Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.412 AABC.0072.2013.ASLU 40 THE CITY OF ASPEN rty of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0072.2013.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBERS 264334418002 PROJECTS ADDRESS 412 AABC PLANNER JUSTIN BARKER CASE DESCRIPTION AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPRESENTATIVE PETER FORNELL DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.25.14 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 3.25.14 0072 "`�° Permits -� m r f File Edit! Record Navigate Form Rep€qs Fc)rrnat Tab let ..,. 1! __ _.. _...__I T, Ad'dress Status Fees Fee Summary PJtain Actions Attachments Rautinq Hrstary Valuation ArchJEncd Custom FleCds Sub Permits ,Parcels ype aslu Aspen Land Use Permit 00?2 2013.ASLU 112 AABC 1' AptlSuite — a _ City ASPEhJ State CO 1 zip 81611 Permit Information ``0'; Master ermit -_ R Routing queue ;aslu07 Applied -11:12='2013 Project -- --—--, A ? Status pending +RRroe#sd' I I 1 Description b?�. ANT LOT 8 C TEGORY 2 3 UNITS-REQUEST FOR;,FFORDABLE HDUSIHG Issued i CREDITS. Closedr'Final Submitted v� Cv,ner clock IRunning Days 1^0I Expires I1107=`2 1 Last name RLflD.LLC First name 412 A".BC Phone !` ASPEN CO 81811 � 1 Address 1- Applicant j Owner is applicant? ❑Contractor is applicant? Last name ALPINE GROVE First name qqA,{�� Pirane ) I CrJSt iL4t°Fd I i Lender _ 1drPSti Last name ' First name i ' 3 Phone ,{ ,1- i Address _ . AspenGoZ(server angelas 1 of 1 1' v fit- , Vc RECEPTIONA. .;:)8341, 03/03/2014 at 10:11:44 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC. PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.8.1, Combined Reviews, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a four to zero (4—0) vote, recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Planning & Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2014, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, by a four to zero (4 — 0) vote, approving the development of affordable housing units outside City limits and establishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 Pagel of 3 WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Affordable Housing Units Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the provision of eight (8) affordable housing units to be located outside the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Section 2: Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at a Category 2 income level (100% of the FTEs produced by the project). Such certificate is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040 and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines, issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the units, and transfer of the units pursuant to APCHA procedures. Section 3: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearin A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24`h day of February, 2014, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the [CNay of February, 2014. Attest: Kathryn S. koch, ity Clerk Steven d on, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 2*day of 014. Attest: Kathryn S. K ch, City Clerk Steven Skadr n, ayor Approved as to form: .-'dim True, City Attorney Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 Ad Name: 9935980A /LEGAL / LEGA NCT IMF Customer: Aspen (LEGALS) City of OADPJ.SIJCE 4, 2014 PUBLIC NEARING Your account number: 1013028 ° N a"t City of 2014 was ad�t>�`n.10, reading at tFz City Council rteeLug FLbruary110, 2J14. Phis nrdir vim, i'adcPCed, vtll aFprrne dr valcprent of hrxisi rrl nnics outside city:unit and estatlist�aff—i bie hoi in9 crediCS. The pmlyn PROOF OF PUBLICATION eariny ,'di_is sd'ed l `-Ern'_ 24, 1014 a[F.:CXJ p. City Nall, 130 Scuth Ca- To s Ue entire tGL,W to the­'Y's 1xp:rntim websrte http://we asperpitk n.CMV[epa�tp t,'Clerl:/Lc IF Yw w:xyd Li Ke a-Py FAxed or a iled to yw, T31 ,all U-<'ty lerk's otf-,L-2(67 TIM:1 1312014 in t &sp+n'1,1_.s Weekly on Fobn,ary STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF PITKIN I,Jim Morgan,do solemnly swear that I am General Manager of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY, that the same weekly newspaper printed,in whole or in part and published in the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado,and has a general circulation therein;that saidnewspaperhas been publishedcontinuouslyand uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement. The Aspen Times is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of l consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/13/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 2/13/2014. In witness whereof,I have here unto set my hand this 02/13/2014. Jim Morgan,General Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public in and for the County of Garfield,State of Colorado this 02/13/2014. Pamela J.Schultz,Notary Public Commission expires:November 1,2015 OZPRY PGeli PAMELA J. �s 3CHULR ECG Ml ComM M EX0ea 11-11015 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 2014 • Resolution 411, 2014 - Golf Course Restaurant lease • Resolution#12, 2014 - Data Center Rack& Cooling System • Resolution #14, 2014 - Truscott Housing Change Order • Resolution 415, 2014 - Employee Generation Study contract RRC • Resolution #13, 2014 -- Wheeler Film Society Agreement • Minutes - February 10, 2014 All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2014—Pacific Avenue Condominiums Affordable Housing Credits Councilman Daily recused. Justin Barker, community development department, noted this is a request for two approvals; to accept affordable housing units outside city limits and to establish a certificate of affordable housing credits. Barker said this site at the airport business center was approved for 17 affordable housing units as mitigation for the Residences at Little Nell. The applicant proposes to complete the remaining 8 units and requests affordable housing certificates for the 24 FTEs generated by the project at category 2. This site is within the urban growth boundary and Council has the ability to accept affordable housing units within the UGB. Barker told Council the purpose of the UGB is to denote areas appropriate for affordable housing and to prevent sprawl. The original boundary was beyond Woody Creek. Barker noted the AACP promotes that affordable housing be developed within the UGB and further states on site mitigation is preferred. Barker stated affordable housing units within the UGB have been approved and have been denied; the Residences of the Little Nell mitigation was approved at the ABC and the mitigation for the South Aspen Street project was denied. Barker said units outside the city limits removes Council discretion to review a project's merits. Barker said Council could approve that these affordable unit credits are appropriate and have the same value as those in the city; that affordable unit credits are inappropriate as credits are a city programs and should only appropriate for city projects; the third alternative is to approve them at a lower percentage of credits than units within the city. Barker pointed out staff recommends approving the units at 75%of the total or 18 FTEs at category 2 level. Peter Fornell, applicant, reminded Council he and community development staff brought the idea of affordable housing credits to Council as a code amendment and then he produced eight category 2 units at 301 West Hyman, which has been a success. The private sector produces this 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 24, 2014 affordable housing, which incentivizes the developer to build these units at lower category so that the purchase price for the buyer is lower and the mitigation for a developer of higher. Fornell noted he is currently building eleven category 2 and 3 units on Main street. Fornell said the lot at the ABC was earmarked for affordable housing in an approved PUD, defined as an appropriate location for affordable housing and has been approved for 10 years and no one has built the affordable housing. Fornell noted the affordable housing credits have sold by one and two for those who need one or two mitigation units. Councilman Romero stated he supports the application as presented. Councilman Frisch said all 4 types of affordable housing mitigation need to be treated to same and there should not be a discount for one of these because it is outside the city limits. Mayor Skadron said the issue is do affordable housing units within the city limits have a greater value than units elsewhere. Chris Bendon, community development department, said if Council agrees they have even value, staff will return with policy discussions on this issue. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said the applicant has been developing affordable housing in the city and this is a proposal to develop more affordable housing without any city money. This location has been approved by the city as mitigation for a development; it is surrounded by affordable housing and is closer to town than Burlingame. Haas said there is a lot of discussion about public/private partnerships and there have been none. This is a creative way to generate affordable housing. Fornell reiterated these will be eight three-bedroom category 2 units; the inventory for those size category 2 units does not exist. Bendon pointed out this could serve as a precedent. There is value in that this will be a brand new product, not a buy down. Bendon told Council staff reached out to the applicant about this vacant piece of property and lack of action on it. Steve Barwick, city manager, agreed that although this may be a precedent, there may not be much raw land left in this area. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. Marcia Goshorn told Council the housing board supports this project; production of category 2 units has been a challenge. Ms. Goshorn said there are many children in this neighborhood. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilman Frisch said he supports category 2 housing in the UGB and the 1:1 ratio works for him. Councilman Romero agreed. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports 100%credits; this was supported by both APCHA and P&Z; the infrastructure is there and the 75% seems arbitrary. Mayor Skadron stated he does not want this to set a precedent without further policy discussion; however the category 2 three-bedroom units and the value of new units and the support from city boards convinced him to support 1:1 ratio of credits. 7 Regular MeetinE Aspen City Council February 24,2014 Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2014, amending it to read establishing 24 FTEs at category 2; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2014—Approving Lease Purchase Agreement IT FirewalI Don Taylor, finance director, reminded Council the city Charter requires lease purchase agreement to be approved by ordinance. This is a three-year lease for firewall equipment for the city's network and the cost of the lease purchase is about the same as paying for support on the old equipment. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance 46, Series of 2014, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 2014 - Code Amendment Procurement Thresholds Barry Crook assistant city manager, told Council this will amend the thresholds governing the city's purchasing policies to raise department head approval from $5,000 to $9,999, to increase the limits for competitive quotes requiring city manager sign off to $10,000 and $24,999, to require formal RFPs at $25,000 and emergency procurement must be reported to Council. Crook noted if this ordinance is adopted, the thresholds can rise by CPI every year. This creates efficiency in city operations. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins said the limit of$5,000 for city manager approval should remain so that he had knowledge of those expenditures. Councilwoman Mullins said the yearly cpi increase should come to Council so that they know what the increase is rather than increasing every year. Councilman Frisch said he feels the cpi has been at 1 to 3% annually and has not been jumping around. Councilman Frisch, Daily and Romero stated they support staffs recommendation. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 2014, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, no; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. 8 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ` FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 — Pacific Avenue Condominiums Affordable Housing Credits DATE: February 24, 2014 APPLICANT: Peter Fornell IPA LOCATION: p�j�P� Unit B, Pacific Ave Condominiums, FR lea according to the Plat thereof recorded im 04 August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. Within the Airport Business Center. CURRENT ZONING: * or AH/PUD Pitkin County Zoning SUMMARY: ° no xA The Applicant proposes to develop 8 three- Locator Map bedroom affordable housing units and is requesting recommendation to City Council 4 to approve development of affordable sa housing units outside City limits and to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: '"" 's Staff recommends City Council approve the " development of units outside City limits and t the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits at a percentage reduction. Aerial Image 1 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits — The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by City Council. City Council is the decision-making body. • Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit — An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, Authority, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. City Council is the decision-making body as part of a Combined Review. PROJECT SUMMARY: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD. The subdivision included one lot of existing condominiums and a second lot intended for 17 affordable housing units, built in two phases. The first phase was completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell development and contains 9 of the units. The applicant is proposing to complete the remaining 8 three-bedroom units of the development. The vested rights for this project were extended by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007. Having still not been built, the vested rights for the project expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant is in the process of receiving a new site plan approval from the Pitkin County Community Development Department establishing new vested rights for the project. The applicant is requesting to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level for the development of these units. STAFF EVALUATION: Provision of units outside City limits — In order to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, the units must comply with the affordable housing review criteria outlined in the Growth Management chapter of the Land Use Code. The standards include size, relation to grade and form of ownership, as well as the requirement that the units be located within City limits. However, City Council has the ability to accept units outside City limits, as long as they are located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB was originally conceived in the 1993 AACP as a way to recommend areas appropriate for affordable housing. This area originally extended down beyond Woody Creek and has since been defined in the 2000 AACP, shown in Exhibit A. Affordable housing units for the purpose of mitigation, have been approved and denied within the UGB in the past. The AACP promotes all affordable housing to be developed within the 2 UGB, however it also states "on-site housing mitigation is preferred". Although compliance with the AACP is not one of the review criteria, the development of affordable housing within the UGB to be in line with the goals AACP. One of the review criteria associated with the development of housing within the UGB requires that the applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel, which in this case is Pitkin County. Approval of the project is expected by February 24th, however it will not be officially recorded by that date due to a required public comment period ending February 23`a Affordable Housing Credits - The purpose of the Housing Credit program is to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the impacts of development. Under most circumstances, mitigation for that development is provided within City limits. Figure A provides a list of all Affordable Housing Credits that have been established and extinguished. (The Credits Established have also been converted to Category 4 since mitigation is based on Category 4 calculations.) Credits Established Credits Extinguished 14— 301 W. Hyman Ave. (23.76, Cat 4) 3 —315 Vine St. 1.91, Cat 4—204 S. Galena St. (GAP) 24— 518 W. Main St.pending(40.6, Cat 4) 2.7, Cat 4—625 E. Hyman Ave. (Muse) 1.25 — 831/833 W. Bleeker St.pending(2.14 Cat 4) Total: 26.76 Cat 4 (42.74 pending) Total: 4.61 Cat 4 Figure A Units outside the City for mitigation may be accepted by City Council approval, although it is considered a secondary option to development inside City limits. Affordable housing that has been accepted or denied outside City limits has always been associated with a specific project as a discretionary review by Council. Two examples of this are the Residences at the Little Nell, and the South Aspen Street Townhomes. The mitigation for the Residences was ap rpm oved within the UGB as a component of a project receiving a favorable City Council review, while proposed mitigation for the South Aspen Street Townhomes within the UGB was denied primarily because the overall project provided little community benefit. Approving credits outside City limits removes Council's ability to review a project's merits for which mitigation is due. There are three approaches Council could take to this situation. One approach is "I feel that affordable housing units developed within the UGB for Affordable Housing Credits are entirely appropriate and have the same value as units within the City." Another approach is "I feel that affordable housing units developed within the UGB for Affordable Housing Credits are completely inappropriate. Credits are a City program and should be associated with City development." Staff has taken the third approach, which is "I feel that affordable housing units developed within the UGB are appropriate, but do not create the same community value as units within the City. There should be a diminished value of the Credits to reflect this prioritization." 3 Staff recommends that Affordable Housing Credits for this project. should potentially be established at a percentage reduction from the FTEs produced by the project. As part of the acceptance of affordable housing units outside City limits, Council has the ability to accept any percentage of the projects total affordable housing, including all or none. Staff is suggesting 75% of the FTEs produced by the project as a benchmark number to consider. This would recognize the less than optimum location of these units. Council needs to discuss whether a reduction would be considered appropriate, and if so, how much of a reduction is reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the development of affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits for 18 FTEs at the Category 2 level (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) as recognition of the development outside City limits. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the affordable housing units outside City limits but within the UGB, and establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level (100% of the FTEs produced by the project). Members of P&Z were not against the concept of a reduction, but did not support a reduction at this time when it is not explicitly stated in the code with review criteria to determine an appropriate reduction amount. APCHA RECOMMENDATION: APCHA supports the establishment of affordable homes within the UGB, considering them still an added benefit to the community and within the pattern of development that is desired. The proposed units meet the housing guidelines and Category 2, three-bedroom homes are considered a desirable housing type for the current housing pool. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, approving the development of affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) at the Category 2 level, on First Reading." EXHIBITS: A. UGB map B. Review Criteria—Provision of affordable housing units outside City limits C. Review Criteria—Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit D. P&Z Minutes— 12/17/2013 E. Application 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC. PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1, Combined Reviews, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a 4 to 0 vote, recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Planning & Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2014, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, by a to (_ --j vote, approving the development of affordable housing units outside City limits and establishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Affordable Housing Units Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the provision of eight(8) affordable housing units to be located outside the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Section 2: Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs at a Category 2 income level (75% of the FTEs produced by the project). Such certificate is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040 and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines, issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the units, and transfer of the units pursuant to APCHA procedures. Section 3: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24"' day of February, 2014, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of February, 2014. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch,City Clerk Steven Skadron,Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of ,2014. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron,Mayor Approved as to form: Jim True, City Attorney Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 W U c 3 a� 00 Cl Jr- is at IF r J 1 '♦ e'1.Aw 1 <t � ���• of "� •' y. 7 a . t • w �\. • � Y � � � � w.•�' ¢ r s 6 p�a' �� 1•r ♦.1 i° 1 1 1 1 1 _ ♦1 , i / L r � s EXHIBIT B 26.470.090.2. Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. Staff Finding: The proposed units are located in the AABC, which is just outside of City limits, but still within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding: APCHA has reviewed the proposal and stated that three-bedroom Category 2 units are a desirable unit type that would be a great addition to the housing stock. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Staff Finding: The vesting period for these approval expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant is currently in the process of receiving new approvals from Pitkin County. Staff does not currently find this criterion to be met. City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the City's jurisdictional limits, including all or none. EXHIBIT C 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishinst an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Staff Finding: See Section 4 below. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not an obligation of a Development Order or required as mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: APCHA has found the proposed units comply with the Housing Guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not located within City limits, but are located within the Urban Growth Boundary as required by Section 26.470.090.2. The units are not required for mitigation, but since they are outside City limits, they require City Council approval. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: All of the proposed units will be located entirely above grade with the exception of shared mechanical space below grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: The proposed units will be deed-restricted as 'for sale" to be placed in the APCHA lottery. Staff finds this criterion to be met. EXHIBIT D Regular MeetinLy Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin stated that he abstained from voting at the last meeting on the second vote and there was a lot of pressure from the applicant. He asked if under those conditions if it is possible to adjourn the meeting until a later date where they are not being pressured because of others timelines. Ms.Tygre stated that other than abstaining she is unsure how P&Z can make the applicant table something if they don't want to. Mr. Erspamer said he agrees with procrastinating and sometimes one meeting is not enough. Ms.Tygre asked if the commission does not feel they have enough time to make a decision can they continue it even if the applicant does not want to. Ms.Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,stated she thinks they can. Mr.Gibbs said he feels a continuance is perfectly in order. Ms.Quinn stated that inappropriate behavior by an applicant is grounds to continue a meeting. Mr. Erspamer read the thank you from Steve Skadron and presented the calendars. He asked to pass on a thank you from Planning and Zoning to the mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is an item for the first meeting in January. Ms. Phelan said they are looking at the first week in February to have a work session with City Council. She also said the second meeting in January will be the year in review meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. MINUTES - November 19, 2013 Ms.Tygre wanted criteria and criterion changed when needed. Mr. Erspamer page 10, 2"d paragraph "walk off" needs changed to"lock off", page 17,4th paragraph wants added to Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Brown to state this in a more respectful manner". Mr. Myrin motion to approve,seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No Declaration of conflict of interest. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits - AABC Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms.Quinn has reviewed the affidavit of public notice and it is appropriate. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17 2013 Justin Barker,community development planner,said the application is for the development of affordable housing units outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary and the establishment of a certificate of affordable housing credit. The property is located in unincorporated Pitkin County and was originally approved as Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. This included one lot of existing condos as well as this lot which was intended for 17 affordable housing units to be built in two phases. The first phase was built and condominimized to become the Pacific Avenue Condominiums and includes nine units completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. As well as completing the remaining eight units,the applicant is requesting to establish a certificate of affordable housing credit for the 24 FTE's that would be generated by this development at the category two level. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council regarding the establishment of units outside of city limits and the affordable housing credit. Units that are establishing affordable housing credits must meet the criteria of the land use code including being located within city limits. City Council does have the authority to accept units outside city limits as long as they are located within the urban growth boundary. APCHA supports these units mostly because they are three-bedroom units being offered at the category two level. Another review criteria for establishing units within the urban growth boundary outside city limits is all approvals must be obtained from the governing body with jurisdiction over that particular parcel, Pitkin County. The vested rights from the original approval of the 17 units had expired in 2010 but the applicant is working on an administrative approval. The City Council hearing will not be scheduled until the approval has been obtained. Staff is recommending approval of the units outside city limits. The affordable housing credit program was designed to establish an option to offset the impacts of development that occurs within city limits. Mitigation can be accepted within the urban growth boundary but is considered a secondary option. Staff is recommending a prioritization that would reflect the idea that Staff prefers things established within city limits rather than outside. Staff is presenting a reduced percentage of credits being established versus what is actually being generated. Staff recommendation is currently 75 percent of the 24 FTE's which would create 18 total FTE's of credit. Staff is also recommending that P&Z and Council evaluate if a reduction in credits would be appropriate. Mr. Gibbs asked if there was any reduction when the Residences at Little Nell were built. Mr. Barker replied no, it was a combination of different types of mitigation. Ms.Tygre asked if phase one satisfies the requirement of the Little Nell and Mr. Barker replied it does. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the use of"prioritization". Mr. Barker stated the mitigation is preferred to be within city limits. Mr. Erspamer stated it is priority to want it in,or they have to go through the P&Z process. Mr. Barker stated the 25 percent reduction is a reflection of that prioritization. They prefer to have units within city limits. Mr. Erspamer asked if this is a penalty in the code. Mr. Barker stated it is not specifically listed within the code but is an option instead of just accepting units outside of city limits at the exact way it would be presented within city limits. Mr. Erspamer noted the initial approval was for the 24. Ms.Tygre said it is for the same thing it just didn't get built. Mr. Barker noted it is a little different since that was specifically for the one development and this proposal is providing credits to be opened up to any type of development. Ms.Tygre stated it was an already approved plan. Ms. Phelan said it was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Erspamer noted their vested rights have expired and they are re-applying. Ms.Quinn stated they are 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17 2013 not going through this because of vested rights but because the applicant is requesting certificates of credit. Mr. Myrin asked if the discussion tonight is whether it qualifies for 100 or 75 percent of the mitigation. Ms. Phelan stated the affordable housing credit program, created in the past three years,did not talk about this type of situation, where someone would offer to voluntarily build affordable housing units outside the city boundaries and ask for credits from the city. There is a process in the land use code to accept affordable housing outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and are proposing that these credits have a value and affordable housing has a value, however this program is not within the city and should perhaps be discounted. Mr. Myrin said that the current code could let something happen outside the city with a reduction and P&Z just needs to figure out how to come up with that number. Ms. Phelan stated that Council has the discretion to accept housing outside the city limits. Mr. Myrin asked if going forward with the 25 percent reduction would set a precedent that 25 percent would also be the reduction the next time this came up. Mr. Barker stated that is part of the discussion that needs to happen. Ms.Tygre asked if the current code takes this reduction into account. Ms. Phelan replied that it is not written in the code. Mr. Myrin asked staff how they came up with the 25 percent reduction instead of some other number. Mr. Barker stated it was considered a roughly reasonable number at this point versus 50 percent. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Peter Fornell,the applicant, stated the affordable housing credit program is designed to benefit the applicant that builds lower category housing. Less money is collected from the person buying the unit and more from the development community. He stated that the two projects he has completed have been just that. At 301 Hyman they completed eight one-bedroom units. Six of those went into the lottery and 63 applicants applied to purchase the units at$104,000 apiece. At 518 Main Street,they restored a historic cabin. Eight of the eleven units will be category two two-bedroom units for $124,000. He stated he wanted to show that his mind and heart are in the right place with what he has completed so far. Mr. Fornell stated that it is his notion to put housing in the city,and at the AABC the property was earmarked as affordable housing with a PUD overlay ten years ago. He said that 24 FTE's take a pretty big project to offset. Mr. Fornell said that building for credits at this location is the only way to see affordable housing get built here in the near future. Mr. Fornell mentioned the discounting of some sort for affordable housing units outside the c ity limits. He stated that to an extent he agrees with it but also not. He stated if he was going to Basalt or somewhere outside our transportation center he might agree with what Staff says about the discounting. He said you need to look at the project for where it is and the AABC is a central location with the exception that it is not inside the city limits. He said that if he would build these eight units and sell them for$1.3 million the credits are worth 5.8 and if he gets discounted it will be for the majority of the revenues that he is trying to create. If it is a category four, he would be discounted for a lesser percentage of overall revenues and is a larger burden for building category two housing. Mitch Hass said outside the city limits is a very broad term. He stated that this is a location at the AABC and has already been approved by the City as a place for mitigation at 100 percent credit for the Residences at the Little Nell. He said it is a location surrounded by employee housing by a large part. Phase one has already been built as well as a playground and park. He stated this is an appropriate place for employee housing. He said the AACP makes it very clear in pushing for employee housing 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17.2013 without public subsidy and looking for ways to get public/private partnerships for employee housing development. He stated the AACP also talks about developing employee housing that is transit oriented. He said it is not far outside the city and compared it to the location of the City's employee housing at Burlingame. He stated the City is not developing other employee housing and it is up to the private sector and Mr. Fornell is the only one doing so. Mr. Hass said these are eight three-bedroom units sized at the category four level but Mr. Fornell is willing to deed restrict them at the category two level and hold on to the credits and assume the risk and the time it takes to sell them. Mr. Fornell stated that in regards to the discounting, when he goes out to the market to sell credits to potential users they already have a number in their head that they get from the Community Development Department. He stated he has to compete with a number that is not realistic and to further discount is crippling. Mr. Myrin asked if phase one was discounted. Mr. Hass replied it was not. He said that phase one met close to 89 percent of total mitigation requirement for the Residences of Little Nell and the remainder was met elsewhere. Mr. Myrin asked if there are examples where there has been a discount. Mr. Hass replied no. Ms. Phelan stated there has been no credit program and Mr. Fornell stated he is the only builder to build for credits. Mr. Myrin asked if it works for Mr. Fornell because the 24 FTE's require an enormous project in town where Mr. Fornell can distribute it to multiple projects. Mr. Fornell stated you rarely see anyone who needs 24 FTE's at one time. Mr. Gibbs asked what the delta in construction between categories two and four are. Mr. Fornell stated there is no real difference in construction costs other than in the size of the units. Mr. Fornell said it is a year less for him in building permits to build category four instead of category two. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a risk of the project failing because the gap between the time he puts the money in until the time he gets it out is too far. Mr. Fornell said there is a risk in a lesser return than in other markets. Mr. Fornell said the risk is to him. It took four years to sell his first credit but he has sold 12 this year. He can't get the credit or sell it until someone is living in the unit. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to commissioner comments. Mr. Myrin commented that the staff recommendation has "75 percent of the 24 FTE's produced by the project" does not carry forward to section 2 of the resolution which talks about 18 FTE's. He asked if there would be a drawback to having that as part of the resolution. Staff replied it would not be a detriment to add it in because it is just stating what it would be with the 25 percent reduction. Mr. Myrin stated he would be in approval with thatchange. Ms.Tygre disagreed with Staff recommendation in this particular instance based on the fairness issue. If another project in the same location got 100 percent FTE she does not feel there is justification for them to have 100 percent FTE but this applicant only gets 75 percent. She said it is treating the applicant unfairly and inappropriately considering the previous approval. She said she hates the idea that City Council uses the AABC and allows this but they started it and it is in the code. Her concern is that P&Z is to enforce the code as it exists not as they wish it to exist. Ms.Tygre stated that there may need to be a discussion that if affordable housing is going to be built outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary there should be an adjustment in the amount of credit given. She stated there should be criteria by which P&Z can decide what that reduction should be. She said that arbitrarily saying 25 percent is ill considered and would set a precedent that may not be the appropriate precedent. She 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 stated she would rather see no housing out there rather than a reduced one and P&Z has to judge this project by the code and she does not think they should start changing code for one particular application until it has been discussed and is a matter of policy. Ms.Tygre stated she does not see any reason why the applicant should not get the 100 percent which they have had all along. Mr.Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre. It is arbitrary and not based on the code as it is currently written. He also thinks since it is not really a development project where the developer is choosing to relocate its mitigation. He said that for a developer like Mr. Fornell where the site already exists it is not going to drive any choice of the siting. He said the code is trying to say to build in town if you can and only if Council agrees will you be able to do it outside city limits. He said that is as far as it needs to go and that is what the code says. He stated that is what he has to support. He said it is a well proposed project and if Mr. Fornell is successful it will provide a lot of housing. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Tygre and Mr. Hass said it best. He said he was hoping the recommendation would not have said 75 percent. He stated it would have been better to leave the figure out. By just picking a number makes everyone look not good and he is against penalizing this one group. He said the project is great but he will not approve 75 percent but will vote for 100 percent mitigation. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 22 series of 2013 recommending City Council approve it with the following modification;section two changing 18 to 24 and will have 100 percent of the FTE's produced by the project (identical to the staff language on page three). Seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr. Gibbs commented that he understands where Staff is coming from and he agrees with the concept but he thinks it would bear good discussion with Staff and Council and then a code amendment. Mr. Myrin stated that fixing the code is something P&Z needs to do and he thinks it is broken. He said they need to honor what the last approval was at this similar location. He said it makes no sense to him to create a reduction when there wasn't one at the same location previously. He said he commends Mr. Fornell for coming up with something that is 24 FTE's and it is rare to have a large project in town and Mr. Fornell is able to split it out. Mr. Fornell stated that there are two parking spaces per unit and four guest spaces. He said they are more than doubling the code for parking. Roll call Ms.Tygre yes, Mr.Gibbs yes, Mr. Myrin yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. Motion carried. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor meeting adjourned. 5 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: A�L CONDO-', ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: i STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitldm ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, surmnarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the Method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued 077 next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimuin, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text annend7nent. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Si atulre - fh The for gong "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this /E day,, 'I� of , 20 1I+,by u � • S �-�-G ` PUBLIC NOTICE RE:UNIT B, AVE.ESTABLISHME TI OF AF ORDAB EHIOUSI G WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL CREDITS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearings will be held on Monday,February 24,2014,at a M commission expires: meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen CiN Council,Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an application sub- �. mitted by Peter Fornell,for the property legally de- fl scribed as Unit B,Pacific Avenue Condominiums, IVt according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, - 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79.The applicant is P`peR requesting the establishment of Certificates of Af- otary Public ,• '•U�� fordable Housing Credit for 24 Full-Time Equiva- •° •.p lents(FTEs)at the Category 2level. For further information,contact Justin Barker at the City of As- e ° pen Community DeveZrm-PTTepartment,130 S. : UNDA M. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970)429.2797, • .'� justin.barker @cityofaspen.com. a n t�'��f NG D. e" v 10,A, s/Steven Skadron.Mavor •'� Aspen CityCountrl TACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE:. `�.y'°°•..,, '�G,� Published in the Aspen Times on February 6,2014. ;�,�, 1ss2_ s�3s6) ��l l vl, 1 n�r v'LICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) My Commission Epiies 0312912014 • LIST OF THE O WNERS AND GO VERNMENTAL A GENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.3*4.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen. CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 1-'V'ATF: 2C Z STATE OF COLORADO Ss. County of nt-kin V 1, I-A- (naille, !)lease print) being or representing an Applicant to the City o", Aspt-,Il., Coloradta. hereby personajiY '2 041.060 A Is n!ciuiref- cru W Ln Section 6.3 certify that I have complield With tl �� pul (E) of the Aspen Land Use Coule in the fOHOWITI.g T-li.annc-c Publication f),F notice.- By the in no notic v section of a,- •c 1st fifteen paper or a caper o of -tic A�pcn u days prior to the public 11caringy. A Posting 0j" notice.- By posLnt, ; f 110ticc, obtained frorm the �uitablc, watem'. roof Community Development Depailrnen'.. vvh' i iL-iches w]de and twenty-six materials, which was not iess than tweinzy,-Vvo (26) inches niall, and whit li was col- .,nose lo. than one inch in public heari v g ice was nosted it, i eas-t fil"cer, -5 daVs 7-6 or to the pub Ii height. S,;,.id, not Hcludizig the date and tuaie on the day al' of the pubfichearing. Aptii(,t(,,,Yrti;t3f" ,0',:,et,o !-•-',." .-,,.,),�;(:,-" Jyrgil,) ,,seittCi(:tiedi'l.er:'to. the Cornmunit.y -i- maji-q�,y cir j acticc �'b-ainekl f-on-1 iv,cliling e�fnotice. By ti I Development Depaitnient, wh j6h cont an, '-ic in Sc 1011 26.3-04.060(E)(2) of the Al peri Lanu t--�,c en (1-5) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand Glehver.,�L" fin't class Postage feet of the +—e �i 1 dred (1()0) f prepaid U.S. mai. to all owners of p-0Pct,!,'v ----; ti, , U." _3 nent �,�Dpi,c5 I lic ni-inies and addresses of property subject to the develop property ownersshall be those oil -che cui"rent PiLkin County as they ; �., ;� of the public licaring. A appeared n 4o more than sixty �60 0 ( jv i copy of the ovvners(ind, go ,erwJJ61-771 1; --al ed is attached hereu.). ,Veio1ji)()rjj,0otj Ot(treac.1j.- Appiicanl L neighbobood outreach, n-I, I P, o, V� as sl in .. public hcarino , I irnarizcd and attached, was col xtcd required in Section 26.30-.035? Neigg�abodjocu Cuts cxca. A copy alud iwiAhborhood oatreach sunilvary• alchu-" t� "t; "iiet-Vlotld olf puPtic notyic to a copy of any doctillientation thal "Vas utruched here'ro. (conlinileti uIt, 11E, 1; -v r-PJF P Allineral Emae Owner Notice. By d'C', In--ling of lotice, return receipt reclucsted, to affected mineral est--te (PXcic-i's lb-k/ -LtdrLy (30)(lays prior:o the date scheduled for the initial -pub'lic- 1. �1 Je ar p licadon of devclopment. The names and addresses.of miner ' ( ' c cnvnc steal; be these on the current Lax records of Pilkin County. At a "'llifliTtim, SPAS or PUDs that cmlte more than one lot, ri-evvy P15�yne<j 11 - . unit Devc-lopinents, and new Specially Panned Areas, are sub�jcct to ti n's notice 'enul-cml-lit. Rezoning or irc,vt ain-endmeu,'. Whienerv,-,r ['1r ZQDIng, distric-i map -Is in ary way to be changed or amiendicd irmder,-ill �r -u,: - C)f A je X _eral I-evision of'hiti Title, or whenever the text of this T' 'q T�D '.� I b t-, I"I Onded, whe!-licrstich revision be made by repeal of this Title anti �-Cw la'-1d use, regulati(yr, (-,j- otherwise, the requirement c = a15 or uttf r su -C fficlent legal description of, and the RoLice to and listing of 1-,.anne; and add sses of owner, of Cfe real property in the area of the p--0P0,Szd chantie s;hul ile waived. However, the proposed zovinig reap .shall he 'PsPerAiort in the planning o-lic hearing auencv dur nu aH business ho.jr,; fot- I" - Z:l I - ,I tc'�n I t, h pu on such amen-Inients, fff The Foregoing"Affidavit of NcLice- was or;�" me ihis-'�'� clay - — h V - 0 of '10 kq WI-1 N! 1FSS -14 AND OFFICIAL Sal-'AL Ir Y fp 0 rV,A7 ATTACHMENTS AS COPY OFTHE PUBLICATION Cf PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POM-01' 1� -,-i AVC-01'9-14- MY Commission Expires 03/29/2014 . I� LIST OF THE 0117VE RS AND TAIL AGENCILS 2VOTjCED BY 114 11, A PPLI CANT CERTIFICA TIO N OF T--E,S TAI: 0 WiVE R S NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65-5-103.3 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: UNIT B,PACIFIC AVE. CONDOMINIUMS -ESTABLISHMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, February 24, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council,Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Peter Fornell, for the property legally described as Unit B, Pacific Avenue Condominiums, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. The applicant is requesting the establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) at the Category 2 level. For further information, contact Justin Barker at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen,CO, (970)429.2797,justin.barker @cityofaspen.com. s/Steven Skadron,Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on February 6, 2014 City of Aspen Account FEB 2014 sy Peel'v Labels 1 A 21� Bend along line to ��, AVERY0 51600 ; e Avery®Template S160' j Feed Paper - expose Pop-up EdgeTM 08 SAGEBRUSH LLC 414 PACIFIC AVENUE LLC 81611 PROPERTIES LLC 5692 S NOME ST PO BOX 2066 09 AABC UNIT G ASPEN,CO 81812 ,SPEN,CO 81611 EpIGLEVI/OOt?,CO 80111 ARGYLE LLC ASPEN CONSTRUCTORS INC ,BG 32 LLC PO BOX 11134 309 AABC#G t32 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 %SPEN,CO 81611-1818 kSPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1 RE APSSPBEN KIINS ASP SKIING 1248 LLC 120 E HOPKINS AVE HIGH SCHOOL RD ASPEN,CO 81612 1SPEN,CO 51611 ASPEN,CO 81811 3AUER FRANK R II BAUSOVA DAGMAR BEDELL MARK&LINDA 30 BOX 4874 405 CASTLE CREEK RD#12 3059 K p 81611 NSPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 NNETT TREVI M BLASTOS NICK BLEILER GRETCHEN E 3E IE SOX 1335 PO BOX 8412 PO BOX 5774 4SPEN, 13 81612 ASPEN,CO 81812 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,CO 81615 BRUSH CREEK LAND COMPANY LLC BUCK ALISON L BURKHOLDER TRENT R&PREETHI K .10 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 3442 984 PASQUE DR PO BOX 1248 BASALT,CO 81621 LONGMONT,CO 80504 ASPEN,CO 81612 CARPENTER CURT LAWRENCE CARR JACQUELYN A BYRNES PATRICIA A CARPENTER CORNELIA D PO BOX 2126 416E AABC 319 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CENTER STE EF ASPEN, CO 816113516 CHANG KIM MARE COLUMBINE STORAGE CENTER INC 505 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN,G ENTERPRISES INC PO BOX 997 4i 1 ,G O 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 DE LAVAiSSIERE BENOIT&MARCELA DEBSKI MARCIN R DEVLIN MARK A 412 AABC#G 312 AABC STE F 420 AABC APT B ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611-2658 DICKINSON SUSAN EDGERLY ANNA&STUART FERRER MAUREEN K BC 1765 SNOWMASS CREEK RD 220 JAMES CIR 414E AA ASPEN,BC 81617 SNOWMASS,CO 81654 CARBONDALE,CO 816 3 � # ® i :tiquettes faciles paler ' Repilez 6 la hachure efin de; www.avery.cc 2 Sens de rnvo'Iar to rolx,r.1 vnrf iu+i� 1 1.Rnn.AMAVFRV Ifil.ee»(o�ra{»rit 4\/FGVg rG16A® . 11 y -j -asy Pt!etw Labels 4 Bond along line to AVERY®si60 Ise AveryO Template 51600 raed Paper'°Y""® expose asap-up Edgen" 1 1 FISERV ISS&CO FOSTER PIPER&TAD&MELISSA FOWLER PAUL&SABINE FBO ROBERTA LOWENSTEIN PO BOX 11514 PO BOX 11199 PO BOX 741626 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 BOYNTON BEACH,FL 33474 FRAZIER JAMES M FRY KATHERINE ©ONZALES MARIA A 417 AABC APT F 420 AABC APT C PO BOX 487 ASPEN,CO 81611-2560 ASPEN,CO 81611-2558 ASPEN,GO 81012 GOSiN AMY L GULL PROPERTIES LLC HABERMAN TODD R PO BOX 897 25 ARDMORE CT PO BOX 1659 ASPEN,CO 81812 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 HANCOCK JAMES D&LISA K HARDY RYAN HEMPHILL ARLAN 18 TUMBLEDOWN LN 413 AABC#F PO BOX 205 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,GO 816113512 ASPEN,CO 81612 HMIELOWSKI SETH&MELANIE HOLY CROSS ENERGY HUCKS AMANDA PO BOX 12145 DRAWER 2150 PO BOX 9256 ASPEN,CO 81612-9328 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 ASPEN,CO 816129256 ILLOUZ SHALOM&JOLIEN JOLLY SIMONE JULY STUDIO LLC 377 SOPRIS CIR 413 PACIFIC AVE#A 303 E AABC BASALT,GO 81621 ASPEN,GO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 KNEZEVIGH RICHARD&SUSAN KOLLER STEPHANIE S KRISHNAMURTI MADHU B 309 K AABC 412 AABC#E PO BOX 11025 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 LONG ROGER E LOVfNS JUDITH HILL LOWENSTEIN NORMAN CREDIT PO BOX 2289 148 ASPEN VILLAGE SHELTER TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 PO BOX 741628 BOYNTON BEACH,FL 33474 MAETZOLD CINDY REV TRUST MALLORY HOWELL MARKETPLACE LLC PO BOX 9201 417 PACIFIC AVE#F1 303 AABC#E ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MATHISON GEORGE&ANN L MATHISON LUKE MCBRIDE JOHN PAUL JR 22691 BIRCHWOOD ESTATES LN PO BOX 10731 PO BOX 245 FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 ASPEN,CO 81611 7037 E SOPRIS CREEK RD SNOWMASS,CO 81654 tlquettes facilos A peter Sens A la hachure o in de Q www.avery.com ; a� I-,.��...:� Mir"VO runf� i Sens de ,e„aie.ie—k..A D,.w "%TM ; '1-unn.rn-AA1c0v I ...... Hand afong tine to + VERY0 5106 asy Peel Labels j Food paper zm� expose Pop-up EdgeT14 Ise Avery®Template 51600 j j MCBRIDE PETER MACK MCLAIN TRAVIS MELIUS GRANT 303 AABC#E PO BOX 8293 PO BOX 9916 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 MILLER JOINT REV TRUST MOHWINKEL CLIFF NEILL FRANK THORNTON 4129 COUNTRY CLUB CIR PO BOX 9457 PO BOX 9979 VIRGINIA BEACH,VA 23455 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 OLSON ADAM OSBORNE TRACEY A&MATTHEW S OBERMEYER KLAUS F WICHERT CHERYL 412 AABC#G1 118 AABG 410 AASC#1 ASPEN,GO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81011 PEARCE JUDY PACE LAUREL P PACIFIC AVENUE ASSOCIATES 319 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS 81 TURTLE TRL 531 W GILLISPIE CENTER UNIT Z EUREKA MT 599179142 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113516 PLAZA 117 LLG PEOPLES WAY LLC PITKIN COUNTY C/O HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 802 530 E MAIN ST#302 310 AABC ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL DEV LLC PMBM PARTNERS LLC RADIMO LTD ISO E 58TH ST 10335 S PARKER RD 303E AABC PENTHOUSE PARKER,CO 80134 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 10155 RICHARDSON LISA M RING PHILLIP M RINGSBY ERIC 815 WESTERN AVE PO BOX 1451 HG G4 BOX 410 SOCORRO, NM 878014449 ASPEN,CO 816121451 ROCK RIVER,WY 820$3 ROARING FORK LAND COMPANY LLC RONDEAU SAMUEL RUSNAK CATHERINE 121 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS 412 AABC#A 413 AABC#F CENTER ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113512 ASPEN,CO 81611 SAGEBRUSH CONDOMINIUMS SAMS CAROL A SAND STEVEN L SNYDER R013ERT J REALTY SERVICES PO BOX 4582 416 AABC-APT U INC ASPEN,GO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611-2556 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN,CO 81611 SAVAGE KATHLEEN M SAVAGE VINCENT M SEWARD KATHERINE T 1523 LINTON LN 405 CASTLE CREEK RD#12 PO BOX 4842 BROADVIEW HEIGHTS,OH 44147 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 Rep tiquette5 fatties peter j liez A la hachure afro de i wwuuaverytam ; I_ _�- ► atl=nv®c+eA® 1 58rIS d8 ..,,et...le.b{wri Ow.�,wTAA 1 9_Q(1(1 f:A_AIiCRV .3ta4'Ym54Fr b."T��'u.,.� 1�9^.248..SU'3:5YSa='ia rvrn:.±Y'�CAffiv4ID`:3".""-�"�ST:ac_.e .':�oNh*wes.aeux�.vrscv-nww+-.v. ....�tert.>'.vH^>i%xixtthWR:.—siu i,w._.:- �#.RKi':auN.Y .i.T&. 5t0Tx13YsR'M'AKPka� 4 a 'asy Ps' IV Labels i A sand along One to i ( � AVERY®51600 i Ise Avery;Template 51600 j reed Paper- expose Pop-up Ed "' ge* SMITH COLTER HAWKES SPAULDING STACEY&SALLY 319 ARSC UNIT K I&MONIQUE J PO BOX 8679 Pd BOX 4244 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611 STORY SANDRA SULLIVAN DANIEL J STANBERRY DANIEL L 412 AABC#A 86 GOOSE LN 319 S AABC#9 S&T ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 816237711 ASPEN,CO 81611 SWENSON JUSTIN&LAURA SZABO JOHN TEKUS ALEXANDER 413F AABC PO BOX 3442 412 PACIFIC AVE#H ASPEN,CO 81811 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 TEUSCHER JONATHAN W&ANNETTE L TORNARE FELIX TORNARE RENE LE LN 5000 COUNTRY RD 100 PO BOX 39 126 MAP ASPEN, LE 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81612 TORRES MICHAEL A VENRICK KEITH MARTIN VOSS RYANPETER&ELIZA MALIK 412 AABC#E 417D AABC PO BOX 3663 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 61612 WEBB SHERRY CHRISTINE WHITE GEORGE WILLIS GERALD L Il 412 AABC#F PO BOX 2126 PO BOX 9751 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ZANIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC 0308 MCSKIMMWG RD ASPEN,CO 81611 1 1 1 :tlgUettes fa{ite5 i pear , Repliez A la hachure afin dee; •e 'C°� Sens de ��rut.rn_avcav ! I-...L_;a warenv®a+en® 1 .5.,61e.I.e•,el�...,1 D.....,...TM f. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10 2014 • Resolution #8, 2014 - Burlingame Phase 11 Construction Contract Buildings 5-7 • Board Appointments - P&Z - Jasmine Tygre; Brian McNellis; 011ie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki; Jason Elliott—alternate • Wheeler Board - Tom Kurt; Richie Cohen • Minutes - January 27, 2014 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2014—Pacific Avenue Condominiums—Affordable Housing Credits Councilman Daily recused. Justin Barker, community development department, told Council this project is located outside the city limits at the Airport Business Center, lot 2 of the Alpine subdivision, there is one lot of affordable housing units and this vacant lot which is approved for 8 affordable housing units that have not been constructed. The applicant proposed to complete those 8 units and is requesting Council approval of accepting affordable housing outside the city limits within the urban growth boundary and to establish certificate of affordable housing credits for 24 FTEs at category 2. Barker noted Council has the authority to accept affordable housing within the UGB under certain criteria. One of those is that all approvals have been received from Pitkin County. Barker noted the vested rights expired in 2010 and the applicant is requesting administrative approval to meet this criterion. Councilman Frisch pointed out Burlingame was in the county when the city purchased it; BMC was in the county when the city purchased it. Councilman Frisch said this is within an existing mass, including other affordable housing, and questioned why the city would discount 75%the number of FTEs credits allowed. Barker said he can address this at the public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins stated she does not agree with discounting to 75%. Councilwoman Mullins said for second reading she would like a map of the city within the UGB. Councilwoman Mullins said the applicant should get full credit for the housing they are providing and that 75% seem arbitrary and she would like the reasoning behind that percentage. Peter Fornell, applicant, told Council there is a PUD overlay for affordable housing, which has been unused for 10 years. There are not many areas for 24 FTEs of affordable housing. Fornell said the affordable housing credit program allows one to build lower categories and sell the units for less and get the rest of the revenue by selling the housing credits. Fornell said this is a balance of the private sector being able to build lower categories and get units into circulation. Mayor Skadron said for second reading he would like to hear about principle in the AACP regarding building affordable housing. 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 10 2014 Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2014, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Romero said for second reading he would like to know how many units have been built through the credit program and how many remain. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to see the distinction between the UGB and the city limits. ORDINANCE #5 SERIES OF 2014—Erdman Partnership Lot Split— Subdivision Amendment Justin Barker, community development department, pointed out this is two properties on Lake Avenue, one property contains a single family dwelling and an ADU; the other lot is vacant. Ordinance #66, 1990, the original approving ordinance, has a condition requiring each property provide on-site affordable dwelling unit as affordable housing mitigation. At the time, that was the only form of housing mitigation in the land use code. Councilwoman Mullins said in the previous discussions regarding this property, the concern was taking pieces from different land use codes and Council agreed to stick to one adopted land use code and is the same situation. Jim True, city attorney, said this action would be consistent with the position Council took on this previous application. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 5 (SERIES OF 2014) 5 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council TNRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RE: First Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 — Pacific Avenue Condominiums Affordable Housing Credits DATE: February 10, 2014 (Second Reading scheduled February 24, 2014) APPLICANT: Peter Fornell "-'0 LOCATION: _Z_ all Unit B, Pacific Ave Condominiums, olo"t $G ' according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. ` TV Within the Airport Business Center. ow CURRENT ZONING: AH/PUD Pitkin County Zoning SUMMARY: �o The Applicant proposes to develop 8 three- Locator Map bedroom affordable housing units and is requesting recommendation to City Council to approve development of affordable housing units outside City limits and to establish a Certificate of Affordable � Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category `_ 2 level. a^ , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the development of units outside City limits and ? °` the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits at a percentage reduction. Aerial Image 1 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits — The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by City Council. City Council is the decision-making body. • Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit — An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, Authority, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. City Council is the decision-making body as part of a Combined Review. PROJECT SUMMARY: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD. The subdivision included one lot of existing condominiums and a second lot intended for 17 affordable housing units, built in two phases. The first phase was completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell development and contains 9 of the units. The applicant is proposing to complete the remaining 8 three-bedroom units of the development. The vested rights for this project were extended by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007. Having still not been built, the vested rights for the project expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant has received a new site plan approval from the Pitkin County Community Development Department establishing new vested rights for the project. The applicant is requesting to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level for the development of these units. STAFF EVALUATION: Provision of units outside City limits — In order to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, the units must comply with the affordable housing review criteria outlined in the Growth _ Management-chapter of the Land Use Code. The standards include size, relation to grade and form of ownership, as well as the requirement that the units be located within City limits. However, City Council has the ability to accept units outside City limits, as long as they are located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Affordable housing units for the purpose of mitigation, have been accepted within the UGB in the past, including the first phase of this project in 2004. One of the review criteria associated with the development of housing within the UGB requires that the applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. 2 Affordable Housing Credits - The purpose of the Housing Credit program is to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the impacts of development. Under most circumstances, mitigation for that development is provided within City limits. Although housing mitigation may be accepted outside of City limits with Council approval, it is considered a secondary option to development inside City limits. The Affordable Housing Credits Code Section was not written with the anticipation that affordable housing units would be developed outside City limits. If the City decides to establish Affordable Housing Credits for units that are developed outside of the City limits, there should be a trade-off by the recipient of the Credits as recognition of this prioritization. Staff recommends that Affordable Housing Credits for this project should potentially be established at a percentage reduction from the FTEs produced by the project. As part of the acceptance of affordable housing units outside City limits, Council has the ability to accept any percentage of the projects total affordable housing, including all or none. Staff is suggesting 75% of the FTEs produced by the project as a benchmark number to consider. This would recognize the less than optimum location of these units. Council needs to discuss whether a reduction would be considered appropriate, and if so, how much of a reduction is reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the development of affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits for 18 FTEs at the Category 2 level (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) as recognition of the development outside City limits. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the affordable housing units outside City limits but within the UGB, and establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level (100% of the FTEs produced by the project). Members of P&Z were not against the concept of a reduction, but did not support a reduction at this time when it is not explicitly stated in the code with review criteria to determine an appropriate reduction amount. APCHA RECOMMENDATION: APCHA supports the establishment of affordable homes within the UGB, considering them still an added benefit to the community and within the pattern of development that is desired. The proposed units meet the housing guidelines and Category 2, three-bedroom homes are considered a desirable housing type for the current housing pool. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE) "I move to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, approving the development of affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) at the Category 2 level, on First Reading." 3 EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria—Provision of affordable housing units outside City limits B. Review Criteria—Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit C. P&Z Minutes— 12/17/2013 D. Application 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9, 2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC. PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.13:1, Combined Reviews, City Council shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a 4 to 0 vote, recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Planning & Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2014, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014, by a to (_ - ) vote, approving the development of affordable housing units outside City limits and establishing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Affordable Housing Units Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the provision of eight (8) affordable housing units to be located outside the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Section 2: Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs at a Category 2 income level (75% of the FTEs produced by the project). Such certificate is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040 and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines, issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the units, and transfer of the units pursuant to APCHA procedures. Section 3: Severabilitv If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearin A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24`" day of February, 2014, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen 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. Ordinance No.4, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 3 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of February, 2014. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of 2014. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Steven Skadron,Mayor Approved as to form: Jim True, City Attorney Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2014 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A 26.470.090.2. Provision of required affordable housinIz units outside City limits. The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. Staff Finding: The proposed units are located in the AABC, which is just outside of City limits, but still within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding.- APCHA has reviewed the proposal and stated that three-bedroom Category 2 units are a desirable unit type that would be a great addition to the housing stock. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Staff Finding: The vesting period for these approval expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant is currently in the process of receiving new approvals from Pitkin County. Staff does not currently find this criterion to be met. City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the City's jurisdictional limits, including all or none. EXHIBIT B 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishing an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Staff Finding: See Section 4 below. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not an obligation of a Development Order or required as mitigation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: APCHA has found the proposed units comply with the Housing Guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not located within City limits, but are located within the Urban Growth Boundary as required by Section 26.470.090.2. The units are not required for mitigation, but since they are outside City limits, they require City Council approval. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: All of the proposed units will be located entirely above grade with the exception of shared mechanical space below grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: The proposed units will be deed-restricted as 'for sale" to be placed in the APCHA lottery. Staff finds this criterion to be met. EXHIBIT C Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Myrin and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Myrin stated that he abstained from voting at the last meeting on the second vote and there was a lot of pressure from the applicant. He asked if under those conditions if it is possible to adjourn the meeting until a later date where they are not being pressured because of others timelines. Ms.Tygre stated that other than abstaining she is unsure how P&Z can make the applicant table something if they don't want to. Mr. Erspamer said he agrees with procrastinating and sometimes one meeting is not enough. Ms.Tygre asked if the commission does not feel they have enough time to make a decision can they continue it even if the applicant does not want to. Ms.Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,stated she thinks they can. Mr. Gibbs said he feels a continuance is perfectly in order. Ms.Quinn stated that inappropriate behavior by an applicant is grounds to continue a meeting. Mr. Erspamer read the thank you from Steve Skadron and presented the calendars. He asked to pass on a thank you from Planning and Zoning to the mayor. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is an item for the first meeting in January. Ms. Phelan said they are looking at the first week in February to have a work session with City Council. She also said the second meeting in January will be the year in review meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments. MINUTES - November 19, 2013 Ms.Tygre wanted criteria and criterion changed when needed. Mr. Erspamer page 10, 2nd paragraph "walk off' needs changed to "lock off', page 17,4th paragraph wants added " Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Brown to state this in a more respectful manner". Mr. Myrin motion to approve, seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No Declaration of conflict of interest. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits - AABC Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms.Quinn has reviewed the affidavit of public notice and it is appropriate. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17 2013 Justin Barker, community development planner, said the application is for the development of affordable housing units outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary and the establishment of a certificate of affordable housing credit. The property is located in unincorporated Pitkin County and was originally approved as Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. This included one lot of existing condos as well as this lot which was intended for 17 affordable housing units to be built in two phases. The first phase was built and condominimized to become the Pacific Avenue Condominiums and includes nine units completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. As well as completing the remaining eight units,the applicant is requesting to establish a certificate of affordable housing credit for the 24 FTE's that would be generated by this development at the category two level. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council regarding the establishment of units outside of city limits and the affordable housing credit. Units that are establishing affordable housing credits must meet the criteria of the land use code including being located within city limits. City Council does have the authority to accept units outside city limits as long as they are located within the urban growth boundary. APCHA supports these units mostly because they are three-bedroom units being offered at the category two level. Another review criteria for establishing units within the urban growth boundary outside city limits is all approvals must be obtained from the governing body with jurisdiction over that particular parcel, Pitkin County. The vested rights from the original approval of the 17 units had expired in 2010 but the applicant is working on an administrative approval. The City Council hearing will not be scheduled until the approval has been obtained. Staff is recommending approval of the units outside city limits. The affordable housing credit program was designed to establish an option to offset the impacts of development that occurs within city limits. Mitigation can be accepted within the urban growth boundary but is considered a secondary option. Staff is recommending a prioritization that would reflect the idea that Staff prefers things established within city limits rather than outside. Staff is presenting a reduced percentage of credits being established versus what is actually being generated. Staff recommendation is currently 75 percent of the 24 FTE's which would create 18 total FTE's of credit. Staff is also recommending that P&Z and Council evaluate if a reduction in credits would be appropriate. Mr. Gibbs asked if there was any reduction when the Residences at Little Nell were built. Mr. Barker replied no, it was a combination of different types of mitigation. Ms.Tygre asked if phase one satisfies the requirement of the Little Nell and Mr. Barker replied it does. Mr. Erspamer asked for clarification on the use of"prioritization". Mr. Barker stated the mitigation is preferred to be within city limits. Mr. Erspamer stated it is priority to want it in, or they have to go through the P&Z process. Mr. Barker stated the 25 percent reduction is a reflection of that prioritization. They prefer to have units within city limits. Mr. Erspamer asked if this is a penalty in the code. Mr. Barker stated it is not specifically listed within the code but is an option instead of just accepting units outside of city limits at the exact way it would be presented within city limits. Mr. Erspamer noted the initial approval was for the 24. Ms.Tygre said it is for the same thing it just didn't get built. Mr. Barker noted it is a little different since that was specifically for the one development and this proposal is providing credits to be opened up to any type of development. Ms.Tygre stated it was an already approved plan. Ms. Phelan said it was approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Erspamer noted their vested rights have expired and they are re-applying. Ms.Quinn stated they are 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17,2013 not going through this because of vested rights but because the applicant is requesting certificates of credit. Mr. Myrin asked if the discussion tonight is whether it qualifies for 100 or 75 percent of the mitigation. Ms. Phelan stated the affordable housing credit program, created in the past three years, did not talk about this type of situation, where someone would offer to voluntarily build affordable housing units outside the city boundaries and ask for credits from the city. There is a process in the land use code to accept affordable housing outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary and are proposing that these credits have a value and affordable housing has a value, however this program is not within the city and should perhaps be discounted. Mr. Myrin said that the current code could let something happen outside the city with a reduction and P&Z just needs to figure out how to come up with that number. Ms. Phelan stated that Council has the discretion to accept housing outside the city limits. Mr. Myrin asked if going forward with the 25 percent reduction would set a precedent that 25 percent would also be the reduction the next time this came up. Mr. Barker stated that is part of the discussion that needs to happen. Ms.Tygre asked if the current code takes this reduction into account. Ms. Phelan replied that it is not written in the code. Mr. Myrin asked staff how they came up with the 25 percent reduction instead of some other number. Mr. Barker stated it was considered a roughly reasonable number at this point versus 50 percent. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant. Peter Fornell,the applicant, stated the affordable housing credit program is designed to benefit the applicant that builds lower category housing. Less money is collected from the person buying the unit and more from the development community. He stated that the two projects he has completed have been just that. At 301 Hyman they completed eight one-bedroom units. Six of those went into the lottery and 63 applicants applied to purchase the units at$104,000 apiece. At 518 Main Street,they restored a historic cabin. Eight of the eleven units will be category two two-bedroom units for $124,000. He stated he wanted to show that his mind and heart are in the right place with what he has completed so far. Mr. Fornell stated that it is his notion to put housing in the city,and at the AABC the property was earmarked as affordable housing with a PUD overlay ten years ago. He said that 24 FTE's take a pretty big project to offset. Mr. Fornell said that building for credits at this location is the only way to see affordable housing get built here in the near future. Mr. Fornell mentioned the discounting of some sort for affordable housing units outside the c ity limits. He stated that to an extent he agrees with it but also not. He stated if he was going to Basalt or somewhere outside our transportation center he might agree with what Staff says about the discounting. He said you need to look at the project for where it is and the AABC is a central location with the exception that it is not inside the city limits. He said that if he would build these eight units and sell them for$1.3 million the credits are worth 5.8 and if he gets discounted it will be for the majority of the revenues that he is trying to create. If it is a category four, he would be discounted for a lesser percentage of overall revenues and is a larger burden for building category two housing. Mitch Hass said outside the city limits is a very broad term. He stated that this is a location at the AABC and has already been approved by the City as a place for mitigation at 100 percent credit for the Residences at the Little Nell. He said it is a location surrounded by employee housing by a large part. Phase one has already been built as well as a playground and park. He stated this is an appropriate place for employee housing. He said the AACP makes it very clear in pushing for employee housing 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 17,2013 without public subsidy and looking for ways to get public/private partnerships for employee housing development. He stated the AACP also talks about developing employee housing that is transit oriented. He said it is not far outside the city and compared it to the location of the City's employee housing at Burlingame. He stated the City is not developing other employee housing and it is up to the private sector and Mr. Fornell is the only one doing so. Mr. Hass said these are eight three-bedroom units sized at the category four level but Mr. Fornell is willing to deed restrict them at the category two level and hold on to the credits and assume the risk and the time it takes to sell them. Mr. Fornell stated that in regards to the discounting, when he goes out to the market to sell credits to potential users they already have a number in their head that they get from the Community Development Department. He stated he has to compete with a number that is not realistic and to further discount is crippling. Mr. Myrin asked if phase one was discounted. Mr. Hass replied it was not. He said that phase one met close to 89 percent of total mitigation requirement for the Residences of Little Nell and the remainder was met elsewhere. Mr. Myrin asked if there are examples where there has been a discount. Mr. Hass replied no. Ms. Phelan stated there has been no credit program and Mr. Fornell stated he is the only builder to build for credits. Mr. Myrin asked if it works for Mr. Fornell because the 24 FTE's require an enormous project in town where Mr. Fornell can distribute it to multiple projects. Mr. Fornell stated you rarely see anyone who needs 24 FTE's at one time. Mr. Gibbs asked what the delta in construction between categories two and four are. Mr. Fornell stated there is no real difference in construction costs other than in the size of the units. Mr. Fornell said it is a year less for him in building permits to build category four instead of category two. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is a risk of the project failing because the gap between the time he puts the money in until the time he gets it out is too far. Mr. Fornell said there is a risk in a lesser return than in other markets. Mr. Fornell said the risk is to him. It took four years to sell his first credit but he has sold 12 this year. He can't get the credit or sell it until someone is living in the unit. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer opened the hearing to commissioner comments. Mr. Myrin commented that the staff recommendation has"75 percent of the 24 FTE's produced by the project"does not carry forward to section 2 of the resolution which talks about 18 FTE's. He asked if there would be a drawback to having that as part of the resolution. Staff replied it would not be a detriment to add it in because it is just stating what it would be with the 25 percent reduction. Mr. Myrin stated he would be in approval with that change. Ms.Tygre disagreed with Staff recommendation in this particular instance based on the fairness issue. If another project in the same location got 100 percent FTE she does not feel there is justification for them to have 100 percent FTE but this applicant only gets 75 percent. She said it is treating the applicant unfairly and inappropriately considering the previous approval. She said she hates the idea that City Council uses the AABC and allows this but they started it and it is in the code. Her concern is that P&Z is to enforce the code as it exists not as they wish it to exist. Ms.Tygre stated that there may need to be a discussion that if affordable housing is going to be built outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary there should be an adjustment in the amount of credit given. She stated there should be criteria by which P&Z can decide what that reduction should be. She said that arbitrarily saying 25 percent is ill considered and would set a precedent that may not be the appropriate precedent. She 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission December 17 2013 stated she would rather see no housing out there rather than a reduced one and P&Z has to judge this project by the code and she does not think they should start changing code for one particular application until it has been discussed and is a matter of policy. Ms.Tygre stated she does not see any reason why the applicant should not get the 100 percent which they have had all along. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre. It is arbitrary and not based on the code as it is currently written. He also thinks since it is not really a development project where the developer is choosing to relocate its mitigation. He said that for a developer like Mr. Fornell where the site already exists it is not going to drive any choice of the siting. He said the code is trying to say to build in town if you can and only if Council agrees will you be able to do it outside city limits. He said that is as far as it needs to go and that is what the code says. He stated that is what he has to support. He said it is a well proposed project and if Mr. Fornell is successful it will provide a lot of housing. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Tygre and Mr. Hass said it best. He said he was hoping the recommendation would not have said 75 percent. He stated it would have been better to leave the figure out. By just picking a number makes everyone look not good and he is against penalizing this one group. He said the project is great but he will not approve 75 percent but will vote for 100 percent mitigation. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 22 series of 2013 recommending City Council approve it with the following modification;section two changing 18 to 24 and will have 100 percent of the FTE's produced by the project(identical to the staff language on page three). Seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr.Gibbs commented that he understands where Staff is coming from and he agrees with the concept but he thinks it would bear good discussion with Staff and Council and then a code amendment. Mr. Myrin stated that fixing the code is something P&Z needs to do and he thinks it is broken. He said they need to honor what the last approval was at this similar location. He said it makes no sense to him to create a reduction when there wasn't one at the same location previously. He said he commends Mr. Fornell for coming up with something that is 24 FTE's and it is rare to have a large project in town and Mr. Fornell is able to split it out. Mr. Fornell stated that there are two parking spaces per unit and four guest spaces. He said they are more than doubling the code for parking. Roll call Ms.Tygre yes, Mr.Gibbs yes, Mr. Myrin yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. Motion carried. Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn seconded by Mr.Gibbs. All in favor meeting adjourned. 5 j i RECEPTION#: 608350, 03/03/2014 at 11:29:00 AM, 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill,Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO, 22 (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9,2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC, PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit;and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is j currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and, i i WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide recommendation to City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1, Combined Reviews, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Comrnission shall provide recommendation to City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, I WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and, jWHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a 4 to 0 vote, I; recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit;and, I WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety,and welfare. AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Pagel of 3 I i NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Affordable Housing Units Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in.Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve the provision of eight (8) affordable housing units to be located outside the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), conditioned upon receiving necessary approvals from the Pitkin County Community Development Department, Section 2: Certificate of Affordable Housin Credits Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at a Category 2 income level (100% of the FTEs produced by the project). Such certificate is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040 and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines. Section 3: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided; and the same shall be conducted and concluded u 11 nder such prior ordinances. Section 5: A6provals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 3 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17th day of December, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNIN ZONING C I SI Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney exrspamer,Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief eputy Clerk t AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, December 17, 2013 REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS— A. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits—AABC VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 22 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19 2013 U Erspamer,Chair,called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre,Walterscheid, Myrin, and Gibbs present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer met with Steve Skadron but did not get a definite date of when P&Z can get a work session with Council. Mr. Myrin asked what the next step is. Mr. Erspamer said the next step is to bug Mr.Skadron again about getting a date for a work session to meet with Council to go over the role of P&Z in government. Mr. Myrin asked staff for a meeting date in January for P&Z to review the lessons learned from the past year and put together a top 10 list of potential code changes. Mr. Myrin also asked about the community development update stating the last one he has is from July. He asked if one will come out before the end of the year and Staff replied yes. Mr. Myrin also said that he has repeatedly brought up that Staff ask the applicants to submit everything electronically. He said the current process is that they submit on paper and the Clerk's office scans everything. He asked how the P&Z packets get electronically. Ms. Manning replied that the Clerk's office scans the packet to the web. He asked if the Council packets are submitted internally or electronically by the applicant. Ms. Phelan, Community Development, replied that not everything is submitted electronically. Mr. Myrin said he has asked the same question for at least a decade or more and voiced his frustration that there is no idea of a timeline for things getting to P&Z. Ms. Phelan said that he is getting his packet electronically. He responded that they are getting a packed electronically done by City staff on City time, not a change in code to request an applicant to submit things digitally. Ms. Phelan asked him why he is concerned with how a digital packet gets to him. He said that creating the paper in the first place does not make any sense. Mr. Erspamer commented that he thinks the packet is available electronically to the P&Z and to the public. Mr. Erspamer said he is not sure what the status of having the applicant submit digitally and Ms. Phelan responded that Staff is still working on it. Ms.Tygre commented that despite the so called pacing of construction it seems that downtown is over- run with construction. She said she can't walk from her home to City Hall without going through at least 2-3 construction sites. She asked how this happened or if this is considered an acceptable amount of construction to be occurring at the same time downtown. Ms. Phelan said that there is no pacing program for issuance of building permits. She said the.only pacing is through the growth management quota system. Mr. Erspamer said he thought that during the building permit process a phasing system for construction is created. Mr. Erspamer asked Trish Aragon with the Engineering Department if she would like to make a comment. Ms.Aragon said it is not so much about the pacing but the construction mitigation encroachments and use of the streets. She said that during this time of year they allow the use of this space but will be shut down within a week or so. Ms.Tygre said she was under the delusion that there was an active construction pacing system. Mr. Gibbs said that they did talk about it as part of the AACP and it was a big deal and people did not want to. Ms.Tygre said she was operating under a misconception. She also commented that there was a letter in the Daily News where the writer commented that none of the new RFTA stations have any type of solar energy efficiency. She asked when P&Z saw the various plans for the Rubey Park re-do did any of those include solar. Mr. Erspamer asked if Ms.Aragon was familiar with this. She responded that she was not part of any of the Rubey Park meetings. She also commented that Engineering's use of smaller flashing light signs have difficulty getting the solar to work. 1 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 The panel needs to be so big to run the lights due to Shadow Mountain and that it gets so cold in the winter it zaps the battery. Mr. Erspamer said he spoke to a person involved with a solar farm in Rifle and he said that there is a 35 percent less efficiency in this valley because of the mountains. Ms.Tygre said the solar at Rubey Park is something that should at least be investigated. Mr. Myrin asked how that comment gets from P&Z to the people that need to hear it versus just going into the trash. Mr. Erspamer said he would suggest going to a Council meeting and bringing it up during the public comment period. Mr. Myrin said that Ms.Tygre's comment to P&Z just goes in the trash. Mr. Erspamer replied that it goes into the minutes and comes back to us. Mr. Gibbs commented that it then goes in the trash. Mr. Myrin asked if there is a different route they can take. Mr. Erspamer said that from his experience it is great to listen to what people have to say at P&Z but if they want any action taken the best idea is to go directly to Council as an individual. Mr. Erspamer said that Ms.Aragon got him interested in safety on Main Street and he wanted to thank her for putting the flashing lights on 8th Street. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan said that there is not anything scheduled for December 3rd. She said that the lessons learned meeting could be scheduled for the 3rd. There is an agenda item to schedule for December 17th. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they would be here for the meeting all said yes except Mr. Myrin who replied that"everything goes in the trash; I'm not sure why I'm here". Mr. Erspamer said he appreciates it. Mr. Erspamer said he would not be present for a December 3rd meeting. Mr. Walterscheid mentioned he saw the advertisement seeking 4 new members. Ms. Manning stated the ad will run until November 22nd then the interviews will be scheduled. Mr. Erspamer said that if anyone knows anyone interested to encourage them to apply. Ms. Phelan said the December 3rd meeting will be canceled. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. MINUTES Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the September 17, 2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve the October 15,2013 minutes, seconded by Mr. Gibbs. All in favor, Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No conflicts. 110 West Main, Hotel Aspen-Consolidated PUD Sara Adams,Community Development Planner,said that the reviews on the table are a consolidated PUD review, subdivision review, and rezoning. This hearing was continued from October 15, 2013. There was a site visit today; Mr. Erspamer, Mr. Myrin and Ms.Tygre were in attendance as well as the Applicant and Staff. The proposal includes redeveloping the lodge, increasing the number of lodge units, decreasing the average size of the lodge units,and adding free market residential and affordable housing units to the project. Ms.Adams noted that the Applicant does request a decision from P&Z tonight rather than a continuation. 2 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission November 19 2013 The project was conceptually approved by the HPC. They looked at the design of the project but did not analyze the specific numbers for floor area,free market unit size and things like that, but looked more at the mass and scale and compatibility with Main Street and the neighborhood. They did not get into the PUD specifics that are asked to be established through the P&Z process. Ms.Adams noted that she emailed out the HPC minutes that were requested at the October 15th meeting. These were added to the record as exhibit H. One of the questions from the last meeting that Ms.Adams tried to address in the staff memo is what P&Z's purview is. There are some obvious overlapping design issues that HPC addressed that are also part of the PUD review criteria. It is entirely within P&Z's purview to address the review criteria that are included in the packet. Those include compatibility with the neighborhood, dimensional requirements. She also noted that P&Z can make a recommendation to Council that is contrary to what HPC approved. Ms.Adams noted that page 4 of the packet lists the requested variances including the allowable dimension,the requested dimension and the difference. Community Development is concerned with the size of the free market residential component because it is significantly more than what is allowed by the underlying zoning regarding the unit size. They also think that the overall maximum cumulative floor area for the whole property is also significantly over what is allowed in the underlying zone district. They are concerned that the free market residential portion of the project is not compatible with the neighborhood,which is one of the first review criterion for the PUD, 26.445.050a1.d. Staff finds that this review criterion is not met(page 21-22 of the packet). She also pointed out that the Main Street portion of the property is in the Main Street Historic District which is where the lodging part of the project is primarily located and the Bleeker Street portion of the project where the free market residential buildings are. Along the Bleeker Street block there is the Hotel Aspen and three more residences that are all historic landmarks. The PUD review criterion 26.445.050b1d,on page 24 of the packet, requires a finding that the proposed dimensional requirements are compatible with both natural and manmade characteristics of the property and the surrounding areas including historic resources. Staff finds that the free market residential portions of the proposed project are not compatible with the adjacent historic landmarks and what the Applicant is asking for is just too big. Staff does recommend that the Applicant continue to develop the free market residential units to better relate to the adjacent landmarks. Moving on to page 29 of the packet she noted the PUD review criteria addressed architectural character. She summarized the review standard to "be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources". Ms.Adams noted that this is where staff got a little stuck. They believe that the lodging portion meets this criterion and is compatible with the Main Street Historic District. She said the mass and scale and the proposed architecture works with what is happening within the block along Main Street. She noted that their concern is with the free market portion and the proposed size of the units and the mass. She stated that a third of the overall floor area is proposed in the form of the four free market residential units. She said that they find this concerning and the review criteria above is not met. They think that the large unit size and the floor area create challenges to fit in with the Bleeker Street side of the neighborhood. She noted that Staff and HPC really struggled with whether the amount of floor area fit into the context without compromising the lodge redevelopment and having adverse impacts on the neighborhood. She stated that the redevelopment of the lodge is a good thing but how do they deal with the free market residential component that is necessary for the project. She said it really came down to the fact that the review criteria cited are not met in the PUD section of the code. 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 Ms.Adams stated that the Applicant is also requesting a Subdivision recommendation from City Council. She said that staff believes that the Subdivision review criteria are generally met with the exception of compatibility. They are also supportive of the rezoning request. She stated that they find that the review criteria are met for a rezoning. She noted that the beginning of the staff memo explains what the LP overlay zone district means for this property and how the Mixed Use zone district and the R6 zone district did or did not play into this property and why Staff thinks that Mixed Use be the underlying zone district for the entire property. She stated that the dimensional requirements will be established through the PUD review and that any dimensional requirements in R6 will not play a factor in the property. The allowed uses in R6 do not allow this type of development and do not allow multi-family residential and does not allow lodge. The LP overlay does allow this. She stated that they find the rezoning to be appropriate to have the underlying be Mixed Use and leave the LP overlay and the Historic District overlay in place. She stated that she has included a draft resolution in the packet which approves the project with some of the conditions including parallel parking in the City right of way, detached sidewalks and such. To conclude, Ms.Adams stated that Staff finds that the review criterion are not met and recommend a continuation to restudy the free market residential component and the maximum cumulative FAR to bring it closer to the relationship of what is happening in the surrounding neighborhood. However, she stated if the Applicant is unwilling to engage with P&Z in this review, Staff recommends that a denial be forwarded to City Council at this time. She said that Staff finds that the review standards are not met. The next steps for the project are City Council for consolidated PUD,Subdivision and Rezoning then go back to P&Z for Growth Management review then back to HPC for final commercial design review and final HP review. Ms.Adams concluded her presentation. Mr. Erspamer stated that he has a point of order before questions. He asked Ms.Adams when she wanted Ms.Aragon to speak or to just answer questions. Ms.Adams stated the Ms.Aragon is here to answer questions. Mr. Erspamer opened the floor for Commissioner questions to staff. Mr. Gibbs asked that because of the Lodge overlays the Applicant could build multi-family without doing any kind of rezoning. Ms.Adams stated that the rezoning relates to adopting a PUD and according to the code right now having a PUD requires the rezoning. Mr. Gibbs asked if they did not have a PUD and no rezoning, is it possible for a project like this to be built here because of the lodge overlay. Mr. Clauson responded that the LP zone district requires a PUD no matter what and there is no possibility of any action being taken on the property without a PUD. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms.Adams what her opinion is. She stated that what she interpreted Mr. Gibbs asking is if free market residential multi- family housing is allowed in the LP overlay, and she stated that it is. She said that it does require the adoption of a PUD to set the dimensional standards and there is no way around the PUD. Mr.Gibbs asked why the PUD wasn't put in place when the lodge overlay was made. Ms.Adams stated that they typically do that with this type of situation. The rezoning requires a PUD placed onto the property and the existing condition is the PUD until they come in for a redevelopment. Mr. Gibbs said that the LP is the PUD and Ms.Adams stated that the existing condition is essentially the PUD. They do not require everyone to go through a PUD process just to establish an existing condition when we do a blanket rezoning. Mr. Gibbs said it sounds a little bit slack because they are fundamentally different and do have what would lead to some differences in uses,and just assuming that this is now a PUD is maybe not the most strict. Mr. Gibbs also asked how many people are on HPC and Ms.Adams replied seven and an alternate. Mr. Gibbs brought up the difference in opinions from HPC members from one meeting to the next and there was no real consensus. He noted that four people voted for the final resolution and Ms.Adams stated that it was unanimous. Mr. Gibbs questioned HPC's authority outside a historic district and why they have authority over the Bleeker Street part of the property. He 4 Regular Meeting Plannin & Zoning Commission November 19 2013 wondered why they have such a big role to play when it is not a historic district. Ms.Adams replied that the front half of the project is reviewed by HPC and when it was talked about at the Staff level they went through the pros and cons of cutting the property in half and having HPC review one half of the building and P&Z review the other half and it didn't make any sense. They had HPC conduct the commercial design review and the major development. Mr.Gibbs stated that he thinks they are mixing things up with what the plan is and then saying no now because the existing condition is divided. In his mind he stated that there are two different projects and that for the future it should be thought about in how projects are regarded when the existing conditions would indicate two different approaches towards development. He stated that it seems the jump was made to what was proposed so quickly that P&Z did not have the chance to look at what was already on the ground. Ms.Tygre asked if the project was in a Lodge zone and wanted to do a PUD why would the property be rezoned,or not. Ms.Adams stated that a PUD requires rezoning and that is what the code states. Ms. Tygre asked if a lodge project in a lodge zone wanted to do a PUD how could it be rezoned to what it currently is. Ms.Adams said it would stay lodging and the adoption of the PUD is essentially the adoption of zoning. Ms. Phelan said that the Lodge zone district has dimensional standards for the development of a lodge and the only reason a PUD would be pulled in is if they were asking for variations from the underlying zoning. She stated that the problem with this property and the LP overlay is the R6 zoning does not give dimensional standards to multi-family development. Ms.Tygre said she understands that but asked that rezoning should not be required if it is the same type of use and want to rezone to the same thing. Ms. Phelan stated that if the piece of property is in the Lodge Zone district and someone is proposing to build a lodge they would not need to go through a PUD if they are meeting the dimensional standards. Ms.Tygre asked what rezoning a lodge in a lodge district would have to apply for if they wanted variations. Ms. Phelan stated that it would be to get the PUD overlay on the property because there is no overlay on it right now. Ms. Phelan stated they would have to request to get a PUD designation placed on the property and that triggers a rezoning of the property to designate the overlay. Ms.Tygre asked what it would be rezoned to then. Ms. Phelan stated it would be Lodge with a PUD overlay. Mr. Myrin mentioned that Staff went back and forth on how to divide up the property and asked if they considered restoring the alley and making it a traditional West End frontage along Bleeker and a traditional infill project along Main like two separate projects. Ms.Adams stated that was not what was proposed so it was not what Staff was discussing. She stated that they reviewed the project the Applicant came in with. Mr. Myrin said it reminded him of the Forrest Service parcel where a piece was transferred for a single family home to fund redevelopment of another parcel. He asked how that was done. Ms.Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,said that was a different issue since it was Federal Government property. Mr. Erspamer asked if Staff could define compatibility in a specific context and how it applies to this application. He stated that Staff said it is compatible with architecture but not with mass and scale. Ms. Adams stated that when she is talking about compatibility she is referring to the context of the neighborhood,what are the heights and forms,what is the style and concepts that are in the PUD review criteria. Mr. Erspamer stated he is looking for a dictionary definition. Mr. Erspamer said Ms. Adams talked about how the free market units are determined by the size of the lodge units and if they have 300 square feet or less,they get a certain amount of free market housing they can build. Ms. Adams stated it is free market floor area. Mr. Erspamer asked what the free market area they are allowed to build is. Ms.Adams stated it is on page four of the packet,table one, maximum free market multi-family floor area, allowable in mixed use LP zone district takes you to the Lodge Zone district which says it looks at the average net livable lodge unit size and a percentage of the total net livable 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 area for lodge and affordable housing can be the maximum residential floor area. Mr. Brown,the Applicant, interrupted and stated that Ms.Adams should make the distinction between the net and gross. Ms.Adams said that from the table there is 10,419 square feet of floor area for free market development or 60%of total net livable area. For lodge units which is 17,365 square feet, and is allowed. The maximum allowable free market residential floor area is 10,419 and.the Applicant is proposing 11,000 square feet or 581 square feet over. Mr. Erspamer asked about line one for maximum cumulative floor area and the Applicant is 9,500 square feet over allowable. He noted that is well over what is allowed in that zoning and asked where they could put that. He stated if they are allowed to go over the 2,000 square foot where would they put that extra square footage. He asked if they can put it anywhere or if they have to stay within the 2,000 or 2,500. Ms.Adams stated there are a couple different things that are happening including a floor area number and a net livable number. The net livable cap is the 2,000, and the floor area is a separate bucket so the maximum cumulative floor area the Applicant is requesting is 36,500 square feet and they are allowed 27,000. The net livable is where the unit size cap comes in. Ms. Phelan stated if the Applicant was meeting the underlying floor area allowance of item one they could make smaller units to meet the 2,000 square foot cap. Mr. Erspamer stated the duplexes have a flat roof and that HPC went back and forth between the gabled and flat. Mr. Erspamer said he had a question in the Resolution, page 12 section 2, and this goes back to the HPC"180 days shall commence upon the granting of final commercial design and final major development approvals" but what if they changed that. If P&Z votes for something and HPC, at final, changes what P&Z voted for, is it appropriate since P&Z is just a recommending body. He asked if HPC can oppose or change their decision. Ms.Adams stated that HPC final design review will just deal with materials and fenestration. She said that when Council adopts their final PUD plan for this project she believes that HPC will be bound by that. Mr. Erspamer stated he had another question on page 13 "the applicant shall condominiumize the units after substantial completion of the project" and asked how substantial completion is defined. Ms. Adams said that this is boiler plate language and Mr. Erspamer asked that it is typically done before the CO. Ms. Phelan said typically the building needs to be built enough to be surveyed. Mr. Erspamer stated that the formula for parking stated they are allowed 15 spaces for the hotel when actually seven of the spaces are for free market and affordable housing. Ms.Adams said on page 25, the code allows a project to maintain a deficit of parking and right now they don't have any parking so they only have to mitigate for what additional uses they are adding to the property. She summarized that the proposed development requires a total of 11%parking spaces and the Applicant is proposing 15. She said half a space is required for each new lodge unit and one space is required for affordable housing and free market residential units. Mr. Erspamer asked since the Applicant has to come back to P&Z for GMQS why can't they decide that tonight and alleviate another step. Ms.Adams said that they need to have certain approvals before they can apply for Growth Management on either August 15 or February 15. Mr. Erspamer noted that on page 25 Staff says that"overall Staff finds the proposed open space as appropriate for the proposed PUD"and asked what does overall mean. Ms.Adams said that HPC granted a waiver of the public amenity space and they want to respect HPC's condition and are in support of it. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms.Aragon on page 25, 3a "the probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses" how the probable number of cars per 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19 2013 hotel is determined. Ms.Aragon replied that is the Community Development department. Ms.Adams stated the code addresses the number of parking spaces that are needed for this type of project. She stated the code does not have any calculation for probable number of cars but they relate back to the number of required parking spaces. She stated that this is in the right of way and City owned property and will not be parking spaces that are signed or solely used for the hotel. Mr. Erspamer stated that Ms.Aragon said that for safety reasons they want parallel parking instead of head in parking. He asked where she got this criteria from. Ms.Aragon said that when she talks about the right of way she is just not talking about the road itself but the road,the parking, curb and gutter, landscape strip and the sidewalk area. She stated that what the City is trying to do with this public space is to ensure that all citizens and visitors can safely walk, bike and have safe access to transit as part of their daily life. She stated that they are looking at the streets and instead of saying the vehicle has priority over the other uses,all uses are on the same playing field. She stated that what Engineering prefers for parking configuration is parallel parking in the areas close to the core. She said the reason is that 40 percent of our accidents are attributed to head in parking. It is unsafe for the vehicle as well as bikes. She stated that this particular intersection is a prime candidate for a signal. Mr. Erspamer noted that the packet states the neighboring parking is parallel but he noted that across is head in. Ms.Aragon said that does not mean they will not try to pursue the orthopedic building when they apply for redevelopment. Mr. Erspamer stated that a person that stays in a 300 square foot unit is going to be a lower demographic and stated they would be more likely to drive into Aspen rather than fly. He said that they would be here with a car and where would they park. Ms.Aragon said it is her understanding that Staff has spoken with the parking department and they were ok with converting to parallel and the neighborhood has enough parking to handle the change from head in to parallel. Mr. Erspamer said that there are a lot of things mentioned in the DRC such as sanitation and asked if it was in the resolution. Ms.Adams replied that it is. Mr. Erspamer said that page 41 exhibit D asked that the trash bins be increased due to the size of the development. He asked the reason why for the 5 foot increase. Ms.Adams stated that the DRC was before HPC in January and when they were going through the commercial design process'the Applicant worked with the Environmental Health department and resolved the questions they had about the trash enclosures. She stated that Environmental Health is supportive of what is proposed. Mr. Erspamer asked if a TDM is planned to be completed as part of the project. Ms.Adams said that there is no requirement for a TDM plan. Mr. Erspamer said that"APCHA board is recommending against the deficit being satisfied by fee in lieu". Ms.Adams said the housing portion of this project needs to be handled at Growth Management review which will happen latter. Ms. Quinn read the definition of compatible from Merriam-Webster"Able to exist together without trouble or conflict,going together well,or capable of existing together in harmony". Mr. Gibbs noted that the table on page 4 where it talks about cumulative floor area and what is allowed by Special Review,he asked if that is a different review than what P&Z is doing. Ms.Adams stated it is. She said if the Applicant did not request a PUD review they could still request more floor area through Special Review. Mr.Gibbs stated that the PUD makes the Special Review moot. Mr. Walterscheid said that there are four units that are over and asked if the Applicant could have done more units to get the net livable down. Ms.Adams replied absolutely. Mr.Walterscheid asked if there is anything that would prohibit them to go to six or eight units. Ms.Adams replied no,they could add 7 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 more units to meet the unit size cap without having an issue. She stated that the Applicant is requesting a slight variance in the free market floor area so that would not change unless they wanted it to change. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the City is going towards parallel parking for properties that are being developed in the core and if it will be a requirement moving forward. Ms.Aragon replied yes, in particular for high volume areas and intersections close to Main Street. Mr. Myrin noted that 40%of accidents attributed to head in parking stands out in his mind and asked if that is within the City. Ms.Aragon stated yes. Mr. Erspamer asked where the accidents were and if they were on the sidewalk. Ms.Aragon said it was from backing out, small fender benders and includes all modes of transportation. Mr. Erspamer asked if she knew what percentage of accidents occurred at the Hotel Aspen. She said she has not pulled the data on that and is not sure. They had a consultant study, over a three year period,the types of accidents that occurred. The recommendation was converting head in to parallel parking. Mr. Erspamer stated that the type of driver at the Hotel Aspen would not be getting in and out of their car as much as the type of driver at Carl's. Ms.Aragon agreed with this. Mr. Erspamer asked the Applicant if they had any questions for Ms.Aragon before she left. Mr. Clauson stated that they are prepared to accept whatever the City chooses to do with its property. He said there is an issue with the conversion of head in parking to parallel parking where you lose approximately six parking spaces per block. In this particular instance it is not only parking for the Hotel but the adjacent park. He stated that after he heard the recommendation for parallel parking they provided a compromise with the front two thirds remaining head in parking and the back would be converted to parallel parking. Mr. Brown said that one thing that will help is across the street at Aspen Orthopedics if the City entered into some type of agreement that all of those spaces are for guests of the clinic only. The doctors all come in early and take all the spots adjacent to the Hotel and their guests use their dedicated spots that are in the City's right of way. He stated it would be helpful if these spots were signed for the hotel. Mr. Clauson indicated the signage could include 15 minute drop off zones and Mr. Brown interjected or dedicated. He said they are currently spending thousands of dollars a year distributing passes to their guests so they can park during their stay. Mr. Clauson said that the issue with Carl's is that the parking is on the opposite side of the street from them and turning vehicles are in conflict with vehicles backing out. He said at the hotel there would be plenty of room for a vehicle to stop and wait for someone who is pulling out of a parking space. He said it is a little better a condition on the hotel side of the street than on the opposite. Mr. Brown said it was at least 50 times better. He also mentioned the gas station opposite Carl's and the increased traffic due to it. Mr. Clauson said there is an advantage to having a split parking condition so that the crosswalks would align. He said they would appreciate some dedication of parking spaces as being part of the recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid asked if P&Z has the ability to make that recommendation. Ms.Adams responded absolutely. She stated that the parking department would be ok assigning a loading zone but did not want one space dedicated to the hotel. Mr. Erspamer turned over the floor to Mr. Clauson and his presentation. Mr. Clauson said that the statement in the Staff recommendation,second paragraph states "The Applicant has indicated a desire to proceed to City Council and to not engage with P&Z in this review" sounds a bit arrogant and they are most definitely engaging with P&Z but have some very significant requirements to move forward. He stated that the project was first pre-applied March 29, 2012 and spent a very long time at HPC where they worked through issues of compatibility at great length. He stated that they initially hoped to make the August 15th Growth Management deadline and now are 8 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19 2013 hoping to make the February 15th application. He stated that they have had a very disappointing memo from Staff. Mr.Clauson reminded the board that the Aspen Area Community Plan strongly recommends a formulation of a strategy to improve the lodging base and bring new lodging forward. He stated that this has not happened. Mr. Brown stated that there is a lot of rhetoric between what Staff says,what Council says and what everyone in the community is saying about helping small lodges redevelop. He said that this is a project that meets that goal but has received no support from Staff. Mr. Clauson stated that HPC provided conceptual approval for mass, scale, height and proportions of the project. Mr.Clauson said they had extensive meetings with Staff to thoroughly consider the architecture. He stated that Ms.Adams has attempted to make a distinction between the architecture,the scale, height, proportions, mass and the actual numbers that are involved. He said that at every turn HPC knew the numbers that were involved and knew what it would produce,and at the end of the day they approved it after extensive deliberation..Mr.Clauson also stated that Staff requested many modifications to the architecture of the residences, all of which were made. Including at one point providing gabled roofs and then deciding they did not want them. He stated it is in part an appeal to the fairness of P&Z and the process in general as they continue to move forward. Mr.Clauson said that Staff is recommending a denial by the P&Z based on the following PUD criteria,Al-compatibility of the mix of development, dimensional requirements appropriate to character, E1-compatible to existing and future land use B1- compatibility to the visual character of existing and proposed architecture. Mr.Clauson said that these are the three area where Staff has been clear that the Applicant does not meet the criteria in their opinion. He said that these criteria all essentially go to the architecture and the bulk and massing as it was reviewed by the HPC. He stated that they have discussed this problem with Chris Bendon and Chris said that maybe they should have joint meetings, but it is a conundrum and Staff never did request the HPC, in conceptual approval, change the net livable area of the free market units or the overall floor area. Even though there is a suggestion that HPC did not have purview over the quantitative aspect it is impossible to separate them. Mr.Clauson stated the PUD process has a significant amount of double jeopardy between HPC and P&Z. He also stated that they are not only at P&Z for PUD but will be back again for growth management. He said he is surprised that Staff is recommending denial of the project based on the issues already approved by the HPC. He stated that Staff makes it clear they object to the approved architecture rather than to the specific zoning variances requested. He quoted from the Staff memo "the requested floor area increases, net livable and set back reductions may be appropriate with the condition that the overall architecture and massing of the free market multi-family housing is compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent landmarks". He then asked if the variances are appropriate or not. He asked if the architecture as reviewed by the HPC is appropriate or inappropriate. Mr. Brown stated that it was Staff that asked them to move the building to the lot line on the east side and Mr.Clauson replied that they did. He commented as to whether this was a debate over pitched roofs and the side by side architectural compatibility of modern multi-textured townhomes and Victorians is not clear. He said that HPC weighed in and said the architecture was compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Brown stated that the word compatibility is being used in a convenient way for this memo. He stated that HPC looked at the neighborhood as being a collective area not one adjacent building. He stated that Staff has honed in on the one adjacent building as making it not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr.Clauson stated that the concept of an alternative that would have regular R6 development occurring was based in the Staff memo on an imaginary lot split that would not take place. The imaginary lot split had one third of the property allocated towards residential and two thirds towards lodging. He said it is based only on the way it is currently site planned and not necessarily on the way an alternative would 9 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 occur. The lot that is actually zoned R6 is one half of the lot or 12,000 square feet and would allow for two single family homes with 3,240 square feet of floor area each. The net livable area that 3,240 would be 5,600 to 6,000 square feet per unit, based on Mr. Weil's experience. Alternate ly, from ly, closer to what they are proposing,two duplexes with approximately 3,800 square feet of net livable could be built on the 12,000 square foot lot. He stated that the net livable being requested is not really out of line with what might happen if the property were divided between the Mixed Use zone in the front and the R6 in the back. He said that this is the more realistic dividing line which would create two 6,000 square foot lots with single family homes on them. Mr. Brown stated the important thing to recognize is if you end up with two potential 6,000 square foot homes those unit sizes are considerably larger than what is being proposed. In addition, the amount of lot area available to hotel use would be about half the size of what they are proposing. Mr. Clauson said that the proposed project would maximize the size of the lodge, retain the pool and the deck area, and create significant public space in the form of a restaurant and bar leaving only one third of the total lot available for the residences. He said it could have been half the lot. An alternative would be to restore the 12,000 square foot R6 lot to build two significant single family homes or two duplexes and fashion a smaller hotel with fewer amenities for the remainder of the lot. He stated that the Staff memo raises the possibility of prospective code changes that incentivize larger rooms with walk offs. He said that they find this extremely problematic because they submitted quite some time ago under the existing code that had incentives for lodges with smaller rooms. He stated that was the law of the land and to say that there are now studies to suggest otherwise really denigrates from the code that is in front of them. He said that they started the process two years ago before any changes were contemplated and they do not know where those changes are going to go. He said that the actual code enforced now incentivizes the smaller rooms and the 60 percent residential development is an important part of that development and this is what they are trying to take advantage of to make the development feasible. Mr. Brown stated that those incentives are consistent with what his experience in owning 10 percent of the lodging inventory in the community, and how they see people staying and the various types of guests. Mr. Clauson referenced the Molly Gibson Lodge, also owned by Mr. Brown,and that some of the smaller rooms actually have significantly higher occupancy than the larger rooms. Mr. Brown said that they chose the Molly because the room square footage is more stratified than the Hotel Aspen. He stated that the 291 square foot unit and the 190 square foot units run the highest occupancy of any of the room types. He said that staff is trying to "move the goalpost"and say the small rooms shouldn't get the incentives when in fact that is code. He said that he has been hearing all types of things Staff has been attempting to do for lodges to help this application yet he hasn't seen the benefit of any of those. He said if Staff wants to use hypotheticals in the code there is a lot that they would offer as well. Mr. Clauson then referred to the studies commissioned by the City, he thinks the key is higher quality lodging inventory with better amenities and that is precisely what this project is trying to bring about. The room sizes could be called a red herring but he wouldn't change the way he looks at the code because of recent studies and the uncertain outcome that the study might result in. Mr. Brown stated that one significant point the studies indicate is that people coming here don't want 50 year old hotels. He stated that is the future of the old lodges in Aspen unless somebody makes an effort to see them redeveloped into what the people visiting here would like to stay in. He said that is what the crux of what the AACP is saying, smaller but new rooms. Mr.Clauson quoted from one of the studies"predictability in the development process,the unpredictable and political nature of the development process creates additional risk for developers and investors which increases development cost and the feasibility gaps for development. While conceptual 10 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19 2013 development is not binding, projects have received conceptual approval and later been denied after considerable time and expense based on broad conceptions, considerations of the general idea of the project was approved at conceptual stage. If the City wishes to maintain or expand the bed base it will need to identify locations where that is appropriate and support projects proposed in those areas." He stated that is why they find the memo so disappointing. To address a few other considerations, Mr.Clauson stated that the area under the canopy and the parking enhancements,whatever they are,will improve the experience of the open spaces considerably. He did state that the area under the canopy cannot be considered open space anymore because of the definition of open space. Mr. Clauson said that compatibility with the neighborhood when considered as blocks is clearly not incompatible. He points out that the lodge is a large massing there are also large massings on Main Street. He said that this does not seem to be the issue but more so the residential compatibility,which does not seem out of line from a massing standpoint. He also indicated the front yard setback which generally maintains an alignment with neighborhood buildings. He stated that the code now introduced a build to line trying to get buildings to come forward to meet the street. Mr. Clauson said that it becomes difficult to characterize the West End when you look at the various building types. He stated it is not exclusively a Victorian neighborhood but there are many residential forms including chalet style and some that cannot be easily characterized, mine shaft architecture and a variety of styles and periods. He stated that the contemporary design of the proposed project is as compatible as anything else if not more so because it really is in itself a beautiful design. He noted that height wise there are some things that are lower but on the other hand they are generally in line with height. He pointed out design motifs that were taken from various buildings that are replicated in the contemporary design. He said that they are taking some historical precedence and drawing them into contemporary architecture in a way that is quite compatible. Mr. Brown stated that this was in an effort to satisfy Staffs request to be more compatible. He said he thought they achieved this with Staff as well as their main concern of the gabled roofs,which they also opined to. Mr.Clauson stated that the requested PUD variations, and there is no getting away from the PUD, is somewhat confusing with the four applicable zone districts; Mixed Use, R6, Lodge zone district and LP overlay. He stated that when they initially met with Amy Simon they were uncertain how to handle it. He stated that the rezoning needs to happen and the PUD needs to happen to accommodate this development. He reiterated the four variations, cumulative floor area, maximum floor area for free market, unit size and side yard setback. He stated that they are actually requesting 36,500 proposed cumulatively which is an eight percent increase over the maximum allowable per zone district but perfectly allowable within the PUD. Mr. Brown said the important thing to emphasize is what is being delivered for the overage in FAR and how much square footage it actually is. He stated it is brand new additional hotel rooms that are truly affordable in this community. Mr.Clauson said that the maximum floor area for free market is based on the 60 percent allowance and it is 500 square feet over and was actually encouraged by Staff in order to provide some float in case in the final analysis of floor area there was some extra. He stated they could actually forgo that but Staff believed at the time and told them to include it. Mr. Brown asked to give some context on the 60 percent and how it is calculated in gross and it is quite penal in how it is written. He stated that the current code penalizes the Applicant for adding nice amenity space because it does not give the free market based on the amenity space added to the facility but only the rooms. The way the code is currently written encourages you to build a box of rooms with a small front desk and does not speak to the kind of hotels this community wants long term. 11 Regular Meeting ' Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 Mr. Clauson said that the 60 percent is calculated based on the inside area of the rooms and also affordable housing, but only that. The other portions of the lodge are not counted. Floor area for residential is based on 60 percent of the inside area of the rooms and the inside area of the affordable housing. Floor area is the outside area. Mr. Brown stated it is about a 15 percent loss. Mr. Clauson stated there are two free market units proposed with 3,750 net livable and has already spoke to what could happen if there was free market development on half the lot. Allowable in the mixed use zone district is 2,000 to 2,500 with a TDR. The cost of placing a TDR on this would be prohibitive and negates the possibility. He brought up the question if they could build six or eight units under 2,000 square feet, which is yes but in terms of compatibility would you prefer four townhouses looking like townhouse and what happens in the West End, or eight units in an apartment block. He stated the answer seems so simple and easy to come to, no you would not want to see this. He stated that town houses are the appropriate and compatible use. Mr. Brown stated would you rather see for the community two 6,000 square foot houses. Mr. Clauson said that the unit size supports the redevelopment and without adequate unit size the lodge is not going to happen. Side yard setback has been discussed and encouraged by Staff in order to separate the buildings more and is facilitated by the width of the right of way and does not seem to be a significant issue. Mr.Weil stated that they could find the three inches for the minor front yard setback. Mr. Clauson stated that this is an important lodge project that will benefit the City and refurbish a very tired building. He stated that there is an approval resolution in the packet and would appreciate very much P&Z considering and respectfully request they consider passing an approval Resolution. He stated if P&Z feels the need to have a condition that City Council should review issues related to those things Staff has brought up to add it. It is not that they do not want to engage with P&Z but they need to move forward or will miss the opportunity to be timely and come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Brown stated that they are coming up on the two year anniversary of what looks like not even 50 percent the way through and to be quite honest with P&Z the amount of dollars they expended are extraordinary. He stated it is 50 percent more that the total budget when they set on to do the project and are not even half way through. Mr. Erspamer asked Staff to respond to the Applicants statements. Ms. Phelan stated that the HPC review did not look at great detail at the dimensions of the unit sizes and it is not their purview. She said that some of the detailed numbers that were provided in the packet were not provided to HPC. Ms.Adams explained the quote in the memo saying why variations may be appropriate, page 8. She stated what she was trying to express is that Staff is supportive of this project development and are trying to balance everything that is being asked for and support lodge redevelopment. Ms.Adams said she was trying to say that variations maybe appropriate and that is the purpose of the PUD. They also wanted to take into account the neighborhood and the impact on this area of town and ensure that the variations being asked for are the right ones. She stated she was not trying to be contradictory but that Staff recognizes variations are needing to happen on this project and what are the correct numbers so they work with the rest of the neighborhood and this project. Ms.Adams stated the reason she included the sentence about the lodging study was just for background. She said it is not included in the Staff recommendation and is not a review criterion but to provide background to P&Z to let them know what is happening in the community. 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission November 19 2013 Ms. Phelan said that we live in a community that analyzes every project to a great degree and Staff's recommendation has been that they feel the lodge project fits the context of the location and neighborhood and it would be remiss on their part if they didn't look at how the project as a whole fits into the neighborhood and community. She stated that Staffs honest recommendation is they have been concerned with the free market component of the project in size and some of the dimensional variances requested. Mr. Erspamer asked for questions for Applicant and Staff. Mr. Myrin stated that the size and dimensional requirements of the free market seem to be the only sticking points for Staff and asked if that is something they can resolve. Mr. Brown replied that they find the development is consistent with the code that 60 percent of the net livable floor area can be allocated towards free market. He stated that if you are supportive of the lodge but not the free market you don't agree with the incentives that were put in place to facilitate the PUD. He said that saying you support lodges,which is what they are hearing,and then actually supporting them is not what is happening. He said it is"let's get the hotel that we want and make sure it is not financially feasible for the Applicant because we don't care". Mr. Erspamer said the packet talks about snow on page 31 "the Applicant represents that snow shedding and storage will be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner". He stated that these are flat roofs and the snow would be accumulated somewhere and would the snow be moved somewhere. Mr.Weil stated that the new building codes allow for tremendous amount of snow to pile up. He said that older buildings have to be shoveled because the roofs are not stressed for 4-6 feet of snow. He said that these roofs will be stressed for that amount of snow. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comments. Steve Garcia from Victorians of Bleeker said that he stated his comments at the last meeting but was not privy to the packet that went out after the site visit. He asked if there was a recommendation that came out from the last meeting. Ms.Adams stated that the recommendation was to continue and if the Applicant wanted a decision it was a recommendation of denial. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comments. Mr. Erspamer opened the board comments. Mr. Myrin commented that using the free market residential to fund the remodel has made this a very long process. He said that is what the code is currently using to do it, but it is not something he necessarily agrees with because it doesn't work for generation after generation. Mr. Myrin said he agrees with the AACP recommendation and they have been trying to implement some of them but is having challenges implementing them. Mr. Myrin said he welcomes the decision from the Applicant to turn over the public right of way to the Engineering Department for whatever they want to do with it. He supports turning that over to Engineering as well as the Parking Departments decision for a 15 minute loading zone. He asked if it was off of Main or Garmisch. Ms.Adams replied Garmisch. Mr. Brown said he doubt's it's off of Main because of the bus lane. Mr. Erspamer asked how many spaces and Ms.Adams said one. Mr. Myrin said he leans to Ms.Aragon's parallel parking recommendation. Mr. Myrin said that he agrees with Staffs position and it is pretty consistent with the rest of his decisions over the years. He stated he agrees with the affordable housing recommendation even though it is not part of the decision tonight. He stated that he wishes that it was not relied upon free market to fund lodging but that is the reality and it is not sustainable. Mr. Myrin said he is more frustrated with it on 13 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 our part because the code allows it and we haven't figured out a way in the code to separate the two to create a sustainable future. He stated he is willing to meet on December 3rd to speed things along. Ms. Tygre said that she agrees with a lot of what Mr. Myrin said and that the board is disturbed with the necessity of free market to fund a hotel because all it does is get the building built and does not sustain the hotel over the long term. She stated there are a lot of philosophical problems that have been raised by the Applicant and are valid. She said she does not like to see the Applicants getting bounced between HPC and P&Z but there is a code requirement that says P&Z is charged with evaluating the proposal based on the criteria that Staff has outlined in Exhibit A. She stated that those criteria include dimensions and P&Z can't disregard it just because HPC has already reviewed it because the code specifically says they do. She stated that she is basing what she is saying on the analysis of the criteria in Exhibit A and she agrees with Staff. She thanked the Applicant and Staff for having the site visit. Ms. Tygre stated that she would like to reassure the Applicant that no one on the commission has a problem with the hotel but it is the free market residential. She stated that these are two different properties even though they are under the same ownership and part of the Hotel is on the Bleeker side of the property. She said it is almost like two completely different neighborhoods and that what Staff has tried to do is say that the hotel portion is compatible with the hotel side, Main Street which has hotels and commercial properties. She stated that the Bleeker side is more residential and has a different type of use and architecture. She said that she disagrees with them on the zoning because you need to look at what R6 allows in the residential portion but she is not redesigning the plan. She stated that the packet indicated the way the Applicant has chosen to address these issues and given this application and criteria she has to agree with Staff. She stated she would be willing to meet with the Applicant on December 3`d. She said it would be really nice to have an exceptional project in this location. Mr. Walterscheid commented that with an R6 zone there could be four different houses here and built to much larger than what the Applicant has asked for. He stated he earlier asked about the multiple divisions because there could be eight condos here. He said he has no problem with the size of the back end. He stated that this is the way people are coming up with money to fund a project. He said the room sizes are completely appropriate for what they are asking for. He said that being 300 square feet is a good three star hotel room size and is exactly the demographic the Applicant is searching for. Mr. Walterscheid said there are probably ways around the free market numbers to make it work and he does not have a problem with the way it was presented. He said that P&Z could go back and forth and probably kill the project. He said the last hotel that was back for four meetings died. He said it is insane to get an approval in Aspen and the process drives the cost up. He stated that he would vote for recommendation and send to Council because they will debate it again and then come back to P&Z for Growth Management. Mr. Erspamer asked if he would move it forward with any conditions. Mr. Walterscheid replied that they get some form of designated parking. He said the parking would go back to Engineering and there is a repetitive cycle where things like parking get filtered through a microscope and it is at times comical as to what is focused on. Mr. Gibbs stated he agrees with Ms.Tygre's comments. He stated he has a hard time with the mass on Bleeker Street and that it seems inappropriate. He stated he understands the reasons for it but does not think the development is compatible with the neighborhood. He would not vote for rezoning and it should stay at R6. Mr.Gibbs said he has a problem injecting Multi Use into the R6 zone district. He said there is a very uniform boundary between Multi Use and R6 and there is some value to maintaining order and logical organization of the City. He said the rezoning makes perfect sense for this project but is not appropriate. 14 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19 2013 Mr. Erspamer commented that he has a concern with the Victorian next to the proposed multifamily buildings and asked if they could put a row of lilacs along the property line to hide the development. He said that the sizes of the buildings are compatible with the Victorians at Bleeker but not to the Victorian next to the development. Mr. Erspamer stated that the sizes of the units are perfect for what P&Z believed in when doing the AACP. He stated it will bring a broader demographic to the community and will build a better cliental through the years. He said that they will have more cars and park in the neighborhood. He stated he is concerned with the parking and noted that angle parking is safer. He said he would like to take out the parallel parking and put angle parking in and would like to see it as a condition of the approval or denial. He said he was not supportive until he heard the Applicants discussion. He said it was a nightmare process but does not want to approve it just to send it to Council. He said that Mr.Walterscheid made some good points. He brought up the point of if they made eight units instead of four they would be to code. Ms. Phelan said that for unit size yes but they are still asking for more floor area than what the free market units allow. Ms. Phelan said that the Applicant is still asking for more by 581 square feet. Mr. Clauson said that it was a recommendation from Staff that they incorporate the additional square footage and it is an issue of trust. He stated that when they get a recommendation like that and have a certain conversation with them and it seems like things are going in a certain direction and they are going to be supportive,and then Staff goes to a Staff meeting and whatever they do in that Staff meeting it seems to result in some new negativity being brought forward. Ms. Phelan stated that this is ridiculous and Mr. Clausen said it is true. Ms. Phelan said that they have an obligation to review projects and compare them to standards which is what they have done. She stated that they have never said they will fully support this project and have, as a Staff, provided a recommendation. She said that everyone has a process for how they do things and she apologized that the Applicant does not like their process. Ms.Adams stated that as far as the numbers go when speaking with Kim and Patrick,she said to ask for what they need. She said they did not want to go back and amend the PUD once it is approved. Ms.Tygre said she thought they were to vote on the application that is before them and not try to redesign it here and now. Ms.Tygre said that the overage of 581 square feet is a criteria that is either acceptable or not acceptable but they are not going to redesign the project here. Mr. Myrin commented that is why he proposes the December 3 d meeting. Mr.Gibbs said that the 27,000 is the actual allowable and the 36,000 is a variance on the number which they should only go for which is 33,700 via special review and they are already giving them more, if you go for the special review allowance and a variance above it. Mr.Gibbs said if it was 27,000 and the net livable to floor area ratio was about the same as they proposed that would allow a net livable of 12,000 and .6 of that would be 7,707. So instead of 11,000 square feet they would have 7,700 allowed. He said they are compounding allowances on top of variances and getting to the big numbers where if everyone stuck to 27,000 as the actual number then all the other numbers get much smaller. He said the numbers are all built upon variances and special review allowances. Mr. Gibbs said that getting down to the basics and what is the actual requirement of the code, it is 27,000 square feet of cumulative floor area and assuming the net livable ratio is about the same then it would be 12,845 square feet of net livable instead of 17,365. Mr.Gibbs said he understands the justifications but for lack of a better word it's a bad application because it relies on a continuously escalating series of numbers. He stated that he does not agree with the 36,500 and he does not agree with the special review. He said there is no way to accept this application unless you go with the special review and a variance above that. Mr.Gibbs stated that he thinks there is too much going on and too much requested. He stated that this project is a good example of where they have all kinds of subjective requirements they have to consider and for 15 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 him it comes down to he does not think the back half of the project should be as big as it is because it is in a R6 district. Mr. Walterscheid said he is curious why you wouldn't want to go from 27,000 to 33,750 with an existing lodge. He asked Mr. Gibbs what would be his judging factors for a project like this to get it to 33,750. Mr. Gibbs said it would reduce the net livable for the multi family. He said it would have an impact that he thinks is important. He said he goes by the neighborhood all the time and thinks it is too much. Mr. Walterscheid said if the free market floor area was limited to 10,000 square feet there are essentially four lots in the back and if they did four separate Victorian looking homes they would have 25,000 square feet of FAR. He stated that each unit would be well above 3,750. Mr. Myrin moved to continue the meeting till 7:15 seconded by Mr.Walterscheid. All in favor, motion approved. Ms.Adams clarified that in the R6 district they would only have the ability to do two single family homes with a 12,000 square foot lot. She said it would be a traditional lot split of 6,000 and 6,000 and there can only be a single family of 3,000 square foot with a historic lot. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr.Clauson to rebut. Mr. Clauson stated that this is a project where the code allows for 60 percent and the provision in the code that require a certain density of hotel rooms and provisions that require affordable housing all come together to create a project that is beneficial to the community and not incompatible. He said that HPC, even though they were not charged with reviewing the numbers did have them in front of them. He said that they think this is a good project and a beneficial one. He stated that if P&Z could move the Resolution with conditions that would be helpful. He stated that they could not redesign the project by December 3rd even if it were economically feasible. He stated if the board felt there was some reduction in floor area that they wanted to quantify or some other comment they wanted to make to move it forward to Council to please include it. Mr. Weil stated that when he was going over the floor area numbers with Ms.Adams it wasn't so much that Staff requested that they put float in but more of a mutual recognition that as the process moves forward and goes to building permit with zoning,those people are not part of this process. He stated he would like to say that the floor area definition of code is objective but it really isn't. He said there are plenty of areas that are subjective and how they are interpreted. He stated that they intend to build the project that is drawn here but are not sure how the people who review floor area at the building permit are going to interpret certain parts of the building code and the floor area definitions. He stated they need a little bit to make sure they can build the project they intend to build. Mr. Erspamer asked for a motion and conditions. Mr. Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr. Erspamer made a condition to remove the parallel parking and replace it with angled parking. Seconded by Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Myrin accepted as a motion. Ms. Tygre did not accept it. Voice vote: Mr.Walterscheid aye, Mr. Gibbs nay, Mr. Myrin nay, Ms.Tygre nay, Mr. Erspamer aye. Motion failed. Mr. Erspamer said he is close to approving this but with the mass and scale and the ambiguity of the number in the code but would probably end up voting for denial at this time. Roll call motion to approve as written. 16 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19 2013 Mr. Erspamer no, Mr.Gibbs no, Ms.Tygre no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr.Walterscheid yes. Motion failed Mr.Walterscheid made a motion to pass Resolution 21 with the amendment that the FAR for free market be further vetted by City Council. Mr. Erspamer seconded. Mr.Walterscheid said he would be in recommendation of everything else with Council further discussing the free market. Mr. Myrin said he thinks it is the obligation of P&Z to further discuss this and he is not comfortable dedicating just one meeting and then handing it off to Council. He stated he thinks it is the responsibility of P&Z to address it. Ms.Tygre said she is going back to evaluating a project based on the criteria that is in the code and it does not mean that to be determined later square footage is appropriate. She stated that P&Z is abdicating their responsibility by passing it on to Council. Mr. Erspamer said he would be in favor of reducing it but it cannot be concluded at this meeting. Roll call: no, Mr. Myrin no, Mr.Walterscheid yes. Motion failed. Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr.Gibbs no, Ms.Tygre Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written. Seconded by Ms.Tygre. Mr.Walterscheid asked if it still goes to Council with a motion to deny. The answer is yes. He said it is not a motion to continue but to send it to Council to watch it die. Mr. Erspamer said Council can do whatever they want to it. Mr.Walterscheid said he just made a recommendation to send it to Council but have them look at the free market and instead of that it is going to be sent to council by denying it. Ms.Tygre said they are sending it to Council saying that P&Z feels it should be denied. Mr. Myrin recalled his motion and made a motion to continue. The Applicant could not agree to this. Mr. Brown stated that two of the board members stated that they were prejudicial to the project because the free market funds the hotel. Ms.Tygre interjected that that is not what they said at all and objects to his characterization of that. Mr.Walterscheid said to Ms.Tygre that is exactly what was said. Mr. Erspamer called for order. Mr. Brown stated that what he heard from the members of P&Z is that they fundamentally disagreed with how the code is written in that free market funds a new lodge redevelopment. That is the basis for the AACP and the LP overlay and his application. He stated that from his perspective how can they continue and please the board given that is the reality of the development. He stated that they need the free market to pay for the hotel. He stated that even though they don't like it and don't agree with it that is the harsh reality. He said there has been discussion that the board does disagree with the code but that is the set of guidelines they are playing by and were adopted by Council to facilitate the redevelopment. He stated that the alternative discussed is to build homes and end up with half the size hotel. He said that maybe they don't even rebuild the hotel and leave it as a 50 year old hotel and build new homes. Ms.Tygre stated that every comment she has made she was basing her decision on the criteria in the land use code. Mr.Gibbs made a motion to extend the meeting for five more minutes seconded by Ms.Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny Resolution 21. Mr. Myrin stated that if P&Z denies it the Applicant just starts over and asks the same question to Council. Mr.Walterscheid asked if this body does not want this to happen period. Mr. Gibbs said he thinks that is exaggerating and is not making any judgment,subjective or otherwise, based on whether he thinks it is a good idea to have hotels or any of that sort of thing. He stated he is looking at what the Applicant proposed and what the code says and his interpretation of what the code says. Mr. Myrin made a motion to deny Resolution 21 as written, seconded by Ms.Tygre. 17 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission November 19,2013 Roll call Mr. Myrin wanted to express how frustrated he is that they have only had one meeting on this and the Applicant has pinned it on P&Z by saying they don't have time for a second meeting. Mr. Erspamer corrected that the Applicant stated that they were not prepared for a meeting on December 3rd. Mr. Clauson stated that Staff decided it would only be their presentation at the last meeting and the Applicant would have been ready to have a substantive discussion at the prior meeting. Ms. Phelan stated that based on the Applicants request they have continued scheduling this meeting from July to October. She stated that when the Applicant implied that it was completely Staff's fault she stated it was not just Staff's scheduling issues that has dragged the process out. Mr. Brown stated he wanted to respond to Mr. Myrin's statement about not wanting to come back. He stated that he has been a part of several meetings where they thought they met what Staff wanted and then Staff goes back and has a meeting with the entire Staff and they get a different message. He stated that they have attempted to work with individual Staff members at times and they go into a meeting and come out with a different message and he called it"moving the goalpost". He stated it is very difficult for them to come back and forth thinking they will get anywhere. Mr. Erspamer made a motion to deny application Resolution 21. Seconded by Ms.Tygre Mr. Erspamer yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Ms.Tygre yes, Mr. Myrin abstain, Mr.Walterscheid no. Motion passed 3 to 1 with 1 abstention. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to adjourn,seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion passed. Linda Manning 18 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RR: AABC—Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits, Public Hearing DATE: December 17, 2013 rPeter ICANT/OWNER: �+��• Forn ell LOCATION: a��� pv c Unit B, Pacific Ave Condominiums, F -- according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. '� L CURRENT ZONING: AH/PUD Pitkin County Zoning -O Op SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes to develop 8 three- Locator Map bedroom affordable housing units and is requesting recommendation to City Council to approve development of affordable housing units outside City limits and to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level. " �f.4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council to develop units outside City limits and the establishment of a Certificate of ^ Affordable Housing Credits at a percentage Aerial image reduction. 1 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits - The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to City Council. • Establishment of Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit - An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, Authority, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit. The Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body to City Council as part of a Combined Review. PROJECT SUMMARY: In 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD. The subdivision included one lot of existing condominiums and a second lot intended for 17 affordable housing units, built in two phases. The first phase was completed as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell development and contains 9 of the units. The applicant is proposing to complete the remaining 8 three-bedroom units of the development. The vested rights for this project were extended by the Board of County Commissioners in 2007. Having still not been built, the vested rights for the project expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant is currently pursuing new valid approvals through the Pitkin County Community Development Department. The applicant is requesting to establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit for 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level for the development of these units. STAFF EVALUATION: Provision of units outside City limits- In order to establish Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, the units must comply with the affordable housing review criteria outlined in the Growth Management chapter of the Land Use Code. The standards include size, relation to grade and form of ownership, as well as the requirement that the units be located within City limits. However, City Council has the ability to accept units outside City limits, as long as they are located within the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB). Affordable housing units for the purpose of mitigation, have been accepted within the UGB in the past, including the first phase of this project in 2004. APCHA supports the establishment of affordable homes within the UGB, considering them still an added benefit to the community and within the pattern of development that is desired. The proposed units meet the housing guidelines and Category 2, three-bedroom homes are considered a desirable housing type for the current housing pool. 2 One of the review criteria associated with the development of housing within the UGB requires that the applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Since the vested rights from the original approval have expired, the applicant is currently pursuing a new administrative approval of the same project from Pitkin County in order to satisfy this criteria. The public hearing before City Council required for this proposal will not be scheduled until approved by the Pitkin County Community Development Department. Affordable Housing Credits - The purpose of the Housing Credit program is to establish an option for housing mitigation that immediately offsets the impacts of development that occur within the City limits. Under most circumstances, mitigation for that development is also provided within City limits. Although housing mitigation may be accepted outside of City limits with Council approval, it is considered a secondary option to development inside City limits. If the City decides to establish Affordable Housing Credits for units that are developed outside of the City limits, there should be a trade-off by the recipient of the Credits as recognition of this prioritization. Staff recommends that Affordable Housing Credits for this project should potentially be established at a percentage reduction from the FTEs produced by the project. Council needs to discuss whether a reduction would be considered appropriate, and if so, how much of a reduction is reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council to develop affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of Affordable Housing Credits for 18 FTEs at the Category 2 level (75% of the 24 FTEs produced by the project) as recognition of the development outside City limits. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, recommending City Council approve the development of affordable housing outside City limits and the establishment of a Certificate.of Affordable Housing Credit for 18 FTEs at the Category 2 level." EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria—Provision of affordable housing units outside City limits B. Review Criteria— Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit C. Application 3 RESOLUTION NO. 22 (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNIT B, PACIFIC AVE CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AUGUST 9,2006 IN PLAT BOOK 80 AT PAGE 79 AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 412 AABC. PARCEL ID: 2643-344-18-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Peter Fornell, requesting approval to develop affordable housing units outside City limits and establish a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 412 AABC in unincorporated Pitkin County, and is currently zoned Affordable Housing/PUD (AH/PUD); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.2, Provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide recommendation to City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for provision of required affordable housing units outside City limits; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B.1, Combined Reviews, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall provide recommendation to City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 2013, the As en Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013, by a W too vote, recommending City Council to approve the provision of affordable housing units outside City limits and approving the establishment of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit; and, WHEREAS,the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Pagel of 3 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1•Affordable Housing Units Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve the provision of eight (8) affordable housing units to be located outside the City of Aspen limits, but located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), conditioned upon receiving necessary approvals from the Pitkin County Community Development Department. Section 2• Certificate of Affordable Housinp-Credits Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby reco ends City Council approve the establishme of a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit fo�FTEs, at a income evel. Such certificate is to be granted by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.540.040 and according to Section 26.540.080, subsequent to filing of approved, executed and recorded deed-restrictions for all 8 units in compliance with APCHA Guidelines. Section 3: Severability If any-section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in' a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4• Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. APPROVED BY the Plannin and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 17th day of December,2013 dry yv -- fio — APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: Linda Manning, Records Manager AABC Housing Credits Resolution No. 22, Series of 2013 Page 3 of 3 OWN EXHIBIT A 26.470.090.2. Provision of required affordable housinp,units outside City limits. The provision of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City boundary, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. Staff Finding: The proposed units are located in the AABC, which is just outside of City limits, but still within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. Staff Finding: APCHA has reviewed the proposal and stated that three-bedroom Category 2 units are a desirable unit type that would be a great addition to the housing stock. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Staff Finding: The vesting period for these approval expired on September 26, 2010. The applicant is currently in the process of receiving new approvals from Pitkin County. Staff does not currently find this criterion to be met. City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the City's jurisdictional limits, including all or none. EXHIBIT B 26.540.070 Review criteria for establishinIZ an affordable housing credit An Affordable Housing Credit may be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission if all of the following criteria are met. The proposed units do not need to be constructed prior to this review. A. The proposed affordable housing unit(s) comply with the review standards of Section 26.470.070.4(a-d). Staff Finding: See Section 4 below. B. The affordable housing unit(s) are not an obligation of a Development Order and are not otherwise required by this Title to mitigate the impacts of development. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not an obligation of a Development Order or required as mitigation. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 4. Affordable housing. The development of affordable housing deed-restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a. The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. .The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. Staff Finding: APCHA has found the proposed units comply with the Housing Guidelines. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Affordable housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Off-site units shall be provided within the City limits. Units outside the City limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.2. If the mitigation requirement is less than one (1) full unit, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. If the mitigation requirement is one (1) or more units, a cash-in-lieu payment shall require City Council approval, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.3. A Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit may be used to satisfy mitigation requirements by approval of the Community Development Department Director, pursuant to Section 26.540.080 Extinguishment of the Certificate. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. Staff Finding: The proposed units are not located within City limits, but are located within the Urban Growth Boundary as required by Section 26.470.090.2. The units are not required for mitigation, but since they are outside City limits, they require City Council approval. c. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. This dimensional requirement may be varied through Special Review, Pursuant to Chapter 26.430. Staff Finding: All of the proposed units will be located entirely above grade with the exception of shared mechanical space below grade. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employer or nonprofit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing units required for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for sale" provision. Staff Finding: The proposed units will be deed-restricted as 'for sale" to be placed in the APCHA lottery. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 1 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE LAt AD_QRE S OF PROPERTY: rl ��.J�a •G ,2 �1 u ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HE NG DATE: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, Z V-1 CA '1 ii C4 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the_day of , 20_,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa ure The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this Jay of Sq,, .D�_1.►r" , 20Z by ZJAC, JXC., �Vt PUBLIC NOTICE RE:UNIT B,PACIFIC AVE.CONDOMINIUMS ESTABLISHMENT HOUSING CREDITS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,December 17,2013,at a I meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m.before the Aspen 1 Planning and Zoning Commission,Sister Cities I My commission expires: Meeting Room,City Hall,130 S.Galena St.,As- f pen,to consider an application submitted by Peter I Fomell,for the property legally described as Unit B, Pacific Avenue Condominiums,according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9,2006 in Plat Book - 80 at Page 79.The applicant is requesting the es- tablishment of Affordable Housing Credits for 24 Notary Pub iC Full-Time Equivalents(FTEs)at the Category 2 level. For further information,contact Justin Bark- f er at the City of Aspen Community Development E Department,130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970) 1 429.2797,justin.barker @cityofaspen.com. r at LJ Erspamer,Chair It Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission t c Published in the Aspen Times on November 28, [ 2013.(9739364) r ATIACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL * APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 412 AABC Pacific Avenue,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday December 17,2013 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, Peter Fornell (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. X Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the 26 day of November, 2013,to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30)days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signke The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me thisZ3::-day of tt�)WWb�/- 20_r by�-�.� Tbc � PUBLIC NOOK 11:111 �I I If i o�� (t� , I I I I i I Ti— If i II (�� �.;. Iti��l��tittt'Itltitttttit -- t WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL M commission expires: Co • •z k� �k LIKIDA M. otary Pu he sG MANNING OF co+. My Cmm mssion Expires 038912014 Easy Peel1w Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 51600 Use Avery®Template 51600 l d Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j y 309 SAGEBRUSH LLC 414 PACIFIC AVENUE LLC 81611 PROPERTIES LLC 309 AABC UNIT G 5692 S NOME ST PO BOX 2066 ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111 ASPEN, CO 81612 ABC 32 LLC ARGYLE LLC ASPEN CONSTRUCTORS INC 532 E HOPKINS AVE PO BOX 11134 309 AABC#G ASPEN,CO 81611-1818 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1 RE ASPEN BOX KUNG COMPANY LLC 420 E HOPKINS AVE 0235 HIGH SCHOOL RD PO ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAUER FRANK R II BAUSOVA DAGMAR BEDELL MARK&LINDA PO BOX 4974 405 CASTLE CREEK RD#12 309 K AABC ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BENNETT TREVI M BLASTOS NICK BLEILER GRETCHEN E PO BOX 1335 PO BOX 8412 PO BOX 5774 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 BRUSH CREEK LAND COMPANY LLC BUCK ALISON L BURKHOLDER TRENT R&PREETHI K C/O ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 3442 984 PASQUE DR PO BOX 1248 BASALT, CO 81621 LONGMONT,CO 80504 ASPEN, CO 81612 BYRNES PATRICIA A CARPENTER CURT LAWRENCE CARR JACQUELYN A CARPENTER CORNELIA D PO BOX 2126 416E AABC 319 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 CENTER STE EF ASPEN, CO 816113516 CHANG KIM MARIE COLUMBINE STORAGE CENTER INC CWB ENTERPRISES INC PO BOX 997 411 AABC 505 E HYMAN AVE BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DE LAVAISSIERE BENOIT&MARCELA DEBSKI MARGIN R DEVLIN MARK A 420 AABC APT B 412 AABC#G 312 AABC STE F ASPEN, CO 81611-2558 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 DICKINSON SUSAN EDGERLY ANNA&STUART FERRER MAUREEN K 414F AABC 1765 SNOWMASS CREEK RD 220 JAMES CIR ASPEN,CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 1 1 �tiquettes faciles a peter ; A Repliez A la hachure afin de 1 www.avery com 11 Sens de ravGlar la rahnrd Dnn_unTM ! 9.ROn_G0_OVFRV I la nnhari+A\/CRvO C1/;n@ Easy PeelQ9 Labels Bend along line to V AVERY®5160 ' Use Avery®Template 51600 j °d Paper �• expose Pop-up Edg6TM V SMITH COLTER HAWKES SPAULDING STACEY&SALLY 3 9 AABC JOSEPH UN T K I &MONIQUE J PO BOX 8679 PO BOX 4244 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 STANBERRY DANIEL L STORY SANDRA SULLIVAN DANIEL J BC#9 S&T 412 AABC#A 88 GOOSE LN 319 S AA ASPEN, B 9 S& ASPEN, CO 81611 CARBONDALE, CO 816237711 SWENSON JUSTIN&LAURA SZABO JOHN TEKUS ALEXANDER 412 PACIFIC AVE#H 413F AABC PO BOX 3442 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT,CO 81621 TEUSCHER JONATHAN W&ANNETTE L TORNARE FELIX TORNARE RENE 126 MAPLE LN 5000 COUNTRY RD 100 PO BOX 39 ASPEN,CO 81611 CARBONDALE,CO 81623 ASPEN,CO 81612 TORRES MICHAEL A VENRICK KEITH MARTIN VOSS RYANPETER&ELIZA MAUK 412 AABC#E 417D AABC PO BOX 3663 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 WEBB SHERRY CHRISTINE WHITE GEORGE WILLIS GERALD L II 412 AABC#F PO BOX 2126 PO BOX 9751 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ZANIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC 0308 MCSKIMMING RD ASPEN,CO 81611 liez A la hachure afin de ltiquettes faciles a peter Re p ; www.averymm ; ; Sens de nin�er(o rohnrrl Dnn_nnTM 7_Rnn_rn_wFRv Easy Peel®Labels Bend along line to V AVERY®5160® i Use Avery®Template 5160® j A Paper �� expose Pop-up Edge TM MCBRIDE PETER MACK MCLAIN TRAVIS MELIUS GRANT 303 AABC#E PO BOX 8293 PO BOX 9916 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 MILLER JOINT REV TRUST MOHWINKEL CLIFF NEILL FRANK THORNTON 4129 COUNTRY CLUB CIR PO BOX 9457 PO BOX 9979 VIRGINIA BEACH,VA 23455 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 OLSON ADAM OSBORNE TRACEY A&MATTHEW S OBERMEYER KLAUS F WICHERT CHERYL 412 AABC#C1 115 AABC 410 AABC#1 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 PACE LAUREL P PACIFIC AVENUE ASSOCIATES PEARCE JUDY 319 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS 81 TURTLE TRL 531 W GILLISPIE CENTER UNIT Z EUREKA, MT 599179142 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113516 PLAZA 117 LLC PEOPLES WAY LLC PITKIN COUNTY C/O HANSEN CONSTRUCTION INC PO BOX 802 530 E MAIN ST#302 310 AABC ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL DEV LLC PMBM PARTNERS LLC RADIMO LTD 150 E 58TH ST 10335 S PARKER RD 303E AABC PENTHOUSE PARKER,CO 80134 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10155 RICHARDSON LISA M RING PHILLIP M RINGSBY ERIC 615 WESTERN AVE PO BOX 1451 HC G4 BOX 410 SOCORRO, NM 87801-4449 ASPEN, CO 816121451 ROCK RIVER,WY 82083 ROARING FORK LAND COMPANY LLC RONDEAU SAM_UEL RUSNAK CATHERINE 121 ASPEN AIRPORT-BUSINESS 412 AABC#A 413 AABC#F - - CENTER ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816113512 ASPEN, CO 81611 SAGEBRUSH CONDOMINIUMS SAMS CAROL A SAND STEVEN L SNYDER ROBERT J REALTY SERVICES PO BOX 4582 416 AABC-APT D INC ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611-2556 304 S GALENA STE A ASPEN, CO 81611 SAVAGE KATHLEEN M SAVAGE VINCENT M SEWARD KATHERINE T 1523 LINTON LN 405 CASTLE CREEK RD#12 PO BOX 4842 BROADVIEW HEIGHTS,OH 44147 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 i Iaiquettes faciles peter ' A Repliez A la hachure afn de; www.avery com ; Sens de 1.—6-4 D­­TM I 1.stnn.P.n.evFRv Easy Peeler Labels i A Bend along line to AVERY®5160® 1 expose Pop-up Edger'" Use Avery®Template 51600 j 'd Paper w­ j 1J FISERV ISS&CO FOSTER PIPER&TAD&MELISSA FOWLER PAUL&SABINE FBO ROBERTA LOWENSTEIN PO BOX 11514 PO BOX 11199 PO BOX 741626 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33474 FRAZIER JAMES M FRY KATHERINE GONZALES MARIA A 417 AABC APT F 420 AABC APT C PO BOX 487 ASPEN, CO 81611-2560 ASPEN, CO 81611-2558 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOSIN AMY L GULL PROPERTIES LLC HABERMAN TODD R PO BOX 897 25 ARDMORE CT PO BOX 1659 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 HANCOCK JAMES D&LISA K HARDY RYAN - - - - H€MPHILL ARLAN - - - - - 18 TUMBLEDOWN LN 413 AABC#F PO BOX 205 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 816113512 ASPEN,CO 81612 HMIELOWSKI SETH&MELANIE HOLY CROSS ENERGY HUCKS AMANDA PO BOX 12145 DRAWER 2150 PO BOX 9256 ASPEN, CO 81612-9328 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,CO 81601 ASPEN,CO 816129256 ILLOUZ SHALOM&JOLIEN JOLLY SIMONE JUCY STUDIO LLC 377 SOPRIS CIR 413 PACIFIC AVE#A 303 E AABC BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 KNEZEVICH RICHARD&SUSAN KOLLER STEPHANIE S KRISHNAMURTI MADHU B BC 412 AABC#E PO BOX 11025 309 K AA ASPEN, B 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOWENSTEIN NORMAN CREDIT LONG ROGER E LOVINS JUDITH HILL SHELTER TRUST PO BOX 2289 148 ASPEN VILLAGE PO BOX 741626 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33474 MAETZOLD CINDY REV TRUST MALLORY HOWELL MARKETPLACE LLC 9201 417 PACIFIC AVE#F1 303 AABC#E PO BOX ASPEN, 92 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MCBRIDE JOHN PAUL JR MATHISON GEORGE&ANN L MATHISON LUKE PO BOX 245 22691 BIRCHWOOD ESTATES LN PO BOX 10731 7037 E SOPRIS CREEK RD FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ' A www ave com ' Etiquettes faciles a paler ' Repliez A la hachure afin de; rY : ' Sens de ' t iquet 1.s facifes A�/COV®C9GA® 1 rnvnlu�In rnl+nrrl Dnn_unTM I 1_Rnn_r.n_avFRv EXHIBI 412 AABC DEVELOPMENT SCENERIO # of Purchase Total Cash Total Credit 25% Units Price Sales in-lieu Credits Value Discount CAT 2 8 $164,000 $1 .3M $241 ,000 24 $5.8M $1 .5M CAT 4 8 $336,000 $2.7M $141 ,000 24 $3.4M $850,000 Justin Barker From: Cindy Christensen Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:45 AM To: Justin Barker Subject: RE: Affordable Housing Credit Request This would need to be okayed by City Council since this project is not in the City. Not too crazy about Category 2 three- bedrooms. I know that Peter likes these, but the other units are Category 3 and 4 and these units will have the same HOA dues. Might be hard for a Category 2 household to meet HOA obligations. If the City okays this, the 24 FTE's should not be an issue. Cindy Christensen Operations Manager Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 970-920-5455/Fax 970-920-5580 cind y christensen(c�cityofaspen.com www.aspenhousin.goffice.com From: Justin Barker Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:01 PM To: Cindy Christensen Subject: Affordable Housing Credit Request Hi Cindy, Peter Fornell has an application in requesting to establish Affordable Housing Credits for a project in the AABC. The original County approval with drawings are attached to this email. The approval was for 17 units, 9 of which have already been built.The remaining 8 units(the 2 buildings in the SW corner on page 13 of the approval) are 3-bedroom units. These units are not required for mitigation of any project. Peter is requesting 24 FTEs at the Category 2 level. If you need any additional information, please let me know. Thanks, Justin Barker, LEED Green Associate, CNU-A Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2797 www.aspenpitkin.com LEED €GREEN ASSOCIATE x -+ 3 Justin Barker From: Tom McCabe Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:31 PM To: Justin Barker Subject: RE: AABC housing credits Hi Justin, Here is the first draft of APCHA support.The final will be in the form of a memo. Comments welcome. APCHA supports the development of the Pacific Avenue portion of the Alpine Grove Subdivision, and is excited to see an interest in the project's completion and the provision of new homes. APCHA thinks it unfortunate that the provision of these homes, as part of an approved development, remain unbuilt. If the use of development mitigation credits will facilitate the construction of such homes, then APCHA is in complete support of their use. Having homes inside the Urban Growth Boundary (UBG) is an added benefit to the community and homeowners alike because of the pre-existing location of utilities,transportation, communication, water, sanitation, and fire protection infrastructure, as well as a plethora of commercial services right out their doors.The city and county have established a pattern of allowing thoughtful growth inside the UBG, and less growth outside the UBG. The addition of these homes would be completely congruent with that pattern. The long hoped for completion of the Pacific Avenue portion of this development would provide category 2 and 3,three bedroom homes. APCHA prefers to think in terms of homes, more so than units, condos, apartments, dwellings, or buildings. They represent the opportunity for membership in a community, which in turn allows young families an opportunity to add to the vibrancy and legacy of Aspen, as a community. They will add to the sense of"home" that makes Aspen more than a resort. The minimum required square footage for category 2, three bedroom homes is 1000 sq. ft. and for category 3, three bedroom homes is 1200 sq. ft.These homes will each provide at least 1200 sq. ft. of net livable space and the efficient design will make the most of the space in each home. Because these homes will also have transportation options (bus,trails, air) adequate parking allocations (2 spaces each), family friendly bedroom (3) and bathroom(2) counts, a pet friendly policy, efficient design, and use of an existing playground, APCHA feels without hesitation that the lotteries for such family friendly homes will generate large numbers of applicants.. Tom McCabe E.recutive Director, APCHA 530 E• Main 5t Aspen, CO 81611 tom•mccabe@cit yofaspen•com From:Justin Barker Sent:Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:41 AM 1 .Y To:Tom McCabe Subject:AABC housing credits Hi Tom, To follow up on our phone discussion, is there any way that you (or Cindy when she gets back)could summarize APCHA's position on the development of the affordable housing units at the AABC for Affordable Housing Credits either in email or a letter? Particularly if you can mention regarding development outside City limits but within UGB, Category designation and unit size, and provision of Credits. Thanks, Justin Barker, LEED Green Associate, CNU-A Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2797 www.aspenpitkin.com LEED GREEN ASSOCIATE' Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it Further.the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen If applicable,the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning,which is subject to change in the future.and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. 2 504168 Page: 7 of 15 11/15/2004 11:06A SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 76.00 D 0.00 9 Three $609,847 .0162 $9,879.52 0 $0 Bedroom Four Bedroom $609,847 .0248 $15,124.20 2 $30,248.40 Total: $36,102.90 Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The above fee total is based on the current fee schedule. Section 6: Water Department Standards The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 7: Sanitation District Standards The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. All improvements below grade shall require the use of a pumping station. Section 8: Affordable Housing The applicant shall provide affordable housing mitigation for 60 Full-Time Equivalents in the following manner: • Eight studio rental units to be constructed on site and restricted to Category 2. • Fifteen units to be provided by the "buy down" of the Obermeyer Resident Occupied (RO) one-bedroom units. Seven of these units shall be Category 2 and eight shall be Category 3. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Residences at Little Nell shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation,have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines and the Obermeyer buy-down units shall be governed by the City Council approvals for the Obermeyer Place project. The applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the eight on-site studio rental units such that 1/10th of 1% of those units are deeded in perpetuity to the APCHA; or the applicant may propose any other means that that APCHA determines acceptable. City of Aspen Ordinance No. 30, Page 7 Series of 2004. THE CITY of ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: November 15, 2013 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0072.2013.ASLU — Affor. Your planner assigned to the case is Justin Barker. ❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, ff P elan, Deputy Director City o spen, Community Development Department For Office Use Only: Qualifying Applications: Mineral Rights Notice Required New SPA New PUD Yes No_1! Subdivision, SPA, or PUD (creating more than 1 additional lot) GMQS Allotments Residential Affordable Housing Yes No Commercial E.P.F. Lodging COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN'r DEPARTMENT Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative — meaning an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amounts may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant's request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 or more days past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, an unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner(e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. COMNILINITY DEVELOPMEM, DEPARTMENT Agreement to Pay Application Fees Anagreement between the City of Aspen ("City") and Phone No.- Property � C-14 �- Owner("I"): 7 ry L Email: C3 Address of ` , 4 ae Billing qo� cy`� Property: `"� Address: (subject of S?ev, , C r (send bills here) 4:5'P-e application) I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. , Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and the payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $0 7 75 fl�ee for Select Dept �'�7 $0 flat fee for_Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Dept $ 0 flat fee for Select Review For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $J S � deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$325 per hour. $ 0 deposit for 0 hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at$265 per hour. City of Aspen: Property Owner: Chris Bendon , Community Development Director Name: I �'. -'� y - City Use: Title: Fees Due:$ Received: $ N�V 1 E� UU7Z.ZotS,� S L� ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: Location: lT C�C3 Indicate street address,lot&block number,legal-description where appropriate) Parcel ID#(REQUIRED 4.4 APPLICANT• Name: Address: �- u c .v�� v ✓ Phone#: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone#: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD(&PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review ❑ Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA—8040 Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption(includes ❑ Final SPA(&SPA Margin,Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment Other: El Conditional Use �� �`' (�'` C��'c� EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc. C�t a PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings,uses,modifications,etc. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE:$ ❑ Pre-Application Conference Summary E G= ❑ Attachment#1,Signed Fee Agreement NOV 12 2013 ❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form ❑ Response to Attachment#4,Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards GITy OF ASPEN ❑ 3-D Model for large project disk with an electric copy of all written to WMMUNIY DEVELOPMENT All plans that are larger than 8.5"X 11"must be folded. A (Microsoft Word Format)must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 4 r e — Applicant: E car Location: L4 C Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area,Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes.Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: Proposed %of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing:_Required.- Proposed.• Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: �/� C� NOV 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Zoe r � CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 10/25/13 PROJECT: Lot 2,Alpine Grove Subdivision (Pitkin County) REPRESENTATIVE: Peter Fornell, 970.379.3434 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Affordable Housing Credits DESCRIPTION: The applicant is interested in establishing Affordable Housing Credits by developing units outside of the City limits. The proposed site is located in unincorporated Pitkin County in the AABC. In 2004, Pitkin County approved the development of 17 3-bedroom affordable housing units in two phases on Lot 2 of the Alpine Grove Subdivision. The first phase has already been completed, which includes 9 units. These units were accepted as mitigation for the Residences at the Little Nell. The second phase of the project has not been built, and received an extension of vested rights in 2007, but expired on September 26, 2010. The establishment of Affordable Housing Credits outside of City limits requires a two-step process. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision making body regarding Affordable Housing Credits. However, only Council has the authority to accept affordable housing units outside City limits. City Council uses the following criteria for review: a) The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. b) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels and lifestyles (e.g. singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. c) The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the goveming body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. Due to the fact that the vested rights for this development have been expired for over 3 years, the applicant will need to receive current approvals from Pitkin County in order to satisfy criteria C. Staff recommends the applicant accomplish this before making application to the City of Aspen. Once all necessary approvals from Pitkin County have been acquired, staff recommends that the applicant propose to "devalue" the potential credits received as an understanding that units outside City limits are generally considered less desirable as affordable housing options for mitigation. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.470 Growth Management Quota System 26.470.090(2) Provision of required affordable housing units outside City Limits 26.470.110 Growth management review procedures 26.540 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Other Information: Land Use Code: t ,IV ED NOV 12 2013 Application: GITY OF ASPEN e%,nw,:t',91+IITY DENELOPMENT Review by: Staff for complete application. Planning and Zoning Commission for affordable housing credits review, growth management recommendation City Council for growth management review, affordable housing credits confirmation Public Hearing: Required for both P&Z and City Council. Planning Fees: $ 4,550. This includes 14 hours of staff review time. Additional time hours will be billed at$325 per hour. $975 Housing Referral Total Deposit: $5,525 Total Number of Application Copies: 24 copies To apply, submit the following information Q' Total Deposit for review of application. Pre-application Conference Summary. [Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. tR/Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 2-/Completed Land Use application and signed fee agreement.ou4io (-5 t,rye,-U Q3---'An 8 1/2"x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels. ❑ A copy of valid development approvals from Pitkin County. [Building floor plans and a site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. ❑ A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon representations by the applicant that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. REU621VEDt NOV 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT To: Justin Barker From: Peter Fornell Date: November 6, 2013 Re: Applicant info for pre-app. Dear Justin, Per the pre-application summary, one of the requirements is information on the applicant. Following is my contact info. Applicant Peter Fornell 402 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 970.379.3434 p.fornell@comcast.net I act as my own representative butt also will be accompanied by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning. Sincerely, 1VLLJ Peter NOV 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT November 8, 2013 Mr. Chris Benclon Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Chris, This letter is to authorize Peter Fornell to apply to the City of Aspen for affordable housing credits that would be associated with the property known as Pacific Avenue Condominiums,Unit B,412 AABC, Aspen, Colorado 81611. That property is currently owned by The Residences at Little Nell Development, LLC and I am an authorized signatory thereof. Thank you and regards. 5. Brooke Peterson ,r< l f t The,,Aes(dencOs at The Lit e' e I Development, LLC Authorized Signatory ` di �'�C'.L NOV 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: whom it may concern, From: Peter Fornell Date: November 7, 2013 Re: Lot 2 Alpine Grove Dear Sirs, Thanks to all those parties assisting in the review of my request for receipt of affordable housing credits for the development included herein. The goal in creating the affordable housing credit program has been to see new housing starts assist the burden to the community of new development. This scenario is unique in that it allows the housing to already be in place prior to the concerns associated with growth. The program has proven successful noting both quality housing starts and participation with the development community in the retiring of credits. The project which requests the receipt of credits is located at the AABC on a parcel of land adjacent to a completed affordable project on a lot already identified as appropriate and re-zoned for deed- restricted housing with an approval in place. That approval is for the construction of eight category 2 three bedroom ownership apartments. The AABC is located within the urban growth boundary which is a requirement for qualified housing. The area is identified as appropriate in that mitigation housing already exists in the area and the City owns lands in the area earmarked for deed-restricted development. The goals of housing are being furthered in that all units will go to the lottery market, the category 2 three bedroom units are almost non-existent in the market and family housing is the most highly demanded segment. The project creates 24 full time equivalents (fte). Some consideration should be made for creation of units outside the city limits in certain circumstances. Higher category housing such as category 4 may need discounting in that they may not have the same demand or cost to create. Lower category housing, which requires a higher subsidy by the builder, will have more demand and may not need any discounting. It is the affordable housing credit that meets the subsidy required to create this housing and continue to produce a much needed community asset. My request is for the receipt of the 24 fte's of category 2 upon completion of the project. Sincerel i RECEIVED Peter Fornell NOV 12 2013 CITY OF /ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M3iVdO73A3a 4UN[Inru� N-3cjqV-qO Allo E103 9 1 AON A ' LOT I To Cn Az MAABC Affordable Housing Site Development Plan C Date:05 Februsr " 4 Scale:1 Page: 13 of 25 0 0 0 0 Wr---------------� F---------------- O f • r-------------{ I I ------------�� I I I I I I I l y l { ' I r- I r J D I I f l to�rooa I I .. i i { I z I I 1----T------fl .w 4----------- r!-----I r----h .. U3 W I I I I I Q-) .= m A o 01 L n I� N 3 a AABC Affordable Hous p05S% vIIIr Clllei r'ts„!!III;!; ��� S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N . Lower Level Floor Plan Bldgs.ABCD .,_ _ a 5 O V .n cn—I O_rte 1 j cl 10� �...•. _A__ �` u x• l�maa.u.a ZI 11 rnro O0" na N N r A TI C7 3 BEDROOM UNIT 3 BEDROOM UNIT G Z 1,200 S.F. 1,200 S.F. O NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE 'n Mom AABC Affordable Housing S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N . Main Level Floor Plan Bldgs.ABCD 6. ® uusu_. alola Z °' O O O O W , © -•-• O -------- -- D —I I I e a I ...... 1 n Y•i�W I I U — n Nr.l�oa I 1'tir �� n m m a cn to Q ii ii 11 n N /a II II ii If 11 . LIJ B © Q1 � 11 I 1.0 II I II r� II � A U �J 1 u II II II U u u u N N p n 3 BEDROOM UNIT 3 BEDROOM UNIT 1.214 S.F. 1,214 S.F. NET LIVABLE NET LIVABLE AABC Affordable Housing po$$ iC,IIII('IIIUP hi/il:i jilt", •..^^.•^•••..•••• ^�-1 S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N ; Upper Level Fluor Plan Bldgs.ABCD 7 0 U U C) � t D ��° n.,�.,w�,.. ...�} �� rr lT'iri �l alr4 ��rJ7�II�Ii:�xlrtl�i ��i'i'i�• �� ��® r14 R1, r7 Rl 1 J J [ i lir ra- I r,. p LIS-171J111�ITfJ7�T.1 4 rrccr�[,�rli�TTi:'' �TT.i. C�® rT C TTIT L.Q11rT.T'11T.1'.;t y En ii®gym I . f-I�i49'- i 1 I•- ......�ti m e w Ul I I I I I I I L13 0 J I I I..._....__. .._... I i N e m v .J� I I L F:.`:_. ......... . © n N N R. A C10 FRONT ELEVATION 20 --� z a o o-n m AABC Affordable Housing (1055 •I :It l t'i!4; SCHEMATIC DESIGN Front Elevation Bldgs.ABCD 9. r�ii Z 0 U O CJ Y %1 vo •'{ �,i.' \irrrrillLilrirircr[ltrrilxtri,.r[[T n� � [i.r �ti I [rr. Lr ti� nnanwnnw ] r I'i 11 L r.3 L1 � [II i IU i5r5�i rSVrr 1 1511 r4r �i rTt �; : 55, LO a I I I I -- !...... s Pi 9 m co -p s 41 o U1 N N p T, n REAR ELEVATION AABC Affordable Housing p0S$ k hJII.CIUiiI I'I, hHl1r. SCHEMATIC DESIGN Rear Elevation Bldgs.ABCD 1 i O v Cs') Ln iri`iII�'r[T�1r-Lilr4�LLI' 'i'1r�rrLlLi_Lri11i�L1LIr111r11 D � Irrl:r'r17L1r1[l1TT r7TTT�1'll�iritir ri-Li'iLLfT i1 L�'L.4'z11L r:it rrZ�] �s Sti'7�iTl r�4 r�yrtT rIrLLSTLrLL�L 1 c7��ri�.rt1�T1 cLrir'i 1 r 44Trri1��rrir't .�Ttr`rLii�-rtic '�"' i� L? -IT1T1L�c�rrri�rrr T��r;LllL4�r{4 rLrITTi:4jir�'r'4�Y�iLirL -i iliir Jr i L^ir°IL SIX, ill`S'T.flll�'S.r'f�Tr 1r Li21]J;II'.rr ^�ilil2]._.r�yr?r`i.' -1 ril'-rzL.Lit'T-r�i''r.LrLr st'�4Lrr Trrr�-rrLir--4Li l.i:5'i�11TLTL.cL:'-LiL--tr`L, c't ri�T..r'r<r'-L �� 4l1'�:r 4r151r'ii1�L-L r5'r�I'r4�'c1411.'.L4'T5�1'rTr!rt*Lf Lr'�-•'i rL��iL-T L- a `" z T..� i r`ir-l�IrLZ.4rL51iirLr r�ilr=trr L. �rxriii'T.4ri1�4'rrrozl:lir z'lii rlr �Lr,;-z'1. n o�� 1-E5i.M5a EB . ------ -' - --l sue, l I I I i L _...._ i LO _ ... Ocz La N .+ C I ..... _ .. .. ........I. 9 ; o W N N N A n Tf (.� SIDE ELEVATION - �� z < o I� � c m , AABC Affordable Housing pass�In@�'illl�l�l,,tr: SCHEMATIC DESIGN Side Elevation Bldgs.ABCD l l O O C> O W n— =�ua®rFrs m� FJ7>Mi1®ifI . PIP'. , F C Fes;rf 1—LLf-7'r �L J 7 l 7 l 1 l l-1 S '41 l i r i1Y7 I] T 11TLI.1,ZLr1L�r--+'[lI—J.�111 T illl 7 l T�fT.�,[11 C T C Fo�i.o�r.. LT41`1'ri1ilrlrr4'I�I'�l17L1 lTLC1L-�]�4�14L.1i'I c��ii.T ri141T r r]�T�rJ-['Y117Ct4Y n 1771 I I I 7 1 I1 J l C.ltl I17T] [ y1 T`] I T* it l lJ rxrCf'iT,I1LL,�1 ji1 C TIrTtLftl ;AFT lr i.CCTI-f i1J711'CZ LIIx1 iLJl':[1Ir lTT7.l1 arm LtL1L�rL 7:rtxl.3rL1`LJr�ilr'LI7ri?-r'z7i-x�T. [ is. L r[ L 4c t.i Fr'rr ii�r�L xlllrr�l.:LIIJrT7t r12.-c!xir7ir'TJ71x��7�ci ilx�rLr�i��•ilr1�i]iF��L rr'iJfYiii�- 7"� f�l[I ril 7 7Cl 111 1I it�I.1�,11 C1r7,,5T.rg1TLI7'c�T�c.ITT�a�T�c�1�1.`r4;lLi�F1l�LIY7 L�LL7 ':;:']ix 1:L. +h5rr➢v 5 1,I_t.171}r IJ.LT,,51.r4 Ti;i-rt1rJ7 4 7r.;1r Lri Tr. T i r4 Li;T4lL4;c!Tti�T4�*! r. LLU C�F>• I 1 1 .,.,... 1 . 1 IJ�•rT �p>0 ' I ...�'� •� ..�....�. �, 7T,n w.a.uYwu.lu.W++ � 1 _ cTI 1 � cS m -P I > .P1 O U1 _.... .._._.. ..._. N N �• ul 4. n T -r- r SIDE ELEVATION o�v w AABC Affordable Housing 105$ a!hllnrl.:llhn I'L.1hLl SCHEMATIC DESIGN : Side Elevation Bldgs.ABCD 12 •�. ., m.al.a L O _�S Z to C d � o � W f L y 0 J a0 J m z Q � W U F-- W 2 U N -------------------------- � . I I I { I I i I I I I I I — I i L—1 I I I Y I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I ------- :.. ._ r M1'E . IVED NO 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMON DEVELOPMENT 5035 .5 II �II ! Page: 21 of 25 �II �I III _ �I II SILVIR DRVIS PITKIPJ GDUDJTY Co 2004 12.4.x, 000037 R 125.00 D 0.00 a O C:) C W G7 D mid D 7� 7� � m N .CIS.) N ,p IS.) D Ui N N ' 4 fll 1+ h T. 3 BEDROOM SFD 1,216 S.F. NET LIVABLE C'2 o o C # :4s AABC Affordable Housing p0ss,:I;ci1„L,.. salt t ����������� �� ��"'� SCHEMATIC D E 5 I G N Main Level Floor flan B13g.E 16 0 503645 (� Iililii I lilll Page: 23 of 25 0 ii1111 III li IIIIiI II 10/29/2O04.12:44P i l l l l l l i l l l I I III I SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 126.00 0 0.00 Li GJ . i .{ Z FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION t� tz '-"c ° AABC Affordable Housing SCHEMATIC DESIGN Front and RO ar Elevation Bldg.E 18 0 0 0 c .c�% 0 F O D unur•+n ... 7c� i � t7rlTr4i1riirrt r�,JylTtjlr[jlTiiI r4J.c�'i,1�i.-��..':r;�yr C) irr�rlylif�r7�TLT1 lTrf—� Ir111--d"11�pr�?i7r7`�i[, ' T..tr4�L ry17'rL'r'� rig Ltlt .r 1 t�c,r ir� T�li]'lr.-c.L'! r�'rtl'r`r;TTCicnr4Tirt=r'��rzi�i>jli�i' rri� h rlrlr� x�r r Tir4?i1 �L c�rr4ri. r? <® rir1i1rrr.Y7 '1rrstit�4,yr �1 r r�llry�� t1 c4T' rr�ur St z r�'i1rir r�rrrt'llTlr4�L rr�rL4TrrTriTzrrirYi12r*�tr by lT TTII'rlT�"tti.T',tlill�7�rTi lYt'Yr`r"/-"T?TTir7I'�'`r1S"'1'L1LIiLiC1.. .'r -rr r1r-rT4si?rlrr77ri!irciC:r'-'_i;�ilr;. s.v m.o_as I � I � rn W ID CD b O (� m '^ iv N N A A SIDE ELEVATION o AABC Affordable Housing ~�~ SCHEMATIC DESIGN . Side Elevation Bldg.E 19 D O CZ) O h-► D �°orsd `® j i� ''T7 rrr`r�r14a Zt1r�4 1i'c-rJlrL1�iY�'.:'��rI7''�Ti'i'ir l�rr4.T iJ-Trr .r' cI11rLr`IJxiiJl:A ILr�-I LiJftl �Llaf1L5'r41 r1'�-4J�r4441I�r1-LiJ'Lri -xLrr'—^ir n�' ii4rrL`'' JSLi Lai i I iT TlJ,I'14rirSrrl �� r thr li f j xr'trrT�l'T�r�'J�1xii-� `I ®° 'irr i'iT r 1 c'jJIT�1.1-TlLIIrT�.T..1�T� �Tic�i� �. 1� '51 i'?i om°°oc a 51. a: I t L r 1 x rlr'i t4 J r r h r r l r 14 x J rrt J. r I:I l'f rll511' I.I: I7 li IIII II Ir�p� I I z I`LL II.LLI i..T L 1 [�l�ixII]"I"ll(Il T7�LT L ITfh Irr7 Cllr Illy ILrll LrfrTlif�=rLf T4Jr11 rlrirlhJrirld rfril l]'I'IJ]J AIL Jl-Lr 1•iNOO J'r'L LJ7t II'1 ]JI 1 7 L1,I7 lil [1''1 Lf 1 a 1 L T LrlJ tlT r t r 1 1 1 T I JET h h �� I �J T5 7 r a r7 1 1 J r I,1 o }I±dq: I r�r L,r..I.J 1 I:.LL r J,L,4i r a 1 ,Lr — rvwo tom>.�s I I I I I N m °rJ N O m N d n fJl m -� nJ r.J N 11 � Z SIDE ELEVATION ;P-- O 0 �cc ^' AABC Affordable Housing poss ;,•,., , I fldal, — --' SCHEMATIC DESIGN : Side Elevation Bldg,E 20 ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance � . VVES~t'COR Lt r.4G 1 iTC_E iNISof€='.A.NICE C01<FPA.P'-i`v' AUTHORIZED AGENT: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS AVE. 3RDFLOOR ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1766-PHONE 970-925-6527-FAX 877-217-3158-TOLL FREE E-MAIL ADDRESS: TITLE MATTERS: CLOSING MATTERS: Kim Shultz - (kim @sopris.net) TJ Davis - (tjd @sopris.net) Nola Warnecke (nola @sopris.net) Joy Higens - (joy @sopris.net) Issued By WESTCOR L_ 7`,1F. i._ Home Office: 201 N.New York Avenue,Suite 200 Winter Park,FL 32789 Telephone(407)629-5842 } _ WESTCOR u Lwo � �_.r If�s�� _.rlce Cwr-'.''; ALTA Commitment Form (6-17-06) COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Westcor Land Title Insurance Company, a California Corporation,("Company'),for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in-Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedule A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company. All liability and obligations under this Commitment shall cease and terminate within six (6) months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed and these presents to be signed in facsimile under authority of its by-laws on the date shown in Schedule A. Issued By: WESTCOR LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ficJ L d i'k I wh'tgs3'C. -�1Ic'SI• d-C�fE".:z_,���,;-lxCtc.0%,/ .Nc('ICfm-)� Countersigned: Authorized Signature CO1045 * * Pitkin County Title,Inc. 601 E. Hopkins#3 Aspen, CO 81611 CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed or other security instrument. 2. If the Proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the Proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien or encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named Proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the Proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that the Proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is$2,000,000.00 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org. NOV 12 2013 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT` COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: August 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM Case No. PCT23840W2 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: (a)ALTA Owner's Policy-(6/17/06) Amount$ 1,050,000.00 Premium$ 1,145.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: Developers PETER FORNELL (b)ALTA Loan Policy-(6/17/06) Amount$ 0.00 Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: (c)ALTA Loan Policy-(6/17/06) Amount$ Premium$ Proposed Insured: Rate: 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN State of COLORADO and is described as follows: UNIT B, PACIFIC AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Plat thereof recorded August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC. Schedule A-PGA 601 E.HOPKINS,ASPEN,CO.81611 This Commitment is invalid 970-925-1766 Phone/970-925-6527 Fax unless the Insuring 877-217-3158 Toil Free Provisions and Schedules AUTHORIZED AGENT A and B are attached. Countersigned: SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit: 1. A current survey, certified by a Registered Colorado Land Surveyor must be delivered to, approved and retained by the Company A Statement of Authority was recorded for The Residences at Little Nell Development LLC on January 14, 2009 as Reception No. 555686, evidencing that Brooke A. Peterson is the authorized person to bind the transaction contemplated herein. 2. Duly executed and acknowledged Deed, From : THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY To : PETER FORNELL 3. Certificate of nonforeign status executed by the transferor(s). (This instrument is not required to be recorded) 4. Completion of Form DR 1083 regarding the withholding of Colorado Tax on the sale by certain persons, corporations and firms selling Real Property in the State of Colorado. (This instrument is not required to be recorded) 5. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale, Notice to County Assessor as required by H.B. 1288 has been complied with. (This instrument is not required to be recorded, but must be delivered to and retained by the Assessors Office in the County in which the property is situated) SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment, charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district. 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted and right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded March 16, 2023 in Book 55 at Page 570. view 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Grant of Easement for Sewer Line and Conveyance of System recorded January 11, 1971 in Book 253 at Page 50. view 9. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants for Airport Business Center recorded June 17, 1971 in Book 255 at Page 916, and extension thereof recorded October 23, 1974 in Book 292 at Page 502, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. view 10. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Avigation Easement recorded August 20, 1974 in Book 290 at Page 373. view 11. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Resolution recorded August 26, 1974 in Book 290 at Page 510. view 12. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Consent Agreement recorded April 16, 1979 in Book 366 at Page 627. view 13. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded April 16, 1979 in Book 7 at Page 79, Consent Agreement to Amended and Restated Plat of Aspen Airport Business Center recorded April 16, 1979 in Book 366 at Page 627 and Amendment thereto recorded November 26, 1979 in Book 379 at Page 772. view 14. Restriction regarding Lease time period (not less that 6 mo.) as contained in Deed recorded 0, 1999 as Reception No. 434728. view NOV 12 2013 (Continued) A!Wt1R16 VE,8 SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS- (Continued) 15. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Memorandum of License Agreement recorded August 20, 1999 as Reception No. 434729 view 16. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No.040, Series of 2004 by the Board of County Commissioner of Pitkin County, Colorado, granting a rezoning from business (B-2) to Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development(AH2/PUD)recorded October 12, 2004 as Reception No. 502967. view 17. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 040-2004, Series of 2004 by Board of County Commissioners recorded October 19, 2004 as Reception No. 503217. view 18. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 135-2004, Series of 2004 by Board of County Commissioners recorded October 29, 2004 as Reception No. 503623. view 19. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD recorded October 29, 2004 in Plat Book 71 at Page 10. view 20. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Subdivision/PUD Agreement recorded October 29, 2004 as Reception No. 503645. view 21. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Assignment and Assumption of Lot 2, Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD Land Use Approvals, Rights and Obligation recorded October 29, 2004 as Reception No. 503665 view 22. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Assignment of Reserved Development Rights on Lot 2, Alpine Grove Subdivision/PUD recorded October 29, 2004 as Reception No. 503666 view 23. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Pacific Avenue Condominiums recorded August 9, 2006 as Reception No. 527281 and First Supplemental Declaration to Declaration of Condominiums for Pacific Avenue Condominiums recorded November 20, 2008 as Reception No. 554419, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. view 24. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded August 9, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 79. view 25. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement with Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc., recorded October 11, 2007 as Reception No. 542990. view ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR OWNERS POLICY ATTACHED TO AND BECOMING A PART OF CASE NO: PCT23840W2 SELLER: THE RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BUYER: PETER FORNELL The following endorsements will be issued in connection with the Policy to be issued hereunder as referenced above: ENDORSEMENTS: For a fee of: $ For a fee of: $ For a fee of: $ For a fee of: $ For a fee of: $ Upon compliance with the requirements set forth below, the following exceptions will be deleted from the final policy. The fee for deleting exceptions 1 thru 3 with the issuance of Form 130 is $50.00 A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against any defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters known by Seller and Buyer. The Company hereby reserves the right to make additional requirements as may be deemed necessary in the event information regarding defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or the like are discovered. The fee for deleting exception 4 is $10.00 for Residential Property and $25.00 for Commercial Property. Exception Number 5 is automatically deleted upon recordation of the documents called for on the requirement page of this commitment. Exception Number 6 will be amended to read: Taxes for the current year not yet due or payable, upon evidence satisfactory that the Taxes for the prior year(s) have been paid. NOTE: A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanic's and materialmens liens, executed by the seller and any additional parties deemed necessary by the Company. The company hereby reserves the right to make additional requirements as may be deemed necessary in the event additional facts regarding development, construction or other building or work are disclosed to the company that may fall within any lien period as defined in the Statues of the State of Colorado, and may result in additional premiums and/or fees for such coverage. NOTE: A current survey, certified by a Registered Colorado Land Surveyor must be delivered to, approved and retained by the Company for Deletion of Printed Exception No. 3. (NOT REQUIRED FOR CONDOMINIUM OR TOWNHOME UNITS) NoV 122013 c/7`y 0 COQjj lj y OE EIV t,Vr ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above: (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2 NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in writing every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (including a condominium or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage. NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners or loan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14(CRS 10-11-122) (a)The Subject Real Property may be located in a Special Taxing District; (b)A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate or other appropriate research will be ordered from the County Treasurer/Assessor by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. Pursuant to House Bill 01-1088 (CRS 10-11-123) If Schedule B of your commitment for an Owner's Title Policy reflects an exception for mineral interests or leases, pursuant to CRS 10-11-123 (HB 01-1088), this is to advise: (a) There is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals or geothermal energy in the property and (b) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owners' permission. NOTE: The policy(s) of insurance may contain a clause permitting arbitration of claims at the request of either the Insured or the Company. Upon request, the Company will provide a copy of this clause and the accompanying arbitration rules prior to the closing of the transaction. NOTICE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION FINANCING: If it is not disclosed to the company that the loan to be insured hereunder is in fact a construction loan, any coverage given under the final policy regarding mechanic or materialmen's liens shall be deemed void and of no effect. Pitkin County Title, Inc. Privacy Policy We collect nonpublic information about you from the following sources: • Information we receive from you, such as your name, address, telephone number, or social security number; • Information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others. We receive this information from your lender, attorney, real estate broker, etc.; and Information from public records We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about our customers or former customers to anyone, except as permitted by law. We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to know that information to provide the products or services requested by you or your lender. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that company with appropriate federal and state regulations. "� 3 NoV.12 2013 E`Op gl Notice of Privacy Policy of Westcor Land Title Insurance Company Westcor Land Title Insurance Company("WLTIC") values its customers and is committed to protecting the privacy of personal information. In keeping with that philosophy, we have developed a Privacy Policy, set out below, that will ensure the continued protection of your nonpublic personal information and inform you about the measures WLTIC takes to safeguard that information. Who is Covered We provide our Privacy Policy to each customer when they purchase an WLTIC title insurance policy. Generally, this means that the Privacy Policy is provided to the customer at the closing of the real estate transaction. Information Collected In the normal course of business and to provide the necessary services to our customers, we may obtain nonpublic personal information directly from the customer, from customer-related transactions, or from third parties such as our title insurance agents, lenders, appraisers, surveyors or other similar entities. Access to Information Access to all nonpublic personal information is limited to those employees who have a need to know in order to perform their jobs. These employees include, but are not limited to, those in departments such as legal, underwriting, claims administration and accounting. Information Sharing Generally, WLTIC does not share nonpublic personal information that it collects with anyone other than its policy issuing agents as needed to complete the real estate settlement services and issue its title insurance policy as requested by the consumer. WLTIC may share nonpublic personal information as permitted by law with entities with whom WLTIC has a joint marketing agreement. Entities with whom WLTIC has a joint marketing agreement have agreed to protect the privacy of our customer's nonpublic personal information by utilizing similar precautions and security measures as WLTIC uses to protect this information and to use the information for lawful purposes. WLTIC, however, may share information as required by law in response to a subpoena, to a government regulatory agency or to prevent fraud. Information Security WLTIC, at all times, strives to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the personal information in its possession and has instituted measures to guard against its unauthorized access. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards in compliance with federal standards to protect that information. The WLTIC Privacy Policy can also be found on WLTIC's website at www.whit.com. f � y Y tVO ; City� 2013 f�g9r/YOIC� �� o/j�, \ AMERICAN O �A-N/ T I tE E- -- - ASS CIATION ( } ® EO«&!IT+ENrm17-6 ] t .| [ � i � �|� z \ NNT ESTCq« . LAND TITLE . ( INSURANCE COMPANY \ !; �| . [ \ [ ' ( � ( COB A lTME&T . ( FOR } [ } ( "TLIIINSUR AN E ( w ) ( } All � .dt OFFICE \ _ . [ NO OFICE ; ./ [ 2o! &. x %mkemm yy\ a@ . m%GrI y. Gmda :27K� [ 'kGo x: 90262¢5 2 ��:--. . -- ----— PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, THIRD FLOOR ASPEN, CO 81611 970-925-1766/970-925-6527 FAX TOLL FREE 877-217-3158 WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE CLOSING OF THIS FILE ARE AS FOLLOWS: ALPINE BANK-ASPEN 600 E. HOPKINS AVE. ASPEN, CO. 81611 ABA ROUTING NO. 102103407 FOR CREDIT TO: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., ESCROW ACCOUNT ACCOUNT NO. 2021 012 333 REFERENCE:PCT23840W2/PETER FORNELL