - . BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. • • 605 E. Main Street, Suite 6 Aspen, CO 81611 THE CITY OF ASPEN Dear Bob: . SUBJECT: EAST COOPER HOUSING The City of Aspen has several minor concerns related to the East Cooper Housing Development. They are as follows: • 14" Transmission Main. We have already discussed the connection to the 14" water main with Hans. Hans recognized that he had inadvertently proposed the 14" connection instead of connecting to the 8" water main. ,Hans is aware of the pressure zone separations at this location. • The City would like to see the utilization of a. "mega-lug" type joint restraint on all mechanical joint fittings in lieu of kick blocks. A kick block at all tees providing water to fire hydrants will be required due to the type of thrust encountered at these locations. • Lots 1 through 7 have no indication of service line size. . • The 3 buildings on Lot 8 must have separate shut-off valves and metering for each unit. A common service line may be utilized for each building. Building "B" does not have a specific size on the service line. • The service line taps for Lots 1 & 2 are located in an easement area that will be difficult • to gain access to in the future. Could the taps for these lots be located in or near the cul- de-sac for easier access in the future. • If •u have any questions, please give me a call at 920-5111. . i :rely, el • Bal -nger, Water Supe ' tendent . City of Aspen, Water Department . LB:ll 1 . Lb9\jecooperbo u.bm • 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303.920 5000 • PAX 303.920.5I9? PAO&m ncvded paper BANNER 1993 CONSULTING ENGINEERS &ARCHITECTS January 15, 19(193 BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. 2777 Crossroads Boulevard Grand Junction,Colorado 81506 Larry Ballenger (303)2432242 FAX(303)2433810 City of Aspen St. Department 605 East Main,Suite 6 130 S. Galena St. Aspen,C(303)9255857 Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION ASPEN, COLORADO Dear Larry: Enclosed for your review are two copies of the proposed private water plan and a survey on the subject project. This project is concurrently being submitted to the City of Aspen for final plat/final submission approval. This project was previously submitted for your review and comment during the conceptual submittal process. It was then determined that there existed sufficient system capacity to serve this project. At this time we would request that any additional or revised comments be made by Aspen Water Department. Also I would request a waiver of the existing Waterline Extension Moratorium to facilitate the installation of the improvements on this project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions and/or comments. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniel, Jr.,PE Aspen Projects Director BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure cc: Craig Glendenning RED:cjb W P-DOC8251 conf rmut.wtr • if Cit , � ��,,�,.,( ten p rPr ��H,r ; , 130 :tit!ii∎1 E,:iti k -, treet DEC 0 3.1901 11 As It;�,. i`q �111-:1 611 • s December 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. 4 Sin y, ail 1 Larry Ballenger, Director of Water City of Aspen, Water Department LB:11 iii A tKa.p.r • ' :*. rattled Paper MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Kim Johnson From: Stephen Kanipe Postmark: Feb 23, 93 5: 06 PM Subject: East Cooper Subdivision Message: We reviewed the issue of natural vs. existing grade and the gravel pit area on this site plan. I agree with the proposal to fill the shaded area as indicated in the soils report and let that level establish the height measurements for the multi-family units. X •