The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mt Lot3 ame.A07702 .-" t ' CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A077 -02 2735-182-85003 ~ "... ,.;'.j Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment, Code Amendment-Pay Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD Scott Woodford PUD AmendmenVCode Amendml~nt Top of Mill Investors, LLC Sunny Vann 11/19/02 DENIED 11/19/02 2/12/03 D DRISCOLL r; n ,...." o MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, Planner II RE: LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT (2nd Reading) SECTION 26.530.050 HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS DATE: January 13, 2003 PROJECT REOUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, requests that City Council amend the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP); This request is being made in conjunction with.the applicant's desire to amend the Aspen Mountain PUD (Lot 3, Top of Mill) to allow for the substitution ofithe approved four-unit affordable housing building on Parcel 2 with payment of a fee in lieu and to then replace it with a free market duplex. In addition to the above Text Amendment request, the applicant originally sought other land use approvals; however, these are contingent upon approval of the Text Amendment. Should the Text Amendment be: approved, additional actions would be necessary in order to accomplish the goal of rl~placing the required affordable housing with a free market duplex. Additional requests dependent upon the text amendment: . POO Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units required for Parcel 2, Lot 3 of Aspen Mountain Subdivision. . Text amendment to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to allow for the reconstruction of demolished units on non-contiguous parcels under the same PUD in order to construct a free market duplex on Parcel 2 (the Code currently requires that they be reconstructed on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel). . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). BACKGROUND: The following background summary sets the stage for why the applicant is proposing the code amendment. -j- Il r-'\ l: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD was originally approved by the City Council on March II, 2002 via Ordinance No.7, Series of 2002. This approval granted Final PUD and Subdivision approval, along with Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning to LodgelTourist Residential PUD and Conservation. The specific approval was for the subdividing of Lot 3 into eight (8) development parcels, two open space parcels, and one (1) parcel containing an existing garage. As a result of the demolition of several multi-family units throughout the PUD, the Applicant was required to replace fifty percent of the demolished bedrooms and square footage pursuant to the City's Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program. This resulted in a requirement to replace 12.5 bedrooms and approximately 6,125 square feet of net residential area to mitigate the 25 multi-family bedrooms that were demolished throughout the PUD. To meet that requirement, the applicant proposed and was approved to build four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 equaling a replacement of thirteen bedrooms at around 6,200 square feet. Instead of constructing these units as approved, the applicant now proposes to pay a fee in lieu instead (which is not currently allowed in the Code and is the subject of the Text Amendment before you to allow this option). PROCESS: Text amendments are handled in a two-step process. The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council then conducts a first and second reading of an ordinance in order to approve the amendment. PROPOSAL AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The following is an explanation of the request and staffs comments on its merits. (Full Review Criteria and Staff Findings are included in ExhibitA) Proposal: A text amendment would be necessary to permit the substitution of a payment- in-lieu fee for the four on-site affordable housing units approved for Parcel 2. Currently, the option of a payment of such fees is not provided for in the RMFRP, which now requires that affordable housing be replaced on the site of where it was demolished, or off-site if the City Council feels that the construction of the units on-site would be incompatible with the neighborhood or with the site constraints. The RMFRP is the only form of required affordable housing mitigation in the Land Use Code that presently does not permit payment-in-lieu. It is the applicant's proposal that the option of the fee not be automatic, but that the City Council have the discretion of whether or not to allow the payment in lieu based on a recommendation from the Housing Board. The applicant proposes adding the following, shaded language to the Code to accommodate the change: 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be cOnfigured in such a - 2- f'l I": , j way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the sites physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units oifsite, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owners housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement enIy. The amount of a cash-in-lieu shall be com uted . setjQrth at Seen8n 2G.G2().()20 :l:I;j1lf'J;l"''':~'~''l'1'l\'!!'X'fJBIJ'm!i\!iXB;:ilh!!19"g1<.'!iJ!l'!1 f,~JitJll~lJg~t?i!!:6gJt!i!.t1,!el!f,f;!!i;/iltJl~,{:!i~llg: C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be availablefor occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or oifsite, and shall contain fIXtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designees guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built oifsite, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the oifsite development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. Staff Comments on Text Amendment: Staff does not support the request for a text amendment because we feel it does not implement certain provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). When the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) was established back in the 1980's, its intent was to replace demolished, locals-orienlted, residential units on the same site on which they were located. This accomplished two things: one, it rebuilt the affordable units in locations within the town core (as that's: where the majority of the older apartments are located) and it required that those same urits be reconstructed at the same time as the larger development, so that the units were available to the community relatively quickly. The program was also designed to disperse affordable housing throughout the community and not just in enclaves, promote a more socially and economically integrated community, reduce air pollution by not forcing residents to drive - 3- 11 f"') long distances to work, and to prevent exclusion of working r,esidents from the city's established neighborhoods (all policies of the AACP). Staffs contention is that by allowing applicants the option of paying the fee in lieu instead of constructing affordable housing units on-site within the RMFRP, less affordable housing units would be built where they traditionally have been located and more units would be constructed on the fringe of the community or on less desirable sites. In addition, staff is concerned that by allowing applicants to pay Ithe fee in lieu, the onus is put on the public sector for finding suitable land for development of equivalent housing, handling the entitlement process, and constructing the affordable units. This creates more risk to having the units ultimately being built and may subject it to increased costs and delays. A final reason that staff does not support this request is due to the potential increase in application requests to pay the fee in lieu instead of constructing the units on-site concurrent with the free market development. Not only would this increase staff time to process the applications, it may result in far less units being built within the City. ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (APCHA) RIcCOMMENDATION (FOR BACKGROUND PuRPOSES ONLY): The proposal was reviewed by the APCHA on March 6, 2002, prior to the applicant submitting this application. Because the request has not changed since then, the Board has chosen not to re-review the proposal and maintains its earlier position, Their position is to support the text amendment allowing for the payment in lieu fee option for the RMFRP as long as there is discretion to review each proposal on a case by case basis. In the case of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Parcel 2, they support the use of the payment in lieu fee because of the difficulty the site presents in accommodating the lower priced one-bedroom units, which they say is the greater need. According to their calculations, the applicant would be required to pay $2,358,300 as their fee in lieu. Including the payment of the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel 3 for $549,990, the total payment to the City would be $2,908,290. 3-3 Bedroom Units @ 3 EmployeeslUnit = 9 Employees 1-4 Bedroom Unit @ 3.5 EmployeeslUnit = 3.5 Employees 12.5 Employees x $188,664.00/ Category 2 Employee = $2.358.300.00 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: On November 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the application request and voted to deny the request for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residl:TItial Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). While some of the Commissioners supported the APCHA Board re:commendation and felt that it wasn't necessary to have affordable housing in this particular location, the majority were concerned about approving the text amendment in general and its - 4- ,...." ~ , ..iJ negative ramifications, such as more housing out of the town core and on the fringes of the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the RI~sidential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affIrmative): "I move to approve Ordinance No. _' Series of2003, allowing Ii text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program." ...,,< (!~ \~Ci ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Findings-Amendments To The Land Use Code and OffIcial Zone District Map Findings Site Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Application Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: I I , - 5- r'1 C"\ ExmBITA FINDINGS: AMENDMENTS To THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any app1icable portions of this Title. Staff FindiI1g: J Does it Col!lIJly? 1 Yes Comments: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable requirements ofthis Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFindin : No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with cel1tain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the community in affordable housin enclaves. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zonil'!&. map amendrnent& Comments: None. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? only to Comments: None. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Findin : only to I - JO- ,...." ~ I Comments: I None. I zoning map amendments) F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to I zoning map amendments) Comments: None. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? I Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? only to Comments: None. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with tile public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? No Staff finds that the proposed text amendment would be in conflict with the public interest. The text amendment would negatively affect the public interest by placing employees farther from their jobs; increasing the need for automobile use and increasing traffic congestion; and working against the AACP goals of integrating different sodo-economic classes which results in a healthier, more vital communit . . -jl- f""-., ('"", ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: .-1tvv\ fJi j (lJ LLJJe 4 v<< ~'/;p4co I SCHEDULED PUBLiC HEARING DATE: :-\ mv{U(}V'>1 I ~ )2.eO ~ .200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County ofpitkin ) I, ~ 1M QS t-, 'vt oJ t- (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: .x;ublication 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 ofletters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of . , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns 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) r-"\ ;: I~ 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 ofthis 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 gf owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. , The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged be{Ore~ day of i1"")u;Q~ ,200~by ~~ J--<\ .. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL . ",,""" ",.... ""PUBLlCN'6+1f':r ':",::... : "";; :':.~::.:::':::;"Y.':"" RE:',LANO-USECCJt)EAMEN'IJ : NT TO~DUSE 'COD.E:SEgroN'26'.530,,lJO\j .. G REPtAg:ME:NT REQuIREMENTr- ,"",' ",' _.,~ ,1 NpTI~~ '~-f1~~~~,GIY~N ~ ,', t apublic he~rln,~ wHeb€: neld',on Tues'day,)anuary 14, 2003a,t. a neeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen :ity Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. ;alena St., Aspen, to consider .. an application ubinitted by Top 'of _,~iU ,', Inves::or~"" LLC, eqtlestlnga Text,AlTl~~,?~~n~ ,to t~e t:ari~'pse :oOe .. to',~~~ndsect!6n 26.530,05Q,.. Ho~sing :eplacement~Requjfeinents, to". allow for ,ri:ymeiitin lieu'optJoiL or further,i?forll1~tion; contact Scott,Woopf9~d : the City or' Aspen Community DeveloPment epartment, 1305. Galena St.; Aspen, co (970) !0-5102,scottw@cl.aspen,co;us." . ;"', s/Helen Klln Klanderud, Mayor' , Aspen City Council ,bt;,h,d Iii The ,,",eo Ti "00 D,,,mb,, 28. 102.(2292/,"'0", - My commission expires: <:::;-'~ Notary Public ATTACIfMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION ~'OGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL (1 r; \Ilia... MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council loli, Aon Wood, Co=~ity n''''''opmmt Diro'ID' ~ Scott Woodford, Planner II~ THRU: FROM: RE: LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT (1 sf Reading)! SECTION 26.530.050 HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS DATE: December 9, 2002 PROJECT REOUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, requests that City Council amend the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP); This request is being made in conjunction with the applicant's desire to amend the Aspen Mountain PUD (Lot 3, Top of Mill) to allow for the substitution of the approved four-unit affordable housing building on Parcel 2 with payment of a fee in li,~u and to then replace it with a free market duplex. In addition to the above Text Amendment request, the applicant originally sought other land use approvals; however, these are contingent upon approval of the Text Amendment. Should the Text Amendment be approved, additional actions would be necessary in order to accomplish the goal of replacing the required affordable housing with a free market duplex. .1 , , , Additional requests dependent upon the text amendment: . PUD Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu fee for th,~ four (4) affordable housing units required for Parcel 2, Lot 3 of Aspen Mountain Subdivision. . Text amendment to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) to allow for the reconstruction of demolished units on non-contiguous parcels under the same PUD in order to construct a free market duplex on Parcel 2 (the Code currently requires that they be reconstructed on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). -1- f'l () , J BACKGROUND: The following background summary sets the stage for why the applicant is proposing the code amendment. Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD was originally approved by the City Council on March II, 2002 via Ordinance No, 7, Series of 2002. This approval gnmted Final PUD and Subdivision approval, along with Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning to Lodge/Tourist Residential PUD and Conservation. The specific approval was for the subdividing of Lot 3 into eight (8) development parcels, two open space parcels, and one (1) parcel containing an existing garage. As a result of the demolition of several multi-family units throughout the PUD, the Applicant was required to replace fifty percent of the demolished bedrooms and square footage pursuant to the City's Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program. This resulted in a requirement to replace 12.5 bedrooms and approximately 6,125 square feet of net residential area to mitigate the 25 multi-family bedrooms that were demolished throughout the PUD. To meet that requirement, the applicant proposed and was approved to build four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 equaling a replacement of thirtee:n bedrooms at around 6,200 square feet. Instead of constructing these units as approved, the applicant now proposes to pay a fee in lieu instead (which is not currently allowed in the Code and is the subject of the Text Amendment before you to allow this option). PROCESS: Text amendments are handled in a two-step process. The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council then conducts a first and second reading of an ordinance in order to approve the amendment. PROPOSAL AND STAFF ANALYSIS: The following is an explanation of the request and staffs comments on its merits. (Full Review Criteria and Staff Findings are included in Exhibit A) Proposal: A text amendment would be necessary to permit the substitution of a payment- in-lieu fee for the four on-site affordable housing units approved for Parcel 2. Currently, the option of a payment of such fees is not provided for in the RMFRP, which now requires that affordable housing be replaced on the site of where it was demolished, or off-site if the City Council feels that the construction of the units on-site would be incompatible with the neighborhood or with the site constraints. The RMFRP is the only form of required affordable housing mitigation in the Land Use Code that presently does not permit payment-in-lieu. It is the applicant's proposal that the option of the fee not be automatic, but that the City Council have the discretion of whether or not to allow the payment in lieu based on a recommendation from the Housing Board. The applicant proposes adding the following, shaded language to the Code to accommodate the change: -2- A A 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. A, Minimum replacement requirement, In the event of the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shaU be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26530.060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multij'amily replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints, When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units oifsite, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area, When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement enIy. The amount of a cash-in-lieu shall be computed using the JfJrmu!a set +8rth at Secticm 2e,629.Q29 fi!ltlffffJl\!ln~\~!~!''!J~!!~~~!lr''tl'tt!.!t'!f!i'l'li!riJ1d''iJ'~!!'r'''!itJ'f!t~WIt!l!l! J..... ........................... . ..... ' :..mllEXt '.' ,'...... Jq.............~1fI:...H",...."',........,....,... ...WJ!!."'rlf,~!!L.:...."1fI:."""HH!:'1c~!'W.."''''"..".''',.....,.g 'J4iltff&"~?l'..#rJj,1!i~~~!~VJ}IJ:~am''fit1~Wl. "''''';'''.\''''''''ii", t!JA;""''''';'''''''i.;''k";,;;"..,Ji!,;",,,'~'~''',u''''''''''';''n;i,,,,",, C Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or oifsite, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built oifsite, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the oifsite development prior to or in corifunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. Staff Comments on Text Amendment: Staff does not support the request for a text amendment because we feel it does not implement certain provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). - 3- f'"'1 () When the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) was established back in the 1980's, its intent was to replace demolished, locals-oriented, residential units on the same site on which they were located. This accomplished two things: one, it rebuilt the affordable units in locations within the town core (as that's where the majority of the older apartments are located) and it required that those same units be reconstructed at the same time as the larger development, so that the units were available to the community relatively quickly, The program was also designed to disperse affordable housing throughout the community and not just in enclaves, promote a more socially and economically integrated community, reduce air pollution by not forcing residents to drive long distances to work, and to prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's established neighborhoods (all policies of the AACP). Staffs contention is that by allowing applicants the option of paying the fee in lieu instead of constructing affordable housing units on-site within the RMFRP, less affordable housing units would be built where they traditionally have been located and more units would be constructed on the fringe of the community or on less desirable sites. In addition, staff is concerned that by allowing applicants to pay the fee in lieu, the onus is put on the public sector for finding suitable land for development of equivalent housing, handling the entitlement process, and constructing the affordable units. This creates more risk to having the units ultimately being built and may subject it to increased costs and delays. A final reason that staff does not support this request is due to the potential increase in application requests to pay the fee in lieu instead of constru(;ting the units on-site concurrent with the free market development. Not only would this increase staff time to process the applications, it may result in far less units being built within the City, ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (APCHA) RECOMMENDATION (FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES ONLY): The proposal was reviewed by the APCHA on March 6, 2002, prior to the applicant submitting this application. Because the request has not changed since then, the Board has chosen not to re-review the proposal and maintains its earlier position. Their position is to support the text amendment allowing for the payment in lieu fee option for the RMFRP as long as there is discretion to review each proposal on a case by case basis, In the case of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Parcel 2, they support the use of the payment in lieu fee because of the difficulty the site presents in accommodating the lower priced one-bedroom units, which they say is the greater need. According to their calculations, the applicant would be required to pay $2,358,300 as their fee in lieu. 3-3 Bedroom Units @ 3 Employees/Unit = 9 Employees 1-4 Bedroom Unit @ 3.5 Employees/Unit = 3.5 Employees 12.5 Employees x $188,664.00 / Category 2 Employee = $2358300.00 - 4- f'""'" r'"1 Including the payment of the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel 3 for $549,990, the total payment to the City would be $2,908,290. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: On November 19, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard the application request and voted to deny the request for a text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). While some of the Commissioners supported the APCHA Board recommendation and felt that it wasn't necessary to have affordable housing in this particular location, the majority were concerned about approving the text amendm'~nt in general and its negative ramifications, such as more housing out of the town core and on the fringes of the community, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). RECOMMENDED MOTION (All motions are worded in the affirmative): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 'i!i, Series of 2002, allowing a text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program." ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Findings-Amendments To The Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map Findings Site Plan Application Exhibit B: Exhibit C: - 5- A r) EXHIBIT A FINDINGS: AMENDMENTS To THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: I Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable requirements of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findin : No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with certain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the community in affordable housin enclaves. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zcmillg map amendments) Comments: None. D, The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. , E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to - 10- r; (") transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zonillKmllp amendments) Comments: None. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result III significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning m~ amendments,L Comments: None. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the~ subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: Does it Comp}yJ I No Comments: Staff finds that the proposed text anlendment would be in conflict with the public interest. The text amendment would negatively affect the public interest by placing employees farther from their jobs; increasing the need for automobile use and increasing traffic congestion; and working against the AACP goals of integrating different socio-economic classes which results in a healthier, more vital community. -]j- = Oil ,...U _z ! ~ ~ Oil ~~ i:l\ o '" ~ ..:l ~ Oil \:: r/l ~ ~. ~ ~ nJ.'n:)OSSf" " BSOd nJ1l ~ I'jiin1:I&UIr,IO' :m'!:IIOJ,SUHI~"Odo.l. -. 1""..11t'......... and / U01s1A1PqnS. Up:q.unoW uadsv -, 111ft JO doJ. '/ tlode:y p1l'8"0 _WEB ,~- U'Bld llunQlln a1!S ~ S101 10d ~;lI>;;~ lVNOIJ.lav>ll >;;,NO>I;H>f 1M 'hI "ON ~IVH114n1 t;al~a~ 1VNOI11~ '00 /IN''W'9 >10) ~'\'Nlwm aaLNflOW ,__ OSS9 V9;9 \?; PUGGGl o ~ 'J.~~~ i ;"'1,01 J.1I-II-I11$ 'J.~ lll'lWl1$ <:/ 4i ,(\1 .' ':..i ';j,,')'/ [2] /' ........." ~.~ lli i3olI'id Sf 130llVd H 130lNd , , ............-_. # ! ,...." r) , 1SC.J!. . ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission --lro Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, Community Development Deputy Director THRU: FROM: Scott Woodford, Planners,u RE: Lot 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION (Top OF MILL) I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND TEXT AMENDMENT DATE: November 19, 2002 PROJECT REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant, Four Peaks Development, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, LLC, requests the Planning and Zoning Commission grant the, following requests: 1) Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RJ\1FRP); r', 2) PUD Amendment (Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2 (Note: this action is dependent upon approval of item #1 above); 3) Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 (Note: final decision on this action rests with the Planning and Zoning Commission and is ill!! dependent upon approval of item #1 above); ~ Note on Request: If the text amendment to allow the payment of the fee in lieu is approved, the applicant proposes to replace the affordable housing with a free market duplex. To do so, the applicant would like to transfer reconstruction credits from another site under their ownership; however, that site is non-contiguous to the subject site and such transfers are not presently allowed by the Code. Another text amendment would be required to permit this, but was not part of the public notice for this application, so no discussion or action may be taken on this request at this time. The applicant will have to submit another application to request the text amendment to permit transfer of reconstruction credits to build the desired free market duplex. r\ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.) Staff recommends denial of Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi,-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). -1- f'l IJ r' 2.) Staff recommends denial of the PUD Amendment (for Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2. 3.) Staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 November 2002 Meeting: 19, 1.) Discussion of Text Amendment Proposal to replace the P&Z to allow fee in lieu for RMFRP, 2.) affordable housing on Parcel 2 to allow this applicant the right to with free market duplex due to pay fee in lieu for Parcel 2; and 3.) that request not being part of to allow this applicant the right to the legal notice for this pay fee in lieu for the ADU on application, Parcel 2 Future If P&Z and Council approve #1 N/A and #2 above, applicant will submit an application to replace the affordable housing on Parcel 3 with a free market du lex Potential Meeting: r"\ BACKGROUND: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD was originally approved by the City Council on March II, 2002 via Ordinance No.7, Series of 2002. This approval granted Final PUD and Subdivision approval, along with Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning to LodgelTourist Residential PUD and Conservation. The specific approval was for the subdividing of Lot 3 into eight (8) development parcels, two open space parcels, and one (1) parcel containing an existing garage. On those newly created eight parcels were to be the following: 27 000 Parcel 2 4 4 8 8,000 LiTR Parcel 3 2 5 25 9,000 LiTR Parcel 4 Sin le-FamiI 1 5 6,200 LiTR Parcel 5 Sin le-Famil 1 5 5,200 LiTR Parcel 6 Sin Ie-Famil 1 5 5200 L/TR Parcel 7 Sin le-Famil 1 5 6,500 LiTR - Parcel 8 Sin le-Famil 1 5 6,500 L/TR . Parcel 9 Gara e N/A N/A N/A LiTR - 2- Il f) r": Parcel "A" ODen SDace N/A N/A N/A L/TR Parcel "B" ODen SDace N/A N/A N/A C Totals 17 82 73,600 (FM = Free Market; AH = Affordable Housing) As a result of the demolition of several multi-family units throughout the PUD, the Applicant was required to replace fifty percent of the demolished bedrooms and square footage pursuant to the City's Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program. This resulted in a requirement to replace 125 bedrooms and approximately 6,125 square feet of net residential area to mitigate the 25 multi-family bedrooms that were demolished throughout the PUD. To meet that requirement, the applicant proposed and were approved to build four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 equaling a replacement of thirteen bedrooms at around 6,200 square feet. Instead of constructing these units as approved, the applicant proposes to pay a fee in lieu instead (which is not currently allowed in the Code and is the subject of the Text Amendment to allow this option). PROCESS AND STAFF ANALYSIS (PRESENTED BY REQUEST TYPE): The following is an in depth explanation of each request and staff s comments on their merits. (Full Review Criteria and Staff Findings are included in Exhibit A, B & C.) r'\ 1. Text amendment to the Land Use Code to add the option of a payment in lieu fee for the Resident Multi-Flimily Replacement Program (RMFRP). A text amendment is required to permit the substitution of a payment-in-lieu fee for the four on-site affordable housing units approved for Parcel 2. Currently, the option of a payment of such fees is not provided for in the RMFRP, which now requires that affordable housing be replaced on the site of where it was demolished, or off-site if the City Council feels that the construction of the units on-site would be incompatible with the neighborhood or with the site constraints. The RMFRP is the only form of required affordable housing mitigation in the Land Use Code that presently does not permit payment-in-lieu. It is the applicant's proposal that the option of the fee not be automatic, but that the City Council have the discretion of whether or not to allow the payment in lieu based on a recommendation from the Housing Board. The applicant proposes adding the following, shaded language to the Code to accommodate the change: 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. f' A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing - 3- ,...." ('; < ,:I {""'\ shall be above natural grade, The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26,530,060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints, When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units oifsite, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area, When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement enIy, The amount of a cash-in-lieu shall be set ferth at Scstien 2e,e2(J.~20 Jjl11tWirJ~~'4rm~rt1~iEl~tiiI~:;fw)IJl~j7jttla'fJViil~a. ^"",,,,,;,,,,,,,,~,,,,...Dt,,,,,..,,.~,,,%,,,,,,,,,,,,.,..,......4,.....'".",..',;...i.."""""i".;;,". f". C Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or oifsite, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built oifsite, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the oifsite development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. Staff Comments on Text Amendment: Staff does not support the request for a text amendment (and consequently, the proposal to replace the affordable housing on Parcel 2 with a fee in lieu) because it does not comply with certain provisions of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), An in depth analysis of the concern follows: f' When the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP) was established back in the 1980's, its intent was to replace locals oriented residential units on the same site on which they were demolished. This accomplished two things: one, it rebuilt the affordable units in locations within the town core (as that's where the majority of the older apartments are located) and it required that those same units be reconstructed at the same time as the larger development, so that the units were available to the community relatively quickly. The program was also designed to disperse affordable housing throughout the community and not just in enclaves, promote a more socially and - 4- ~ n .'''' f"'\ economically integrated community, reduce air pollution by not forcing residents to drive long distances to work, and to prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's established neighborhoods (all policies of the AACP). Staff s contention is that by allowing applicants the option of paying the fee in lieu instead of constructing affordable housing units on-site within the RMFRP, would result in less affordable housing units being built where they traditionally have been located and instead more being constructed on the fringe of the community or on less desirable sites. In addition, staff is concemed that by allowing applicants to pay tlIe fee in lieu, the onus is put on the public for finding suitable land for development of equivalent housing, enduring the entitlement process, and constructing the affordable units. This creates more risk to having the units ultimately be built and may subject it to increased costs and delays. A final reason that staff does not support this request is due to the potential increase in application requests to pay the fee in lieu instead of constructing the units on-site concurrent with the free market development. Not only would this increase staff time to process the applications, it may result in far less units being built within the City. 2. Amendment of the PUD Development Order to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2 I"""'" According to the applicant, the substitution of the fee for the units is requested because they feel that paying the fee and having the housing be constructed on an alternate site would be in the best interest of the project and the community. The applicant maintains that, during the original hearings, the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) was not enthusiastic about the three and 4 bedroom unit configurations proposed and that they would have rather preferred one and/or two bedroom units on the site as they address the larger need in the community. Due to site constraints, they fed that providing 7 one and/or two bedroom units would not have worked on the site due to the inability to provide enough parking and maneuvering space for the units. By paying APCHA the fee in lieu, the applicant contends that APCHA would be able to use the money to construct the type of units that are most needed on land that they or the City owns. Staff Comments on PUD Amendment: By virtue of not being in support of the Text Amendment to add the fee in lieu option, staff does not support the request to pay the fee in lieu in this specific instance (for additional discussion, see Staff Comments above). 3. Insubstantial PUD Amendment to allow substitution of the payment in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) approved with the free market duplex on Parcel 3 r- The applicant requests the ability to pay the fee in lieu for the ADU that was originally approved to be constructed in conjunction with a free market duplex on Parcel 3. -5- o n """'" ~ : Approved prior to current affordable housing guiddines, the ADU is to, b~ locat~d sub- grade. It is preferred (and now required) that the finished floor height of the ADU be constructed above grade. The reason that this change is being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and not administratively, is that the design of the ADU on Parcel 3 was incorporated into the architectural design for the duplex. According to Section 26.445.100.B, any change to a project found to be consistent with, or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but not within the thresholds for an insubstantial amendment must be reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission and may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Staff Comments on ADU PUD Amendment: Since the ADD was designed to be sub- grade, it is not an ideal affordable housing solution. In this instance, staff supports this portion of the request. Based on current APCHA Guidelines, the amount of the payment in lieu fee would be approximately $549,990, calculated as follows: 9,000 square feet (the FAR ofthe duplex) x $61.11/square foot = $549,990 ASPENIPITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (APCHA) RECOMMENDATION: F\. The proposal was reviewed by the APCHA on March 6, 2002, prior to the applicant submitting this development application. Because the request has not changed since then, the Board has chosen not to re-review the proposal and maintains its earlier position. Their position is to support the text amendment allowing for the payment in lieu fee option for the RMFRP as long as there is discretion to review each proposal on a case by case basis. In the case of Lot 3 Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD Parcel 2, they support the use of the payment in lieu fee because or the difficulty the site presents in accommodating the lower priced one-bedroom units, which they say is the greater need. According to their calculations, the applicant would be required to pay $2,358,300 as their fee in lieu. 3-3 Bedroom Units @ 3 Employees/Unit = 9 Employees 1-4 Bedroom Unit @ 3.5 Employees/Unit = 3.5 Employees 12.5 Employees x $188,664.00 / Category 2 Employee = $2,358.300.00 Including the payment of the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel 3 for $549,990, the total payment to the City would be $2,908,290, STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: 1.) Staff recommends denial of Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow for the option of the payment in lieu fee for the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program (RMFRP). ~. - 6- f': f) -- f' . 2.) Staff recommends denial, of the PUD Amendll1ent' (for Top of Mill) to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable' housing units presently required for Parcel 2. 3.) Staff recommends a\luroval of the Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. ~ Series of 2002, for a PUD Amendment of the Aspen Mountain PUD which requests L) A Text amendment to the Land Use Code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program; and 2.) To substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four (4) affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2; and 3.) a PUD Amendment to allow the payment in lieu fee for the Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Par,ceI3" Note: Should the Planning and Zoning Commission choose to recommend denial on items L) and 2.) above, but approve item 3.), then the motion should be separated into two motions: one for the denial and one for approval. ATTACHMENTS (""", Exhibit AI: Site Plan Exhibit A: Findings-Amendments To The Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map Findings Exhibit B: Findings-Planned Unit Development Standards Findings RE: PUD Amendment to pay the fee in lieu for the four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 ExhibitC: Findings-Planned Unit Development Standards Findings RE: PUD Amendment to pay the fee in lieu for the ADU on Parcel J Exhibit D: Resolution ~ Series of 2002 Exhibit E: Application I""" -7- (' r r":, , ('1 r; EXHIBIT A FINDINGS: AMENDMENTS To THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFJICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP 26.310.040 Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: I Does it Comply? I Yes Comments: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable requirements of this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFindin : No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with certain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the community in affordable housin enclaves, C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety, Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning lllap amendments) Comments: None. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to - 8- ("""., ..-, ~" . ." transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to " zoning map amendments) '. Comments: None. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen, Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the (""", surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: Does it Comply? Not applicable (applicable only to zoning map amendments) Comments: None. 1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I? No Given the goals of trying to integrate affordable housing with market rate housing of the Commun.ity Plan, which is a document representing public interest, this amendment would resent a conflict. i"""'\ - 9- r'\ ~ ., ...;" f\ , ,,' ,',',',' ,,', ' ,,'. ',,',' < , '" ,EXH.IBIT B FINDINGSiPLANNED UNrrDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS (To PAY THE FEE IN LIEU FOR THE FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON PARCEL 2) The Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD was approved by the City Council on March 11, 2002 via Ordinance No.7, Series of 2002. The proposed amendment to the approved PUD is addressed against the applicable criteria in the PUD standards below. Specifically, there is no increase in density. A. General Requirements: 1) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findin No Comments: It is our opinion that this proposal will be in conflict with certain provisions of the Housing section, specifically relating to having affordable housing be integrated into the traditional town core and to be mixed with other social and economic classes. With payment of a fee in lieu, the onus would be on the City to construct the units, which would most likely be constructed on sites on the edge of the communit in affordable housin enclaves. r-.. 2) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com None, Yes 3) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com None. Yes 4) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the Applicant. (""'\ Staff Finding:: Does it Comnlv? I See below Comments: The applicant is processing a text amendment to allow for the transfer of reconstruction credits from one non-contiguous PUD to another held under same ownership. If the amendment is approved, then the applicant will be able to secure GMQS allotments. - 10- t", r; o B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Findin Comments: C. Site Design: Staff Findin Comments: D. Landscape Plan: Staff Findin Comments: r.. E. Architectural Character: Staff Findin Comments: F. Lighting: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes The free market duplex that is proposed to replace the four unit multi-family affordable housing w:i11 have roughly the same setbacks as what were proposed with the affordable housin , Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Site Design and find the amendment to be in com liance. Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Landscape Plan and find the amendment to be in com liance. Does it Com I ? Yes Architectural character of duplex will be reviewed with buildin ermit. rior to building ermit. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area and find the amendment to be in com liance. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: Staff Findinl!:: Does it Comulv? I Yes Comments: Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Utilities and Public Facilities and find the amendment to be in compliance. ("""I -jl- ("", ! n '" 1. Access and Circulation: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Access and Circulation and find the amendment to be in com liance. 1. Phasing of Development Plan: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Phasing of Development Plan and find the amendment to be in com liance. "......" -: if; .\ - 12- f'\ n ~ EXHIBIT C FINDINGS: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (To PAY THE FEE IN LIEU FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON PARCEL 3) The Aspen Mountain Subdivision PUD was approved by the City Council on March 11, 2002 via Ordinance No.7 (Series 2002). The proposed amendment to the approved PUD is addressed against the applicable criteria in the PUD standards below. Specifically, there is no increase in density. K. General Requirements: 5) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. t"", Staff Findinl!:: I Does it Comnlv? I Yes Comments: Despite policies in the AACP encouraging integration of affordable housing with free market housing, which the inclusion of the ADU on this site would accomplish, it is our opinion that that the design of the ADU does not further this goal. The AACP also encourages "quality of design" in all new affordable housing. Given that the proposed ADD for Parcel 3 would be mostly sub-grade, without reasonable access to natural light and the ability for occupants to see outside, staff would submit that this is not the kind of quality design contemplated in the AACP. Therefore, the money for the unit would be better served built in an alternative location 6) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findinl!:: Does it Comnlv? I Yes Comments: This minor change of removal of the ADU will not change the character of the existing land uses in the area as the character has already been established and this overall project will still conform. 7) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes Staff finds that this change will not adversely affect the future develo ment of the surroundin area. r"\ -]3- I"': f) r"'""' 8) final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the Appficant. Staff Findin Comments: N/A 1. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Staff Findin Comments: M. Site Design: Staff Findin Comments: N. Landscape Plan: ~ Staff Findin Comments: O. Architectural Character: Staff Findin Comments: P. Lighting: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes The loss of the ADU will not affect the establishment of the a roved dimensional re uirements, Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Site Design and find the amendment to be in com fiance. Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Landscape Plan and find the amendment to be in com liance, with Does it Com I ? Yes Outdoor lighting will be reviewed prior to building permit for com liance with a roved lans. Q. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: Staff Findin Comments: ("", Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area and find the amendment to be in com liance. - j4- ("', n ~r-: R. Utilities and Public Facilities: Staff Findin Comments: S, Access and Circulation: Staff Findin Comments: Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Utilities and Public Facilities and find the amendment to be in com liance. Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Access and Circulation and find the amendment to be in com liance. T. Phasing of Development Plan: Staff Findin Comments: 1"'"'\ (\. Does it Com I ? Yes Staff has reviewed all of the applicable criteria of Phasing of Development Plan and find the amendment to be in com liance. - j5- "....., ,',e, PARCEL t4 PARCEL 15 PARCEL 16 do"':' ? b D....;".,' . .,:,1,)' <::/ SUMMIT ST, " AN:fUf)lo~--; f"""".i n \l1\~lot T'f'~ C, I. ..AAJ""r'~cn "s ",,\ W<<-"'- Wi4'-1 qrt.", <f AI>U I ~wJ... \,tW ~ \?ar~ lUG, -\-0 o<;?){\ 6Yl~r f ~') 0xpY!ArVJIJ\ Vi l r<O~rvCi~'~ cck~ l' (\S[ l 9-'" "c"\./'\'(\' '\?"W' i'\';\- 01- V,<\f('f 4<<'\ ;,~ I ej" ,,; 'f ~ (1..'1 ~ c..ru; ~, \; Ii '''''pH- tM~ M l w 'I J~ l ~l 4\1 "VT'I' oi Wi/ I lie. (;,.,-,{ i--\A lot lf~ C(9('t~ ~ v.-\ktJ ?\INfl.A-- 11\ ~s. P.fVM 0\\"" 6"ff<* Wo\; 'A "tJ " ",^" c<?~ \4 M~9.<. J_ ~ r-/; "",,,- 'Y-" {. I&,J \rlu.;"'",J\b\ ;\1\ [o,~ ~ ' ~;S/"IOt; wo"L I;\&. w.;;1t '1'''-\ COol "'$"" '~4reJ I. \,\0 GA. -k"d- A~MA!(I,q,0~ 2 ~IA, 6~. },kk\Io.\,00 \',M,~",J ~ \.I{L r I" Mill- '~I\, c ~ I . 7 l"(), T \:el" /"'\-'V !?~Jr 6i!&\r.-. ~ \,1\ \iW l10oJ..\. ~\\ \t..1f h CW\ !""'\ f""\ ..~ 130 S, Galena St Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax Aspel1 Community Develppment Deparjtment Fax To: Sunny Vann From: Scott Woodford, (970) 920-5102 Fax: 970-920-9310 Pages: 1 Phone: Date: 10/28/02 Re: Aspen Mountain Sub, PUD CC: o Urgent o For Review o Please Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle . Comments: Sunny, attached is a memo from the Housing Department The only real section of note is the payment in lieu fee is higher than what your application stated. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. "- OCT.28.2002 10:38AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC ''"' NO. 424 P.l ,-." , r'\ " ..,j MEMORANDUM TO: SllOtt Woodford Cindy Christensen, Ho. Office OQtober 28, 2002 TOP OF MILL AFFORDI4IJ1B HOUSING UNl'fS FROM: DATE: RE; ISSUE: There are four affordable housing wts to be constructed on Lot 3. Accordins to the Guidelines, the Wlits Clll'll1Ot exccec1 the Category 2 maximum sales prices. 'The Wlits to be constructed are three three-bedrol)m u,ni,ts and one fO\lf'obedrooDl,un{t. ,T11e applicant Is requesting llJ1 addition to the Multi-PlII1Ii1y Rcpl~ Program as stated in the Land Use Code. 'The Ql.l.\TIlnt requirement is to provide a replacement ofhalftbe bedrooms and half the ~ footage, and does not provide an option of a payment-in.1ieu fee. The applicant would also like the ability to satisfY their mitigation requirements with this fee if approvecl by City Couricil. BACKGROl1N1J: The Housing Board requested the HousiDg Staff to meet with the applicant to see if a different Wlit type could be l.dilized and still meet the applicant'l! requirements. Staff met with the applicant earlier in the year and found tbat in order to meet Illl the requirements as to bedrooms, square footage and parking, the Wlit mix must l'Mlaln as P1'Ol1lOsed. Staff met with the Housing Board on March 6. 2002 reprding the City Lan4 Use Code requirement under the Multi- Family Replacement Program. At the March 6, 2002 meeting, the Housing Bow recommended approval to support llJ1 am....<tment allowins for an option of a payment-in-Iieu fee under the MlIlti- Family Rep1acement program l\S a second. priority and not a preferred option, and to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Under the current requirement for the Top of Mill project, should City Council approve the payment.in-lieu option as an amendment to the Multi-Family R.epll.cement requi=ent, and approve the applioant's request for the developlI1llDt of the Top of Mill, tile payment-in-lieu fee that would be teq\lired is calculated below: 3 - 3.bedroom units @ 3 employeeslunit = 9 Employees 1 - 4 bedroom Ullit @ 3.5 employees/Ullit... 3.5 employees 12.5 employees X $1 88,664/CBtegory 2' employees = $2,358,300 TbellDlOunt mted in the applicant'S memo is in en'Qr due to the fact that tit!: payment-in.lieu fee for Category 2 was stated imlomctly in the Guidelines tbat were in the possession of the applicant" representative. The Wlits being provided by the applicant, three-bedroom and foUl'obedrooms 1lllit4, are needed, but the sreater need is in the lower priced one-bedroom Wlits. The payment-in.llell fl:e tbat would be ::.. oeT.28.2002 10:38AM ASPEN HOUSING ore NO. 424 P.2 ,." .t"""'I tJ required 10 satisfy the mitigation requiremllllt wollld help in fUnding other projects currently proposed by the City. MCJ}MMENDATlON: Statris recommending approval of'the following: 1. The payment-in-licu fee option be added under the Multi.Pamily Rep1acemllllt seWon in the Land Use Code as a. second priority, which would need to be reviewed on a. case- by.case buis with the Housing Authority Board. 2. The applicant sha11 be allowed to satisfy the mitipuon requirement of' 12.5 FrE's, at Category 2, with the payment.in-licu file of$2,358,300. 2 ~ f"1 swriter@fourpeaksdevelopment.com, 09:50 AM 10/21/2002, Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 Amendme To: <swriter@fourpeaksdevelopmentcom> From: Scott Woodford <scotlw@cLaspen,co.us> Subject: Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3 Amendment Cc: Woods.Julie, Ohlson.Joyce, svann@rof.net Bcc: Attached: Dear Scott, I recently received your message requesting that the revision to the Aspen Mountain PUD be placed on the November 5,2002 E&~Agenda, rather than the November 19,2002 meeting for which you are currently scheduled. As there is a publication of notice requirement of 15 days prior to the hearing and the deadline for providing the notice to the newspaper for the November 5 meeting was last Tuesday (with a publication date of Friday), it will unfortunately not be possible, In addition, you are also scheduled for the Housing Board on November 6th - we would want to have the Board's recommendation on the application prior to taking it to E&~anyway. We are, however, still on target for the 19th meeting. Sincerely, Scott Woodford Printed for Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 ^ :'1 If" ,c.' :t. VANN ASSOCIATES. LLC Planning Consultants ' September 18, 2002 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD (a/k/a/, Top of Mill Subdivi- sionlPUD) Dear Joyce: Please consider this letter an application to amend the final PUD development plan approval for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD (see Exhibit 1, Pre- Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). An amendment to the text of Title 26, Land Use Regulations (the "Regulations"), of the Aspen Municipal Code is also requested. Vested property rights status is requested for all approvals granted pursuant to this application. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.445.100.B. and 26.310.020 of the Regulations by Four Peaks Development, LLC (the "Applicant") on behalf of the current property owner, Top of Mill Investors, LLC (see Exhibit 2, Title Policy). Permission for Vann Associates, LLC to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3. An executed application fee agreement and a list of adjacent property owners are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. Background The Top of Mill SubdivisionlPUD received final PUD development plan approval (and all associated review approvals except condominiumization) from the City Council on March 11, 2002 (see Exhibit 6, Ordinance No.7). The project's final PUD development plan, subdivision plat, subdivi'sionlPUD agreement, and various related documents were recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder on August 16, 2002. A copy of the recorded subdivisionlPUD agreement is attached as Exhibit 7. Copies of the final PUD development plan and subdivision plat accompany this application. 230 East Hopkins Ave, . Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 970/925-6958 . Fax 970/920-9310 r": o ./ , Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 2 As the PUD development plan and fmal plat illustrate, the Top of Mill Subdivi- sioniPUD consists of eight development parcels (Parcels 1 through 8), two open space parcels (Open Space Parcels A and B), and a parcel containing the Summit Place Condominiums existing parking garage (Parcel 9). Final PUD approval was granted for the development of six free market townhouse units on Parcell, four deed restricted affordable housing units on Parcel 2, a free market duplex and an accessory dwelling unit ("ADU") on Parcel 3, and five free market single-family residences on Parcels 4 through 8. Each of the single-family residences may also include an ADU at the lot owner's discretion. Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2.2(b) of the subdivisioniPUD agreement, the four affordable housing units to be developed on Parcel 2 are to be contained in a single multi-family structure. As presently configured, three of the units will contain three bedrooms while the remaining unit will contain four bedrooms. The size of the structure is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of eight thousand square feet. Upon construction, the units will be credited with housing a total of 12.5 employees. The four units are to be deed restricted and sold pursuant to the AspeniPitkin County Housing Authority's ("APCHA") Category 2 guidelines. As discussed in the final PUD development plan application for Lots 3 and 5 of the Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD, the four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 are required to mitigate the prior demolition of multi-family dwelling units throughout the PUD (see Exhibit 8, Section IV.D., Lots 3 and 5 final PUD development plan application). The mitigation requirement was established pursuant to the City's Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 2.8(d) of the subdivisioniPUD agreement, a certificate of occupancy ("CO") must be issued for the four affordable housing units on Parcel 2 prior to the issuance of a CO for the six free market units to be constructed on Parcell. Proposed Amendment The Applicant proposes to substitute a payment-in-lieu fee for the four affordable housing units which are presently required on Parcel 2. While the payment of such fees is not presently provided for in the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, the Applicant proposes to amend the Regulations to include this option. To the best of my knowledge, the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program is the only form of required affordable housing mitigation in the Regulations which presently does not permit payment-in-lieu. If the Applicant's proposed text amendment is approved by the City Council, and the Council elects to accept the proposed payment-in-lieu fee, the amount of the fee would be $2,225,162.50 based on APCHA's 2001 Affordable Housing Guidelines. ''''''" t) Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 3 The required fee reflects the number of employees to be housed and APCHA's applicable income and occupancy standards. The amount of the fee is calculated as follows. 3 - 3 Bedroom Units @ 3 EmployeeslUnit = 9 Employees I - 4 Bedroom Unit @ 3.5 Employees/Unit = 3.5 Employees 12.5 Employees x $178,013.00/Category 2 Employee = $2,225,162.50 Should the City Council agree to accept the pro.Posed payment-in-lieu fee, the Applicant proposes to replace the affordable housing units on Parcel 2 with an addi- tional free market duplex. The size of the new duplex would be limited to eight thousand square feet of floor area. This limitation is identical to that of the previous- ly approved affordable housing structure and less than the approved floor area of the free market duplex on Parcel 3. The allocation of the floor area between the duplex's two units, however, would be at the discretion of the Applicant. While the previously platted building setbacks on Parcel 2 would remain essentially unchanged, 8040 Greenline review approval would be required for the new structure. As no. residential reconstruction credits remain within the Aspen Mountain Subdivi- sioniPUD, the Applicant proposes to o.btain the required development rights fo.r the new duplex from reconstruction credits to be derived from the demolition of existing dwelling units within the Bavarian Inn SubdivisioniPUD. As discussed in the Bavarian Inn final PUD application, the PUD consists of two separate parcels which, at the time of final PUD approval, contained a total of twenty residential dwelling units. Parcel 1 contained the former fourteen unit Bavarian Inn Lodge, which was converted to. residential use in the early 1990s; a three unit detac_h.e.9..mu1ti:family structure; and two detached log cabins, each of ~hich contained a single dwelling unit. Parcel 2 contained a -~inj1;I,,--familr~jden.c-e. Pursuant to Section 26.470.070.A.2. of the Regulations, the reconstruction of demolished single-family o.r duplex dwelling units is exempt from growth management subject to the affordable housing mitigation requirements of Section 26.470.070.B. The reconstruction of demolished multi-family residential units is subject to the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. To accommodat.eJhe..pmposed-new duplex on Parcel 2 of the Top of Mill SubdivisioniPUD, the Applic:ant requests a reconstruction credit for one of the existing cabins located o.n Parcel I and the single- family dwelling unit located oriParcel 2. No reconstruction credits are requested at this time for the remaining cabin on Parcell or the seventeen multi-family dwelling units located thereon. Section 26.470.070.A.2.d. limits the use of reconstruction credits to the same parcel from which they are derived, or to a contiguous parcel under the same ownership. , r-.. ~ J Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 4 These limitations notwithstanding, reconstruction has been allowed on non-contiguous parcels provided that they were located within a PUD. For example, the recon- struction credits that were used to develop the various lots within the Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD were derived from the demolition of existing structures located on non-contiguous parcels within the PUD.... While the Bavarian Inn property is not physically a part of the original Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD, it is inextricably connected thereto. The Bavarian Inn affordable housing project is required as partial mitigation for the development of Lot 5 of the PUD and as additional mitigation for the former Ritz Carlton Hotel which is located on Lot 1. As a result, I believe that Section 26.470.070.A.2.d. can be interpreted to permit the transfer of reconstruction credits from the Bavarian Inn SubdivisioniPUD to Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. In addition, the Applicant proposes to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee in lieu of the provision of the previously approved on-site ADU for the duplex to be constructed on Parcel 3 of the Top of Mill Subdivision/PUn as provided for in Section 26.470.070.B.2. of the Regulations. The Planning and Zoning Commission was less than enthusiastic about the unit and would have preferred, I believe, a payment-in-lieu. Based on current APCHA guidelines, the amount of the payment-in- lieu fee would be approximately $488,880.00 calculated as follows. .9,000 Square Feet x $6J.p/Square Foot = $549,990.00 When the above impact fee is combined ~ith the payment-in-lieu fee to be substituted for the previously approved affordable housing units on Parcel 2, the Applicant's total payment to the City would be approximately $2,775,152.00. Review Requirements The Applicant's proposed payment-in-lieu of affordable housing on Parcel 2 of the Top of Mill SubdivisioniPUD, and the construction of a free market duplex thereon, is subject to review and approval an amendment to the final PUD development plan for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD. An amendment to the text of the Regulations is also required to accommodate the proposed payment-in-lieu. The applicable review requirements, and the proposed amendments' compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. PUD Amendment Section 26.445.100 of the Regulations provides the ability to amend a previ- ously approved PUD development plan. The required approval process is a function t""\ tj Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 5 of the nature and extent of the proposed amendment. Pursuant to SectionJ_6~4:l-5~100 .B., ~l!-~ndment which is found to be incon~istent WiththeapproYe(fflnal PUD ~eve!()Jlm~!lt pla,ncQ:Lthe COmm~ni'!y l)~v~Jo~ll1ent Director IIL~ ,b~ approved subject to final devel~.!!1~tPlancE~view J:>X_the Piannil1~~ Zoning C(lInmissi~n and J?e ~ Council. Inasmuch as the final development plan approv2il for the Top of Mill SubdivisloniPUD does not provide for a payment-in-lieu of aUordable housing on Parcel 2, review and approval of the proposed amendment by !he Commission and Council is required. As you may be aware, APCHA and the Housing Office staff expressed a preference for an alternative configuration of the affordable housing units on Parcel 2 during the final PUD review process. Based on current needs they would have preferred that the required mitigation be met with one and two bedroom units as opposed to three and four bedroom units. While the Applicant looked at the feasibili- ty of revising the affordable housing unit mix on Parcel 2, it was ultimately deter- mined that the site could not realistically accommodate multiple one and! or two bedroom units and their required parking. The Housing Office staff, however, expressed a willingness to explore a payment-in-lieu alternative. It should also be noted that the required affordable housing units on Parcel 2 arguably represent additional mitigation over and above that which was originally required pursuant to the First Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD. This issue is discussed in detail in Section ILE. of the Lots 3 and 5 final PUD development plan application (see Exhibit 9). While it is not necessary to restate the argument in this application, suffice it to say that the Applicant continues to believe that the Parcel 2 affordable i! housing units were voluntarily provided as an inducement to the approval of the <, , . conceptual PUD application for Lots 3 and 5. Given the Housing Office's general lack of enthusiasm for the approved unit mix on Parcel 2, and the fact that the units arguably represent additional mitigation for the Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPUD's multi-family reconstruction credits, the substitution of a payment-in-lieu for the four affordable housing units would appear to be a reasonable request. 2. Text Amendment !' text amendment is require~p.t;pnit the s_ubstitution of a paymenl~u fee for the Top of Mill SubdiYJsl~nlPUD'~ fo~r""qg.:~~~"l!ff~}!ia.bl~:1:I,<ly.singunits. As disCussed previoiisiy;-'tIlese urnisarerequired pursuanf'to the City's Resident Multi- Family Replacement Program. The principal requirements of the program, which are contained in Sections 26.530.050.A. and B. of the Regulations, are as follows. r'1 n Ms. Joyce OWson September 18, 2002 Page 6 A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demoli- tion of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demol- ished or convened. The replacement housing shall be config- ured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bed- rooms that are lost as working resident housing fly demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restrict- ed as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replace- ment housing of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances' result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off-site, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu mdy be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of the cash-in-lieu shall be computed using the formula set fonh in Section 26.620. 020. While Section 26.530.050.B currently allows a payment-in-lieu when the housing replacement program requires the provision of a fraction of a unit, the program does not permit the substitution of a payment-in-lieu for the entire replace- ment obligation. To provide this flexibility, the Applicant proposes to amend Section 26.530.050 to include the following suggested language. I"'l n Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 7 To accommodate the above language, it is also necessary to amend Section 26.530.050.B. to revise various provisions which would be no longer relevant. The proposed amendment language is highlighted below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replace- ment housing of the units on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate plan- ning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council deter- mines that the site can accommodate and may replace the re- maining units off-site, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement enly. The amount of the cash-in-lieu shall be computed using the formula set tonh in &ctien 26.620. liilfiil~IIEI~n4r(t~(nli~1I19q%~\W$.~nl The review standards for an amendment to the text of the Regulations, and the proposed amendments compliance therewith, are summarized below. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. The proposed amendment will not conflict with any other requirements of the Regulations. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. While the Aspen Area Community Plan does not specifically address the issue in question, the additional flexibility which will result from the proposed amendment will enable the City Council to accept a payment-in-lieu based on the merits of a specific development proposal. The amendment will also provide consistency in the City's affordable housing mitigation requirements. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. f""', '1 Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 8 This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would Elxceed the capacity of such public facilities, includ- ing but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 6. Whether and the extent to whic~ the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the city of Aspen. This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 8. Whether there have been changes conditions ;lffecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. This standard is believed to apply solely to amendments to the City's zoning map and is not applicable to the requested text amendments. 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be iin conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. To the extent that the proposed text amendment would provide additional flexibility in addressing the affordable housing mitigation requirements of the Resident t""', r) Ms. Joyce Ohlson September 18, 2002 Page 9 Multi-Family Replacement Program, and would result in a consistent set of mitigation alternatives, the public interest would appear to be appropriatelly served. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, cc: Scott Writer c: lojdclbuslcity ,applapp42601.amd PLANNER: PROJECT: 1""'1 ~ "', .., EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE StJMMARy. Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, 920-5062 DATE: 9/13/02 Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 3, Parcel 2 REPRESENTATIVES: OWNER: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates,LLC Four Peaks Development, LLC APPLICATION TYPE: DESCRIPTION: PUD Amendment to allow for replacement of the 4-unit affordable housing complex on Parcel 2 with a free market duplex. Land Use Code Amendments to allow for cash in lieu payment for the affordable housing mitigation within the Residential Multi-family Housing Replacement Program, Section 26.530.050, and possibly GMQS Reconstruction Credit, Section 26.470.070 (A) 2 d, to allow utilization of credits in non-contiguous parcels within a POO. The proposed POO amendment and development would include a change to the Final PUDfor Parcel 2 of Lot 3, AMPUD,chllnging the 4 unit affordable housing complex to a free market duplex. Cash in lieu payment is proposed instead of the construction of housing on Lot 3 of AMPUD. The cash in lieu payment requires a code amendment for developments falling under the RMF Housing Replacement Program where currently the code does not allow for cash payment. Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.445.100 26.530.050 26.470.070(A)2d Review by: Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Amendment ofPUD Development Order Housing Replacement Requirements GMQS Reconstruction Credit Exemption for reconstruction of demolished units Staffwill review the application for completeness Referral agencies for recommendations AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority Community Development Director for recommendation Planning Commission City Council Yes, with the Planning Commission and City Council Housing, Zoning, Others if major changes to site plan proposed Planning Deposit Major ($2,405) Referral Agency Fees: Housing (Major: $345) r\ .f'") Total Deposit: $ 2,750 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$205 per hour) Total Number of Applications: To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) I. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. 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. 5. Total deposit for review of the application. 6. 15 copies of submittal package. 7. An 8 Yz" by ,II" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 1 O. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 12. Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed. 14. Floor plans, roof plan 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 16. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements (Attachment 4). * The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. .'...1 ,"t:':j I '~1"..:; , ~ 'a;i!!i! ~ :;"":;',1 ~."'."~I ,.'.','Ij SEP. 11. 2002 NU.l::1:>l::11 , ' 2:38PM GARFIELD & HECHT t".C:/l€.f (' f) EXHIBIT 2 , ISSUiO Iv QWNER'S POLICY Of TiTLE INSURANCE , POLICY NUMBER A15-0259b22 ~wyers1itle Insmance@P.g,mt~g SUaJECT TO 'THE EXCLUSIONS FROM CQ""RAGE, THE EXCEP'TlONS ~ROI.\ COVERA95 CONTAI,IlED,IN SCHEOULE B ANO 1ME CONDITIONS AND STtPUI.Al10NS, LAWYERS TITLE INS\!Rj\)jCE CORpORt-TlON, .. Vl~i"", _.iJorI.~erein coiled the CQll\peny, insurea. as of Oate ot Policy shown in SChedule A. !g.alhsr Iossar damage.. not exeHdIng the AmoW'lt of l"surane;1I stated in Schedule A. sustain,e<I or tne:urTBd by the InSured by reason 01: 1. Tille to !he eG,e,te or intSr9$t described In Sct'l8CII.Ile A being vas1ed c1her lhan 8.6 $tat9d thQ1'9Il"\~ 2. Any defeet in or UAt\ 0' at'ICtll'nbrlll'\ee on tl'le lltle; 3. Utm.2ltke1lJbJlny of the tltls; 4. lack of a right of accea& to .and from tl'let Jand. TM Company wiD .1'0 pll)l1l1e CO&tG. auomeys' tees and e~pMSss Incurred in defel'llJ$ Of tha DUO, as tnsured. but only to !he extent provid&d Irl tn. Conditiont and Stlpulatlon$. IN WlTNESS WHEffEOF, LAWYERS TITLE INSU~ANC:ECOFtPOqAnON ",as t;aU5~ lis cOf'pOratenernQ ,and !eal to bO MI'ftW1tO affixed by it, dUly aumorized otflcers. the P~i<;y to become valid when COUf'IIA'~gnsd by 8" aU1tloriled officer Of aOQtlt 01 the company. lAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AM,'" _/Ji Ut/4- V ...... Secrstary ~--" , ~_...\."u".~~" .....~...."........_....."....~ ~.::; .r ""-....Q I_I -.- 'i'!, (:5,sr--.1 ,'l l~,,~ ~:n'L,!~~ "~, . By: ,........ ,n, /~I ~ '.. ..~',: \...".'t:;";;':~:""/ .~ PtGSlclQI'lt ?J-~t/. ~ EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE " , The fOllowIng mat;efS are expressly QllC:ludGd from It\e co\'/srago of tl11s polir;y and tho company w{1I not pay losS or damege. eosts. anomeys' ten or expenses which arlsoby 1'98sono1: ,. (I) Any lawl ;ordlnance or govamm~tal regulation. (Incrudll'\Q but not limitect to buildlnQ al'\d zonlrtg: laws, otdftla~ orr&gulallom) rsstrfct1ng, regufating. pfOl'l;t)jtit'\g 01' ra181fng io(i) 1ha occuJlancy, uGG. or 9nJoyIT'lent of 1~e lami; I") \he ehataa&r. dirrlenslonsOllOClltiOn of any ImprQ\lement now or hereafter erected on the land; {Ilij . 'eperllorlOn In ow"arshlp ar a chal'lge in tl'IB dtmenslons Of Ires or ttteland Of any parCel al which the land Is Of' we.s a part; or (lv~ 8hyironl1t9ntal prCl:IC1fo~. or the e!'feet. of any vIO/IatlOn of thes8' laws. ord~c:es or Q~v9mm&ntal regUlations. except to tno ~XfBi"lt that a I'\Qtlce af the ~n1orcement tl'\G~f 0' a,n~of a dtlfoCt, lien 01' encumbrance resulting frem a 'Iiofa~iCI'l oralloged vlolarfon aft8c1tng lhe lafld hlll:S belen recorded In the publlc,records att).te_of~otlcy. {b) Art'! govefM'latttal pollee poweJ I)ol tXCludQ(! by (I) abOVG, exeept to .ltIe ~enl thel a notleB of the ttX8l'ci&e mareof or a nortce Of . defee!. nen Or 9nC!un"rtlranCQ msunlng from a violation or aUeged ...ioI8liOn affKtlna the land. has lJeef\ recordea "'!he publiC ~rdll at OMS of Policy, 2. Aigh1S of ~fl.nl domain unl", notice of tI'I..)C8:reiaeIt\Afeof ~,bt:~retO~ in 'the pu~ne MOlds at Oate ot Policy, but not .xduding from coverage any takIng wl'llel\ has occurred priOf to D8.Je of POlicY Which would' be blnalng or, \t1e rigl"4G of It purenaUf for w.lue witl'lalJt MOwl8C!QI. 3. O&'eefSt n6f'!S, encumbllnces., lOve," Claims or other I"I'lll\fto~: (a) mJ'al:ed. BloIttered. aseumador agroed to by UielnsUl'8Ct claimant; (b) not).~ to tha CompanY.Mt r8COfded in the ~ ret;Qt'dG l\tOate of Polley. but knowotOthe Insured daimOl'\t and [lot dlsdosed in WfItinQ to lhe ComQany by 1h8lnsured c:laimant prior to tho daM !he Irlsursd clairnDIlt ~camo Dn insured ul'/der thiS pedley; (c) reGlJltIng In 1'\0 loss or damage to #1" inG\lred da~ant; (d) alfaChtna or created SUbSeqtJiOt 10 Date 01' Policy: 01' (a) resultlr'lg In loss or dsrnage whien v.()u/(f net hallft D8a" Sf.l1Ullf1.ed if 1he in$1Jf$d claimlnt nad paid va,tus lOr the estate or !nterest insured Ily \ll;s podcy. 4. Any eta"", which arts" out of ltle U'1IM8ctior1 vlHtlng In the /r1surtd tha eslate orlnrerest iNII111CK1 by this ponc.y. by ret!llan of the operallon of f8c18ral banlcruptcy. etate i~flIaney, Of smnaf l;f8ditors' rtvhts Ie"" mat Ja based,otl: (a) me tr8r'lSacllon maltnO Ih8 iStDt, or j"tereStlMurec! 'Dy thIs polley being dQGtned II traudulel'lt corwtyan~ or frAuQulent trl!l'\SfAf': Of {b} the lranDw;tion t;re9tlng me esma or interest IntUfed bV !hiS paliey be!rtO'deemed a pre'erentlelbnns191' ucepl wtIer8 the p~r9fltla1 transfer f8!Ults from the fa~ore: (\) to timely reCort11l'1e NtNrnent of tranGlet; or (It) of ~h record8tron to impart nC11cti to a p~rel\UlM' for Ilelti8 or 4 JudgtY14t\t or ttaA credllol'. NM 1 FA 1D COVOt AI.TA OwnGo'l policy (10.11-92) Ponn 1190-74A ORIGINAL V>lkI OI1Iy W Se~oduIOl A ond e .... all1lOhe<i :x..t"'.11.C:OOC' l:::.qlM"1 ~tl~LU ~ ~~HI I I"iU.lOjl::J r.b/ l"l r"\ SCHEDULE A.QWNER'S POLICY CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY PCT1S602-3 January 12. 2001 @ 10:07 AM 1. NAME OF INSURED: TOP OF MilL INVESTORS LLC, A OELAWARE LIMITED LlAE\ILi1'f COMPANY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE $18.500,000.00 POLICY NUMBER A75-0259622 2. THE eSTATE OR INTEREST IN THE \.AND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POUCYIS: IN FEE SIMPLE 3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. THE LAND ReFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 3. FIRST AMENDED PLAT ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, according to the Platthereoffi~ October 3,1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35. -' Pm:IN COlJN'lYnnE. INC. o01!!. HO~!(]NS A V1!, ASPON, COI.OMOO 81.11 (911)) 925-1766/1970)-975-6521 PAX T~e POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEOV(E MUST ACME WITH THE PREPRINTEO NUMBER ON THE COV(;R SHEET. SEP.11.2002 2'41PM GARFIELD & HECHT NU.I1::>tl f t". (/14 r-. e"""l , ;i SCHEDULE B-OWNERS CASE NUM8ER PCT15602-3 DATE OF POLICY January 12.2001 @ 10,07 AM POLICY NUMBER A7S-0259622 THIS POLICY DOeS NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING; 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 I'E!cords. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any I~ds which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any tien. or right to a lien, lor services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not ShOwn by the public records. 5. Wswr rights, claims or tllle to water. 6, Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. 7, Reservations and exceptions as follows: 1), Right 01 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. 2). Ri9ht of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United Sbltes. 3). Any vein or lode of quartz or other rock In place beering gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits. claimed or ~nown to eldst within subject property as of July 28, 1882. N; the seme may be found in the United States Patents recorded Apri14, 1884 in I~oo~ 11 at Page 65, ApM112. 1901 in Book 136 at Page 281, May 20, 1949 In Boo~ 175 at Pa9s 177, May 20,15149 in Soo~ 175 at Page 202. May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 208, August 26, 1949 In Book 175 at Page 298>. 6, ReservaUons and exceptions as set forth in the Deeds from the City cf Aspet1 recorded in Book 59 at Page 16, Soak 59 at Page 114 and Boo~ 59 at Page 414, Book 59 at Page 507, providing as lollcws: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of 90ld, sliver, cinnabar or coppee'or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 9, Mineral reservations as selforth in Deeds recorded May 21, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 83, May 1, 1 SS_ in Boo~ 93 at Page 92, June 2, 1 S91 in Book 93 at Page 130, Jvne 24, 1891 in Boo~ 93 at Page 178, June 13, 1891 in Book 98 at Page 512, February 6, 1692 in Book 105 at Page 463, December 30, 1892 In BOOk 106 at Page 482, August 9,1939 in Book 157 at Page 599, July 9,1942 in Book 170 al Page 60. 10. Restrictions, as contained in Instrument recorded April 13, 1964 in Beak 206 at Page 436, as amended by instrument recorded January 29,1965 in Book211 at Page 344. 11. Easement and right of way for water pipeline ~urposes, as set forth in instrument recorded August 17, 1981 in Book 412 at Page 533, in which the specific location of said easement Is not defined. 12. easement and right of way for water pipeline purposes, as granted In instrument recorded August 17, 1981 In Book 412 at Page 546. 13, Terms. cOnditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Ease!"ent Grants recorded ~cember 4,1985 In Book 500 at Page 592 and Book 500 at Page 598 and Terminable Lea.e A9reement IllCOrded December 4. 1985 In Boo~ 500 at Page 615. (Continued) SEP.ll.2002 2'42PM GHRI- lc.LI! '" Ht.LH I NU.~ t"'. t:S/lq f"". n POLICY NO, A75-0259622 CASE NO, PCT15602-3 SCHEDULE B-OWNERS -EXCEPTIONS-CONTINUED- 14, Covenant regardln9 relocaDon of Parking as set forth in instrument recorded September 6, 1989 in Book 601 at Page 280. 15, Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Amended and Restated Planned Unn Development recorded October 3, 1988 in Book 574 9t Page 792 and amendments thereto recorded August 15, 1990 in Book 627 at Page 457, September 23, 199210 BooK S69 at Page 317, September 23, 1993 in BooK 689 at Page 320. January 7, 19931n Book 899 at Page 976 and February 9, 1993 In Book 703 at Page 221 and Covenant and Agreement regarding Planned Unit Oeveloprnentrecorded January 15,1998 es Reception NO. 412581 and Amendment \0 the First Amended and Restated Planned Unft DevelopmenUSubdlvision Agreement for the Aspen Mountain Subdivision recorded January 11, 2001 as Reception No. 450416. 16. Rest~ctions as contained in instrument recorded June 26,1990 in Book 624 at Page 51. 17. Terms, condiUons, provisions and obligations as set forth in Covenant Concerning Future Development recorded February 1, 1991 in BOOk 638 at Pase 962, 18, Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Parking License recorded A!>ril12, 1993 in Book 706 at Page 530, 19. Terms, condltklns, provisions and obligations M set forth in Agreement recorded April 1, 1994 In Bool< 746 at Pag<! 204. ' 20, Easements, nghts of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded October 3, 1966 In Plat Book 21 at Page 35, 21, Terms. conditions. provisions and obligations as set forth in Agreement recorded .lanuary 5, 2001 as Reception No, 450310, 22. Encroachment Of concrete retaining walls, eXisijng road over and across the Northwesterly portion of the subject property and mowed grass area for adjacent property. 23. Terms. conditions. provisions. obligations and all mallers as set forth In OrdinanCe No, 53. Series of 2000 by Aspen City Council recorded JanuaiY 11, 2001 as Reception No, 450415. 24, Terms, conditions, provlsklns and obligaUons as set forth in Agreement and FleJea~e recorded January 12, 2001 as Reoeption No, 450479 and Asslgnmenl of Agreement and Release recorded January 12. 2001 as Reception No. 450480. EXCEPTIONS NUMBeREO 1. 2. 3 and 4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED, \ ,...,.., f) EXHIBIT 3 September II, 2002 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Ms. Ohlson: Please consider this letter authorization for SUllllY Vallll of Vann Associates, LLC, Planning Consultants to represent Top of Mill Investors, LLC in the processing of our application for an amendment to the final PUD development plan approval for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC a Delaware limited liability company ~-=>(2- Scott Writer -... SV:cwv c: \bus\city .ltr\ltr42601.jo3 ASPEi'I~KIN COMMUNITY DEYELOPl\""\T DEPARTMEN~XHIBIT 4 Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Applications Fees (Please Print Clearly) CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~~~a/~~~ L/G (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ' 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for ~ -A~/?H~ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996) establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICAJ.'-JT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICAJ.'-JT and CITY further agree that it is in the: interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICAJ.'-JT on a monthly basis. APPLICAJ.'-JT agrees he "rill be benefited by retaining great cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to processAPPLI CAJ.'-JTS application. 4. CITY and APPLICAJ.'-JT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY Staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required fmdings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICAJ.'-JT agrees that in consideration of the City's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness" APPLIClu'-JT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICAJ.'-JT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs. shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN ~W'~.~ Community Development Acting Director City of Aspen .-/ APPLI<::AJ.'1T ~ Sign~ ~ Date: Printed Name: Mailing Address: ~77""~~~ /~~. Ha. S7."' ~C:08/~// \' Smooth Feed Sheets™ ~DERSON BRUCE j 10 S MONARCH #207 SPEN, CO 81611-1854 SPEN SKIING COMPANY J BOX 1248 SPEN, CO 81612 "CKMAN SUSAN R o BOX 8167 SPEN, CO 81612 IELlNSKI JUDITH 121 TROWBRIDGE CT LENVIEW,IL 60025 RIDGE TIM )0 Puppy SMITH ST STE 203-225 SPEN, CO 81611 HIATE KENNETH R HIATE JEANNETTE 0628 ROCKCROFT IALlBU, CA 90265 :OLE CONSTANCE P 647 E MAPLEWOOD AVE ITTLETON, CO 80121 IEGEL ROBERT H REVOCABLE LIVING RUST 06 DANISH DR ;RAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050 lUFF DAVID A TRUSTEE '0 BOX 305 :HAVIES, KY 41727 ,AST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE :800 R ST JTTLE ROCK, AR 72207 fjAVERY@ /""".., ASPEN ALPENElLlCK NO 3 LLC 211 VINE ST DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN-DOLOMITE ASSOC #6 C/O BRIAN MCELWEE 120 SWARNER RD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS L TD PO DRAWER 1011 REFUGIO, TX 78377 BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LIMITED PARNTERSHIP 1206 N WALTON BLVD BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 BUSH STEVEN S 0046 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CHILDS EVELYN 0284 COUNTY RD 102 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 CROYLE PHILIP H & EDANA 405 LONDONDERRY DR WACO, TX 76712 DICKIE E GORDON M D 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST 25060 PINE HILLS DR CARMEL, CA 93923 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT 14 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 EDGAR ROBERT G SCHERER ROBERT P JR 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 Address labels I Use template for 5160\!l f""'\ EXHIBIT 5 , , ,o' ASPEN MOUNTAIN MINING CORPORATION PO BOX 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 B,~TMALE MARK PO BOX 9345 ASPEN, CO 81612 BESMAN PASCAL & LINDA 133 WOOLEYS LN GREAT NECK, NY 11023-2342 BLEILER JUDITH A PO BOX 10220 ASPEN, CO 81612 CA.STELLANO M MARK II 30 LIGHTHOUSE PL DR LONGBOAT KEY, FL 34228 CLAYCOMB J BARRY 3157 D PINEHURST DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 DEAN PHILLIPS INC TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK 524 N 30TH ST QUINCY, IL 62301 DUBS DAVID CRAIG 2165 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9,2661 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ELDER TRUST EWER JERRY TRUSTEE PO BOX 308 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 laser 5160@ Smooth Feed Sheets™ c , _MORE DAVID G 75% 134 PARKVIEW AVE STE 210 AN HATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 rKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G )100 NORTHWESTERN HWY STE 200 JUTHFIELD, MI 48034 _YNN MICHAEL T )21 1ST AVE #TG ~ATTLE, WA 98121 'l.IEDKIN THOMAS H 101 WILSHIRE PL STE 600 OUSTON, TX 77040 AME JAMES A & MICHAELA o BOX 451 ALlSADE, CO 81526 HANEM MICHAEL /0 FOREIGN CARS CONTINENTAL INC J SW 10TH ST EERFIELD BEACH, FL 33441 :ORDON MARIANNE 20 E 54TH ST STE 20C eN YORK, NY 10022 ;UEST KELLEY & CATHERINE o BOX 5578 :ARMEL, CA 93921 IALL THOMAS L PERS INCOME & ASSET RUST 5145 PAWNEE CIRCLE EAWOOD, KS 66224 IANSEN BRUCE G :EEFER OLIVE C/O 020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210 IENVER, CO 80224 .AVERY@ Address labels t""\ ERICKSON CLAIRE LAND ERICKSON BETTY LOU 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD HUDSON, WI 54016 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FORD WARWICK S & NOLA M 6 ELLERY SQUARE CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 FRIEDMAN KARL 10 CHERRY HILLS DR CHERRY HILLS, CO 80110 GARDNER CHARLES L GARDNER RITA WALSH 840 LOCUST AVE WINNETKA, IL 60093 GIANULlAS JIM & MARILYN H PO BOX 2990 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 GOULD JAMES J & ELLEN MEYERS PO BOX 5089 ASPEN, CO 81612 GURTNER THOMAS & NANCY CO TRUSTEES 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 HANSEN BRUCE ED MONGE REMAX PROPERTY MGMT 23284 TWO RIVERS RD STE l1A BASALT, CO 81621-9262 HARDEN SHEILA 8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA LA JOLLA, CA 92037 Use template for 5160@ F"\ j ESTABROOKS FAMILY TRUST 37 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 FINKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA 2655 LE JEUNE RD PENTHOUSE #1 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 FI"EEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI WOLF 32460 EVERGREEN BEVERLY HILLS. MI 48025 FRONSDALARNE HUNDSUNDVEIEN 35 1368 SNAROYA NORWAY, GARRISON JAMES GARDINER & AMY 12 GREENWAY PLAZA 8TH FLOOR HOUSTON, TX 77046 GLASS WALTER M C/O MGI CORP 231 S JEFFERSON ST 4TH FL CHICAGO, IL 60661 GRAYW CALVIN JR & CONSTANCE M PO BOX 140 CENTREVILlE, MD 21617-0140 HAGER FRANCES C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HANSEN BRUCE G , 2020 S ONEIDA ST #210 DENVER, CO 80224 HEARST BARBARA B & PETER S 131 TREASURE HILL SOUTH KENT, CT 06785 Laser 5160@ Smooth Feed Sheets™ EATH HETTA S TRUSTEE )6 N SPRING ST SPEN, CO 81611 ILLMAN RICHARD HAYES TRUST 3562 D ESTE DR i\CIFIC PALISADES. CA 90272 ~COBI ATHOLE G MD UTTON TERRACE #308 i\LA CYNWYD, PA 19004 EL TNER DONALD H 2100 WILSHIRE BLVD #730 OS ANGELES, CA 90025 OSFIELD ASPEN LLC A TIONSBANK TOWER 00 S E 2ND ST STE 2800 HAMI, FL 33131-2144 EASURE BRIAN J 10 BOYD DR :ARBONDALE, CO 81623-9248 EVITUS STEPHEN I EVITUS PERRI A 205 SHANNON DR DINA, MN 55439 OFLAND DAVID WESLEY 50% '0 BOX 1327 ,SPEN, CO 81612 .oVETT WELLS T .OVETT MARY M 8 STONE CRK PK lWENSBORO, KY 42303 A & M INVESTMENTS :/0 MAYER CHARLES ;79 BRUSH CREEK RD \SPEN, CO 81611 {4lAVERY@ Address labels t""'l HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD 1900 MYRTLE ISLAND DR LAS VEGAS, NV89112 HUNT JACK P TRUST C/O HUNT JAMES S JR 1700 NW 97 TERR CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33071 JAEGER WILLIAM N 439 N DOHENY DR BEVERLY HillS, CA 90210 KERR WAYNE & CATHY 2374 FOOTHILLS DR S GOLDEN, CO 80401 KRIBS KAREN REV LVG TRST PO BOX 9994 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEFROCK JACK L & BARBARA S 647 WATERSIDE WY SARASOTA, FL 34242 LIEBEL CRAIG E 814 PLUM ST CINCINNATI,OH 45202 LONG CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B 1098 ST LOUIS PLACE ATLANTA,GA 30306 LOWE JAMES H 8232 AVALON DR MERCER ISLAND. WA 98040 MACAPA CORP 9465 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HilLS, CA 90212 , Use template for 5160@ (""\ p HIBBERD LORNA W FAMILY TRUST PINE ISLAND RYE, NY 10580 JACOB PAUL MITCHELL 400 E 20TH ST #10-0 NEW YORK, NY 10009 KELLYCA 9820 SAGAMOR RD SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66206 KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT PO BOX 3097 QUINCY, IL 62305 KWEI THOMAS AND AMY 30 LAKE ONIAD DR WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-3853 LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M 701 S rviONAf{CH ST #6 ASPEN, Co 8161,1 LLOYD ASSOCIATES DAVID LLOYD ASSOC L TO 12 LEYS RD OXSHOTT SURREY ENGLAND KT220QE, LONG GODFREY M JR 7755 ANNESDALE DR CINCINNATI,OH 45243 LOWNES VICTOR A C/O ASPEN LODGING CO 747 GALENA ST (DURANT 3-D) ASPEN, CO 81611-1871 MARMONT lOIS 0 PO BOX 9572 ASPEN, CO 81612 laser 5160@ ;,mootn l"eeo ;,heets I M IARSH JAMES W & 8EVERL Y M S JOINT TENANTS 15 TROPICAL CIR ARASOTA, FL 34242 IEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE 115 WHITE EAGLE DR APERVILLE, IL 60564 IILLER DON E 00 MERCER ST APT 31H EW YORK, NY 10003 liTTLE MAN DAVID 735 MEADOWLARK LN lEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 100RE JOHN W 50% 0426 WHITEBRIDGE LN T LOUIS, MO 63141 IlLES LARRY & LILY 2001 TRUST IlLES LAURENCE EUGENE & LILY YEE 172 BIENVENIDAAVE 'ACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 ILSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A 404 GREENWOOD DR :ENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 'ASQUINELLI MARY ANN ASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM #10 47 S GALENA ST .sPEN, CO 81611 'ETROVICH NICK D 'ETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN 'ERNANDEZ ;10 FRIAS PROP OA ASPEN-730 E lURANT AVE ,SPEN, CO 81611-2072 tEARDON GENE F & DIANA '0 BOX XX ,SPEN, CO 81612 flAVERY@ r-, MAURER MICHAEL S QUAL PERS RES TRUST 112 '. 11550 N MERIDIAN ST #115 CARMEL, IN 46032 MEYERS NEIL S CIO RESORT WORLD 2800 N POINCIANA KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 MILLER LELAND L 11575 FOLSOM PT LN FRANKTOWN, CO 80116 MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A 8696 SWAN KALAMAZOO, MI 49009 MURCHISON ANNE A PO BOX 8968 ASPEN, CO 81612 NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C 10927 BRIGANTINE DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544 ONEILL ROGER PO BOX 711 LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579 PASQUINELLI SALLIE S FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM 747 S GALENA ST #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 POLLOCK WILLIAM HARRISON PO BOX 2421 ASPEN, CO 81612 RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON LIVING TRUST 644 GRIFFITH WY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 Address Labels Use template for 5160(!) n MCVICKER JULIET PO BOX 567 MIDDLEDURY, VT 05753 MILLER BECKY B & PETER C 200-06 CROSS ISLAND Pf<YVY BAYSIDE, NY 11360 MILLER TANYA B 2445 W GULF DR SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD WINNEKTA,IL 60093 NARDI STEPHEN J PO BOX 641997 CHICAGO,IL 60664-1997 NORTON PATRICK J JR 507 SPRING VALLEY DR RALEIGH, NC 27609 OSTERMAN MICHAEL & LINDA LUCE PO BOX 262 PETTERSVILLE, NJ 07979 PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A 537 MARKET ST STE 202 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402 RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA 6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 RIDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR SEARCY, AR 72143 Laser 5160@ Smooth Feed Sheets™ OANOKEINVESTO~SLP )9 CLUB CREEK CT o BOX 17 T ALBANS, MO 63073 OMER FRANK L & MARCY L 0204 E SHERI LN NGLEWOOD, CO 80111 C JOHNSON AND SON INC AX DEPT 412 525 HOWE ST ".CINE, WI 53403 ,APER JORDAN :10 WALTER BORTNICHAK 4 SALZBURG IEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ICHERER ROBERT P III 17 GOLDENROD AVE :ORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 ;HAW GEORGE G 01 HIGH ST lENVER, CO 80218 "MON HERBERT 1765 PINE RIDGE DR NDIANAPOLlS, IN 46206 ;OLOMON GARY L 1139 N LINCOLN ;HICAGO, IL 60657 3T ANTON JAMES ~IO WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP 150 E 58TH ST ,EW YORK, NY 10155 ,TRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR 1801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #B-100 NILMINGTON, DE 19807 tJAVERY@ r"', ROARING FORK PROPRIETARYLLC 2519 E 21ST ST TULSA,OK 74114 ROOKE JOAN ELIZABETH POBOX 1035 REFUGIO, TX 78377-1035 SALlTERMAN LARRY 133 ROBINSON RD #11 ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 SAX DONALD C PO BOX 12351 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHERER STEPHEN M 169 SHORECLlFF RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625 SHINE FAMILY LLC 8677 LOGO 7 CT INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430 SKIERS CHALET LLC CIO R J O'CALLAHAN 132 WEST B STREET - STE 230 PUEBLO, CO 81003 SPEYER LESTER 0 PR TST CIO TENNSCO CORPORATION PO BOX 1888 DICKSON, TN 37056-1888 STENEMAN MARY JANE & ROBERT 170 WILDHURST RD TONKA BAY, MN 55331 TAlLICHET DAVID C JR TRUSTEE 112 TALLlCHET CECILIA A UNO 112 8191 E KAISER BLVD ANAHEIM,CA 2808-2214 Address Labels , USe tempLate fer 51600 f""\ , .j ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM 747 GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ROSE EDWARD 0 & JULIE 112 INT 1001 MIDWEST CLUB OAKBROOK, IL 60521 SANCHEZ MARIA J & AR JR PO BOX 2986 LAREDO, TX 78044 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I & MICHELLE T 5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 LAKEWOOD, CA 90712-1458 SCHIMBERG HENRY & LINDA TRUST 2877 PARADISE RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 SIMMONS SUSAN K 31381 MONTERREY ST S LAGUNA, CA 92677 SL T ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC CIO STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS TRUST 2231 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 STANFORD JOHN CIO LEE MILLER 747 S GALENA I\'sPEN, CO 81611 STEWART STAN & RITA 10 GELDERT DR TIBURON, CA 94920 TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 Laser 5160@ ~mootl1 feed 5l1eets'M , , WEL MORTON & CAROL 39 FREDERICK DR S DIANAPOLlS, IN 46260 <.IPP PAUL 11 MARGARET ST "y WEST, FL 33040 'AGNER & BROWN L TO fE 1100 THE SUMMIT 300 N ARIENFELD o BOX 1714 IDLAND, TX 79702 'ATKINS DAN H TRUSTEE ;75 8TH ST OLlNE,IL 61265-7157 IELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P SPEN SNOW MASS LODGING CO C/O V ARWOOD 47 S GALENA ST SPEN, CO 81611 IMC INVESTMENT LTD PARTNERSHIP 001 MIDWEST CLUB PKWY IAK BROOK, IL 60521 fjAVERY@ Address Labels 1""'\, TOBEY ROBERTW & PATRICIA A 41 CHERRY HILLS FARM DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 VAN METER FAMILY LIVING TRUST C/O WESTERN LABORATORIES MEDICAL GROUP ATTN SHARON H VAN METER 2945 WEBSTER ST OAKLAND, CA 94609-3406 WAPITI RUNNING LLC PO BOX 1003 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEEKS WILLIAM H JOHNSON-WEEKS FAMILY OFFICE 22 GRIGG ST GREENWICH. CT 06830 WERNER STEFANIA P TRUST 9555 LADUE RD ST LOUIS, MO 63124 ZIMAND SHERRY 5426 OSPREY ISLE LN ORLANDO, FL 32819 Use template tor 5160"" VELMAR A COLORADO CORP C/O GRUPO DE MAR SAD E C V 747 S GALENA #F 204 ASPEN, CO 81611 WARGASKI ROBERT E TRUST 30353 N DOWELL RD MCHENRY, IL 60050 WEIGAND N R 150 N MARKET ST WICHITA, KS 67202 WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE MC CALLlON GERARD 322 E 57 TH ST #3B NEW YORK, NY 10022-2949 ZUBROD MATTHEW S TRUST PO BOX 8881 ASPEN, CO 81612 Laser 5160@ IIII ~j 111111111111111 ~~~~~~11 :46i SILVI&:lDFWIS PITKIN COUNTY' CO R 35.00 0 0.00 EXHIBIT 6 ORDINANCE No.7 SERIES OF 2002 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INCLUDING SUBDIVISION, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE, SPECIAL REVIEW, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA EXEMPTIONS (GMQS),8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND REZONING FOR THE TOP OF MILL SITE TO LODGE / TOURIST RESIDENTIAL PUD AND CONSERVATION, LOT 3 OF THE ASPEN MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION / PUD, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-85-003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC (Applicant), represented by Vann. Associates, requesting Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision / POO (hereinafter "AMPOO"); and WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC requested specific land use approvals as part of the Final PUD including Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership, OWllerat the time of Lot 3 of AMPOO, received Conceptual POO approval from City Council for AMPUD on December 6,1999 which is memorialized through Resolution No. 93, Series of 1999; and WHEREAS, Top of Mill Investors, LLC, received an Amended Conceptual Approval from City Council for Lot 3 AMPUD on May 29,2001 which is memorialized through Resolution No. 50, Series 2001; and WHEREAS, the Housing Office, the City Zoning Officer, tbe City Engineer, the Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Environmental Health Department, the City Fire Department, the City Str,eets Department, the City Parking Department, the City Water Department, and the City Electric Department reviewed the development proposal for Lot 3 and provided written referral comments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and . -, WHEREAS, the Applicant appropriately applied for specific land use approvals pursuant to the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code for the Final PUD for Lot 3AMPUD including Final POO Development , Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, Growth Management Quota Exemptions, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning; and ~) 11111 ,'111II1,1,1111111I1, 1111111111111 "III:~ ~~~~~~;~; I : 46~ SILVIR DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 D 0.00 , . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code, and in consultation with the applicant, the Community Development Director has permitted a modification in review procedures to combine the Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning review for the purposes of ensuring economy of time and clarity; and WHEREAS, such review procedure modification has not lessened any public hearing noticing or any scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, , WHEREAS, upon review of the application, referral comments, and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Final Aspen Mountain PUD land use requests for Lot 3 with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council, by a vote of four to one (4 - 1), Final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review, and Rezoning for Lot 3 AMPUD; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, as adopted, incorporates all the relevant and applicable conditions of approval formerly contained in Resolution No. 93, Series of 1999 granting Conceptual PUD Approval to Lot 3 AMPUD by City Council and Resolution No. 50, Series of 200] granting Amended Conceptual POO Approval to Lot 3 AMPUD by City Council hereby allowing this ordinance to supersede those resolutions regarding the conditions of approval as stated herein; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the applicable Municipal Codes as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, ',he applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and , WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council [mds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council hereby approves, by a vote of five to zero (5 - 0), a final PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Gfeenline Review, and Rezpning for Lot 3 AMPUD; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CiTY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: 1":) Section 1 Pursuant to this Ordinance and consistent with condition no. 3, of Resolution No. 93, Series of 1999, the City Council approves the allowable FAR for each Lot 3 parcel and allocated as shown in the matrix below. ~P.arcel~o~~~i " . Parcel I Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5 Parcel 6 Parcel 7 Parcel 8 Parcel 9 lWffium~i;Wli.1:i]emy. 27,000 square feet off AR 8,000 square feet of FAR 9,000 square feet ofFAR 6,200 square feet of FAR 5,200 square feet of FAR 5,200 square feet of EAR 6,500 square feet of F l\R 6,500 square feet ofF .AR No FAR shall be all ocated to this parceL Section 2 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the requests for the Final PUD including Final POO Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greeniine Review, and Rezoning for Lot 3 of AMPOO is hereby approved with the following conditions: I. The development shall comply with the most recent municipal enginee!"ing practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. 2. Regarding the concerns associated with the type of units of the four (4) deed-restricted multi-family housing units on Parcel 2, should it not be possible to change the unit type, :;taff recommends the Applicant meet with Housing Authority Staff to maintain the u'/erage of the Category 2, but to price one of the three bedroom units between Category 1 and 2, and to price the 4-bedroom unit between Category 2 and 3, and market as a Category 3. 3. Three of the units on Parcel 2 shall be distributed and sold und(~r the general lottery through the Housing Office. The Applicant shall be able to choose a buyer for one of the units. However, the buyer must be a fully qualified employee under the category for the unit chosen by the applicant; i.e., the potential buyer must meet income and asset requirements, meet minimum occupancy, not own any other property in the Roaring Fork J?rainage System, and have worked in Pitkin County 1500 hours per year for the last four years. 4. The Applicant shall submit Infrastructure and Removal of Fill Material Permits for Lot 3 AMPUD within 30 (30) days after recordation of all Final PUD documents. The Applicant may submit building permit applications at the Applicant's discretion, but no sooner than the issuance of a building permit for the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project. The Applicant shall be eligible for a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market I~~i 111I 11111111 111111 ::C~~~; 1 : 46~ SILVIA ORVIS PITKIN c:'()lINTY~O R 35.00 0 0.00 multi-family units on Parcell only after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing units on Parcel 2. The Applicant shall be eligible for a Certificate of Occupancy for the Free Market Duplex on Parcel 3 and the single-family units to be constructed on Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 no sooner than the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for an on-site accessory dwelling unit or upon th'e full payment of the applicable affordable housing impact fee. 5. The accessory dweJIing units (for Parcels 4 - 8) shaJI abide by the regulations in the Land Use Code in effect at the time of building permit application and further defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. Should an acceSSOl"j dwelling unit not be provided on Parcels 4 through 8, a payment-in-lieu fee shaJI be provided in the amount required in the Guidelines at the, time of building permit approval. 6. At the time of Certificate of Occupancy, a site visit shall be conducted on the deed- restricted units. 7. Since the "for-sale" affordable housing units are to be developed on a separate parcel, Parcel 2, a separate homeowner's associ'ation shaJI be established for the affordable housing portion of the development. 8. The Applicant shall include appropriate language in the Final POO Agreement for Lot 3 and it's associated condominium (or planned community) documentation regarding the separate homeowner's association for Lot 3 (to be reviewed and approved by Staff) that ensures that the four (4) "for-sale" affordable housing units to be developed on Parcel 2, shaJI comply with the representations made in the application, adhere to the conditions of this Final POO Approval, and comply with the required deed restrictions as administered by the Aspen I Pitkin County Housing Authority so that the owners of said units shaJI not be unduly burdened by a disproportionate share of responsibilities associated with the master homeowner's association or other homeowner associations established for the free markej residences on parcels land 3 - 8. 9. Erosion control plans, including potential natural resource protection structures, and a detailed plan for irrigation systems and other plantings within the, City of Aspen right-of- way shaJI be submitted by the Applicant to the Parks Department for approval prior to the application of building permits. Separate erosion control plans shaJI be submitted by the owners of each parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit for their respective parcels. 10. The Applicant shall construct the "Aspen Mountain Trail" which traverses the adjacent Open Space Parcel "E" according to City of Aspen standards during the completion of this project. This trail improvement shall meet engineering specifications as defined by 1:he City of Aspen Parks Department including a crusher fines trail surface, a width of four feet, a trail sign located at the entrance of each trail identifying trail name and public access, and the sign shall be designed and built to match the character of the neighborhood. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for trail design and drainage. Parks Department requests the applicant field stake the trail. The Applicant shall be required to have the trail improvement completed and inspected to the satisfaction of the Parks Department prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the free market triplexes on Parcell. \ \\1\1\ I;;I~I IIII IUlII \11\1\ \Ill\ III lllll I II \ll\ ~:~~~ 1: 46~ SILVl~ ORVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 0 0.00 11. The Applicant shall formally establish the Top of Mill Trail across Lot 3 AMPOO. This trail shall have a legal description, be shown on the Final Plat, and be dedicated/conveyed to the City of Aspen. Further, the Applicant shall memorialize in the Final POO 1 Subdivision Agreement for Lot 3 and associated condominium (or planned community) documents, the obligation by the master homeowner's association or Applicant to improve the Top of Mill Trail, at such time the connection is rezJized, pursuant to the Parks Department's design criteria. If the trail has pot been improved to the satisfaction of the Parks Department within 5 years of the recordation of the Final Plat for AMPOO Lot 3, the master homeowner's association for Lot.3 shall make l! cash payment to the City of Aspen equal to a sum defined by the Parks Department for the improvement of the trail. ' 12. Fire sprinklers and alarm systems shall be installed in all the proposed buildings on Lot 3 as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. Appropriate "booster pumps" (if required) rather than pressure tanks for the sprinkler system shall be used to gain the necessary water pressure as required by the City Fire Department. The owner of each parcel shall be responsible for ensuring that any buildings constructed thereon shall comply with this condition of approval. In addition, the Applicant shall submit a fire safety plan for the demolition to be preformed by the Applicant of the existing structures and the construction of the proposed development of Lot 3 to the Engineering Department at the time of building permit application. 13. The Applicant shall execute a ,"Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" with Aspen Consolidc.ted Sanitation District (ACSD) prior to building permit application. In addition, forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees must be paid to ACSD by the applicant for service lines that are to be stubbed off the main line into the specific parcels of this development. 14. The Applicant shall be required to show to the ACSD all service :locations at the station numbers on the final utility plans for this development prior to building permit application. Additionally, the Applicant shall indicate to the ACSD if mair. line easements in the ROW are to be dedicated by plat or by description. - 15. The Applicant shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivision plat for Parcels I, 2, and 3 of AMPOO Lot 3 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. Failure on the part of the Applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director shall render the plat invalid and a new application and approval will be required. 16. The Applicant shall record a POO Agreement and the Final POO Plans within 180 days of the final approval by City Council with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder binding this property to this development approval. 17. The development of the free market single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels 4 - 8 of AMPOO Lot 3 shall be subject to a site and design specific 8040 Greenline Review prior to their development. These Parcels shall only be required to respond to review standards 111~~ II \1111 \\1111 1111\\ \11 ::~O:t; 1 : 46~ SILVI~ DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 35.00 0 0.010 26.68.030 (C)(3) and 26.68.030 (C)(7); this resolution approves Parcels 4- 8 regarding 8040 Green!ine Review Standards 26.68.030 (C)(l, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11) thereby precluding any further review of the same standards as indicated. 18. The owner of each parcel shall pay the required School Land Dedication Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of its parcel. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in effect at the time of the building permit application. 19. The owner of each parcel shall pay the required Park Development Impact Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of its parcel. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in effect at the time of the building permit application. 20. The Applicant shall record the appropriate deed restrictions for Parcel 9, containing the six-space enclosed parking garage, requiring that the lot remain for parking purposes only as part of the Summit Place Condominiums project. 21. It is understood that upon approval of this Final PUD, all remaining residential credits associated with the AMPUD are hereby extinguished. 22. The Applicant shall be required to submit detailed "cut sheets" for the proposed lights on Lot 3 AMPUD indicating the correct lumens on the lighting plan as part of the detailed building set to be examined during building permit review. 23. The Applicant shall work closely with the City of Aspen Engineering Department to ensure the access point from Parcel 1 on Lot 3 adequately provides for a left turn onto South Mill Street. 24. While,the development proposal meets virtually all of the proposed underlying L1TR and Conservation zone districts' dimensional requirements, this Ordinance approves the following modifications of the dimensional requirements: a. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 3 is 15,170 sq. ft. b. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 4 is 12,278 sq. ft. c. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 5 is 10,593 sq. ft. d. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 6 is 9,825 sq. ft. e. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 7 is 17,669 sq. ft. f. Maximum Lot Size for Parcel 8 is 18,756 sq. ft. g. Minimum Lot Size for Parcel 9 is 2,745 sq. ft. h. Minimum Lot Size for Open Space Parcel B is 49,446 sq. ft. j. Minimum Front Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 8 feet J. Minimum East Side Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet k. Minimum West Side Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet 1. Minimum Rear Yard Setback for Parcel 9 is 3 feet .---'.,\ "_. .~ . ~ ~ r 11~",.,466392 ; 'Page: 7 of 7 Ildl 04/19/2002 11 :46~ R 35,00 0 0.00 Section 3 All material representations and cOmmitments mad~ by the Apphcant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4 This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and wncluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. ' Section 6 A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the 11th day of March at 5:00 pm in the Council Chambers Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. ,,', INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City ",Council of the City of Aspen on this 25th day of February, 2002. ' ;;r:~:::::...., ,.,,"A:l\e,st:.. ... ", . ''', s~. " ... ". ". f:. ". . :f(f!hN~_S::., ~~, City Clerk Helen : \. ;..... - :. ? th . . ~.:..FINALl,y, adbpted, passed and approved this 11 Day of March, 2002. \,:;('Q(6A'^1i~ ,/ , . A'"~,,.. H'~ r-.. t""'\ EXHIBIT 7 EXECUTION COPY SUBDlVlSIONlPUD AGREEMENT FOR TOP OF MILL SUBDlVISlONlPUD THIS SUBDIVISION/PUD AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered this Ibflt day of August 2002, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,a Colorado municipal corporation ("City") and TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("TOMI"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City and Savanah Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership ("Savanah"), are parties to that certain First Arpended and Restated Planned Unit Development/Subdivision Agreement Aspen Mountain Subdivision ("First Amended PUD Agreement") dated October 3, 1988 and recorded in the records of Pitkin County, Colorado, on October 3, 1988 in Book 574 at Page 792, as the same has been amended as hereinafter more particularly set forth; and WHEREAS, on January 11,200 I TOM! acquired from Savanah certain real property situated within tl1e Aspen Mountain Subdivision, which real property is also situated within the municipal boundaries of the City known as Lot 3, First Amended Plat Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development, according to the Plat thereof filed October 3,1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35 ("Top of Mill"); and WHEREAS, the First Amended PUD Agreement directs that at such time as Top of Mill receives final PUD development approval, a PUD Agreement shall be executed by the parties setting forth such final approvals and incorporating all conditions and assurances that may be reasonably required by the City in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, TOMI has submitted to the City an Application for Final PUD Development Plan Approval (the "Application") pursuant to the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code (the "1996 Code") including approval, execution and recordation of a Final Plat for Top of Mill (the "Final Plat"); and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Application and the Final Plat, the proposed development and improvement of Top of Mill contained therein, and the effects of the proposed development and improvement of said lands on adjoining or neighboring properties and property owners; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and recordation of the Final Plat, such matters being necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and 38181-16 1111111I111111 \11 111111 ::;~:;;~~~:~ 27F SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY co. R 235.00 0 0.00 f""'i f""'i , ) EXECUTION COPY WHEREAS, TOMI is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the Application and the Final Plat; and WHEREAS, under the authority of Sections 26,84,040(C and D) and 26.88.050(C and D) of the 1996 Code, the City is entitled to certain financial guarantees to ensure that (i) the required public facilities are installed and (ii) the required landscaping is installed and maintained, and TOMI is prepared to provide such guarantees as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and ih consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the approval, execution and acceptance of the Final Plat for recordation by the City, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, tlle parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF AGREEMENT 1,1 Prior Amendments to the First Amellded PUD Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree tllat the First Amended PUD Agreement has previously been anlended by the following, which shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as the "Section M Amendments": (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (t) (g) (h) 38181-16 June 1990 Section M Amendment. June 1991 Section M Amendment August 1992 Section M Amendment. Octobe.r 1992 Section M Amendment. February 1993 Section M Amendment June 1995 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No, 33-95), May 1998 Section M AmendmeIlt (Ordinance No. 8-98). September 1999 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 38-99). (i) December 2000 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 53-00). G) June 2002 Section M Amendment (Ordinance No. 15-02). 2 ;[') y EXECUTION COPY 1.2 Purpose of this Agreement. This Agreement is executed by the parties in accordance with the requirements of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, that a new PUD Agreement be executed at the time of final development approval for Top of MilL The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the complete and comprehensive agreement between the parties with respect to the development that has been approved for Top of Mill and to enumerate all terms and conditions under which such development may occur. The effect of this Agreement is to terminate, supersede and replace all provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement and the Section M Amendments, which relate in any marmer to Top of Mill. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, the provisions of this Agreement shall controL Nothing in this Agreement modifies, revokes, amends or affects any provision of the First Amended PUD Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, which relates to Lot 1,2,4, 5 or 6 of the Aspen Mountain SubdiyisionlPUD, unless expressly revoked or modified hereby. All provisions ofthe First Amended PUp Agreement, as amended by the Section M Amendments, which relate to Lots 1,2,4, 5 and 6 of the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD, shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent they may be otherwise amended. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRliCTIONS 2.1 Zoning and Regulatory Approvals. (a) Resolution and Ordinance of Approval. Conceptual PUD development plan approval for Top of Mill was granted by the Aspen City CounciI in Resolution No. 99-93, approved and adopted on December 6, 1999. By adoption of Resolution No. 01-50, adopted on May 29, 2001, the Aspen City Council granted amended conceptual PUD Development Plan approval for Top of Mill, which is to be subdivided into eight (8) development parcels, two (2) open space parcels and a parcel of approximately 2,745 square feet containing an existing parking garage ("Parcel 9") for the benefit of Lot 2, Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD, known as the Summit Place Condominiums, By adoption of Ordinance No.7, Series of2002, adopted on March 11, 2002 and recorded April 19, 2002 as Reception No, 466392 ("Ordinance No. 7"), the Aspen City Council granted Final PUD Development Plan and Subdivision Approval for Top of Mill. Ordinance No.7 also granted (i) a growth management quota system exemption for the affordable housing units to be constructed on Parcel 2, Top of Mill; (ii) rezoning of that portion of Top of Mill previously zoned R-15 (PUD) (L), Moderate-Density Residential, Plarmed Unit Development, Lodge Overlay and a portion of Top of Mill zoned C, Conservation to L/TR (PUD), Lodge/Tourist Residential, Planned Unit Development; (iii) Condominiumization, Mountain View Plane, Special Review, and 8040 Greenline Review; and (iv) approval to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") on Parcel 3 of Top of Mill. The exterior boundaries of the eight (8) development parcels, two (2) open space parcels and Parcel 9 are depicted on the Final Plat for Top of Mill which will be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. The Final Plat for Top of Mill also depicts the allowed building set backs within the eight (8) 3818]-]6 3 1111\\ 1111111111111111 II :~~~::;~~~:~: Z7F SILVIA DAVISPHKIN COUNTY CO R 23'5.00 D 0.00 (!~ ~ ,". ", , EXECUTION COPY development parcels. TOMI shall convey Parcel 9 to the Summit Place Condominium owners association immediately after the Pinal Plat for Top of Mill is recorded and, upon such conveyance, Parcel 9 shall not be covered by, or subject to this Agreement except as set forth in Paragraphs 2, 1 (b)(ii) and (iii) and 2.2(hh) below. The instrument by which TOMI conveys Parcel 9 shall contain a restriction to ensure that Parce19 will always serve to provide parking for the benefit of Lot 2, Aspen Mountain Subdivision and that development on Parcel 9 shall be limited to the existing garage and trash storage structures or any replacement thereof. Pursuant to Section 26.304,060,B of the April 2000 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code, the Community Development Director, in consultation with TOMI, permitted and directed a modification in review procedures to combine Pinal PUD Development Plan, Subdivision, Condominiumization, Mountain View Plan, Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 8040 Greenline Review and Rezoning Review for the purposes of ensuring economy oftime and clarity. This Agreement incorporates all the provisions of Ordinance ]\)0. 7. To the extept of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of Ordinance No.7, this Agreement shall govern and controL (b) PUD Variations. Pursuant to Ordinance No, 7, the Aspen City Council approved the following variations in the dimensional requirements of the LiTR, Lodge/Tourist Residential and C, Conservation zone districts: (i) Maximum Lot Size. An increase in the maximum lot size for single family and duplex dwelling units. The size of Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall be as depicted on the Pinal Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (ii) Minimum Lot Size. A reduction in the minimum lot size requirement. The size of Parcel 9 and Open Space Parcel B shall be as depicted on the Pinal Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (iii) Minimum Setbacks. A reduction in the minimum setback requirements. The front, side and rear yard setbacks on Parcel 9 shall be as depicted on the Pinal Plat for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (c) Parking, 8040 Greenline and Mountain ViewpZane Approval. Pursuant to Ordinance 7, the Aspen City Council granted (i) special review approval of the off-street . parking requirements for the affordable housing units approved for development on Parcel 2, Top of Mill, (ii) 8040 greenline approval for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, Top of Mill and (iii) mountain viewplane approval for all development parcels on the Top of Mill. The development of the free market single-family dwellings proposed for Parcels 4 - 8 shall be subject to a site and design specific 8040 Greenline Review prior to their development. These Parcels shall only be required to respond to review standards 26.68.030 (C)(3) and 26.68.030 38181-16 4 .471100 Page: 4 of 47 00.00 f'\ I~ EXECUTION COpy (C)(7) of the 1996 Code. Ordinance No.7 approves Parcels 4- 8 regarding 8040 Greenline Review Standards 26.68.030 (C)(l, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11) of the 1996 Code thereby precluding any further review of such standards, (d) Vested Rights. In accordance with the requirements ofC.R.S. 24-68-1 03(b) a properly noticed public hearing concerning the establishment of vested property rights for Top of Mill was conducted on March 11,2002. As authorized by C.R.S. 24-68-102(4)(a), City and TOMI hereby agree that the Final Plat, the Top of Mill Final PUD Development Plan and all other documents recorded contemporaneously therewith, collectively constitute the site specific development plan as used in Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S., for Top of Mill. In accordance with applicable provisions of Ordinance No.7, Series of 2001, the City has granted vested property rights for a period of three (3) years from the date of approval of Ordinance No.7, for the development of Top of Mill in accordance with the documents which are herein agreed to constitute the site specific development plan for Top of Mill. 2.2 Development Approvals. Top of Mill has been approved for subdivision into eight (8) development parcels, identified on the Final Plat and throughout this Agreement as Parcels 1,2, 3,4,5,6,7 and 8, two (2) open space parcels which are identified as Open Space Parcels A and B on the Final Plat, and Parcel 9 which is identified as Parcel 9 on the Final Plat. The eight (8) development parcels on Top of Mill may be developed as follows: (a) Development on Parcell. Approval is hereby grarlted for the development of six (6) free market, four-bedroom, multi-family townhouse units on Parcell. Such units shall be contained in two (2) separate triplex structures. Each individual townhouse unit shall contain no more than 4,500 square feet of floor area. Development on Parcel I is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of27,000 square feet. TOMI shall further subdivide Parcell by the creation of a common interest community. Prior to the conveyance of any interest in Parcel I, a common interest community plat for either a condominium or plalllled community (as determined by TOMI) shall be duly recorded. TOMI shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivisi6n plat for Parcell in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. IfTOMI fails to record the approved plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Commwlity Development Director, the plat shall be invalid and TOMI shall be required to submit a new plat to the Community Development Director for approval. (b) Development on Parcel 2. Approval is hereby granted for the development of four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2. Such units shall be contained within a single - multifamily structure. Three (3) of said units shall be three-bedroom units, each having no less than 1550 square feet of net livable area and the fourth unit shall be a four-bedroom unit having no less than 1870 square feet of net livable area; provided, however, that the actual amount of net livable area in each unit shall be determined at the time of building permit application. Development on Parcel 2 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of8,000 square feet. TOMI shall further subdivide Parc~l 2 by the creation of a common interest 38181-16 5 I\lmlmlll\\II\ \\1\ 11111\\11\ \ \IlIII 'III III ~:;~:~;~~~:~ : Z7F SILVIA DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 00.00 !"""\ ~ EXECUTION COPY community. Prior to the conveyance of any interest in Parcel 2, a common interest community plat for either a condominium or planned community (as determined by TOMI) shall be duly recorded. TOMI shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivision plat for Parcel 2 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. IfTOMI fails to record the approved plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director, the plat shall be invalid and TOMl shall be required to submit a new plat to the Community Development Director for approval. The affordable housing units to be developed on Parcel 2 shall comply with all representations made by TOMl in connection with the Application and comply with the deed restrictions administered by APCHA. A master owner's association for Top of Mill to be known as "Top of Mill Master Association", or such Qther name determined by TOMl (the "Master Association") will be formed as a master association to exercise the functions set forth in the Master Declaration of Protective Covenants of Top of Mill (the "Master Declaration") and to own, lease, hold, operate, care for and manage certain property for the common benefit of owners of the Parcels within Top of Mill. A separate owners association shall be created for the affordable llOusing units on Parcel 2, which shall participate in, and be subject to the Master Association and Master Declaration. The Master Declaration shall provide that all annual and special assessments under the Master Declaration shall be allocated 1/17'11 to each of the four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2, and that until such time as the units are constructed, Parcel 2 shan be allocated 4/17th of all annual and special assessments. In addition, there will be a separate assessment for maintenance, repair, replacement or improvements to Top of Mill Street (the private road shown on the Final Plat) and the sidewalks within Top of Mill (the "Private Road Assessment"). Six percent (6%) ofthe Private Road Assessment shall be allocated to Parcel 2 (i.e" 1.5% per unit for each of the four (4) affordable housing units on Parcel 2). Notwithstanding the foregoing allocations, the Master Declaration shall provide that annual and special assessments and Private Road Assess\TIents against any affordable housing unit on Parcel 2 shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1000.00) per unit per year. 38181-16 (i) Affordabilitv of Parcel 2 Units. The four (4) affordable housing units , approved for development on Parcel 2 completely satisfy all requirements of the City's Multifamily Housing Replacement Program with respect to the demolition of multi-family dwelling units on all of (i.e., Lots 1,2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionIP,UD. IOMI shall meet with APCHA to maintain the average price of the of the four ( 4) affordable housing units approved for development on Parcel 2 to APCHA Category 2, but to price one of the three bedroom units shall be priced between Category 1 and 2, and the price of the 4-bedroom unit shall be between Category 2 and 3, but marketed and sold as a Category 3 unit. Three of the four units on Parcel 2 shall be distributed .and sold under the general lottery through APCHA. TOMI shall be able to choose a buyer for one of the units (and designate the unit to be purchased). However, the buyer chosen by TOMI must be a fully qualified employee under the category for the unit chosen; i.e., the potential buyer 6 I IUIII \\111 UI\I\ IIUI 11\1 11\1\1\ JI\\I III \\11\ \111 1\\1 '. ~~~~~~~0:~ . 27F SILVIA ORVIS PITKIN COUNTY .....0 R 235 ,....." '" EXECUTION COpy must meet income and asset requirements, meet minimum occupancy requirements, not own any other property in the Roaring Fork Drainage System, and have worked in Pitkin County 1500 hours per year for the previous four years. At the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for any affordable housing unit constructed on Parcel 2, APCHA shall have the right to conduct a site visit. (c) Development on Parcel 3. Approval is hereby grarlted for the development of two (2) free market dwelling units on Parcel 3. Such units shall be contained within one (1) duplex structure. Each dwelling unit within the duplex structure may contain a maximum of four bedrooms and no more than 4,500 square feet of floor area. Development on Parcel 3 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 9,000 square feet TOMI shall further subdivide Parcel 3 by the creation of a common interest community. Prior to the conveyance of any interest in Parcel 3, a common interest community plat for either a condominium or planned community (as determined by TOMI) shall be duly recorded, TOMI shall record the approved condominium (or planned community) subdivision plat for Parcel 3 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of its approval by the Community Development Director. IfTOMI fails to record the approved plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the Community Development Director, the plat shall be invalid and TOMI shall be required to submit a new plat to the Community Development Director for approval. (i) Accessorv Dwelling Unit on Parcel 3. One (1) ofthe units within the duplex structure approved for development on Parcel 3 shall contain an ADU or the owner of Parcel 3, at its election, shall make a cash in lieu payment thereof. The ADU shall be deed restricted and constructed in accordance with the City's ADU regulations under the 1996 Code. At the tiIIl,e a C~rtificateof Occupancy is issued for the ADU, APCHA shall have the right to conduct a site visit. Ifthe owner of parcel 3 elects not to construct the ADU, a cash in lieu payment shall be made in accordance with the City's ADU regulations in effect at the time ofquilding permit issuance. (d) Development on Parcel 4. Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 4. Development on Parcel 4 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of6,200 square feet, which shall include the ADD if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (e) Development on Parcel 5. Approval is hereby gr2mted for the development of ~ one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 5. Development on Parcel 5 is' limited to a maximum allowable floor area of5,200 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (f) Development on Parcel 6, Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 6. Development on Parcel 6 38181-16 7 1111\\ 11\\ II~\I \\11\ \\~ \\~III \\11\ 1\ I~ \11\ ~ll. ?~~;;~t:;. '" _. ..._ ",,,\!l~ aITKIN COUNTY CO ~ ('I , / EXECUTION COPY is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 5,200 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (g) Development on Parcel 7. Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 7. Development on Parcel 7 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 6,500 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (h) Development on ParcelS, Approval is hereby granted for the development of one (1) detached, free market single family residence on Parcel 8, Development on Parcel 8 is limited to a maximum allowable floor area of 6,500 square feet, which shall include the ADU if constructed at the owner's election under Section 2.2(i), below. (i) Accessory Dwelling Units on Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7 and S. Each of the single family detached units approved for construction on Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall contain an ADU, or the owner of each Parcel, at his election, shall make a cash in lieu payment thereof The decision whether to construct an ADU or make a cash in lieu payment may be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis. If an ADU is constructed; it shall be approved, deed restricted and in every other respect constructed in accordance with the City's ADU regulations in effect at the time of building permit application for each str\)cture. Ifa cash in lieu payment is made, it shall be made in accordance with the City's ADU regulations in effect at the time of issuance of the applicable building pennit. If an ADU is constructed on any Parcel, at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the ADU, APCHA shall have the right to conduct a site visit. CD Exemptionfrom GMQS. The thirteen (13) free market units approved for development on Top of Mill as hereinabove described are exempt from the City's growth management quota system as the development rights for such units are derived from the 47 residential development rights held by TOMI under the First Amel1ded PUD Agreement. TOM!' s construction of the four (4) deed restricted affordable hoilsing units on Parcel 2 and the six (6) ADU's on Parcels 3-8 (or payment of cash in lieu thereof from the owners of Parcels 3-8), shal1 constitute compliance with all applicable City regulations with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single family, duplex and multi-family residential units on all of (i.e., Lots I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD. No further affordable housing shall be required in connection with the development of Top of Mill as approved in this Agreement. It is understood that upon ,recording of this Agreement and recording of the SubdivisionlPUD Agreement for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD, no residential credits associated with the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD will remain (it being understood that all remaining residential credits associated with the Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD will have been used in connection with Top ofMil1 and said Lot 5, Aspen Mountain SubdivisionlPUD). 38181-16 8 lIWIIJ~~J~'IUJ'I IIW1~'Jl"IIIIIII'II'1111I1 ~';L1~~;;. 27P R 235,00 D 0,00 A 1""'\ EXECUTION COPY (k) Calculation of Floor Area. The calculation of aIJowable floor area for all structures and units approved for development on Top of Mill shall be made in accordance with the City's floor area regulations in effect at the time of the building permit application for each particular structure; provided, however, the maximum allowable floor areas set forth in this Agreement shall not be reduced (i.e" all required adjustments for calculating allowable floor area, such as steep slopes, easements, etc., have already been considered in determining the floor areas set forth in this Agreement). (1) Parking. A minimum of twelve (12) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcell; eight (8) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel 2; four (4) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on Parcel 3; and two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on each of Parcels 4 - 8. (m) Common Access Driveway, Access Road and Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. (i) Common Access Drivewav. Vehicular access to the townhouse units on Parcel I shall be from a common driveway from Mill Street TOMI shall be responsible to construct the Parcel I cOJ,nmon driveway in connection with the construction of any improvement on Parcel l, After completion of construction of the common driveway, all costs associated with the maintenance and repair, including snowplowing, of the common driveway shall be paid by the owners of the units located on Parcel 1. (ii) Access Road. Vehicular access to Parcels 2 through 8 shall be from a private road, identified on the Final Plat as "Top ofMiIl Street", to be extended from the 'existing terminus of South Mill Street. TOMI has dedicated on the Final Plat, for the benefit of owners of Parcels 2 through 8, their guests and invitees, a perpetual non-exclusive easement for all ingress and egress purposes upon Top of Mill Street TOMI shall be responsible for the construction of Top of Mill Street as a subdivision improvement in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. After completion of said construction, all costs associated with the maintenance and repair, including snowplowing, of Top of Mill Street, shall be paid by owners of Parcels 2 through 8. (iii) Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter., TOMlshall install a sidewalk along the west side of Mill Street between Summit Street and tb\e, en-q-ance to Top of Mill Street. TOMI shall install a curb and gutter on the west side of Mill Street adjacent to Parcel I and along Top of Mill Street Such improvements shall be installed as subdivision improvements in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement and as shown on the Final PUD Development Plan for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. (n) Utilities. TOMI shall install all utilities shown oft the Schematic Utility Plan for Top of Mill to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement 3818]-]6 9 iIWIIJ~~J~IIHI'11111~11~IJlf1lll filiI 11111111 ~;L~~!:;: 27F R 235.00 0 0.00 r-, r-, ," EXECUTION COPY All such utilities shall be installed as subdivision improvements in accordance with Section 2.3 of this Agreement. TOMI shall be required to show to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ("ACSD") all service locations at the station numbers on the final utility plans for Top of Mill prior to building permit application. Additionally, TOMI shall indicate to the ACSD if main line easements within any City rights-of-way are to be dedicated by plat or by description. In addition, TOMI shall execute a "Line Extension Request" and a "Collection System Agreement" with ACSD prior to building permit application. Unless otherwise agreed to by TOMI and ACSD: (i) forty percent (40%) of the estimated total connection fees must be paid by TOMI to ACSD at the time service lines are stubbed off the main line into the specific Parcels of Top of Mill and (ii) the remaining balance of the connection fees shall be paid by the owner of the Parcel at the time service is established to such owner's Parcel. (0) Landscaping. TOMI shall install and otherwise implement all landscaping for Parcels 1, 2, 3 and Open Space Parcel A depicted on the approved Landscape Plan, which is to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. Landscaping for Parcels 4-8 shall be the responsibility of the respective owners of those Parcels, (p) Trail Easements. 3818]-]6 (i) Top of Mill Trail. The Final Plat vacates the Top of Mill Trail Easement as shown on the First Amende~ Plat Aspen Mountain Subdivision and Planned Unit Development filed October'3, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 35 (the "First Amended Plat"), The new Top of Mill Trail Easement shall be dedicated to the public for pedestrian purposes, as more fully set forth in that certain Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement between TOMI and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "A-I", to be recorded after: (I) publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of said Top of Mill Trail Easement; (2) the City of Aspen notifies TOMI thereof; and (3) an as-built legal description is available (and provided by TOMI) for the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement lying between the western boundary of Parcels I and 8 and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B (it being understood that the Final Plat merely indicates the general vicinity of the new Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area and that the Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area \vill be located and aligned after the trail is construc.ted in that area). The public dedieation shall also include the right, on the part of the public, to cross Top of Mill Street in order to utilize the Top of Mill Trail Easement. Until suchtime as said public dedication shall become effective, TOMI dedicates and sets apart to the Master AssoCiation for the exclusive use and benefit ofthe owners, from time to time, of Parcels 1 through 8, their guests and invitees, for pedestrian purposes, an easement across and through said Top of Mill Trail Easement. Upon conveyance to the Master Association of said Top of Mill Trail Easement and until the public dedication shall become effective, the Master Association shall be: (a) responsible for the maintenance of said trail and (b) entitled 10 1111111I11111111 111111 ~;;L1~:0~f 0~: 27F SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO "", 'R235.00 0 0.00 38181-16 ,......., r ~ ,.J EXECUTION COpy to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use thereof. TOMI, for itself, its successors and assigns, shall improve the Top of Mill Trail Easement as it lies within Top of Mill by constructing a four-foot (4') wide single track path with underlying matting and a crusher-fine surface; provided, however, that TOM! shall have no obligation to improve that portion ofthe Top of Mill Trail Easement lying between the Aspen Mountain Trail and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B unless and until publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have been connected up with the easterly and westerly ends of Top of Mill Trail Easement If TOMI has not improved the Top of Mill Trail Easement as required herein at the time the public dedication becomes effective, TOMI shall depositinto escrow with the City of Aspen sufficient funds, in an amount determined by the City, to pay of the cost of completing said improvements. !f said improvements have not been completed within five (5) years of the date this Agreement is recorded, whether due to the fact that publicly dedicated trails through adjoining lands have not been connected upwith the easterly and westerly ends of said Top of Mill Trail Easement or otherwise, the funds deposited into escrow by TOM! for this purpose shall be released to the City and TOMl shall thereafter be relieved of any further obligation to improve the Top of Mill Trail Easement Upon recordation ofthe Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement, the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement depicted on the final Plat located between the western boundary of Parcels 1 and 8 and the western boundary of Open Space Parcel B shall automatically be vacated and replaced by the portion of the Top of Mill Trail Easement in that area described in the Top of Mill Trail Easement Agreement. (ii) Aspen Mountain Trail. The Final Plat vacates the Aspen Mountain Trail as shown on the first Amended Plat. The Aspen Mountain Trail Easement shown on the first Amended Plat will be replaced by a new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement to be located and aligned in the general vicinity depicted on the Final Plat; however, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat merely indicates the general vicinity of the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. The new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement shall be dedicated to the public for pedestrian and skiing purposes only as more fully set forth in that certain Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement between TOM! and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "A-2", to be recorded at a later date (the "Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement"). The Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement shall be recorded after TOMland the City of Aspen have agreed upon the actual location and alignment for the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. After TOMl and the City of Aspen have agreed upon the actual location and alignment for the new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement, TOM! shall provide in recordable form an as-built legal description of said new Aspen Mountain Trail Easement that shall be attached to, and recorded with, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement. Upon recordationofthe Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement, the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement depicted on the Final Plat shall 11 11\\ 11\\ 11\11 \11111\1 \ 11\ 111111 ~:~;~~~!0~f 0~~ 27P _.. _~~ __..~... ...T.......T~' ,...,,""IT" ,.." D .,.,1:; (1101 l'\ 01 0101 I": f") EXECUTION COpy automatically be vacated and replaced by the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement described in the Aspen Mountain Trail Easement Agreement. (q) Drainage. TOM! shall install the drainage improvements shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan to be recorded contemporaneously wilth the Final Plat and this Agreement. Drainage improvements shall be installed as a subdivision improvement in accordance with Section 23 of this Agreement. In addition, TOM! has granted the City a twenty foot (20') wide utility easement between Parcels 4 and 5 and over Open Space Parcel A as depicted on the Final Plat to be used solely for the purpose of allowing the City to install, maintain and repair a storm drain pipe within said easement, as more fully set forth in that certain Storm Drain Pipe Easement Agreement between TOMl and the City of Aspen attached hereto as Exhibit "B" to be recorded contemporaneously with this Agreement. (1') Air Quality. During all construction activities on Top of Mill, TOM! shall comply with the fugitive dust control specification included as part of the Construction Management Plan that will be submitted prior to building permit issuance. All development within Top of Mill shall comply with the Environmental Health Department's woodbuming stovelfireplace regulations in effect at the time of issuance ofthe applicable building permit. (s) Improvement Districts, On behalf of itself and all future owners of any property within Top of Mill, TOM! hereby agrees to join any future improvement districts that may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements that benefit the subj ect property under an assessment formula. To the extent any future improvement districts are formed for storm sewers, storm water retention or slope movement, TOMI shall receive a credit against any amounts that may be assessed against it for amounts paid pursuant to subparagraphs (dd), (ee) or (ff) below, (t) School Land Dedication Fees. The owner of each Parcel shall p~y the required Schoo! Land Dedication Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of it;; parcel. This fee shall be assessed at the rate of the regulations and calculations in effect at the time of the building permit application. (u) Park Development Impact Fees. The owner of each Parcel shall pay the . required Park Development Impact Fee to the City of Aspen, which is due and payable at the time of building permit application for the development of its parcel. This fee shall be _ assessed at the rate of the regulations and calcul~tions in effect at the time of the building permit application. (v) Exterior Lighting. All exteriorlighting within Top of Mill shall comply with the Site and Exterior Lighting Plan to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. TOM! shall be required to submit detailed "cut sheets" for the proposed 38]8]- ]6 12 JUURUt IUlUlllI1 R JL0~;~l~~r0~:0~727F ~ r""'\ ....,J EXECUTION COPY street lights on Top of Mill indicating the correct lumens on the lighting plan as part of the detailed building set to be examined during building permit review, (w) Work in Public Rights-of-Way. TOMI shall first receive the approval of the appropriate City Department andlor utility/service district prior to commencement of any work within a public right-of-way. (x) Damage to Public Rights-of-Way. TOMI shall repair any public right-of-way damaged during construction on any Parcel within Top of Mill prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure on said Parcel. (y) Construction Hours. Construction activity within Top of Mill shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m" Monday through Saturday. No construction activity shall be permitted on Sunday. (z) Construction Management Plan. During all construction activities on Top of Mill, TOMI shall comply with the Construction Management Plan that will be submitted prior to building permit issuance. (aa) Inji'astructure and Removal of Fill. TOMI shall have the right to apply for permits for construction of infrastructure and ren:oval of fill from Top of Mill at any time after approval of Ordinance No, 7. (bb) Erosion Control. Erosion control plans, including potential natural resource protection structures, and a detailed plan for irrigation systems and other plantings within the City of Aspen right-of-way shall be submitted by TOMl to the Parks Department for approval prior to the application of building permits. Separate erosion control plans shall be submitted by the owners of each Parcel prior to the issuance of a building permit for their respective Parcels, (cc) Street Impact Fees. TOMl and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLChave contributed $83,000.00 in Street Impact Fees to the City of Aspen in connection with the proposed development on Top of Mill and on Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. No additional street impact fees will be charged in connection with Top of Mill or Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/!,UD, (dd) Storm Sewer. The City of Aspen has agreed to install a storm sewer pipeline adjoining Mill Street and the southern property line of Top of Mill that will run down Mill Street and tap into the City's existing storm sewer line at or above Durant Street TOMI has paid the City $14,000.00 towards the cost of designing a complete infrastructure system for South Mill Street and will pay up to an additional $66,000.00 towards the cost of such system within 30 days after completion, as long as it is completed by October 1,2002. Once 3818]-16 1 C 11111111I11111I11 111111 ;:;L~!0~f 0~7 27F SILVI~ DIWIS PiTKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 00,00 t"""" ~ .7 ,t ., EXECUTION COPY the infrastructure has been constructed at Top of Mill, TOMl shall connect the Top of Mill storm sewer system with the City's and there shall be no cost to TOMI to do so. (ee) Rio Grande Ponds. The City has a plan to upgrade its storm water retention ponds at Rio Grande Park, the cost of which shall be borne by all new development in the City. TOMI and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC shall contribute $144,000,00 towards the construction of such upgrades within six (6) months of the latest to occur of (i) the recording of the Final Plat or (ii) the recording of the final plat for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. No addition<il costs of the upgrades will be charged to TOM1, Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC or the owners of any real property within Top of Mill or Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, If the City has not proceeded! with the aforementioned upgrades within five years of the date of this Agreement, the entire $144,000,00 (plus accrued interest) shall be returned to TOMl and Grand Aspen Lodging, LLC. (ff) Slope Movement Monitoring System. The City Engineering Department has requested TOMl to voluntarily contribute $55,000.00 towards the cost of studying andlor developing a slope movement monitoring system for slopes above the City of Aspen. Although TOMI is not aware of any need for such system, or has ever been shown the necessity of such a system above Top of Mill, TOMl has agreed to contribute $55,000.00 for such purpose with the restriction that such fuqds be used solely for studying and/or developing a system for slopes above Top of Mill. TOMI's contribution under this paragraph shall be made within six (6) months of the recordation of the Final Plat. The City shall hold such funds in escrovv <ind shall b~ dispersed only for the purposes described in this paragraph and upon mutual approval ofTOMI and the City, If the City has not proceeded with the aforementioned study and/or development within three years of the date of this Agreement, the entire $55,000,00 (plus accrued interest) shall be returned to TOMI. (gg) Fire Protection. Fire sprinklers and alarm systems shall be installed in all the proposed buildings on Top of Mill as required by the City of Aspen Fire Marshal. Appropriate "booster pumps" (if required) rather than pressure tanks for the sprinkler system shall be used to gain the necessary water pressure as required by the City Fire Department. The owner of each Parcel shall be responsible for ensuring that any buildings constructed thereon shall comply with this condition of approval. In addition, TOMI shall submit a fire safety plan for the demolition of the existing structures to be preformed by TOMl and the construction of the proposed development of Top of Mill to the Engineering Department at the time of building permit application. (00) Development on Parcel 9. Development on Parcel 9 shall be limited to the existing garage and trash storage structures and any replacement thereof (whether due to casualty, obsolescence or otherwise), which replacement shall be for the same use; occur only within the footprint of said existing structures and the existing square footage of said structures cannot be increased. The provisions of this Paragraph 2.2(00) and 2, I (b )(ii) and (iii) above shall be binding on Parcel 9, 38181-16 14 \\11\11 BIll \lll~!!!\\\!~~~1 III III IIIIII II ~!l. ?~:l:~r..:;,,, r,\ t""\ ',:} " EXECUTION COpy 2.3 Subdivision Improvements. TOMI shall complete the following subdivision improvements, all as depicted on the Final PUD Development Plan for Top of Mill, which is attached to and recorded as a part of the Final Plat. (a) Excavation and removal of approximately 28,000 cubic yards of excess fill to bring the site back to the base elevations utilized in the site grading plan. (b) Construction of approximately 1,000 linearfeetofsidewalk both in the public right-of-way (820 linear feet) and internal to the project site. (c) Instaliation of two handicap sidewalk ramps, (d) Installation of up to 4 street lights in the public right-of-way and on Top of Mill Street. ( e) Construction of approximately 1,200 linear feet of new curb and gutter along the west side of the South Mill Street as well as along Top of Mill Street. (f) Construction of approximately 900 linear feet of8 inch diameter ductile iron water main extension including two fire hydrants and related gate valves and fittings. (g) Construction of approximately 480 linear feet of 8 inch diameter PVC sewer main extension including 6 sewer manholes and appurtenances. (h) Installation of approximately 650 linear feet of electric primary, gas, phone and cable TV lines. (i) Installation of site drainage improvements including 620 linear feet of storm drain, 6 inlet structures and 3 manholes to handle storm runoff from new impervious areas, (j) Placement of 4,500 square yards of asphalt or concrete paving. (1<) Construction of approximately 500 linear feet of 4-foot wide gravel path within Top of Mill Trail Easement. (I) Construction of approximately 590 linear feet of 4-foot wide gBavel path within Aspen Mountain Trail Easement. 2.4 Cost of Subdivision Improvements. The current estimated cost ofthe subdivision improvements described in Section 2.3 above, as more specifically set forth in the Engineer's Estimate of Cost prepared by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dated May 31, 2002, a copy of which is 38181-16 15 HtJLtt UJ llUJI r 1111111 ~;~:/~~0~f 0~: 27F R 235,00 n ~ ~~ 1"""1 f"') ,< , EXECUTION COPY attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof by this reference, and as approved by the City Engineer, is $746,925.00. TOMI shall complete construction of the aforesaid subdivision improvements in accordance with a Construction Schedule,t() be~ubrnitteqs()the City Engineering Department simultaneously with submission of the financial' guarantee described in Section 2.6 hereof. 2.5 Landscape Plan and Related Costs. TO!'v1I shall il)stall all landscaping on Parcels I, 2, 3 and Open Space Parcel A depicted on the approved Landscape Plan, which is to be recorded contemporaneously with the Final Plat and this Agreement. Landscaping for Parcels 4-8 shall be the responsibility of the respective owners of those Parcels. TOMl shall ensure the success of all landscaping installed by TOMI pursuant to the Landscape Plan for a period of two (2) years from the date of installation, TOMI shall replace any landscaping installed by TOMl that fails during such two (2) year period except where damage or destruction of such landscaping is caused by individual property owners. After installation and initial grow-in of such landscaping, the Master Association shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Open Space Parcel A, the homeowners association for the townhouses on Pareel I shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcell, and the homeowners association for the affordaqle housing units on Parcel 2 shall have the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcel 2. The owners of the duplex units on Parcel 3 shallhave the responsibility to irrigate, mow, trim, and otherwise maintain the landscaping within Parcel 3. The current estimated cost of implementing the Landscape Plan and for assuring the success of said landscaping for a period of two (2) years after installation, as more specifically set forth in the schedule prepared by DHM Design Corporation dated May 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and made a part hereof by this reference, and as approved by the City Engineer, is $82,182.00.00 for Parcell; $47,600.00 for Parcel 2; $ 31,023.00 for Parcel 3; and $55,887.00 for Open Space Parcel A 2.6 Financial Assurances, (a) In order to ensure construction and installation of tlle subdivision improvements described in Section 2.3 above, and to guarantee 100 percent of the current estimated cost of the subdivision improvements, TOMl shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit from a financially responsible lender in the amqunt of$746,925.00 (the "Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit"). The Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the first residential structure on Top of Mill. ,(b) In order to ensure construction and installation of the landscaping improvements described in Section 2.5 above, and to guarantee 125 percent of the current estimated cost of the landscaping improvements (including 2 years of maintenance thereof), TOMI shall provide to the City irrevocable letters of credit from a financially responsible lender in the amount of $102,727.50 (i.e., 125% of$82, 182.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcell; $59,500.00 (i.e., 125% of $47,600.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcel 2; $38,778.75 (i.e., 125% of$3l,023.00) for the landscaping improvements on Parcel 3; and $69,858.75 (i.e., 125% of$55,887.00) for the 38181-16 16 \1111111111111111111111 ~~~7::~~0~f 0~7 m SILVI;::; O;:!V!S PITKIN COUNTY co . R 235.0~~ D 0.00 r ^ 1"""\ 1"""\ :....} ,< . EXECUTION COPY landscaping improvements on Open Space Parcel A; (each, a "Landscaping Letter of Credit", and collectively, the "Landscaping Letters of Credit"), The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel I shall be provided to the City at the time of building permit application for Parcel I, The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel 2shall be provided to the City at the time ofbuilding permit application for Parcel 2. The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcel 3 shall be provided to the City at the time of building permit application for Parcel 3, The Landscaping Letter of Credit for Open Space Parcel A shall be provided to the City with the first Landscaping Letter of Credit for Parcels 1,2 or 3 (e.g., if TOMI applies for a building permit for Parcell before Parcels 2 or 3, then the Landscaping Letters of Credit for Parcels I and Open Space Parcel A shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Parcell). (c) The Landscaping Letters of Credit and the Subdivision Improvements Letter of Credit (together, the "Letters of Credit") shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, and give the City the unconditional right, upon default by TOMI to draw on funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding and delinquent bills for work done thereon by any party, with any excess letter of credit amounts to be applied first to additional administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder, if any, of such Letter of Credit is released to TOMI. Provided, however, that TOMI shall be given fourteen (14) days written notice of default (and the right to cure during said period) prior to the City's ability to make a draw under any Letter of Credit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, delays or other problems resulting from acts of God or other events beyond the reasonable control of TOMI shall not .constitute a default hereul1der ,so 19n9 as a good faith effort is being made to remedy the problem and the problem is in fact resolved within a reasonable period oftime following its occurrence. As portions of the improvements required are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect the subdivision improvements and the City Parks Department shall inspect the landscaping improvements, and upon approval and written acceptance, a reduction in the outstanding amount of the applicable Letter of Credit shall be authorized in an amount equal to the agreed estimated cost for the completed portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer or City Parks Department, as the case may be, and with respect to landscaping improvements, an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of the estimated cost thereof shall be retained until the landscaping improvements have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years. (d) It is the express understanding of the parties that compliance with the procedure set forth il1 Section 2.7 below pertaining to the procedure for default and amendment of this Agreement shall not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of these financial assurances and guarantees to be provided by TOMI as set forth above. 2.7 Noncompliance and Request for Amendments or Ext,ensions by TOM!. In the event that the City Council determines that TOMI is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City Council shall notify TOMI in writing specifying the alleged non- 38181-16 17 \ \IIIIIII~U\\I"~I j~' II 1'111 ~ lIt. E~L;~t.;;", /"'" tJ " , EXECUTION COPY compliance and asking that TOMI remedy the alleged non-compliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not less than 30 days. If the City Council determines that TOMI has not complied within such time, the City Council may issue and serve upon TOMI a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring TOMl to remedy the same within thirty (30) days thereafter. Within twenty (20) days ofthe receipt of such order, TOMI may file with the City Council either a notice advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to determine anyone or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance, which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in the order of non-compliance and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council for other hearings. If the City Council determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a non- compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the imposition of daily fines until such noncompliance has been remedied, the withholding of permits and/or certificates of occupancy, as applicable; provided, however, no order shall terminate any land use approval. The City Council may also grant such variances, extensions oftime or amendments to this Agreement, as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances, The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not umeasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance if TOMI demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons for the delay( s) which necessitate said extension( s) result from acts of God or other events beyond the reasonable control of TOMI, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely malll1er. 2.8 Top of Mill Construction Schedule. Development of Top of Mill shall comply with the most recent municipal engineering practice standards and the "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) identified for water quality control requirements. The development shall occur in accordance with the time frames set forth below, which are contained in Aspen City Council Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2002 ("Ordinance No. 15-02"): (a) TOMI may submit building permit applications for construction of infrastructure and remova.1 offill any time after approval of Ordinance 7, but such applications shall be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after recordation of this Agreement and the Final Plat. (b) TOMI may submit building permit applications for the improvements to be constructed on Parcels I and 2 any time after recordation of this Agreement and the final Plat. 38181-16 111~IIJ~~J~ll(jJ'1111~11~IJ11I1111I1111 ~I JJl 471100 Page: 18 of 47 08/16/2002 02:27P .00 0 0,00 r-, 1111111111111111 ~ 1111 ~;~::i~0~f 0~: 27F SILVjA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235.00 D 0.00 , .' . EXECUTION COpy (c) TOMl may submit building permit applications for tlIe improvements to be constructed on Parcels 3,4,5,6,7 and Sany time after approval of Ordinance 7, but not before a building permit is issued to Bavarian Affordable Housing, LLC for "Pha.se !" of the Ihvariafi Inn. Affordable Housing Project. (d) No certificate of occupancy for any townhome unit to be constructed on Parcell shall be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the affordable housing units to be constructed on Parcel 2. (e) The certificate of occupancy for the free-market improvements to be constructed on any of Parcels 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and S shall not be issued until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the on-site accessory dwelling unit on any such Parcel or the owner of such Parcel has paid the applicable affordable housing impact fee. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the provisions of Ordinance No. 15-02, this Agreement shall govern and control. ARTICLE 3 GENERAL PROVISIONS 3.1 The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of TOMI and City and each of their respective successors and assigns. 3,2 This Agreement shall be subject to and constl1led in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 3.3 If any of the provisions ofthis Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section or the application thereof in any circumstance is invalidated, such invalidity shall not affectthe validity of the remainder of this Agreement, and the applica.tion of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. 3 A This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contains the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder. TOMI, its successors or assigns may, on its own initiative, petition the City Council! for an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance hereunder. The City, Council shall not uilleasonably deny such petition for amendment or extension after considering all appropriate circumstances. Any such amendments or extensions of time shall only become effective upon the execution by all parties hereto that are affected by the proposed amendment (it being understood that after TOM! conveys Parcel 9 as described in Section 2.1(a) above, Parcel 9 shall not, except as provided in Paragraphs 2.1 (b )(ii) and (iii) and 2.2(hh) above, be covered by, or subject to this Agreement; and, excepting only said Paragraphs 2,1 (b )(ii) and (iii) and 2,2(hh), this Agreement may be amended without the consent of the owner of Parcel 9). The 38181-16 19 ,r-, """ .' EXECUTION COPY provisions of this Agreement shall supersede and replace Section M of the First Amended PUD Agreement as it relates to Top of Mill. 3.5 Numerical and title headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance cOl1tained herein. As used herein, where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders. 3.6 Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees to approve and execute this Agreement and the Final Plat, and cause the same to be promptly recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the recordation fee by TOM!. 3.7 Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be given if hand delivered or if deposited in the United States Mail to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: City: City of Aspen City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 8161 I 11111111111 H f 1111/1111 ~;~l/~:0~f 0~727P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 235,00 D 0.00 TOMI: Top of Mill Investors, LLC c/o Four Peaks Development, LLC 1000 S. Mill Street Aspen, CO 8 I 611 With copy to: Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.c. 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 8161 I 3.8 The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with and burden the real property more particularly described herein and any and all owners hereof, their successors, grantees or assigns, and further shall inure to the benefit of and be spes:ifically enforceable by or against the parties hereto, their successors, grantees and assigns. [Signatures on Next Page] 38181-16 20 r'\ P1 " , EXECUTION COPY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written, CITY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Colorado munici 1 0 oration , ATTEST: / APPROVED AS TO FORM: ,..1//" .~' . ,/{ Ii' (?~.{, ' /L~ JoHn W0'rcester, City Attorney TOMI: TOP OF MILL INVESTORS, LLC, ,n,bw lima,d li'b;J~" (mt, .~ [Acknowledgments on Next Page} III ~lll~Ii!~ U,I ill IIIOII}II ~;;,l~~, ';'", .00 0 0,00 3818]-16 21 1""\ " .. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I 1 iWill~~J~llf~J/ll~lt'jl"llll 1111111111111 ~;~L1~~f 0; 727F R 235,00 0 0.00 . EXECUTION COPY The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this Ilo\iA1 day of ~ [,,/-vl- , 2002, by l...\-e.I 8-y\ J;:::.a\i V1 ~\~ ,2 nl.<f as Mayor and Kathryn . Koch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado municipal corporation, Witness my hand and official My commission expires: STATE OF ~L.o~"''po COUNTY OF b1]Ct N ) ) ss ) .. Ad I tcu/^-.." The above and foregoing document was acknowledged before me this 8th day of August 2002, by David Parker as Director for Top of Mill Investors, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. Witness my hand and official My commission expires: 38181-16 22 ~">. ... _i ,1"""'\ ~ J EXHIBIT 8 ' , . D. Affordable Housing Savanah's affordable housing mitigation requirement for their proposed hotel on Lot 5 was determined to be 40.9 net new employees in connection with conceptual PUD development plan approval. This figure was approved by both APCHA and the City Council, and is memorialized in condition number 4 of Resolution No. 99- 111. The number of employees to be housed was determined based on the "net new employees" concept contained in the Amended PUD Agreement. A total of 82.2 employees was determined to be generated by the proposed hotel. A credit of 47.8 employees, however, was given for the former Grand Aspen Hotel, which resulted in an employee generation of 34.4 net new employees. The 40.9 employee affordable housing mitigation requirement was derived by combining the 34.4 nelt new employees generated with the former hotel's 6.5 employee housing replacement obligation. While the proposed fractional ownership project is projected to generate significantly fewer employees than Savanah's proposed hotel, the Applicant has nonetheless agreed to comply with the affordable housing mitigation requirement that was imposed in connection with Savanah's conceptual PUD approval. As the attached letter from Hyatt Vacation Resorts indicates (see Exhibit 11, EXhibit D), a total of thirty-nine full-time equivalent employees will be required to operate the Applicant's proposed development. When compared to Savanah's proposed hotel, this figure represents a reduction in employee generation of approximately forty-three employees, or 53 percent. In fact, the proposed development's affordable housing generation is less than the employee credit which was given Savanah for the former Grand Aspen Hotel. Were the employee credit to be applied to the proposed fractional ownership project as provided for in the Amended PUD Agreement, no affordable housing mitigation would arguably be required. 110 .i.. , " } ~.;t ,..., ~ Approximately sixteen of the required 40.9 I~mployees will be housed within the proposed multi-family structure on Lot 5, as required pursuant to condition number 4 of Resolution No. 99-111. As in Section IV.B. of this application, nine 1- b4foom affordable housing units will be provided on the structure's main level. The units ~~ been designed to exceed applicable minimum net livable area requirements, and will he deed restricted and rented pursuant to APCHA's Category 2 income and I occupary guidelines. Thirteen additional employees will be housed within the Bavarian Inn afffrdable housing project. The specific units to be utilized for this purpose and their respective income categories will be determined prior to recordation of the Bavarian Inn \ , subdivisi~nlPUD agreement. In connection with final PUD review of the Bavarian Inn project, th~ City Council agreed that the Applicant would have the right to sell the units \ ' in question\fo qualified employees of their choosing. Upon resale, however, the units " are to be m#e available to any qualified employee via APCHA's lottery process. The Applicant proposes to meet the remainder of Savanah' s 40.9 employee mitigation requirement via a cash-in-lieu payment. The amount of the payment will be based on the remaining 12.15 employees (i.e., 40.9 employees - 15.75 employees - 13 employees) and APCHA's cash-in-lieu requirement in effect at the time of building permit application. While condition number 4 of ResolutionNo. 99-111 does not allow for the proposed cash-in-lieu option, the fact that the Applicant is willing to provide affordable housing mitigation substantially in excess of that which would otherwise be required should warrant approval of this mitigation option. Based on current APCHA guidelines, the required cash-in-lieu payment would generate $1,272,808.36 (i.e., 12.15 employees x $104,757.89/employee) which could be used by the City for other municipal affordable housing projects. The Applicant's obligations with respect to affordable housing mitigation for the proposed development on Lot 5 are addressed in Article 2, section 2.2(b) of the Lot 5 Agreement. 111 *I ,r , ) .~ r"'\ fi While it was Savanah' s position that no further mitigation was required for the POO's remaining residential reconstruction credits, the:y nonetheless proposed to provide four deed restricted multi-family units and six accessory dwelling units (or a cash payment-in-lieu thereof) on Lot 3 for affordable housing mitigation purposes. The provision of these units is sufficient to comply with the City's current regulatory requirements with respect to the demolition and reconstruction of existing single-family, duplex and multi-family residential units. The four multi-family units are required to mitigate the prior demolition of the various multi-family dwelling units located throughout the PUD. The six accessory dwelling units are required to mitigate the seven reconstruction credits which will be utilized to develop the five single-family residences and one duplex which are proposed on Lot 3. As paragraph L. of the Amended pun Agreement indicates, a total of forty-two residential reconstruction credits were confirmed by the City in connection with Savanah's 1988 amended PUD approval. The source of these credits (i.e., the properties on which the units were located) was identified in Schedule 9 which was attached to the agreement. The types of units from which the credits were derived (i.e., single-family, duplex and multi-family) were identified in Appendix D. to Roberts original 1983 residential GMQS application for the PUD. This inventoI"'j of existing lodge rooms, residential dwelling units and commercial space formed the basis for the City subsequent reconstruction credit approval which is memorialized in Schedule 9 of the Amended POO Agreement. Of the forty-two reconstruction credits which were approved in 1988, three were subsequently utilized to construct the Summit Place townhouses on Lot 2 of the PUD. The remaining thirty-nine credits, which have yet to be utilized, were reconfirmed in connection with the City Council's approval of Savanah's May 1998 Section M. 112 ( .) I .f'"',. n residential units or a duplex unit" is exempt from growth management subject to compliance with one of several affordable housing mitigation options, the choice of which is at the discretion of the property owner. The most commonly used options are the provision of an on-site, deed restricted accessory dwelling unit or the payment of an affordable housing impact fee in lieu thereof. While additional mitigation options are available, they have rarely been used. In the event Savanah elected to provide on-site accessory dwelling units, the proposed five single-family residences and the one duplex would require a total of six ADUs, or one accessory dwelling unit per structure. In the alternative, Savanah could elect to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee for each free market residential dwelling unit. The remaining eleven reconstruction credits that were derived from the prior demolition of single-family and duplex units need not be mitigated as the applicable mitigation requirement is triggered upon "replacement" of the demolished units as opposed to demolition. 2. Multi-Family Units. Pursuant to Section 26.100.050.A.2.a.(4), "the replacement of demolished multi-family residential units" is exempt from the growth management quota system subject to the provisions of the City'_s Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. Upon the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the program requires that a minimum of 50 percent of the net residential area demolished be replaced as deed restricted affordable housing. The replacement square footage must be configured in such a manner as to replace a minimum of 50 percent of the bedrooms that are demolished. As discussed previously, twenty-four of the PUD's forty-two reconstruction credits were derived from the demolition of multi-family dwelling units. The source and configuration of these credits is summarized iin Table 6 on the following page. 114 -) .~ ,....", n I , in APCHA's 2000 Affordable Housing Guidelines. These requirements appeared to be appropriate given the nature of the units that were demolished and their former occupants. The resulting net residential area which was required to be replaced was calculated as outlined in Table 7, below. Table 7 REPLACEMENT NET RESIDENTIAL AREA Aspen Mountain SubdivisioniPOO 1. Net Residential Area Demolished (Sq. Ft.)! 12,250 12- Studio Units @ 400 Sq, FU Unit 11 - 1 Bedroom Units @ 600 Sq. FU Unit 1 - 2 Bedroom Unit @ 850 Sq. FU Unit 4,800 6,600 850 2. Net Residential Area to be Replaced @ 50 Percent (Sq. Ft.) 6,125 Based on APCHA's current net livable area requirements for Category 1 and 2 units. Based on the above calculations, and the City's current regulatory requirements with respect to demolition and affordable housing'mitigation, the proposed reconstruction of six multi-family dwelling units was determined to require the provision of 12.5 affordable housing bedrooms and approximately 6,125 square feet of net residential area to mitigate the twenty-five multi-family bedrooms which were demolished throughout the PUD. The four multi-family units which are proposed on Parcel 2 will contain thirteen bedrooms and approximately eight thousand square feet of floor area. Based on current APCHA guidelines, these units will be credited with housing a total of 12.5 employees. 116 .) 1""'>, n I , While Chapter 20.08.040 of the 1995 Municipal Code appears to permit some flexibility in determining the mix of the replacement affordable housing as between category and resident occupied units, Part IV, Section 4 of APCHA's 2000 guidelines requires that the average price of the replacement housing units not exceed Category 2 maximum rental or sales prices. Section 4 of the guidelines also prohibits the inclusion of resident occupied units in the replacement housing mix. The obvious contradiction between Chapter 20.08.040 and the guidelines notwithstanding, the Applicant proposes to deed restrict all of the replacement housing units on Parcd 2 to APCHA's Category 2 guidelines. In the alternative, the Applicant will cooperate with APCHA to achieve a mix of sales prices which when averaged will comply with the guidelines. The Applicant's obligations with respect to the provision of affordable housing mitigation on Lot 3 are addressed in Article 2, sections 2.2(b), (c) (i) and (i) of the Lot 3 Agreement. V. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The Applicant's proposed development of Lots 3 and 5 is subject to planned unit development, subdivision, condominiumization, timeshare, conditional use, 8040 greenline, mountain view plane and special review. A rezoning, two text amendments and two growth management quota system exemptions are al!so required. As discussed in the introduction to this application, the Applicant's final PUD development plan application, and all associated approval requests with the exception of timeshare, conditional use and condominiumization review, are submitted pursuant to the June 1996 reprint of Title 26, Land Use Regulations, of the 1995 Aspen Municipal Code. Compliance with the City's Residential design Standards should also be determined based on the June 1996 reprint of the regulations. The Applicant's request for condominiu- mization, timeshare and conditional use approval are submitted pursuant to the City's current land use regulations. 117 I . ~ (') amendment to the PUD. The expiration date of the reconstruction credits was also extended until one year from the date of issuance of a demolition permit for the Grand Aspen Hotel. The deadline for obtaining a demolition permit was extended until October 1, 1999. The reconstruction credits, therefore, would have expired on October 1, 2000, unless otherwise extended. The Grand Aspen Hotel demolition permit deadline and, by extension, the expiration date of Savanah's residential reconstruction credits, was further extended until October 1, 2000 in September of 1999 in connection with the approval of the eighth Section M. amendment request. The ninth Section M. Amendment, which was approved by the City in December of 2000, further extended Savanah's reconstruction credits until five years from the date of final PUD approval for Lots 3 and 5. As presently envisioned, thirteen of the reconstruction credits will be utilized to develop the five single-family residences, one duplex and six multi-family free market units which are proposed for Lot 3. As Appendix D. to the Roberts application indicates (see Exhibit 12, Appendix D), twenty-four of the approved reconstruction credits were derived from the demolition of multi-family structures. The remaining eighteen credits were derived from the demolition of single-family and duplex dwelling units. Inasmuch as Savanah intended to use seven of the single-family/duplex credits for the five single-family residences and the one duplex to be constructed on Parcels 2 through 8 on Lot 3, and six multi-family credits for the proposed multi-family units to be constructed on Parcell, Lot 3's required affordable housing mitigation was determined as follows based on current regulatory requirements. 1. Single-Family and Duplex Units. Pursuantto Section 26. 100.050- .A.2.c. of the Regulations, "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached 113 ^ t""\ '>' I , Table 6 MUL TI-FAMIL Y RECONSTRUCTION CREDITS Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD 1. North Aspen Inn Apartments (Bedrooms)! 6 6 - 1 Bedroom Units 2. Hillside Lodge (Bedrooms) 14 10 - Studio Units 10 4 - 1 Bedroom Units 4 3. Townplace (Bedrooms) 5 2 - Studio Units 2 1 - 1 Bedroom Unit 1 1 - 2 Bedroom Unit 2 4. Total Units Demolished 24 5. Total Bedrooms Demolished 25 These units were referred to as the Aspen Inn condominiums in Appendix D. of the Roberts 1983 residential GMQS application. Based on the requirements of the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, and assuming that all demolished multi-family units must be mitigated regardless of whether they are reconstructed, a total of 12.5 bedrooms must be replaced to mitigate the twenty-five multi-family bedrooms which were previously demolished throughout the PUD. The net residential area which must be replaced was more difficult to determine as no inventory of the square footage of the various demolished multi-family units was is believed to exist. In the absence of such information, Savanah proposed to utilize the minimum net livable area requirements for Category 1 and 2 units contained 115 f"', t""\ ,..) EXHIBIT 9 , . additional parcel on Lot 3 of the PUD to accommodate the existing Summit Place condominium owners' garage which is located thereon. No changes to the reconfigured hotel's affordable housing mitigation requirement were proposed or approved. E. Affordable Housing The history surrounding the determination of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD's various affordable housing requirements is unquestionably complex, and has continued to evolve throughout the life of the PUD. The key requirements which have been imposed to date on the PUD, however, can be summarized as follows. 1. Original PUD Application. As discussed in Section II.A. of this application, Roberts received final subdivision/PUD approval for Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the original PUD. The approval process for Lot 3 was suspended following receipt of conceptual approval. The affordable housing mitigation requirements for Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 were addressed in the Original PUD Agreement. A total of 182 employees were credited as being housed in four separate properties: the Alpina House Lodge, the Copper Horse Lodge, Ute City Place, and Hunter Longhouse. The employee generation for Lots 1 and 5 (i.e., the Phase I and II hotels) was based on generation factors complied by Jim Curtis of Real Estate Affiliates and confirmed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA"). These factors were applied to the hotels' proposed room count, support facilities (e.g., food and beverage areas, etc.) and accessory retail space. A credit was given for existing hotel .ro,oms, support facilities and retail space which was to be demolished to arrive at the number of "net new employees" generated. The number of employees that were required to be housed by Roberts was calculated at 60 percent of the net new employees generated. 21 ~ tJ Ii 1#.. No employees were required to be housed in connection with the development of Lot 2 of the PUD as the so-called Summit Place project was to be developed with reconstruction credits which were derived from residential demolitions. Nine employees, however, were required to be housed in connection with the development of the 700 South Galena project which was proposed for Lot 4. The development rights for this project were obtained by Roberts via competition in the City's residential GMQS process. The Original PUD Agreement contained no requirements with respect to Lot 3, as the Top of Mill project was still undergoing review at the time the agreement ) ./ was approved. It should be noted, however, that the Roberts proposal to construct thirty- three residential units on Lot 3 received conceptual approval from the City Council, and that no affordable housing was exacted as the project was to be developed entirely with residential reconstruction credits. The original affordable housing calculation for the PUD nonetheless contained an employee housing replacement component. This component was apparently required pursuant to Sections 20-22 and 20-23 of the then Municipal Code. In a letter to APCHA dated April 23, 1984, Jim Curtis calculated the replacement requirement at thirty employees based on the various existing residential structures that were to be demolished throughout the PUD. The lodge and residential reconstruction credits for the Aspen Mountain PUD are addressed in Section 1. of the Original PUD Agreement and in Schedule 8 attached thereto. 2. Savanah Limited Partnership PUD Amendment. Savanah received all required approvals for the development of Lots 1, 2 and 4 of the PUD. An amended application for the Phase II hotel project which was proposed on Lot 5 was apparently in the review process at the time the Amended PUD Agreement was approved. The agreement, however, anticipated that a new application would be sub- 22 ^ r"l ",p. ~ mitted for the development of Lot 3. The PUD's lodge and n~sidential reconstruction credits were updated slightly and attached as Schedule 9 to the Amended PUD Agreement. ) New employee generation figures were calculated for the revised Lot 1, Phase I hotel and the 700 South Galena residential project which was to be developed on Lot 4. The calculation process, however, was identical to that used in connection with the Roberts approval. The calculations were based on a credit for existing development, the concept of "net new employees" generated, and a 60 percent mitigation requirement. The revised figures are contained in Exhibit "B", Employee Mitigation and Replacement Housing, to the Amended PUD Agreement (see Exhibit 1, Appendix B). The new employee generation calculations also included an employ'~e housing replacement component for the PUD's residential reconstruction credits. As Exhibit "B" indicates, a total of 161.5 employees were determined to require housing based on the Savanah's development proposal for Lots 1, 2 and 4, and to accommodate the project's recon- struction credits. Twenty-nine employees were required to be housed as a result of the demolition of existing residential units located throughout the PUD. Paragraph B.4. of the Amended PUD Agreement al;knowledged Savanah's obligation to house 60 percent of the full-time equivalent employees generated by the development of the Hotel Phase I, Galena Place and Summit Place projects on Lots 1, 2 and 4 of the PUD, or 161.5 employees. Savanah, however, agreed to provide housing for 198.5 employees as an inducement to the City's approval of its revised development .proposal for Lots 1,2 and 4. Paragraph B.4. of the agreement specifically references Exhibit "B" which contains the detailed calculations for those components of the PUD which received final approval (Le., Lots 1, 2 and 4). Exhibit "B", however, also contains the PUD's employee housing replacement requirement which was required to 23 ^ ~ I ~ ,. ~ mitigate the approved reconstruction credits, and which is included in the 161.5 employee generation figure. The prior mitigation of the PUD' s residential reconstruction credits is also reflected in Savanah's 1989 Amended PUD application for Lot:; and the 1992 Amended PUD application for Lot 1. While both of these application were subsequently withdrawn prior to final approval, it is clear that Savanah believed that no further affordable housing mitigation was required in connection with the development of its reconstruction credits. Based on the fact that thePur>'s affordable housing mitigation calculations contained an employee housing replacement component for the residential reconstruction credits in both the original and amended PUD agreements, Savanah consistently maintained that no further mitigation for the PUD' s residential reconstruction credits is required. 'l /' Paragraph EA. of the Amended PUD Agreement addresses the affordable housing requirements to be imposed upon the redevelopment of Lot 5. In this paragraph, Savanah acknowledged its "potential obligation" to provide affordable housing for "net new employees" and "other employee housing requirements" as determined during the Lot 5 approval process. As noted previously, an amended PUD application for the Lot 5, Phase II hotel was in the review process when the Amended PUD Agreement was adopted, hence the various references to the Lot 5 application in the "Whereas" section of the agreement. The amendment application requested approval for twenty-four hotel rooms and thirty-seven residential units on Lot 5. Eight of Ithe residential units were .obtained via the GMQS process while the remainder were to be developed using Savanah's reconstruction credits. The term "net new employees" in paragraph EA. refers to the additional employees which potentially could be generated as a result of the construction of the 24 1'""\ (') ~ ~ '\... Phase II hotel. This position is supported by the content of the Lot 5 amendment application which was being processed by the City at the time the Amended PUD Agreement was approved, and the fact that the term net new employees only appears in the PUD's approval documents when referring to hotel development. The net new em- ployees terminology is also consistent with the employee generation calculation approach which was utilized in determining the PUD's hotel related affordable housing require. ments in both the original and amended PUD agreements. The term "other employee housing requirements" refers to the affordable housing that was required for the Lot 5 amendment application's GMQS residential component, as it was Savanah's position that all reconstruction credits had previously been mitigated. This position is supported by the Lot 5 amendment application which specifically states that the reconstruction credits which were being used for the balance of the Lot 5 residential component were not subject to additional affordable housing requirements. Savanah understood Paragraph EA. of the Amended PUD Agreement to mean that, upon demolition of the Grand Aspen Hotel, an employee credit would be given which reflects the hotel's existing lodge rooms and accessory square footage for purposes of calculating employee generation and the number of "net new employees" to be housed in connection with any further hotel development. Although the Amended PUD Agreement contains no specific requirements with respect to Lot 3, it was also Savanah's understanding that no additional affordable housing mitigation would be . required for new residential units which were d.erived from the PUD's approved recon- struction credits. 3. Conceptual PUD Development Plan Approval. The affordable housing mitigation requirement for Savanah's proposed one hllndred and fifty unit hotel 25 ,"""" 1'""\ } ~ "~, ~,. on Lot 5 of the PUD was determined to be 40.9 employees in cOlmection with conceptual PUD development plan review. This figure was approved by both APCHA and the City Council, and is reflected in condition number 4 of Resolution No. 99-111. Thenumber of employees to be housed was determined based on the "net new employees" concept and provided for in the Amended PUD Agreement. Condition number 4 also provides that Savanah be credited with housing thirteen of the employees generated by the proposed hotel in the Bavarian Inn affordable housing project. While Savanah had consistently maintained that no additional affordable housing mitigation was required to develop its remaining reconstruction credits, it nonetheless agreed to voluntarily mitigate the potential employees generated by the proposed development of new residential dwelling units on Lot 3. Four deed restricted affordable housing units are to be provided on Lot 3 to mitigate Savanah's prior " } ./ demolition of resident multi-family housing units throughout the PUD. In addition, Savanah agreed as a condition of conceptual PUD approval to either provide an on-site accessory dwelling unit or to pay an affordable housing impact fee in lieu thereof for each of Lot 3' s free market single-family residences and the free: market duplex proposed thereon. 4. Amended Conceptual POD Development Plan Approval. As noted previously, no changes in the amount of affordable housing required to mitigate the development of Lots 3 and 5 of the PUD were made in connection with the Applicant's amended conceptual PUD approval. While the employee requirements of the -proposed fractional ownership project are projected to be significantly less than that of the previously approved hotel, the Applicant has agreed to adhere to the affordable housing mitigation requirement that was imposed in connection with Savanah's original conceptual PUD approval. 26 A PLANNER: PROJECT: r"\ o CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY' Joyce Allgaier Ohlson, 920-5062 DATE: 9/13/02 Aspen Mountain PUD, Lot 3, Parcel 2 REPRESENTATIVES: OWNER: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates, LLC Pour Peaks Development, LLC APPLICATION TYPE: DESCRIPTION: PUD Amendment to allow for replacement of the 4-unit affordable housing complex on Parcel 2 with a free market duplex. Land Use Code Amendments to allow for cash in lieu payment for the affordable housing mitigation within the Residential Multi-familly Housing Replacement Program, Section 26.530.050, or GMQS Reconstruction Credit, Section 26.470.070 (A) 2 d, to allow utilization of credits in non-contiguous parcels within a PUD. The proposed PUD amendment and development would include a change to the Pinal PUD for Parcel 2 of Lot 3, AMPUD, changing the 4 unit affordable housing complex to a free market duplex. Cash in lieu payment is proposed instead of the construction of housing on Lot 3 of AMPUD. The cash in lieu payment requires a code amendment for developments falling under the RMF Housing Replacement Program where currently the code does not allow for cash payment. An altemative code amendment would be to the GMQS Reconstruction Credit provisions of the code so that the affordable housing mitigation for Lot 3 could be cited on the Bavarian Inn PUD Parcel Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.445.100 26.310 26.530.050 26.470.070(A)2d Review by: Public Hearing: Referral Agencies: Amendment of PUD Development Order Amendments to the LaJ;1d Use Code and Official Zone District Map Housing Replacement Requirments GMQS Reconstruction Credit Exemption for reconstruction of demolished units and for 1 Staff will review the application for completeness Referral agencies for recommendations Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Community Development Director for recommendation Planning Commission City Council Yes, with the Planning Commission and City Council Housing, Zoning, Others if major changes to site plan proposed r'1 () . .. Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Major ($2,405) Referral Agency Fees: Housing (Major: $345) Total Deposit: $ 2,750 (additional hours are billed at a rate of$205 per hour) Total Number of Applications: To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Signed fee agreement. 3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. 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. 5. Total deposit for review of the application. 6. 20 copies of submittal package. 7. An 8 y," by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. I......, 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation, in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with each ofthe review standards rekvant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as weill as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction technique~ to be used. 12. Site plan at 1" = 1 0'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed. 14. Floor plans, roof plan 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 16. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements (Attachment 4). * The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding 011 the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. (.... svann@rof.net, Aspen Mountain PUD I Tipple Lodge To: svann@rof.net From: Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Aspen Mountain PUD / Tipple Lodge Cc: Bcc: Attached: C:\home\Scott\Land Use Cases\Aspen Mountain PUD Lot 3VI.MPUD_DRCmemo.doc; Sunny, Attached is a copy of the minutes from the DRC. meeting last week on the Aspen Mountain PUD application. Not much there, but thought you should have a copy. On Tipple, do you guys agree to be reviewed under the recently adopted timeshare regulations, as opposed to the old? Scott. Printed for Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspel't.co.us> . 1 r ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~)- ""3 / AMp fA 1/\ SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: !! If 0 / () /_ I T{ , Aspen, co ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. ) County of Pitkin I, ',~ q IA{'(? ~ ! _,IitAr/lJ- (name, please print) being or representmg 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: --1;-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 le 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 ofletters 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 "p;;V , 200_, to and including the date arid 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agelilcy that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners s~all 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) """!ili':'AA," (""\ 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 has been available for pUQlic inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. . . . ". ....,......,......,'.,..' The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknj?wledged before 1Il~ day of (f'--J tYV , 200..l, by <-..:) ~=; L, '"' }C;:A;,~#~~;::;L#:~T:rG~rft~~\;s~.: :~.;:.~,l_~;~,~,..:fr..,-;,~: RE: ~CYf3'AsPEN'M~_L1N1'~lN~tJ,9~~~~~T, " CMQS EXE~Ptr9~N A~~~~l'iJ,)~~!?0~~..tS;~, "'CODE moo'M '10 LAND USE CODE ,"c. i"--TIbN'2Ks3tr,''Rom NG REPLACEMENY REQtnRV ~'-!illENtS"'--;'_"i':',',:'::'" ."-' "_','C i'Nb1'fCt~'ft@REBG!VE~,~h!1~ a publi~h'earjn~ ./ w\1!"ot\;,Ydoo ""d,y, Nouemb" 19, 2002 ,t, J~~tfng'1b,beim~a~~4':30 p.m.oei(jre th~', Aspen ,; '-~~nfand ZoningCommissio,n, Sister. Citie;s ROOl11,~ityHall, 130 S. Galena St:, Aspen, to con~ sider 'an application su~mitt;ed: by Top of Mill. II}; ve~tors, LLC:r~qU,e,S~inga_Plan~~,tJni(J:}eveloP- rrien:f(PU~)' Ari1~ndment' :an((}!I1QS. EXe~~tion A~~~'?lll~~~.. ~o_~ubst~tute-.apa~en,t,in lieu ofth~ con~tr~~i:iiri..:?~,)~e '-aPl)roveo w6n:site~ aflor~abr( houst~go'nParcel2;and to substitut~ a payment iillie,u,2fth~co~s~iucti?~,?f~n ~'ppr?~e,dac:es- soiYdwellfngunlt onparc~L1_(,nh~;\sp'~n,g?:t;,~: A TT ACHMENTS: tai~'s:~b~i~~i,l)n/.PUD~,ln a??ition,th~ applican,t has'req~ested a Text Amencjm,ent}o the...~<m1, U" Cod, to ,mood Sedi" 26,530,050, ~O",'~g ""JPY OF THE PUBLICATION .~eplacement Req~ir;rIl~J)!s, toa~ow lor a pay~, 'ment,in1ie~ option...". .,: F~' 'mth" i~fo',,:";o": co",,,t ~c~tt. IVO?d'?'d ''H OF TH.u POST'u']) "'OTIC'u (..<'IGN' a.ttl1e.:pt,yoiAspen Community oevelopm~J)_t L L. . H'I D...,. / Depa~tm'ent, 130 S'9al;n~ St.:, Asp~n,C?<970~ ?20-51Q2, scottw@cLaspen:to:u,s,' ,'''''. . .' . , .:;:;:t..;~ iIJ"min,Tyg",Ch'i, I GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED ~ii~in'~'andZOningCOnimi~Sj.o~ BYM' AIL ti."ASpery. TjmesQ,nN,?y,~IJ),9~!,,2,. ./:I WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: <~ Notary Public 1""'\ ~ ;jwr ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (El, ASPEN LAND USE CODE C:;Or:3 / ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~ ~ ~/ ~ ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~~ /9 . 200 -Z STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 55. County of Pitkin ) I, ?4I'/-r/S ~/'fk::.~1 (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-twc (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofletters 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 L day of ;<N6t-l~ ,200:2, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. / Maiiing 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemment, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-govemmental agency that owns 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) -",' -~.....'~ ......, ' ", _"__^,"".,,,,,,,,,,-'~w,,,_,",,,,,_'~"'., ~ (") Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever tiJ.e 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 ofa 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 ofreal property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. SigM",,(fJiY The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this ~y ofJ"X,\'QII\I\\flOr- ,200.a,bYl.A\{l.\S G"~Q\f"'h.- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 1//1 n )f'1'5""" , J (!ti,J)c[lA~_ - Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTp:D NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ~'-'----_..,..---,,,........- ' t'"""\ () PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LOT 3 ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUDAMENDMENT, GMQS ExEMPTION AMENDMENT, AND LAND DSE CODE AJ\I1'ENDMENTl'OL~lJSE CODE SECTION 26.530, HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena S1., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Top of Mill Investors, LLC, requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and GMQS Exemption Amendment to substitute a payment in lieu of the construction of the approved on- site affordable housing on Parcel 2; and to substitute a payment in lieu of the construction of an approved accessory dwelling unit on Parcel 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision / PUD. In addition, the applicant has requested a Text Amendment to the Land Use Code to amend Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements, to allow for a payment in lieu option. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena S1., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5102, scottw@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Jasmine Tve:re, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 2, 2002 City of Aspen Account f", ANDERSON BRUCE J 96 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE SNOWMASS, CO 81654-9354 ASPEN MOUNTAIN MINING CORPORATION PO BOX 203 ASPEN, CO 81612 BATMALE MARK PO BOX 9345 ASPEN, CO 81612 BESMAN PASCAL & LINDA 133 WOOLEYS LN GREAT NECK. NY 11023-2342 BLEILER JUDITH A PO BOX 10220 ASPEN, CO 81612 BUSH STEVEN S 0046 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CLAYCOMB J BARRY 3157 D PINEHURST DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 DICKIE E GORDON M D 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST 25060 PINE HILLS DR CARMEL, CA 93923 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT 14 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 EDGAR ROBERT G 167 COUNTRY CLUB DR GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2901 n ANDERSON BRUCE J 700 S MONARCH #207 ASPEN, CO 81611-1854 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY PO BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 BECKMAN SUSAN R POBOX 8167 ASPEN, CO 81612 BIELINSKI JUDITH 2121 TROWBRIDGE CT GLENVIEW,IL 60025 BRIDGE TIM 300 PUPPY SMITH ST STE 20,3-225 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHIATE KENNETH R & JEANNETTE 20628 ROCKCROFT MALlBU, CA 90265 COLE CONSTANCE P 1647 E MAPLEWOOD AVE LITTLETON, CO 80121 DUBS DAVID CRAIG 2165 E OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92661 DURANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ELDER TRUST ELDER JERRY TRUSTEE PO BOX 308 LA JOLLA, CA 92038-0308 -, -:7:':;~'~7::-:::;':',::;'::::;C~':::-~ ,.. ,..""..,_."..-._,.,....~",.,..-..,._... ASPEN ALPENBLlCK NO 3 LLC 211 VINE ST DENVER, CO 80206 ASPEN-DOLOMITE ASSOC #6 C/O BRIAN MCELWEE 120 SWARNER RD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406 BENNETT WOOD INTERESTS LTD PO DRAWER 1011 REFUGIO, TX 78377 BILLINGSLEY FAMILY LP 1206 N WALTON BLVD BENTONVILLE, AR 72712 BUSH STEVEN S 210 E HYMAN AVE #7 ASPEN, CO 81611-2912 CHILDS EVELYN 0284 COUNTY RD 102 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 DEAN PHILLIPS INC TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK 524 N 30TH ST QUINCY, IL 62301 DUFF DAVID A TRUSTEE PO BOX 305 CHAVIES, KY 41727 EAST JAMES COLLIER TRUSTEE 5800 R ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72207 ELMORE DAVID G 75% 1334 PARKVIEW AVE STE 210 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 n ERICKSON CLAIRE L & BETTY LOU 1231 INDUSTRIAL RD HUDSON, WI 54016 FASCHING HAUS CONDOMINIUM ASSOC INC 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FORD WARWICK S & NOLA M 6 ELLERY SQUARE CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138 FRIEDKIN THOMAS H 7701 WILSHIRE PL STE 600 HOUSTON. TX 77040 GAME JAMES A & MICHAELA PO BOX 451 PALISADE, CO 81526 GETTEL JAMES C 3480 BEE RIDGE RD SARASOTA, FL 34239 GORDON MARIANNE 420 E 54TH ST STE 20C NEW YORK, NY 10022 GUEST KELLEY & CATHERINE PO BOX 5578 CARMEL, CA 93921 HALL THOMAS L PERS INCOME & ASSET TRUST 15145 PAWNEE CIRCLE LEAWOOD, KS 66224 HANSEN BRUCE G KEEFER OLIVE C/O 2020 S ONEIDA ST STE 210 DENVER, CO 80224 r-) ESTABROOKS FAMILY TRUST 37 EMERAl.D BAY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 FINKLE ARTHUR A & AMELIA 2655 LE JEUNE RD PENTHOUSE #1 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 FORT BERNARDO & LAURINDA SPEAR 3315 DEVON CT COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 FRIEDMAN KARL 10 CHERRY HILLS DR CHERRY HILLS, CO 80110 GARDNER CHARLES L GARDNER RITA WALSH 840 LOCUST AVE WINNETKA, IL 60093 GHANEM MICHAEL C/O FOREIGN CARS CNTL INC 70 SW 10TH ST DEERFIELD BEACH. FL 33441 GOULD JAMES J & ELLEN M PO BOX 5098 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 GURTNER THOMAS & NANCY 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 HANSEN BRUCE ED MONGE REMAX PROPERTY MGMT 23284 TWO RIVERS RD STE 11A BASALT, CO 81621-9262 HARDEN SHEILA 8111 CAMINITO MALLORCA LA JOLLA, CA 92037 ETKIN DOUGLAS M & JUDITH G 29100 NORTHWESTERN HWY STE 200 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 FLYNN MICHAEL T 20211ST AVE #TG SEATTLE, WA 98121 FREEDMAN MICHAEL & NANCI WOLF 32460 EVERGREEN 'BEVERLY HILLS, MI 48025 FRONSDAL ARNE HUNDSUNDVEIEN 35 1368 SNAROYA NORWAY, GARRISON JAMES GARDINER & AMY 12 GREENWAY PLAZA 8TH FLOOR HOUSTON, TX 77046 GIANULlAS JIM & MARILYN H PO BOX 2990 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 GRAY W CALVIN JR & CONSTANCE M PO BOX 140 CENTREVILLE, MD 21617-0140 HAGER FRANCES C/O ASPEN LODGING CO MGT 747 GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HANSEN BRUCE G 2020 S ONEIDA ST #210 DENVER, CO 80224 HEARST BARBARA B & PETER S 131 TREASURE HILL SOUTH KENT, CT 06785 HEATH HETTA S TRUSTEE 606 N SPRING ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HILLMAN RICHARD HAYES TRUST 13562 D ESTE DR PACIFIC PALISADES. CA 90272 JACOBI ATHOLE G MD SUTTON TERRACE #308 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 KELTNER DONALD H 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD #730 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 KOSFIELD ASPEN LLC NATIONSBANK TOWER 100 S E 2ND ST STE 2800 MIAMI. FL 33131-2144 LEASURE BRIAN J 410 BOYD DR CARBONDALE. CO 81623-9248 LEVITUS STEPHEN I & PERRI A 7205 SHANNON DR EDINA, MN 55439 LOFLAND DAVID WESLEY 50% PO BOX 1327 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOVETT WELLS T & MARY M 18 STONE CREEK PK OWENSBORO, KY 42303 M & M INVESTMENTS C/O MAYER CHARLES 679 BRUSH CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 .--"""',..,-.-.,; "i" . ~,.,.,." ....~ ,....."- ("'\ HEMMETER GEORGE MEAD 1900 MYRTLE ISLAND DR LASVEGAS,NV 89112 HUNT JACK P TRUST C/O HUNT JAMES S JR 1700 NW 97 TERR CORAL SPRINGS. FL 33071 JAEGER WILLIAM N 439 N DOHENY DR BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 KERR WAYNE & CATHY 2374 FOOTHILLS DR S GOLDEN, CO 80401 KRIBS KAREN REV LVG TRST PO BOX 9994 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEFROCK JACK L & BARBARA S 647 WATERSIDE WY SARASOTA, FL 34242 LIEBEL CRAIG E 814 PLUM ST CINCINNATI,OH 45202 LONG CHRISTOPHER M & WARNER B 1098 ST LOUIS PLACE ATLANTA. GA 30306 LOWE JAMES H 8232 AVALON DR MERCER ISLAND. WA 98040 MACAPA CORP 9465 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 " ...'"..,.....".,..---..,... ("'\ \ ;) HIBBERD LORNA W FAMILY TRUST PINE ISLAND RYE, NY 10580 JACOB PAUL MITCHELL 400 E 20TH ST #10-0 NEW YORK, NY 10009 KELLY C A 9820 SAGAMOR RD SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66206 KIRLIN DONALD W 25% INT PO BOX 3097 QUINCY, IL 62305 KWEI THOMAS AND AMY 30 LAKE ON lAD DR WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-3853 LEVIN BARTON J AND NANCY M 701 S MONARCH ST #6 ASPEN, CO 81611 LLOYD ASSOCIATES DAVID LLOYD ASSOC L TO 12 LEYS RD OXSHOTT SURREY ENGLAND KT220QE, LONG GODFREY M JR 7755 ANNESDALE DR CINCINNATI.OH 45243 LOWNES VICTOR A C/O ASPEN LODGING CO 747 GALENA ST (DURANT 3-D) ASPEN, CO 81611-1871 MARK CAROL PO BOX 9283 ASPEN, CO 81612-9283 -., .~~. .-.-_.'. .--..... , MARMONT LOIS 0 PO BOX 9572 ASPEN, CO 81612 MCVICKER JULIET PO BOX 567 MIDDLEDURY. VT 05753 MILLER BECKY B & PETER C 200-06 CROSS ISLAND PKWY BAYSIDE, NY 11360 MILLEFHANYA B 2445 W GULF DR SANIBEL ISLAND, FL 33957 MONTGOMERY M MEAD & ANNE M 945 OLD GREEN BAY RD WINNEKTA,IL 60093 NARDI STEPHEN J PO BOX 641997 CHICAGO, IL 60664-1997 NORTON PATRICK J JR 507 SPRING VALLEY DR RALEIGH, NC 27609 OSTERMAN MICHAEL & LINDA LUCE PO BOX 262 PETTERSVILLE, NJ 07979 PETROVICH NICK 0 PETROVICH ROSA DEL CARMEN FERNANDEZ C/O FRIAS PROP OA ASPEN-730 E DURANT AVE ASPEN, CO 81611-2072 REARDON GENE F & DIANA PO BOX XX ASPEN, CO 81612 r-, n MARSH JAMES W & BEVERLY M 815 TROPICAL CIR SARASOTA, FL 34242 MEHRA RAMESH TRUSTEE 3115 WHITE EAGLE DR NAPERVILLE, IL 60564 MILLER DON E 300 MERCER ST APT 31 H NEW YORK, NY 10003 MITTLEMAN DAVID 2735 MEADOWLARK LN WEST pALM BEACH, FL 33409 MOORE JOHN W 50% 10426 WHITEBRIDGE LN ST LOUIS, MO 63141 NILES LARRY & LILY 2001 TRUST NILES LAURENCE EUGENE & LILY YEE 1172 BIENVENIDAAVE PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 OLSEN MARSHALL G & SUSAN A 4404 GREENWOOD DR BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022 PASQUINELLI SALLIE S 747 S GALENA ST #9 ASPEN, CO 81611 POLLOCK WILLIAM HARRISON PO BOX 2421 ASPEN, CO 81612 RHOADES CHRISTINE ANN LYON LIVING TRUST 644 GRIFFITH WY LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 MAURER MICHAEL S QPRT 11550 N MERIDIAN ST#115 CARMEL, IN 46032 MEYERS NEIL S C/O RESORT WORLD 2800 N POINCIANA KISSIMMEE, FL 34746 MILLER LELAND L 11575 FOLSOM PT LN FRANKTOWN, CO 80116 MOLITOR RONALD A & JOAN A 8696 SWAN KALAMAZOO, MI 49009 MURCHISON ANNE A PO BOX 8968 ASPEN, CO 81612 NOREN LARA L & STEPHEN C 10927 BRIGANTINE DR INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256-9544 ONEILL ROGER PO BOX711 LAKE GENEVA, WI 53147-3579 PATRICK GARY R & PATRICIA A 537 MARKET ST STE 202 CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402 RAMYEAD VISHNU & TEIKA 6161 WOODLAND VIEW DR WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91364 t"IDOUT WAYNE E & ROBBYE L 35 COUNTRY CLUB CIR SEARCY. AR 72143 ROANOKE INVESTORS LP 109 CLUB CREEK CT PO BOX 17 ST ALBANS, MO 63073 ROMER FRANK L & MARCY L 10204 E SHERI LN ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 S C JOHNSON AND SON INC TAX DEPT 412 1525 HOWE ST RACINE, WI 53403 SAPERJORDAN C/O WALTER BORTNICHAK 24 SALZBURG NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 SCHERER ROBERT P III 217 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 SCHIMBERG HENRY & LINDA TRUST 2877 PARADISE RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89109 SIMMONS SUSAN K 31381 MONTERREY ST S LAGUNA, CA 92677 SL T ASPEN DEAN STREET LLC C/O STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS TRUST 2231 E CAMELBACK RD STE 410 PHOENIX, AZ 85016 STANFORD JOHN C/O LEE MILLER 747 S GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 STEWART STAN & RITA 10 GELDERT DR TIBURON, CA 94920 r'\ ! ROARING FORK PROPRIETARY LLC 2519 E 21ST ST TULSA, OK 74114 ROOKE JOAN ELIZABETH POBOX 1035 REFUGIO, TX 78377-1035 SALlTERMAN LARRY 133 ROBINSON RD #11 ASPEN, CO 81611-2381 SAX DONALD C PO BOX 12351 ASPEN, CO 81612 SCHERER ROBERT P III C/O STEPHEN M SCHERER 7510 YORK DR ST LOUIS. MO 63105 SHAW GEORGE G 101 HIGH ST DENVER, CO 80218 SIMON HERBERT 8765 PINE RIDGE DR INDIANAPOLIS. IN 46206 SOLOMON GARY L 3139 N LINCOLN CHICAGO, IL 60657 STANTON JAMES C/O WORLD-WIDE HOLDINGS CORP 150 E 58TH ST NEW YORK. NY 10155 STRAWBRIDGE GEORGE JR 3801 KENNETT PKE BLDG #B-100 WILMINGTON. DE 19807 (') ROLF ROBERT WILLIAM 747 GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ROSE EDWARD D & JULIE 1/2 INT 1001 MIDWEST CLUB OAKBROOK, IL 60521 SANCHEZ A R JR PO BOX 2986 LAREDO, TX 78041 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I & MICHELLE T 5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 LAKEWOOD, CA 90712-1468 SCHERER STEPHEN M 169 SHORECLlFF RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625 SHINE FAMILY LLC 8677 LOGO 7 CT INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46219-1430 SKIERS CHALET LLC C/O R J O'CALLAHAN 132 WEST B STREET - STE 230 PUEBLO, CO 81003 SPEYER LESTER D PR TST C/O TENNSCO CORPORATION PO BOX 1888 DICKSON, TN 37056-1888 STENEMAN MARY JANE & ROBERT '170 WILDHURST RD TONKA BAY, MN 55331 TALLlCHET DAVID C JR & CECILIA A 8191 E KAISER BLVD ANAHEIM, CA 92808 . . TAUBER REAL ESTATE LLC 27777 FRANKLIN RD STE 1850 SOUTHFIELD, MI 48034 TOP OF MILL INVESTORS LLC 1000 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611-3800 VELMAR A COLORADO CORP C/O GRUPO DE MAR SAD E C V 747 S GALENA #F 204 ASPEN, CO 81611 WARGASKI ROBERT E TRUST 30353 N DOWELL RD MCHENRY, IL 60050 WEIGAND N R 150 N MARKET ST WICHITA, KS 67202 WERNER STEFANIA P TRUST. 9555 LADUE RD ST LOUIS. MO 63124 ZIMAND SHERRY 5426 OSPREY ISLE lN ORLANDO, Fl 32819 f'1 TAVEL MORTON & CAROL 1139 FREDERICK DR 13 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260 TRIPP PAUL 231 MARGARET ST KEY WEST, FL 33040 WAGNER & BROWN L TD 300 N MARIENFELD #1100 PO BOX 1714 MIDLAND, TX 79702 WATKINS DAN H TRUSTEE 3575 8TH ST MOLlNE,IL 61265-7157 WEIGAND N R WEIGAND M C 150 N MARKET WICHITA, KS 67202 WHEELER CONNIE CHRISTINE MC CALLI ON GERARD 322 E 57 TH ST #3B NEW YORK. NY 10022-2949 ZUBROD MATTHEW S TRUST PO BOX 8881 ASPEN, CO 81612 n TOBEY ROBERT W & PATRICIA A 41 CHERRY HilLS FARM DR ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110-7113 VAN METER FAM LVG TRST WESTERN LAB MEDICAL GRP 2945 WEBSTER ST OAKLAN D, CA 94609-3406 WAPITI RUNNING LLC PO BOX 1003 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEEKS WILLIAM H JOHNSON-WEEKS FAMILY OFFICE 22 GRIGG ST GREENWICH, CT 06830 WELCH PATRICK T & DEBORAH P ASPEN SNOWMASS LODGING CO C/O V GARWOOD 747 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WMC INVESTMENT LTD PARTNERSHIP 1001 MIDWEST CLUB PKWY OAK BROOK, IL 60521 r"I MEMORANDUM ~ To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: October 9, 2002 Re: Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3. Parcel 2 Attendees: Scott Woodford, Community Development Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Nick Adeh, Engineering Department Richard Goulding, Engineering Department Denis Murray, Building Department Brian Fiynn, Parks Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Sunny Vann, Planner for Applicant Scott Writer, Applicant At the October 9, 2002 DRC meeting, the reviewed the proposal to amend the Aspen Mountain PUD to replace the four-unit affordable housing project with free market units. There were no significant comments from the DRC members. The questions asked by the DRC members were the following: . Nick: 'Will there be changes in parking or curb cut?' Answer: No additional curb cut will be needed. The cut will likely be in the same place. The decreased number of units will result in less parking and the parking will likely be moved inside the free market dwellings. . Tom "Will sewer service remain tin the same location?" The Applicant will need to discuss this further with ACSD. It is possible that the service tie-in location to the main sewer could change. The same is true for the water service." IORel AspenMtnPU O-Amendment Lee Cassin, 12:31 PM 10/2/2002, aspen mountain pud amendment Page I of 1 r1 '"' "" -'l X-Sender: leec@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 200212:31:58 -0600 To: scottw@cLaspen.co.us, johnn@cLaspen.co.us From: Lee Cassin <leec@cLaspen.co.us> Subject: aspen mountain pud amendment John, Jannette will be out of the office on Oct. 9 so unable to attend the DRC meeting on the Aspen Mountain PUD proposed amendment. The proposed change, which will result in a net increase of one duplex unit, will not change any of our comments made about the proposed project as a whole. Thanks, Lee Lee E. Cassin, Director City of Aspen Environmental Health Department 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 leec@cLaspen.co.us (970)920-5075 fax (970)920-5074 blm://www.aspen.com/airaua.lfu. http://www.aspengov.com/eh/city/incjex.html Printed for Scott Woodford <scottw@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/10/2002 r-., , t"""\ , A , 7yff&.. ~ ~O~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: X ........... City Engineer X ......... Community Development Engineer X ........... Zoning Officer RECEIVED X ........... Housing Director o ........... Parks Department Ot.: I 0 LUtlZ X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal ASPtN I PITKiN X ........... City Water COMlllUNlTYDEVELOPMENT X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X ........... Building Department X ........... Environmental Health X ........... Electric Department X ........... Holy Cross Electric o ........... City Attorney o ........... Streets Department o ........... Historic Preservation Officer o ........... Pitkin County Planning o ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator 0......... Transportation 1;rP~? /~ -;- f' pt.1 ,~ tel..{. FROM: Scott Woodford. (scottw@ci.aspen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone-920.5I02 Fax-920.5439 RE: Aspen Mountain PUD. Lot 3. Parcel 2 - PUD Amendment to allow for replacement of the 4-unit affordable housing complex on Parcel 2 with a free market duplex. In order to do so, the applicant proposes to pay cash in lieu instead of constructing the affordable housing on Lot 3 of Aspen Mountain PUD (which would require a Land Use Code Amendment). DATE: October 2. 2002 DATE OF DRC MEETING: October 9. 2002 at 1:30PM. · NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEHNER Gohnn@ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON OCTOBER 9.2002. COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. VANN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning Consultants August 13, 2002 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Joyce Ohlson Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot 3, Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD, Final Subdivision/PUD Documents Dear Joyce: Enclosed herewith for the City's signature and recordation are the subdivision/PUD agreement and two (2) sets of the final plat/PUD drawings for Lot 3 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision/PUD. The documents have been revised as requested and all revisions have been reviewed and approved by either Julie Ann Woods or John Niewoehner. Both the plat and the agreement have been executed by Top of Mill Investors, LLC. The plat has also been signed by the surveyor, the title company, and Wells Fargo Bank, the mortgagee. I would appreciate it if you would obtain Nick Adeh's signa- ture on both copies of the plat and that you also sign the plats on behalf of Julie Ann Woods. John Niewoehner can confirm that it is acceptable for you to sign in Julie Ann's absence. The plats and subdivision/PUD agreement should then be delivered to the City Clerk for signature by the City Attomey, Mayor and City Clerk. The accompanying Storm Drain Pipe Easement will also need to be signed by the City Attorney, Mayor and Clerk. Please notify the Clerk's office that Chris LaCroix and I would like to participate in the recordation of the documents to insure that all related information is properly filled in on the plat, subdivision/PUD agreement, and drain pipe easement. We will bring a check for the recordation fee to the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office. 230 East Hopkins Ave. . Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 970/925-6958 . Fax 970/920-9310 Ms. Joyce Ohlson August 13, 2002 Page 2 Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Yours truly, SV:c Enclosures cc: Scott Writer, Four Peaks Development C: \oldc\bus\city .ltr\ltr42602.jo3