Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.19980713 '" CiTY COUNCIL AGENDA ~ July 13, 1998 5:00 P.M. I. Cali'to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Annual Audit and Financial Statement Presentation IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's and Councilmembers' Comments b) City Manager's Comments VI.Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes - June 8, 22, 1998 b) Resolution #52, 1998 - Contract, Smuggler Neighborhood Improvements Project c) Ordinance #25, 1998 - 1998 Housing Guidelines d) Ordinance #26, 1998 - Code Amendment - Prohibiting Theft e) Ordinance #27, 1998 - Amendment to North Spruce Street Water Service Agreement f) Resolution #54, 1998 - Engineering Services McLaughlin Water Main Relocation Maroon/Castle Creek Road Roundabout g) Resolution #53, 1998 - Letter of Intent to Purchase Wind Power; h) Permission to File Liquor License Application - Wheeler Opera House i) Ordinance #28, 1998 - Historic Designation 950 Matchless Drive j) Ordinance #29, 1998 - Historic Lot Split Brumder 214 E. Bleeker k) Ordinance #23, 1998 - Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split 920 W. Hallam I) Supplemental Budget Request - HPC Symposium VII. Public Hearings ~ a)6't~Ordinance #18, 1998 -Alpine Cottages Subdivision PUD Rezoning b)5'~r~Ordinance #20, 1998 - Historic Designation/Lot Split - 930 King Street (No Problem Joe's) '7 VIII. Action Items a)~'~Ordinance ~30, 1998 - 1035 E. Durant PUD, Subdivision and Appeal of Housing Replacement Program Compliance and Vested Rights b)~',~rdinance ~24, 1998 - Snyder Park Conceptual & Final PUD; GMQS Exemption IX. Information Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting July 27. 1998 COUNCIL MEETS AT NOON FOR AN INFORMAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION, BASEMENT MEETING ROOM Memorandum I TO: Mayor and City Council Members THRU: Amy Margerum City Manager FROM: Nick Adeh, Cit}' E~gin!~ DATE: July 7, 1998 Reference: Smuggler Area Improvement Projects SUMMARY: We have received one sealed bid from qualified contractors for the Smuggler Area Improvement Projects at City Clerk's Office on Wednesday, July 1, 1998. This sealed bid was opened and read publicly and the results are summarized in the following tabular form: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID TYPE OF WORK BID STATUS Basalt Construction Company $298,133.25 Safety Improvements Complete bid, accepted Aspen Earthmoving, LLC -0- " No bid was submitted Gould Construction Company -0- ' ....... Meldor Construction Company -0- ' ..... DISCUSSION: The Smuggler Area Improvement Projects include the following construction work categories: a) Intersection improvements, b) Construction of speed control devices, c) Pedestrian access enhancements. d)' Street lights FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: This project is funded in the 1998 Asset Management Plan and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority is paying for the sidewalk improvements along the Midland Avenue corridor, between Snyder Property and Hwy-81. The City Parks Department has also volunteered to Complete the landscaping within the open space pockets. Therefore, no additional funds are requested. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: PC: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer Jack Reid, Superintendent of Streets Stan Clauson, Community development Director Project File RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1998) A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BASALT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE SMUGGLER AREA NEIGHBORHOODS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Basalt Construction Company, Inc., a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Basalt Construction Company, Inc., regarding the Smuggler Area · Improvement Projects, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said contract change order on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: ,1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ,1998. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on JULY 14. 1998'; by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, heroinafter called the "City". and ~...a3.f. consf.=rcioz~ ccxz~my , heroinafter called the "Contractor". WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law, specifications and other Contract Documents for the work heroin described, and has approved end adopted said documents, and has caused to be published, in the manner and for the time required by law, an advertisement, for the project: Smutruler Area Pedestrian Safety Trensl~ortation Improvements Proieot, and, .WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in response to direct invitation, has submitted to the CIty, in the manner and at the time specified, a sealed Bid in accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and. WHEREAS, the City. in the manna~ prescribed by' law, has publicly opened, examined, and canvassed the Bids subm~ed in response to the published Invitation for Bids therefore, and as a result of such canvass has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest .responsible and responsive bidder for the said Work and has duty awarded to the Contractor a ' Contract For Construction therefore. for the sum or sums set forth heroin; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for Construction heroin mentioned: 1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work as fully described in the Contract Documents. 2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion' of the Work described heroin. 3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract Documents within seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the. date of 'Notice To Proceed" and will complete the same by the date and time indicated in the Special Conditions unless the time is extended in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents, 4. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract Documents and comply with the terms therein for a sum not to exceed ~ htmd~ed t;ho~.tsaz~".one~!-'FCi~:~-~'c-~',~':.h_f.-ee,'&~25/.~.(:~ 298,~.~3.25} DOLLARS or as shown on the BID proposal. CCI-971.(~O¢ Page 1 -CO1 5. The term "Contract Documents" means and. includes the documents listed in the City of Aspen General Condi{ions to Contracts for Construction (version GC97-2) end in the Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are included hereln by this reference am. made a part hereof as if fully set forth .here. 6. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set forth in the General Conditions. unless modified by the Special Conditions, such amounts as required by the Documents. 7. This Contract For Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the cdntrary contained heroin or in the Contract Documents, this Contract For Construction shall be subject to the City of Aspen Procuremerit Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the approval 'requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shelf not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) following a resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the same. 8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their agents, representatives, employees. Successors, assigns, and legai representatives, Neither the City nor the Contractor shall have the right to assign, transfer or subtot his or her interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. g. This agreemere does not and shall nct be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom. the Contractor or the City may assign this Contract For Construction in accordance with the specific wr~tteq consent, any rights to claim damages cr to bring suit, action or other proceed!ng against either the City cr the Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions heroin contained. 10. No waiver of default by either party of any terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions heroin contained, to be performed, kept and .observed by the other party. 11. The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be sO construed. Venue is agreed to be kept exclusiveiy in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 12. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Contract for Constructicn, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 13. This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted through the mutual efforts cf the parties hereto, and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status c the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of this Contract For Construction. CC1-971.c~5c r'age 2 "CC1 / ? .~. fi~: '.n~ ~I!~T.T~,~}~T~!~,') .T.'T%'~V~' TN;~Q:T ~,~[ '~ 'Tn? 14. The undersigned representative of the; Contractor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Contract For Constru~ti~n~i~;~represents that he/she is an authorized representative of the Contractor for the purposes of executing this Contract For Construction and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Contract For Construction for the terms and conditions specified heroin. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have .executed this Contract For Construction on the date first above written. ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: Title: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 'APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Engineering Department C[ty ~ ... .':"':':."... · ... :..... -.. ,.~, .,.~-. -,-:., -. · . ..' ...  By: ' Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a CorporatiOn. If a partnership, the Contract shall be signed by a Principal and indicate title. CCl-g71 ,¢i0¢ Page ~ "CC1 f '4 0c:,:.S 'o~ ROIZ3fiE~SX03 Z!VSVS ~6S:I 8661 '8 'inf CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (To be completed if ContraCtor Is a Corporation) STATE OF c{:1~=,,8~ ) COUNTY OF On this 8oh day of Jtny ,19 98 , before me appeared Ke].].y Lyon .' , to me personally known, who, being by me first duly sworn, did say that s/he is President, of ~.~a~t, co~.~t~t,i<m c¢~;a~, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of saicl corporation, and that said inetrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate first above wd~en. ' Notary Publi~ 0756 Sierra 91,.zffs :Read, Sil~:, CO 91652 Address My commission expires: 6.13-02 CC1-971 .,~oc Page 4 "CC1 c 'd: OSC'~ 'oi, i NOIJ, Dfi~J,S.r, IOD I'IVSVEt .EG~:I 'g561 '8 'lnF MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office THRU: Dave Tolen, Executive Director DATE: July 13, 1998 RE: Adoption of the 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines SUMMARY: This is 1st reading for the Aspen/Pitkin County 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines. The Housing Board recommends the City Council approve Ordinance #,,,/.,~ (Series of 1998), Adopting the Aspen/Pitkin County 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines, and scheduling the 2rid Reading and Public Hearing for July 27, 1998. The BOCC is having 2nd reading and their public hearing on July 8, 1998. At this meeting, some recommended changes and/or suggestions might be made to pass on to the City Council at the 1st Reading. BACKGROUND: The Housing Board has met since January 1998 to review and amend the existing Guidelines and approved Resolution No. 98-02, A Resolution of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board Recommending Approval of the 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines to the Board of County Commissioners and City Counc~. KEY ISSUES: The Housing Board has met on a weekly basis since January and has discussed the recommended changes at length. During this process, the public participated and gave their input. The following changes are being recommended. Further explanation will be given at the meeting as to the reasoning of the recommended changes on the RO program and on the lottery process. Page 1 The word "senior' has been deleted from the Guidelines so there will be no misconception between "senior" and "retired" person. Page 3 Maximum incomes for the categories are increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is done the same each year. The CPI used is defined in the Definition section of the Guidelines. Mick Ireland has raised a concern on the CPI that has been used over the years to calculate appreciation on not only sales units, but income increases, rental and sales price increases. Staff will be evaluating what type of change that would create in calculating current sales prices and income and asset increases. This information will be brought back at 2nd reading and public hearing. Page 4 The recommended changes for Resident Occupied units are as follows: a. Gross income and net assets shall not exceed an amount that permits a household to qualify for a $600,000 purchase under certain assumptions. b. The initial sales price for an RO unit shall not exceed $375,000 for a three- or a four-bedroom unit. The maximum will decrease as the number of bedrooms decrease. The developer has the option to request a Special Review to increase this maximum of $375,000 by providing documentation that a higher price is needed to do the project or the project provides an exceptional community benefit. c. Maximum Resale Price/Appreciation: The appreciation for the RO units will be calculated the same as the category units are calculated. The maximum resale price shall be calculated as follows: * the initial sales price of the RO lot or unit, plus 3% or CPI, whichever is less, appreciation on that amount, subject to the requirements below; PLUS * the actual cost to construct a unit on a lot (no greater than $375,000), plus 3% or CPI, whichever is less, appreciation on that amount from the time of Certificate of Occupancy (CO), subject to the requirements below; PLUS * any additional cost to expand the unit to the maximum 2,200 square feet, plus 3% or CPI, whichever is less, appreciation on that amount, from the time of CO for that addition, subject to the requirements stated below; PLUS * the actual cost of permitted capital improvements stated in an exhibit attached to the deed restriction, not to exceed 10% of the initial sales price of the completed unit, or the expanded unit. The paragraph relating to ownership of the unit for at least three years to obtain any appreciation shall be deleted. This deletion would make it consistent with how appreciation is handled on category units. Page 6D The last sentence will be deleted as it no longer applies to RO. Page 11 The first paragraph regarding how units developed by a private developer under the Affordable Housing Zone District will be handled has been added. The lottery process was discussed in-depth. The recommended change is as follows: Working in Pitkin County 4 years to 8 years 5 chances Working in Pitkin County 8 years to 12 years 6 chances Working in Pitkin County 12 years to 16 years 7 chances Working in Pitkin County 16 years to 20 years 8 chances Working in Pitkin County 20 years or more 9 chances This will be done by a computer. For anyone who wants to enter the lottery who has not worked in Pitkin County for at least four years, they will not be in the first lottery, but will be given just one chance after the top priority lottery has been held. Page 11C An owner will have the ability to sell their unit to a qualified parent meeting minimum occupancy. Page 16 Maximum unit sale prices have been increased by the CPI, which is consistent with prior years. Page 17 Maximum monthly rents have been increased by the CPI, which is consistent with prior years. Page 19 The payment-in-lieu fee is increased according to the increase in land costs and construction costs. Page 22 The 1998 percentage has been added to Table VII per the formula consistent with prior years. Page 24 The definition of what specific Consumer Price Index is used has been added for clarificetion. Page 26 The age for retirement was discussed at length and the Board felt that this should not change. The definition of a Senior, though, has been deleted to eliminate any confusion. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing BOard recommends that City Council approve Ordinance No. ~:~ ~ (Series 1998), Adopting the Aspen/Pitkin County 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines, and scheduling the 2nd Reading and Public Hearing for July 27, 1998. ORDINANCE NO. ~ (Series of 1998) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1998 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, pursuar~t to the MuniCipal Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, the Housing Income, Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines are to be established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to prior resolutions and ordinances of the City, the City Council established Employee Housing Income-Eligibility Guidelines and Housing Price Guidelines for prior years; and WHEREAS, the 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines CGuidelines) recommended by the Board of Directors of the Housing Office of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, has been submitted to City Council which Guidelines set forth the 1998 Housing Office qualification guidelines for Category 1, 2, 3, 4 end Resident Occupied (RO) ownership, rental housing projects, lodge and commercial development, and development of residential housing units; and WHEREAS, the City Cpuncil desires to adopt said Guidelines, and by virtue of the enactment of this Ordinance to supersede and amend all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City pertaining to housing guidelines, but only to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CtTY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby adopts the 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines, as recommended by the Board of Directors of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2 That the regulations and guidelines set forth and adopted herein shall supersede to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, all prior resolutions and ordinances of the City of Aspen; provided further that the provisions of resolutions and ordinances pertaining to employee housing guidelines shall remain in full force and effect to the extent not inconsistent with the regulations and guidelines adopted herein. :: :: Section 3 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 4 Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of July, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of June, 1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of July, 1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk \qu~de\cc.o~d ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY 1998 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES Effective August t 7, '1998 HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD Frank Peters - Chairperson Jackie Kasabach - Vice Chairperson Terry Schaefer - Treasurer · Carl Britton - Joint City/County Appointee Bob Helmus - County Appointee Rachel Richards - City Council Representative Mick Ireland - BOCC Representative Wish to thank: THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL Mayor John Bennett Rachel Richards - Councilwoman Terry Paulson - Councilman Jim Markalunas - Councilman Jake Vickery - Councilman And THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dorothea Farris - Chairperson Leslie Lamont - Commissioner ,Mick Ireland - Commissioner Shellie Harper - Commissioner Bill Tuite,- Commissioner for their continued support. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................i PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................................1 HOUSING BOARD POLICY STATEMENT .............................................................................................................2 PART I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORIES SECTION 1. Income Categories ....................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2. Resident Occupied Units and Qualifications ............................................................................4 PART I1. RENTING, PURCHASING, RESIDING OR SELLING AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION 1. Qualifications to Rent or Purchase Affordable Housing ...........................................................5 SECTION 2. Qualifications to Reside in Affordable Housing .......................................................................6 SECTION 3. How to QuaJify for Affordable Housing (Rental or Purchase) ...................................................6 SECTION 4. Information on Renting Employee Housing ................................................; .............................8 SECTION 5. Procedures for Sale and Purchase of an Affordable Housing Unit .......................................... 8 SECTION 6. Priorities for Persons Bidding to Purchase an Affordable Housing Unit .................................. 11 SECTION 7. Leave of Absence for Owners of Affordable Housing Units .....................................................13 SECTION 8. Roommates ...............................................................................................................................14 SECTION 9. Special Review .........................................................................................................................14 PART IlL INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION 1. Net Minimum Livable Square Footage for Newly Deed Restricted AH Units .......................... 15 SECTION 2, Maximum Sales Prices for Newly Deed Restricted AH Units & Lots ....................................... 16 SECTION 3. MaximUm Monthly Rental Rates for Newly Deed Restricted AH Units .................................... 17 SECTION 4. Requirements for Dormitory/Lodge (Seasonal Units) ...............................................................18 SECTION 5. Affordable Housing Dedication Fee (Payment-in-Lieu Fee) .................................................... 19 SECTION 6. Conveyance of Vacant Lots ......................................................................................................20 SECTION 7. Deed Restricting Existing Dwelling Units .................................................................................20 SECTION 8. Execution of Deed Restrictions by Applicants ...........................................................: ..............21 SECTION 9. Maximum Vacancy ....................................................................................................................21 PART IV. MAXIMUM ANNUAL RENT INCREASE FOR EXISTING RENTAL UNITS ................................... 22 PART V. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ....................................................................................~ ......................23 PART VI. DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................24 PART VII. APPENDIX A. Maximum Household Income and Assets per Category B. Listing of Principal Ownership Projects C. Lfsting of Principal Rental Projects D, Listing of Principal Rental Projects and ProperW Managers E. Methodology for Payment-in-LieU Schedule PURPOSE "To assure the existence of a supply of desirable and affordable housing for persons employed in Pitkin County, who were enlployed in" Pitkin Countv prior to retirementSonior Citizens, the Disabled, and other qualified persons of Pitkin County which are necessary for a balanced community." - Aspea/Pitlda County Housing Authority~ Coal - [OdKlually Adopted 1983I Each year the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (hereina~er the Housing Office) establishes guidelines which govern the development of, admission to and occupancy of deed restricted affordable housing units for Aspen and Pitkin County. The guidelines support the Housing Office's Goal and are not intended to supersede the appropriate City or County Land Use Codes or the Uniform Building Code. The 1998 Affordable Housing Guidelines respond to housing needs in Aspen and Pitkin County as identified by the Housing Office. The guidelines are used to review land use applications, establish affordable rental rates and sales prices, establish criteria for admission and occupancy, and to develop and priodtize current and long range housing programs. These Affordable Housing Guidelines shah remain in effect until such time as new or amended Guidelines are approved by the City Counc~ and Board of County Commissioners. [ 1998 Aspen/Pitkin Count,J Housing Guidelines Pagel_3-!- of 31 HOUSING BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS The purpose of this section is to assist the staff, development community and the public in understanding the Housing Board's philosophy regarding vadous aspects of the program. These policy statements will be reviewed and revised by the Housing Board on an annual basis. A. Mitigating Affordalale Housing Impacts: The following list establishes the Housing Board's preference. 1. On-site housing; 2. Off-site housing, including the buydown concept; 3. Cash-in-lieu/Land-in-lieu (the preference of cash or land shall be determined on a case by case analysis). B. Unit types preferred: In areas where developers wish direction regarding the types of unit to construct, the Housing Board would like to see the following (no one type is preferred over another): A, Entry level sales units (studio and 1 bedroom - Categories 1, 2, and lower priced Category 3); Rental units (Categories 1,2 and lower priced Category 3); Family-oriented sales units (Categories 3 and 4); All other unit types are of secondary preference. C. The proceeds from the sate of single family lots will be collected as follows: 1. The County/City will receive sales proceeds from single family lots when the land is being provided as mitigation of affordable housing impacts for a development or growth; 2. The develope~property owner will receive sales proceeds from single family lots when the land is not being provided as mitigation of affordable housing impacts for a development or growth. D. Private sector involvement is criticel in order to meet our affordable housing goals. Therafora, the Housing Office Issue Manager will track affordable housing zone projects through the Planning and Building Permit process in order to aid in communications between the developer and government. This tracking system will ensure that all affordable housing developments are treated as expeditiously as the City and County policies intend. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page __2G4 of 31 I PARTI. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORIES The Housing Office's goat is directed at establishing and implementing a plan to provide housing within the community at rental rates and sales pdces which are affordable to persons and families of low (Category 1), moderate (Categories 2 and 3) and middle (Category 4) income. In order to carry out this objective, affordable housing units are categorized to reflect which income levels they are to service as set forth in Sections 1 and 2 below. SECTION 1 INCOME CATEGORIES The maximum gross household income (defined in the Definitions) for each income category is set forth in Table k TABLE I MAXIMUM INCOMES BY CATEGORY~ Cateoory 1 Cateoorv 2 Cateaorv 3 Cateoor7 4 Income Percentlie2 25% 50% 75% >75% 0 Dependent $ 25.000 $ 2~.,559 $39.7656,:*~g~S0 $64.877 $53,7!9 $t04.54(~$!92,560 1 Dependent $ 32.500 $32,959 $ 47.265 $46,550 $72.377 $7!,2!0 $112.0405! !0,!69 2 Dependents $ 40.000 $39,550 $ 54.765 $5~,,050 $79.877 $78,7!0 $119.5405! !7,669 3 or More Dependents $ 47.500 $~,7,959 $ 62,265.66!,559 $87 377 '="= ,~n $127 040~:~'~= ~=n Total Net Assets Not in Excess of $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 NOTE: A household may qualify to purchase or rent a unit in a higher category. f PriOr to 1990, income cargoties were designated as tow, moderate or middle income in accordance with ~e applicable Guidelines at thai time. In 1990, APCHA reddined the terms and erebftshod four income categories In an effort to create a greater variety of units to serve the community's income levels. The four income catogoHes are equated to the past income categories as shown below. APCHO shaft interpret prior references, including but not limited to past Guidelines, Deed ResfHcfions and Land Use Code approvals to low, moderato Or middle Income categories as to their applicability and compliance with the Guidelines heroin. Category #f Equivalent to low income level Category #3 Equivalent to upper moderate income level Catogon/ t12 Equivalent to lower mo~lto income level CaMgory #4 Equivalent to middle income level ;Income amounts and percentlies are derk, ed from the t990,91 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Study and survey of employees who live or WOrk in Pitkin County and have been adJusfsd to the ¢ument Guidelines. Percentjles are prorifted for informational purposes only. The median household reporteft by the survey was $40,000. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page_~,34 of 31 SECTION 2 RESIDENT OCCUPIED UNITS AND QUALIFICATIONS In addition to the income categories for affordable housing units set forth in Section 1 above, affordable housing units may also be designated "Resident Occupied" (Re) units. This category was created to offer the private sector an incentive to produce affordable housing for the community. Re units shall be occupied by persons and families who qualify as stated below. The Housing Office shall only qualify purchasers or tenants for compliance as set forth below. Resident Occupied units with deed restrictions recorded prior to the establishment of the Re Guidelines are subject to their individual deed restrictions. This includes, but is not limited to, Smuggler Mobile Home Park, Aspen Village and the AABC Rowhouses. Williams Ranch contains 10 "Category 5" units, which limits gross income to $157.325 ! 5-!, ,500 and net assets to $400,000. Re units shall meet the following criteria: A. Gross income and net assets shall not exceed an amount that permits a household to qualify for a $600.000 ourchase under the foftowina assurn~tions' No asset or income requirements. ?') if aft net assets tube counted as a down oavment: 2) if 28% of areas income is available to finance the remainder of the ourchase price at an 8% interest rate amortized over 30 years. B. Initial Sales Pdce shaft not exceed $375.000 for a three- or four-bedroom unit The $375 000 shaft include the cost of the lot and the construction of the unit The developer has the cOtion to reouest a Sepcial Review to increase this maximum by Providing documentation that a hieher orice is needed to do the Project or the orqiect provides an exceJ2tional communi(v benefit An initial CO must be obtained within three years of the sale of the lot C. Maximum Resale Pn'ce/Appreciation - The maximum resale price shall be calculated as follows: the initial sale pdce of the RO lot or unit, plus 3% or CPI whichever is less 4% appreciation on that amount, subject to the requirements below; PLUS the actual cost to construct a unit on a lot, plus 3% or CPI whichever is less. 4% appreciation on that amount from the time of Certificate of Occupancy (CO), subject to the requirements below; PLUS ,~ any additional cost to expand the unit to the maximum 2, 200 square feet, plus 3% or CPI. whichver is less. 4~-appreciation on that amount, from the time of CO for that addition, subject to the requirements section stated below; PLUS the actual cost of permitted capital improvements stated in an exhibit attached to the deed restriction, not to exceed f 0% of the initial sales price of the completed unit, or the expanded unit. If 3 RO unit or lot is sold prior to throe full ycorc of ownership, then the owner is not entitled to any approcL~tion. Once the RO unit h~s boon owned for over throe full years, then the owner is entitled to a m3ximum of four percent (.f%) (simple) annual appreciation for each yGar or portion thereof that the unit is ownc>d (including years one through throe). For any existing mobile home park converted to the RO category, where the unit owners are qualified Pitkin County residents as defined by the Guidelines, there will be no appreciation cap on the trailer and/or lot and the Housing Office shaft have a right of first refusal on any resale. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page_,~G4 of 31 D. Unit Size - A maximum of 2, 200 gross square feet; a maximum 500 square foot garage; and a maximum 800 square foot basemenL If a larger garage or basement is constructed, then all square footage over 500 or 800, respectively, will be counted as a part of the 2,200 square feet or space allotwed. E. Employment Requirement- Applicants must demonstrate that they are qualified employees and that they have three yeare of consecutive full-time employment, as defined by the Affordable Housing Guidelines, in Pitkin County immediately prior to application. Individuals who are retired are required to demonstrate that they were qualified employees based upon the definition in these Guidelines for five consecutive years immediately prior to retiremenL F. Primary Residence - A RO unit must be the owners primary residence. Proof of residency, including, but not limited to, voter registration and automobile registration, shaft be required. G. Income/Eamings - Applicants must demonstrate that their income/earnings are earned primarily in Pitkin County (75%). Applicants must demonstrate that they pay Colorado Income Tax as a Colorado resident. H. The owner cannot own any other developed property in those portions of Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties which are part of the Roaring Fork River drainage, or must list, at competitive market prices, the residential real estate or mobile home prior to or simultaneously with closing on the RO unit. I. Sa~es and Market~ng ~ ~n terms ~f sa~es and marketing ~f R~ units~ the H~using ~ce sha~ ~n~y quallfy prospective purchasers. Units will be bought and sold in the private sector; however, each sale shall contribute a one percent (1%) fee (on total sale price) to the overall housing program. This fee will be collected in the same fashion as the FNMA fee at closing. (if the Housing Office markets and sells RO units, then the seller shall contribute a 2% fee [on total sale price] to the overall housing program, excluding the f% fee above.) PART II. RENTING, PURCHASING, OR SELLING AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION 1 QUALIFICATIONS TO RENT OR PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING To qualify for and be eligible to rent or purchase an affordable housing unit, a person must meet the following criteria: A. Be a full-time employee working in Pitkin County, a retired person who has been a full-time employee in Pitkin County a minimum of four years immediately prior to their retirement defined in the Guidelines, or a disabled person residing in Pitkin County who has been a full-time employee in Pitkin County a minimum of two years immediately prior to their disability (as defined in the Definitions); or the spouse of any such employee, retired person, or disabled person or a dependent thered living with that qualified employee, retired person or disabled person. It is the intent of the Housing Program to provide housing opportunities for persons who are or have been actively employed or self.-employed in Pitkin County who provide goods and services to individuals, businesses or institutional operations in Pitkin County. I '1998 Aspen/Pitkln County Housing Guidetines Page_~J=,3-!- of 31 B. Upon purchase or rental of the unit, employee(s) shall occupy the unit as their primary residence. C. Not own developed residential real estate or a mobile home in those portions of Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties which are part of the Roaring Fork River drainage, or must list, at competitive market prices, the residential real estate or mobile home prior to or simultaneously with closing on the affordable housing unit (and still meet the asset/income limitations as set forth in Table I). If the property is not sold by the time of closing on purchase of the affordable housing unit, it must remain listed until sold. If the owner of the other residential property desires to rent that property prior to sale, the owner shall be required to rent such property as affordable housing in accordance with the Guidelines at the income category determined by the Housing Office to be appropriate under the circumstances. If an individual owns vacant land in those portions of Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties part of the Roaring Fork River drainage, while leasing or owning an affordable housing unit, as soon as the land is improved with a residence the individual must relinquish the affordable housing unit by vacating the rental unit or listing and selling the ownership interest in that unit. NOTE: Persons owning improved residential properly, residing in affordable housing prior to May 1, 1994, will be allowed to retain ownership of that residential property and still be eligible to reside in affordable housing. However, once the residential property is sold, the person residing in affordable housing may not acquire additional residential property and remain eligible to reside in affordable housing. D. Have total current household income not in excess of the maximum amount specified in Part I above for the particular category. Thic Itom 4 doos not '~pply to unite which are docign~tod Rocidont Occupiod Unite which hero no inccmo limits. E. Have total current household net assets not in excess of $225,000 for Category 4, $200,000 for Category 3, $175,000 for Category 2, and $150,000 for Category 1. Any renter or purchaser who has assigned, conveyed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of property within the last two years without fair consideration in order to meet the net asset limitations shall be ineligible. NOTE: The ownership of any residential property (including the affordable housing unit to be purchased) shall be considered in determining Maximum Net Assets, Maximum net asset limits for households which consist of at least one citizen of re!irement age are 150% of the applicable income category. SECTION 2 QUALIFICATIONS TO RESIDE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING To REMAIN ELIGIBLE tO reside in an affordable housing unit, a person must meet the following criteria: A. For residing in a rental unit, meet the requirements of Part II, Section 1, A, B, C, D and E. B. For residing in a sale unit, meet the requirements of Part II, Section 1, A, B and C. SECTION 3 HOW TO QUALIFY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (Rental or Purchase) A. INITIAL QUALIFICATION: In order to determine that a person or household desiring to rent or purchase an affordable housing unit meets all of the criteria set forth in Section 1 above, the Housing Office shall request any combination, or all, of the following documentation as proof of residency, income, assets and employment (aft information and documentation is confidential): 1998 Aspen/Pitkin Count~ Housing Guidelines Page_~3,~ of 31 1. Federal income tax retums for the last year (for prospective renters) or the last two (2) years (for prospective purchasers). Prospective pumhasers must also furnish a current income statement and a current financial statement, in a form acceptable to the Housing Office, verified by applicant to be true and correct; or other documentation acceptable to the Housing Office. When current income is twenty percent (20%) more or less than income reported on tax returns, then the applicant's income will be averaged based upon current income and the previous year's tax returns to establish an income category for the purpose of purchasing or renting a unit. 2. Verification of employment in Pitkin County (i.e., wage stubs, employer name, address, and phone number, plus evidence of legal residency [or I.N.S. Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verificetion] or other appropriate documentation as requested by the Housing Office). 3. Landlord verification (proof of residency, physical address).. 4. Copy of valid Colorado Driver's License. 5. Verification of telephone service (date of installation, person listed to). 6. Vehicle registration and/or voter registration. 7. Any other documentation which the Housing Office deems necessary to make a determination. 8. The applicant desiring to purchase a unit will be required to sign a release so that the Housing Office can obtain a copy of the completed loan application submitted to the lender. 9. Divorce Decree - If you have been divorced and you receive any sort of alimony or child support, a .copy must indicate that it has been entered of record and all exhibits and supplements must be attached. B. REQUALIFICATIONS: 1. in addition to the initial qualification requirements set forth above, renters of affordable housing units shall be reviewed and verified bi~annually to ensure that they meet Minimum Occupancy, Income and Asset requirements under the Guidelines as they are adopted from time to time. Landlord shall provide disclosure in their lease that tenants must be qualified every two years and that tenants must reapply for qualification in the second year. 2. The Housing Office shall endeavor to cause the landlord to give each tenant written notice, thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the two-year period, of the requirement for requalificetion with the Housing Office for continued occupancy of the affordable housing unit. The notice should be accompanied by the Housing Office's Rental Approval Form (with instructions for requalification). If the tenant does not receive the landlord's notice or the Rental Approval Form, the tenant should contact the Housing Office at 530 East Main, Lower Level, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (telephone: 920-5050) and request a copy of the Form and instructions for requalification. The Housing Office will impose a $15 fee for requalification. 3. If a tenant does not meet the minimum occupancy, income and asset requirements upon requalificetion or elects not to pay the requalification fee, the tenant may continue to rent and occupy the unit at the rent (subject to the Guidelines limit) and upon the terms established by the landlord's lease, for up to one (1) additional year in order to provide adequate time to secure new housing or come under compliance. 4. If the tenant is a resident of a unit which is owned by the City, County or Housing Office, as the result of a "buydown" situation and that resident's tenancy began prior to the "buydown" and has J 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 7G-!- of 31 been continuous since that time, then the tenant must qualify as a full-time employee, but not under the income or asset provisions. The tenant will be required to pay rent commensurate with their household income of the unit, regardless of the price category for the unit. 5. No requafification to meet income, asset and occupancy is required for persons who have purchased and own an affordable housing unit, although the individual shall remain a qualified employee or retiree as defined in these Guidelines and as they are amended from time to time. SECTION 4 INFORMATION ON RENTING EMPLOYEE HOUSING Most of the rental projects are managed by separate management companies. Each specific complex may differ in their rental procedures. Persons desiring to rent an Affordable Housing unit must meet minimum occupancy and employment requirements. A list of the rental projects and managers is located in Appendix D. Units managed by the Housing Office are Truscott Place, Smuggler Mountain Apartments and Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing. Please contact the Housing OffiCe or individual property managers for specific rental information. The Housing Office requires all tenants of deed restricted housing to requalify every two years. Persons who receive emergency worker priority for rental units must verify their continued service to that agency for their lease to be renewed. This requirement expires after two years of residency/serv~ce. SECTION 5 PROCEDURES FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT A. LISTING UNIT WITH THE HOUSING OFFICE: STAFF DUTIES 1. An owner of an affordable housing unit desiring to sell should consult with Housing Office and review the Deed Restriction covering the unit to determine the maximum sales price permitted and other applicable provisions concerning a sale. Unless otherwise provided in the Deed Restriction, the unit must be listed for sale with the Housing Office and the Housing Office staff will administer the sale in accordance with the Guidelines in effect at the time of listing. There shall be a minimum listing period of three months before a unit's pdce can be readjusted. Any termination in the listing may require the payment of administrative and advertising costs. 2. These Guidelines are intended to assure that ALL purchasers and ALL sellers will be treated fairly and impartially. Questions will be answered and help provided to any potential purchasers or sellers EQUALLY in accordance with the current Guidelines. Listings, sales contracts, extensions to centrects and closing documents will be prepared and all actions necessary to consummate the sale shall be undertaken. 3. In pursuit of the above, the Housing Office staff will be acting o:n behalf of the Housing Office. It should be clearly understood by and between all parties to a sales transaction that the staff members are not acting as licensed brokers to the transaction, but as representatives of the 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 31 Housing Office and its interests. They shall nevertheless attempt to help both parties to consummate a fair and equitable sale in accordance with the current Guidelines. 4. All purchasers and sellers are advised to consult legal counsel regarding examination of title and all contracts, agreements and title documents. The retention of such counsel, licensed real estate brokers, or such related services, shall be at purchaser's Or seller's own expense. The fees paid to the Housing Office ere to be paid regardless of any actions or services that the purchaser or seller may undertake or acquire. B. ADVERTISING THE SALE: BID PERIODS 1. After a unit is listed for sale with the Housing Office, the Housing Office, at its expense, arranges to advertise the unit for sale in the Wednesday daily papers. When a unit is first listed, there is an initial two-week bid period during which the unit is advertised with two open house dates when the unit may be viewed by interested parties. The initial two-week bid period ends on the Wednesday after the second week of advertising. If there are no bids received in the initial bid period, there will follow consecutive one-week bid periods, ending on Wednesday, until the unit is sold. 2. If more than one bid is received during any bid period, they are prioritized according to the Guidelines. If more than one bid is in top priority, a lottery is held and the winner is notified. If the winner of the lottery does not proceed to contract within five business days of notification, the next in line is notified and so on, until the unit is under contract for purchase. Back-up contracts in the priority order set forth above will be accepted. 3. Prospective purchasers are encouraged to investigate sources of financing prior to submitting a bid for affordable housing and can obtain names of lenders from the Housing Office sales department. Sales staff are available to assist interested parties with the purchase procedure and to answer any questions about the process. C. SALES AND OTHER FEES: 1. Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed Restrictions covering the unit, at closing, the seller will pay the Housing Office a sales fee equal to two (2) percent of the sales price. The Housing Office may instruct the title company to pay said fees to the Housing Office out of the funds held for the seller at the closing. Unless otherwise specified in the Deed Restriction, a one-half percent (1/2%) fee is paid by the Seller at the time of listing, which is applied to the total sales fee payable at closing. tn the event that the seller fails to perform under the listing contract, rejects all offers at maximum price in cash or cash-equivalent terms, or should withdraw the listing after advertising has commenced, that portion of the fee will not be refunded. In the event that the seller withdraws for failure of any bids to be received at maximum price or with acceptable terms, the advertising and administrative costs incurred by the Housing Office shall be deducted from the fee, with the balance credited to the owner's sales fee when the property is sold. 2. Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed Restriction covering the unit, upon the initial sale, resale or refinancing of units where FNMA-type financing provisions are used, the use of which shall be at the sole discretion of the Housing Office, there shall be a 1/4% fee charged by Housing Office. The fee shall be paid by the mortgagor; shall be based on the amount of the mortgage; shall be paid for each mortgage transaction; and shall be deposited in the Housing Office mortgage reserve fund account. Where the fee was not paid on the initial purchase of units using the J 19ga Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page_934 of 31 FNMA-type financing provisions, by way of example the Twin Ridge, Fairway III and Williams Woods projects, the fee shall be paid by the owners of said units at the time the unit is refinanced or resold. The purchaser's of said units shall also pay the fee based on their mortgage as set forth above. If the fee is paid on a unit and the unit is subsequently refinanced, the fee shall only apply to that amount of the refinanced mortgage greater than the initial mortgage upon which the fee was initially collected. FNMA-type financing provisions are those which provide, among other things, for the removal of the Deed Restriction on the unit upon foreclosure of the mortgage if the Housing Office or the City or the County do not exercise their option to purchase the unit within a specified time following foreclosure. If FNMA-type financing provisions are not used by the mortgagor, no fee shall be charged by the Housing Office. The amount and adequacy of the fee and the mortgage reserve fund shall be reviewed annually as part of the review of the Guidelines. D. DEED RESTRICTION: The purchaser must execute, in a form satisfactory to the Housing Office and for recording with the Pitkin County Clerk concurrent with the closing of the sale, a document acknowledging the purchaser's agreement to be bound by the recorded Deed Restriction covering the sale unit. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. Any co-ownership interest other than joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common must be approved by the Housing Office. 2. Co-signers may be approved for ownership of the unit but shall not occupy the unit unless qualified by the Housing Office. 3. If a unit is listed for sale and the owner must relocate to another area, the unit may, upon approval of the Housing Office, be rented to a qualified individual, in accordance with the Guidelines for a maximum period of two (2) years. Notice of such intent and the ability to comment shall be provided to any applicable homeowner's association at the time of request to the Housing Office. A letter must be sent to the Housing Office requesting permission to rent the unit until sold. A minimum six (6) month written lease must be provided to the tenant with a sixty (60) day move out clause upon notification when the unit is sold. All tenants must be qualified by the Housing Office and the unit must be leased for the terms set forth in the Deed Restriction on the unit or, if there are no such provisions in the Deed Restriction, upon terms approved by the Housing Office. Prior to Housing Offica's qualification of tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read and understands the homeowners' association covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and shall abide by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. A copy of the executed lease shall be furnished by the owner or tenant to the Housing Office and homeowners' association. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 1_~ of 31 I SECTION 6 PRIORITIES FOR PERSONS BIDDING TO PURCHASE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT Units developed by a private developer under the Affordable Housing Zone District will have the option to choose a qualified employee for 1/3 of each of type of unit being developed. All other units will be placed in a lottery and prioritized as stated below. The '1/3 chosen by the developer MUST MEET minimum occupancy as stated below. The qualified person(s) submitting the highest bid price (not to exceed the maximum bid price) during a bid period shall have the first right to negotiate purchase of the unit. If two or more qualified bids are submitted at the highest bid price, they shall receive preference and be prioritized for selection as the top bidder in the following order: A. Persons with a present ownership interest (joint or tenants in common) in the affordable housing unit. B. Person(s) chosen by the remaining owner(s) to purchase the interest of another owner. Any fractional sales must be approved by Special Review if not under a court order due to dissolution procedures. C. Qualified spouses and/or children of current owners, including joint custody of the children, and/or qualified parent(s) meeting minimum occupancy and fall under the definition stated in paragraph A on page 5. D. Persons living in and owning another unit within the complex who meet minimum occupancy standards. -A person must have owned his in-complex unit for at least one year prior to receiving the in-complex priority. If there are more than one in-complex bids meeting minimum occupancy, a lottery will be held by giving the number of chances aS stipulated below. On an in-complex move, a unit must open up to bid to other qualified persons before receiving the in-complex priority. E. Persons with four or more consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase: 1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms (dependents must reside in the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month period). 2. With minimum occupancy. Each household in the top priority will receive the following number of chances: Workinq in Pitkin County _~reater than 4 years but less than 8 years 5 chances Working in Pitkin County 9reater than 8 years but less than 12 years 6 chances Working in Pitkin County greater than 12 years but less than 16 years 7 chances Workin9 in Pitki n county 9reater than 16 years but less than 20 years 8 chances Workinq in Pitkin County greater than 20 years 9 chances F. Persons with one to four consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase (each individual will received one chance in a separate lottery unless there is no one bidding who has been working in Pitkin County four years or more): 1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms (dependents must reside in the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month period). 2. With minimum occupancy. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 1~_,~34 of 31 G. Persons with less than one consecutive year of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase (each individual will receive one chance in a separate lottery unless there is no One bidding who has been working in Pitkin County four years or more): 1. With minimum occupancy and one or more dependents for units with three or more bedrooms (dependents must reside in the unit greater than 183 days out of any 12-month period). 2. With minimum o~cupancy. H. Persons with four or more consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most .closely approximates minimum occupancy. I. Persons with one to four consecutive years of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most closely approximates minimum occupancy. J. Persons with less than one consecutive year of employment in Pitkin County immediately prior to application for purchase not meeting minimum occupancy, but which most closely approximates minimum occupancy. After prioritization, names of bidders with the highest bids of equal amounts and equal priority status shall be placed in a lottery which will be held within a reasonable amount of time following the deadline for bids. If the terms of the proposed purchase contract, other than maximum price, as initially presented to the owner, are unacceptable to the owner, there shall be a mandatory negotiation period of three (3) business days to allow the owner and potential buyer to reach an agreement regarding said terms, including but not limited to the closing date and financing contingencies. If after the negotiation period is over the owner and buyer have not reached an agreement, the next bidder's offer will then be presented to the owner for consideration and a three (3) business day negotiating period will begin again. All follow-up qualified bids will be processed in a like fashion until the unit is sold or all bids are rejected. If the owner rejects all bids, the unit shall be rebid or withdrawn from sale and the owner shall be subject to the provisions of Part 1, Section 5, paragraph C.1., regarding sales fee. NOTES: f. Minimum Occupancy (see Definitions) as used herein is one person (with an ownership interest) per bedroom. A minor child (21 years of age or younger) or dependent residing in the unit greater than days out of any f2-month period shall be granted equal rights as a person with an ownership interest. 2. Emergency workers (see Definitions) meeting minimum occupancy may qualify for placement into the highest lottery category (except Section 6 A, B, C and D) and compete with other applicants in that category upon Special Review and upon finding by the Special Review Committee that the emergency worker complies with the definition heroin. In order to receive the emergency worker priority, the emergency worker must have been in service to the community with that agency for a least one year. In addition, they will be required to be in service to their agency as a qualification of ownership until they have completed the four years of service. If they leave their service position before that time, they will be required, as any other person out of compliance, to list their unit for sale to a qualified employee. (The option for Special Review of circumstances for leaving would be open to these emergency workers,) 3. First priority for handicapped accessible units shall be given to disabled persons prioritized by length of residency. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 12~ of 31 4. Persons removed from their residence in Aspen or Pitkin County due to conversion or reconstruction of their residence by government action may receive higher priority upon Special Review. 5. Transfer within immediate family to a qualified buyer requires a $1 O0 fee. 6. F~r the sa~e ~f any unit that has been expanded t~ inc~ude an~ther bedro~m~ minimum ~ccupancy sha~ be based on the original bedroom count (e.g., for a f-bedroom unit expanded to a 2-bedroom unit, a single person household would meet minimum occupancy). SECTION7 LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR OWNERS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS If an owner of an affordable housing unit must leave Pitkin County for a limited period of time and desires to rent the unit during the absence, a leave of absence may be granted by the Housing Office for one year upon clear and convincing evidence which shows a bona fide reason for leaving and a commitment to return to the Aspen/Pitkin area. A letter must be sent to the Housing Office, at least 30 days prior to leaving, requesting permission to rent the unit during the leave of absence. Notice of such intent to rent and the ability to comment shall be provided to any applicable homeowners' association at the time of request to the Housing Office. The leave of absence shall be for one year and may, at the discretion of the Housing Office, be extended for one year, but in no event shall the leave exceed two years. The unit may be rented in accordance with the Housing Office's Guidelines during said one or two year period so long as the Deed Restriction covering the unit permits the rental, In the event that the rental rate is not set forth in the Deed Restriction, the rent shall be established at the greater of owner's cost or the rent established in accordance with the Guidelines for units at the appropriate income category (see Table IV). Owner's cost as used herein includes the monthly mortgage principal and interest payment, plus condominium fees, plus utilities remaining in owner's name, plus taxes and insurance prorated on a monthly basis, plus $20 per month. Prior to Housing Office's qualification of tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read and understands the homeowners' association covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and shall abide by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. A copy of the executed lease shall be furnished by the owner or tenant to the Housing Office and homeowners' association. Additionally, an owner may request a one-time in-county leave of absence for one (1) year by Special Review with all the above conditions applying. SECTION 8 ROOMMATES Rental Units - Roommates are permitted provided that they meet the provisions of Part II, Section 1, A, B, C, D and E. A roommate must reside in the unit for a minimum of ninety (90) consecutive days in order to have standing as a bona fide roommate for the purpose of taking over primary tenancy of the unit. The maximum rental rate for the unit/room shal~ not exceed the maximum rental rate permitted under the Guidelines in Part Ill, Section 3, Table IV, herein for said unit pro rated on a per bedroom basis. Sales Units - Roommates are permitted provided that they meet the provisions of Part II, Section 1, A, B and C. Any roommate must be given a lease of at least six (6) months. Copies of all leases must be filed with the Housing Office. The maximum rentat rate for the room shall not exceed the maximum rental rate permitted under the Guidelines in Part III, Section 3, for said unit pro rated on a per bedroom basis. For example, one roommate in a two bedroom unit shall pay a maximum rent of one-half (1/2) of the rent; one roommate in a three-bedroom household shall pay a maximum rent of one-third (1/3) of the total rent. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Pagel~__,.%~ of 31 Unless otherwise set forth in the Deed Restriction and or covenants of the Homeowner's Association covering the unit, an owner may rent a unit/room to a qualified employee or qualified employee of a non-profit (provided that they meet the income guidelines for that specific unit) so long as the owner continues to reside in the unit as a sole and exclusive place of residence. The owner shall be deemed to have ceased to use the unit as her sole and exclusive place of residence by accepting permanent employment outside of Pitkin County, or residing in the unit fewer than nine (9) months out of any twelve (12) months. SECTION 9 SPECIAL REVIEW A Special Review for a vadance from the strict application of these Guidelines may be requested if an unusual hardship can be shown, and the vadance from the strict application of the Guidelines is consistent with the Housing Program intent and policy. In order to request a Special Review, a letter must be submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority stating the request, with documentation regarding the unusual hardship. The applicant shall submit any additional information reasonably requested by APCHA. A Special Review meeting will then be scheduled in a timely manner. The Special Review Committee may grant the request, with or without conditions, if the approval will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Guidelines, and if an unusual hardship is shown. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page1,~_43-1- of 31 PART Ill. INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Part Ill of the Guidelines contains information to be used by developers of affordable housing units in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County whether required in connection with an application for flee-market development or otherwise. SECTION 1 NET MINIMUM LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Table It sets forth the allowable Minimum Net Livable Square Feet (see Definitions) for each ,unit type and Category. Developers may choose to COnstruct larger units; however, allowable rent and sale prices for such larger units may not exceed the maximum set forth in Tables III and IV. PLEASE NOTE: The minimum net ~vable square foot requirements may be reduced upon demonstration to and approval by the Housing Office that the development satisfies, or is required to adjust to, other physical factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for fivability, common storage, other amenities, location or site designs. TABLE I1 MINIMUM NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET FOR EACH UNIT TYPE AND INCOME CATEGORY Categories 1 & 2 Categories 3 & 4 Unit Type Sauare Feet Sauare Feet Studio 400 500 1 Bedroom 600 700 2 Bedroom 850 950 3 Bedroom 1,000 1,200 Single-Family Detached 1, ! 00 1,400 NOTE: Net Livable Square Footage (see Definitions) Calculations shall be required for the affordable housing COmponent of a project and must be verified by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits for either the free market or affordable housing COmponent of the project. The Community Development Department shall retain a set of approved building permit drawings for the project and the Community Development Department or Housing Office may check the actual COnstruction of the affordable housing units for compliance with the approved building permit plans. J 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 31 SECTION 2 MAXIMUM SALES PRICES FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND FOR AFFORDABLE LOTS Table Ill sets forth the maximum sales price for newly deed restricted affordable housing units and affordable lots to the initial purchaser. The maximum resale price of a unit shale be controiFed by the Deed Restriction covering the unit executed by the initial purchaser upon closing of the initial purchase. TABLE III MAXIMUM UNIT SALES PRICES Unit Type Cateaory 1 Cateao~ 2 Cateaorv 3 Cateaorv 4 Studio $29.000529,599 $66.000565,799 $109.6005197,~00 $185.4005!82,!99 1 Bedroom $36.400 $35,709 $78.300 $78,999 $120.8005! !8,699 $196.8005!93,399 2Bedroom $43.8005~.3,009 $89.700 57.9,!69 $132.2005129,609 $208.200529-1,500 3Bedroom $51.000 550,!90 $100.300596,500 $143.0005!~.0,~,66 $219.50~$2!5,=.99 Single-FamilyDetached $62.400591,399 $115.8005113,799 $158.300~155,599 $226.9005222,990 Single-Family Lot ($68.100~($88,990) ($20.500~,($20,!99) $ 1 $28.3005 27,990 NOTES: 1. Single-family lots shall be developed with homes of three bedrooms or larger and shall be prioritized for lottery as set forth in Part II, Section 5 herein. 2. Category 2 single-family lots will require a $20,100 subsidy payment by the developer in addition to the conveyance of the lot. Category 1 single-family lots will require a $66,900 subsidy payment by the developer in addition to the conveyance of the lot. Lot prices include the cost of access and utilities for the lot as set forth in Part Ill, Section 6 herein. 3. Sale units will be offered for sale through the Housing Office to all qualified persons under the procedures established by the Guidelines. 4. In the event affordable housing units associated with a lodge, agricultural operation, or commercial development are retained by the owner/operator of the development, persons employed directly by such owner/operator shall be given first priority to purchase; however, said persons must meet the Housing Office's Guidelines for occupancy, income and assets criteria in order to qualify to occupy the unit(s). In the event there are no persons directly employed by the owner who qualify, the unit shall then be offered to other qualified persons according to Part If, Section 5, of these Guidelines. (Affordable Housing [AH:] Zone development is exempt from this section.) All resales will go into the general lottery and be sold by the Housing Office per the deed restriction. 5. All newly deed restricted affordable housing sales units must be in a marketable condition and comply with the Uniform Building Code and with all rules, regulations, and codes of all governmental utilities and agencies having jurisdiction. Prior to sale the unit must be inspected and approved by a certified building inspector, architect or engineer approved by the Housing Office for compliance with the Guidelines. Cost of such inspections shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and the results of such inspection must be approved by the Housing Office. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin Count~ Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 31 ~ SECTION 3 MAXIMUM MONTHLY RENTAL RATES FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Table IV sets forth the maximum monthly rental rates which may be charged by the developer for newty deed restricted affordable housing units. The rental rates apply and shall be in effect for a twelve (12) month period from the commencement date of the initial lease with the first tenant of the newly deed restricted unit. Thereafter, the maximum monthly rental rate may be increased only if, and to the extent that, the Guidelines then in effect I~ermit an annual increase in rental rates, by using Table VII. TABLE IV MAXIMUM MONTHLY RENT Unit Type Cate_eory 1 Cate_oory 2 Cateoory 3 Cateoorv 4 Studio $34_93 $6205599 $92,5=$ 905 $1,457.,$!,~.! 1 Bedroom 429/121 728 715 1.033 !,0!-!. 1.576 1,5/18 2 Bedroom ,510501 836 821 1.142 1,121 1,684 3 Bedroom 592581 946 929 1.252 !,229 1.794 1,762 Single-Family Detached 67~=~! 1.055!,036 1.359 1,335 1.848 !,~!5 NOTES: 1. Units constructed prior to the effective date of these Guidelines shall charge rents that do not exceed those set forth in Part IV, Table VII. 2. Rental rates shall apply whether the units are providedfumished or unfurnished. 3. Rental rates in Table IV include, and may not be increased to pay for, the cost of utilities in common areas, condominium dues, management costs and taxes. In the event that utilities are commonly metered, a charge to the tenant may be made in addition to the maximum rents in Table IV for the tenant's share of such utilities attributable to the tenant's net living area. Tenants shall be responsible for individually metered utilities. 4. Pdor to occupancy of a deed restricted rental unit, a proposed tenant must be quafified by the Housing Office for occupancy and provide to the Housing Office all verification required under these Guidelines. Occupant must provide owner/landlord with proof of verification and qualification by the Housing Office prior to occupancy. Owner shall be required to provide a copy of lease agreement with tenant to the Housing Office for approval, which shall be given or denied within five working days after receipt by the Housing Office. Leases shall meet occupancy standards and allowed rental rates, and shall be for a minimum term of six consecutive months. An executed copy of the lease shall be provided to the Housing Office prior to occupancy by tenant. 5. In the event affordable housing units associated with a lodge, commercial, agricultural operation, or residential development are retained by the owner/operator of the development, persons employed directly. by such owner/operator meeting the income, occupancy, and asset standards may be given first pdority to rent. In the event there are no persons directly employed by the owner who qualify, the unit shall then be offered to other qualified persons according to the precadures contained in part II of the Guidelines. 6. All newly deed restricted affordable housing rental units must comply with the Uniform Building Code and with all rules, regulations and codes of all govemmental bodies and agencies having jurisdiction. The owner of affordable housing rental units, at its cost and expense, must keep and maintain the intedor and extedor of the total structure (including all residentjal units therein) and the adjacent open areas in a safe and clean condition and in a state of good order and repair, reasonable wear and tear and negligent or intentional damage by tenants excepted. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page1734 of 31 SECTION 4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DORMITORY/LODGE (Seasonal Units) Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development may, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, satisfy the affordable housing requirements by provision of dormitory/lodge units designed for occupancy by seasonal employees. Acceptance of such dormitory/lodge units shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body at the recommendation of the Housing Office. The dormitory/lodge units must satisfy all requirements of the applicable Guidelines and shall be required to meet the following minimum standards: A. OcCupancy of a dormitory unit shall be limited to no more than eight persons. B. There shall be 150 or greater net livable square feet of living area per person, including sleeping and bathroom. For purposes of this requirement, Net Livable square footage shall not include interior or exterior hallways, parking, patios, decks, cooking, lounge used in common, laundry rooms, mechanical areas, and storage. Rents for dormitory/lodge units and units developed for seasonal occupancy only pursuant to a plan appreved by the Housing Office shall be calculated on the net livable square footage as described above and computed at the rates set forth on a case-by-case basis. C. Notes 3, 4, 5 and 6 under Table IV, Part III, Section 3, apply to Dormitory/Lodge units. D. At least one bathroom shall be provided for shared use by no more than four persons, containing at least one water closet, one lavatory, one bathtub with a shower, and a total area of at least 60 net livable square feet. E, A kitchen facility or access to a common kitchen or common eating facility shall be provided subject to the Housing Office's approval and determination that the facilities are adequate in size to service the number of persons using the facility. F. Use of 20 net leasable square feet per person of enclosed storage area located within, or adjacent to, the unit. G. A manager's or assistant manager's rent shall be calculated based on the income category of the respective manager. H. Rents for dormitory units will be set by Special Review on a case-by-base basis, given the unique and varying characteristics of dormitory units, with affordability as the key issue. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 31 I SECTION 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEDICATION FEE (Payment-In-Lieu Fee) Payment-In-Lieu SChedule A. Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development may, under certain conditions and Subject to certain requirements, satisfy the affordable housing requirement by payment of an affordable housing dedication fee (payment-in-lieu fee). The number of employees (affordable housing residents) required to be housed is determined by the Employee Generation schedules contained in the applicabte City and County Codes. The time of payment of the fee is prior to the issuance of a building permit. Acceptance of the payment-in-lieu fee shall be at the sole discretion of the respective goveming body at the recommendation of the Housing Office. B. All County fees shall be paid to the Pitkin County Finance Director and all City fees shall be paid to the City Finance Director. A receipt shall be issued by the Finance Directors to the applicant for submission to the Planning Office as verification of payment, with a copy of the receipt supplied by the developer to the Housing Office prior to issuance of a building permit. TABLE V PAYMENT IN LIEU SCHEDULE Payment per Full-Time Equivalent Employee by Category Category 1 $92,000 $107.600 Category 2 $77,000 $93.000 Category 3 $64,000 $80.000 Category 4 $42,000 $58.200 A full-time equivalent employee equals an employee working 2,080 hours per year. For the purposes of calculating payment-in-lieu fee, the following occupancy standards shall apply: TABLE VI OCCUPANCY STANDARDS BY UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY Dormitory/Lodge 1.00 employee/150 sq. ft. Studio 1.25 employees One Bedroom 1.75 employees Two Bedrooms 2.25 employees Three Bedrooms 3.00 employees For each bedroom in excess of three, the occupancy standard increases by .5 employees Refer to Appendix E concerning methodology on Payment-in-Lieu Schedule 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Pagel~_93-1- of 31 SECTION 6 CONVEYANCE OF VACANT LOTS Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by the conveyance of vacant lots. Acceptance of the lots shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body upon recommendation of the Housing Office. A. All lots must be fully developed and ready for construction, i,e., improved lots with water or well, sewer or septic, roads, and telephone, electricity and gas (if available) in place to the property line. A soils report, prepared by a qualified engineer and based upon test holes within the building envelope of each lot, stipulating that the lot is suitable for construction of the intended dwelling type without requiring unusual excavation, foundation work or accommodation of other unusual conditions shall accompany the conveyance. B. All lots shall be conveyed to the Housing Office concurrent with recordation of final plat for the project. C. At the time of conveyance, an escrow account in an amount sufficient to cover 125% of the estimated costs required to complete the improvement of the lots in accordance with Item A above shah be established in the name of the Housing Office and the applicant. In no event shall improvements, as noted in Item A above, be completed more than one year from the date of conveyance of the property to the Housing Office. D. The Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the Protective Covenants shall incorporate the conditions stated in A, B and C, directly above this paragraph. SECTION 7 DEED RESTRICTING EXISTING DWELLING UNITS A. Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by deed restricting existing unrestricted housing to comply with the Guidelines. Acceptance of existing units shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body upon recommendation of the Housing Office. B. If accepted by the City or County, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the following criteria, unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the applicable governing body upon the recommendation of the Housing Office: all units must be freshly painted; all appliances must be purchased within the last five years and be in good condition and working order; new carpet shall be provided (unless carpet has been purchased in last five years and is in good condition and repair); the exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication, a general level of upgrede to yards and landscaping shall be provided, and, windows, heating, plumbing and electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good condition and working order. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten (10) years. All units shall meet Uniform Building Code minimum standards, any applicable housing code or, in the absence of an adequate code, such recognized housing code acceptable to the Housing Office and shall be approved by the Housing Office and verified by a qualified Building Inspector accepted and approved by the Housing Office. Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the above standards as well as any structural/engineering reports required by the Housing Office to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the Housing Office standards of the proposed units. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page__2~:~ of 31 SECTION 8 EXECUTION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS BY APPLICANTS Deed Restrictions must be submitted by the applicant to the Housing Office according tO the following time schedule: A. Conditional Use Applications - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a project, the Housing Office shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the required commitment by the applicant. B. Growth Management Plan Applications - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a project, the Housing Office shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the required commitment by the applicant. A copy of the recorded Land Use Code and Resolution and Deed Restriction shall be sent to the Housing Office. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Deed Restriction shall be amended, if necessary, to reflect changes approved by the Housing Office and governing bodies which may have occurred during construction or conversion of the unit(s) (i.e., net livable square footage), executed and recorded, with the original returned to the Housing Office for their files. C. Others - Prior to issuance of any building permit for a project, the Housing Office shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the required commitment by the applicant. A copy of the recorded Land Use Code Resolution and Deed Restriction shall be sent to the Housing Office. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Deed Restriction shall be amended, if necessary, to reflect changes approved by the Housing Office which may have occurred during construction or conversion of the unit(s) (i.e., net livable square footage), executed and recorded, with the original returned to the Housing Office for their files. SECTION 9 MAXIMUM VACANCY Deed restricted rental units, which are required to be occupied, may be vacant between tenancies for a maximum period of forty-five (45) days, unless authorized by the Housing Office. If the owner exceeds the forty-five (45) day limit without Housing Office approval, then the Housing Office will place a qualified employee from existing wait lists with a minimum six (6~ month tease. [ 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page21G4 of 31 PART IV. MAXIMUM ANNUAL RENT INCREASE FOR EXISTING DEED RESTRICTED RENTAL UNITS The maximum monthly rant for an existing affordable housing unit is determined by starting with the maximum monthly rent permitted for that unit under the Guidelines in effect in the year in which the unit was first occupied and increasing that rent each year by the maximum percentage rent increases permitted by the Guidelines each year. Maximum rent increases and the year in which each increase was allowed for existing units are as follows: TABLE VII PERMITTED INCREASE IN MAXIMUM RENT FOR EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Year Increase Year Increase Year Increase 1978-1982 0,0% 1990 3.0% 1996 .99% 1983 6.6% 1991 0.0% 1997 1.31% 1984 5.0% 1992 2.0% 1998 .73% 1985 3.3% 1993 1.2% 1986-1988 0.0% 1994 1.0% 1989 4.7% 1995 1.1% The proposed ,73% increase is based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (Urban Wage Earners), November 1996 - November 1997. The index increased at the rate of 1.83% during this period. Operating costs for rental housing, which are subject to the CPI increase, are assumed to be 40% of rental income. The proposed rental increase of .73% is 40% of the CPI increase, which is sufficient to cover any increase in operating costs. Please contact the Housing Office for the actual maximum rental rates available and the Housing Office will assist any applicant in determining their maximum permitted rent. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 2__23,~- of 31 ~ PART V. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A grievance is any dispute that a tenant or purchaser (see Definitions) may have with the Housing Office with respect t~ action or failure to act in accordance with the individual tenant's or purchaser's rights, duties, welfare or status. A grievance may be presented to the Housing Office Board of Directors under the following procedures. I. FILING A GRIEVANCE IL CONDUCT OF THE HEARING A. Any grievance must be presented in A. If the complainant fails to appear at writing to the Housing Office. It may be simply the scheduled hearing, the Board may make a stated, but shall specify: 1) the particular determination to postpone the hearing or make a ground(s) upon which it is based; 2) the action determination based upon the written requested; and 3) the name, address, telephone documentation and the evidence submitted. number of the complainant and similar information about his/her representative, if any. B. The hearing shah be conducted by the Board as follows: Oral or documentary evidence B. Upon presentation of a written may be received without strict compliance with the grievance, a hearing before the Housing Office rules of evidence applicable to judicial Board of Directors shall be scheduled for the next proceedings. scheduled Board meeting. The matter may be continued at the discretion of the Board. The C. The right to cross-examine shall be at complainant shall be afforded a fair hearing the discretion of the Board and may be regulated providing the basic safeguard of due process, by the Board as it deems necessary for a fair including notice and an opportunity to be heard in hearing. a timely, reasonable manner. D. Based on the records of proceedings, C. The complainant and the Housing the Board will provide a written decision and Office shall have the opportunity to examine and, include therein the reasons for its determination. before the hearing at the expense of the The decision of the Board shal[ be binding on the complainant, to copy all documents, records and Housing Office which shall take all actions regulations of the Housing Office that are relevant necessary to carry out the decision. to the hearing. Any document not made available afler written request may not be relied upon at the hearing. D. The complainant has the right to be represented by counsel. [ 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page_2~34 of 31 PART VI. DEFINITIONS Accessory Dwellina Unit (Ordinance #1. Series of 1990) See Aspen Land Use Code, Chapter 26.40.090. Cosloner - A joint signatory of a promissory note who shall not occupy the unit unless qualified by the Housing Office. Affordabte Housine - Dwelling units resthcted to the housing size and type for individuals meeting asset, income and Deed Restriction - A contract entered into between the minimum occupancy guidelines approved by the Aspen City Housing office and the owner or purchaser of real property Council, Board of County Commissionere and/or the Housing identifying the conditions of occupancy and resale. Office, whichever sha]l apply. Deeendent - A minor child (21 years or younger) or other Affordable Housine Zone District - See Aspen Land Use relative of the renter or owner of an affordable housing unit, Code, Chapter 26.28.110. which child or relative is taken and listed as a dependent for federal income tax purposes by such renter or owner or his or AsDen/Pitkin County Housing Authority -Housing Office. her present or former spouse (said dependent must also be related by blood or adoption and residing with the individual at Assets - Anything owned by an individual which has least six months and one day [183 days] out of every 12- commercial or exchange value. Assets consist of specific month pedod of time). property or claims against others, in contrast to obligations due others. See also definitjon for Gross Assets and Net Assets. Disabled Person - A person who meets the definition of "individual with a disability" contained in 29 U.S.C. Section Basement - As defined by the applicable City or County Land 706(8), and/or as defined in the Americans with Disabilifies Act Use Code. of 1990; and/or a person who has a "handicap," as defined in C.R.S. 24-34-301(4), the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act. Bedroom - Designed to be used for sleeping purposes which may contain ciceets, may have access to a bathreom and DormitOry - A structure or portion thereof under single which meets applicable City or County Uniform Building Code management that provides group sleeping accommodations requirements for light, ventilation, sanitation and egress. for occupants in one (1) or more rooms for compensation. Standards for use, occupancy. and design of such fadlities Buvdown Unit - Free-market which the government (Aspen. shall be appmved by the Housing Office. See Part ill, Sec. 4. Pitkin County, Housing Office) acquired and deed resthcted to affordable housing. Emeroencv Worker - An employee or vctunteer (on ca~l 24 hours/day for human, life threatening emergencies) of a Caoital Imorovements - Unless otherwise defined in the community based organization that provides on-scene Deed Resthction covedng the affordable housing unit, any assistance giving personal care ~ victims, including, but not fixture erected as a permanent improvement to real property limited to the following: Fire Depariment Workere, Mountain excluding repair, replacement, and maintenance costs. Rescue, Shetiffs Deputies, Police Officers, Hospital Emergency Room Technicians, Social Service Workers Caretaker Dweilino Units - See County Land Use Code. (mental beaith and abuse case workere), Ambulance Ddvers. Emergency Medical Technidans, and Communications Consumer Price index (CPI) - The Consumer Pdce Index Dispatchers through the Shefills Office or Police Department. that is used for Dumoses of the Guidelines and for ourposes of Emergency Service Depament Head approval is required, the Deed Restriction is the Consumer Price Index- U.B. City demonstrating the need of that agency to house another Averaoe and Reoions. Urban Waoe Earners and Clerical Emergency Worker in the Aspen area. Workers (CPI-W}. All Items. Uodated information is received on a monthly basis from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stetistica. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page___-,-G4- of 31 EmDIoyeelQuati~ed Resident/Buyer - A person who is Gross Assets - Any~ing which has tangible or intangible employed on the basis of a minimum of 1,500 hours worked value, including property of all kinds, both real and personal; per calendar year in Pitkin County, which averages 35 hours a includes among other things, patents and causes of a~on week, 10 months a year; or 32 hours a week, 11 months a which beteng to any person, as well as any stock in a year, physically working in Pitkin County and must reside in corporation and any interest in ~he estate of a decedent; also, the unit a minimum of nine (9)months out of the year. the entire property of a person, essodation, corporation, or estate that is applicable or subject to the payment of debts. EmDIover - A business whose business address is located Gross asseta shall include ~nds or property held in a living within Aspen or Pitkin County, whose business employs in Jet or any similar entity or interest, where the person has employees (as defined heroin) within Pitkin County, and management dghts or the ability to apply the assets to the whose business taxes are paid in Aspen or Pitkin County. payment of debts. Gross assets shall not include, where approved by Spedal Review, pension plans, blind ti'usts, or EmPloyee (Non-Profit1 - A person who works/performs for a other entities or interests in which a person has no non-profit organization. Employees include artists, performers, management dghts and no ability to apply such assets to the musidans, organizers, bookkeepers, etc., but excluding payment of debts, except to the extant that taxable eamings or conerection workers. Non-profit organizations include any interest income are derived therefrom. certified non-profit organization providing services to and located in Pitkin County. Gross Income - The total income to include alimc~ny and child suppod dehved from a business, trust, employment and from Employee Dwellino Unit - See Pitkin County Land Use Code. income-preduclng property, pefora deductions for expenses, depreciation, taxes, and similar allowances. EmPloyee Houslno - See definition for Affordable Housing. Household - All individuals who will be occupying the unit Family-Oriented Unit - A dwelling unit attached or detached, regardless of legal status. 3 bedrooms or more, with direct ground floor access to a useableyard area. Household Net Assets - Combined net assets of all individuals who will be occ4jpying the unit regardless of legal Fee $imDte Estate - The maximum peseible estste that one status. can pcasees in real property; complete and absolute ownership of indefinite duration, freely fransfersble, and Household Income - Combined gross income of all inheritable. individuals who will be occupying the unit regardless of legal status. Adjustments to the gross for business expenses can Financial Statement - A statement detailing all personal be made for persons whoare self-employed. assets, liabilities, and net worth (the difference between assets and liabilities) as of a specific date. Kitchen - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, Fixture - 'i) A tangible thing which previously was personal standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. property and which has been attached to or installed on land or a structure thereon in such a way as to become a part of Leasehold Interest - A less than fee simple estate which a the real property. 2) Any non-portable lighting devise built in or tenant possesses in real property. attached securely to the sthjcture. 3) The permanent parts of a plumbing system and fixtures. Lottery - A drawing of lots to select a winner from equal applicants of highest priority. J 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page__2~53~ of 31 Maximum Bid Price - Unless otherwise defined in the Deed Qualified Resident - A person(s) meeting the income and Restriction covering the unit, the owners purchase pdce asset limitations who meet the profile requirements (part of multiplied by the appreciafion (as permitted by the Deed which requirements include being a qualified employee, a Resthcfion) plus the present value of capital improvement retired person, a disabled person, or dependent(s) of any of costs including labor, if professionally provided, and for which these as such terms are defined herein) established by the verification of the expenditure iS provided. Housing Office from time to time and in effect at any time. Minimum Occuoancy - One person (with a leasehold/ Resale Aoreement - A contract entered into between the ownership interest) per bedroom. A minor child or dependent Housing Office and the owner or purchaser of real property shall be granted equal status as a person with identifying the conditions of occupancy and resale (also leasehctd/ownership interest. commonly referred to as a Deed Restriction). Net Assets - Gross assets minus liabilif. jes. Retirement Retirement Aoe - Should an owner or tenant of a deed accounts will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to restricted unit retire before the age of 65. that individual must determine whether or not they shall be included as a net sell the ownership or move from the deed rasthcted rental unit. asset. Such individual may go through Special Review to ask for a waiver to maintain ownership/occupancy of his/her unit. Net Livable SQuare Footei3e - Is calculated on interior living area and is measured intador wall to interior wall, including all Seasonal Employee - A person working not less than 35 interior partitions. AJso included, but not limited to, habitable hours per week during the Winter Season (generally basements and intedor storage areas, cJosets and laundry November through April) and/or Summer Season (generally area. Exclusions include, but are not limited to, uninhabitable June through August). basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either at~ched or detached), patios, decks and Sonior A poison tho ago of 65 .vcorc or moro, I perches, SPecial Review Committee - A Spedal Review Committee, Present Value - For the purposes of these Guidelines and as established from time to time by the Housing Office. is any Deed Res~c~ons containing such terms, the present composed of three or more persons - one person from City value shall be the cost or pdce of any capital improvements as staff, one person from County staff, and a Housing Board established at the time of such improvement and shall be member. The Committee shall have the authority to review neither appredated nor depradated from such time, sbedal drcumstancas with respect to matters specifically designated in the Guidelines that are eligible for spedal Primary Residence - The sole and exclusive place of review, including, but not necessarily limited to, the priodty residence. The owner or renter shall be deemed to have system; financial and asset limitations; veri~cetions and ceased to use the unit as her sole and exclusive place of qualifications; self..employment finandal considerations; residence by accepting permanent employment outside of occupancy; admission; etc. Pitkin county, or residing in the unit fewer than nine (9) months out of any twelve (12)months. Storeae Space - Space intended and commonly utilized as location for preservation or later use or disposal of items. Purchaser - A person who is buying or has purchased a deed restricted unit which is subject to these Guidelines, and any Tenant - A person who is leasing or has leased a deed qualifying potential purchaser or past owner of any such deed restricted unit which is subject to these Guidelines, and any resthcted unit, but only with respect to any issue adsing under qualifying potential lessee or past lessee of any such deed these Guidelines. restricted unit, but only with respect to any issue adsing under these Guidelines. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 31 [ APPENDIX A MAXIMUM INCOMES BY CATEGORY (as of April 1997) INCOME CATEGORIES The maximum gross household income (defined in the Definitions) for each income category is se~ forth in Table I: Category 1 ~ Cateaory 3 Cateaory 4 Income Percentlies 25% 50% 75% >75% 0 Dependent $ 25,000 $39,765 $64,877 $104,540 1 Dependent $32,050 $47,265 $72,377 $112,040 2 Dependents $40,000 $54,765 $79,877 $119,540 3 or More Dependents $47,500 $62,255 $87,377 $127,040 Total Net Assets Not in Excess of $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 NOTE: A household may quali~ to purchase or rent a unit in a higher category. The 0 dependent figure increased by 3% due to the CPI; each dependent adds $7,500 to each category, up to three dependents. ~lncorne amounts and percentlies are detlved from ~e 1995 AsperMPifkin CouRry Housing Study end Survey of employees who live or work in Pitkin County and have been adjusted to the current Guidellne,t Percentlies ere provided for informa#onal purposes only. The median household reported by the survey ,'as $,40,000. 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 273~ of 31 APPENDIX B - CHART OF PRINCIPAL OWNERSHIP PROJECTS NUMBER OF UNITS MAXIMUM REQUIRED PROJECT NAME AND TYPE OF UNITS INCOME CATEGORY RESIDENCY AABC Rowhouses 12 Townhomes No Income Guidelines Per Covenants Aspen Village MHP 150 Trailers/Ownership of Land Resident Occupied Per Guidelines Benedict Commons 27 Studios and One Bedrooms Category 2. 3 and 4 Per Guidelines Billings 7 Townhomes Category 2. 3 and 4 Per Guidelines CastJe Crk Valley Ranch 4 Single-Family Homes Category 4 Per Guidelines Centennial 92 Condominiums Category 4 Per Guidelines Common Ground 21 Townhomes Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines East Hopkins 4 Townhomes Category 4 Per Guidelines East Owl Creek 4 Single-Family Homes Category 4 Per Guidelines Fairway Three 30 Townhomes Category 4 Per Guidelines Highland Villas 16 Condominiums 'Category 4 Per Guidelines Hunter Creek 77 Condominiums Category 4 Per Guidelines Juan Street 2 Duplexes; 2 Single-Family Gategory 4 Per Guidelines Lacet (East Cooper) 14 Townhomes/Singts-Family Category 3, 4 and RO Per Guidelines Lone Pine 28 Condominiums (Land Lease) Category 4 Per Guidelines Midland Park 37 Condominiums Category 4 Per Guidelines Oh-Be-Joyful 5 Single-Family H~mes Category 3 Per Guidelines Smuggler MHP 87 Single-Family (MOdular) No Income Requirements Per Covenants Smuggler Run MHP 17 Single-Family (MOdular) Category 4 Per Guidelines Sopds Crk Cabins 6 Units consisting of Lots 1.2, 5, 7 & 9: Category 3 (Meadows) Single Family &Duplexes Lot 8: Category 1 Per Guidelines Twin Ridge 12 Townhomes 13 Single-Family (w/Garage) Category 4 Per Guidelines Ute Park 7 Single-Family Homes Category 4 Per Guidelines Victorians at Bleeker 5 Condominiums Category 4 and RO Per Guidelines West Hopkins 11 Townhomes Category 2. and 3 Per Guidelines Willlame Ranch 35 Unite consisting of Single-Family Category 2, 3, 4, RO-5 and RO Per Guidelines Homes & Duplexes Willjams Woods 18 Townhomes Category 2 and 3 Per Guidelines W/J Ranch 63 Singte-Family Homes Category 4 and RO Per Guidelines TOTAL 808 Units 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page~,,3-1- of 31 APPENDIX C CHART OF PRINCIPAL RENTAL PROJECTS AND REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF UNITS MAXIMUM REQUIRED PROJECT NAME AND TYPE OF UNITS INCOME CATEGORY RESIDENCY AABC APARTMENTS 40 Units Category 3 Per Covenants ALPINA HAUS 44 Units N/A - Resident Occupied Per Ordinance CASTLE RIDGE 80 Units Category 3 Per Covenants CENTENNIAL 148 Units Category 3 Per Guidetines CiTY PLAZA BLDG. 4 Units Category 1 Per Resolution CLARK's MARKET APT. 18 Units N/A * Resident Occupied Per Covenants COPPER HORSE 13 Units N/A - Resident Occupied Per Resolution CORTINA (Hotel Jerome) 16 Units Category 1 Per Resolution HUNTER LONGHOUSE 33 Units Category 3 Per Guidelines KSNO, 620 E. Hopkins 5 Units Category 1,2 or 3 Per Guidelines MAROLT RANCH Permanent 4 Units Category 3 Seasonal 96 Units N/A Per Guidelines MOUNTAIN OAKS/HOSPITAL 21 Units Hospital Priority Per Hospital NORTH MiLL STATION 17 Units Resident Occupied Per Resolution SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS 11 Units Category 1 Per Guidelines TRUSCOTT PLACE 1- & 2-Bedrooms 46 Units Category 3 Per Guidelines Studios 50 Units N/A UTE CITY PLACE 22 Units Category 2 & 3 Per Guidelines TOTAL 572 Units Permanent 96 Units Seasonal 668 Units You must be a qualified employee, retired person or disabled individual, as defined in the Guidelines, to reside in the units listed above. This is only a partial list as there are numerous deed restricted units in the Aspen area. It is also a requirement that all deed restricted units meet minimum occupancy; Le., one person per bedroom. I 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guideiines Page~_934 of 31 APPENDIX D LISTING OF PRINCIPAL RENTAL PROJECTS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS (as of April 1997) AABC Apartments Bruce Nethery, Property Manager Lynn Hancock Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority 303 Aspen Airport Business Center 530 East Main, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2102; 925-2104 Fax (970) 920-3499 (Jan. - May &Sept. - Dec.) (970) 920-5580 Fax AIpina Haus Kevin De Cado, Property Manager Mountain Oaks (Hospital) 935 East Durant Bill Brunsworth, Manager Aspen, CO 81611 0401 Castle Creek Road (970) 920-3975; 920-2396 Fax Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 544-1380) Castle Ridge Apartments Maxine Jacebs, Resident Manager North Mill Station 1175 Doolittle Circle, #603 Phillip Bloesma, Manager Aspen, CO 81611 355 Puppy Smith Lane (970) 925-6851 Aspen, CO 8161 (970) 925-8603 Centennial Apartments Kim Keilin, Property Manager Smuggler Mountain / Truscott Place Apartments 100 Luke Short Court Terry Kappeli, Chief of Property Management Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (970) 925-1876; 920-2691 Fax 530 East Main, Lower Level Aspen, CO 81611 City Plaza Building (970) 920-5139; 920-5580 Fax Chuck Torinus, Manager 517 East Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 (970) Copper Horse Kevin DeCado, Property Manager 328 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 920-3975; 920-2396 Fax Hunter Longhouse Apartments Josh Bumaman, Property Manager 101 Lone Pine Road, #20 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-9474 Mareit Ranch (Seasonal Housing) 1998 Aspen/Pit. kin County Housing Guidelines Page ~ of 39 j APPENDIX E METHODOLOGY PAYMENT-IN-LIEU SCHEDULE Under certain conditions, developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirement by payment of an affordable housing impact fee (payment-in-lieu). The amount of the payment is based on the actual cost to purchase land and construct units and the price for which units may be rented or sold. The payment-in-lieu schedule for 1996 is based on the cost of three actual projects (East Hopkins, Juan Street and Benedict Commons). We calculated the actual cost of each unit, from one bedroom to three bedrooms, using up-to- date land costs, and subtracted the sales pdce for that unit at each Category (1, 2, 3 or 4). The result was the total subsidy required for each of the three projects units. This amount was divided by the average number of employees who would live in each unit, for a total subsidy per employee. The ~Vereae of these is the amount of payment-in-lieu per employee in each category. East Benedict Hopkins Juan Street CommonS; No. of Units 4 6 27 Land Cost* $ 900,000 $ 787,750 $1,500,000 Oonstruction 944,289 1,510,371 3,632,000 Parking Sales ( 700.000) TOTAL $!.844.209 $2.298.121 $4.432.000 *Land cost adjusted to 1996 costs. Subsidy/ Unit Type Cost Pr'ioe Subsidy ,rr.j:Dp. lQ.v.e~ ~ 1 Bedroom, Category 1 $I 50,696 $ 32,800 ($117,896) 1.75 ($67,369) 1 Bedroom, Category 2 164,148 70,800 (93,348) 1.75 (53,342) I Bedroom, Category 3 164,148 109,200 (54,948) 1.75 (31,399) Average Subsidy 2Bedreom, Categoryl $263,t97 $39,500 ($223,697) 2.25 ($99,429) ($107,594) 2 Bedroom, Category 2 269,923 81,000 (188,923) 2.25 (83,966) ($92,994) 2 Bedroom, Category 3 280,898 119,400 ( 161,498) 2.25 ( 71,777) ($79,988) 2Bedreom, Category4 211,018 188,100 (22,918) 2.25 (10,186) ($58,159) 3Bedreom, Categoryl $375,697 $46,100 ($329,597) 3.00 ($109,866) 3 Bedroom, Category 2 375,697 90,700 (284,997) 3.00 (94,999) 3 Bedroom, Category 3 397,647 129,200 (268,447) 3.00 (89,482) 3 Bedroom, Category 4 422,036 198,300 (223,736) 3.00 (74,579) 1998 Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines Page 3134 of 31 veal TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ' ~/// THRU: AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER THRU: JOHN WORCESTER, CITY ATTORNEY..~/ THRU: TOM STEPHENSON, POLICE CHIEF FROM: DAVID HOEFER, ASSISTANTCITY ATTORNEY ~ DATE: JUNE 18, 1998 RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, PROHIBITING THEFT AND ESTABLISHING ELEMENTS OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THEFT SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance would add the offense of theft to Title 15, Miscellaneous Offenses and Penalties, of the Aspen Municipal Code. Currently, the Aspen Police Department processes all theft cases in County Court. This ordinance would allow the police department to file theft cases in Municipal Court. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 18-4-401(8) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, a municipality has concurrent power with the state to prohibit theft by ordinance, where the theft is of a value of less than four hundred dollars. The police department is requesting City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance in the interest of justice and for the benefit of their officers. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The filing of theft cases in city, as opposed to county court, will generate revenue for the city. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be adopted. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends the following motion: "I move to approve Ordinance 2~ Series of 1998, which prohibits theft and establishes the elements of prima facie evidence of theft." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. ~, SERIES OF 1998 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, PROHIBITING THEFT AND ESTABLISHING ELEMENTS OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THEFT WHEREAS, the people of the City of Aspen are damaged by the occurrence of "theft," and WHEREAS, the City of Aspenhas no municipal ordinance prohibiting the offense of "theft," the absence of which requires all theft charges brought by the Aspen Police Department to b~e prosecuted in Pitkin County Court and not in the Municipal Court of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the efficiency of the Aspen Police Department in prosecuting "theft" cases would be increased significantly if an ordinance existed which allowed prosecution of "theft" charges in the Municipal Court of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18-4-401(8) ofthe Colomdo Revised Statutes 1997, as amended, a municipality shall have concurrent power to prohibit theft, by ordinance, where the value of the thing involved is less than four hundred dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by adding a section which shall read as follows: 15.04.600 Theft prohibited (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to commit a theft. A person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by threat or deception, and.' (1) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value, or (2) Knowingly uses. conceals, or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit, or (3) Uses, conceals, or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, co;zcealment, or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use and benefit, or (4) Demands any consideration to which he or she is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person. (b ) For the purposes of this section, a thing of value is that of "another" if anyone other than the defendant has a possessory or proprietary interest therein. (c) For the purposes of this section, the value of the thing involved shall be less than four 'hundred dollars ($400. 00). Section 2. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3. 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 4. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,1998, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena; Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed, and approved this day of 1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk VIe. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ~/f THROUGH: AMY MARGER UM, CITY MANAGER THROUGH: 'jOHN WORCESTER, CITY ATTORNE FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR~Q DATE: JULY 9~ 1998 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO WATER SER VICE AGREEMENT- NORTH SPRUCE STREET WATER LINE EXTENSION SUMMARY: Staff has received an application tO extend water service to an additional existing single family lot located on North Spruce Street. outside the current City limits but adjacent to the Williams Ranch and Silver Lode Subdivisions. Last December, three of the four lots to be served by this extension committed to participate in this agreement. The original water service agreement authorized extension of the private water system which then served only the upper lots in the Silver Lode Subdivision. This addendum would allow connection by an additional lot that could be served by the North Spruce extension. Staff has reviewed the application and finds that it complies with adopted City policies. provided that it is maintained as a private system. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the North Spruce water service agreement in December, 1997, and specifically required that any amendment to serve other existing lots along North Spruce Street be submitted to Council for review. The City Council has adopted policies which guide staff in reviewing applications to extend water service outside corporate limits. These adopted policies are summarized in Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, and are further elaborated in Resolution No. 49, Series of 1993. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project entails connection of one additional property to the North Spruce private water main which is to be connected to an existing private pump station and water distribution system serving the Silver Lode Subdivision. The North Spruce water main extends westerly along Silver Lode Drive to a point of connection on North Spruce Street and then extends to the northerly limits of Spruce Street. BACKGROUND: This memo addresses how the proposed amendment to the North Spruce Water Service Agreement complies with Resolution No. 5. Potable Water Deliverv Capacity and Service to Existing, Customers (Findint, 12i of Resolution No. 5): The already-approved North Spruce water main extension will serve three single family lots located on North Spruce Street by extending an existing private water system. This amendment will include an additional lot that can be served from this main. ,~ Application of the other criteria of Resolution No. 5 are discussed in detail in my memo to Council dated November 5, 1997. A copy of that memo is attached. Sufficiency of Water and Water Treatment Callacity (Findina 12ii of Resolution No. 5}: Water availability as measured by the capacity of the water treatment facilities and the ability of area streams to support water demand was addressed in the 1994 Raw Water Supply Availability Study (Enartech Consultants, 1994). This study concluded that with the development of additional well capacity, sufficient raw water and treatment capacity was available to meet the service needs of continued growth within the City, its existing service areas, and all immediately adjoining areas under consideration for expanded service. The study considered the effects of municipal water demands as they relate to maintenance of instream flows as required by adopted City policy. Water demand for the proposed North Spruce Street water service extension was not addressed in this study. However, the total demand for additional service to these two lots is small in comparison to the expected growth in water demand at buildout of the service area. The total water supply commitment for the initial three tots as measured in Equivalent Capacity Units (ECU's) was 10.8. With the additional lot, the total commitment will be 13.8 ECU's. This compares with a total projected availability of over 200 uncommitted ECU's for extension of service outside of the present service area. Financial Iml~act and Water Rates (Findinl~ 12iii and 12vi of Resolution No. 5): The project is located in Billing Area No. 2 on the City's water service maps. Staff prepared an analysis of cost recovery for each of the seven billing areas in December, 1995. Staff found that the cost of providing water service to this area was being fully recovered through the existing rate structure. It is not anticipated that it will be necessary to revise the water demand, tap fee and water consumption charges for this area. Asl~en Area Community Plan (AACP`} Consistency (Finding, 12vi of Resolution No. 5'}: The City Community Development staff found that the original proposed extension was consistent with the AACP. The County Community Development staff had no objection to the original proposed North Spruce extension provided that there were additional opportunities for comment in the event that additional subdivision of the tots to be served is proposed at a later date. Paragraph 1 of the North 2 Spruce Water Service Agreement ensures that there would be an additional review in this event and ensures the owners are advised that the City is making no representations that any future development woulcl be provided with additional water. The City Community Development staff have found that the addition of two properties to the water service agreement is consistent with the AACP and recommends approval of the amendment to the water service agreement. [See attached October 14, 1997, memo from Stan Clauson.] Relationshil~ to Environmental Goals and Utilization of Raw Water IFindin~ 12v and 12viii of Resolution No. 5): The North Spruce water service agreement provides an extension of service to a developed area which has utilized wells for inside use and for landscape irrigation. Staff believes that the rate of failure of existing wells in the area indicates that the aquifer is not capable of providing a reliable long range supply of water for landscape irrigation. Given the limitations of use provided by the well permits issued by the State and the physical limitations of the aquifer, staff does not recommend that the existing wells be considered a long term water supply utilizing "raw" or untreated water for irrigation. There are no other sources of water and staff therefore finds that it is not feasible to use raw water for irrigations purposes. The North Spruce water service agreement (Paragraph lb) is structured to allow only those lot owners who have State well permits allowing outside water use to hook up to the municipal system while maintaining existing wells for irrigation purposes, and only if the property owner elects to do so at the time of signing the water service agreement. Lot owners with existing wells for inside use will be permitted to retain the wells until such time they choose to connect to the municipal system, but will be charged a fee for water availability. The additional lot to be served has no existing well and this provision does not apply. Annexation (Findinl! xi of Resolution No. 5): The applicant, by accepting the North Spruce water service agreement, have agreed to its annexation provision. The lot is adjacent to the City. Ade~luacv of Water Facilities: Water Department staff previously determined that the proposed plans for the water system conformed to the adopted standards for water system construction, with the exceptions previously noted (see "Current Issues"). Dedication of Water Ril~hts: The applicant has no water rights to offer the City to satisfy this policy. An in-lieu cash payment will be required to satisfy the policy under Paragraph 6 of the Water Service Agreement. The cash payment is based on the total water supply requirements for all of the tots at buildout and the market value of water rights. The property owner will also pay an in-lieu fee to offset the cost of municipal well development; CURRENTISSUES: The North Spruce water extension extends an existing private water system which serves the highest lots in the Silver Lode Subdivision (adjacent to Williams Ranch). The private water system, including a separate pump station, was created to serve lots located above the "8040-green line" elevation on Smuggler Mountain where no pumped service is available and no existing water storage tanks serve the area. The Silver Lode Homeowners Association, which 3 operates the private water system, has agreed to expand its area of operation to include all the lots to be served on North Spruce Street. Water Department staff recommends that the original pumped system serving the upper lots in Silver Lode Subdivision and any subsequent expansions of the system remain as a private system. The reliability of this system without a storage tank and other design elements of the project do not meet City of Aspen requirements. REC'OMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Amended Water Service Agreement be introduced for first reading. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No.~Z~'implementing the Amended Water Service Agreement adding two lots to the North Spruce Street water main extension. CITYMANA GER COMMENTS: C:\\\'P61LMEMOS~NSPRUCE.',VPD 4 Memorandum To: Phil Overeynder, Water Director From: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director Date: 14 October 1997 Re: Referral Comments--Upper Spruce Street Water Service Application. Background: Camilla Auget, on behalf of five upper Spruce Street property owners, has filed an application for an extension of municipal water service to this area. The extension would be provided from water mains installed as part of the Willjams Ranch project. The properties in question are currently served by wells which have been prone to failure. This area is adjacent to the recently annexed Willjams Ranch subdivision and is wholly located within Annexation Area 3 --Lower Smuggler--as described in the City Of Aspen Annexation Plan-- 1997. Some additional residential development, including affordable housing development, might be enabled through the provision of water service. It is anticipated that this development would occur following annexation of the area and thereby be subject to City of Aspen residential design standards and 8040 Greenline review. The Aspen Area Community Plan does not provide any additional information on this area, except to generally encourage the development of affordable housing and appropriate development restrictions at higher elevations. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the extension of water service to the Upper Spruce Street area. ORDINANCE NO. ~" Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING AN EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH DR. RICHARD C. PHILLIPS, RAYMOND N. AUGER, AND ALBERT G. TIMROTH AND DONNA M. TIMROTH FOR PROVISION OF TREATED WATER SERVICE TO SERVE AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON NORTH SPRUCE STREET. WHEREAS, Dr. Richard C. Phillips, Raymond N. Auger, Albert G. Timroth and Donna M. Timroth ("Applicants") submitted an Application for Water Service to the City Water Department, requesting that their existing water service agreement be amended to include one additional lot to be connected to a private water system which serves their respective properties on North Spruce Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1997, which provides for extension of water service to the properties owned by Phillips, Auger and Timroth, and for the potential addition of other lots which the main currently under construction is designed to serve: and WHEREAS, The Porath Family Trust has joined in an application to amend the agreement to serve to include its lot, which can be served byethe water main extension currently under construction; and WHEREAS, the propertie~ to be served are located in Pitkin County, and not within the City limits of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 25.12.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code provides that any extension of City water service outside the corporate limits of the City of Aspen shall be made pursuant to an agreement with the City and in accordance with the City of Aspen Water main extension policy and, further, that the City may grant water service only upon a determination that no conflict exists between the best interests of the City and the prospective water use, and that the City may impose such contract, water rights dedication and bond requirements as it deems necessary to safeguard the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted by Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, as amended, policies to guide municipal water system development and services beyond the City limits; and WHEREAS, said policies require the City Council to make a determination that the proposed water service extension complies with said policies and is in the best interests of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Council has had an opportunity to review with City staff the proposed amendment to the existing North Spruce Street Water Service Agreement to add the Porath property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT Section 1. The City Council of the City of Aspen hereby determines that the proposed provision of additional City water to the North Spruce Street private water system, to serve Porath's property located on North Spruce Street outside the City limiB of the City of Aspen, is in the best interests of the City and substantially complies with the City of Aspen water policy for extraterritorial services, as set forth in Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, as amended, and therefore agrees to extend City water service to an additional residential lot to be connected to the private water system located on North Spruce Street in Pitkin County, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Amendment to City of Aspen Water Service Agreement and Pretapping Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordimnce 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. Section4. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,199_, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the__ day of ,199_. John S. Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY ADOPTED, PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 199 . John S. Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk /potazh.ord LAW OFFICES Of BROOKE A. PETERSON KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. TELEPHONE GIDEON L KAUFMAN* HAL 8. DISHLER" 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 (970) 925-8166 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FACSIMILE OF COUNSEL: (970) 925~1090 ERIN L. FERNANDEZ*" - ~.,o ~,~=~ ,. ,~o.,~^ VIA HAND DELIVERY July 2, 1998 City of Aspen Water Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Arm: Phil Overe)~nder and C>~qthia Covell, Esq. Re: Amendment to City of Ashen Water Service AEreement and PretaDnin2 A,,reement Dear Phil and Cindy: On behalf of my client, the Porath Family Trust Dated 03/15/94, I am enclosing herewith the duly executed Amendment to City of Aspen Water Service Agreement and Pretapping Agreement. The deliver3, of this document, however, is conditioned upon the fact that the execution of this document by the Porath Family Trust Dated 03/I5/94 shall not in any way diminish our ability to contest any conditions imposed by the City of Aspen Planning Office or the Aspen City Council in connection with the approval of this Agreement. Of special concem is any request by the City of Aspen that the property owned by the Porath Family Trust Dated 03/15/94 participate in any further land use reviews, including but. not limited to, 8040 greenline review. other than those reviews of the building plans which will be submitted for a building permit, since we have allready received 1041 approval from Pilltin County for a home on the property. With this understanding in place, my client is more than willing to submit to and agree to the conditions of the enclosed. Amendment. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, KA T BAP/ijk Enclosure , ' cc: Arnold Porath AMENDMENT TO CITY OF ASPEN WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT AND PRETAPPING AGREEMENT This Amendment is made ,1998, to that certain Water Service Agreement entered into December 15, 1997, in Aspen, Colorado, between the City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation and home role city whose address is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (hereafter the "City"), and Dr. Richard C. Phillips, Raymond N. Auger, Albert G. Timroth and Donna M. Timroth, individuals who are herein collectively referred to as "Owners." This Amendment also amends that certain Pretapping Agreement among and between the same parties dated May 26, 1998. In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below, the parties and the Porath Family Trust Dated 03/15/94 CPorath") agree as follows: 1. The above-described Water Service Agreement was recorded with the Pitkin County Recorder on May 27, 1998 at Reception No. 417351, and is herein referred to as the North Spruce Water Service Agreement. The above-described Pretapping Agreement is herein referred to as the "Pretapping Agreement." 2. The North Spruce Water Service Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which the City agreed with Owners to provide municipal water service to a private water system to be constructed, owned, operated, maintained, repaired and replaced by Owners and their successors. The Pretapping Agreement allows certain connections of individual service lines to the water main in advance of connection of the service lines to structures. 3. Paragraph 11 of the North Spruce Water Service Agreement provides that other interested parties may connect to the private water system upon amendment of the North Spruce Water Service Agreement and payment by such parties of any recoupment charges imposed by Owners in addition to tap fees and other payments to be made to the City pursuant to the North Spruce Water Service Agreement. 4. Porath is owner of the property described on Exhibit A, and referred to herein as the "Porath Lot." 5. Porath has requested permission from Owners and the City to connect the Porath Lot to the private water system, in order to provide water service to a single family residence to be constructed on the Porath Lot. Porath has agreed to pay all recoupment fees required by Owners, and has paid to the City the well system development fee and payment in lieu of water fights required by the City. Porath will pay to the City when due all utility hookup charges and water system connection charges (tap fees) required by the City connection with the Pretapping Agreement. 6. Porath, by executing this Amendment, agrees, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, to be bound as an Owner to all of the terms and conditions of the North Spruce FINAL VERSION 062698 9:00 a.m. Water Service Agreement and the Protapping Agreement, and Porath specifically rapresents that it is familiar with, and agrees to be bound by, those provisions regarding annexation of the Porath Lot. 7. Owners and City hereby agree that Porath may become a party to both the North Spruce Water Service Agreement and the Pretapping Agreement as an Owner, subject to all of the terms, conditions, benefits and burdens of both agreements. 8. Owners and Porath hereby confirm that the North Spruce Street Association, which has organized, managed and advanced funds for the planning, permitting and construction of the private water system infrastructure, has the exclusive right to grant others the right to tie in to the private water system and to charge others a recoupment charge in addition to tap fees and other payments to be made to the City. The North Spruce Street Association hereby grants Porath the fight to tie in upon payment of his agreed upon recoupment charge. 9. The parties and Porath agree that, by the addition of Porath as a party to be served pursuant to the North Spruce Water Service Agreement, the City shall provide treated water service to the private water system in an amount not to exceed 13.8 ECUs, or a maximum of 5.03 acre-feet per year, and that references in paragraph 1 of the North Spruce Water Service Agreement and the Pretapping Agreement to the amount of water to be provided by the City thereunder are deemed amended accordingly. 10. Porath' s address for purposes of paragraph 29 of the North Spruce Water Service Agreement and paragraph 10 of the Pretapping Agreement is c/o Arnold Porath, 12400 Wilshire Blvd. #1 41~0, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Said address may be changed for purposes of either agreement as therein provided. 11. This Amendment shall be recorded at Owners' expense. 12. Except as otherwise herein specifically amended, the North Spruce Water Service Agreement and the Pretapping Agreement remain in full force and effect. Dated: C1TY OF ASPEN ATTEST: By: John Bennett, Mayor City Clerk FINAL VERSION 062698 9:00 a.m. -2- Dr. Richard C. Phillips Ray~mfndNf~.Au~ AI'e~G. Timroth ' ~' Donna M. Timroth Porath Family Trust Dated 03/15/94 -----, c.._~ .... _C-: r- , By: t~e, ~,.,_,~ Trustee C:\WP6]~LEGALS~AUGER.AMD FINAL VERSION 062698 9:00 a.m. -3- i JUM 28 '98 Oi:4~PM FREILICH, MYLER, LEITMER & CARLI i P-~--d ~(37~>' Dr. Rich~d C. Phillips Raymond N, Auger ~ Albert G, Timro:h Donna M. Timroth ~ Porath Family Trust Dated 03/15/94 ; ~ By: · Trustee ~ IrI2~AL VEP31ON 06&69~ 9:09 a.m. '3' .- JUHo ~6.19~8 ~: 33=M LAW OFFICES MO. ~69 P. ~ NOTkRTZ ~.TION~ Kristin i'imroth Notary Public 154 Ridge Road, P.O. Box 1171 C~yof/~Asd-F } s~., co 8162~ aZld CoV~t'y of f~:~Ax/C.- } My Commissk~ exVlres 07f27/'2000 } SS St~t~ of Colorado } Subscrjb~x:I and sworn to before me by ~b'~F'~, f'A ~; O~ Ce'~'~)n th~s ~t'l ~ day of '~T~'~lC, ,199~ . Wim~s my ~ntt and official seal. (S.EAL) dL~ Notmy Public My eo,~-,{,sion expires: Kristln Timrottl ci~ of /:~-L'2~: n } Not~ p.u~ic and County of pH'~ i'r'~ } 154 Rldge Road * p.O, Box1171 } SS My OQmmissk~ eY~'4res 07/Lff/2000 State of Colorado } ,TI.IN,~E,,I~J~: 3:33F~ ~ OFF:ICES NO,Se:~ P,3 1. Arnold Porath (hereafter "Applicant') t~as appIied to the Pitkin County Hearing Officer (hereafter "Hearhtg Officer") for a 1041 Hazard Review approval to estabiL~h a buitding envelope to construct a new single-family residence. 2. The property is located on North Spruce Street, east of the Wiltjams Wood housing development, and is more specifically described in the attached Exhibit A. 3. The majority of the property is zoned AFR~ t0. A small portion of the property below the 8040' contour line is zoned It.-30. The site contains approximately 1.5 acres, 4. The Hearing Officer heard this appl icedon ate public hearing on March 26, 1,998 at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tile Phkin County Hearlng Officer that approval is hereby grm'~ted to the Perath 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Subm ]ssicn, subject to the fo[towlng conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit an amended site plan to the Community Development Department for recording, prior to submission of any building permit applications. The site plan shall also be submitted in digital format for integration into the County's GIS system. The site plan shall be modified as follows: A. A slgnature block for the Pitkin County Hearing Offiear and Acceptance fer Recording shal} be included. B. The following 1041 hazard waiver shall be included on the site pien with owner signatu?e: "Applica.nt acknowledges that he/she ha.q been illformed by Pitkin County of the existence of 1041 euvironmental h,v. ard areas that might affect the property, any improvements, and the use and oceupency thereof." C. A vicinity.map shall be included on the face of the site plan. 2. The A. pplieant shall comply with the rollowing landscaping and wildfire defensible space mitigation standards: A. Brush, debris, and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum I0 foot perimeter around the structure. B. Vegetation shah be reduced to break up the vertical apdl horizontaI continuity of the fuels a minimum era 30 foot perimeter aroun, d a structure built on fiat ground. DeterminatfonNo. 9B-. !1.~121 03/31/IIt98 02tllP DETERMaN D,qV/$ $ILVI Page2 2 .t 4 R e.ee D e.ez u e.ee PITKIN ~TY C0 C. Spacing be~een clumps of b~sh a~d wg~tation within th= 30 f~t grim=t~rs shall ~ a minimum of~o timcs the h~ight of the ~1. M~imum diameter of~e clumps shall b~ ~o times the h~ight of the fuel All measurements shall b~ from ~e edges of ~e crowns of the fuel. D. All br~ches from ~e~s =d brush within the 30 foot perimeter shall be pmn~d to a height of 10 fe~t a~ve lh~ ground and removal of ladder fuels from around ~e=s and brush, E. Tree crown sep~at~on wi~in ~ 30 foot p~rim~t~r shall haw a minimum of 10 feet between the edges of the cro~s. This do~s not apply to mature stand~ofAspen ~e~s wher~ th~ above recommendation for ~moval offadder fuels have b~n compil~d with. In areas of aspen regeneration, ~6 spaces guid~llnes shall be followed. F, All br~ches which extend over th~ r~f.aves shall be trimmed ~d all branches within 15 fe~t of th~ chimneys shall be r~mowd. G. The densi~ of fuel with~ · 100 foot perjurer of the structures shall be reduced wh~re natural reduction h~ not already occu=cd. H. All d~adfall within ~ 100 f~t perlm~t~r shall b~ removed. I. The Applicgt shall b~ r~sponsible. for ~e continued maintenance of the defensibl~ space vegetation requirement, 3. The Applicgt shall comply with ~ followlag additional wildfire mitigation s~ndards: A. Koofcons~uction sha]l b~Cl~s A, non-combustibl~materialwlthno~atroofs. B. Veals shall b~ screened with cocosire resister wire m~sh witl~ mesh 1/4 inch maximum. C. Roofs and gu~crs shall be k~pt clear of debris, D. Yards ~]~all be k~pt c/ear of all li~r, slash, and ~ammabl~ debris. E. All ~ammab]e matcfials shall be stored on a palll~l contour a minimum of 15 f~l away ~6m any sacrare. F. Weeds and gr~ses wilhin the 10 foot perimeter shall be ma~tain~d to a ~eight not more ~ 6 G. Firewo~/woodpiles shall bestacked onaparalleicontouraminlmumofl5 fe~taway fro~nthe H. Fences shall be kcpt cl~ar ofbmsh gd dcbris. I. Wood f~nces shall not co~ect to thc s~ctur~. J. Fuel l~s shall be installed underground With an approv~d container. K. Propa~ tanks shall be installed according to NFPA 48 ~dards and on a contour away ~om th~ s~cmre wi~ defensible space wg~tation mitigation ~ound ~y above-ground ~k. Any wood enclosur= around ~c t~k shall be cons~cted wi~ materials approved for 2 hour fire- resistire const~ction on th~ ~xterlor side of th~ walls. L. Each structure shall have a minimum of one I0 ~und ABC ~r~ ~xtinguisher. M. Addresses shall be clearly maTked with 2 inch non-combustible 16g~rs and shall be visible ad installed ~n a non-combustible post. N. All utili~ c~ension shall b~ buried. 4. No d=v~lopm~nt, including ~ing, landscaping, vegetation r~movaI or dlsmrbance, shall ~cur ou~id~ of th~ approv~ building ~nvelop~, ~xc~pt for utili~ =d driveway ~x{ension ad mainlyhence, and as may ~ n~c~ss~ to impl~m~nt the wildfire mitigation m~asur~s required ~Isewhere in this document. 5. Should th~ Applicat decide to install a ~replace/woodstovc, a fireplace application m~t b= filed wi~ the Enviro~m~n~{ Heal~ Depaent prior ~o th~ issuan~ of a building ~it. Determination No. 98- 11P Df~ERNIN I~Vl-~ SlLVl 41512 998 3 d 4 R B.~ D B.~ H ~,~ PITKIN COUNTY C0 6. The applic~t Shall connect to th~ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District unless a le~er is provided to ~e Environmental HeaI~ Department prior to the issuanc~ of a building petit indicating that sewer ~ice to the pmpe~ is not feasible. 7. Prior to the issu~c~ of a building p~rmit, the Applicant shall provide the Environmental Heal~ Dcpaent con~ation of adequate quali~ and quantity for water se~i~ on the prope~. In the [ikely event that adeq~ate water s~mi~ on the propc~ is not available, the applicant shall pursue connection to the privae water line proposed along NoRh Spruce Strut which will be installed Spring of 1998. 8. ACcess p~it shall b~ ~view~ and approV~ b~ ~e Co~B~ Engineer prior to ~ issuEc¢ of a bulldog petit. 9.' For ~y ~¢ m~ket r~sidentlal structure of 5,000 gross squar~ feet or greater, ~e appli~nt is r~quired to provide ,he ~ollowing nffic studies: A. Priortoapplieationforbuilding~rmittheapplicantshallprovideforrevi~w~dapprovalof th~ Coun~ Engineer a construction ~ip generaion s~dy. B. Prior to issuacc of a Ceni fica~ of Occup~cy, th~ applicant shall provide a trip generaion study for the residence, which shall be devebped by a tra~c cngin¢ering consultant hired by ~e applicant and pre-appmved by ~e Coun~ Engineer." 10. All material r¢presen~tions made by the applioants in the application or in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. NONCE OF P~LIC E~G p~LIRED ~ ~ ~PEN T~S ON '1'~ 14TH DAY OF ~BRU~Y, 1998. ~PRO~ ~ ~O~ED ON TE ~eTH DAY OF ~CH, 1998. E~G OFFICEK A~EST: OF PIT~ CO~, COLOMDO Adm~is~ative Assist~t He~g Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: .-%',,Z' ey Community Development Director Case ~P151-97 PID #2471-114-00-004 · ~ec. 5. 1997 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/4 45"51 ' ES~ 1~.15 f~; 45'51' ~ 1~.~ ~ f~ ~ly of ~ ~~ ~ ~,51' ~A~ 28.19 f~t ~t~ 1111111 !1111 !i1111 111111 fill Illll i11111 I11 Ii111 II!t I!!1 415122 ~3/31/1998 02: 11P DETERMIN D~VI$ SILVZ 4 ,f 4 R e.e~ D e.e~ N e.~ PITKIN COUNTY CO MEMORANDUM V I ~ THR 0 UGH: MA NA FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIREC.TOR~C~ DATE: JULY 8, 1998 SUBJECT: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RELOCATION OF WATER MAIN'- CASTLE/MAROON CREEK ROUNDABOUT RESOLUTION NO. 5¢ SUMMARY: The design for highway and pedestrian improvements at the existing CastleMaroon Creek Road intersection will necessitate relocation of the City's existing water transmission main. Authorization of engineering design services is a necessary step in relocation of utilities to accommodate the proposed roundabout. The City expects to recover the cost of construction through a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Colorado Department of Transportation. (CDOT) but will not be able to recover engineering costs. Staff anticipates returning for the appropriation necessary to relocate the water main after .the engineering design is completed. PREVIOUS COUNCILACTION: City Council approved an engineering services ageement with McLaughlin Water Engineers which provides for detailed task descriptions before engineering work is performed for water system improvements. City Council expects to enter into a MOU with CDOT regarding highway improvements to be made as pan of the "Entrance to Aspen." One of the elements of the agreement is the construction of a "roundabout" at the present location of the Castle/Maroon Creek Road intersection with Highway 82. CDOT's present commitment is to complete the roundabout during 1999. BACKGROUND: The City retained OTAK Engineers to develop a trail plan which could be integrated with the proposed highway and LRT system alignment. The Trail System Refinement Report prepared by OTAK in May, 1998, includes a pedestrian undemrossing under Highway 82just ' west of the proposed Castle/Maroon Creek Road Roundabout. Due to the location of the proposed pedestrian Undercrossing, it will be necessary to relocate deep utilities including water transmission mains and sewer trunk lines presently located in the highway right-of-way. Utility relocation work must be scheduled ahead of construction of the roundabout in order to ensure continued service during construction. The City's existing 16-inch water transmission main is the primary system for water delivery to points west of Maroon Creek and must remain in service except for short periods necessary to connect the new and existing systems. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: CDOT has informed the City that since the pedestrian undercrossing was a mitigation measure described in the Entrance to Aspen EIS, they will be " financially responsible for any utility relocation work. This applies to construction costs but not necessarily to design and engineering services. The City requested and received a scope of engineering services from McLaughlin Water Engineers to design and supervise the relocation of the water main to accommodate the pedestrian undercrossing and roundabout. The estimated cost of engineering services is $13,500. The cost of the water main relocation will not be known until the design work is completed. Staff anticipates that it will be necessary to appropriate the entire cost of construction with reimbursement of all but the engineering costs from CDOT. Staff will advise Council of the anticipated construction costs and request an appropriation after completion of design work. CURRENT ISSUES: The timing of utility relocation remains uncertain, but must be completed by spring, 1999, to accommodate CDOT's proposed construction schedule. The pending execution of the MOU with CDOT will clarify the City's responsibilities with respect to this work but staff believes that it is appropriate to initiate the design at this time. Coordination with other utility relocations, especia!ly the sewer main, may be necessary to minimize multiple disruption to traffic at the present intersection. At this time the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has not committed to a mlocation of the sewer main. To this point, there have been multiple revisions to the proposed highway and LRT plans that would affect the scope and extent of necessary utility relocation work. CDOT and Pitkin County have assured staff that the scope of the work is now sufficiently known to proceed with utility relocitions. CDOT has promised more detailed plans as a priority in order to allow the utility design work to proceed. There are three additional pedestrian underpasses proposed by OTAK as part of Highway 82 reconstruction: Truscott Place; Buttermilk or Stage Road; and the proposed new Airport Entrance. Each of these may have similar utility rel~Dcation issues and costs. The MOU with CDOT will address the respective financial responsibilities of the City for this work if necessary. Depending on the outcome of these negotiations, it may also be necessary to request appropriations for this work in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Water Departmen~ recommends that design w0rk for the water main utility relocation at the Castle/Maroon Creek Road intersection be authorized to proceed. ALTERNATIVES: One alternative is to avoid the financial risk of committing to engineering work before execution of the MOU with CDOT. This would mean waiting for the agreement with CDOT to be finalized before proceeding with any aspects of design Work. PROPOSED MOTION: 'I move that the City adopt Resolution No. ~'~Z authorizing up to $13,500 expenditure for McLaughlin Water Engineers to complete engineering work necessary to relocate the water main at the Castle/Maroon Creek Road intersection with Highway 82. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 RESOLUnON N0. Series of 1998 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BETWEEN MCLAUGHLIN WATER ENGINEERS AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO RELOCATION OF WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN AT CASTLE/MAROON CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION, AND AUTHORIZING THE WATER DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council approved an engineering services agreement with McLaughlin Water Engineers; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a professional services agreement amendment between McLaughlin Water Engineers, and the City of Aspen, a tree and accurate copy of the task authorization is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that professional services agreement amendment to authorize engineering services for "Project 1, Maroon Creek Road" between McLaughlin Water Engineers, and the City of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Water Director of the City of Aspen to execute said task athorization as an amendment to the existing agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk McLAUGI--ILIN WATER ENGINEERS, ltd. 210 A AABC ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 970-925-1920 970-925-1974fax mweaspen~rof. ne~ MEMORANDUM TO: Phil O. - City of Aspen Water Department FROM: Dean D. - MWE Aspen DATE: June 25, 1998 RE: Proposal for Consulting Engineering Services - Highway 82XLightRail\Pedestrian Bypass Waterline Realignment and Improvement Projects. As per you request 1 am attaching our proposal for the Highway 82LLightRailXPedestrian Underpass Waterline Realignment and Improvement Projects. We have grouped all five projects into one estimate.. We have attempted to cover all the proposed work in our Scope of Services~ however final Highway alignment changes and other factors may require changing the Scope to accommodate the required work. Ifyou have any questions, pleasefeel ~ee to call meatany time. Thanks Dean D EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE: HIGHWAY82\LIGHT RAIL\PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ,WATERLINE REALIGNMENT AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS This project consists of performLr~g consulting engineering work for design services for realignment of existing waterlines dealing with the installation of Highway 82 improvements, light rail train appurtenances, and pedestrian underpasses along Highway 82 from Maroon Creek Road to the Aspen Airport Business Center. The design and c0nstnaction phases needed will include preparation of base mapping, line design and construction specifications, construction inspection, t~.ecord Drawings~ and easements preparation for the five separate projects included in this proposal PROJECTS: 1. Maroon Creek Road Intersection: The proposed improvements may require relocation of existing 12 and 10-inch waterlines, relocation of existing valves, addition of a Pressure P, educing Vault, and other line improvements stemming from the installation of the Roundabout, light ra~l station and tracks, pedestrian underpass and bridge, and other 2. Truscott Place Entrance and New Maroon Creek Bridge: The existing 16 and 10-inch main wa~:er lines will need to be realigned to work with the new pedestrian underpass. The construction of a nero, Maroon Creek bridge would allow the installation of an additional 12- inch wlater line to feed the entire water system on the North side of the bridge, 12-inch line extension and bridge crossing 3 Highway 82 Four Lane Improvements. Several existing water lines, valves, flre hydrants~ and other water system improvements are located in the existing and proposed roadw~ays that need to be removed, capped, or relocated. 4, Stage P, oad\Owl Creek RoadSButtermilk R. oadway improvements and pedestrian underpass: Several water mains including a 16 and 8-inch waterlines, will need to be realigned to work with the new improvements. 5. Airport and Airport Business Center intersections and pedestrian underpass: Roadway and underpass improvements will require realignment of 18-inch and 8-inch water lines and other appurtenances. Base Maps Prior to the design for the line realignments and relocations, base maps will be generated using existing GIS mapping from the City of Aspen. The City's mapping does not show existing utilities accurately enough to be able to use them for design purposes. MWE recommends that utility companies, telephone, gas, tv, sewer, water, and electrical, be contacted and have utilities be located in the field for as built conditions. The asbuilt locates will be added to the mapping provided by the City to create base maps for design purposes. This work will include reviewing existing as built drawings, contacting utilities, site visits, field locating utilities, and transferring asbuilts to the base maps for design. These maps will also need to incorporate the proposed Highway 82 improvements, pedestrian underpass locations and road designs. We have assumed that the City of Aspen and Colorado State Department Highways will be providing drawings capable of being used by Autocad RI4. Design Phase The design phase will include taking the base maps compiled above and designing relocated water facilities to meet proposed highway designs and field conditions. The design will require drawings to be drafted for the line relocations, including alignment and all other work to be completed as part of the Highway 82 work. It is assumed that MWE will use existing City of Aspen pipeline details, installation, and material specifications for this project. MWE will provide the drawings at approximately 1" = 20-feet horizontal, 1 ''= 2-foot vertical on 24" x 36" reproducible mylars to the city plus electronic files in DXF format. MWE will also provide preliminary design of the line replacements including 50% and 90% design level for review by the City of Aspen. We are assuming that lines will be relocated within existing easements or ROW's. Construction Phase This work will includes Construction Observation and Record drawing preparation. The record drawings will require drawings to be drafted for the replacements detailing alignment and all other work completed as part of the water line extension. MWE will provide the as-built drawing on 24" X 36" reproducible mylar(s) to the City, plus the electronic file in DXF format. All survey and legal work is to be performed by the City of Aspen and should include an alignment survey, preparation of legal descriptions, plotting easements and ROW on construction plans and recording of the easement. New easements will only be required if realignment design requires the new alignment to be outside the existing easement or ROW. Surveying will be required to verify both horizontal and vertical control with the existing system and the City's GIS system and new base monument layout To insure that the installation of the wat~ir line extension will be installed according to City of Aspen and MWE drawings and specifications, MWE will provide inspection services. MWE will make daily site visits to the project to review the contractor progress, installation methods, materials, and other pertinent installation requirements. MWE will monitor tests and certify that the water line meets design and specified quality requirements. For ease of billing and other cost purposes all five projects are lumped into one cost estimate. Estimated Costs 1. Maroon Creek Road Base Maps and Prelim Work $1,070.00 Design Phase $7,700.00 Construction Phase $4,500.00 Surveying and Easements * * By others SUBTOTAL · $13,270.00 2. Truscott Place Entrance Base Maps and Prelim Work $1,070.00 Design Phase $12.500.00 Construction Phase $6,400 00 Surveying and Easements ** By others SUBTOTAL $19,970.00 3. Hwv 82 4 Lane Improvements Base Maps and Prelim Work $600.00 Design Phase $1,700.00 Construction Phase $500.00 Surveying and Easements ** By others SUBTOTAL $2,800.00 4. Stage Road\Owl Creek~B-milk Base Maps and Prelim Work $800.00 Design Phase $3,100.00 Construction Phase $1 ~000.00 Surveying and Easements ** By others SUBTOTAL $4~900.00 5. Aspen Airport and Business Center Base Maps and Prelim Work $1,340.00 Design Phase $4,100.00 Construction Phase $1,000.00 Surveying and Easements ** By others SUBTOTAL $6~440.00 TOT.~L PROJECT ESTIMA TED COSTS $47.380. O0 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL OJ~i/ THROUGH: AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER THROUGH: JOHN WORCESTER, CITY ATTORNEy ..~ '~/[~_ FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR ~ BILL EARLEY, ELECTRIC SUPERINTENDENT DATE: JULY 8, 1998 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE WIND POIVER RESOLUTION NO. ~'~ SUMMARY: The proposed action would initiate negotiations for purchase of wind energy from the output of a 600 kilowatt wind turbine to be installed at Medicine Bow, Wyoming. CORE is attempting to put together a group of "green" investors who would own and operate the wind turbine while the City would commit to purchase the energy output of the turbine for 20 years at a given price. The price for wind energy is significantly higher than the "spot market" price for purchased power through the City's existing purchase power contracts. The financial details and rate implications of the proposal are further detailed in the staff report and CORE's memo. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has not taken any previous action on this propi~sal. It has reviewed the concepts on which this proposal is based during a brown bag session in June of this year. Individual council members directed staff to ensure that financial and rate impact concerns regarding this proposal were addressed in the staff report. In the fall of 1997, the City agreed to purchase $15,000 in wind energy which is used to power City facilities and buildings. The City also agreed to the annual purchase or approximately 65,000 kilowatt hours of wind power from the Platte River Power Authority. As staff explained at the brown bag session in June, the cun'ent proposal would be a substitute for this commitment at a more favorable unit cost. BACKGROUND: The attached memo from CORE explains the background of the proposal to !purchase wind energy, placing it in the context of the existing mix of renewable versus fossil fuel energy sources utilized by the City's municipal electric utility. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND ELECTRIC RATE I~IPACT: Staff worked with Randy Udall to analyze the financial implications of this proposal and concurs with the rate impact analysis presented in CORE's memorandum as it applies to purchased power from a wind turbine. We believe that when compared to the current cost of purchased power to be displaced under the existing Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) contract, that the increased cost to the municipal electric utility will not exceed $35,000 on a yearly average basis. This additional cost will not necessitate a change in rates charged to the City's electric customers. Because the financial analysis considers the increased wind power costs considering the current "spot market" price of purchased power from MEAN, we believe that the expected $35,000 in increased purchased power costs is reasonably conservative over the expected 20 year life of the proposed agreement to purchase wind energy. Current market prices for "spot market" power are very low and are likely to trend higher over time, thereby reducing the incremental costs of wind energy when compared to fossil fuel energy. CURRENT ISSUES: Staff understands that Council wishes to continue to explore ways to expand its renewable energy sources while reducing its cun*ent (approximately 50%) commitment to fossil fuel fired power. The Asset Management Plan includes a small hydroelectric project utilizing the Thomas Reservoir overflow. Analysis of the economic and technical feasibility of this project is currently in process. but it represents only a small (less than 1%) increase in the mix of renewable versus fossil fuel power sources. Making further significant changes in renewable power produced or purchased by the City will continue to present an upward pressure to raise electric rates due to the significant cost differential between any new power som'ce and the current "spot mm'ket." When the bonds for the Reudi Project are paid off (2003), there may be an opportunity to further expand renewable power without increasing rates because of expected cost savings expected at that time. RECO312~IENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution No.53 . This resolution authorizes execution of a letter of intent to purchase the wind energy from a 600 kilowatt wind turbine. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to purchasing wind energy considered by staff included a more aggressive program to develop local hydroelectric sources. As described in CORE's memo, the lead time to develop these sources is significantly longer than for wind energy because of federal permitting requirements. Staff is continuing a feasibility study on generating hydroelectric power utilizing the overflow from the Thomas Reservoir. These are not mutually exclusive options as both wind and hydroelectric power can be fm'ther developed to provide for a further reduction in fossil fuel power purchased by the City. PROPOSED MOTION: I move that the City adopt Resolution No.,ot"3 offering to purchase the output from a 600 kilowatt wind turbine under a specified price and conditions. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 RESOLUTION NO. ~d Series of 1998 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE WIND ENERGY BY THE CITY OF ASPEN ELECTRIC UTILITY WHEREAS, the City of Aspen wishes to support the further development of wind energy to reduce its commitment to purchase of fossil fuel power; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed letter of intent to purchase the power output from a 600 kilowatt wind turbine to be constructed at medicine Bow, Wyoming: and WHEREAS, the proposed letter of commitment specifies that an agreement must be negotiated and presented to City Council as a purchase power contract before any binding financial or contractual commitments are made on behalf of the City of Aspen's electric utility; and WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City of Aspen a letter of intent to purchase wind energy, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" ; NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby endorses development of wind ene~ly and approves the execution of a letter of intent to purchase energy from a wind turbine to be constructed at Medicine Bow, Wyoming, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor of the City of Aspen to execute said letter of intent on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the .day of ,1995. John S. Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a tree and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held 0n the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk C O~[~E COMM UNITY OFFICE FOR RE$OU~CE EFFICIENCY [970/5~ 9808; lax 5~ 9599 TO: ~y M~ge~ Ci~ M~n~ger Jo~ B~{ ~yor ~ch~l ~c~, J~ ~un~% J~e Vieke~ & Te~ Paulso~ Ci~ FR: gdy Ug, CO~ D~r ~: W~d Power Here is ~e ~o~ ~o~on on ~e propos~ ~d power purc~e ~t you r~ue~ at Bro~ B~ ~ J~c. ~s mmo sins ~c propos~ ~d ~y~s iu ra~ ~pa~. ~ O~R~E~ Wi~ tc support otP~ ~erc~dcr ud Bffi ~1~, CO~ proposes ~pcn M~cip~ El~c U~ si~ a 20-y~ ~n~ ~o buy elc~ci~ from a new 600-~lowaR ~d ~rbm ~o bc ~1~ ~ Wyo~g. ~c cncr~ would be wh~l~ ~ ~ across c~g t~ssion ~cs. ~c ou~ut of~s ~b~c ~ v~ from y~ ~ Y~i bm ~o~d avc~ abou~ 1.5 ~on ~owa~-houn. ~ r~rcs~about 2% of ~p~ M~cip~' s ~u~ power n~. ~tou~ a ~n~l p~ ~ not b~ ncgo~ ~c Ci~ would n~ ~ pay tc oscrs ~rb~c about 4.2 ~n~owa~-hour ~ ~c ~c projea ~no~cs ~ble. ~TE I~ACT ~t upw~d prcss~c would ~c propos~ ~d purc~c pla~ on Mmcipal's m~s? Bill E~lcy ~d P~ Ovcr~dcr ~vc c~ ~s closely. Ac~r&g ~n~lysis, ~c Ci~ cuncn~y pays $0.016 per ~o~R-hour for clc~ci~ pur~ from wholcs~c supplier, ~c M~cip~ ~cr~ ~cncy otNcbr~ ~. ) ~s~g ~t ~ ~d power would ~ $0.042~ ~c ~crcn~--$0.0259~h--rcpr~s~s ~ ~d "proem." ~c ~1 pr~uc~on ora ~d mrb~c is 1,500,000 ~ ~ wc project, ~s propos~ ~cr~ ~c Cites wholcsal~ power ~ by $38,g50 per y~. But ~'s no~ ~d ~rb~c my ~vc a "~paci~' v~uc to ~c Ci~ ofappro~ly $3,600 p~r y~. (Qu~g tc c~ ~paci~ cr~t ~11 be difficult ~t~ ~c ~rbm ~ opcmt~ a ~w y~s, but $3,600 s~ r~o~blc.) ~s Wo~d lower tc ~d~ ~ ofp~c~g ~d powcr to appro~ly $35,000 per y~. To pm ~csc umbers ~ pcrspc~ivc.;. · ~c Ci~ u~ sp~ about $2.6 ~on per y~ on elicit. ~d~cr~cstcCi~'spowcrb~by$35,000,~trcp~s~af.35%~cr~c. ~c $0 .0 1 6~h ~t ~c C~ pays ~ for 'spot ~kct' p~cr is vc~ low. ~c spot ~k~ p~ ~cn~ ~cr, ~ e~cm ~, ~c ~ ~d pr~m ~ decree. · ~ou~ no ra~ ~c wo~d be n~ ~ ~vcr ~d's ~d~ ~ $35,000 is ~uiv~t $1.12 per ~ M~cip~ cu~mcr per mont. Or about 3.5 ~ per ~mcr per ~y. · ~tou~ ~d power is more ~cmivc th~n tC C~t ~t ~k~ p~, i~'s ~ ~ ~c of ~t ~c Ci~ now pays for i~ ~n Cr~ ~d Ru~ hy&~wcr. ~ ~c o~cr ~d, Wh~ tc Ru~ bon~ ~c p~d off, ~t power should g~ much ch~pcr, whcr~ ~y ~ for a 20-y~ pc~. · F~ly, ~c Ci~ w~ ~ buy ~d power, ~c 4.2 ~h we propose cx~H~t p~. Color~o Spas, ~ ~n~, is pang about 6 ~ns. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS If $35,000 is the cost, what are the benefits ? By directly offsetting energy from a coal burning power plant, this wind turbine would keep 3.3 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, out of the air each year. Over the life of the contract, that equals 66 million pounds of avoided carbon dioxide. THE OI;DEST MUNI IN COZORADO Those are the numbers, but what about the big picture? Everybody sees the world differently, but from CORE' s perspective this is an exciting oppommity. Aspen Municipal Electric was founded in 1903. Ninety-five years later, we have the oldest municipal utility in Colorado. For many decades, long before Aspen was famous, the City generated all of its electricity from renewable hydropower, 'h,vhite coal." In the same way that Aspen City salutes skiing and music and art and the natural environment, we should celebrate our clean power heritage. Today, about half the City' s power comes from hydro, most of that generated by City-owned turbines at Ruedi Reservoir and Maroon Creek. The remainder comes largely from coal plants. As we enter the "Climate Change Ceumry," CORE encourages the City Council to green the City' s energy mix. The proposed purchase of approximately 1.5 million kilowatt-hours of wind power per year would be a significant step in the right direction, displacing about 2% of the City's current coal consumption. Itq-IY NOT MORE HYDRO? Hydro is the world' s premier renewable energy resource. Hydro is clean, renewable, and reliable. Bffi Earley and Jim Markal!ma~ have identified untapped hydro sites that might be developed in an environmentally sound manner. Taylor Reservoir is one example. With persimee and patience, these sites probably could be developed. CORE is all for it. But permitting new hydro sites could take years. Furthermore, in~ta|lin~- a turbine at Taylor would cost perhaps $5 million. As a result, the power from a new hydro plant would probably be more expensive than wind. In contrast, our wind site at Medicine Bow, Wyoming is already permitted, with a substation and transmission line in place. We can install a turbine and be producing power within 12 months. FFIND IN A (;ZOBAL CONTEXT Wid is the world' s fastest growing energy resource. Since 1990, the German~ have invested $2 billion in wind plants. Installed global wind capacity is now 7,600 Megawaits. (Colorado consumes about 5,000 MW of electricity.) The European Union hopes to install an additional 40,000 Megawatts by 2010. Wind turbines are now Denmark's second largest export; the Danish wind industry is larger than the Danish fishing industry. For a number of reasons--advances in turbine design, declining cost of energy--wind is the ascendant renewable technology. Good wind sites are more widespread than good hydro sites and the world's wind resource dwarfs its untapped hydro oppormmfies. FFE ARE NOTALONE If Aspen bought win{ it would not be setting some radical precedent. Rather, it would be jolnins a growing list of municipal utilities who have begun harvesting wind power. They include Traverse City, Michigan; Ft. Collin~, Colorado; and Moorhead, Minnesota. In Iowa, a state with few indigenous energy resources, nine municipal utilities are collectively builttinE a wind farm. They include Waverly, Cedar Falls, Algona, Fonda, Montezuma, Ellsworth, Estherville, and Westfield. The last has just 85 customers. NEXT STEPS If the city agrees to bu~ wind power, the next challenge is to find someone to own and operate the wind turbine; There are two keys to getting 4.2 cent wind power. The first is an excellent wind site. We have that in Medicine Bow, Wyoming. The second is inexpensive capital. Because wind turbines are all capital, ~:inance costs represent up to 70% of the energy price. A the investors get 15-20% annual returns. Cfhis sounds usurious, bu~ about two-thirds of those returns come in the form of tax credits and tax deductions.) To actually bc able to sell the City wind for 4.2 cents, we've got to find cheaper monc-y. To that end, CORE has been working wi~ the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, a Boulder- based energy group, and former Colorado Public Utilities Commissioner Ron LeEr to raise the $650,000 needed to purchase a turbine. Our goal is to sell shares in the turbine to a "grin investors" group willing to take more modest returns of 6-8%. In effect, 'these green investors would be partnering with the City and the environment to make this deal possible. CORE reeen~y reeeived a $50,000 grant from Louisiana Pacific Corporation to support this work. LE6AL STRUCTURE No?hlng is fin~L but after talking with a number of lawyers, it now appears that the green investors group wo~ld be organized as a nonprofit cooperative association, whose legal structure would resemble that of a credit union or rural electric cooperative. (More th~n 120 million Americans belong to some form of ccop.) The coop would own th~ turbine and bear the technology risk. The cooperative's members would own shares in the turbine and receive modest 6-7% dividends on their capital investments. ' The City would only pay for the power that the turbine generated. ~ ;o power, no pay. ~LErrER OFINTENf There is no point in forming a cooperative association to buy and install a wind turbine.unless we have a commitment from the City to buy the electricity the turbine wonld generate. A nonbinding letter of intent would form~g the City's commitment to purchase wind power and provide the cooperative a justification.for raising the money and moving ahead. A draft copy of that letter of intent is attached. T/M'EL/ArE If the City Council agrees to move forward with this proposal, CORE's goal would be to form the cooperative association this summer, raise the money this fall, Order the turbine next winter~ and have it installed and running by next summer. LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE WIND ENERGY To further the development of renewable energy and the greeinng ~ of its electricity mix, the City of .Aspen intends to negotiate a contract to buy wind power. Th~ exact terms of a wind power purchase agrcer :ent will be negotiated with the wind provider. However, the following general TH.E_._C.!_Ty__ OF _AS_PENI conditions have been established and endorsed by the .Aspen City Counc~. 1) The City of.Aspen and its municipal electric utility desire to buy the entire output of a new wind turbine with a nominal installed capacity of 600 kilowatts and an annual energy output of approximately 1.5 million kilowatt-hours. 2) The City will purchase that power for a 20-year period, 3) At a price in the range of 4.2 cents per ldlowatt-hour, delivered at Medicine Bow, Wyoming. 4) The purchase shall not raise .Aspen Municipal Electfie Utility's annual power costs by more than $35,000 per year. This calculation shall be based on the City's cost of buying an equivalent mount of energy from the Municipal Energy Agency of NebraSka. The calculation shall also reflect the wind turbine's projected capacity value of $3,600 per year. 5) The City will not have an ownership stake or financial interest in the wind turbine. The turbine owner shall be responsible for financing, installing, owning, operating, insuring, and maintaining the turbine for the life of the contract. 6) The City supports the efforts of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) to form a nonprofit cooperative association to purchase and own the wind turbine. This support does not preclude other ownership arrangements. 7) Any contract negotiated by .Aspen Municipal Electric Utility and a wind developer will be submitt~:l to the .Aspen City Council for its review and approval. Wind energy project developers who have the ability and desire to provide wind power under these general conditions should contact Bill Earley, Director, .Aspen Municipal Electric Utility. Signed, John Bennett, Mayor City of Aspen 130 S. Galena .Aspen, CO 81611 Through: ana Kathryn Koch, City Clerk ~ Tim Anderson, Recreation From: Nida Tautvydas, Wheeler Opera House Re: Consent Agenda - Wheeler Opera House Liquor License Date: July 8, 1998 Summary: The Wheeler Opera House recommends that the current liquor license under the Wheeler Associates be transferred to the City of Aspen/Wheeler Opera House. Discussion: When the Wheeler Opera House first opened, the City of Aspen was unable to hold a liquor license because the City Council served as the liquor licensing board - therefore the license was held by the Wheeler Associates. Since this is no longer the case, we recommend the license be transferred. The Wheeler Opera House staff currently maintains all concession services to patrons as well as artists. Staff is trained and supervised. Financial Implications: Average revenues total $48,000 - $50,000. Should the liquor license not be transferred, this would result in a loss of revenue: RecOmmendation: I recommend that the City Council agree to apply for the liquor license at the Wheeler. Alternatives: The Wheeler Opera House could contract all concessions services to an outside party. However, this would have a negative financial impact on the Wheeler Opera House, increase administrative time spent on concessions activities, and decrease flexibility in terms of patron, client, and artist needs. MEMORANDUM TO: i ' THRU:. ger~1 FROM: Mitch Haas, PlannerA~ RE: 950 Matchless Drive - Landmark Designation. First Reading of Ordinance No..~e~, Series of 1998. Parcel I.D. 2737-074-02-003 DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant requests landmark designation for the property at 950 Matchless Drive. To be eligible for designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval, finding that three (3) of the five landmark designation standards are met. APPLICANT: Alan Becker, represented by Kim Raymond. LOCATION: The property is located at 950 Matchless Drive, which is legally described as Lot 4A, Durm/Bishop Subdivision Exemption, City of Aspen, Colorado. The property is on the northwesterly comer of Matchless Drive and Herron Drive, and is zoned R-6/PUD, Medium-Density Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay. BACKGROUND: The site in question currently contains two (2) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, is a simple Victorian Miner's Cottage that was built in the 1880's. It is a 963 square foot, two-story, cross-gabled (L-shaped) structure with a corrugated metal roof, double hung windows with simple, decorative lintels, and a front porch with square support posts and decorative frieze. According to the Historic Inventory sheet (Exhibit B) for this property, the fixed glazing, picture bay windows on the south side of the house and the porch frieze are not original to the structure, but the dates ofthese modifications are unknown. Similarly the shed roof addition to the rear of the structure was an addition that has been in place for some time, but the exact timing of the addition is unknown. The other structure is a non-historically significant, 610 square foot building used as a garage. The owner is in the process of constructing an Accessory Divelling Unit (ADU) above the garage. The ADU was reviewed and approved by the HPC on March 11, t998, and by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 7, 1998. The Landmark Designation application was reviewed and recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0 b~ the HPC at a public hearing on June 10, 1998. It was then reviewed and recommended for approval by a vote of 6-0 by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on June 16, 1998. HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation, Any structure that meets rvvo (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as an Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or sire commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. ArcMtectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the }tructure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a typical example of an Aspen miner's cottage, thereby reflecting an architectural character that is of distinct, traditional Aspen character. It is a two-story story cottage With a cross-gabled roof, double-hung windows and a front porch. The house has had few alterations and its original appearance is still highly perceptible. (Also, see the "Background" section of this memo, above.) C Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: 'This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component o fan historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: While the immediate vicinity is not"generally known as a traditional or historically significant neighborhood, a sort of micro-neighborhood of historic miner's cottages exists. Besides the house at 950 Matchless Drive, the three (3) other houses on Matchless are all Victorian in character. Two of these three, 920 and 930 Matchless Drive, are on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, as is also true of the subject site. Thus, given that this neighborhood's character is largely defined by the existence of just four or five Victorian miner's cottages, the significance of each of these structures is proportionally magnified. Consequently, staff believes that the preservation of the structure at 950 Matchless Drive is important for the maintenance of its neighborhood's character. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale; style, and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. This particular house is a strong example of the original appearance and character of Aspen's miner cottages. The house is highly consistent with the typical size and architectural characteristics of other Aspen structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff., the HPC and the Planning and Zoning Commission ' recommend landmark designation of the structure and property located at 950 Matchless Drive based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve First Reading of Ordinance NumberS25 , Series of 1998, supporting the landmark designation for 950 Matchless Drive based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neigliborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met." Exhibits: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Landmark Designation Application Exhibit "B" - Inventory sheet for 950 Matchless Drive Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 1 oRDiNANcE NO. (Series of 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 950 MATCHLESS DRIVE (LOT 4A, BLOCK 1, DUNNallSHOP SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO) AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. Whereas, Mr. Alan Becker, owner, has applied for Historic Landmark designation for 950 Matchless Drive, pursuant to Section 26.76.040 of the Municipal Code; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation Commission (hereinafter "HPC") recommended, by a 7-0 vote, Historic Designation af a public hearing on June 10, 1998; and, Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a 6-0 vote, Historic Designation of the property at a public hearing on June 16, 1998; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.76, has the authority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76, the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character), and E (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, Whereas, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 2 Section One That the structure and property at: 950 Matchless Drive, (Lot 4A, Block I, DunnfBishop Subdivision Exemption, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado), be designated an Historic Landmark. Section Two That the Official Zone District Map be amended to reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this property as described in Section One. Section Three That the Community Development Director shall be directed to notify the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section Four That 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 Five A public hearing on this Ordinance was held on the __. day of ,1998, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which,. notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the __ day of ., 1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 3 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of ,1998. Approved as to form: Approved: City Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Cit3' Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project. name ~-~ ~ ~T'~..~=S ~., .'-,LiS1'b~-lC ~j-~ ~ A-~..~ 2. Proje~'location ~(~ ~Tr__.~L~----5~ B~. A-SP~I,J. ~_c-r" ~F-A. (indicate m3'eet address, lc~ and block numoer or metes and bounds desc~ption) 3. Present zoning ,~' ~ 4. Lot size 5. Appiican~'s name, address and phone number 6. Represenzative's name, address. and phone numPer 7. Type ef application (check all that apply}: Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectuai HPC Speciat Review Final SPA F~nai HPC 8040 Greeniine Conceptual PUP Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PL!D Retocaation HPC SuPdivision Text/Map Amend. ,/' Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Denno/Partial Denno View Ptane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Spiit/Lot Line Appeal Commi~ee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing struc'~jres, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the 9. Description of development ap lication LJL~I~ 10. Have you completed and attached the following? ¥L~-~ Attachment 1- Land use application form '/~'~-~ Attachment 2-General submission requirements "~ Attachment 3-,Specific submiSsiOn requirements Proof of public notice (must be provided at pubtic hearing) MAPS AND TRANSPORTATION Aspen ?:% .- .-., ~ .~,~ ......-~. ~'.%-: ..... ~, ~ ,~ ~.~ ,_o ,, H~ ~ .............. H-; h~..,~3 ~, ,~ ~s, ~.~ ::%..~.:.~:~:..,;. "-.+:: ,..-,.~ .',,'G~..' .2::.' . ...~. ,;'-: .~:~ -% .;.:; ; j' ~ ...... . RESPONSE To: Attachment 3 -Aspen His%oric Preservation Commission - Historic Landmark Designation, item 2, regarding 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot ~A, Block 1, Ounn / Bishop Lot Split) RESPONSE to Standards from Attachment ~: A. Not applicaDie B. The Victorian miners house located at 950 Matcniess Drive was built in 1888 ano :ypifies the :ra~itional architecture of that era. C. Nct applicaDie D. The three other ~ouses on MatchieSS Drive are aII Victorian in cnarac:er. Two of them: 920 Matchless Drive and 930 MatchleSs Drivea~e on the inventory. In aodition, there are other Victorians nearby. E. The structure is crltlcaI to the preservation of the character of the Asoen community because many small Victorian miners houses were built throughout Aspen outing the 1888 era of this ~cuse, and those which survive and continue to be ~reserved are a reminoer of the legacy of Aspen's history. To: City Council May 11, 1998 City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Re: Request for "Designation Grant" for Historic Lanqmarking of 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot ~A, Block 1, Dunn- ,Bishop Lot Split) Dear Sirs, This 1otter is to request a "Designation Grant" in the amount of two thousand doIIars for the Historic LanqmarKing of my 1888 Victorian miners house locate~ at 950 Matchless Drive, Aspen (Lot 4A, Block 1, Dunn-Bisnop Lot Split). ThanKyou. Sincere!y, Alan Becket P.S. This letter is in response to Attachment 3 "Specific Submission Requirements" of "Aspen Historic Preservation Con~ission - Historic Landmark Designation" L]:STOP. ZC X~-f"~'Z~X'-"'~Ij~ BUILDI'NG/ST~.UCTUR~ ~Cl~l S~a=e Site N~er: ~ocal Site N~er: 950.~ Photo infona=ion:. ASP-R-24 & ~6 To~ship !0 South' R~ge B~ West See=ion 7 USGS Quad Name Asmen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or St~c='~e N~me: ~iI Street Ad~ess: 950 Matchless 0rive ~Gibson Avenue} Legal Description: 2 Almine Acres City Asuen Co~=y ?~zkin His=orlc Dis=rlc=/Neig~bornood N~e: Smucc!er Mo~ain O~er: private/State/Federal O~er's Mailing Ad~ess: ~ITEC~ DES~I2TION Building ~e: Residence ~cnizec=~a! Style: victorian Miner's coteace Dimensions: L: x W: = S~are Fee=: Number of Stories: 2 Building Plan (Foe=print, Shape): L-shamed Landscaping or Special Seu=ing Feaz'~es: Faces do~va!!ev ~scuZhwesz~ so=back in row with 2 other invert=cried bui!dincs Assocla=ad Buildings, Fea='~es or Objects - Describe Mauerial ~d ~czion (map n~m~er / n~e): west rear si~e ~/- 400 s~ar~ feet low cable, 2 car carats with clamboard ~nd wood shineled cable end; new standinc-seam-u~e co~aca=ed metal roof For ~e following categories include maZerlals, =scribes and sZy!es in ~he description as appropriate: Roof: L-cable with rear shed with old co~'ucated me=at Walls: Clamboard Foudanion / Bas~en=: U~no~ ~ney(s): Cents= me~al flue a% rides Windows: ~o over two wood do~le hunt, front with simple decorative !intel~ south end bay replacement wi~ double licht fixed claZinc picture units Doors: Double arch lich= over wood manel - southwest porch ent~ center front cable, decorative 1/2 licht Porches: Front rich= onto, shed roof suDDo~ed with s~are posts with decorative frieze General ~chitect=al Description: SimPle Victorian Miner's Cotrace Page 2 of 2 State Site Numuber Local Site ~er 950.MZD ~CTION A~CHIT~CT~ ~ISTOBY Cc~= Use: Residential ~chite~: Orig~al Use: Residen=ia! Builder: In=mediate Use: Residen=ia! Cons~ion Date: !880,s _ Ac=uai ~ Es=~m=e _~sesscr Based On: Bui!din~ s~le EDI~I~TZON2 ~/Oa ~DITIONS Minor ~.. Moderate Ma~or Moved ~aUe Descibe Modifications and Date: windows [side), moron frieze - datesu~o~ Additions and Date: Garace ~nd early rear shed -- dates NATIONAL/STATE ~GISTER EI~IGIiILITY ~arD CRIT~J/ Is listed on .. Nauiona! Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register M'~ets National Regiszer Criteria: A__ B ... C __ D __ E __ Map ~e~ Local ~ating amd Lam. dmar.~ Desigl=a=icn "' Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained h'istoric or /! architectural integrity. 0 Suppor-~ing: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "reTrievable" with substantial efforl:. __ Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The significance of this residential s%Tucture is not Of those who o~nled it or lived in nor of its architecture, althouch this str~cture is remresentative of AsDen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical immortance bv illustratin~ the family/home environment and lifestyle of the average citizen in Asmen which was then dominated bv the silver mining industry. O~her Specific References to ~he Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records~ Sanborn and SonsInsurance Maps ~nrchaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: * Date: * Affiliation: Asmen Historic Preservation Committee - City of AsPen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner .~.Q~DO C'jI. TURA]. REMOURCl ~ljR%~EY Coloz-ado ?~se~a~on ~00 ~r:~way, Denver, ~ 80Z03 FOR ~COE~G H~C ~I'u~S ~ DI~C~, ~ S~~'r~Lv F~ 1) hsou~s ~. 5PT-220 2) r~ ~. 287 3) N~e ~ Gibson House ~] ~Ms ~ G~bson Ave. 5k Dis~c= te none D O~&~ U~ Residential 8] ~s~= Use Residential rl. DESC:~iF-~ION: 111 B~fl~-~_ .Materials wood !1l ~stT~cticn Date 1880 "s ~l ~:5~tect~der unknown I~} ~ch~tecr~ S~-leCs1 Victorian MineHs Cotrace ~) Spec1~ Fur=res/S~d~Ss: N/A C~LORADC C~L.'J?.~L R~SOU.~CS SI3RVSj:-~rese:v~=~.on ,Dff!=_,, ~00 BrOadway, ~enver, _ '~ ~R~ ~CORD NOT FOR Ft~ ,.. . .~ . , ' -" ' : ~AS~EN INV~TORY Of HISTORIC SI~S/' ~o:=ion of q~d. ~r!7 sho~ si:e. IO)Othe= ~s 1-50' Scale CooPer Aeria] ~= a~prox. 30 ft. x 100 ft. 3,000 sq.ft. ~)D~e~i~:s ~ m 12)~ sq.m(~O&T=)leSS than 1 a~ ~' 14)Addr~s gbO Gibson ~: - ~o~ -~i~o: - ~%' ' "'" -"', ~"' ' '- :-' -'-. ' "' '. ~?.' ..... .. ~,. ':-:.~... ~. ~...... .. · ~'.~ · """;~. · · ~. ~' ..=.i~., ::='- .. n ' -', -" = ':~-"L' .-- "". -. ~ .:.?: t:--,-...,-. ...: ~.. ~ -: ;.~- :~H.'.e~,:~. ~-~:x . ' ' ' ': '~' - ' .Colorado P~se~ation Offi~ ;='- ~)~c~:~e: Vera G, Kirkpatrick ~))eco~ ~:e SeDt, 30, 1980 '.t~T .:,-:scrsc---::n. ,5:PT-Z20 , --- ..--- · .d~' ' ~ .~=Z:~ N~aber 9. ~...~,__ .--, . 1"7. Sl~--~i~zCAl~Ci'.: Assess vhei:)xe: o:: ~og the ~esau~e i-,as ~.e~Tese=:s ~;~r~ of a ~ascec ~ssooiaced, vi:.~ si;nificz~ persons '~' Re?:esamts a -'Tpa, ~c'!::d, e~' ' ;ech;~ o~ ~crnsc=uc:~ The significance of this residential structure is not of those who owned it or lived in it, nor of its architecture, although this structure is representative of Aspen's Mining Era. This structure is of historical significance by illustrating the fmmily/home environment and life styleCs) of Aspen's population. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and the City Council THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Milch Haas, PlannerVe" R.E: 214 East Bleeker Street (Brumder Residence), Historic Landmark Lot Split. First Reading of Ordinance No.7--~, Series of 1998. DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval of an Historic Landmark Lot Split, The propen>' received HPC approval for an historic landmark lot split on July 24, 1996; however, since the plat rati&,ing said approvals was never recorded, the approvals have expired. The resubmirted application is identical to the originally approved proposal. and was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a second time on May 27. 1998 when it was recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0. The propert)' has a gross area of 11.963 square feet. In a manner consistent with the original approvals, the applicant is seeking to dMde the propert)' into one parcel of 5,963 sq. ft. xvhich would contain the historic house and another parcel of 6,000 sq. ft. on which a new house x~ould be built in the future. Per Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1996. the FAR which would have been allowed for a duplex on the original parcel may be divided between the historic building and new house. The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257square feet. exclusive of any potentlaity applicable lot area reductions. The current request. like the original approvals, would allocate 1,913 square feet of floor area for the historic house (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC) and 2.344 square feet of floor area for the new house. Communin.' Development Department staff and the HPC recommend approval of the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the conditions outlined in this memo. Conceptual approval for the development of the Landmark containing lot has been granted by the HPC, and said approval will remain valid through August 12, 1998. APPLICANT: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood. LOCATION: 214 E. Bleeker Street (Lots N, O, P. and Q, Block 72. Cit), and Townsite of Aspen. Pitkin Count3,, Colorado). The propen)' is on the north side of E. Bleeker Street bern,con Garmisch and Aspen Streets. ZONING: R-6, Medium-Density ResidentiaI PROCEDURE: Historic Landmark Lot Splits. like all lot splits and subdivisions. must obtain final approval via adoption of an ordinance by City Council. Pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Land Use Code, "the development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing." The Land Use Code defines "development" to include "the subdividing of land into two (2) or more parcels." Therefore. the proposed lot split was be reviewed at a public hearing by the HPC in order to obtain the HPC's recommendation to City Council. In total, the HiStoric Landmark Lot Split is a two- step process: step one is a public hearing before the HPC in order to obtain their recommendation, and step-two involves conducting two readings before City Council (with a public hearing at second reading) in order to obtain a final decision regarding the proposed Iot split. REVIE~,V STANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section'26.72.010(G). Section 26.88. 0301,,1)(2). Subdivision Exemptions. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977. is exempt from full subdivision review provided all of the following conditions are met. a. The la.d is not located in a subdivision approved b), either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the ciO' council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has .ot been subdirided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969,' and Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision. and the lot predates the city's adoption of Subdivision regulations. b. No more than two (2~ lots are created by the lot split. both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuwu to Section 26.]O0.0401Aj(])(c) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26. 100.050(A)(2)(c)]. Response: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resulting lots would conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. The lot containing the Landmark structure would be 5,963 square feet while the other lot would contain 6,000 square feet, and the R-6 zone district has a minimum Iot size of 3,000 square feet for lots created by Section 26.100.050(A)(2), Historic Landmark Lot Split. Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c), the newly created lot will have to mitigate for affordable housing by providing either an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), paying an affordable housing impact fee, or placing a resident occupancy deed restriction on the home. c. The lot w~der consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption 'pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(])(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(C)(3 )(a)]: and Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval, other than for the same proposal. The property has received Historic Lot Split approval, but the required plats were never recorded, thereby rendering those approvals nutI and void. The expiration of the previous approvals has left the propert}' in its original, undivided condition. d A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin Coun .ty clerk and recorder after approval. indicating that no further subdivision moO' be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26. ] 00. Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision' exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullify the approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shah be recorded in tire office of the Pitkin Coun.ty clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eigh.ty (180) days following approval by the CiO' Council shall render the plat invalid wTd reconsideration of the plat by the CiO' Council will be required for' a showing &good cause. Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Alsb. see response to the previous criterion (d). 1. the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dx~elling units will be demolished. Because existing fences conflict ~vith/straddle the proposed lot line in two locations and an existing swimming pool on proposed Lot A lies closer to the proposed lot line than the minimum required side yard setback would allow, the Subdivision Exemption Plat must reflect that any new development on the parcels will be required to conform to the required side yard setbacks. This plat note would remove the need to have the existing structures (pool and fences) go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to the new setbacks or to demolish the structure prior to recording the plat. g. Mn~rimurn potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shah not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that, in total, the lot split will result in two (2) dwelling units. On Lot B, an historic landmark residential unit currently resides and will remain. On Lot A, the lot will be vacant (with the exception of the existing swimming pool) until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. The size of the proposed Lot B compared with the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district results in a maximum buildout of one (1) detached residential unit. The size of the proposed Lot A compared with the dimensional requirements o? the R-6 zone district results in a maximum potentiaI buildout containing no more than a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units, via conditional use review. Therefore, the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district mandate compliance with this review criterioh. Section 26.88 030(A)(5). Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling shall comply with the following standards: a. The original parcel shah be a minihIum of g, 000 square feet in size and be located i~ the R-6 zone district or a minimum of]3, O00 square feet and be located m the R-ISA .'o~e disH'ict. Response: The original parcel is 11,963 square feet (larger than 9.000 square feet) in size and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total F.4R for both residences shah ~ot exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the origD~al parcel. The total FAR for each lot shah be noted o~ the Subdirision Exemptio~ Plat. Response: The allowable FAR for a duplex on a lot of 11,963 square feet in the R-6 zone district is 4,257 square feet. exclusive of any potentially applicable lot area reductions. plus a possible FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet from the HPC. This FAR would be dMded between the two parcels as follows: 1.913 square feet of floor area w6uld be allocated to Lot B. which is the westerly lot with the historic house (plus the potential for an additional 500 square feet via a bonus from HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area would be allocated to Lot A, or the easterly lot. The breakdown of these allocations shall combine to a total of 4.257 square feet of floor area (exclusive of bonuses), and {he allocations per lot shall be indicated on the final plat. c. The proposed derelopment meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that conloins a historic structure. Response: With the exception of the existing swimming pool on Lot A. all other dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district shall be complied with. If any HPC variances or bonuses are granted in the future, these shall only be permissible on Lot B; the lot containing the historic structure. Also, see responses to criteria "f" and "g." above. Section 26.100.050(..~1(2~(e). G.~QS Exemption b), the CommuniO, Development Director. Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed with a proposal to develop Lot A, provided this Historic Lot Split application is approved. To obtain the exemption, it will be necessary to provide appropriate mitigation pursuant to Section 26.100.050~A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code. Section 26. 72.010(G). Historic Landmark Lot Split The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed HPC at a public hearing. Response: A public hearing regarding the subject proposal was held before the HPC on May 27, 1998, and the HPC voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Landmark Lot Split. Second Reading before City Council will also be a public hearing and is scheduled for August I0, 1998. RECO~IMENDATION: Community Development Department staff and the HPC recommend that City Council approve the application with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin Count>' clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by the lot spill shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d, The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR. on both lots combined, equal to 4.257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements. etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot. taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be st~bdivided into one parcel (the westerly parcel, Lot B) of 5.963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6,000 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 500 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum. the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen MUnicipal Code. and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate' of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval. unless otherwise amended b3' a decision-making body having the authority to do so. RECOM.'XlENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance Number -~l~. Series of 1998." ATTACH,XlENTS: Exhibit "A" --- The submitted Land Use Application ORDINANCE No..~ (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET (LOTS N, O, P, AND Q, BLOCK '72, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO) V,~'IEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Presen'ation Commission (hereinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust, represented by Gretchen Greenwood, has requested to split a 11,963 square foot parcel to create one single-family residential lot of 5,963 square feet and another of 6,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the HPC reviewed the request at a properly noticed public hearing on May 27, 1998 and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of 7-0; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommended approval of the Historic Landmark Lot Split with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department and the Historic Preservation Commission and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced MunicipaI Code sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. NO'~V, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(O) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified herein. the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes gfsubdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction o'fpublic facilities with the need for public facilities; ~afeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above. the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 214 East Bleeker Street with the following conditions: I. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eight>: (180) days of final approvaI by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsiderslion of the plat by City Council will be required for a shox~ing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. 'Contain a plat note stating that development of the new/easterly lot (Lot A) created by the lot split shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the 10Is contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,257 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes. access easements. etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The propert.v shall be subdivided into one parcel (the westeriy parcel, Lot B) of 5,963 square feet and a second parcel (the easterly parcel, Lot A) of 6.000 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on the westerly parcel (Lot B) would be 1,913 square feet of floor area (plus the potential for a 5.00 square foot floor area bonus if granted by the HPC), and 2,344 square feet of floor area on the easterly parcel (Lot A). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a'plat note. e. Contain a plat note stating that any setback nonconformities created by the new lot line shall be eliminated upon redevelopment or further development, as may be applicable, of either of the two lots. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code. and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot. the applicant shall sign a sidex~alk. curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval. unless otherv,'ise amended b)' a decision-making body having the authoriLv to do so. Section 3: If any section. subsection. sentence, clause. phrase or portion of th. is ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent .jurisdiction. such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining pc~nions thereof. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A pub]ic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of August. 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen Cib' Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) da.vs prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the Ci~' of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the __ day of ,1998. John Benne~,Mayor ATTEST: Kath~'n S. KOch, 'City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOKM: John \Vorcesmr, Cis.' Anomey FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this __ day of .1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kath~'n S. Koch, Cit).' Clerk g:'planning asperv~pc/easesqotsplit2 1 -~ebord.doc LAND US= Ai=TLii%TiON [02,M 2, Proj ,ct ,ocation, ~/~ ~eS ~ Z~C~,' Lo~,~ ~,~ o, F~ ~ ~, Slack 7'~ 5. Applicant's Name, Address & Phone No.: , Ca a xx 7. Type of Application (Please check all that apply): __ Conditional Use Conceptual SPA __Conceptual Historic Development __ Special Review __ Final SPA __Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline __ Conceptual PUD ' Minor Historic Dev. __ Stream Margin __ ~inal PUD Historic Demolition __Mtn. View Plane . Subdivision Historic Designation __ CondominiumiZation __ Text/Map Amendment .... GMQS Allotment __ Lot Split/Lot Line GM. QS Exemption by Adjustment Planning Dir. t/GMQS Exemption 8. Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate square feet; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property): 9. Description of Developmen~ Application': 10. Have you attached the following? ~/' Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents 'T"'Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents ATTACHMENT 2 HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT May 12, 1998 1. Applicant's Name and Address: W.G. Brumder Florida Land Trust e/o Thomas B. Fitzgerald 205 E. Wisconsin Ave. Ste 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Representative:Gretchen Greenwood 520 Walnut Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-925-4502 2. Street and Legal Description: 214 East Bleeker St Aspen, Colorado 81611 Block 72, Lots N, O, P, and Q 3. Attached to the application is a copy of disclosure of ownership of the parcel as Exhibit A 4. Attached to the application is Exhibit B, the vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 400 FAb"T WZSCORSIN AV'ENU~ · ~UAT; 200 WILWAIYKEE, W;SCQRSIN 53202 July 15, 1996 Mistotis Preservation Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Gretchen Greenwood uf Or~=chen Greenwood and A=ooc., Xnc. auzhcriz~d to ac: on behalf of the W.G. Br'umdex Florida Tr~ , owner' of the ~roper:y at 214 East Ble~ker Street in r, .~nce to the e[~l~iication she is making to y~u on behalf cf the .st. T~.e address of the Trus~ is as W.~. ~rumder Florida ~nd c/o Thomas D. fitzgerald 400 ~as= Wisconsin Avenue, Su~t~ 200 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (414) 291-~R=O Please direct ~y ~estionS and/or inquiries r.gard~n~ the a:tached application to Ma. Greenwood at the ~ullowing Gretchen Greenw~d 520 Walnut ~pen. Colora~ 81611 (970) 935-4502 Sin~exuiy, Thomas B. Fizzgerald ATTACHMENT 3 May 12, 1998 BRUMDER RESIDENCE 214 EAST BLEEKER STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Resiew Standards forHistorlc Lot Split 2. Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Piton County Board of county Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 34, 1969. Response: 214 East Bleeker is located in the Ci~' and Townsite of Aspen. This land is not in an approved subdix~sion. The legal description is as follows: Lots N, O, P, and Q Block 72, Ci~' and Townsite of Aspen. b. The lot split creates no more than two lots, both lots conform to the requirements of the underl)-ing zone district, An)' lot for which development is proposed win mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(I)(c). Response: Two Lots herein c~ed Lot A and Lot B '~11 be created by the lot split and will conform to the requirements of the R-6 zone dismet. The exact proposed lot sizes are listed below under Section 26.88.030(5)(a)(b) as a Hjstor~c Landmark Lot Split. c. The lot under consideration was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C(1). Response: The proposed lot for splirdng has not been subject to a subdivision exemption or a lot split, d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin Count)' clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be graoted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and gro~"th management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The subdivision plat is submined for the review of the Commum~' Development Office indicating the proposed Lot Split, and the requirements as set forth above. e. Recordation. The subdirlsion exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin Count)' Clerk and recorder. Failure on the pan of the applicant to record the plat · ~'ithin one hundred eighty days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Cin.' Couocll will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: This lot was originally split by H~C in 0clober of 1996. The plat was not recorded x~th the Pitkin count' Clerk and Recorder ~th.m 180 days, thus invalidating the approval. Every efton ~I1 be made for this re-application for a lot split to be recorded ~thin 180 days of approval. . f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site, which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split Response: No dwelling is proposed for demolition for this lot split. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single family home, Response: In total, the lot split x~ill create two dwelling units. On Lot A, an historic landmark residential unit curren~y sits and '~[1 rernam. On Lot B, the lot will be vacant until such time that the owners decide to build a residence. 5, Historic Landmark Lot Split. The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single family dwelling. The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of section 26.888.030(A)(2), section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e),seetion 26.72.010(G) of this Code, and the following standards Response: This proposed lot split is a Historic Lot Split. The subject parcel located at 214 East Bleeker is a historically designated landmark. The lot conforms to all the applicable standards in this Code incluchng the follo~ng provisions: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9,000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: Based on the above requirements for an Historic Landmark Lot Split for Block 72. Lots N. O. P. and Q, the m'o lots Lot A and Lot B will be proposed for subdividing as follows: EXISTENG ZONLNG STATISTICS Zone District: R-6 Total Lot Size: 11,963 Sq.ft. Allowable FAR: 4,257 Sq.ft (For a Duplex Development) Front Yard Setbacks: Per Code Side Yard Setbacks: Per Code Height: Per Code Site Coverage: Per Code PROPOSED ZONING STATISTICS Lot A Lot B Zone District: R-t~ (As existing) R-6 (As Existing) Total Lot Size: 5,963 Sq.ft 6,000 Sq.ft Designated FAR: 1,913 Sq.ft 2,344 Sq.ft · (Note: A 500 Square foot FAR bonus has been granted during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on Lot A.) Front and Rear Yard: Per Code Per Code (Note: A 2' Rear Yard Setback Variance base been during Conceptual Approval for the Historic Structure on LOi A.) Side Yard Setbacks: Per Code Per Code Height: Per Code Per Code Site Coverage: Per Code Per Code b. The Total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area for a duplex on the original parcel The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat Response: The Aspen Municipal Code pro~des that the total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel, The total FAR for each lot is noted on the attached plat to this application and corresponds to the above information. b. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. It~C variances and bonuses are only permitted on the pan:el that contains a historic structure. Response: The newly created Lot B conform to the dimensional requirements of the Zone District. Lot A contains the iristone str~cture has been granted conceptual approval for a rear yard setback, and FAR bonus i ger ~ THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney ~ ~ Stan Clauson, Community Develo irecto~/ FROM: Mitch Haas, Planne~ ~: 920 West Hallam Street - Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Exemption for a Landmark Lot Split. First Reading of Ordinance No. ~. Series of 1998. DATE: July 13. 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting historic landmark designation for the prope~> located at 920 West Hallam Street. To quali6' for this designation. the prope~y must be found to meet ~'o or more of the five standards related to historical significance. These standards include "historical importance," architectural importance," "designer [importance of the architect or builder]." "neighborhood character." and "community character." In addition. approval of an HistOric Landmark Lot Split is also being sought. The site in question cu~ently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure is a two-bedroom single-family house containing approximately 990 square feet of floor area. It was built in 1888 and is a one-sto~. cross-gabled structure with a prominent bay window and decorative ornamentation on the front facade and porch. Next. the structure that is cusently used as a garage was originall3' used as a "section house" for housing workers of the Colorado Midland Railroad and was moved to this site in the early 1940's; it contains approximately 454 square feet of floor area. Lastly. the property contains a 231 square foot shed that was once used as a concession stand a~ the base of Aspen Mountain and was moved to this site in the late 1940's. In total, the applicants are attempting to split an existing 11.048 square foot lot into one parcel of 3,432 square feet (Lot A) and another of 7,616 square feet (Lot B) by having the property designated as an Historic Landmark and then completing an Historic Landmark Lot Split. The single-family home that would be built on Lot A would be allowed by right, as a pe~ined use in the zone district. Lot B would contain the existing historic house as well as a new house. The applicant is also requesting a $2,000 landmark grant and a waiver of park development fees. The City Council may grant these fee waivers as an incentive to preserve historic resources. The park fees are based on the development of new bedrooms and are expected to total $9,388. Staff, the Historic Presen'ation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend CiD' Council designate this property a historic landmark. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Landmark Lot Split with conditions, and approval of the landmark grant. Lastly, staff recommends waiving a portion of the park development fees. PREVIOUS ACTIONS/BACKGROUND: Both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historical Preservation Commission found, by unanimous votes, that the propert> exhibits three of the qualities necessaD' for landmark designation. The City Council considered a first reading of an Ordinance for designating this propert3, a Historic Landmark on December 15, 1997. The application was then withdrawn and the second reading of the Ordinance did not take place. Since then, a new applicant has re-opened the request for Historic Designation. The historic resource and the criteria under which it was evaluated have remained the same. Staff asked the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission whether their recommendations should be reconsidered with the change in the applicant. Both referral bodies confirmed their original recommendations. On July 7, 1998 the subject property will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use approval to place two (2) detached residential dwellings on a lot with an area of more than 6.000 square feet (Lot B of the proposed Lot Split). The list of Conditional Usbs permitted in the R-6 zone district allows for two (2) detached residential dwellings on an historic landmark designated lot with a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. On July 8, 1998 the HPC is reviewing the following: the applicant is requesting approval 'of a proposed Partial Demolition to remove the lean-to structure artached to the garage: approval of an On-Site Relocation is requested to move the existing, historic house approximately five (5) feet to the east. eleven (11) feet to the south/forward, and eighteen (18) inches up in elevation, in order to excavate a basement beneath the house, center it between the two newly proposed houses. and create enough space to move the existing garage behind the house (the garage would also be rotated 180 degrees so that it can be entered into from the alley); Off-Site Relocation approval is requested to move the small shed structure to another, yet to be identified, site in town; Historic Landmark Lot Split approval (recommendation) is requested to create a ne~, separate lot on the west side of the property for the development of a new house while the easterly lot would contain the existing historic house and another new house; Significant Development (Conceptual) review, including variances. is requested for the two new houses and the minor changes to be made to the historic house. The timing of the HPC and Planning and Zoning Commission hearings did not allow for the results of these hearings to be included in this memo; however. an update will be included in the memo for second reading, and staff will present the outcomes of the HPC and P&Z hearings. APPLICANT: Aspen Historic Cottages, LLC. Represented by Ron Robertson. LOCATION: 920 West Hallam Street is the small white Victorian with green trim just east of the Castle Creek bridge; legally described as the East 1/2 0fLot M. all of Lots N. O and P. and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4. Ci~' and Townsite of Aspen. The property is on the north side of West Hallam Street, between the Castle Creek Bridge (to the west) and 8th Street (to the east). ZONING: Medium-Density Residential, (R-6). CURRENT LAND USE: Single-family residential. LOT SIZE: The lot in question contains a total area of 11,048 square feet (.25 acres). As proposed, the Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption would result in a 3.432 square foot parcel (Lot A), and a 7,616 square foot parcel (Lot B). ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing lot of 11,048 square feet in the R-6 zone district would have an allowable duplex FAR of 4,202 square feet, exclusive of reductions or bonuses (such as the 500 square foot FAR bonus applied for though the Historic Preservation Commission). Given the Historic Landmark Lot Split provisions, the maximum amount of FAR floor area that can constructed on the whole site cannot exceed the allowable FAR for a duplex on the lathering 11,048 square foot parcel. Thus. the FAR that could, by right, be built in a single structure wouId, if the proposal is approved, be split up between three (3) separate structures. The FAR of the proposed home on Lot A is 1,850 square feet, while Lot B would contain the existing 1.000 square foot historic house and a new 1,850 square foot ~'esidence. In total. the proposal does not provide the applicant with any additional FAR (other than the potential for a 500 square foot FAR bonus from the HPC) than what is allowed by right under the zoning. PROPOSED LAND USE: Three (3) detached single-family residences xvith artached garages. Detached residential dwellings are pertained as conditional uses on landmark lots of 6.000 square feet or greater in the R-6 zone. REVIEXV PROCEDURE: Conditional use approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission require a public hearing. These are a one-step review that requires notification to be published. posted and mailedin accordance with Section 26.52.060(E). The following sections of the code are applicable to the conditional use review: Section 26.28.040. Medium-Density Residential (R-6); and. Section 26.60.040. Standards Applicable to All ConditionaI Uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing the conditional use application on July 7, 1998. The application to the Historic Preservation Commission requires a public hearing for the Historic Landmark Lot Split, Significant Development (Conceptual), and variances to the side yard setbacks, combined side yard setbacks, site coverage, and residential design standards. Included in this hearing will be the requests for Partial Demolition, On-Site Relocation, and Off-Site Relocation. The On-Site Relocation is reviewed according to Section 27.72.020(D)(2), (3) and (4); the Off-Site Relocation request is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(D); the Partial Demolition is reviewed according to Section 26.72.020(C); the Historic Landmark Lot Split is reviewed according to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5); the Significant Development (ConceptuaI) and dimensional requirement variances are reviewed according to Section 26.72.010(D)(1): and. ~he Residential Design Standards variance is reviewed according to Section 26.22.010. The HPC serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council with regard to Historic Landmark Lot Splits (i.e., makes a recommendation only, and Council makes the final decision). All of the other requests described in this paragraph are under the purview of the HPC, and FAR Bonuses are not approved until final review of the Significant Development application. The appIication then goes before the City Council for final decisions regarding the Landmark Designation and Landmark Lot Split requests (first reading on July 13th, and second reading on July 27th). The HPC unanimously recommended approval of ~.he Landmark Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission did the same on December 2, 1997. After City Council's review is completed, provided approvals are granted, the applicant wouId have to return to the HPC for Final -approval of the Significant Development request, including the requested 500 square foot FAR bonus. REFERRAL COM~{ENTS: Referral comments from the Sanitation District, and the City Engineering, Housing. and Zoning Departments are included as Exhibit B. STAFF COSIMENTS: · LA.VD.~,~dRK DESIO.\2~ TION: The City Council may designate a propert)' a historic landmark at a public hearing after considering recommendations, made during public hearings, from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Presen'ation Commission. The standards for Landmark Designation and staffs review of this application relative to said standards is included as Exhibit A. Staff. the HPC. and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that Council designate the 920 West Hallam propert3' as an Historic Landrinark. · HISTORIC LA.VD3~tAR],.' LOT SPLIT.' Provided the Landmark Designation is approved. the applicants would like to split the property into two lots through the HistOric landmark Lot Split process. The applicable review standards and staffs review of the application relative thereto is included as Exhibit B. The HPC recommendation will be forwarded on July 8. 1998 and, therefore. could not be included in this memo. Staff will gladly report the HPC recommendation in person as well as in the staff memorandum for second reading. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Lot Split with conditions, and the full recommendation is provided in Exhibit B. · LANDMARK GRANTREQUEST: Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code states that "Any residential structure which is designated as a historic landmark after January I, 1995 is eligible to receive a grant, on a one-time basis, the amount of whiCh will be established in the annual City of Aspen budget, on a one-time basis." The applicant is requesting a grant of $2,000. In the annual City of Aspen budget, $10,000 has been allotted to grants for landmark designations. This budget allows for five (5) grants of $2.000 each }'ear. There is sufficient 4 funding in the budget to give this applicant the requested grant of $2,000; thus, staff recommends approval of the grant request. · PARKDEVELOP,~fEsXTFEE ~9tIVER REQUESD Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code states that "City Council may also exempt historic landmark from the application of the park development impact fee. or reduce b)' amount the fees imposed by this section." The development proposal for the subject property includes two(2) new three-bedroom houses, and a new basement under the existing house, which would result in one (1) additional bedroom. In total, the property would contain seven (7) new be(rooms. The two new 3-bedroom houses would each be subject to a park development fee of $3,634 ($7,268 total for the two new houses), while the addition of one new bedroom to the existing house would trigger a park development fee of $2,120 (combined total of $9,388 for the entire development). As the entire property would be a designated landmark, the above cited policy entitles the applicant to request that all park development impact fees associated with the landmark propert>' be waived. In addition to the policies of Section 26.44.060, the Ci.ty-Wide Policies Manual contains various policies related to requests for fee waivers. including a policy regarding x~aivers of park dedication fees. This policy reads as follows: "Park Dedication Fees. The following types of development are exempt from park fees: (1) structures which do not create additional bedrooms; (2) the replacement of a structure that does not create additional bedrooms; (3) development of 'essential communi~' facilities'; and (4) re-subdMsions where an impact fee was paid at the time of the initial subdivision and no additional bedrooms or commercial/office space will be created. Also City Council can waive or reduce fees for development . which is wholly or pa~iy affordable housing or involves a historic landmark. see Section 5-602 and 5-606 [Recodi~ed as Section 26.44.060] of the Land Use Code for more information." In staffs interpretation, the park development fees associated with the historic structure should be waived in its entirety ($2,120) as this house represents the reason for landmarking the property and just one additional bedroom would be generated by it. The fees associated with the new houses should not be waived as they will be free market units, and the two nex~ units, .coupled with the $2,000 landmark grant, provide enough of a financial incentive for the preservation of the historic resource. This recommendation, should it be accepted. represents a financial implication of $2,120, plus a grant of $2,000, for a total "expenditu~'e" of $4,120. On the other hand, $7,268 in fees would still be collected. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: See the "Landmark Designation Grant" and "Waiver of Park Dedication Fees" sections of this memo, above. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council. upon first reading. designate 920 West Hallam Street an historic landmark based on the property's "architectural importance." "neighborhood character," and "community character," and approve a $2,000 landmark grant. Staff also recommends that Council waive the $2,120 of park development impact fees associated with the addition of a third bedroom to the existing house on the site, but require that the two new three-bedroom houses be required to pay their respective park development fees at ihe time of building permit issuance. Staff also recommends approval of the requested subdivision exemption for the proposed Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions: A. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and. · approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eighty (180) days of final approval by Cit>' Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render t'he plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88,040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code: (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26,100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots x~ill comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) wilI be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2.354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). C; Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shalI sign a sidewalk. curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council 6 shall be adhered' to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unIess otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. RECOMMENDED MOTION: ~'I move to approve Ordinance Number.~, Series 1998 on first reading, designating 920 West Hallam an historic landmark property, approving a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split, granting $2.000 to assist the applicant in their preservation efforts, and waiving the portion of the park development impact fees associated with the existing house on the property." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria for Landmark Designation and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Review Criteria for Landmark Lot Split and Staff Findings Exhibit C -- Application Exhibit D -- Referral Memos Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 1 ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATING 920 WESI HALLAM STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT M, ALL OF LOT$ N, O, AND P AND A PORTION OF LOT Q, BLOCK 4, CITY AND TOV(NSITE OF ASPEN)AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.030 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXE~IPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLII PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.88.030(A)(5) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; APPROVING A LANDMARK DESIGNATION GRANT OF $2,000 PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.76.040(C) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE; AND, WAIVING THE PARK DEVELOPSlENT IMPACI FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HISTORIC HOUSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 26.44.060 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. Whereas, Aspen Historic Cottages. LLC, owner and applicant. has applied for the following: Historic Landmark designation for 920 West Hallam Street pursuant to Section 26.76.040 of the Municipal Code: a subdivision exemption for an Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuani to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) of the Municipal Code: a Landmark Designation Grant of S2.000 pursuant to Section 26.76.040(C) of the Municipal Code; and, a waiver of Park Development Impact Fees pursuant to Section 26.44.060 of the Municipal Code; and, Whereas, the Historic Preservation CorrmaiSsion recommended. by a 7-0 vote. Historic Designation at a public hearing on November 12, 1997, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recormmended, by a 7-0 vote. Historic Designation at a public hearing on December 2, 1997: and. V~'hereas, City Council. pursuant to Section 26.76. has the aulhority to designate a property an Historic Landmark during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, City Council, pursuant to Section 26.88.030(B), has the authority to approve Subdivision Exemptions for Historic Landmark Lot Splits during a public hearing after considering the review criteria of said Section, after considering recommendations made during public hearings from the Historic Preser','ation Cormmission, and after taking and considering public comment; and, Whereas, the City Council may approve a one-time Historic Landmark grant of $2,000 and may waive park development impact fees associated with development for properties designated as an Historic Landmark; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 26.76. the City Council has found the property meets standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character). and E Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 2 (community character), thereby determining the property eligible for Historic Landmark designation; and, Whereas, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26. 1 00.050(A)(2)(e). and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and, Whereas, during a public hearing, City Council has taken and considered public comment, considered the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, Whereas, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is'necessa.%.! for the public health, safety and welfare. NOVa', THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the structure and property at: 920 west Hallam Street, the east half of Lot M. all of Lots N? O, and P, and a portion of Lot Q, Block 4, City and Townsite of Aspen. be designated a Historic Landmark. Section Two That the property ox~er shall receive a $2,000 landmark designation grant from the Cit.v of Aspen, and that the Park Development impact fees associated with an addition to the existing structure on the site be waived in their entirety while any park developmere' impact fees associated with additional structures developed on the site be paid in full at the time of building permit issuance. Section Three Pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code. and subject to those conditions of approval as specified heroin, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes ofsubdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-plarmed subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page3 purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. Section Four Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section Three, above, the City Council does hereby grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 920 West Hallam Street with the following conditions: A. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eight)' (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: (1) Meet the requirements of Section 26.g8.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code: (3) Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and an)' development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1.854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2.354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be · included on the pIat, as a plat note. B. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). C. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either tot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless othe~'ise amended by a Board/Commission having authori~' to do so. Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 4 Section Five That the Official Zone District Map be amended io reflect the Historic Landmark designation of this propen>' as described in Section One. Section Six That the Community Development Director shall be directed m notify' the City Clerk of said designation, and the City Clerk shall record this Ordinance with the Pitkin Count>' Clerk and Recorder. Section Seven That if any section, subsection. sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for an>' 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 Eight A public heating on this Ordinance was held on the __ day of .1998. at 5:00 p.m. in the Ci~' Council Chambers. Aspen City Hall, Aspen. Colorado, 15 days prior to which, notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the CitZ,,' of Aspen. INIRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as pro~:ided by law. by the Cin.' Council of the City of Aspen on the __ day of .1998 Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Ci~' Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: KathD'n S. Koch, Ci~' Clerk FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this __ day of .1998. Ordinance No , Series 1998 Page 5 Approved as to form: Approved: Ci~' Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: KathD'n S. Koch, Cin.' Clerk c: ~ome'mitchb. council:920ord doc EXHIBIT A 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION REVIEV¢ Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets ~?o or more of the following standards may be designated as "H," .Historic Overlay District, andYor Historic Landmark. It is not the intention to landmark insignificant structures or sites, rather the HPC focuses on those structures and sites which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical lmportajtce: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site cornmonl)' identified or associated n,ith a person oq' ex,ent of historical significance to the cultural, social. or political histor)' of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Intportattce. The structure or site reflects an archileclural sO'le that is unique. distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural O~ve (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: Thi's structure is atypicaI example of an Aspen miner's cottage, thereby reflecting an architectural character that is of distinct. traditionaI Aspen character. tn fact. the house has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an excellent example of the Aspen miner's cottage. It is a one stor2,'' cottage with a cross-gabled roof. prominent bay window, and decorative detailing on the front ~acade and porch. The house has had few alterations, mainly in the rear of the structure. making a remodel to its historic appearance possible. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose indiri&ial work has influenced lhe character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component o fan historicall), significant neighborhood and the preser~,ation of the structure or site is important for lhe maintenance of lhat neighborhood character. Response: The subject property is located on the western edge of the historic West End neighborhood on a site that many would consider an important element of the gateway to Aspen's historic West End. However, just a few historic resources remain in the immediate vicinity, including Poppie's Restaurant. the old power plant (now the City Shop), and the Holden-Marolt site. Given the prominent location of the property and structure. coupled with the eroded historical significance of the western edge of the West A-1 EXHIB1TA End Neighborhood~ the preservation of this structure is of significant importance for the maintenance of the neighborhood character. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preser'~'ation of the character, of the Aspen communiO, because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style. and character of homes constructed in the late 1800's, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. This particular house is a strong example of the original appearance and character of Aspen's miner cottages. The house is highly consistent with the typicaI size and architectural characteristics of other Aspen structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Its location on West Hallam Street and the edge of the West End neighborhood further emphasizes the importance of its presen'ation with regard to helping to define the historic character of Aspen at its '~gateway.' Although not original to the site. the garage and shed are also important structures. RECO~IMENDATION: Staff, the HPC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that City Council approve landmark designation of the structure and propen>' located at 920 West Hallam Street based on a finding that standards B architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character of Section 26.76.020 are met. A-2 EXHIBIT B 920 West Hallam Street HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIEW Historic Landmark Lot 'Splits must meet the requirements of Sections 26.88.030(A)(2). 26.88.030(A)(5), 26.10~.050(A)(2)(e), and 26.72.010(G) of,the Aspen Municipal Code. · Section 26.88,030(A)(2), Subdivision Exemptions, Lot Split The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one additional detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977. is exempt from full subdivision review provided all of the following conditions are met: a. TIle land is not located in a subdivision approx,ed by either the Pitkin Cow~O· Board of Couno' Commissioners or the ciO' counqil, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the Ci.ty of Aspen on March 24, 1969: and Staff Response: The property is not located within a previously approved subdivision. and the lot predates the city's adoption of subdivision regulations. b. .Vo more than two (2,7 lots are created by the lot split. both lots con. fornl to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for af(ordable housing pursuant to Section 26.]00.040(A)(])(C) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c)]. Staff Response: The proposal calls for splitting one lot into two. The two resultihg lots would conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-6 zone district. Pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c). the newly created lot will have to mitigate for affordable housing by providing either an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), paying an affordable housing impact fee, or placing a resident occupancy deed restriction on the home. The applicant proposes to pay the applicable affordable housing impact fee. c. The lot under consideration, or a~O' part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the pro~,isions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040(C)(1)(a) [this citation is incorrect and should actually refer to Section 26.100.050(C)(3)(a)]: and Staff Response: The property in question has not been the subject of any prior subdivision exemption application or approval. d. .4 subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter. and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin Couno' clerk and recorder after approval. indicating that no further subdivision mc0' be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chaptel' 26. 100. B-1 EXHIBIT B Staff Response: As a recommended condition of approval, a subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The plat and the agreement shall include a prohibition against further subdivision and a requirement that additional deX'elopment comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code. Failure to record the plat and agreement within 180 days shall nullif}' the approval. e. Recordation. The Subdivision exemption agreement and plat shah be recorded D~ the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (I80j days following apffroral by the CiO, Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showD~g of good cause. Staff Response: The language of this criterion is included as a recommended condition of the subdivision exemption approval. Also, see response to the previous criterion (d). f. h7 the case where an existing single-family dwelli.g occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Staff Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. g. Maximum potential buildout for the t~i'o (27 parcels created by'a lot split shall not exceed three (3~ units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Staff Response: The applicant proposes a total of three (3) units. Two detached homes would be built on Lot B (easterly lot) and would be in condominium ownership. A third unit would be located on the westerly parcel, which would be a fee simple lot. The Community Development Director has made a formal code interpretation finding that the word "may," as used in this standard. is permissive and means the same thing as "can" or "might." Thus. the proposed development complies with the technical requirements of this standard. Furthermore, the three detached units would combine for an FAR equal to the allowable FAR of a duplex on the fathering parcel, which is an arguably better scenario than placing all of the allowable FAR that is not currently utilized in the historic structures into one large duplex. Stafffinds that the proposal complies with~his staridard. · Section 26. 88. 030(A)(5), Historic Landmark Lot Split The split of a lot that is a designated historic landmark for the development of one new single-family dwelling shall comply with the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of g, 000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13, 000 square feet and be located m the R-]SA zone district. B-2 EXHIBIT B Staff Response: The parcel is 11,048 square feet (larger than 9.000 square feet) and is located in the R-6 zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted o. the Subdivision Exeraption Plat. Staff Response: The proposal involves dividing the t 1,048 square foot propert>. into tx~o parcels, the westerly (Lot A) of which would contain 3,432 square feet and the easterly parcel (lot B) would contain 3,432 square feet. The development on both parcels shall be restricted to the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex on the fatherin_g 11,048 square foot parcel. The allowable FAR for a duplex on the fathering parcel is 4,209 square feet plus the potential for an FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet, if granted by the HPC. The applicant requests the 500 square foot bonus, but these bonuses cannot be granted until Final approval of the Significant Development application by the HPC. The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The ~eSterl.~ parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2.354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. The applicant intends to allot 1,000 square feet of L9t B's FAR to the existing house. Mth the remaining FAR to be utilized in the new house. c. ' The proposed developmere meets all dimensio,al requirements of the underlyi,g zo,e district. HPC variances and bonuses are onb' permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Staff Response: The proposed development of Lot A (the westerly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. The proposed development of Lot B (the easterly lot) would conform to all the dimensional requirements of the R-6 zone district. with the exception of the individual side yard setbacks. the combined side yard setbacks, and the maximum site coverage. but the lot itself would meet all applicable dimensional requirements. · Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), G31QS Exemption by the Community Development Director, Historic Landmark Lot Split The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the motto area development ceilings. Staff Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval of this application, if approval is granted. B-3 EXHIBIT B · Section 26. 72. OIO(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split The. development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88,030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Staff Response: The HPC held a noticed public hearing on July 8, 1997. City Council is also reviewing the application at a public hearing on July 27, 1998, RECOM~IENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the 920 West Hallam Street Historic Landmark Lot Split with the following conditions A. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitki.n County clerk and recorder within one hundred eight)' (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideralien of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum. the subdivision plat shall: (I) Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code: (2) Contain a plat note stating that development of new residences shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; (3) Contain a plat note stating that the Jots contained therein shaI1 be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and an) development of the lots will comply ~ith the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application. (4) The easterly parcel (Lot A) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 1,854 square feet. The westerly parcel (Lot B) will be assigned an allowable FAR of 2,354 square feet (plus the potential for an HPC granted FAR bonus of up to 500 square feet). The information contained in the two previous sentences will need to be included on the plat, as a plat note. B. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). C. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot, the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. D. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Prdser','ation Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval. unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. B-4 MEMOF ANDUM 1'0: Mitch Haas, Community Dev~ment Department FROM: Cindy Chdmensen, Housing Offic~ DATE: June 11, 1998 RE: ~20 West Hattam Street Conditianal Use Review Pam..et ID No. L~bSJ~: ,""he appllcsm is pro!3osing cctmm~on of ~ ~ 1,8~ sq~m f~ h~, BACKGROUND: A~ing to ~on ~.1~.050, ~ ~1), in o~ ~ q~ ~r a ~ng[~a~ ~m~on, ~ appii~t shail ~ ~ m~ing a ~~an~ d~ ~ ~ ~ ~gl~ ~lhg unit be~n; ~r ~i~ the ~E~, ~e~ is no men~on of m ~U ~ d~ ~ R~COMME~A?ION: Wth mi~ ~ mi~ ;~jab~e ~fn Bo~'a p~fe~s am ~d ~: 1. ~) ~; A~e d p~HN~eu a~nt for ~ 2 and ~g~ 3 + 3,~ X ~4~ due ~R ffi ~ of ~ I~ ~]~: . (~.~0 + $~,~0) + 2 - $~,~ * 3,~ = ~.~ W ~m ~t $~.~ X 3,7~ ~ ~ m ~ A & B = ~ due N~ ~ mrem~u due ~ N ~ d~e ~ ~,~ + ~0,0~) + 2 = ~,~ ~ 3,~0 = ~ ~ ~m $2E~3 X 3,7~ ~ ~ m ~ A & B = 11N.~ ~ due g~ ~ IgN Guidelin~ sh~ ~e ~m In ~e ~dis d~ 1~. 565 North Mill S~eet .~pen, Colorado 816i 1 Tele. z970,925-3001 F.~X ~970~ 925-2537 Sy Kelly. Charman .Xlichae~ Kelly Paul Smith. Trees. Frank Loushm Louis Popish · Secy. Bruce .Xlatherh' .Xlgr. June 15, 1998 ~tch Haas Co~u~ty Development 130 S. Galena ~pen, CO 81611 Re. 920 W H~iam lot split Dear ~tch: The e~sting residence at 920 W. H~lam is cunently se~'ed by the District. The Dist~cz's l~e ~s located in the alley be~een Hallam and Fr~cis. The elevation of the ~ley may need to be adjusted. in order to sewe ~o addition~ dwe~ng u~ts, if~e umts include basement levels. ff additional cover is added to the alley to improve the ~ade. then the ma~ole elevation may need to be adjusted. ~y changes needed must be paid for by the applic~t ~d desired aceord~g to District line specifications. We would l~e to review the site dr~age plans when they become available. Once de~ailed plans are available We can complete a tap pe~t w~ch will estimated the ~ot~ connection charges for the new u~ts. If the e~sting umt is unchanged ~d relocated ~t~n 50 feet of its e~sting footprint, then no additional fees will be charged for that unit. Each single rally residence will be need to be co~ected by a separate sea'ice line. As usual. sewice is contingent upon compliance ~th the Distfict's roles, regulations, ~d specifications w~ch ~e on file at the District o~ce. Please e~! if you have znL.' questions. S~cerely, Brace Mathefty District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976. 1986-1990 Regional and National DRAFT MEMOK.4.NDLN To: Mitdh Haas, Planner Thru: Nick Adeh. Cit7 Engineer From: Ross C. Soders~om, Project Engineer Date: June 16, 1998 Re: 920 W. Hallam Street - Conditional Use, Historic Landmark Lot Splik. GMQS Exemption. Rezoning, PLq), GMQS Exemption R. eviews Physical Address: 920 W. Hallam St. City of Aspen. CO Legal Description:E 1/2 half of Lot M, all of LoB N, O & P. and the westerly portion of Lot Q. all lying in Block 4. Original Aspen Tovmsite. Ci~' of Aspen. CO [See. 12. T10S. R85Wq (Parcel ID No. 2735-123-03-003) The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at theh' June 10. 1998 meeting, and we have the following cornmores: 1. Proper~.' Title and Encumbrances: Improvement Sux-~,ey indicates an area of record overlap between the subject property. and the properrS.' to the west in the southwest corner of .the subject propeR'. The survey also indicates some uncertaln~, oftitle, encumbrances. or boundary line question for the area bounded by the Line 6-7, Aspen Townsite and the .westerly propera.' line of the propert?. The application did not include a title comn~tmem, discussion nor documentation regaxciing propeRr>.' title, and specifically these uncertainties regarding the westerly boundary 6fthe subject propeRt>.'. The owner is required to provide a complete title commiwnem to the Engineering Dept. and resolve the uncertainties in the property, boundary and area of the property to the satisfaction of the Ci~' Attorney and Ci~' Engineer before the propert>,' may be subciivided. 2. Improv. ement Survey: For future applications, please provide the Engineering Depa~unem with a wet ink, original stamped and signed surveys. This authenticates that the plat is the surveyor's work without alternation by other persons. 3. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, densi~, or timing of construction of the project change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility. plans for thj. s project change subsequent to. this review, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and DRCM I .~98.DOC I OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Hall;~rn St. - Conditional Use. Historic Landmark Lot Split. GMQS Exemption, Rezoning, PLrD, GMQS Exemption Reviews re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated June 4, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project. or changes in the site, grading, drainage. parking or utility desi_mn_s. 4. Access: As shown in the site plan, the access for the proposed lots is required to be from the alley and the existing driveway curb cut onto W. Hallam St. (a.k.a. Colorado Highway 82) should be replaced with a standard tapered curb matching the existing curb. The platted alley adjacent to the applicant's property has not been developed. The applicant will be required to improve the alley to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At rlms time the applicable standard for the alley surface would be class 6 agUegate base come. During construction, provision must be made to maintain drainage on site and to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto the alley and City streets. 5. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: From a previous review of this propert2,.' by Chuck Roth. Randy Ready and John Worcester regarding the fiamre width of the right-of-way on Hallam Street/Highway 82, John Worcester stated that the Ci~' does not need to pursue the acquisition of a 100 foot wide right-of-way on Hallam Street under the approved plan for the flurare entrance to the City of Aspen. The applicant must install sidewalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The sidewalk should be five feet vide vdth a buffer space to the curb because of the reasons discussed in item I 1 below. Because of the site Fades. there will need to be a railing along the sidewalk. Any: sections of curb and gutter in disrepair must be replaced. The applicant should be required to sign a curb and .gutter ageement. 6. Encroachments: The existing encroachrnents (shed and garage) must be removed for the development of the alley fight-of-way and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The existing Concrete steps on to Hallam Street should be removed and retocated within the limits of the property. Likewise, the steps associated with the front walkways of the proposed new homes should also be located within the limits of the pmperties and not in the public fight-of-way. The existing concrete retaining wall along the W. Hallam St. frontage may be left in place or removed ffrequired in the development of the right-of-way. If the wall is removed or relocated, another form of structural support will be required to maintain the lateral support of the madway of W. Hallam St. 7. Site Drainage: The drainage inlet basin located in the landscape area of the fight-of-way provides an access point for cleaning and inspecting the storm drain line. As such, is should remain DRCM 1598.DOC 2OF5 DRAFT DR,-~FT Memo: 920 W Hallam St, - Conditional Us~, Historic Lanarnark Lot Spill GMQS Exemption, Re, zoning, PUD, OMQS Exemption Revie~s although it may be altered, with the written approval of the Streets and Engineering Departments, to bener accormmodate the sidewalk and blend into the landscaping of the area~ if desired. The new development cannot release more than historic (pro-development) storm nan-off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run-off flows must be ~'~rst muted and detained on the site. A drainage report and design completed and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage flows originating from the site. If a gound injection or re-charge type dralnge system is proposed, the percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and included as the basis for sizing the in.filtration field. The drainage desiN should coordinate with the site plan which is also required for the development and building permit applications. The drainage report and plan will be included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application. 8. Utility. Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The existing electrical u'ar~sformer. telephone pedestal and other utilities with above ground boxes. cabinets and appurtenances will need to be relocated within easements on the private property at the expense of the developer when the alley is developed. In the case of the electrical transformer, the Cir,.' Electric Dept. will perform the work and bill the developer Xbr the cost ofrelocating the transformer. Ira larger capacir,.' transformer needs to be irksmiled to service the loads of this proposed deve!opment. the developer will also need to re- inbin'so the Cir,.' Electrical Dept. for installation of the larger transformer. The proposed size and location of the transformer easement within the private propert,.' will need to be modified to provide an easement with 10 ft of length along the alley by 6 ft deep by I0 ft above and 6 ft below finished gade to permit servicing of the transformer. All utili~.' meters and any new utili~' pedestals or transformers must be ins:alled on th~ applicant's properrS.' and not in the public fight-of-way. For pedestals. easements must be provided. The building permit dra~mgs must indicate all utility meter locations. Any new or relocated utili~' service connection points, meters, or appurtenances need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. All existing and any new easements for utilities shall be sho~ on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit. 9. City SWeets Department: They do not currently plow the alley at the Sagewood Condominiums at Sagewood's and the neighbors request, but they will plow the alley, or the applicant's portion, if the applicants so wish. Paving the alley makes it easier to plow but may not be consistent with the community. plan. Snow removal on HalIn is the responsibility of CDOT however snow removal is presently performed by the City under connet with CDOT and the snow is windrowed and hauled away, not plowed to the side. If the sweet reverts to the City when Highway 82 is realigned, then the snow DRCM 1 .~98 .DOC 3OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W, Ha~larn St. - Conditional Use. F{istonc Landmark Lol Spill GMOS EXemption. gezoning, PUD. GMQS Exemption Reviews be plowed to the side, not removed, and it would be better in that case to have a detached sidewalk with a plant~g and snow storage median ber~veen the back of curb and sidewaY. Xt is preferable for construction 1Tailors to be placed on private property however, ifth~s is not possible, a tempotax7 encroachment license is requ~'ed for placement of conslzucfion ~raileTs in the public right- of-way. The alley fight-of-way may be the preferab. ie location. I0. Cit)' Water Department: The applicant needs to meet with the Water Department. The water service lines will have to be sized to meet fire protection re~lations. There will be 3 lines. however they can and must share the same trench (for pavement protection reasons). The yard hydrant will need to be served through the water meter rather than tapped directly from the service line to the building. If the applicant ow~ water well fights. they must be conveyed to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Par'ks Department: The Rock3' Mountain Juniper is a high quality example of this species and if it is to be relocated, a letter of credit or other financial security acceptable to the City. Attorney should be provided to the City to insure that the tree will survive at least five (5) years after transplanting. A tree removal permit must be obtained for any code re_gtlated trees that are to be removed. 12. Environmental Health Department: not in a,aendance. 13. Snow Storage: The applicant is advised to provide snow storage areas in the site design and to indicate the areas on the site plan submitted in the building permit application. 14. Subdivlsion Exemption PIat: If this proposed developmere is approved, a subdivision exemption plat meeting the standards of a subdivision pla~, will need to be prepared and recorded. In addition to the standard plat content requirements, the plat will carD.' a note that, "No farther subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built withouI receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.88, Subdivision, Aspen Municipal Code, and growth rrmnagement allocation. pursuant to Chapter 26.100, Aspen Municipal Code." 15. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement dislricts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property, under DRCM 1598. DOC 4OF5 DRAFT DRAFT Memo: 920 W. Railam St. - Conditional Us~, Historic Landmark Lo~ Split. GMQS Exemption, REzoning, PUD, GMQS Exemption Revie~s an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent '~ith recording the subdivision plat. 16. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the AipergPitkin County Information Services Dept. as-builts drav, ings for the project sho~.g the proper' lines. building footprint, easements, encroachmerits, entry. points for utilities entering ~e property. boundaries and any other improvements. · 17. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements. including landscaping and ~m-ading, within public fights-of-way; Parks Depm uz~ent (920-5120) for vegetation species and placemere. and irrigation systems; Streets Departmere (920-5130) for mailboxes. s~ree~ and alley cuts: and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public fights-of-way from the Ci~.' Community Development Deparunem (920-5090). DRC Meeting Attendcos Applicant: Staff& Referral Agencies: Nick Adeh. Jack Reid. Mkch Haas. Bill Earley, Jack Reid. John K.rueger. Steve Ellsperman. Ross Soderstrom DRCM 1598 .DOC 50F5 DR,-~FT Existing F~: 1~89 ~u~re f~t Allowable F~: 4~02 square f~ plus potential F~ ~nus~ ~o~sed F~: 4,702, includ~g ~ ~uare f~t F~ ~nus~ Existing net l~ble (commercial): NA Pro~sed n~t l~ble (co~erci~): NA "n % 13% Ex~su g, of site coverage: ~low~ % ofsit~ coverage: bt A: no l~imfion, ~t B: 35~/~ Pro~sed % of site coverage: bt A: no limitation, ~t B: 37% Existing % of o~n s~e: NA Pro~sed % of o~n space: NA E~sting m~mm hoist: ~nci~l bldg: 12 ft. Acc~sso~' bldg: 11 f~ 6 inches Pro~sed m~. height: Pnnci~l bl~: 13 ~ 6 inch~ hBto~ou~ 23 f~ ne~' hous~ Accesso~' bldg: 11 ~, 6 ~ch~ Pro~sed % of demolition: 6% (1~ sq. ~ garage l~n-to) Exis~ng nmber of~ooms: 2 Pro~sed amber of~&~ms: Lot A: 3 b~rooms,~t B: 6 (3 per house) Existrig on-si~ p~kmg spaces: 2 On-site p~ng spaces req~r~d: ~t A: 2 space, ~t B: 4 spae~ (2 ~r house) Setbacks: E~sting (ho~e): ~mm req~red: ~o~sed Front: 31' From: ~ts A ~ B: 10' f' Front: 20' ~ K~r: 31' K~: b~ A & B: 10~ ' R~: FronVrear FronVrear FronL~r~ Combined: 62' Combined: b~ A & B: 30' Combined: 30'/ East side: 4~' E~t side: ~ A ~ B: ~'/' ~ side:~t A: $'~t B: 2' W~ side: 34' We~ side: bB A & B: 5' W~ side:bt A: S'~t B: 2' Combined Combined - Combined Sides: 81' Side: A: 10', B: ~' ~ Sides: ~t A: 10', E~ng nonco~omifi~s or encroachend: Garage and sh~ encroach into alley. V~a~o~ ~que~ed: ~t B: ~ ~uare f~t F~ ~n~, sideyard ~tback ~ of 3 f~t on the ~st and w~t sideya~s for li~hmel~ ~mbin~ sideyard ~tback variance of 16 f~ site coverage variance of 2°/~. TO: Mayor and City Council / THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Ju!ie Ann Woods, Deputy Director ~ [Acting Historic Preservation Officer] DATE: July 13, 1998 SUBJECT: .1998 Supplemental Budget Request _ Historic Preservation Symposium SummaD': The City Council has requested that staff organize a symposium to discuss historic preservation in Aspen. The symposium has been scheduled for August 7th and 8th, and will include members of the Historic Presen'ation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, members of the public, local architects, realtors, and Historic Preservation Officers from other resort communities. It is anticipated that a supplemental budget request from the general fund in the amount of $5,500 should cover all costs related to this two-day program. Background and discussion: The City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission have expressed a desire to review the mission and goals of the historic preservation program. The City Council is concerned that the Historic Preservation program _may need to be re-focused, and the HPC is desirous of having appropriate tools and public support to carD.' on its work. The symposium is intended to bring both directly affected and interested parties to the table, to look'at what other resort communities are doing to maintain their historic character, and to identif'a' a future direction for the program. In order to keep the cost of the program down, the symposium will be held in City Hall both days. The majority of the expenses will be the cost for travel and accommodations of the HPO's, a National Trust director, and the State Historic Preservation Office representative. Describe the community goals or citizen needs which will be met by this request and the corresponding priority this request has, given limited funds. This symposium is intended to take a critical look at the way we operate our historic preservation program. There has been some recent criticism from the public that the program should ensure that important historic landmarks not be demolished. This symposium will bring together the decision-makers involved in the HP program, along with citizens and others who have expressed concerns about our procedures. The mission of the historic preservation program as expressed in the 1993 AACP was insure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features." City Council has indicated that a fresh look at the historic preservation .program is a priority. Provide cit2,' council with the cost breakdown of your request (labor, materials, etc.) Staff has developed the following budget for this program: Printing/binders/handouts $ 300 Accommodations for out-of-town participants $1,000 Air fares (from east coast --2 people) $1,150 Gas mileage for out-of-town participants $ 750 Catering--Lunch and breakfast $1,500 Facilitator $ 500 Misc. contingencies $ 300 $5,500 If this request has any on-going operational costs or future costs, they should be explained and clearly outlined. There are no on-going operational costs. However, depending on the outcome ofth~ symposium, it is possible that City Council will direct staff to make changes to policies' and/or procedures which may have financial implications in the future. Alternati~.'es: The alternative is to not fund this supplemental budget request and not hold the symposium. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve a supplemental appropriation of $5500 from the General Fund to the Community Development Dept. budget for the ' Historic Preservation symposium." cc: Tabitha Miller, Finance Director MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Start Clauson, Community Developmere Director FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director RE: Alpine Conages Affordable Housing Cohceptual,~inal Pla~ed Unit Development, Rezoning. and Subdivision Reviews (Second Reading) (Continued from June 22, 1998) DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: The applicant, Larry Saliterman in association with Semsau Building and Design. is requesting approval to fezone to AHI-PUD in order to construct 10 deed restricted units and 4 free-market units. The proposal involves requests for rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD. and Subdivision. The applicant has sought and received approval for Special Review of off-street parking requirements and density limitations, and a variance from the volume provision of the residential design standards from the Planning and Zoning Commission by a 4~0 vote at their May 19, 1998 meeting (see Exhibit "G"). The site is located at 1240 East Cooper Ave. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot (Lot 3, Ferguson Exemption) behind the lodge. Staff recommends the Ci~' Council approve the rezoning, consolidated conceptual/final PUD, subdivision, vested rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request, with conditions. ISSUES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: At the meeting of June 22, 1998, City Council indicated that it does not generally waive park dedication fees for AH projects. Staff would like to note to City Council that according to city policy on fee waivers, "...ci~' council can waive or reduce fees for development which is wholly or partly affordable housing...' City Council does have the discretion to waive the fee if they so desire. Council also discussed the mix of units proposed with this AH1-PUD rezoning. Some council members felt that there were not enough lower catego~' units. There was some debate regarding the discretion City Council has in approving a rezoning. particularly addressing the unit mix. The City Attorney has issued a confidential memorandum regarding this issue. At this time, ~he applicant has not proposed a change in the unit mix, but is willing to finher discuss this with the City Council. Finally, City Council did not like the new name for Aene Ct. They did not feel that Camelot Ct. is appropriate for Aspen. They recommended that the applicant do some historic research to tome up with a name that is more appropriate to this neighborhood. APPLICANT: Larr~~ Saliterman in association with Sem.rau Building and Design. The applicant will be represented by Tim Semrau. LOCATION: 1240 East Cooper Ave., and Lot 3! Ferguson Exemption. The property currently contains the Alpine Lodge and a vacant lot behind the lodge, within the City of Aspen as shown on the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A). ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned R-15A-PUD; the Alpine Lodge portion of the site also contains an LP overlay zone. The applicant is seeking a rezoning to AH 1 -PUD. LOT SIZE: Approximately 37, 148 square feet. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF FAR CALCULATION): Approximately 29,067 square feet. This represents the total propen3' minus the proposed access easement and slope reductions. LOT AREA (FOR PURPOSES OF DENSITY CALCULATION): Approximately 29,067 square feet. This includes the same restrictions as above and considers slope reduction. FAR: Maximum allowable FAR is 23,253 s.f., based on (.8) x (Lot Area), subject to PUD Review. The applicant is proposing 23,227 s.f. of FAR. CURRENT LAND USE: A 12-room lodge contained within four buildings, and a vacant lot. PROPOSED LAND USE: Five lots, four of which will be free-market, and one (Lot 1) which will contain ten (10) deed restricted units. Lot 1, Alpine Cottages will contain: 2 four-bedroom Categon.' 4 units 2 one-bedroom Categor3' 4 units 2 2 one-bedroom Category 3 units 4 four-bedroom RO units PREVIOUS ACTION: The City Council approved this application on first reading, May 26, 1998. Second reading was held on June 22, 1998 and was continued to .ruly 13, 1998. REVIEV~' PROCEDURE: At their meeting on May 19, t 998, the Growth Management Commission recommended that the City Council approve and exempt from Growth Management ten (I0) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages (see Exhibit "F" attached). The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the rezoning. consolidated conceptual/final PUD, and subdivision application at a hearing and recommended approval with conditions to City Council (see Exhibit "G' attached). As pan of that motion, the Commission recommended deletion of the Housing Board recommendation item that the category units be opened to the public. The Commission felt that this was an onerous requirement which they could' not support. The applicant is also seeking Vested Rights approval; and a partial park development impact fee waiver request. BACKGROUND: The Alpine Lodge participated in the Small Lodge Loner' in I997 and was allocated four (4) additional lodge expansion units. The owner did not proceed with applying for a change-in-use request. The previous owner of the propertyZ James and Christina (Pfeifer) Martin. sold the lodge to the current owner with the understanding that their descendants would have a right of first refusal on two of the units, should they choose to remain in Aspen. The applicant was before the Housing Board; which recommended approval subject to certain conditions. These conditions are spelled out in the Housing office referral, and are made conditions of approval. The applicant is not in full agreement with these housing conditions and will want to discuss this with the City Council. Please refer to the applicanfs letter, dated 6/.15/98, attached as Exhibit "H." It appears from the letter that the applicant agrees with all but one condition, that is that the category units be opened to public lottery. This is the item which the Conu'nission recommended be deleted as a condition of approval. The applicant claims he has made prior commitments to eligible buyers and this requirement is not fair. The City Council may want to consider modifying the recommended conditions requested by the Housing office. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The applicant is seeking a partial waiver of the Park Land Dedication Impact Fee. The Parks dedication fee would be $43,092. Because th~s project is 71% affordable, staff recommends that the appIicant be responsible for paying for 29% of the Park Dedication Impact fee, or $12,497. The applicant is also responsible for paying the applicable School Land dedication fees. Staff recommends that the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the land dedication. and that the payment be made prior to, and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential lots. It is estimated that. school land dedication fees will be approximately $67,684. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and 'Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "B." Agency referral commenB have been included as Exhibit "C." The application, which is in a booklet form. should be considered Exhibit "D', which was previously submined to the City Council at first reading. Also a~tached are Exhibit "F", the Grov~h Management Commission's resolmion; Exhibit "G', the Platruing and Zoning Commission's minutes; Exhibit "H", the applicanfs letter addressing the Housing Board recommendations; Exhibit 'T', an adjacent neighbor's letter; and Exhibit "J", a new letter from the applicant dated 7/7/98. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve on second reading the consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AH 1-PUD, subdivision. Vested Rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine Cottages, subject to the following conditions: 1. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments, be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages; 2. That the applicant agree to the conditions pIaced on the project by the housing board (or as amended by the Cil3' Council), including: · The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap; · The applicant will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three persons; · Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800,000 price; · The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000; · The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin Count>' a minimum of the last four years consecutively; and · That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the contract; (this is a condition that the applicant is particularly not in agreement with, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended deleting as part of their motion); 3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit; 4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot B, Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots Band C, utility easements, and the t 0' trail easement betwee.n Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as part of the final plat;. 5. That as part of the final plat submission, another page with signature blocks for all five ox~ers with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially changing the name from Aene Ct. to a name suitable to the neighbors and City Council; 6. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features; 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval for a line extension request, a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared service agreement for each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; 8. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after construction; 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan; 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessaD' permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodburning devices; 11. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with .the building permit application; 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachmerits; 13. That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the school land dedication, and that the payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential lots; 14. That the remaining required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permit; 5 15. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public right-of-way damaged during construction; 16. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's propert>, and not in an>' public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed; 17. A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted prior to filing of the final plat; 18. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final plat; 19. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's propen>' instead of within the propose water easement aligranent. Division of costs for extension of the water distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.; 20. The proposed development shall construct, at its expense. a main line extension of the sanitary sewer ~ystem and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building. 21. The site plan shall include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-site snow storage; 22. The Robinson Rd. access way. as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption; 23. In regards to changing the street name, the applicant will need to do adequate historical research for an appropriate name and resubmit the name to City Council for their approval. Additionall>', the applicant must provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin Count5' and copies of postal receipts veri~'ing the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by Aene Ct., the Aspen Postmaster, Pitkin Count>', and the City of Aspen; 24. The parking spaces located between Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope; 25. The applicant will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic. hauling and delivery routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and provision of temporary utilities; 26. The applicant will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage sen'ices to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during construction; 27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ; 28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit .will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches; 29. Thi applicant is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat; 30. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: · The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading. within public rights-of-way; · Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; · Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and · permits for any work or development, including landscaping. within public rights-of-way from the City Community Development Department (920- 5090); 31. Unless the applicant can provide documentation verifS'ing his water rights in this irrigation ditch, the propert>' owner should establish a raw water lease agreement with the City \Vater Departme. hi for use of a portion of the City's water allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation: 32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat Shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch easement; 33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the County Clerk and Recorder; 34. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading, Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1998, the consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to AHI-PUD, subdivision, vested rights, and a partial park development impact fee waiver request for the Alpine Cottages." CITY NIANAGER~S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Vicinity Map Exhibit B Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit C Comments from Referral Agencies Exhibit D Application (Booklet form) Exhibit E Ordinance No. 18. Series of 1998 Exhibit F GMC Resolution Exhibit G P&Z Minutes of 5/19/98 Exhibit H Applicant's letter dated 6/15/98 regarding Housing Board recommendations Exhibit I Letter from neighbor Pat Spector Exhibit J Applicant's letter to City council dated 7/7/98 (NE~V ATIACHMENT) 8 ALPINE COTTAGES--EXHIBIT Staff Analysis and Findings: Alpine Cottages: Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFinding: CommuniO' Vision: The plan calls for disbursed mid-size to smaller projects. in~ll development within the existing urban area, small scale resident housing dispersed with free-market housing. locating housing near public transportation, a mix of housing to encourage families, and private development to solve the housing crisis. Alpine Conages achieves these goals while providing high-quality housing within walking distance of the commercial core. Community Vitality: The proposed deveIopment is 71% affordable, addressing the community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable ~ walking dislance to employment and recreation resources. The proposed development is an in-fill site within, or approximately within, the original townsite. Increased residential density, especially for local working residents, within the town promotes a sense of community and creates community vitality. Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance to employment, entertainment, recreation. and other residences reduces the need to use a vehicle for every' trip. Also, compact development in proximity to existing facilities and services reduces the need to extend sen'ices, and preserves those natural open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions. Because of the project' s proximiD' to the Snyder AH/Park site, the Parks Dept. is requesting a trail easement along the rear property line, connecting Aerie Ct. with the Snyder parcel. The applicant has agreed to this request. Such an easement should be included on the final plat drawings. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findin The proposed development is surrounded by fully developed proper~y. Three adjacent parcels (presuming Snyder will get approved) are AH developments and the other Staff Comments 1 adjacent lots are R15A. Existing developments consist of single family homes, affordable housing units and a small lodge to the east and across Highway 82 (the Beaumont). The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding land uses. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding,: As mentioned above, the surrounding parcels are already developed, or proposed for development (Snyder), The surrounding area's development or redevelopment potential should not be negatively affected by this development. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: The application must receive development allotments for 10 residentiaI units, and 4 free- market-AH associated allotments from the City Council. The Growth Management Commission considered this case and made a recommendation to City Council for the GMQS exemption. 2. Densin.': A, The maximum densit)' shall be no greater than that permitted in the underl.~ing zone district. Furthermore. densities may be reduced if: 1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed development: 2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection. snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed developmere: 3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope. ground instabili~'. and the possibili~' of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers: 4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed. due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution: 5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the ci~': or 6. The design and location of any proposed structure. road. driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding,: The densiLv proposed on this site is below that allowed based on the gross lot size. The gross lot size is 37,148 s.f. The lot is reduced due to slope and easements to a lot area of 29,067 s.f. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit under AH1-PUD is as follows: 4 single family lots ~ 3000 s.f./unit 12,000 s.f. 2 duplexes @ 1500 s.f./unit 6,000 s.f. 6 four-bedroom multi-family Units @ 400s.f./br 9.600 s.f. Total: 14 units 27,600 s.f. There are sufficient utilities and services to acc.ommodate this development. The access is adequate for fire protection service. The portion of the property where developmere is proposed is suitable ~'or development. The applicant has provided a traffic generation report and is not required to provide an Air Quality Mitigation Plan as the proposal will Staff Comments 2 have a net reduction in daily traffic trips as compared to the lodge use. The applicant is required to provide a drainage report to the City Engineer for their review and approval. The location of the proposed development does not appear to be in severe conflict with the natural terrain and features of the site. B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. 1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the densi~: of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess offend' (20) percent in the following manor: a. For lands bern, con zero (0) and m, ent>. (20) percent slope. the maximum density aIlox~ed shall be that pertained in the underlying zone district.- b. For lands bet~,een twenty-one (21 ) and third' (30) percent slope. the maximum densit>.' allowed shall be reduced to fif~, (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district. c. For lands bem'een thirty-one (31 ) and fort>.' (40) percent slope. the density shall be reduced to ~'enty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district. d. For lands in excess of for (40) percent slope. no densi~' credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum densi~ for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification. and then b~ dividing the square footage necessar> in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. 3. For parcels resting in more than one ( t ) zone district, the densi~ reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Densit.x shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Defthill'on of Lot Area. Staff Finding,: The application specifies the percentages of the property falling within the described slope classifications on Attachment D of the application. The proposed density requires 27.600 square feet of LotArea. After all reductions, the property yields approximately 29.067 square feet of LotArea. The proposal meets the density standard. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Finding,: The application includes a request to rezone the property to AH1-PUD. The present zoning allows for residential development in varying densities, while ihe proposed rezoning allows a mixture of single family, duplex and multi-family units. The applicant is proposing this mix in his proposal. 4. Di.mensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; Staff Comments 3 b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); · c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash access area; i. Internal floor area ratio; and j. Minimum percent open space. If a variation is pertained in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan. Staff Finding,: This PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lots created. There are no variations requested from the underlying zone district proposed. Note that the flee- market lots could slightly increase in size if the applicant is successful in securing title to that potdon of adjacent property which is represented as a hiatus between the Fergus0n Exemption and the Woerndle Subdivision. The proposed dimensional requirements are as follows: Requirements Common to Entire I)evelonment Zone District: :l'he applicant is proposing the site be rezoned to AH1-PUD. Minimum distance between buildings: As shox~n on the plat Maximum height: 23' 6" Proposed Minimum percent open space: Approximately 56% (presuming building envelopes 100% used) Lot 1 (multi-family and dunlex units) Zone District: AH I -PUD Lot Size: 16,527 s.f.. Maximum intemaI floor area: 12,587 s,f. Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat. Building Envelope: No developrVent other than approved landscape materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the following setbacks: Minimum front yard: 11 feet, along both Aerie Ct. and Highway 82 Minimum rear yard: 4 feet (west proper~' line) Minimum side yard: 3 feet along Robinson Road (the existing buildings have a 3' rear setback) Lot A (free-market} Zone District: AH 1 -PUD Lot Size: 6,090 s.f. Maximum internal floor area: 2.660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected) Minimum lot v,'idd~: As represented on final plat. Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape materials on natural grade. approved access xvays. and Staff Comments 4 approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the following setbacks: Minimum front yard: 66 feet. Minimum rear yard: 5 feet. ( 15' if title is perfected) MinimUm side yards: 5 feet each. Lot B (free-market) Zone District: AH 1-PUD Lot Size: 5,460 s.f. · Maximum internal floor area: 2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected) Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat. Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the following setbacks: Minimum front yard: 50 feet. Minimum rear yard: 5 feet. ( 12' if title is perfected) Minimum side .xards: 5 feet each. Lot C (free-market) Zone District: AH 1 -PUD Lot Size: 4.545 s.f. Maximum internal floor area: 2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected) Minimum Io~ width: As represented on final plat. Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape materials on natural grade, approved access ways.' and approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and x~ithin the following setbacks: Minimum front yard: 37 feet. Minimum rear yard: 5 feet. (13' if title is perfected) Minimum side yards: 5 feet each. Lot D (free-market) Zone District: AH 1-PUD Lot Size: 4.526 s.f. Maximum internal floor area: 2,660 s.f. (with additional 350 s.f. if title is perfected) Minimum lot width: As represented on final plat. Building Envelope: No development other than approved landscape materials on natural grade, approved access ways, and approved driveways may occur outside of the building envelope, as represented on the final plat and within the fol towing setbacksi Minimum front yard: 15 feet. Minimum' rear yard: 5 feet. Minimum side yards: 5 feet. (13' if title is perfected on north sideyard) 5 feet on south side.x ard Staff Comments 5 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the follo~'ing considerations: a, The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed developmere. b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. d. The availabili~' of public roansit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques Ln the proposed development, e. The proximi~,.' of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. W'henever the number of off-su'eet parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change. StaffFinding: The proposed underlying zone district, AH1-PUD, requires parking requirements to be established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The commission approved the following parking requirements at their May 19, 1998 meeting: one (1) parking space per one-bedroom dwelling unit, and two (2) parking spaces for every other unit, which is the minimum for development city-wide.. 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if Such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open Space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a commgn park or recreation area if it: a. is to be used and is suitable for Scenic. landscaping, or recreation purposes: and b. Is land ~hich is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate. undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetui~' to each lot or dwelling unit owner within The planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential. commercial. or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. Staff Finding: The applicant has agreed to provide a trails easement to the Parks Dept. along the rear (northern) portion of the site connecting Aene Ct. to the Snyder parcel. The legal instruments to protect this area should be submitted with the Final Plat. The applicant is encouraged to work with the City Attorney and the Parks Department in preparing these restrictions. The application indicates that a minimum of approximately 56% of the site v,'ill remain open space. Staff believes that due to the proximity to the future park site on the adjaceni Snyder parcel, this amount of open space will be adequate to serve the proposal. Staff Comments 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantiS' and varieI)' of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. StaffFinding,: The application includes a Landscape Plan as shown on Attachment C of Exhibit "D." The existing lodge parcel has a mature landscape which the proposed development will attempt to maintain. The applicant has already moved several mature trees elsewhere on site in an attempt to successfully maintain a more mature landscape within the development parcel. This plan provides a reasonable amount and variety'of plantings. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed deyelopment, architectural character, building design, and the presen'ation of the visual character of the City. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding,: Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and surrounding land uses. The plans and elevations for the Category and RO units have been included in this application. The proportions, mussing. and materials seem appropriate. Both the RO and free-market structures must be developed consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines, or be granted a waiver from the Plarming and Zoning Commission who can serve as the Design Review Appeal Committee. The applicant did request and received a design waiver for the volume standard related to windows in the 9'-12' floor plate height. The gut'ages are oriented to the internal part of Lot 1 and will have minimal visual impact on neighboring parcels. The overall design contributes to the visual character of the city. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Findin_q: The applicant proposes that exterior lighting will be kept to a minimum, using 60 watt downlights in the ent5.' and garage areas. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Comments 7 Staff Finding: The development has been clustered, while allowing smaller lot free-market units within the complex. 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: The applicant has indicated that all sidewalks, utilities, street paving and 6urb and gutter installation will be borne by the applicant. The Engineering Dept. has included numerous requirements in their referral memo. attached as Exhibit "C ." tn reviewing these requirements, it does not appear that there are any major issues which cannot be resolved prior to building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy. Both the Water Dept. and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have indicated that they have the capacity to serve this project. Both utilities have requested the submittal of a utility plan for their review. This has been included as a condition of approval. The ACSD has. indicated that service from Aene Ct. may not work due to grade considerations and an easement may be required on the west side of the property causin~ units I and J to move to the east. The trench drain in the parking area must be routed to a dry well or storm sewer and not connected to the District system. It is likely that a main line extension may be necessary. Easements for such an extension will be necessary and should be included on the final plat. The existing 8" water line will need to be extended to near the end of Robinson Dr., recormecting existing service lines serving 3 existing homes and installing a fire hydrant. The applicant has agreed to provide a 10' water line easement along the westerly boundary of free market Lot A. This will allow the Water Dept. to connect several "dead-end" lines in the vicinity of Snyder. The easements for these water lines should be included on the final plat. The proposed access way and fire suppression system has been designed to accommodate the Fire Marshall's requirements. 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Ever:,,I dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use b> through traffic. Staff Comments 8 c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arteriaI roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Ever5' residential building shall not be farther than six~~ (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nom'esidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all perlinen! cil). regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The proposed access way meets these standards. The development will pri>vide a new sidewalk along Highway 82 to better serve pedestrians in this area. Alpine Cottages: Rezoning to AH1-PUD In reviewinLz an amendment to the official zoning map. the City Council must consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with an)' applicable portions of this Title. StaffFindin_o: The proposed rezoning is not in conflict with an}' applicable portion of the Land Use Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFinding: Refer to Item IA. page 1 offhis Exhibit "B.". The amendment is consistent with the AACP. C.. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible wilh surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. StaffFindin_o: The proposed rezoning is appropriate in this area. There are three AH projects (including Snyder) in the immediate vicinity, as well as single family residences. The proposed rezoning will allow the development of a similar AH mixed housing type project. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: The applicant submitted a traffic report to the Enviromnemal Health Dept. It was determined by Enviromnental Health that the proposed rezoning will result in reduced traffic generation. 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 capaciD' of public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Comments 9 Staff Finding,: Both the Water Dept. and the ACSD have indicated enough capacity to serve this project. The project is located on an existing RFTA bus line. It is anticipated that with the four- bedroom units it is likely that families with children will move into these units. Therefore, there could be some impact on the area schools. However, because the restrictions placed on this project by the Housing office require potential residents to be Pitkin Count>' residents for the previous four years, it is very likely that the families will have already been in the school district, resulting in a minimal increase in new students. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. StaffFinding: The project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The property is being redeveloped in an already developed area. Approximately 56% of the property will be open space. To the extent possible, the applicant is attempting to relocate Iarge existing trees to minimize the loss of these amenides. A drainage plan which addresses erosion control must be submined to the city engineer for their review and approval prior to building permit. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the communiB.' character in the Cit)' of Aspen. Staff Finding,: The project is designed to be similar in design to other structures in the vicinity. The residences will face the street and have front porches. Parking will be contained in the rear. Staff believes that the project will be compatible and consistent with Aspen's community character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The neighborhood has been developing with a mix of both free-market and AH housing. The project will be consistent with this change in character in this neighborhood. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. StaffFindina: The rezoning will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code and will not conflict with the public interest. Alpine Cottages: Subdivision Land that is divided into two or more lots for purposes of development is subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations. The following review criteria must be met with all subdivisions: la. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the AACP. Staff Findine,: Please refer to item 1A, page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the AACP. Staff Comments 10 lb. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the character of existing land uses. Staff Findinp: Please refer to item 1 B, Page 1 of this Exhibit "B." The subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses. lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. StaffFinding: Please refer to Item 1C, Page 2 of this Exhibit "B.'? The subdivision should not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. ld. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements 6f this title. StaffFinding: The subdivision will be in compliance with all subdivision requirements. 2a. Land suitability StaffFindino: The land is suitable for development. There are no known hazards that could impact the development. 2b. Spatial Patterns efficient Staff Findine,: There do not appear to be any inefficiencies with space. The utilities exist to the site and will be improved to better serve the site and adjacent parcels. 3. Improvements a. Water. StaffFinding: Please refer to item 11, page 8 of this Exhibit "B." Water lines will need to be extended and easements for these extensions will be granted by the applicant. b. Sewer. Staff Findine: Please refer to item 11, page 8. ACSD has indicated that sewer sere'ice to Aene Ct. may not work .due to grades. A sewer easement and line may need to be located along the western property line. The applicant is required to submit a utility report to both ACSD and the Wat,er Dept. prior to issuance of building permit. c. Electricit).' Staff Findin~: Holy Cross Electric currently serves the propert}' with overhead lines. New service will come underground from under Aene Ct. to a transformer located on a utility easement on Lot D. the overhead line adjacent to Highway 82 will be extended vertically for safety reasons per Holy Cross Electric Association's req.uest. Staff Comments 11 d. Telephone, natural gas, and cable TV. Staff Finding: All of these utilities exist and will be extended where necessary, to serve the project. e. Easements Staff Finding: The existing driveway easement to Lot 2. Ferguson Exemption will be vacated and a new easement agreement will be recorded with the final plat. A new emergency access easement, utility easem.ents, and trail easement will be recorded on the final plat. f. Sidewalks, curb and gutter. Staff Findin ~: New sidewalks will be installed along Highway 82 and Aene Ct. A new concrete sidewalk will also be installed along the west property line to connect the project to Highway 82. The Highway 82 curb and guner will be extended up Aene Ct., and a new handicap ramp will be placed near the intersection. g. Fire Protection Staff Finding: All units will be sprinkled for fire safety purposes. The existing fire hydrant will be slightly relocate& An emergency access easement will be granted between Lots B and C. at the request of the Fire Marshall. , h. Drainage. StaffFinding: The applicant has indicated that dry xvells will be used to retain the historic storm water flows on-site. A drainage plan must be submitted for revie,~' and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. i. Roads. StaffFinding: Both Aene Ct. and Robinson Rd. will be improved and paved at the applicant's expense. j. Final Plat Staff Finding: Upon final approval by the City Council, the applicant will record a final plat which reflects all of the subdivision requirements for this project. The neighbors of this project have expressed a desire to have Aene Ct. changed to Camelot Ct. As part of the final plat submission, another page with signature blocks for all five owners with an interest in Aerie Ct. will be recorded, officially changing this name, with City Council's approval. This has been included as a condition of approval. Alpine Cottages: Vested Rights Unless specificall}' requested by the applicant. the normal vesting of any project approval is eighteen (18) months. The applicant is requesting vesting for this project which would Staff Comments 12 extend for a period of three (3) >'ears. There are no criteria which must be met in order be fully vested. Staff Comments 13 DRAFT M2EMORAJCl) LrM To: Milch Haas, Project Planner Thru: Nick Adeh. City Engineer From: Ross C. Soderstrom. Project Engineer Date: April 29. 1998 Re: Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Subdivision, PIjI}, Rezoning, GMQS Exemption, Special Review for Parking, and A.Itl Lot Area Limitations Reviews - Physical Address: 1240 East Cooper Avenue, Ci~, of Aspen. CO Legal Description: A tract of land situate in the Riverside Addition to the City of Aspen. consisting of I_ot 3, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. and a metes and bounds description of a parcel situate between said lot. the rights-of-way of Aene Park and East Cooper Avenue. and Lot B. Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. containing 0,893 Acres. more or less. Ci~' of Aspen. CO. Parcel ID No.: After re% iewing the above referenced application and making a site visit. I am reporting the combined comments made by the members of the DRC: [Site conditions at the time of site visit: April 22. 1998 and during subsequent site visits: no snow cover, clear.] Discussion: As submitted. the subdivision/PUD application is incomplete and should not be considered further until the applicant has provided a complete application. For the applicant' s benefit, the following comments are made at this time, based upon the submitted conceptual plans. to minimize future revisions. Neither an utility plan nor a title policy were provided with the initial application. The utility. plan provided on May 12, 1998, does not meet the standards nor spatial requirements for extension of utilities which will be necessar.y since this project is located at the periphery of the existing utility. systems which are not presently adequate to serve this proposed development. The title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, (also delivered May 12, 1998) is not current as required by City code and is missing the pages following the first page of Schedule B. At this time it appears that the hiatus between proposed Alpine Conages Lots "A" and "B" and the Snyder property is actually a remainder parcel of un-vacated public right of way of East Ciri:uit Avenue. As successor to Pitkin County of public fights-of-way annexed in to the municipal boundaries, it appears this parcel belongs to the City of Aspen. We are continuing to review the chain of title of the hiatus located between common Area -~3, Woemdle Subdivision, and the subject propercy(given the out of date title report). 1. Application: Since this proposed development is in an area at the periphery of the existing utility systems, some line extensions and improvements will be necessary to provide service to this development. The DRC1 IAggDOC 1 OF7 Memo - A)pine Cori~.,es Aflbrdible Housing Subdivision. PtrD. Rezoning. GMQS Exemption. Speck~] R¢~ iew lbr P~in~. ~d AH 1 Lo~ DbFT applicant should meet w~th each o~the utHi~ provedors to veri~, the se~ice~bH~ oFthe project. the need For extensions ~d improvemen~ to the utHiD' systems, and division ofresponsibH)~ beacon developer ~d miI~' provedors for m~in~ required )mprovemen~ before the application is reviewed ~nher. ~e utHi~' pl~s need to be completed {si~ed and s~mped) by a cu~ently l~censed Colorado civil en~eer (l~censure required by und~ CRS 12-25-105). The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the form(s) of development requested in the application. 2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use. densit', or timing ofconirmction of the project change. or the site. parking or utili~' plans for this project change subsequent to this review. a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for revie~ and re-evaluation. The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (dated April 16. 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations ma.x change in response to changes in the use, densit>.'. or timing of the construction of the project. or changes in the site. parking or utili~' designs. 3. Prior Approvals and Agreements: The proposed building envelopes of the tbur (4) free market lots encroach into the open space easement defined in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption in the area of the former East Circuit Avenue rig. hi-of-way. Such restrictions are typically defined as reservations tarruing with the title of the land in the vacated right-of-way. There are approximately a dozen exceptions to the title reports regarding prior agreements, subdivisions and easements which may impact the developable area of this project or otherwise influence the use. extent and location of specific features and .types of improvements, including public utilities. These prior agreements are under reviews. This review will also consider prior development ageements and conditions which have not been completed to date, We request additional information about this aspect of the chain of title and the prior approvals applied to this prope~ in order m fully evaluate the title and reservations of the proper~.'. 4. Utilities & Services: Apart from the discussion below of the water distribution system. the application does not include plans nor letters of serviceabili~' from the several utili~' providers serving the area of the proposed development. Coordination of the extension of uiilities. possible dedication of utili~ and access easements, and coordination of the utility. systems with the site design is a requirement of the application for both subdivision and PUD. The proposed pl~ does not provide adequate width for separation of utilities and excavation through the proposed Robinson Road although a main line extension will be required for the sanitary. sewer. 5, City. Water Dept.: During the site visit on April 22, 1998, the applicant (Timothy Semrau) met with Phil Overeynder and conceptually agreed to an extension of the water main through the project to connect with water mains extended from Midland Avenue through the Snyder ProperI.e.'. This is contingent upon granting of an utili~ easement along the westerly side of the proposed Lot A and agreement of the Robinsons (ovmers of the adjacent lot to the west) to the relocation of two spruce trees to be ~ansplanted on Robinson' s proper'~.' instead of within the propose water easement aliamont. Division of costs for extension of the water. distribution system will need to be negotiated with the Ci~' Water Dept.. (The utilit2,.' plan provided on May 12, 1998. included undersized water mains.) DRCI i.-x.98DOC 2OF 7 Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable Homing Subdivision. PUD. Rezoning. GMQS IixempIion. S~;ial Review tbr Parking. ~d AHI Lot Area Limitations Reviev, s DRAFT The Ciry's water distribution system presently consists of three terminal water mains serving this neighborhood. The existing configuration does not provide adequate flow and pressure to maintain fire suppression capacid' in the distribution system without extending and interconnecting the water mains to form a looped system. The extension of a water distribution main in the common access driveway with a new fire hydrant is required to provide water service. Continuation of the water main through this propert).' into the Snyder property. will assist in making the necessary. extensions to the water distribution system. Coordination of the water main easement and the trail easement is an alternative that the applicant and the citS.' staff will need to evaluate. 6. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: This proposed development xv_ill need to construct a main line extension of the sanitary. sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building. Tile District will not provide service to this development based upon the prop?seal configuration shown in the schematic drawing. 7. Trash and Recycling Areas, Snow Storage and Mail BoxeS: The site plan should include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-site snow storage. The applicant should consider a common mailbox area for the entire development 1o facilitate deliver2..' and reduce congestion. (None of these are represented in the plans.) 8. Utilit?.' & Service Easements: The proposed subdivision should include easements for utilit2: pedestals within the properr>.' boundaries and not in the public nor private rifts-of-way where these cabinets will obstruct the driveable width of the right-of-way. The proposed utili~.' easement in the northeasterl.x comer of Lot D may not be a serviceable location depending upon the r>.-pes of utilities requiring an under,_m'ound or a $urthce fixture. 9. Riverside Irrigation Ditch: ' The Riverside Irrigation. Ditch crosses the southwesterly comer of the propert2j, flowing from the culvert under Hi~way 82 toward Lot B, Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. Although the previous propert3,' owners of the Alpine Lodge have pumped water from this ditch for landscape irrigation for several years, we have not received documentation of a water fi~t in the Riverside Ditch which runs with this propert}.'. Unless this propert}.' owner can provide documentation verifying his water rigts in this irrigation ditch, we recommend that the property o~=er establish a raw water lease ageement with the City Water Department for use a portion of the City's water allocation in this ditch. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is presented to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch easement. I0. City Parks Department: There are a couple possibilities for extension and inter-connection of the existing Cil'y trail system through this proposed development and the Parks Dept. wishes to discuss these further with the applicant to coordinate trail access. This may coincide with easements needed for extension of the water mains throug.h the proposed development. The Ci~, will request dedication of pedestrian trails through the proposed development once the locations and dimensions are determined. DRC 1 IA98 DOC 3OF 7 Memo - Alpine Cott~,es Aflbrdable Ho~ing Subdivision. PUD, Rezoning, GMQS ExernpllOn. Sp¢cia] P, eviex~ tbr Parking, and .-~J~l Lot .-Vea Limitations P, eviews DRAFT 1 I. Aspen Volunteer Fire Department: The entire development wil] need to be protected by fire 'sprinklering and the applicant has proposed retocating the existing fire hydrant at the comer of Ache Road and Highway 32 a few feet. The fLre access is acceptable at 16 ft width of pavement and an additional 2 ft clear passage on each side of the access way (Unit C may not be moved closer to the access driveway than already represented). 12. Environmental Health: Due to the number of dwelling units proposed in the development and the distance to the commercial area of the cit2,.', the proposed mitigation measures in sidewalks and paving of the access driveway and proximity to public transit. fulfill the mitigation requirements for vehicular traffic. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings and the standard fugitive dust control permit will be required. as applicable. with the building permit application. 13. Access to Streets: The plans are not clear in the identification of the ownership and status of the proposed Robinson Road which is identified as an easement although this access way is not pan of any of the lots. It either needs to be incorporated into the adjoining lots by extension of the lot lines or be identified as a separate lot with common access conditions for all adjoining property owners. This access way, as proposed. is too narrow to be dedicated to the public and ~hould remain a private access way and common utitiR.' easement as previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. (Providing ofutilities may necessitate a x~ider · access x~a.'. ~vhich ~outd alter the site plans. i As shown. the surface drainage from this area will be retained x~ithin the properr}.'. Since the access way is presently norroy, or than a standard cir,.' alIey. it would be more appropriate to name it "Robinson Alley" to connote the sub-standard width and atypical construction (re; 'erse crowned with drainage catchbasins centered in the driveable surface width). As a condition of approval. this development will provide common access to Lot B. Ferguson Subdivision Exemption. similar to the access provided to the Robinson propert}.' through the access driveway. It is appropriate to restore access for this adjoining lot which wilI facilitate the re-development of the properr}.' and elimination of the existing curb cut onto Highway 82. The dedication of access for Lot B. Ferguson Subdivision Exemption to Robinson Road will be irrevocable so as not to isolate this adjoining properr,.'. The access driveway and utili~' easements of this propert}.' will also provide unrestricted utility. easement to Lot B, Ferguson SubdivisiOn Exemption. Aerie Park is presently a gravel surfaced access Way and cul-de-sac, As an alternative to developing this as an urban street profile, consideration should be given to providing curb, gutter and full width asphalt paving beginning at Highway 82 and extending to the up-hill side of Robinson Alley. The bulb of the cul-de-sac could be left with ~avel shoulders and drainage swales around the perimeter so as to provide an area for snow s~orage without danger of crushing the curb while plowing mow from Aene Park and the cul-de-sac. 14. Sidewalks, Street Lights, Fire Hydrants & Utilit3,' Pedestals: The proposed 16 ft wide Right-of- Way Reservation along the Highway 82frontage creates separations of 1 ft. and 3 ft, for Unit A and Unit F, respectively· The planting bed around Unit A encroaches approximately 1 ft into the Right-of-Way reservation which compromises the use of this reservation for future right-of-way development. The location and orientation of these ~'o dwelling units should be revised to increase the separation from the right-of-way reservation. treating it as a proper right-of-way. Curb. gutter and sidewalk are required to be installed along the t~vo (2) street frontages at the time of construction. DRCi !A98 DOC 4OF 7 Memo - Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing Subdivision. PUD. Rezoning. GMOS Exemption. Sg~ia] Reviev, for Parking. and AHI Lot Area Limitations Reviews DR,~FT An public access easement will be required for the sidewalk along the westerly side of Aene Road since this will lie within the property. boundaries. As the utility plans are developed, locations of pedestals and above ground appurtenances should be included on the site plan in order to coordinate the improvemems and dedicate any necessary. utility easements. Relocation of the existing fire hydrant will require a right-of-way permit from CDOT and the City' of Aspen. Depending upon the where street lights will be located. installation of these improvements may also require a right of way permit from CDOT and the City of Aspen. 15. Re-naming of Aene Road: The applicant will need to provide a petition signed by the adjacent propert'y owners requesting the change of sn'eet name from Aerie Road to Camelot Court. Since this action does not involve dedication of right-of-way, and so as not to complicate the dedication of the subdivision~.PUD by having persons without ownership or official capacity, signing on the plat we believe this action should be treated separately' from the subdivision application although simultaneously'. The subdivisionjPUD plat ma.~ reflect the street name change if the name change has been finalized before the plat is recorded. The request for street name change should also contain alternate names to provide an unique name not already in use and to be phonetically distinct so as not to be confusing to dispatching of emergency services within Pitkin Count>.. The applicant will need to provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin County and copies of postal receipts veri~ing the deliver of notice to all utility companies. all owners of property fronting on or served by Aerie Park, the Aspen Post Master. Pitkin CounD. and the Ci~' of Aspen. 16. Parking: The parking spaces located berrycon Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ftv. ide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access drive~ay. Unassiged parking spaces should conform to ci~' and .-MDA standards in size. number,. accessibiliD'. slope. 17. Traffic and Street Signage: The developer will be responsible for coordinating additions and changes to the traffic and street signage in and around this proposed development in accordance with City' and CDOT standards. If Aerie Road is renamed. the developer will purchase the new street name sign(s) from the City' Streets Dept. and install the signts) as required by the City Streets Dept. 18. Drainage Improvements: The application did not include a geotecknical investigation of the soils nor a drainage repor~ for the preliminary sizing of the drainage facilities. If the proposed drainage system will rely upon injection or infiltration, rather than detention alone, the geotechnical report will be required to assure the feasibililS' and sizing of the drainage facilities. Robinson Road should be graded with a his point at the propercy,' line with Aerie Road so as to contain the surface drainage within the Robinson Road drainage system. 19. Survey Monuments and Subdivision / PU'I) Plat: The developer will need to tie this subdivision into the Cin."s survey control grid. The new range point(s) and box(es) for the subdivision will be located in locations selected by the City' Engineer and conform to City' standards for sun'ey monuments, DRC1 IAgg DOC 5OF 7 Memo - ,Mpine Cottages Aflbrdable Hoeing Subdivision· PUD. RCzoning, GMQS Exemption. Speci~J Re% l~',~ Ibr P~king, ~d .~ I Lot D~FT ~e o~er will be required to prepre and record a subdivision / P~ plat according to sta~e ~d ci~' smndrds. ~e prope~ comers of ffie new lots wilt be su~eyed ~d monumented before recording.offfie plat. New exist~g prope~' monumen~ will be protected du~ng co~ction issu~ce of any C.O, Si~amre blocks will be included for the Ci~' Parks D~ecmr for accep~ce of the ~ai] e~ements ~d the several utili~' proriders including the representative of me o~ers or pflnciple water holder in the Riverside Ditch. 20. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping plan indicates planting new trees in the 5 fi space along the north side of Lot 2 in the area identified as the fire access, in the 5 ft utili~. easement on the south side of Lot 2. in the I 0 ft utili~5' easement on the west side of Lot 1. and either over or close to the locations ofd.rywells "C". "D". and "E", The fire access along Me north side of Building No. 5 may not be obsrcuited by trees nor shrubbeD', and trees should not be planted in utili~' easements nor over shallow structures like the d~'wells. The landscaping plan will need to be revised to place the trees elsewhere. 21. Construction Impacts: The developer will need to provide plans in the construction plans submined for the building permit(s) which include: surging and mitigating traffic. hauling and deliver' routes: · vehicle parking: equipment and materials staging areas: temporaW' drainage. erosion and sedimenmtion control during construction. and provision of temporary utilities. The intent of the plans is to minimize the den-imemaI · impacts To the public rights-of-way and to adjacent propeR'and neighbors· 22. Public Improvements and Landscaping Security: The property. owner will need to post financial securities. acceptable to the Cir,.' Engineer. for the public improvements and landscaping in the public rift-of-way. The securi~' will be in the amount 0f 100% of the value of the work as estimated b.~ the City Engineer. 23. Planned Unit Development: Topics specific to PUD have been incorporated in other sections of this memorandum. 24. Construction Impacts: The developer will be responsible to provide mmporary utilit2: and drainage services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during construction. An erosion and sediment controI plan will be included in the plans provided for the building permit. 25. CDOT Right-of-Way Permit: The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work (relocation of the e.,dsting fire hydrant) and will follow Me most stringent permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ. 26. Condominiumization: For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches. The general common elements and limited common elements will be labeled, dimensioned and identified on the condominium plat recorded after substantial completion of the buildings and site. The condominium plat will be recorded prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the project. The abutting subdivisions and lots will also be shov,~ on the subdivision plat as required by Aspen Municipal Code. DRC I I A98,DOC 6OF 7 Memo - Alpine Co=ages Affordable Housing Subdivision. PUD. Rezonin.~. GMQS Exemption. Special Review for parking, and AHI Lot DRAFT 17. Improvement Districts: The prope~rtl..I owner is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the propert),' under an assessment formula. The a~eement would be executed and recorded condurrent with recording the subdivision plat. 18. As-Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the Aspert/Pitkin Count' Information Services Dept. as-buihs drawings for the project showing the proper'q,.' lines, building footprint, easements. encroach, mems. entry points for utilities entering the property. boundaries and any other improvements. - 29. Work in the Public Rights-of-Way: Given the continuous problems ofunapproved work and development in public rights-of-way and easements. we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from: Ci~' Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements. including landscaping and gading, within public rights-of-way; Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement. and irrigation systems: S:reets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts: and shall obtain permits for any work or development. including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the CiD' Communit3 Development Department (920-5090). DRC Meeting Artendees: Applicant: David Miller. represenmtix'e for applicant (Semrau Building) Staff & Referral Agencies: John Krueger. Ross Soderstrom. Stephen Ellsperman. Ed VanWalraven. Nancy MacKenzie, Phil Overeynder DRCI IA98.DOC 7OF 7 . ~.- ~ cmsGlzO~Z~O L~r'.z?V:~ ~,~.SL~s~.' .:~l~n- ca~ac:~v:o se~;e ~s preje~. Se~dc~ is ccn:mgenr ~pcn compii~nc~ ..vi~n :he Di$~nc~'i r~ies. r~iancns. ~d scec~ca~icns wbjch ~ on ~ie at :he Disz~c: md co{l~on ~Kem a~eemenl ~e requ.~ed ~or ~n ~e e~e~icns. ~¢ p~e~'crk for av~zDie ~I a~ b~iness c~c~. The Dis~ '~E requ~es e~emen:s fcr '~e m~ ~e e~ensicns. re~ P~or ~o u~ con~c~ ~ mu~ be piac~ m escrDw ~th !he Di~ :o.cover cosls cfre~e~g ~he ~e~ed pi~s for the e~ens~cn ~d :o zcver our ccs~ of obse~ ccnszr~on of :he SetAce ~cm Aerie Ccu~ may not ~ork due :o ~de :g~{de~dons ~d ~ ~ement may be r~ on ~e we~ s{de o{~e ~rope~' c~g ~ I ~d I :o be mov~ ~o ~e e~t. ~e app~cadon ~ sho~'s a ~ench ~ ~ ~e p~g ~e~ which mu~ be rouz~ ;o a ~ well or ~o~ sewer ~d no~ co~e~ ~o ~e Dis~ ~stem. We wo~d ~e :o review :he dr~e for ~e proj~ once ~ey ~e av~ie. I wo~d enco~e ~e appHc~S enpeer :o conza~ ~e mpe~zendent Tom B~ewe~ for a de~ed renew of ~e pre~ on-site pi~S. PIece c~ ~you have ~y que~ons. S~c~r~y, B~ce Mz:he~y Di~c: M~er MEMORANDUM TO: Ju:!e Ann 'Ncccs. C:mrrtunity nevei¢cment ne~t. FROM: Cinay C.',r:~ensen. ~cusing Office EIAT=-: May ~2. lgg~. RE: Aj~ne C.~l:acjes Aff'cl~ai~te Hauling $L~MMARY: 'R.m ~emmu an A,'itc-nacte '~c~sin~ TOTAL R~M~DA~ON: ~ C~crer ~1 ~e RC un~ ~o a ~i~m hc~en~ m ~ ~ ~ns; ORDINANCE NO. 18 (SERIES OF t998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING, CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION, AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION AND SCORING PROCEDURES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FREE-MARKET-AH ASSOCIATED, APPROVAL OF THE METHOD IN WHICH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS TO BE PROVIDED, VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND PARTIAL WAIVER OF PARK LAND DEDICATION FEES, FOR THE ALPINE COTTAGES, 1240 EAST COOPER AVE., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, Parcel ID No. 2737-181-00-016 WHEREAS, Larry Saliterman, in association with Semrau Building and Design (applicant). submitted an application (development proposal) to the Community Development Department for the development of 10 deed restricted affordable units and ~ree-market-AH associated lots at 1240 East Cooper Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a rezoning to AH 1-PUD, conceptual and final planned unit development approval, subdivision. an exemption from the growth management competition and scoring procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH associated, approval of the method in which affordable housing is to be provided, vested property rights, partial waiver of park land dedication fees. a waiver of the "Residential Design Standards". and Special Review to establish the parking requirements and lot size; and WHEREAS. the Community Development Department, the Housing Authorikv. the City Engineer, the Fire Marshal, the Environmental Health Department, the Parks Dept. and the Building Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.38, 26.44, 26.52, 26.56.26.58, 26.64. 26.84, 26.88.26.92 and 26. 100, of the Municipal Code; and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve applications for waix'er of the "Residential Design Standards", and Special Review to establish the parking requirements and lot size and may recommend City Council approve rezoning to AH1-PUD, conceptual and final planned unit development approval, and subdivision, and did approve said requests an recommended said actions, by a 4-0 vote, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 1998; and. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Commission may recommend City Council exempt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures affordable housing and free-market-AH associated housing, and the method in which affordable housing is to be provided from the Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Sections 26.52 and 26.100. and recommended said action, by an 8-0 vote. pursuant to said sections at a duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Aspin Cky Council may approve rezoning to AH 1-PUD. conceptual 1 and final planned unit development approval, subdivision. an exemption from the growth management competition and scoring procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH associated, approval of the method in which affordable housing is to be provided, as 3yell as vested property rights, and partial waiver of park land dedication fees, pursuant to.Sections 26.08, 26.44, and 26.52, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and the Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal pursuant to said sections, reviewed and considered those recormnendations and approvals as granted by the Community Development Department, Referral Agencies, the Growth Management Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing held June 22, 1998, and July 13, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Cogunity Plan. and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare purposes. NOSY, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: That it does hereby grant to Larry Saliterman, in association with Semrau Building and Design (applicant). approval ofrezoning to A1-PUD, conceptual and final planned unit development approval, subdivision, an exemption from the growth management competition and scQring procedures for affordable housing and free-market-AH associated. approval of the method in which affordable housing is to be provided, vested property rights, and a partial waiver of park land dedication fees for the subject pai'cel, the Alpine Cottages, 1240 East Cooper Ave., City of Aspen parcel number 2737-181-00-016, with the conditions of approval delineated in Section 3 below. Section 2: The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and is hereby amended to reflect the AH1-PUD designation. Section 3: Conditions of Approval: 1. That ten (10) deed-restricted units and four (4) free-market-AH associated allotments. be exempted from Growth Management and that this be the approved method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Cottages; 2. That the applicant agree to the conditions placed on the project by the housing board (or as amended by the City Council), including: · The RO units will have a 3% appreciation cap: · The applicant will sell the RO units to a minimum household size of three persons; · Income and asset restrictions should be based on a maximum of an $800.000 price; · The maximum price for the RO units be set at $550,000; · The RO units be sold to households who have worked in Pitkin County a minimum of the last four years consecutivety; and · That the category units be opened to the public, with the exception of the first right of refusal for Friedl Pfeifer's grandchildren mentioned in the contract; (this is a condition that the applicant is particularly not in agreement with, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended deleting as part of their motion); 3. That a utility plan be submitted to the Water Dept., the ACSD, and the City Engineer for their review and approval prior to issuance of building permit; 4. All legal instruments associated with the access easement to Lot B, Ferguson Exemption, the emergency access easement located between proposed Lots B and C. utility easements, and the 10' trail easement between Aene Ct. and Snyder be recorded as pan of the final plat;. ' 5. That as pan of the final plat submission. another page with signature blocks for all five o~ers with an interest in Aene Ct. be recorded, officially changing the name from Aene Ct. to a name suitable to the neighbors and City Council; 6. Lighting should be downcast and not used to call attention to architectural features; 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to gain approval for a line extension request. a collection system agreement, and possibly a shared service agreement fo~ each unit from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: 8. The applicant shall submit a drainage report prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after construction; 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan; 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain the necessary · permits from the Environmental Health Department for any fireplaces or woodbuming devices; 11. Asbestos testing of the existing buildings will be required, as applicable, with the building permit application; 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GtS data including propert>' lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachmerits; 13. That the applicant pay fees-in-lieu of the school land dedication. and that the payment be made prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of an}' building pem~its for the residential lots; 14. That the remaining required park fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permit; 15. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall repair any public right-of-way damaged during construction; 16. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers mhst be installed on the applicant's property. and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the final plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed; 17. A current title policy for the Ferguson Subdivision, Lot 3, must be submitted prior to filing of the final plat; 18. Additional information about the chain of title and the prior approvals regarding the open space reservation must be provided prior to filing of the final plat; 19. The applicant will grant a utility easement along the westerly side of proposed Lot A and will work with the adjacent owners (Robinson) to attempt to get agreement to relocate two spruce trees onto Robinson's propert}, instead of within the propose water easement alignment. Division of costs for extension of the water distribution system will need to be negotiated with the City Water Dept.; . 20. The proposed development shall construct, at its expense, a main line extension of the sanimD' sewer system and provide individual sewer service lines to each individual building. 21. The site plan shall include areas for trash and recycling containers and for on-site snow storage; 22. The Robinson Rd. access way, as proposed, is too narrow to be dedicated to the public and should remain a private access way and common utility easement as · previously dedicated in the Ferguson Subdivision Exemption; 23. In regards to changing the street name, the applicant will need to do adequate historical research for an appropriate name and resubmit the name to City Council for their approval. Additionally, the applicant must provide a letter of clearance from Pitkin Count>' and copies of postal receipts veri6'ing the deliver of notice to all utility companies, all owners of property fronting on or served by Aene Ct., the Aspen Postmaster, Pitkin Count}', and the City of Aspen; 24. The parking ~paces located bem, een Units G & J need to be widened to 8.5 ft wide (minimum) and should have a barrier curb or planting median separating these spaces from the access driveway. Unassigned parking spaces should conform to city and ADA standards in size, number, accessibility, slope; 25. The applicant will need to provide plans in the construction plans submitted for the building permit(s) which include: staging and mitigating traffic, hauling and aleliveD· routes; vehicle parking; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and sedimentation control during construction, and provision oftemporaD' utilities; 26, The applicant will be responsible to provide temporary utility and drainage services to the site and neighboring properties which may be impacted by disruption of utilities during construction; 4 27. The applicant will secure all permits required by CDOT prior to commencing work (relocation of the existing fire hydrant) and will follow the most stringent permit requirements if the requirements of any permits differ; 28. For purposes of operation, maintenance and administration, each dwelling unit will need to have separate utility services, metering and isolation valves and switches; 29.' The applicant is required to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded concurrent with recording the subdivision plat; 30. Given the continuous problems ofunapproved work and d~velopment in public rights-of-way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows: · The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights-of-way: · Parks Department (920-5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation systems; · Streets Department (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and · permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of- way from the City Community Development Department (920-5090); 31. Unless the applicant can provide documentation verifying his water rights in this irrigation ditch, the propert}' owner should establish a raw water lease agreement with the City Water Department for use of a portion of the City's water allocation in the Riverside irrigation ditch for purposes of irrigation; 32. The Ferguson Subdivision Exemption plat shows an eight (8) ft wide easement centered on the ditch flowline. Unless some other documentation is prosed)ted to substantiate another dimension, an eight (8) ft wide easement will be suitable for this ditch easement; 33. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Count>' Clerk and Recorder; 34. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as heroin awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation .presented before the Growth Management Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and/or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth heroin, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2). City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested Property Rights status for the site specific 5 development plan for the Alpine Cottages, 1240 East Cooper Ave., as approved by Ordinance Number 18, Series or' 1998, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance is approved with the following conditions: 1. The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approvaI shall result in forfeiture of said vested propert)' rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum anB judicial review: except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date Of publication provided for in Section 26.52.080(D). 3. Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property rimht. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 5. The establishment herein of a vested propert)' right shall not preclude the application of ordinance or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subjec~ to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, pittrobing. electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval. the developer shall abide by an)' and all such building. fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in ~Titing. Section 6: Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 (D) of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Section 7: That the Cit}' Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a cop)' of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin Count>' Clerk and Recorder. Section 8: This Ordinance shall not affect an)' existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. .Section 9: 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 6 a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 10: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22nd day of June, 1998, and continued to the t3th day of July, 1998 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same 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 261h day of May, 1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Cin:' Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: KathB.'n S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved ~his 13th day of July. 1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Cin.- Attorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathn.'n S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION OF TI:FF GROWTH MA.NAGE,MENT CONEvlBSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TIlE ALLOTMENT OF TEN (10) DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSrNG UNITS AiND FOUR (4) AH ASSOCIATED FREE-.MARKET UNITS .AiND TttE MiETHOD OF PROVIDI1NG AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR TIlE .-kLPINE COTTAGES PROJECT, LOCATED AT 1240 EAST COOPER AVE., .-MND LOT 3, FERGUSON EXEMPTION. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF .-~SPEN P.a~RCEL .NO. 2737-181-00-016 Resolution #98- WHEREAS, the Commum~,.' Development Depasuaent received an application from Larry, Saliterman in association with Semrau Building and Design. applicant. requesting approv~ for the ailomaent of ten (t 0) deed restricted affordable housing units and four (4'1 AH associated free-market units on !and located at 1240 East Cooper Ave.. and Lot 3. Ferguson Exemption. Ci~' and Townsite of Aspen: anck WHEREAS, the application was received by the Cornmuni~' Development Depmhx~ent wkich reviewed the proposal to determine if the proposed development will be consistent with the Aspen .~rea Commurxi~, Plan and other adopted plans. and whether the proposed development will comply with all applicable requirements of the CiW Code: and. WEREAS, the Corrm~ua~' Development Department recommended approvaj of the proposal, finding that the applicable AH housing requirements are as follows: 1. Deed resu-icted units to be a minimum of 70% of the project mix: 2. Category, deed restricted units to be a minimum of 40%: 3. A maximum of 30% free-market malts/bedrooms; and that the applicant is proposing that 71% of the project be deed restricted. that category, umts make up 51% of the mix, and that the free-market component be comprised of 29% of the total units and 30% of the total bedroom, and that this mix meets the miniml.l~ st. al:ldards se'~ forth in the code; and WI:~REAS, during a regular meeting on May 19, 1998, the Growth Management Commission, in accordance with the land use code, Section 26.100.050, "All affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City Council and its housing designee, shall be exempt fi'om the growth management competition and scoring procedures by City Council," and "Free market residential development in the A j.f zone district shall be exempt~'om the growth management competition and scoring procedures, "determined that this proposal is eli~bte to be exempt; and D FT WHEREAS, these exemptions a~ deducted from the pool of annuzj allo:nenrs and from the metro area development ceilings, and there are adequate allotments available to serve this project: and WHEREAS, during a r~.m.Llay meeting .on ~lay 19. 1998. the Growth Managemere Commission recommended. by an 8-0 vote. the City Council approve the · llo~-nent often (10) deed resmiaed affordable housing umts and fbur (4~ .-LI-I associmed free-market units and ~hat v2~js be the method of providing affordable housing for the Alpine Corm-ges projet: as recommended by the Commum~,' Development Dep~rb.uem in theLr memo dated May 19, 1998; and. WI-IEREAS, the proposed developmere is fu~her subject :o Concepr~,~l/~Final PL'D. Rezoning, Subdivision, Special Review. and Residential Desi_m~ approval pu~uam to fie Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Gro~h ~lana~emen~ Commission thin the Ci~' Council should approve the allotment of ten t l 0) deed res~cted affordable housin8 units and four (4) .-~--I associated free-market um:s and that this be the method of providin~ affordable housin8 for the .~Ipine Couages project, without conditions. APPROVED by the Grow~ Man,~ement Commission at its regular meeting on May 1 1998. APPROVED AS TO FO1;L~,I: GROV~TH M_A.NAGE.~IZE~N'I' CO~'vIISSION: Ci~' Attorney Sara Cranon. Ch~ ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Depul7 Cit7 Clerk ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COM:~IISSION MAY 19. 1998 play but the community character would matter if this house was demolished and replaced with something as important to the community as a lesser remodeled Bayer house. He said any essence of that Bayer box would dictate in some way a calming of the speculative explosion that would happen if it was not restricted. . Moohey said it met the archite'cture importance and the designer importance. He noted that a respectful desi__~n quality has to accompany what Bayer has put there. Hunt asked if the motion could include the maj.or caution to city council concerning this property~ that some believe the historical significance of this property could be totally lost as far as a community benefit with improper development. Haas said what you are being asked was as the house that sits on the property right now, today; should it be designated a landmark according to these 5 criteria (must meet 2 of the 5). Chaikovska said it did not meet the criteria but Mooney's argument of the lesser of two evils. Hoofer noted a condition could be added to have tight controls on development. MOTION: Tim Moohey moved to advise City. Council to designate 240 Lake Avenue as Historic Landmark finding that standards B and C of Section 26.76.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code have been met with the consideration that the future plans of redevelnpment maximize the historic statement of the house. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 3-1. PUBLIC H~.-LR.UNG: " AI PINF'COTTAGF. S RF. ZO.NTNG TO AH, PUD, SI.3BDI~'ISION, SPECIAL RFVIKW. GMQS EXFMPTION & ORDINANCE 30 VARIANCE Sara Gallon opened the public hearing. The notice was reviewed by the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoofer and the commission had the authority to proceed. Julie Ann Wo'od, Staff, said there were two levels of review thai will take place. · The first set of review criteria would stop with P&Z approval or denial; off-street parking requirements, density limitation and variance from the volume provision of the residential design standards. She stated those that were acted on tonight were final. Woods said after the rulings tonight, City Council will review and conduct a public hearing on May 26, 1998; rezoning to AH-1 PLrD, consolidated conceptual and final PUD and subdivision· 4 ASPEN PLAN~'NING & 7ONING COM-MISSION MAY 19. t998 Tim Semrau, representative for applicant, stated that he met with the city engineer for the utility plan with easily workable concerns. He noted the only condition that they did not agree with was from housing; opening the lottery. units to the public. Carton asked where the recycling and trash area would be located. Sernrau replied in the garage; every unit has a garage. Tim Mooney inquired if the fight-of-first refusal could include the Pfeifer grand children by name and that housing wanted to have units in the lottery.. Saliterman stated they have made commitments to people. Semrau said the lottery. would take time and they are t~'ing to get into the ground by the end of July. He said there was a waiting list now which they would like to honor. Carton maintained this project should be held hostage to something the housing authority was considering changing. She said as long as the developer chooses people Who fit the housing guidelines, is not wrong as a condition of approval. Hunt agreed and future private developments could obtain a consortlure of people together for financing which should not be excluded from the possibilities of affordable housing. Gar~on gave common c, round as an example. David Starensier, public, said he lived in an RO unit across the street and inquired about the change in sales percentage from ~?/o to 3%. He said currently the guidelines say 4%; that was a 20% drop in resale value at 3%. Carton noted that tomorrow night the housing meeting would be the forum for the RO resale input. There was discussion of the housing guidelines. current and proposed. Moohey questioned why there was a hardship in designing this structure without the variance. Semrau answered the gables were tall and placing an 8' patio door with a 2' transom made for additional light and a better elevation. Carton asked why the gables were that tall. Semrau replied that was how the building looked so good. He said it was only 1' over the limit. Woods stated the energy efficiency taking light from the south and east for affordable housing was a plus. Hoofer asked for the hardship determination. Woods answered it furthered the goals of the AACP, with quality construction. Carton inquired as to the 3 big beautiful trees. Semrau responded that 1 remains, 1 was successfully moved and the 3rd died when moved; which wilt be mitigated. He said about 10 other trees have been moved on the site. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the variance to the volume standard for the transom windows in the gable ends on the multi-family 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 19. 1998 building, the special review for parking as proposed, and the special review to establish the AH1-PU'D lot area requirements as suggested by the applicant, without conditions for Alpine Cottages. Tim Moohey second. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Roger Hunt further moved to recommend app'roval of the consolidated conceptual/final PUD, rezoning to .,hLI1-PUD, and subdivision for the Alpine Cottages to the City..Council with conditions 141 outlined in the Community. Development Staff memo dated May 19, 1998 with the deletion of the 6th bullet under condition 2. Tim Moohey second. APPROVED 4-0: PL'BLIC HEARING: BIE.N.'NIAI. RFVIEW OF THE MFADOV~'S SPA MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing on Biennial review of the Meadows SPA to June 2, 1998. Tim Moohey. second. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINLiD PUBLIC HE.-LR_ING: 930 KING STREFT ADU and LA.N'DNIARKDESIGNATION Sara Carton, Chairperson, opened the continued public hearing. Julie Ann Woods noted the commission had the information from the May 5, 1998 meeting with the addition of a petition. She added a cover memo noting Standard C. She said there was a historic lot split that goes onto council from HPC. Garton stated that HPC recommended the two curb cuts. Augie Reno, architect for applicant, responded that the HPC recommended having the two separate driveways. He said there was discussion that an alley was originally platted along that driveway and worked with .'Mr. Maples (north side of property) to preserve his view of Aspen Mrn. Reno noted the Neale Street side setback was 25' and King Sweet setback was 16'8" which pushed the house closer to the old house with the addition but not enough room two driveways between the houses. Garton said if the lot split goes through, there will be two different owners; therefore driveways should not be shared. Reno stated the shared driveways could cause problems and 6 6/15~8 ..................................................................................... To; ~a CiW Co~c~ From; T~o~y Se~u ~; Alpine C~g~ PUD A~ov~ De~ co~c~ member, We have followed eveW e~s~g ~ au~o~W ~ ~ ~ ~e following add~o~ vol~ ~cdo~. -Mi~m~ ~hold s~e m ~ ~ ~. -Residem ~cupi~ holehold 'i~ome/as~ res~cdon of ~,~. ~e housing ~ard h~ ~ ~r ~ ~i~on~ eon~do~ m addidon ~o ~e volun~ity propos~ ~ndidom ~ ~ not e~s~ ~ ~e c~ent ~1~. ~e applic~t ~rees wi~ ~o of ~e ~ coa~do~ ~ follows; -Residem ~cupi~ u~ ~o ~ve a 3~ ~p~adon c~ ~r ye~. -Resident Occupied ~t ~ ~ ~Id to ho~ol~ ~o ~ve work~ in Pi~ Count' a ~m~ of ~e 1~ fo~ eon~dve ye~. ~e housing ~d ~r r~ues~ ~ c~o~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~blic 10~. Si~e t~s coMjdon is ~z p~ of c~ent ~del~s, may no~ ~ p~ of ~e ~idelines, a~ ~ga~s p~or ~a~ made b~ ~e appH~ ~ elig~le buyers we ~e~ly ~est CiW C~S follow ~ ~em ~1~ a~ ~low the applicanz to se~ ca~go~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~s of ~ choice. S~erely, T~o~y ~au TSTAL Pat Spector, A.I.A. 3 Fmr Oaks, St. Louis MO 63124 } 314-552~00 May ,1998 rton, Chair REC! IVF' Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. MAY 1 Aspen, CO 81611 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Alpine Cooages Development Dear Ms. C-anon: · I am writing ~ lener as trustee on beh.l¢ of the Lorraine Stave $pector revocable living tn~t which holds title to the property and Lm~rovements on Lot 2 Block 1 Aspen Grove Subdivision (0145 Mcskimming Road), located due east of the proposed development. While we commend the developers for their approach to providing a.ffordable housing in Aspen, we wish to express the following concerns regarding the development: . Elevations seem to be designed to be seen from Highway 82 and Aene Road. We are just as concerned aboux the appearance from the North and North-East, which will be the primary etewdnons ,h,~ we see. It appears that most of the garages will be on the Nomh elevzuons. . ThedensityofdevelopmentforFergusonLot3seemtobehighwithhomesbeingbuiiton 4,526 sfto 6,090 sfsize lots. This is comparable to a down town density and is not consistent with the density of the residential housing already in place. . We have not seen any elevataons, plans or details for the free market detached houses. · There is no landscaping and visual screening shown along the prop er~y line between Ferguson Lo~ 3 and the Woemdie Subdivision. We bought and improved our property with the expectsnon of a lower density development at Ferguson Lot 3 based on the existing zoning. We urge the Corn,~i,sion to review the proposed density for appropri:a~ess to the eximng residential character that is in place. We would like to have a public review of plans for the free market unxts, prior to any approval being grauted for the development. We also strongly suggest that the "curb appeal" of the proposed development take into consideration those neighbors to the Norr. h and East and that the proposed elevations reflect such considermion. We would very much w-.~ to see enansive landscaping. including mann'e evergreens along iixe property line adjoining the Woemdle Subdivision. We regret that schedules do not permit our miendance to the public hearing. We hope our concerns will be represented and expect that you will continue to involve us in this process. Yours truly, ~e~ B~e~o~ JUL-~?-~99E 1F4:18 SEMRAEI ~[;ILDIN~ ~ Z)ESIF~I~ 7/7/98 TO; Mayor and City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Deputy Director Planning FROM: Timothy Semrau RE: Alpine Cottages Planned Unit Development Application Response to council concerns Applicable Guidelines, Codes, and Information: "Develop a "Resident Occupancy~ (R.O.) program that provides incent~'ves for the private sector to develop R.O. units that benefit the character of the community and are farni6' oriented for wortdng residents '~ Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993 "This category (RO) was created to offer the private sector an incentive to produce affordable housing for the community." 1998 Aspen/Pit. kin Cty. Housing Guidelines 'Private sector involvement is critical in order to meet our affordable housing goals." 1998 Housing Board Policy Statement "Locating a "critical mass" of residems within towt~ furthers the goals of maintaining the character of Aspen and is far superior to housing those employees in a remote location." Staff report, Snyder property PUD 1998 "The placement of citizen housing within a neighborhood and also within a larger project should preferably be dispersed among pee market units and other housing types. ln~ll development is highly desired. ' Interim Aspen Area Citizen Housing Plan, 1998 "Investigate techniques to keep R.O. units in the $175-450,000 initial and resale price range." Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993 Bqaxiffltl.m plus 4~ pe~r year since 1993) JUL-O?-IeBE 10:19 EEME~qU BQ]LD]NG ~ DESI~4 P.O~ "The consensus of the group was that RO housing is an important and viable segment of the affordable housing program in Aspen and Pitkin County. Initial sales price restriction should be fled to entry level free market housing currently at approximately $600,000 - $650,000: (Recommendation to Housing Board) Leadership Aspen Collaborative Forum "Nobody pore this political planet believes Aspen will buiM enough employee housing inside the town, and especially not within walking distance to the town core." Roaring Fork Sunday "We can't just invent regulations, we don't have that legal authority. We would be entering into deep and unsafe waters if we invent rules at the table. I think we have to be fair to everyone and follow our own rules and regulations. ~ Mayor Bennet, June 22, t998 "No matter wfmt we accomplish, it's never enough." Frank Peters, Housing Board Chairman Section 5-206.2 Affordable Housing {AI-I) A. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (All) zone district is to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate and middle income affordable housing and resident occupied housing. The zone district a[~o permits a limited component of free market units to offset the cost of developing affordable housing. Further, the lands in the Affordable Housing (AH] zone &'strict should be located within wallring distance of the center of the ciO; or on transit routes. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district. 1. Residential uses restricted to tow, moderate and middle income affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units must comprise at least seventy percent of the unit mix of the development. Free market development may comprise up to 30% of the unit mix, and forty percent of the bedroom mix of the development. Residential uses may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi family dwelling units. Note-The applicant meets or exceeds all AH code and guideline rules. JUL-O?-199E 1B:20 SEMRRO SElLPING & ,:)ESIGN F'.04 The above code, policy and COmm,m~ statements clearly show the Alpine Cottages project fulfills the spirit of the community's desires. The Housing Board (with the exception of Frank Peters), Planning and Zoning, and GMQS unanimously voted to suppont. his project, We've spent two.years and vwo million dollars creating an excellent project based on the stated desires of the COmm~'lity and the code rtl]es of the civy. The private sector has only the existing written code of the city to rely on; if a rezone is denied based on unwritten or unspoken rifles the private sector will be hesitant to come forward with future projects. Additionally, we have voluntarily imposed restrictions beyond what is curren~y required and done whatever is necessary (and will continue to do so) to create a model projec; that enhances the entrance to Aspen. I fred it hard to believe that community would prefer the (currently zoned) trophy homes rather than attractive, well designed, deed-restricted housing. Project Density: -The density and design of this project meet all current code requirements (both units and FAR), minimize automobile presence, creates pedestrian friendiy porches and sidewalks, and places the free market dwellings in the least prominent location. -Current zoning a/lows for two trophy homes plus two Resident-occupied units o. Zr a lodge expansion, one trophy home and one Resident-occupied unit. The density allowed under current zoning does not benefit the community as much as I 0 badly needed deed restricted units. The four mall free market units, bidden in the aspen grove on the north side of the parcel, will have less visua/impact than two huge trophy homes. Project Design: -All neighborhood design guidelines have been met. The deed restricted housing faces east and south to maximize views and solar gain. Trees will be moved to line the new sidewalks and attractive, neighborhood appropriate affordable housing will enhance the entrance to Aspen. Aspen log posts, rusted metal roofs, flower beds, new paving, and ener~' efficientlos w~l/make this the best affordable housing built to date. The emphasis of this project is to integrate the deed restricted units into the neighborhood fabric by using new sidewaltcs and public facing porches. Summary; -Each day valuable residents of all economic abilities leave our cornmtmity. This project is appropriate in density and wiIl provide an in-town home for ten households at no financial cost to the city'. Timothy Semrau JUL-EI?-195E 10:28 EE:MRqEj BUILDING &DESIGN P.05 Notes for City Council Meeting July 1:~ -Standing in front of Victorians at Bleeker was a woman taking a picture. I asked what she was doing, and she said it was a beautiful house and the family who live in it were very lucky. I told her it was a seven units of which five were affordable housing. She almost fell over, and said only in Aspen could it exist. -My neighbor across the sweet says he enjoys having neighbors around now. -Victorians at Bleeker was extremely high ckmsity, but it worked. Alpine Cottages is a much lower density project with everything going for it. There is a reason we received nnanimous votes from the other approving bodies (except for Frank Peters). -One of the advantages I have is the ability to customize units for the individual buyers on a prosaic basis. I carefully selected the buyers at Victorians with an eye to the future harmony of the homeowner's association. We can do things like allow dogs and other individual freedoms the city cannot do in their projects. I would like to live at Alpine Cottages and have the oppommity to select a harmonious group of people to work together in a Homeowner's Association. That's not so much to ask after the years of effort to put something Like this together, especially since it's a cun'ent rule. -The flight of professionals with their families down valley is as serious a problem as losing ski instructors or dishwashers. This project offers the type of qualit), and diversity that Aspen was once famous for. -This community needs affordable housing to survive and its not possible for the government to go it alone. It seems crazy to have hundreds of building professionals.building empty trophy homes. Many other builders would love to get involved with affordable housing if they saw any way to do it. Projects like this encourage everybody to try something different. -It seems all affordable housing projects have problems with variances, NIMBYism, or density. This is a model project in the sense that everyone wants it and it follows the spirit and letter of all existing guidelines and codes. Please give it a chance to succeed. TDTAL F'. Vm b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ~re O e cto FROM: Juli'e Ann Woods, Depull/Planning Director Acting Historic Presen, ation Officer RE: 930 King St. (No Problem Joe House) Landmark Designation and Historic Lot Split Second R. eading, Parcel I.D. 2737-073-00-037 DATE: July 13, 1998 SU~I~iARY: The applicant requests both landmark designation and approval of a historic lot split for the propert)' at 930 King St. ('No Problem Joe House). To be eligible for designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. In order to qualify for a lot split. all of the criteria set forth in Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.1 00.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G) must be met. Staff recommends approval of the landmark designation, finding that three (3) of the five landmark designation standards are met. Staff further recommends approval of the historic lot split, finding that, with conditions, the criteria for lot splits have been met. APPLICANT: No Problem Joe. LLC. represented by Gibson Reno Architects. LOCATION: 930 King Street (see attached Exhibit A vicinity map), R-1SA zone district. BACKGROUND: The site in question (approximately 13,343 s.f.) currently contains three (3) separate structures. The principal structure, or house, was probably built in the 1880's and is approximately 432 square foot in size. The one-story, cross-gabled structure has a covered front porch, three interior "rooms", typical of mining era structures, and is in extreme disrepair. The other two structures, also in poor condition, include a smokehouse (which could also have been a chicken coop at one time) and an outhouse, both of which are probably of a similar age. Although the .applicant has indicated that the ".. .house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin. which was commonly used at the beginning of this century.. ."(see attached Exhibit B, land use application), staff believes that the structure pro-dates the 20th century. The double rounded glass and panel doors and the stacked trim above the windows is more indicative of an lgg0's architectural style. The 1896 townsite map (see attached Exhibit C) indicates a structure of similar proportions was present on the site at that time. The propen)' has been highlighted on the historic inventory map, however, staff was unable to locate the inventory file for this property. The applicant proposes to landmark the property, split the lot, then redevelop the site by relocating the existing historic building on-site, renovating it, and linking it to a larger addition for a total of 1,561 s.f. (Lot 2) This includes a requested FAR Bonus of 250 square feet which could be granted by the HPC at final approval. Lot I would be developed x~th a new single family residence, including an ADU (approved by the P/arming and Zoning Commission on May 19, 1998). This residence would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lots (the two historic outbuildings will remain). Both the Historic Preservation Cornmission and the P/arming and Zoning Commission reviewed this project for Landmark status, and recommended approval (see attached minutes, Exhibits E and F). HISTORIC LANDSlARK Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/'or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to/andmark insignificant structures or sites. The City Council should focus on those which are unique or have some special value ~o the community: Ah HistoricalImportance: The structure or si~e is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political histon.' of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural sD'ie that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural n.'pe (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This structure is a good example of housing built in Aspen in the laxe 1800 's. It has a cross gable roof, front porch, two front entries, and detailing which was common to these buildings. It is one of the few historic structures left in town that remains as it was originally built with no later additions. It does appear that an addition had been placed at the rear of the house at one time, but this has been subsequently removed. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neiehborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the presen'ation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. Response: At one time, there were many miner's cabins in this neighborhood( please refer to the 1896 map). There are two others in the immediate vicinity and their preservation, together with this resource is important to maintaining the character of the area. E. Communin' Character. The structure or site is critical to the presen'ation of the character of the Aspen communit3' because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarly' to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style. and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT REVIE~,VSTANDARDS: The Historic Landmark Lot Split shall meet the requirements of Section 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), and Section 26.72.010(G). Section 26.88.030(A)(2). Subdivision Exemptions. Lot Split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met. a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and Response: The 10t has not been previously subdivided. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.040(A)( 1 )(c). Response: Two lots are created, both &which conform to the requirements of the R- 15A zone district. An Accessory Dwelling Unit has been approved for the new residence on Lot 1. c. The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.0:40(C)( 1 )(a); and Response:. No.previous lot split exemption was granted. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the requirements of this title, is submined and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additionaI units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Response: The filing of said subdivision plat shall be a condition of this approval. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. Response: The filing of said subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be a condition of this approval. f. In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. Response: No dwelling units will be demolished. The existing historic house will have an addition to the rear, if approved by the HPC at final design. g. Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family home. Response: The applicant represents that a total of two units will be created. Section 26.88.030(A)(5}. Historic Landmark Lot Snlit. The following standards must be met: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of 9.000 square feet in size and be located in the R-6 zone district or a minimum of 13,000 square feet and be located in the R-15A zone district. Response: The parcel is approximately 13,343 square feet which is larger than the required 13,000 square feet and is located in the R-15A zone district. b. The total FAR for both residences shall not exceed the floor area allowed for a duplex on the original parcel. The total FAt~ for each lot shall be noted on the Subdivision Exemption Plat. Response: The duplex FAR which would have been allowed for the lathering parcel. which in this case is 4,384 square feet, plus a possible FAR bonus (approximately 250 square feet) from HPC, will be divided between the new parcels. According to the applicant, Lot 2 will contain 1,561 s.f. (which includes and FAR bonus, if granted by the HPC). Lot I would be developed with a new single family residence, which would have approximately 2795 s.f. for a total square footage of 4,356 s.f. divided between the two lo~s. The applicant has indicated on Exhibit "D" that Lot I will have 8059.99 square feet. while Lot 2 will have 5282.66 square feet. The allowable FAR for each lot must be indicated on the plat prior to recordation. It should be noted that this is the maximum square footage allowed; slope reductions and reductions for easements will be determined by the Zoning Officer prior to the recordation of the final plat. c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district. HPC variances and bonuses are only permitted on the parcel that contains a historic structure. Response: Setback variances have been requested and approved by the HPC for the historic structure. An FAR bonus has also been requested but carmot be granted by the HPC until final review. Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(e), GMQS Exemption by the Community' Development Director, Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be exempted from residential Growth Management allocations and shall not be deducted from the pool of annual development allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. Response: An exemption by the Community Development Director will be processed following approval 0fthis application. Section 26.72.010(G), Historic Landmark Lot Split. The development of all lots created pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5) shall be reviewed by HPC at a public hearing. Response: The HPC's meeting was noticed as a public hearing. It should be noted to City Council that the neighbors to this project have objected to the proposed location of a driveway along the north propen)' line onto Neale Ave., expressed in terms of safety concerns. Though the HPC has granted conceptual approval for this project, staff expects that this issue may be revisited by the HPC at the time of final review. Should the driveway be changed to a shared driveway on King St.~ then the lot sizes may need to be modified administratively, following that approval. The City Engineer has been working with the applicant to evaluate the sight distance along Neale Ave. to determine if it meets the city's standards. At the time of this writing, the results of this study have not yet been ~nalized. Staff has artached letters of opposition as Exhibit G. RECO~IMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the landmark designation of the structure and property located at 930 King St. based on a finding that standards B (architectural importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Staff further recommends that the City Council approve the Historic Lot Split as indicated on Exhibit "D", finding that the requirements for a lot split have been met and that the lot split will further the intent of preservation by dividing the allowable square footage between the two lots as indicated, subject to the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin Count)' clerk and recorder within one hundred eight)' (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum. the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot 1 shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.t00.050(A)(2)(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the tots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both lots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot. taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The propen), shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot I containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus; if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot 1 (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots wilt conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approved by the HPC. 2. As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meet the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot~ the applicant shall sign a sidewalk, curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless othenvise amended by City Council. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "l move to approve. on second reading, Ord. No. 20. Series of 1998, Landmark Designation and the Historic Lot Split for 930 King St." CIlY MANAGER'S COM~IENTS: Exhibits: Exhibit "A' - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Applicant's Landmark Designation Application Exhibit "C" - 1896 Tow~asite Map Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Proposed Lot Split configuration Exhibit "E" - HPC Minutes dated March 25, 1998 Exhibit "F" - P&Z Minutes dated May 19, 1998 Exhibit "G" - Letters of opposition ORDINANCE No. 20 (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR AN HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT AT 930 KING STREET CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, to be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more of the five (5) standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5) and 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, an Historic Landmark Lot Split is a subdivision exemption subject to review' and approval by City Council after obtaining a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission (heroinafter HPC); and WHEREAS, the applicant, NPJ, LLC, has requested to split the 13,343 square foot parcel to create two separate single-family residential lots of 8,059.99 square feet and 5,282.66 square feet respectively; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.72.010(G) of the Municipal Code, the HPC reviewed the request for the historic lot split, and pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, the>' reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on March 25, I998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.76. 030, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the request for landmark designation at a properly noticed public hearing on May 19, 1998 and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the application and recommended approval of both the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions; and ~,rHEREAS, the Aspen City Council hai reviewed and considered the Landmark Designation and the subdivision exemption under the applicable provisions of Chapters 26.72 and 26.88 of the Municipal Code as identified heroin, has reviewed and considered those recommendations made by the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Landmark Designation and the Historic Landmark Lot Split, with conditions, meets or exceeds all applicable development standards of the above referenced Municipal Code sections; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessan.. for the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: THAT: Section 1: Pursuint to Sections 26.88.030(A)(2) and (5), 26.72.010(G), and Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified heroin, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption and the Historic Landmark Designation: 1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and, 2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes ofsubdivision as outlined in Section 26.88.010 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development; encourage the well-planned subdivision oftand by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. 3. The 1.andmark designation is appropriate, finding that standards B (arch!tecmral importance), D (neighborhood character) and E (community character) of Section 26.76.020 are met. Section 2: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council does hereby designate as an Historic Landmark and grant an Historic Landmark Lot Split subdivision exemption for 930 King Street with the following conditions: 1. A subdivision plat and subdivision exemption agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder within one hundred eight>' (180) days of final approval by City Council. Failure to record the plat and subdivision exemption agreement within the specified time limit shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. As a minimum, the subdivision plat shall: a. Meet the requirements of Section 26.88.040(D)(2)(a) of the Aspen Municipal Code; b. Contain a plat note stating that development of Lot I shall be required to mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(23(c) of the Municipal Code; c. Contain a plat note stating that the lots contained therein shall be prohibited from applying for further subdivision and any development of the lots will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application; d. The two lots created by this lot split shall have a total allowable base FAR, on both tots combined, equal to 4,384 square feet of floor area prior to consideration of potentially applicable lot area reductions (i.e., slopes, access easements, etc.). The applicant shall verify with the City Zoning Officer the total allowable FAR on each lot, taking into account any and all applicable lot area reductions. The property shall be subdivided into two parcels, Lot 1 containing 8059.99 square feet and Lot 2 containing 5282.66 square feet. Provided it is found by the Zoning Officer that no lot area reductions are required, the maximum allowable FAR on Lot 2 would be 1561 square feet of floor area (including a 250 square foot floor area bonus, if granted by the HPC) and 2795 square feet of floor area on Lot 1 (the two historic outbuildings will remain). The information verified by the City Zoning Officer shall be included on the plat, as a plat note; e. Contain a plat note stating that all new development on the lots '?,'ill conform to the dimensional requirements of the R15A zone district, except the variances approx ed by the HPC. 2, As a minimum, the subdivision exemption agreement shall include the elements outlined in Section 26.88.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and shall meeI the recording and timing requirements described in Section 26.88.030(A)(2)(e). 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on either lot. the applicant shall sign a sidewalk. curb and gutter construction agreement and pay the applicable recording fees. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by City Council. Section 3: If an3' section, subsecti0n, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect an3' existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 13th day of July, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: KathD'n S. Koch, Cin.' Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORUM: John Worcester, City Attorney FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of July, 1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk March 18. 1998 Ms. Amy Guthne ¥ ~' Aspen Pitkin Count' Communi~' ~tc~ ~v Development Department 130 South Galena Street ¥ ~ Aspen, Colorado 8161 I. RE: 930 King Street ~!~, Dear Amy: I have enclosed revised .~chitecmraI Drawings that should be included in our on~nal submission packa!e. The revisions include: I. Site Plan """" 2. E. e or Elevations GIBSON' RliNO Regarding the Site Plan, the revised dra~\:ngs represent moving the III historic house <Residence "B") directI.x to :he East. The proposed front yard is ten (10) feet from the South pro~'e~' line, which is ::~' i ~, exactly what e.'dsts today. The East side yard is proposed to be five ', (5) feet. Both the proposed front and side yards will require a variance. ~ .~ r i x Residence "A" remains as ori~nali? sited. The Neale Street side is considered the front yard with a setback of~venn.' five (25) feet. The ,~7o .~:.~ King Street side is considered the side yard with a setback of sixteen feet, eight inches (16'-8"). No variance is required for Residence "A" with regard to setbacks, The driveway to Residence "A" has been re; 'ised regarding width The revised driveway is ten (10) feet wide. p o sex The proposed revised fence on the North 'property.' line begins thirty, ×: (30) feet from the West (Neale Street) prope~' line running to the East property. line. The entire East prope~' line remains as originally coLon-co proposed with a fence running the entire len_.~&. Ms. Amy Guth~e March 18, 1998 Page 2 The exterior of Residence "A" has been revised regarding the following: 1. The height of the ridge has been lowered by five (5) feet. In the ori~nal desi~mn, the ridge was thi~- five (35) feet. In the revised desi~, the ridge is located at th~' (30) feet. - ° 2. The fireplace chimney has been lowered by five (5) feet. 3. All of the onehal log roofoutriggers have been eliminated. The fascias are now a more rraditionai one (1) by similar to the surrounding houses. Finally, we have reduced the amount ofaddi:ionaI F.A.R. (493) by ~'o hundred fore.' three (243) square feet. Our revised request is for two hundred fif~.' (250) square feet. These revisions are based upon the input we have received from the Historic Preservation Commission and the goals of the applicant. If you should have any questions please conmc~ me. ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Designation Standards For Designation: Any structure or site that meets t~'o (2) or more of the following standards may be designated as "H" Historic Overlay District, and/or historic landmark. STANDARD: A. Historic importance. The structure or site is a principal or secondary Structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cuitural, social, or political history. of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. RESPONSE: The structure and the site were occupied by Joe Candreia, otherwise known as "No Problem Joe" from approximately '1952 until his death in 1993. "No Problem Joe" was considered one of Aspen's old local characters because of the words that he commonly muttered, "No Problem" when anyone needed his assistance. Another aspect of "No Problem Joe's' ' tenure was a vegetable garden that he personny tended to for approximately thirty (30) years. He was often seen sharing his prize crops with people that were just passing by. STANDARD: B. Architectural importance. The structure or site reflects an arddteetttral style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type, (based on building form) or specimen. Response: The house is believed to be an original Sears and Roebuck, ship and build cabin, which was commonly used at the beginning of this century. The smoke house and outhouse are structures that were also commonly used in an era that has passed us by with new technologies regarding plumbing and food storage preparation. STANDARD: C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This project does not meet this standard in our opinion. STANDARD: D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of a historically significant neighborhood and the preservation oFthe structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood (character). Response: The house and outbuildings were ve~, typical for this neighborhood during the early pan of the century. During the hte 19th century and early part of the 20th century this neighborhood consisted of very modest type structures that were meant to house the working class (primarily miners). There are a number of these structures scattered throughout the Easmm section of Aspen. This house and the outbuildings contribute to the pub]ks' awareness of what once occupied this neighborhood that still remain today. STANDARD: E. Corarnuni~' Character. The structure or site is critical to the presem'ation of the character of the Aspen cornxnu.njD' because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architecturai similari~' to other structures of historical or architectural importance. RespOnse: The house and outbuildings contribute significantly to the character of the historic Aspen community. These contributions include being a vital piece of the "Silver Boom" fabric. While the West End Of Aspen represented the wealth of the "Silver Barons" with all of its elaborately design houses, the East End of Aspen represented the work force. The structures on this property represent a period of boom and bust with the birth of the City and the quiet years that followed once t~e original mining economy faded. The 930 King Street structures that remain today meet four (4) out of the possible five (5) Standards for Designation. We request that 930 King Street be designated as an Historic Landmark. ATTACHMENT 5 HISTORIC LOT SPLIT The applicant requests a Historid Lot Split per Sections 26.88.30 (A) (2), 26.100,050, (A) (2) (e). and 26.72.010 (G). The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.88.030 (A) (2). This property has never been subdivided before; will only create two (2) lots; and will only construct (2) units plus an affordable dwelling unit. The proposed Historic Lot Split complies with Section 26.72.010 (G) and Section 26.100.050, (A) (2) (e) ff the property is designated as an Historic Landmark. ATTACHMENT · ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Applicant: ,~P: Partners Address: 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO, 81611 Zone district: R- 15 A LOt size: 13,3 ,~ 3 s..=. Existing FAR: Allowable FAR: 4384 s .F. Proposed FAR: 4801 S.F. includes 493 S.F. of Bonus Existing net leasable (commercia!): N/A Proposed net leasable (commercial): Existing % of site coverage: Z~/A Proposed % of site coverage: '~/~ Existing % of open space: ~/~ i~/~ Proposed % of open space: Existing maximum height: Principal bldg:+/- 18 F?ACCeSOry bldg: Proposed max. height: Principal bldg: 25 P?Accessory bldg: Proposed % of demolition: Existing number of bedrooms: i Bedroom Proposed numberofbedrooms: House "A" 4 BedrOoms/House "B" 3 Bedrcc,-.s Existing on-site parking spaces: 2 space s On-site parking spaces required: 4 space s Setbacks Existing: Minimum required: ProP°sed:Ho~se "~." 25 Front: :11 :-'2 Front: 25:-~ Front: House * Rear: es F,~ Rear: 1OF? Rear: Combined Combined Combined Front/rear: ? 9 F2 Front/rear: Front/rear: **Side: 2o F: (Bast) Side: lo F-~ Side: Side: s4 F--. (west) Side: lo F-~ Side: Combined Combined Combined Sides: zz4 FT Sides: Sides: ro hm Front setback of existing Historic Existing nonconformities or enc ac ents: House t rear yard setback re: Smokehouse & Outhouse . East side yard setback 5 FT. and 493 S.F. of Bonus Variations requested: F.A.R. related to Historic Landmark/Proposed Develop.-..ent. (HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings, FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.ft. site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the cottage in~li program, parking waivers for residential uses in the R-6. R-15, RMF, CC, and O zone districts) * Existing Historic Smokehouse rear setback is 3 FT. _xisting Historic Cuthouse rear setback is 4 FT. ** Existing Historic Smokehouse side (west) setback is i!C F?. Existing Historic Outhouse side (Bast) setback is 1'! FT. ATTACHMENT 1,~ ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name 930 King Street 2. Projectlocation 930 King Street, see attached le~cal descripticn (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning R-ZSA 4. Lot size 137343 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number'~p3 Pa:tne rs , 317 Park Avenue, Aspen, CO. 8/611 9~0-1851 6. Representative's name, address, and phone numberAugie Reno, Gibson-RenO Arckitects 2!3 E. E.~'man, #202 Aspen, CO. 970 925-5~68 7. Type of application (check all that apply): x Conditional Use Conceptual SPA x Conceptual HPC Special Review Finat SPA x Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD x Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. x Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption DemolPartial Demo View Plane Condcminiumization Design Review x Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) slng:e Family ~,eDzeos=cr=i tion d ,/elopmentapRlication ~-an~=,a=k Designation. significant an Affordable Dwelling Unit. 10. Have you completed and attached the following? x Attachment 1- Land use application form x Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form x Response to Attachment 3 Response to Attachments 4 and 5 ATTACHMENT 17 FLOOR AREA RESIDENCE "A" Garden Level 288 S.F. "'~ Main Level 1143 S.F.* Upper Level 1 ~64 ~.F. / TOTAL 2795 S.F. i RESIDENCE 'B' Garden Level 141 5.F. Main Level 887 S.F.* Upper Level T76 ~.F. TOTAL 1804 S.F.** ~ >-i 2.. _f .~+0 :.. DECKS (in excess of 15% of the total 5., - .- ,i .- .: ..... .. allowed F.A.R.) 202 S.F. HISTORIC OUTBL'ILDLNGS 76 S.F. TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 4877 S.F. * Includes garage square footage in excess of 250 S.F. ** Includes 493 S.F. of bonus F.A.R. npj~oo:.doc ASPEN HISTORIC PRFSERVATION COMNIISSION MINT."TES OF March 25, 1998 owindows. Clerestory windows, defer to the architects on the HPC. Majori~ comfortable with the design of the house. Some members disliked the garage facing the street and the long linear corridor. Concerns of the neighbors need addressed. Grant designation. Clerestory represented on the model is closer to what is acceptable as opposed to the drawings presented. Don't loose the horizontality of the roof. Concern of the height of the stair tower volume as it over powers the house, possibly adjust window portions or add a band. MOTION: Roger moved to cominue the public hearing and table conceptual review, partial demolition and landmark designation until April 8, 1998; second by Melanie. All in favor, motion carried. Site visit scheduled at NOON, April 8, 1998. 930 KING STREET - CONCEPTUAL - LD - PH - Partial demolition - on-site relocation, variances Amy Guthrie, planner informed the I-IPC that three ~ fthe five standards have been met. It is a modest miners cottage of the Victorian era. There are three issues: relocation of the historic house on the site; where driveways should be placed for the two houses and the third compatibility concerns. Staff is generally in favor with the concept of the program. It is a great way that the historic landmark lot split can benefit everyone. The previous approval was for a single family house. I-{PC needs to give Solid feedback on this project. A reduction in heig. h~ was addressed. The FAR bonus was reduced. Staff recommends reversing the site plan so that the historic house remains on the comer site and this proposal places it on an interior lot and she feels it will be lost in the mass of the addition. In the proposed site plan they shifted the house to the east but it is in the drip line of the trees and Staff has not received formal comments from the parks department but typically that is not allowed. Staff recommends tabling and to restudy the architecture and address compatibility but the lot split and partial demolition and landmark requests are acceptable. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COM~M. ISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Sworn in by Chief Deputy Clerk: Augie Reno, Harris Kahn, Laurie Winnerman, Larry Winnerman, Jackie Kasaback, Julie Maple and her husband and Jim Mickey. Augie Reno, architect presented: At the worksessions the pl.acement of the historic house has always been in the same position, never once until a site visit was the discussion brought up to relocate the house and that was not clear due to interruptions. The proposed driveway is off of Neale Ave. which Amy suggested. At the third xvorksession rotation of the house was mentioned but not by the majority of the board and option 5 was chosen by the HPC as the plan to go with. The goal is to preserve the house. After each worksession the architects dete:'mined the summation as HPC did not give any summary on what the maiorlty wanted. There are site constraints on holy The historic house would be seen, the lot narrows to the west. If the house were to be relocated to the west it would be much further away from the road :~an it is today just by the shape of the lot. The topography of the lot is different as it is higher on the comer. The proposal is to keep the house ten fee.'. awa?' from the street pretty much in the same location where it would be '4ewed as it is today. The corner l~ouse sits back further and will not overhear the historic house. Augie corresponded with the Parks Dept. and he indicated that the roots have been directed to the area of least resistance and he assured me by lifting the building up that the trees could be saved by the right technology in digging Out for the foundation and the feeding of the trees. It is the intention to leave the trees. Harris Kahn relayed the partners intention as it relates to the project. He lives four houses .away and he owns property on King St. He has been. familiar with the site for the past 15 years. The intent is to make the site look natural and they aren't looking for anything other than what they are entitled to. Augie relayed that the historic house would be moved approximately teri feet to the east. It is still ten feet off the property line. A variance would be needed. There is a five foot setback variance for the side yard requested. The house would get renovated and there is an eight foot, one story length between the historic house and the new addition. The old house will stand on its own. The smoke house and out house will stay as they are for storage ASPEN HISTORIC PRFSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 use. The new house sits at the west end of the property and the front yard is 25 feet from the Neale Ave. side and 16.8 from the King Street side. We are 7 feet behind the front face of the historic house. The driveway on house A is 60 feet from the corner and a fence is proposed on the north and east property line and splits the properties and the fence will not exist for the first 30 feet from ~he west propert>' line. On the south elevation the historic house will be renovated with the original materials and what cannot be saved will be replicated. Materials will be picked up from the historic house. The new house on the west tries to keep gabled forms and tries to keep vertical windows and horizontal siding all to be compatible. The size of the new building is 55 feet in length by 24 feet. The Maples house is 50 feet and the adjacent houses are 53 and 90 feet. /Vlr. Mickey reported that his house is 37 feet long and the Maple's house is 40 feet long. Augie informed the HPC that on the west elevation the architecture was broken up by a porch and a one s:oD' element. A corner element was created by turning the mass. The mass is also broken up on the west side. The west side plane steps back. The breaking up also creates a view. The chimney is stone and the roof is broken up with small shed type dormers. The east elevation of the historic house stays as it is and there is a link between and the gabled shape that sits behind the houses. In both houses they tried to put the garages away from the street view. On the North elevation the roof height relates to the historic house. Stone, siding and wood timber are proposed. Horizontal siding is proposed and it is compatible with the horizontal clapboard siding. There is no stone on the old house but in the neighborhood some houses have stone and some do not. Stone base is proposed. The fence proposed is a six,foot high solid fence. Gilbert inquired about the glass on the historic building that faces east as it faces the adjacent property line. Augie relayed that the glass gives the view' to Independence pass and it is the dining area. Chairperson Suzarmah Reid opened the public hearing. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25, 1998 Julie Maple wrote a letter in behalf of her Father-in-law which was included in the packet. One major issue is the driveway between her father-in-laws property and the proposed property. She is not positive the engineering dept. has given approval for the driveway and she requested that the hpplication go to Engineering and have it approve as part of the conditions. There were three conditions and she has concerns about the hardship condition. There is a big visibility and safety issue for the driveway as people enter into the traffic and coming down that hill it is hard to see what is coming out. She also requests that the house be brought back to the original grade. The dirt mound on the comer is not natural. Mike Maple, son of the neighbor. The most important issue is preserving the views. He feels the lot split is appropriate because it reduces the mass . of the house and it has economic value. The lot split is a tremendous windfall financially. In terms of bonuses the code states that the FAR is for the historic structure and this lot split would allow a 3200 sq. ft. house and there is no need for the FA.R bonus. Through the years dirt hi~s been brought into the site for a garden and the grade should return to its normal state. Introducing a driveway into an area where there has not been one is a safety hazard.. Jackie Kasabach, concerned citizen stated she is concerned abou[this development as she lived in the west end and watched the death of the west end and now is in the middle of the east end die. When she walks down King street it is becoming a tunnel and all you see is mass. The ice build up on the south side of the street have created enormous hazards in the winter time. When you turn the corner there should not be a huge mass. Jim Mickey, neighbor relayed that he is against the mass. When he looks out his window he sees four houses being built. Laurie Winnerman stated that the views were kept open in order to respect the neighbors views. The chair, Suzannah Reid closed the public hearing. 9 ASPEN HISTORIC PRKSFRVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 Commissioner Comments Roger relayed that the lot split is beneficial to the community. The neighborhood looses one monster house. The applicant gets to build two houses and t-12DC reviews the entire project. Roger is opposed to moving the cottage to the other side of the property. He also felt that the Eng. Dept. should provide a definitive statement on the driveway. He also had no problem with the variance but is unclear about the bonus. OveraI1 project is quite good but there are concerns about the fenestration. The fence on the south and west shot~id not be solid but no problem with the north and east. Amy Guthrie informed the I-IPC that Nick Adeh is looking for something as areason why the driveway should be on Neale Ave., a hardship or a preser~,ation reason from H2PC. The majority of the board felt that that lot split, partial demolition and landmark request are acceptable. The fenestration needs resindied i.e., the larger windows. There should be a strong compatibility between the addition to the historic house and the historic house and encourage that the new house have bener compatibility than it does now. Gilbert felt that there is a stronger restoration if the house is closer to the existing footprint. If there are safe:>' concerns regarding the driveway the>' should be addressed. Mar?' indicated that the applicant came in when the H2PC decided to have worksessions which was time consuming for the applicant. The applicant and neighbors got caught in the middle of that process. She also felt that the neighbors views were taken into consideration. Melanie relayed that the bonus should only be given to exemplary projects. Her interpretation of the ADU is a fourth bedroom: The architecture needs more study and the house and rock fireplace are overwhelming. The back house needs broken up more and a solid fence is not appropriate and needs broken up. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MI~NUTES OF March 25. 1998 Jeffrey relayed that the architect addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He also felt that the two story wails need broken up. The plate heights are high. He feels the stepping back from the Victorian house is appropriate but has some concern about the competing gable end. The chimney is a large element on house A and needs restudied in its height and massing. Keeping the fence back on the west propert)..' line to maintain the view is appropriate. The height of the ridges on the main house need restudied as it reflects to the street and the Victorian house. It was reduced but the relationship to the Victorian needs stepped down and resradied on the south elevation. Heidi relayed that the cottage is lost in the site on this project. The new house is far more dominant. The ac~.dition on the cottage is appropriate but the mass of the new house needs addressed. Suzarmah felt that the right soluzion is flipping the cottage. The project should be beneficial to the historic house and she carmot support the current plan. The character of the addition To zhe historic house is well done. The dri~,'eway presented is a typical pattern. Combining the driveways is not to the advantage of the historic house: On the new house a simplified roof shape needs studied. t-[PC vote on the F.~D- bonus requested: Gilbert - yes Mary - yes Jeffrey - yes Roger - yes Melanie - no Heidi - no Suzarmah - no Amy relayed that the variances requested would be 14 foot variance on the front yard for the historic house, a five foot side yard setback variance con the east sidse of the historic house, and the 250 square foot FAR bonus. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC grant approval at 930 King Street for the Historic Landmark, Historic Lot Split, Partial Demolition and on-site relocation. Conceptual is granted with the following conditions.' I1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESFRVATI. ON COMMISSION MINUTES OF March 25. 1998 a) 250 sq. ~. FAR bonus is g-ranted. bj Restudy the fenestration. c) Restudy the stone chimne;'. d) Restudy the architecture of the addition to the historic house and the new house. Create ~ more c~'rect compatibility in materials and design elements: e) Full landscape plan showing ar, y exterior perimeter fencing. .f) A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for re.locatiOn and whether the structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the phySical impacts of the relocarr'on and resiting. g) A relocation plan shall be submz'tred. including posting a bond or other financial security in the amoum of S30. 000. to insure the safe relocation. prese~'arion and repair (zfrequired~ of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in ad~'ance of the physical relocation. 3dfotion second by MwT. 3,forion carried 4 - 3. Suzannah, 3/Ielanie and Heidi ~'oted no. Gilbert. Roger..~fa?7..' and deffi'ey voted yes. 712 W. FR.,NCIS - MINOR Chairperson Suzannah Reid reviewed the east and west dormer revision. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the revisions, second by Suzannah. All in favor, motion carried. TIPPLE INN Melanie excused. Amy Gutkrie, planner relayed at the last meeting it was recommended that HPC delay action until the InvertroD' is done in 1999 to see how it fits in the overall history of the town. HPC asked Staff to provide information on the status of the Tippler and if there was anything that H]PC should have been involved in. They have their Growth Management allocation, P&Z 12 ' ' Julie Z. l~laple , 1250 Mountain Vie3v Drive Aspen, Colorado 82611 Ms..-~*ny Curb. fie January. 14, 1998 AspenfPitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 R,E: Development Proposal for 9:30 King Street 'Submitted by Gibson - Reno Architects. L.L.C. 12/10/97 Dear Amy, As a representative for the interests of my in-laws, Chuck and Bryce Maple, residents and owners c~f the property. at 927 Gibson Avenue. located directly south of the proposed development, we would like to raise a number of concerns, It should be noted that I approached the owner of the property. in appro.,dmatety September, 1997 with many of these issues. At that time the owner's representative suggested we work in a cooperative maz'mer to address the concerns of the Maple faniy prior to submission of planrdng documents. W'b. iie I a~e~ to cooperate in addressing the Maple's concerns, the owner has made no attempt to contact me or tee Maples to discuss the;: issues. The Maples have also repeatedly advised the Planning and Building Department of their interest in the review of development proposals for this site. The Maple conce.ms can be summarized as a desire to retain the neighborhood community, the;: front yard and the views of .~spen Mountain from their living room they have enjoyed for thirty years. While we commend the front yard set back offofNeale Street as a major improvement over the earlier proposal, a number of addi,.ional issues relative to preserving their views, the Neale & Gibson community. and the spirit of Ordinance 30 should be considered and addressed. So,. BackL Lan~scal~ing and ~ei~ht Issues: · We endorse the front yard set back off of Neale Street. · The code requires that all maximum heights be established from "natural" Fade. During the thirty years the Maples have resided at 927 Gibson Avenue, they observed substantial land fill of the site. In fact, the 1968 "natural" grade along the western edge of the property was approximately equal to the current elevation of Neale Street. The land fill by CandreSs consisted of soil and annual deposits of organic material to fill and level the garden site. Later, poisoning of the soil by ,'Mr. CanalroSa required bu.rying and diluting of the poisoned soil. Finally, Mr. CanalroSa abandoned his gardensrig yet continued to place fill on the site. The magnitude of this fill is easily observed by comparing the "natural" grade of the Maple property vemus the 930 King property. The fill was so substantial that the Maples finally had to construct a retaining wall to hold back the earth. · The Maple's request and expect that all code determined height limitations be properly enforced from the recreated "natural" grade. While no heights are indicated on the plans as submined, it appears the chinmeys as drawn ex~end beyond maximum height limitations, · The Maples request that the~"'fners and second st:0ry roefs:ofKeside~· A be staked with height poles prior to any final review and approval. · Residential Design Standards (Ordinance .q0) outlines that relationships to the streets establish the character of a neighborhood and that the area surrounding the home create a transition between the private life of a dwelling and the public realm. The proposed sL, c foot fence along Neale Street would create a harsh barrier to the public realm of the street. The Maples request that the fence along Neale Street be eliminated in its entirety, and that all trees and other landscape elements between the house and Neale Street be limited to a maximum height of six feet. Additionally, the Maples request that the north prope,'V. line fence be set back approximately 30' from the westerly property boundary to preserve the Maple's "front yard" relationship to the street and community. as well as to preserve their view of Aspen Mountain. As noted above, all landscaping and other heights should be established from the historic "natural" Code. · The proposed Residence A automobile entrance from Neale Street creates a safety. hazard as a result of its proximity to a sharp hill crest and it should therefore be reconsidered. Additionally, this entrance is at odds with the ideas of Ordinance 30 and at the same time adversely impacts the Maple's front yard en,,ironmem with headlights penetrating their home and sounds and odors disturbing the public area of their fi'cm yard. We request that an auto entrance or shared auto entrance from King Street be utilized. Den.~ity- · The prope,~).' is zoned Moderate Density. Residential R-15A. As :he name implies! this zone is intended to be "mode. ate" density. The neighborhood enthusiastically supported ~he idea of moderate density. of new deve!opmen~.s during the recent debate over a proposed development on Walnut Street. Wkiie the subject property is currently zoned R; 15A. the neighborhood is already overburdened with density and therefore any attempts to increase the density of the neighborhood should be carefully examined. · The Maples wish to point out that 26.88.030 Exemptions. A. 5 Historic Landmark LOt Spl'it appears to have been dra. r3zed specifically for the 930 King site. While we are not aware of the legal notice requirements, and despite the Maple's proximity to the site and repeated notice of interest in the development of this site, no notice was ever provided to the Maples to allow cogent on this code provision as it applies to this site. · The 930 King Street proposal contemplates three (3) residences on what is already a non-conforrring lot. While the Maples endorse community objectives of employee housing and historic preservation, this level of density on this site is inappropriate. The .Maples therefore request that the Historic Landmark Lot Split be denied or that the Accessory Dwelling Unit CADU") be eliminated. Separately, it appears the as desired, does not meet our understanding of code requirements for a "separate" dwelling due to the entrance from the Rec. Room. · The Maple's request and expect that all code F.,~R. limitations be properly enforced as it relates to the project in its entirety. Historic Landmark F.~R Bonus: · 26.88.030 A. 5. b. states that total FAR for both residences which may be allowed by an Historic Landmark Lot Split shall not exceed the floor area allowed for the original parcel. Para_m'aph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "I-IPC varia~_. and bonuses are ~ (emphasis addS permitted on the parcel that · contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be'permitted to build up to FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Application of a 500 square foot FAR bonus would permit the construction of a 3,200 F..LR. structure on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is 1,804 square feet, no F.~R. bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is not applied to the Historic Landmark Lot Split lot, but rather to Residence A. The FAR bonus should therefore be denied. ArcMtecmral Royjew: · Since the applicant is seeking the benefit of lot subdivision and other development bonuses through provisions on the rouse of the historic structure, we feel the proposed deveiopment as a whole should place a greater emphasis on the h~storic $tructure. As propose~ the more prominent structure, Residence A, is expressed by a large hippod roof mass of log and stone dotting which bears linle relationship to the Historic House. Furthermore, the plan as proposed misses an oppormhiW to create a lir~k between the e~sting Historic Landmark structure on the opposite comer of K~g and Neale s~reets. Locating the historic structure on the western parcei would more accurately preserve the historic character of the neighborhood and Neale Streetscape,. · The proposal to set the historic house f~rther back off King Street leaves it barely visible from Neale Street and overpowered from K~ng Street. As an alternative to locating the Historic House on ~he westerly portion of the site, consideration should be given to leaving the structure in its e~s~ing ~d historic relationship to King Street, 11' from King Street. This would preserve the historic siting w~e giving the Historic House greater visibility.. This siting would also allow for the grouping of the two remaining historic outbuildings in approximately their historic location and relationship. AS currently proposed, these structures are disassociated from each other and lost in the higher density' of the site. Historic Development Incentives: · As proposed, the owners of 930 King Street have requested many variances, bonuses and ~ams in the name of historic prese,wation. While we support the idea of incentives for historic preservation, the r~uested variances, bonuses and grants for this site are excessive. If the Historic Landmark Lot Split is .~ra. nte'& approximately $500,000 or more in value will have been conferred to the owner. The granting of such value should be adequate to suppo~ preservation of this structure without the granting of additional bonuses, variances, grants and the like. The Maple family built their home and have resided there for thirty. years, actually prior to and longer than Joe C~ndreia's residence at 930 .King Street ['He made the site his residence in approximately 1969 or 1970, shortly after acquiring title). The speculative developments in the neighborhood to date have had Little regard for the historic elements or the concerns of existing residents. It is hoped that cooperative resolution of these issues can be achieved. Sincerely, ~ ~ple c: Chuck & Bryce Maple Mayor John Bennett J~,N 14 1998 CO~A~(3NiTy D~VELO~MENT JEFFREY S. SHOAF Post Office Box 3123 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (970) 925-4501 May 1, 1998 Stan Clausen Communi~, Development Director CiD, of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Stan: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me yesterday regarding the No Problem ,7oe/930 King Street Devdo.vment Project located across the street from my 117 Neale Avenue house. Your advice. to involve the neighborhood by Petition addressed to the Historical Preservation Commission, is very sound and I intend to follow ~xough on it regarding opposition to the Current development plans calling for a second, era, unnecessary driveway onto busy Neale Avenue. As I said yesterday, I believe the current site plans now on the table for a driveway onto Neale Avenue only benefits the 930 King Street developers/property owners. It does create a needless hazard and risk to the entire neighborhood as well as all users of Neale Avenue and the sidewalk. A second driveway is unnecessary when a driveway offof K. ing Street is also proposed. Your statement to me that the Historical Preservation Commission has the final say on the site plan (including the extra Neale Avenue driveway) certainly winrants the Petitlob to follow. Stan, ifI can be of any assistance to you or the HPC regarding this issue, or ifI have misstated any'thing here, please call me as soon as possible. Othervdse, I look forward to meeting with the HPC on May 27'h. Thank you again] · Je e . JSS:a2z PETITION TO: The ttistorical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively hnpacted Neale Aven'~tc Citizcns RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Oilto Neale A';'cnue froin the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We. the undersigned. concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposidor~ to the proposed construction of a second driveway' onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is cnrrently shown on the 930 King Sireel site plan. While it may seem obvious, tile second driveway as proposed wonld only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic. pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless. significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND / I - J ,,, J~ t'J C Mr. & Mrs Charles A. Maple 927 Gibson Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 April 16, 1998 Historic Preservation Committee C/O Ms. Amy Guthrie AsperdPitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street .... -.-~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 2 2 1998 RE: Development Proposal for 930 King Street ,-~.-~ Submitted by Gibson'- Reno Architects. LLC. 12/]0/97 Members of the Hjstoric Preservation Commktee: W'e are appreciative of the HPC's input to date on the proposed development at 930 King Street. Nonetheless. we believe the HPC may be considering granting the developer a number of concessions that are contrary. to the City of Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regu!ations ("Code"). While the proposed development may be a vast improvement over the plan proposed by another owner under a different set of codes, such consideration is irrelevant. The proposed development must comply with the Codes and requirements currently in place. Natural Grade and Height Issues: We believe the proposed development should be required to restore the natural grade. The Code requires that all maximum heights be established fi'om "natural" grade. Specifically, the Code states: "If it shah be determined that the natural grade has been disturbed prior to development, the building inspector shall establish what had been natural grade and measure from that elevation." The owners offer to calculate total height from the "natural" grade appears to be both suspect and inadequate. The offered approach, when carefully applied to the proposed development. fails to comply with Code in several ways: 1) it overlooks the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), "To ensure Aspen's street and neighborhoods are conducive of walking... ?', 2) heights must be calculated from the exterior perimeter of the building (26.58.040 F. 5.) and 3) subgrade areas would be partly above grade and partly below the true "natural" grade and would therefore have to considered in the floor area calculation (26.58.040 F. 11.). Driveway On Neale The proposed curb cut and drive access from Neale Street conflicts with the "General" purpose of 26.58.010 (Ordinance 30), City Engineering Standards and ereales a safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Neale Street is perhaps the single most traveled pedestrian route outside the downtown core. Adding a curb cut and driveway will distract from the walking experience. The proposed driveway will create a serious safety hazard due to the proximity of the hill crest. © FAR Bonuses and Density No additional FAR bonuses should be granted. The site is a non-conforming R-15A lot. The proposal calls for three residences on a lot heretofore zoned for a single family dwelling. While we do not object to the lot split, the granting of the lot split is a huge economic bonus for the developer and the granting of additional FAR bonuses is unwarranted and unsupported by the Code. Furthermore, the massing additions that are inherent in the lot split should be carefully considered. Since up to 250 square feet in garages are exempt from FAR calculations and the next 250 square feet of garage is counted as .5 the lot split effectively creates a massive floor area and volume bonus (approximately 10%) in the form of an additional garage. Paragraph 26.88.030 A. 5. c. states that "HPC variances ~nd bonuses are (emphasis added) permitted on the parcel that contains the historic structure." Pursuant to the code, the owner would be permitted to build up to 2,700 FAR on a 3,000 square foot lot created by an Historic Landmark Lot Split. Since the structure proposed on the Historic Landmark Lot Split site is less than the permitted FAR_ no FAR bonus is needed. As proposed, the FAR bonus is applied to Residence A, not the Historically Land marked building. Documentation To date, the developer has agreed to a 25 foot set back from Neale and elimination of portions of fence. We had also requested a limitation of landscaping (nothing over six feet above "natural" grade) within the front yard set back. We request that the I-IPC and/or Planning authorities properly document these conditions to ensure enforcement in perpetuity. The Neale and King Street neighborhood has recently witnessed dramatic increases in density,. We respectfully request the HZPC carefully enforce the Code in this "Moderate Densit7 Residential" area. Sincer y, . ~ Chuck & Bryce Maple ~ c: Mayor John Bennett Sarah Thomas Julie Zeiler Maple Julie Z. Maple ~ ~) P I F' t '~ 1250 Mountain ~2ew Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 22, 1998 ]V~_s. SnTnnnnh Reid Chairper~n Historic Preservation Committee l~pC~?i tk in Co unty Comm unity DcvcIopmcnt Dcpartrncnt 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: De;'e!opment Proposal for 930 I~ng Street March 25. 1998 Meeting ..Minutes, Approvals Chairperson Reid: l-/m~mg ar-.end~ the ,March 25, 1998 Hemring lbr 'dins pr~ develolmnem, x~ r~qmre clarification 4the Mouon and/or~ake serious exc=ption to the Motion as reported in the Meenng Minutes. My notes indicate Roger Moyer moved to grant approva/for the H/storic Lot Split, pardal demoLitic~n and on-site ~location. He 'trthe: proposed Concepl~a] AFprova] be .~ramed. including the 250 .~/uare foot FAR Bonu& ~f(emph~.~is added)~ a number of components are resmdi~ including fene~u~on, stone chimney~ compa~bility of materials, ~;. As presented. mcmbcrs of our ncighborhood group in attendance all unck.'rstood thcrc was a motion to approve thc Proj oct, including +,.he FAR Bonus, if the HPC ~s ~'~ ~ed ~th the developer/arcb. itect' s msmdy on the identified items. Put another x~y, w: understood the FAR Bonus had no~ been grained, and wo~d not be grained unless and unrll the project is improved Our review of the Meeting Minutes and discussions with sm:ff suggest the FAR Bonus has already' been granted. We believe d~is is incorrect We remain steadfast in our opposition to the FAR Bonus in support of the ..uPC ,,~quir~-~,nem +,hat the Froject be imFroved as well .~s for all the rea.~ons {der~fied~ in our pa~ correspondence and Public Hearing comments. Thank you for your consideration. c: Mayor JOhn Bennett Julie Woo& Sarah Thomas Chuck & Br?ee Maple 06-18 -98 To: Whom it may concern From: Rick Magnuson Community Safety Officer Aspen Police Department This lener is in reference to the building lot between King St. and 927 Gibson Ave. I am writing this lener at the request of Mike Maple, whose family lives at 927 Gibson Ave. The building lot, which is going to be developed, has access from two streets: Neale and I~ng. Considering both the pitch of Nea/e street and the spee~ of traffic, which causes a limited site path, I would recommend that the access to that lot be on King street. A King street access would be much s~er in my opinion for vehicles pedes~ans and bicyclist. If you wish to discuss the matter further. please feel free to contact Rick Magnuson PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Ol~osition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue f~om the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the u~dersiped, concerned neighbors ~md Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to r~gister our concern ~.nd op~sition to ~e pmpo~d co~ctio~ ore s~ond dfiv~ay onto Neale Avenue and ~ross the sidewalk t~t is c~ntly s~ on ~e 930 ~ng S~: site p}~. ~ile it may ~em obvio~, ~e Rcond driveway ~ proposed wou}d only benefit ~e one new residence and it ~'o~ld create ~ ~eces~ h~d ~d ~tial d~ge~ so~ce to all ot~tr UseB of Neale Avenue including ~hicular traffic. ~d~a~ ~d bicycles. Ple~e do nm allow this n~dless, signi~c~t gfe~ h~d to ~cur on Ne~e Arena. Access ~ ~ safely provided to from ~e pro~sed ~n~ S~eet driveway. Th~ you for yo~ consideration. S~ET AND NUMBER AND P~NT NAM~ MAILING ADD~SS DA~ SIGNA~ ,. ,, II. 12 13 PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROH: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition I0 the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We, the u~dersj~ned, concerned neighbors and Neate Avenue area citizens do hereby wish Io register our concern and opposition to the proposed construelion ofe second drivev.'ay onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is cu.n'entb' show~ on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obviom, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would ereale an un.necessa.~' ha~axd and polenlial danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic. pedestrians and bicycles. Please do no'~ allow this needless. significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided lo the subject properly from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank yon for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDR..ESS DATE SIGNATURE , I0 12 13 PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development W~. the undersigned. concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construclion of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street silo plan. While it may seem obvious. the second drivewa.x as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and il would create an unnecess~~ h~rd and potential danger source Io aH other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do no~ a]lo~ this needless, sign~canl ~fe~' h~d to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can ~ safely provided 1o the sub~ec~ property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND N~MBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS _ DATE ~ '~~ 4. . 12 13 PETITION TO: The ]"listor~cal Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted NetIt Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem 1oeI930 King Street Development We;the underslgned, concerned neighbors and Netle Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register o~ concern and opposition to the proposed construction ore second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is curmndy show~ on the 930 King $rree! silo plan. While it may se~m obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary h~:a. rd and potential dmnger so~ce to all other users of Nea]e Avenue inc]uding vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not ejlow this needless, significant. safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subject properly f.,-om the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRrSS DATE 2 ---- &,,,A %'%5 I &,, ',' ~.' .~p, l..o . (I,(.,7:.,.L d':.,',t---,~ % ,-~ F. s'rs.,, 9L-3/~/'; 6 :-,,,.,; _,4"' 5-' ~,'/t i./,-G-,j ~"' "'-~- - PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to lhe Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem .~oe/930 King Street Development We, the undersigned. concerned neighbors and Nealc Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed constraction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currendy shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may se~m obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do nol allow this needless, significant safe~y h~,:'~,~d to occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be safely provided to the subjoel propen)' from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUP,'IBER AND I. ~,"TT.kf~.C...~ ~z~3 M,o~,./~,P-,=~-F.- .~'-a-qor / . ,,.,.. ,,,,.,, · PETITION TO: The Historical PreServation Commission FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Driveway Onto Neale Avenue from the No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development We. the undersigned. concerned ncight',ors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to the proposed construction of a second driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currarely shown on the 930 King Street site plan. Whi}e it may seem obvious, the second drivewa.~ as proposed would only benefit the one new residence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source lo all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic. pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless. significant safety hazard 1o occur on Neale Avenue. Access can be $afely provided to the subject propert)' . from the proposed King Street drivev,'ay. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND PRINT NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE / · --,.-"'r' PETITION TO: The Historical Preservation Commission ~(~O.J~ L~.~,~~\ FROM: Concerned Neighbors and Negatively Impacted Neale Avenue Citizens "~ RE: Opposition to the Proposed Second Drive'.vay Onto Neale Avenue from tile No Problem Joe/930 King Street Development ~<~ We, the undersigned, concerned neighbors and Neale Avenue area citizens do hereby wish to register our concern and opposition to tile proposed construction ofa sccond driveway onto Neale Avenue and across the sidewalk that is currently shown on the 930 King Street site plan. While it may seem obvious, the second driveway as proposed would only benefit the one new ~sidence and it would create an unnecessary hazard and potential danger source to all other users of Neale Avenue including vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Please do not allow this needless, significant safety hazard to occur on Neale Avenue. Access Call be safely provided to the stlbject property from the proposed King Street driveway. Thank you for your consideration. STREET AND NUMBER AND "" 6U/ Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council DATE: July 9, 1998 RE: Ordinance Authorizing Use of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles -2na Reading Attached for your consideration is an ordinance which, if approved, would authorize the use and operation of "neighborhood electric vehicles" on City streets and highways. This matter is before you on second reading and public hearing. As you may know, the state legislature recently amended the state laws relating to motor vehicles to authorize local communities to adopt ordinances that authorize the use and operation of what the statute calls "neighborhood electric vehicles"... golf carts that meet the equipment standards of the Model Traffic Code. The attached proposed ordinance makes the necessary changes to the Aspen Municipal Code to authorize the use and operations of such vehicles. The actual language of the proposed ordinance is a little confusing as the ordinance actually amends the Municipal Code which in turn amends the Model traffic Code which was previously adopted by the City by reference. .The definition of neighborhood electric vehicles is taken verbatim from the state statute. The proposed regulations are also taken verbatim from the state ~tatute except for the prohibition of driving on City owned or maintained trails. That is redundant in that the authorization for their use is limited to streets and highways, but I wanted to make clear that such vehicles are not going to be permitted on City trails. Please note that the first regulation prohibits the operation of these vehicles on "limited access highways." The state statute requires this prohibition to .be included in the local authorizing legislation, but nowhere in the state laws is the term "limited access highway' defined. This is a little strange as the prohibition is criminal in nature and criminal statutes must be clear to be constitutional. A person should not be required to guess what is prohibited and thus subject to criminal prosecution. I would guess that the prohibition refers to interstate highways and state highways that have limited access and exit ramps. In any event, I do not believe that there are any "limited access highways" within the City of Aspen at this time. Perhaps the future highway 82 parkway and light rail corridor may fit this definition, but for now, the prohibition is meaningless in Aspen. If you have any questions regarding this issue before Council meets to discuss the ordinance, please let me know. cc: City Manager Randy Ready Jpw-OT/OS/98-G:\jo~r,\word\memos\elec-veh.dcc ORDn CENO. d/ Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNC/L OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 24.04.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING THE USE OF NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLES. WHEREAS, the Colorado State Legislature amended the Colorado Uniform Motor Vehicle Law, effective August 7, 1997, to permit loca] municipalities to authorize and regulate the operations of neighborhood electric vehicles on streets and highways within their boundaries by reso]ution or ordinance of the governing body, provided such regulations are consistent with the provisions of said Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the use and operation of neighborhood electric vehicles on streets and highways within the boundaries of the City of Aspen would enhance air quality by providing an alternative method of transportation to the use of automobiles, help calm traffic by the integration of slower moving vehicles into City traffic, reduce noise pollution by the use of relatively silent operating vehicles, and generally improve the character of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE C/TY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section t. That Section 24.04.020(b), Article I of the Model Traffic Code, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of the following pan and sections, which shall read as follows: PART 20 NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLES Section 2001. Model Traffic Code Section 2001 is hereby amended by the addition of the following section, which shall read as follows: Authorization for use and operation. Pursuant to Section 42-4-111(1)(aa) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, neighborhood electric vehicles are hereby authorized for use and operation on streets and highways within the boundaries of the City of Aspen, subject to the regulations for such use and operatioh set forth in Section 2002, below. Section 2002. Model Traffic Code Section 2002 is hereby amended by the addition of the following section, which shall read as follows: Regulation of neighborhood electric vehicles. (]) No person shall operate a neighborhood electric vehicle on a limited access highway. (2) No person shall operate a neighborhood electric vehicle on any street or highway with a posted speed limit of more than forD, (40) miles per hour. Nothing in this subsection 2002(2) shall prohibit the crossing of a street or highway with a posted speed limit of more than forty (40) miles per hour. (3) No person shall operate a neighborhood electric vehicle on a City owned or maintained trail. Section 2. That Section 24.04.020(b), Article H of the Model Traffic Code, of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection, which shall read as follows: Section 102. Model Traffic Code, Article II, Section 102, is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection, which shall read as follows: (43. I) "Neighborhood electric vehicle" means a self-propelled, electrically powered motor vehicle that: (a) Meets the equipment standards set forth in Article I, Part 2, of the Model Traffic Code, (b ) Is designed to carry four (4) or fewer persons, (c) Is designed to be operated at speeds of twenty-five (25) miles per hour or less, (d) Has at least four (4) wheels in contact with the ground, and (e) Has an unladen weight of less than one thousand eight hundred (1800) pounds. Section 3. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4. 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 hereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of ,1998, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. ~NTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the __day of ,1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor A'I'I r. ST! Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of ,1998. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk IPW-06/10/98-G:\john\word\ords\elec-vehdoc MEMORANDU~I TO: THRU: i FRO~I: Mitch Haas, Planner~ I035 East Durant (a~/a the Day Subdivision) application for Conceptual~inal P~, Subdivision, Appeal of the Resident Multi-Family Housin~ Replacement Program Requirements, and Vested Property Ri~hls. First Reading &Ordinance No. ~. Series of 1998. DATE: July 13, 1998 SU~I~I~Y: The Community Development Department has received a request involving the demolition of twenD'-four (24) free market dwdling units (28 bedrooms). The proposed development would replace these units with four (4) free market dwelling units 06 bedrooms), built in a multi-family townhome configuration along the Roaring Fork River. To the west of the free marke~ townh0mes, an existing multi-family s~ruc~ure would be com.erled to twelve (12) deed restricted. affordable rental unils comathing ten (1O) studio apartments and ~wo (2) two-bedroom ~nhs for a to~al of fourteen (14) bedrooms. The proposal also includes a reques~ to remodel and add omo an existing single-family home on lhe westernmost portion of the site. The proposal x~ould place Ihe free market townhomes and ~he associated sub-grade parking structure on its own Iol (proposed Lot 2). while deed restricted units in the multi-family structure and the free market single-family home x~ould be on another 1ot (proposed Lot 1), As the site is located within one-hundred 000) feet of the Roaring Fork River. the zpplicam has received Stream Margin Review approval from th~ Plannina and Zoning Commission. In addition, the proposed developmere requires Planned Unh Development (PUD) includin~ variance requests regardin~ ~he off-street parkin~ requirements, from yard setbacks. and amount of required open space, as well as Subdivision review, The applicanI and lhe Housing Designee disagree with regard to the requirements of the Muhi-Family Housing Replacement Program as it applies to the proposed developmere; consequently. applicant is appealing lhe decision of the HoUsing Designee to City Council, pursuant Section 20.08.020(c) of the Municipal Code. The details of this disagreement are e]aboraled upon below. Communi~' Development Depa~menl staff and lhe Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PUD with conditions, including approval of the requested open space and froni yard setback variances; however, staff and the Commission recommend denial of the portion of the PUD application requesting an off- street parking variance. Staff and lhe Commission also recommend approval of the Subdivision application with condilions. Finally staff is recommending a compromise regarding ihe appeal of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program requirements. Referral comments from Parks, Engineering, Zoning. Sanitation, Housing. and Environmental Health are attached as Exhibit C. APPLICANT: Aspen-Day Family Partnership, LLLP, represented by Glenn Horn of Davis- Horn Incorporated. LOCATION: The site is located at the east end of Durant Avenue, on the south side of the street. Surrounding structures include the Alpina House to the west, the ROaring Fork River and the Redwood Condominiums to the east, the Chateau Roaring Fork Apartments to the north, and a multi-family residential structure to the south. ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (R/MF). LOT SIZE: The propert)' contains a gross area of 34,195 square feet (0.785 acres). The proposed Lot I would contain 15,534 square feet of gross lot area, while the proposed Lot 2 x~'ould contain 18,661 square feet of gross lot area. The lot area of the proposed Lot 2 ~xould be subject to reductions for slopes and areas below the high water line, resulting in an approximate lot area of 16, 115 square feet. A preliminaD' calculation would indicate that the single femily home on the proposed Lot I could contain up to 4,076 square feet of Lot 1 's total allowable floor area. All of the foregoing figures will be subject to further review and verification by the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance. For instance. according to the referral memo provided by the Cit3"s Zoning Officer (See Exhibit C). the land area within the surface access easement on Lot 1 will need to be deducted from the lot area calculations pursuant to Section 26.04.100 (lot area definition), thereby further reducing the lot area of the proposed Lot 1. FLOOR AREA: The allowable FAR in the zone district is 1:1. providing approximately 15,534 square feet of floor area on the proposed Lot 1. This would be subject to further reductions such as those suggested in the referral memo from the Zoning Officer. attached as Exhibit C. There is approximately 16,115 square feet of floor area on the proposed Lot 2. While the exact amount of floor area contained in the proposal is still subject to verification by the City's Zoning Officer during review of building permit application materials. the materials submitted to date indicate that the proposal v,'ould contain a total of 12,196 square feet of floor area on Lot 2, and 9,431 on Lot 1, as calculated under the provisions of the Land Use Code. The floor area on Lot I includes the proposed single family home which would contain approximately 2,883 square feet of floor area, as calculated under the provisions of the Land Use Code. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site currently contains three (3) apartment buildings and one (1) single-family house, for a combined total of forty-two (42) bedrooms in thirty-seven (37) dwelling units (please see the attached Exhibit E, Site Plan of Existing Conditions). These units are distributed as follows: · the westernmost building (Building 1) is a single-family structure with n~'o bedrooms; · the adjacent building to the east (Buildifig 2). contains twelve (12) one-bedroom units: · the next building to the east (Building 3) houses one studio apartment, one one-bedroom apartment and one two-bedroom apartment: and 2 · the easternmost building (Building 4) contains one four-bedroom dwelling unit occupied by the owner, and twenty (20) studio apartments. Portions of Building 4 lie only two feet west of the top of the Roaring Fork River bank. Existing vegetation on the site includes eleven (l l) mature aspen trees, one pine tree, six cottonwood trees, and various shrubs, bushes and grasses. Uses adjacent to the site are multi.family dwellings on all sides as well as across the Roaring Fork River. All utilities are available to the site. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish Buildings 3 and 4 and replace them with four (4) free market townhomes and an underground parking structure containing twelve (12) spaces. Building 2 would remain with ten (10) of the tweh'e (12) one-bedroom deed restricted as affordable housing in their current state. Of these, three (3) of the studios would be deed restricted to Categor}' 1 levels, while the other seven (7) would be Categor}' 2. The two (2) remaining apartments in Building 2 would be deed restricted as Resident Occupied (R.O.) units and enlarged by adding one bedroom to each, making them both two-bedroom units. Building I is a single-family detached dwelling unit and would be expanded to include four (4) bedrooms and a two-car garage. BACKGROUND & PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The proposed development is subject to the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program established by Ordinance 1. Series of 1990. ]n basic terms, the Replacement Program requires that. in the evem of the demolition of resident multi-family housing. the owner shall construct replacemere housing consisting of no less than rift}' (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. and said replacement housing must be configured in such a way as to replace rift} (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost by demolition. Also, at least rift}' (50) percent of the replacement housing must be above natural grade, and all of the replacement housing must be deed restricted in conformance with the parameters established by Section 26.08.040. Rental and Resale Restrictions. of the Municipal Code. In September of 1996, the Community Development Director made a formal code interpretation stating that, in summar}', the proposal 1o deed restrict twelve (12) of the existing thirty-six (36) resident multi-family bedrooms in order to demolish twent.v-four (24) of the resident multi-family bedrooms and construct four (4) new free-market townhomes did not comply with the Section 20.08.030 Housing Replacement requirements. The finding of noncompliance was the result of the applicant's proposal to accomplish the replacement by deed restricting the twelve (12) one-bedroom units in one of (Building 2) the existing structures on the site, meaning the twelve resident multi-family housing units in Building 2 would be lost as well. The Director's interpretation held that the Replacement Program would require a total of eighteen (12 + 6) deed restricted replacement bedrooms instead of the proposed twelve bedrooms. The applicant appealed the Director's imerpretation to Cit}' Council, resulting in Council's adoption of Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 (attached as Exhibit D). While Council supported the Director's Interpretation and indicated that it provided the correct methodology for administering the program in future cases, Council also felt that the applicant received other advice from staff in pre-application meetings and had reliance that fewer units needed to be provided. Consequently, Council decided in Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 that it would be acceptable for the applicant's amended land use applica- tion to "include two (2) additional deed restricIed resident multi-family bedrooms for a total of fourteen (~ 4d replacement bedrooms in order to meet the negotiated requirements of Title 20, Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program of the Aspen Municipal Code." Resolution Number 76 did not specify the required category mix and unit sizes for the replacement housing units as this is a function of the Housing Office. The Housing Office must certify the appropriateness of the replacement units by issuing a "Certificate of Compliance" with Title 20. Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 also states thal the Community Development Directors' Interpretation "shall not affect the further evaluation of this project," and that "the development review shall be a consolidated n~'o-step PUD process and shall allow minor ~'ariations in open space and off-street parking standards." The current application is requesting variances to the open space and off-street parking standards through the PUD process. Staff supports the open space variance request. but recommends that the requested variance from off-street parking requirements be denied for reasons explained in Exhibit A. At a continued public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 2, 1998. a stream margin revie~x application for the subject development proposal was approved with conditions by a vote of 6-0. The Commission also recommended, in a single motion. approval of the proposed PUD with conditions. including approval of an open space variance and front yard setback variance, but denial of an off-street parking variance by a vote of 6-0. Finall). the Commission recommended Subdivision approval with conditions by a vote of 6- 0. All staff recommended conditions were accepted by the Commission and included in their recommendations to City Council, REVIEXV PROCESS: As a Subdivision and consolidated Planned Unit Development application. a two-step process is required with public hearings before, first, the Planning and Zoning Commission and, second, City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission serves in an advisory nature to the City Council with regard to the Subdivision application and PUD proposal, including its requests for variances to the' off-street parking, front yard setback. and open space requirements. DISCUSSION/STAFF COI~IMENTS: The review criteria for Planned Unit Development and Subdivision applications as well as staffs evaluation of the application relative to these criteria are provided in the artached exhibits (see Exhibits A and B, respectively). A summar)' of each of these reviews is also provided below. Title 20, Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program The applicant is seeking a GMQS Exemption from the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(a)((4)) in order to replace the demolished muhi- family, residential units. The cited code section requires compliance with the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, Sections 20.08.030 and 20.08.040 of the Regulations. Decision-making authority regarding the requested GMQS Exemption lies with the Community Development Director and the Housing Office. However, disagreements between the Housing Office and the applicant regarding the merits of the proposed replacement program are appealed to and decided by the City CoUncil, pursuant to Section 26.08.020(c). Once the Housing Office has determined that an application satisfies the requirements of the Program, a Certificate of Compliance would be issued pursuant to Sections 20.04.030 and 20.08.020. For the reasons outlined below, the applicant has not yet received the Certificate of Compliance. Housing Office staff found that the applicant's proposal complies with most. but nor all of the requirements of the Housing Replacement Program, as summarized below. · The net residential area of the replacement housing exceeds fi~, (50) percent of the gross residential area to be demolished. This exceeds the requirement. · Twenty-four (24) Resident Multi-Family bedrooms are being demolished and would be replaced by fourteen (14) affordable housing bedrooms (determined to be acceptable, as per City Council Resolution 76, Series of 1996 --- attached as Exhibit D). · All of the proposed replacement housing would be located above natural grade. The Replacement Program includes rental and resale restrictions (Section 20.08.040) requiring that sale prices or rental rates be in compliance with the Housing Office's current regulations. In reviewing the proposed unit sizes and category restrictions. there are two issues to consider. The applicant is proposing to dMde two substandard size one-bedroom units into two substandard size two-bedroom units to come up with the fourteen Bedrooms. Below is a table showing the unit size, the proposed net livable area and the minimum net livable area as stated in the Housing Guidelines. Proposed Amount Bedroom Proposed Square Minimum Net CareSon.' Proposed Size Feet Livable Resident Occupied 2 units 2-bedroom 576 850 Category 1 3 units Studios 420 400 CareSon.' 2 7 units Studios 420 400 Thus, the proposed Category 1 and 2 studio units comply with the minimum size requirements, but the proposed two-bedroom R.O. units do not. The Housing Designee's recommendation toward addressing this shortcoming involves either enlarging the addition to the building such that the two-bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for such units, or engaging in a buy-down solution whereby off-site units of adequate size would be purchased by the applicant and deed restricted. The Housing Designee is not and will not be satisfied with the currently proposed solution of dividing two studio units into two substandard size two-bedroom units. Also, the Housing Designee does not want to see the additional bedrooms satisfied by cash-in-lieu. Another issue revolves around the proposed catego~' mix. as outlined in the table above. On July 17, 1996, the Housing Board recommended that the housing mix include three (3) Category I units and nine (9) Category 2 units. with the additional two bedrooms being a Category 1 or 2, depending on the unit. The Housing Board recommends that there be no Resident Occupied (R.O.) units because such units would not adequately serve current housing needs. However, Section 20.08.040, Rental and Resale Restrictions, of the Housing Replacement Program provisions, states clearly that "The mix of affordable housing units, as between low, moderate and middle income, or resident occupied may be determined b), the owner, provided that no less than twenty (20) percent of the bedrooms qualidS;' as low income and no more than twenty (20) percent of the units are available as resident occupied units." The proposal requests that two (2) of the twelve (12) units be deed restricted as R.O. units, for a total of 16.67% of the units. While the proposed category mix would seem to comply with the provisions of the Replacement Program, the issue lies in the fact that the Housing Designee believes there to be no need for R.O. units added to the housing inventory. While the Housing Board will need to review the proposal again, it is not likely that they will change their position. Similarly, since the above cited section of the Replacement Program allows for up to 20% of the units to be in the R.O. category, the applicant is not likely to passively accept the Housing Board's position. Thus, pursuant to Section 2-G2°,,.~20(c). the applicant is appealing the decision of the Housihg Designee to City Council with the hope that Council will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Community Development Department staff recommends d compromise between the two positions. Specifically, staff recommends that Council allow to two (2) Resident Occupied (R.O.) units. but require that the addition to the existing building be enlarged such that both of the two-bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for such units. This compromise would result in on-site units of a size meeting the standards of the Housing Designee while allowing the R.O. deed restrictions that the code permits and the applicant wants. Staff believes the suggested compromise would meet all the codified requirements of the Muhi-Family Housing Replacement Program. In summary, the proposal is entitled to a GMQS Exemption by the Community Development Director provided the requirements of the Housing Replacement Program are satisfied. Staff recommends that City Council approve the issuance .of a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, allowing the proposed Category mix, on the condition that the addition to the existing building be enlarged such that both of the two- bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for two-bedroom, R.O. units. If this recommendation is accepted and acted upon by Council, the Community Development Director will grant the requested GMQS Exemption pursuant to Section 26.10.050(A)(2)(a)((4)) of the Municipal Code. Section 26.84.030(B), Planned Unit Development Review Standards For d complete staff review of each PUD review standard, please refer to Exhibit A, attached hereto. Community Development staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD, with the conditions outlined in the "PUD Recommendation" section of Exhibit A. Included in these recommended conditions is approval of the requested variances to the front yard setback and open space requirements for proposed Lot 1. and denial of the requested variance to the minimum off-street parking requirements. Section 26. 8& 040(C), Subdivision Review Standards For a complete staff review of each Subdivision review standard, please refer to Exhibit B, attached hereto. Community Development staff recommends approval of the proposed Subdivision with the conditions outlined in the "Subdivision Recommendation" section of Exhibit B. With regard to the Subdivision review in particular, the only remaining point of contention between staff and the applicant involves the applicability of the School Land Dedication (or cash-in-lieu) provision. Staff and the City Attorney maintain that the developer must dedicate land or pay the cash-in-lieu fee while the applicant contends that the provision is not applicable. For a more complete discussion of this issue, please refer to Exhibit B (pages B-2 to B-3). Section 26.52.080, Fested Proper0, Rights In order to preserve the land use approvals v,'hich may be granted to the 1035 East Durant Avenue application, the applicant has requested vested property rights status pursuant to the prox'isions of Section 26.52.080 of the Land Use Code. Such status can only be granted by ordinance of the City Council. Section 26.52.080 does not contain any specific submission requirements or review criteria, other than a public hearing. to confer vested property rights status. Consequently. staff recommends granting the requested vested property rights status. provided the ordinance approving the site specific development plan is adopted. RECOI~IMCENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD with conditions. including approval of the requested open space and front yard setback variances and denial of the requested off-street parking variance. Staff is recommending approval of the Subdivision application with conditions. Each set of recommended conditions can be found in the corresponding Exhibit (i.e., Exhibit A for the PUD; and, B for the Subdivision). Staff is also recommending the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance with the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program on the condition that the two (2) Resident Occupied (R.O.) units will be permitted provided the addition to the existing building is enlarged such that both of the two-bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for two-bedroom units. Lastly, staff recommends granting vested property rights status to these approvals. RECO/~IMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance Number ._~9; Series of 1998." Or, "I move to grant the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program on the condition that the two (2) Resident Occupied (R.O.) units will be permitted provided the addition to the existing building is enlarged such that both of the two-bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for two-bedroom units. I also move approve the 1035 East Durant PUD application with the conditions outlined in Exhibit A of the Community Development staff memorandum dated July 13, 1998, and to approve the 1035 East Durant Subdivision application with the conditions outlined in Exhibit B of the Community Development staff memorandum dated July 13. 1998. All of these approvals shall be granted vested property rights status" 7 EXHIBITS: A - Staff analysis of the proposal relative to the PUD Review Standards B - Staff analysis of the proposal relative to the Subdivision Review Standards C - Referral Memos from Engineering, Parks, Housing, Zoning, Sanitation, and Environmental Health D - City Council Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 E - Site Plan of Existing Conditions ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I - Applicant's submitted materials ORDINANCE No..-~ (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENT MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) APPROVAL, INCLUDING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AN'D VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE 1035 EAST DURANT DEVELOPMENT (A/K/A DAY SUBDIVISION), A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE E 1/2 NW 1/4 NE 1/4 AND THE W 1/2 NE1/4, SECTION 18., TOV~.~SHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.]~I., CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, The Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen-Day Family Partnership, LLLP (hereafter "Applicant"), for Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) including requests for variances to the minimum open space, front yard setback, and off-street parking requirements pursuant to Chapter 26.84 of the Municipal Code: Subdivision pursuant to Chapter 26.88 of the Municipal Code; Appeal of the Resident Multi-Famil.x Housing Replacement Program pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code; and, Vested ProperL~ Rights pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district: and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding requests for Subdivision approval; and, WHEREAS~ pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Planned Unit DevelOpment (PUD) approval. including certain variances to dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district; and pursuant to Section 26.88.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall either approve, approve with conditions or deny requests for Subdivision approval; and pursuant to Section 20.08.020(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall decide appeals of the Housing Designee's decisions regarding the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program; and pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant Vested Property Rights Status; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Office, City Engineering, Parks Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Environmental Health Department, City Zoning Officer, and Communi~ Development Department reviewed the proposals and recommended approval of each with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the above referenced application was legally noticed for a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the application, agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.84.030 (Planned Unit Development) and Section 26.88.040 (Subdivision Approval), during a Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 2 public hearing at a continued meeting on June 2, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 6-0 vote of both the request for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a variance to the minimum open space and front yard setback requirements, and Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the 1035 East Durant application under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Cit~, Council finds the 1035 East Durant application to be consistent with the minimum requirements and review standards for both Planned Unit Development and Subdivision approval pursuant to Sections 26.84.030 and 26.88.040, respectively, of the Aspen Municipal Code provided the stipulated conditions of approval are met; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the 1035 East Durant application to be consistent with the minimum requirements of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program pursuant to Section 26.08.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code provided the stipulated conditions of approval are met. NOVC, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDA!2NED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: 'The 1035 East Durant application for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) is hereby approved with the follox~ing conditions: 1. Final approval of the 1035 E. Durant PUD shall not take effect unless and until a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program is issued (by the Housing Designee or Cit), Council, as applicable). 2. An open space variance changing the amount of required open space (as defined in Section 26.04. 100. Definitions. of the Municipal Code) o~Lot I from 35% to 30% is hereby granted. 3. A front' yard setback variance changing the required front yard setback (as stipulated in Section 26.28.090, Residential Multi-Family, of the Municipal Code) for Building #1, the single-family detached structure on the westerly portion of Lot #1, from ten (10) feet to two (2) feet is hereby granted. 4. The requested variance from the off-street parking requirements associated with Lot 1 is hereby denied. meaning the development of Lot 1 shall be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements associated with the underlying R/MF zone district. 5. The applicant shall work cooperatively with and under the advisement of the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable (to the Parks Department) landscape plan with regard to selection of species. spacing of planrings, and tree remc/val permit requirements. Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 3 6. No trees or shrubs will be planted along the northerly and southerly property lines of Lot 2 within areas designated as fire access routes or utility easements, and the landscape boulder presently located in the proposed southerly utility easement shall be relocated outside of the easement. 7. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). 8. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject propert},, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down- directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. These requirements will be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association(s). 9. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the single-family residence on Lot I, the applicant shall be required to submit an application for Residential Design Standards review, and the Residential Design Standards in place at the time of the submittal shall apply. Either a staff finding of compliance or an approved variance from any standards not complied with will be required before any building permits fOr the subject structure can be issued. 10. The costs of any necessar}' upgrades to existing utility lines, systems and/or facilities attributable to this development will be borne by the applicant. 11. The townhomes building (easternmost structure on Lot 2) and parking garage are required to have automatic fire sprinklers. 12. The remainder of the encroaching stone wall on the east side of the driveway to proposed Lot 2. including the several boulders and the standing snag (topped cononwood tree). shall be removed from the right-of-way and the earthen berm shall be graded to form a more smooth transition bemeen the right-of-way and the adjoining properties. 13. No part of the proposed "mailboxes and security center" at the entrance to Lot 2 will be permitted within the public right-of-way. t4. The eight (8) foot wide driveway of Lot I shall be paved from the back of the curb to the propen3.' line with standard driveway style curb cut, and portions of the existing curb and gutter in need of repair shall be replaced in lengths of no less than five (5) feet. 15. With the building permit application, the developershall provide plans that include: staging and traffic mitigation; hauling and deliver}' routes; vehicle parking areas; equipment and materials staging areas: tempotar}' drainage, erosion and sedimentation control for construction periods; and, provision of temporar}' utilities. 16. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall subm it as-built drawings of the project showing propert3., lines, building footprints, easements, any enc~oachments, entry points for utilities entering the propert3' boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin Count3.' Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 4 17. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utitit)' plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 18. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings x~ith the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council shall be adhered to and shall'be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authorit), to do so. Section 2: The ]035 East Durant application for Subdivision is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. Final approval of the 1035 E. Durant Subdivision shall not take effect unless and until a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program is issued (by the Housing Designee or City Council, as applicable). 2. Pursuant to Sections 26.68.040(B)(2) and (3) of the Municipal Code, the applicant shall dedicate a five (5) foot wide ~sherman's easement with the recording of a final subdivision plat. 3. The easterly boundary of the designated building envelope must follow a line that is, at all points. fifteen (15) feet west ot7 the designated top of slope, and the approved building envelope shall be shown on the recorded final subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall work cooperatively with and under the advisement of the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable (to the Parks Department) landscape plan with regard to selection of species. spacing and location ofplantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 5. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocate& also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). 6. The costs of any necessar2,' upgrades to existing utility lines, systems and/or facilities will be borne by the applicant. With regard to future water system improvements, the applicant will financially participate in any' upgrades of the line size on a pro-rata basis with other propert), owners bonefiled by such improvements to the distribution system, and this condition shall be included in the subdivision and water service agreements for the development. 7. The four-unit townhouse building and parking garage are required to have automatic fire sprinklers. An easement to the City Water Department for the fire hydrant to the west of the common driveway to Lot 2 shall be granted on the final subdivision plat. 8. The developer shall install and replace utility ser'.'ice lines and appurtenances, as required. to the standards of the utility provider. Utility meters'and service connection points shall not be obstructed and shall be accessible to service personnel in the completed project. Any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above-ground equipment shall be installed on an easement provided by Ordinance No. . Series of 1998 Page 5 the propert>' owner. The new utility easements shall be shown on the plan set submined for building permit(s). The developer will not disrupt utility service to adjacent properties during construction. 9. The applicant shall make a cash payment-in-lieu of School Land Dedication prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. The appropriate, proportional fees will be determined by the Zoning Officer at such time as a building permit is requested. I0. Drainage from the parking garage must be run through an oil and sand separator prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system. The overflow line(s) from the garage floor shall be discharged to drywells. I 1. The owner shall construct sidewalks across the street frontage of the properties such that the nex~ sidewalks v,'il] connect and align with the sidewalks to the west of the property. The new side~alks shall be at least five (5) feet in width. All portions of the new sidexvalk that fall outside of the right- of-way (and on the private propen'>') shall be contained within a pedestrian easement granted to the Cir3 for public use, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. The sidexxalk alignment shah be shown on the plan sets submined with the building permit application(s). 12. The propert>. owner shall post financial securities, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the public improvements and landscaping in the public right-of-way: the security will be of an amount equa[ to 100% of the value of the work and the developer's estimate must receive approval from the Ci~ Engineer. 13. The development mus~ be tied into ~he Ci~'s survey control grid. In lieu of establishing nex~ range points and boxes for the subdivision, the developer shall refurbish, as needed, comer No. 2 of the Aspen Townsite referenced in the deed and improvement Survey,, and protect it with a proper survey monument range box (with embossed label on the lid). The existing propert>' monuments shall be protected during construction and flagged for verification prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy'. 14. The property owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat, and will include improvements to the water distribution system serving this development. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. Section' 3: Pursuant to Sections 20.08.020(c) and 20.080.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code, a Certificate of Compliance with the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program shall be issued on the condition that the ~vo (2) Resident Occupied (R.O.) units will be permitted provided the addition to the Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 6 existing building is enlarged such that both of the two-bedroom units would meet the minimum net livable areas for two-bedroom units. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 26.52.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code and C.R.S. 24-68-104(2), Cit2,' Council does hereby grant the applicant Vested Propert3' Rights status for the site specific development plan for the 1035 East Durant Avenue application as approved by Ordinance Number , Series of 1998, for a period of three (3) years from the date said Ordinance is signed with the following conditions: 1. The rights granted by this site specific development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested propert>., rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded by the Municipal Code shall also result in forfeiture of said vested propert).' rights. 2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time pertained by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication provided for in Section 26.52.080(D) 3. Zoning thal is not pan of the site specific development plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested propert-a' right. 4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviex~s and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules. regulations or ordinances of the Gin.' provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent x~ith the approvals granted and vested herein. 5. The establishment herein of a vested propert)' right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property. subject to land use regulation by the Ci~' of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing. electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 26.52.080(D) of the Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper. of general circulation within the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence. clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for an>' reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validit3' of the remain!ng portions thereof. Ordinance No. , Series of 1998 Page 7 Section 7: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 8: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1998 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen Ci~.' Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen ( ] 5) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. LNTRODUCED, READ A~ ORDERED PUBLISHEI) as provided by law, by the Ci~' Council of the Ci~' of Aspen on the day of ,1998. John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathn.'n S. Koch, Ci~' Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOP~M: John Worcester, Ci~' Atlomey FE~ALLY, adopted. passed and approved this day of .1998. John Bennett, M[ayor ATTEST: KathD'n S. Koch, Ci~, Clerk c:~home~nitchh,counci[\1035ord.doc EXHIBIT A Staff Review of 1035 East Durant Application for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) The applicant is requesting Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval pursuant to the regulations of Section 26.84.030(B) of the Land Use Code. City Council Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 (attached as Exhibit E) stated that "the development review shall be a consolidated two-step PUD process and shah allow minor variations in open space and off- street parking standards . . ." The applicant is seeking PUD approval with variations requested from the front yard setback, minimum required open space, and off-street parking requirements. Staff supports the requested variances from the front yard setback and minimum open space requirements, but recommends denial of the request to vary the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces. The review criteria for Planned Unit Development applications and staff's evaluation of the application relative to them are provided below. la. The proposed derelopment shall be consiste,t with the Aspe, Area Community Pla,. RESPONSE: Of the statements in the AACP that relate to the subject proposal. the 'preponderance lend support, especially those of the Gro~'th Action Plan and the Housing Action Plan. Examples of such supportive statements found in the AACP include the following: · The Intent of the Growth Action Plan. as stated on page 16 of the AACP, is to "Encourage land uses, businesses and events which serre both the local communiO, and tourist base." The proposal includes the provision of twelve (12) deed restricted units that x~ould serve the local community. as well as four free market townhomes and one detached single-family home that ~ould likely be utilized as second homes. thereby serving the tourist base. · Similarly. the Intent of the Housing Action Plan, as stated on page 30 of the AACP. is to "O'eate a housing em'ironme,t which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and affordable." The proposed project, itself, would provide for a dispersed housing environment with its mix of deed restricted and free market units. and it would be appropriately scaled considering the mixed densities of housing found throughout the neighborhood. The policies listed on page 31 of the AACP also recommends continuing "the approach of dispersed mid-size to smaller projects throughout the Aspen metro area and upvaHey of Aspen Village," and encouraging "infill development within the existing urban area.. ." The Housing Action Plan also states that permanent resident housing should be located near desired activity centers, and the proposed deed restricted units would be just four blocks from the Commercial Core. · Finally, it is recommended in the Housing Action Plan, that the City encourage "the purchase of existing structures to preserve them for resident housing in order to discourage displacement of local residents." Pan of the proposal calls for renovating an existing multi-family structure. adding two bedrooms to it, and deed restricting all of its units for occupancy by local residents at affordable rates. Other statements found in the AACP would seem to conflict with the proposed development plan. For instance. Page 32 of the AACP, Housing Action Plan. calls for private sector development of "Resident Occupancy (R.O.)" units that "benefit the character of the A-I EXHIBIT A communiO," and are 'y'amily oriented for working residents." As explained in the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program section of the main body of this memo, the Housing Board feels that the development of R.O. units would not serve an unmet need of the housing inventory. Moreover, the proposed R.O. units would be two-bedrooms each and ofsubstandard size; these units would not be "family oriented." Overall, the preponderance of goals in the AACP lend support to the proposed PUD. The AACP. in staffs opinion, also lends support to the position the Housing Designee has taken with regard to the proposed sizes and mix of deed restricted, replacement units in the development; however, the language of the Municipal Code allows for the proposed cataegory mix (also, please refer to staffs response to criterion ld, below). Community Development staff finds that there is enough support in the AACP for the proposed PUD to satisfy this criterion. ]b. The proposed da,elopment shah be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The east end of Aspen is predominantly zoned I~/MF. The proposed development is contiguous to multi-famib' development on three sides and the Roaring Fork River on the fourth side. Across the river, there is a multi-family residential structure as well as two detached single famib houses. Durant Avenue, in the vicinity of the subject site, is developed with multi-family structures and interspersed single family homes. The proposed development (two multi-family structures and one single family house) is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area and compatible with the neighborhood. ]c. The Foposed derelopment shall not adrersely affect the future development of the surroundbTg area. RESPONSE: It is expected that the proposed redevelopment would have positive affects on the potential for future redevelopmerit of the surrounding area since utility upgrades compIeted by the applicant would serve to aid in and better facilitate the redevelopmere of the surrounding neighborhood. ld. Final afiproval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which G~(2S allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: The proposed development would be exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100.050(A)(2)(a)((4)) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, provided a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family HOusing Replacement Program is obtained from the Housing Designee, or from City Council upon appeal of the Housing Designee's decision. Please refer to the Muti-Fami]y Housing Replacement Program section in the main body of this memo for a detailed explanation of the requested GMQS Exemption and its relation to the Housing Replacement Program. It is staffs recommendation that final approval of the 1035 E. Durant PUD not be granted unless and until the proposal has been determined (by A-2 EXHIBIT A the HoUsing Designee or City Council, as applicable) to comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and a Certificate of Compliance is issued. 2. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The proposed density is less than that allowed by the underlying R/IvlF zoning. On the proposed Lot 1, there is approximately 15,534 square feet of net usable lot area. The FUMF zone district's density restrictions require 6,000 square feet of lot area for the proposed four-bedroom house, a total of 5,000 square feet of lot area for the ten studio units, and a total of 2,000 square feet of lot area for the two two-bedroom units; this equates to a minimum lot area of 13,000 square feet (6,000 + 5,000 + 2,000 = 13,000). Since the proposed Lot I would contain 15,534 square feet of net usable area, the proposal complies with the maximum permissible density of the RAVIF zone district. The proposed Lot 2 contains approximately 16,115 square feet of net usable area. The R/MF zone districfs density restrictions require 1,000 square feet of lot area per bedroom on lots of more than 9,000 square feet with no deed restrictions. The proposal includes sixteen (16) bedrooms, thus, the minimum lot area is 16,000 square feet (16 x 1,000 = 16,000). Since the proposed Lot 2 would contain approximately 16,115 square feet of net usable area, the proposal complies with the maximum permissible density of the R/IvlF zone district. 3. The la~d uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered b7 a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling ui~its shall only be allowed when permitted by the underlyi.g zone district. RESPONSE: The R/MF zone district lists detached reidential dwellings and multi-family dwellings as permitted uses. 4. The dimensional requirements sirall be those of the underlying zone district: protided, that ~'ariations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance bem'een buildings: b. Maximum height a~cluding ~,ie~q~lanes) : c. Minimum front yard; d Minimum rear yard,' e. Minimum side yard,' Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area: h. Trash area access: i. Internal floor area ratio; and, j. Minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: To develop the project as proposed, the applicant would require variations to the minimum percent open space. A variation of five (5) percent to the minimum percent open space (35%) is requested in order to allow a development with 30% open space. Staff supports this request. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum required front yard setback in order to allow a two (2) foot setback as opposed to the required ten (10) feet. ahd staff is in support of this request as well. A-3 EXHIBIT A Minimum Front Yard Setback Variance: Lot I contains a non-conforming structure which cannot be altered in any manner which would expand or enlarge the non-conformity. The non-conforming status is due to a lack of compliance with the required front yard setback often (10) feet. The existing structure encroaches approximately one-half(I/2) of a foot into the public right-of-way (zero setback). Therefore, (without a variance) even if the renovation results in a two (2) foot setback from the property line, the portions of the single- family detached building that lie within ten (10) feet of the northerly property line cannot be enlarged in any way (i.e., not even the height within ten feet of the property line can be increased). In the Zoning Officer's referral memo (see EXhibit C), she advises the applicant to request a setback variance as pan of the PUD review so that the project would have its own approved front yard setback, the "non-conforming" status would be eliminated, and any future modifications to these structures could be reviewed as an Insubstantial PUD Amendment rather that a Substantial PUD Amendment. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback requirements of the R/MF zone district. The minimum required front yard setback is ten (10) feet, and the applicant is requesting a variance to allox~ a mo (2) foot setback. The two (2) foot setback would represent a significant improvement from the existing condition (it would become six (6) feet closer to conformance than is nov,' the case). The remodeled building would still maintain a setback of over twenty (20) feet from Durant Avenue, thereby maintaining the spirit of the requirement. With the PUD granting a variance to allow a two (2) foot front yard setback for Building #1, the concerns of the Zoning Officer would be addressed. 'The only clear alternative to granting the requested variance would be maintenance of the non-conforming status. Therefore, staff supports granting of the requested front yard setback variance. Percent Open Space Variance: The R/MF zoning requires that a minimum of 35% of the site must remain as open space meeting the definition of "open space" as provided in Section 26.04.100 of the code. The proposed Lot 1 would contain approximately 5,070 square feet of open space or 32.6% of the total site area. The applicant is seeking a variation in the open space requirement for Lot 1. As proposed, Lot 2 would contain approximately 6,625 square feet of open space, or 35.5% of the total site area; this meets the open space requirement in the R/MF zone district. The proposed plan indicates 900 square feet of common open space that would be suitable for landscaping and accessible to all residents of the PUD without limitation. The applicant has requested a 5% variance (to 30%) from this requirement in order to accommodate the proposed plan and the possibility of calculation or rounding errors. The requested variance would encompass those areas mentioned in the referral comments from the Zoning Officer (see Exhibit C). Again, staff is in support of granting the requested variance for the following reasons: A-4 EXHIBIT A a) City Council Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 (see Exhibit D) states that the "PUD process . . . shall allow minor variations in open space . . ." The Council decision required adding two additional bedrooms to the existing multi-family structure and the addition has a footprint with an area of 156 square feet. The area of the addition utilizes land area that would otherwise have counted toward the required open space for the site; b) The areas located between the properly lines and the curbs cannot be counted towards open space calculations, but to the vlewer/passer-b}'/user will be indiscemible from and contiguous to the rest of the open areas; if this area were figured into the site, the percentage of open space provided would be significantly higher; and, c) The proposed development would include open space for the mutual benefit of all residents in the proposed PUD, as required for an open space variance by standard six, below. In summary, staff believes that a variance from 35% to 30% would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD as the variance would be completely indisqernible to the viewer/user. 5. The number of off-street parking spaces may be x'aried from that required in the underlying zone district ba~ed on ... [six enumerated] considerations. RESPONSE: The applicant is seeking a variance from the off-street parking requirements of the R/MF zone district. Section 26.32.020 and the underlying R/MF zone district require one parking space for each of the ten (10) studio apartments. two spaces for each of the two (2) two-bedroom units, and two spaces per free market unit (1 unit on Lot I, and 4 units on Lot 2). Therefore, the proposed development 6f Lot I would require a total of sixteen (16) off- street parking spaces, and the proposed development of Lot 2 would require eight (8) off- street parking spaces. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces are proposed to serve the four (4) townhomes on Lot 2, and fourteen (14) spaces are proposed to serve the four- bedroom single family home and the twelve deed restricted units (total of 18 bedrooms) on Lot 1. Therefore, the proposed off-street parking for Lot 2 complies with the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces in the RAVIF zone; however, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow two (2) fewer off-street parking spaces than would be required on Lot I (14 proposed, but 16 required). Alihough Resolution Number 76, Series of 1996 (Exhibit D) states that minor variations in off-street parking standards shall be allowed, staff interprets this to mean that "minor variations shall be allowed if necessitated by the requirement of adding two additional bedrooms." In staffs opinion the requested variance is neither necessary nor justifiable. Due to the limited street frontage and the high density development on the adjacent East Durant Avenue properties, on-site parking should be designed to accommodate all the projected vehicles of the future inhabitants, regardless of whether the new parking plan would be an improvement over the existing condition. The requested variance from the minimum number of off-street parking spaces would displace ~,o required spaces from the site while not fulfilling this need elsewhere. Furthermore, the proposal includes twelve (12) parking spaces for the four (4) townhouse units (three per unit) and only eight (8) are A-5 EXHIBIT A required, resulting in an excess of four (4) spaces. Of these twelve spaces, seven (7) are located almost completely on Lot 1. The proposal is two (2) parking spaces shy of the required minimum for LOt 1, yet the submitted plans demonstrate an ability to provide more than the required number of off-street spaces between LOts 1 and 2. The submitted plans clearly indicate that the requirement to add two additional bedrooms to the site has not necessitated a variance from the minimum off-street parking requirements. Staff recommends denial of this variance request. 6. The open space requirement shah be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variatio. in nlblinlum open space may be permitted if such variation wouM not be detrimental to the character of the proposed planned unit development (PUD), and If the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed P UD through a common park or recreation area. RESPONSE: Please refer to the "response" to standard 4, above. 7. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape pla", which exhibits a well designed treatme.t of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample qua.tit3, and variety of ornanlental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A detailed landscape plan has been prepared as part of the application (see Attachment 1). Also, please refer to the Parks Department's memorandum included with Exhibit C. The submitted landscape plan identifies each of the site's existing trees that will be preserved. The landscape plan provides for planrings including a mix of deciduous trees. coniferous trees, mixed shrubs, and groundcovers. The species selected are considered to be appropriate for the Aspen area climate. The landscape plan commits to the planting of several new trees, providing more than 200 caliper inches of replacement trees on-site, which will compensate for the trees that must be removed. The plan includes concentrations of plantings along the street frontages which will greatly aid in enhancing the pedestrian experience, and softening the views and street presence of the structures. On pages 20-21 of the written application (Attachment 1, dated 2/5/98), the applicant has committed to working cooperatively with the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable landscape plan with regard to selectio/n of species, spacing of planrings, and tree removal permit requirements. The existing landscape plan proposes plantings along the northerly and southerly property lines of Lot 2 and such planrings would inhibit the designated fire access route and encroach upon the five (5) foot utility easement, respectively. These locations cannot be obstructed by trees or shrubbery; thus, the landscape plan will have to be revised accordingly, with these trees planted elsewhere as their caliper inches are required.to mitigate for trees to be removed. Staff is recommending that resolution of this conflict be accomplished in the revised landscape plan that the applicant will work cooperatively with the Parks Department to complete. A-6 EXHIBIT A 8. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the city. It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiati~'e is steed in the desigT~ of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required Architectural character is based upon the suitabiliO, of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design shouM minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and mcccimize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. RESPONSE: The application package includes a site plan as well ad architectural elevations (see Attachment 1 ). While violations of at least one of the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.58.040 are evident, a complete staff review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards has not been concluded to date due to the inadequacy of information provided. To date, the applicant has submitted only three of the four elevations required for the review, and the floor heights are indicated on only one of these three. Consequently. compliance with the Residential Design Review standards remains as an outstanding issue. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the structures have been designed to be compatible with one another, but not identical or repetitive. The townhomes have been broken into primary and secondary masses by varying their textures and wall planes, and by employing dormers to vary the roof forms. In general, the designs are of a contemporary nature yet compatible with each other and the visual character of the dity. They use peaked roofs and gable forms. provide windows, decks and covered stoops. and use materials appropriate to the alpine environment, such as stone, wood. stucco, and standing seam metal. This criterion states that "building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion." Since the applicant was successful in obtaining a stream margin review approval, .it is then fair to assume that disturbances to the natural terrain have been minimized, preservation of existing vegetation has been maximized, drainage has been addressed, and soil erosion has been reduced; thus, since stream margin review approval has been granted, staff can conclude that the intent and requirements of Section 26.84.030(B)(8) will be satisfied with the construction of the proposed PUD. 9. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: The applicant has committed to meet this criterion. The applicant has stated that all exterior lighting would comply with this standard, and that they would include appropriate requirements in the covenants of the homeowners' association. If the application is approved, staff would suggest the following condition(s) of approval: "If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. These requirements will be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the homeowners' association." A-7 EXHIBIT A 10. Clustering of dweHb~g writs is encouraged RESPONSE: The plan to develop seventeen (17) residential units in three buildings on a site of 34,195 square feet while maintaining approximately 11,700 square feet of open area can be considered as clustered development. Given that this criterion does not mandate clustering, but instead encourages it, staff feels that the spirit of the criterion is met with the proposed development plan. H. The proposed development shah be desig. ed so that adequatepublic facilities will be m,ailable to accommodate the proposed development at the time de~,elopment is constructed and that there will be no net public cost for the prm~ision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is h~accessible to emergency vehicles. RESPONSE: Public facilities are already in place to serve the existing structure. The costs of any necessary upgrades to existing systems and facilities will be borne by the applicant. The buildings have been arranged in a manner that would permit access by emergency fire or medical vehicles. with emergency access available from Durant Avenue. The townhomes building and parking garage will be required to have automatic fire sprinklers. .~2a. tr~,eU' dwelling unit, Or other land use permitted in the plam~ed unit del, elopment (?UDy shah hm'e access to a public street either directly or through an apprm,ed prirate road a pedesn'ia. way, or other area dedicated to public or prirate use. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to each duelling unit would be available from East Duram Avenue. Pedestrian access is also provided from East Durant Ayehue. 12b.?rincipal ~,ehicular access points shall be designled .to permit smooth traffic ~o~i' with controlled turning morement and minimum hazards to ~,ehicular or pedestrian traffic. ~finor streets within the plam~ed unit derelopment (t~UDJ shah not be connected to sn'eets outside the de~,elopment so as to encourage their use by through traffic. RESPONSE: Vehicular access to the development would be gained via East Durant Avenue. There are no minor streets within the PUD. 12c. The proposed de~,elopment shall be desig~ed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be impro~,ed so that the3,' will not be adverse6' affected. RESPONSE: The referral memorandum from the Environmental Health Department (see Exhibit C) states that, "the plan proposes to reduce the number of housing units from 37 to 17 and to decrease the number of allowed parking spaces... and mitigation is not required." According to 1TE trip generation factors employed by the Environmental Health Department. the site currently generates approximately 240 vehicle trips per day. while the proposed development would generate in the neighborhood of 127 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the redevelopment of the site is expected to reduce traffic generated by over 45%. A-8 EXHIBIT A 12alEvery residential building shall be not farther than sixty (60j feet from an access roadway or dri~,e providing vehicular access to a public street. RESPONSE: As proposed, the development would comply with this standard. 12e. All nonresidential land uses within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct acc(ss to a colleotor or arterial street without creating traffic hazards oi' congestion on atD, street. RESPONSE: There are no nonresidential uses proposed within this PUD. ]2fiStreels in the planned unit developnlent (PUDJ mcr), be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvenlents shall comply with all pertinent CiO, regulations and ordinances. RESPONSE: The internal drives shall comply with all pertinent City regulations and ordinances. PUD RECON MENI)ATION: Staff recommends approv~l of the 1035 East Durant Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development application with the follo~ving conditions: 1. Final approval of the 1035 E. Durant PUD shall not take effect unless and until a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program is issued (by the Housing Designee or City Council, as applicable). 2. An open space variance changing the amount of required open space (as defined in Section 26.04.100. Definitions, of the Municipal Code) on Lot 1 from 35% to 30% is hereb) granted. 3. A front yard setback variance changing the required front yard setback (as stipulated in Section 26.28.090, Residential Multi-Family, of the Municipal Code) for Building ~1, the single-family detached structure on the westerly portion of Lot #1, from ten (10) feet to two (2) feet is hereby granted. 4. The requested variance from the off-street parking requirements associated with Lot 1 is hereb> denied. meaning the development of Lot 1 shall be required 1o comply with the off-street parking requirements associated with the underlying R/MF zone district. 5. The applicant shall work cooperatively with and under the advisement of the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable (to the Parks Department) landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing of plantings, and tree removal permit requirements. 6. No trees or'shrubs will be planted along the northerly and southerly property lines of Lot 2 within areas designated as fire access routes or utility easements, and the landscape boulder presentb located in the proposed southerly utility easement shall be relocated outside of the easement. 7. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for an) tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). A-9 EXHIBIT A 8. If any outdoor lighting is used on the subject property, it will not be directed toward the river or located down the slope, nor will it cause glare or hazardous conditions. All outdoor lighting shall employ down-directional, sharp cut-off fixtures. These requirements will be included in the covenants (or other documents of similar affect) of the h0meowners' association(s). 9, Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the single-family residence on Lot 1, the applicant shall be required to submit an application for Residential Design Standards review, and the Residential Design Standards in place at the time of the submitta'l shall apply. Either a staff finding of compliance or an approved variance from any standards not complied with will be required before any building permits for the subject structure can be issued. 10. The costs of any neeessay' upgrades to existing utility lines, systems and/or facilities attributable to this development will be borne by the applicant. 11. The townhomes building (easternmost structure on Lot 2) and parking garage are required to have automatic fire sprinklers. 12. The remainder of the encroaching stone wall on the east side of the driveway to proposed Lot 2. including the several boulders and the standing snag (topped cottonwood tree), shall be remoxed from the right-of-way and the earthen berm shall be graded to form a more imooth transition bern'con the right-of-way and the adjoining properties. ]3. No pan of the proposed "mailboxes and security center" at the entrance to Lot 2 will be permitted within the public right-of-way. 14. The eight (8) foot wide driveway of Lot 1 shall be paved from the back of the curb to the propert>.' line with standard driveway style curb cut, and portions of the existing curb and gutter in need of repair shall be replaced in lengths of no less than five (5) feet. 15. With the building permit application, the developer shall provide plans that include: staging and traffic mitigation; hauling and delivery routes; vehicle parking areas; equipment and materials staging areas; temporary drainage, erosion and s~dimentation control for construction periods; and, provision oftemporaD' utilities. 16. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the properly boundaries and any other improvements to the AsperfPitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements. 17. If the proposed use, density or timing of the construction of the project change, or the site, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this approval, a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering and Community Development Departments for review and re-evaluation. 18. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authority to do so. A-10 EXHIBIT B Staff Review of the 1035 East Durant Subdivision Application Pursuant to state and local definitions and Chapter 26.88 of the Municipal Code, land which is divided into two or more interests for purposes of transfer of ownership and/or .development is, by definition, a subdivision and, as such, is subject to the City's review and approval. This proposal includes the development of a multi-family structure/project and the creation of two lots where there was one. Consequently, subdivision review in accordance with Section 26.88.040(C) is required, with the decision making authority resting with City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded a recommendation of approval with the conditions proposed by staff. The various review criteria and staffs analysis of the pr0posal's compliance therewith, are summarized below. la. The proposed de~,elopment shall be consistent 'with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be predominantly consistent with the AACP. For a complete explanation of this finding. please refer to Exhibit A, Staff Review of the 1035 East Durant Application for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), specificall)' standard number l a. ]b. The proposed derelopmem ~hall be consistera with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. For a complete explanation of this finding. please refer to Exhibit A, Staff Review of the 1035 East Durant Application for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD). specifically standard number lb. ]c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF RESPONSE: Compliance with this standard is also required in connection with PUD review. For a complete explanation of staffs finding of compliance. please refer to Exhibit A, Staff Review of the 1035 East Durant Application for Consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD), specifically standard number I c. Id. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. STAFF RESPONSE: The proposed subdivision 'will comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. 2a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that ~4'ill be harmful to the health, safer),, or welfare of the residents h~ the proposed subdivision. B-1 EXHIBIT B STAFF RESPONSE: The subject site is currently developed with four buildings (see "Existing Conditions" portion of the main body of this memorandum). The site is suitable for development .and contains no known natural hazards other than the small piece of flood plain the passes through the southeast comer of the site, outside of the building envelope. The land suitability is not anticipated to directly result in any harm to the health, safety, or welfare of the subdivision's residents. 2b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdi~,ision shah not be desigq~ed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premctture extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF RESPONSE: No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessaD' public costs would occur as a result of the provision of public services to the proposed development. All required utilities are currently available in the immediate site area. The costs of any required upgrades or extensions to existing sen, ices would be borne by the applicant, 3/4. Required Improvements/Design~ Standards, respecti~,ely. RESPONSE: In addition to compliance with the preceding review criteria, the subdivision regulations also require that various improvements be provided in connection with the proposed development, and that specific engineering design standards be adhered to. The applicant is not proposing any variances from these standards, and their compliance with said standards will be reviewed by the Engineering Department and the various utility proriders. 5. Affordable housing..4 subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in complian'ce with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. RESPONSE: The proposed development would be exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 26.100,050(A)(2)(a)((4)) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. provided a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program is obtained from the Housing Designee, or from City Council upon appeal of the Housing Designee's decision. Please refer to the Muhi-Family Housing Replacement Program section of the main body of this memo for a detailed explanation of the requested GMQS Exemption and its relation to the Housing Replacement Program. It is staffs recommendation that final approval of the 1035 E. Durant Subdivision not take effect unless and until the proposal has been determined (by the Housing Designee or City Council, as applicable) to comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and a Certificate of Compliance is issued. 6. School land dedication standards shah be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. RESPONSE: This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. As the property in question contains only 34,195 square feet of land and is located relatively close to downtown Aspen, the dedication of land would not be appropriate and the payment of cash- in-lieu represents a more fitting option. B-2 EXHIBIT B The "Applicability" portion of the School Land Dedication Standards states that "School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the Ci.ty of Aspen which contain residential units." The applicant maintains that the redevelopment of the subject site would result in a reduction in popularkin and demands on the school system, and therefore, school land dedication (or cash-in-lieu) is not required. Staff maintains, upon the advise of the city attorney and the assistant city attorney, that the "Applicability" provision is perfectly clear: the proposal involves a new subdivision that would contain residential units, and therefore, school land dedication or cash-in-lieu is required. The subject property has never dedicated land or paid an in-lieu fee to the Aspen School District. While not required, information regarding whether or not the new development would generate additional students has not been provided by the applicant, who maintains tha fewer units means fewer students. However, the existing units are almost all of the one- bedroom or studio variety (three of the thirty-seven existing units haye more than one bedroom). and such units do not typically house school age children. The ne~x development would contain four 4-bedroom units, a 4-bedroom single family home. and two 2-bedroom units. for a total of seven (7) units with more than one bedroom. Thus, the nex~ development would arguably generate more school age children than does the existing development. Nevertheless, the applicant is not being forced to pay an impact fee. That is, the applicant would be choosing the fee instead of dedicating land. The applicant should be required to make a cash payment-in-lieu prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. The appropriate. proportional fees x~ill be determined at such time as a building permit is requested. Staff and the City Attorney recommend inclusion of this requirement as a condition of approval. at such time as approval is contemplated. SUBDIVISION RECOM~IENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 1035 East Durant Subdivision application with the following conditions: 1. Final approval of the I035 E. Durant Subdivision shall not take effect unless and until a Certificate of Compliance with the Multi-Family Housing ReplacemenI Program is issued (by the Housing Designee or City Council, as applicable). 2. Pursuant to Sections 26.68.040(B)(2) and (3) of the Municipal Code, the applicant shall dedicate a five (5) foot wide fisherman's easement with the recording of a final subdivision plat. 3. The easterly boundary of the designated building envelope must follow a line that is, at all points, fifteen (15) feet west of the designated top of slope, and the approved building envelope shall be shown on the recorded final subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall work cooperatively with and under the advisement of the Parks Department to arrive at an acceptable (to the Parks Department) landscape plan with regard to selection of species, spacing and location of planrings, and tree removal permit requirements. B-3 EXHIBIT B 5. In the event required, a tree removal permit must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated; also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). 6. Thec~sts~fanynecessaryupgradest~existinguti~i~y~ines~systemsand/~rfa~i~itieswi~be borne by the applicant. With regard to future water system improvements, the applicant will financially participate in any upgrades of the line size on a pro-rata basis with other propert?., owners benefited by such improvements to the distribution system, and this condition shall be included in the subdivision and water service agreements for the development. 7. The four-unit townhouse building and parking garage are required to have automatic fire sprinklers. An easement to the City Water Department for the fire hydrant to the west of the common driveway to Lot 2 shall be granted on the final subdivision plat. 8. The developer shall install and replace utili~' service lines and appurtenances, as required. to the standards of the utility provider. Utility meters and service connection points shall not be obstructed and shall be accessible to service personnel in the completed project. Any nex~ surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above-ground equipment shall be installed on an easement provided by the propert3' owner. The new utility. easements shall be shown on the plan set submined for building permit(s). The developer will not disrupt utility service to adjacent properties during construction. 9. The applicant shall make a cash payment-in-lieu of School Land Dedication prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential units. The appropriate, proportional fees will be determined by the Zoning Officer at such time as a building permit is requested. 10. Drainage from the parking garage must be run through an oil and sand separator prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system. The overflow line(s) from the garage floor shall be discharged to d~'wells. 11. The owner shall construct sidewalks across the street frontage of the properties such that the nexx sidewalks will connect and align with the sidewalks to the west of the proper'5,. The new sidewalks shall be at least five (5) feet in width. All portions of the new sidewalk that fall outside of the right-of-way (and on the private property) shall be contained within a pedestrian easement granted to the City for public use, and said easement shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat. The sidewalk alignment shall be shown on the plan sets submitted with the building permit application(s). 12. The property owner shall post financial securities, acceptable to the City Engineer, for the public improvements and landscaping in the public right-of-way; the security will be of an amount equal to 100% of the value of the work and the developer's estimate must receive approval from the City Engineer. 13. The development must be tied into the City's survey control grid. In lieu of establishing new range points and boxes for the subdivision, the developer shall refurbish, as needed, corner No. 2 of the Aspen Townsite referenced in the deed and Improvement Survey, and protect it with a proper survey monument rapge box (with embossed label on the lid). The existing B-4 EXHIBIT B property monuments shall be protected during construction and flagged for verification prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. 14. The propert), owner(s) is required to join any future improvement district(s) formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula; the agreement shall be executed and reco~:ded concurrent with the recording of the subdivision plat, and will include improvements to the water distribution system serving this development. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by a Board/Commission having authorit), to do so. B-5 Memorandum TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development FROM: Rebecca Sckickling, Assistant Parks Director DATE: April 2, 1998 RE: Day/1035 E. Durant PL'I), Stream Margin Review, Special Review, Subdivision, and GMQS'F. xemption Application Parcel I.D. # 2737-182-64-001 CC: Engineering Dept. We have reviewed the revised application subrn/tted for 1035 E. Durant for the Day Family Partnerskip. The applicant's representative, Davis Horn Inc., has attempted to aad. ress a few of the issues originally outlined in July of 1997. However, there are still a few items of concern with regard to the application, parl~cularly stream mar~in revie~v. The same t6p of Slope line is proposed on the plan. Our concern with this line is its arbitrary relation to the existing building. The proposed top of slope line follows the decks and roof lines of the exisnng buildings rather than the actual top of slope ~.kich seems to be more accurately represented, in our opinion, at 7948 or 7950. Upon inspection of the property., there is riparian vegetation on the slope and adjacent to the river. Accurate identification of wet/ands and riparian vegetation is required for stream margin review. This must be a condition of approval and no building permits can be applied for prior to completion of a wetlands delineation. The revised plan still indicates native grasses seeded on the slope. This area should be planted with cottonwoods, spruce, alder, river birch, and other riparian and native trees and shrubs. The landscape plan also shows preservation of a large cottonwood just northeast of the exist_rig driveway. This cottonwood has been topped and would not be required to be preserved nor mitigated for. However, the tree valuation for those trees proposed to be removed totals $48,692. Lf the total amount of q~ee rnjtigation value is not made up on site, then the balance of tree value would be required as payment-in-lieu. A revised landscape plan should be subrn. itted with the tree removal permit prior to issuance of a building permit. The five foot fisherman's easement is not a pedestrian trail easement. We are still requesting the fisherman's easement along the river's edge. MEMORANDUM TO: Mitcn Haas, Communh'y Development Department FROM: Cinciy Christenson. Housing arms DATE: February 23, 1998 RE: Day/1035 E. Duranl Su~ivis~rdStream MarOin/GMGS ExemlXjQn Parcel ID No. 2737-182-64-001 After ~eviewincj the Day/1035 E. Durent ,=UD. Stream Margin Review, SDecal Review, SubdivisiDn anci GMCS =_xmn Appiication, the issues stated in my men~ dated AUgust 21, 1997, were not addresse~. A_c~'-orcling to the Code, the appiicam wee to provide an adcii'donal six ~,~0merns. The applicant was given ~ifferem information c~ur~ng pre-a~plication conferences, therefore, a ~mr}mmise was made whereby the applicant only had to provide Wv~ addPjonal bedrooms. I have artschool a c~loy d the City Counc~l's mitre!so ~Tom December 18, lgg6, regarding their discussion on the Day Sub~v~sion and have ate0 attached a c~ d Resolution No. 78, So.des 1998. The recommendal~ns by the Housing Board, ~ met on August 20, 1997, are stated below. · The al~plicsnt ~-este ~e tw~ addShal be~m4zms (e~har two one-bedroom unit~ or one two. Dedmom un~) on site or in a buyclown type s~:Jmion, but ~ by dividing two studio un~ into tw~ m~b6tandard size two-bedroom units. The proposed two-bedroom units are to be ordy 576 square feet, where me minimum square f~olage for a two-bedroom unit =Lated in the Guidelines is 850 square feet. The Housing B4;ard doe~ not want to see the addrdonsJ bedrooms satisfied by cash-in-lieu. · The ~,goW mix to be wha~ was re~er.e~ k~ the July 17, 1996 recommends+jan by the Board of 3 Category 'l units and 9 Ca~ 2 units, wiffi the addi~on*l two bedrooms being s Category 1 or 2, depending on the unit. The Housing Board reconllends that there be no RO units, Bill B~n~o~, manger ~r ~e ~P~ housing ~ ~ H~pi~i, · m ~e un~ to ~e ~ ~de ~r ~ h~l ~ ~ g~ng ~ employ~s · m a~in~on ~ll ~ e~ud~ ~m ~e un~. ~n~ ~ ~ she is ~b~ going ~ v~ against ~u~sne ~u~d li~ ~ s~ as ~y un~ gc ~ ~en i~ ~ ~ssib~. ~~on fiat ~ey ao "~ ~" ~n a pm ~ ~: or do as~u' m C~ 4. Tolen ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ 8 C~ 3; 19 ~o~ 4; a~ 2 RO. Helm~ ~ ~m ~ un~ ~r ~on s~uld ~ ~an~d ~ ~se n~ ~r mi~on. ~r ~ allacumen, Cuffis made a m~ ~ ~mend ~CC ~ g~ptffie ~om PUD ~11~ Su~lon, ~h 13 un~ to ~ $et ~ide by ~ ip~lium and ~u gn~ s~ll ~ ~go~ 3 and ~go~ 4, pm m~ ~ ~e ~maining un~ ~ go ~ IO~, ~d ~th ~e same ~ndffions sffpu~ u~er ~nffil $ubm~ion. Helmus ~nd~ ~e m~cn. ROLL ~L VOW; C~, Helmus, Ri~ams ~saba~ voted y~; ~an~ v~ no. M~n p~. ~n~a~. Horn bnef~ ~ B~ u ~ what ffi goi~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ spdc buildi~. ind~usls dc not I~e ~e~ f~r m ~ brig Rd~ dti~. Frank like to ~ aDIs ~ ~r ~e ~u~ng un~ to the p~i I~ in ~e pm}e~, and ~u~ ~ ~e s~il~ ~ ~iu~ in ~ ~m. ~ ~ p~l~. ~ Curtis asked if the application cOmplies with the C~ Code. Boo Nayins, Commun~ Development ~lanner for this Dmject, sl~ed .*.hat the Project losing 24 heelmores and that acr.~lng to OrOlnance ~, the a~plicant has to relYace 50% of the bedrooms (12 I~eciroorns); tacnnic~Jy; though, the project is I=sing 36 bedrooms. the~{ure. :8 bedrooms should pa .'epiacec. The inte~remtion of this pert of the Code is unclear so will have to De ctarffTed before a ~nal approval could be macis. Curtis stated fiat the al~pticam has to cctnply with the Cools. Either at 12 or 1 B, Curtis sizeci that he wo'dlci encourage .+he dernoiition ~f the =.xir~g building and create new unit=. It is his impression that eli the 81~'uctums are in poor sha~e. Horn i;~:l that the building that the appiicant does went m demollsn is in decent sr~De. Horn also stated that if interpretation of the C~c~B is where the a~piicam has to provide 18-;nit~ in~ea~ of 12, tt~ey will end up going back to the ciraWir~' Cu~s made a motion to recommend to ~hs Planning encl Zoning Commission to accept the proposed unit mix (3 Category 1 Bnd 9 Ca1~cJory 2), with a preference that the units amy mm~J and not c~ndorninlumized. Should the units become condominlumizeci, that they remain in the ~ame Category. Thi~ rec~'nmendstio~ hs subject to the in,mrpretitton of the Coots in that only 12 beciroomm ~re required. Should the interpretation of the Code be found that 18 bedrooms are required, this ~tcommendmion would need to be re~ldre6med. AIm3, · e 12 units must be renovates[ to comply ~ the Uniform Building COde and Section 7 of the Aspen/Pitkin County Affot'dlble Housing GuideZine$. Kavabach seconded the motion, ROLL CALL VOTE: Cu~s, r~zrnanlcn, Helmus, Richerda anc[ KasaDacn voftd yes. M~on passed. Curfjs also su~ges%ed staff create a li~ ~ what the 'enovat~n should Kdzmanicn asked what the t~ming wa~ on the decca resthctac~ units. Novins e, tatecl that the mifigaticn ha~ to come on line at ~e same l~me the free rnm'km occur. C. 2nd Reading end Public Heeling for 1998 Guidelines: opened the PuDtio Hearing. Them was no pul~c comment,. Curti, reacts e rnction to approve Resolulion No. 96-02, al;pn}vtng the Guidelines amd moving them on to ;~ Council anci the BOCC for adop~n. Richerda seconded the motion. Curtis, ~m'qich, t.,iefmu~, Kassbach and Rioherds voted yes. Motion passed unanimcusly. 17, 1~ 4 M~EMORANDUM TO: Mitch Haas, City Planner FROM: Sara Thomas. Zoning Officer R.E: Day Subdivision, PUT), Stream Margin Review, Special Review, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption Application DATE: April 2, 1998 LOT .-~KEA: Lot I - The area within the SurZhce access easement will need to be deducted from the lot ~rea calculations as prescribed in Section 26.04.100 (lot area definition). Lot 2 - For purposes of calculating the allowed floor area, the slope reductions described in the lot area definition will apply. For purposes of calculating the allowed densit3, within a PUD, the criteria established in Section 26.84.030 (B)(2)(b) (Reduction in density for slope considerarfonJ will apply. A detailed slope analysis with calculations sho~ing all areas of slope between 20-30%: 30--~0%. and 40% and greater. as well as calculations showing the area of land under high water. will need to be provided at time of building permit application. SETBACKS: Lot 1 com~in~ non-conforming structures which cannot be altered in any manner which will expand or enlarge the non-conformity. The applicant might be advised to request setback va_,iances during the PUD process so that any future modifications to these structures could be reviewed as an Insubstantial PUD Amendments versus a Substantial PUD Amendment (i.e., an amendmere which would require a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements). ~ Lot 2 is showing projections into required setbacks for egress. These projections are permitted only if they meet the minimum requirements as emablished by the Uniform Building Code. The driveway access cm cam'~ot exceed a depth of more than 24" below natural grade in the areas within the requ,~'ed front yard setbacks for both Lots 1 & 2. The driveway retaining wall within the front yard setback for Lot 2 carmot be _re'eater than 30" above or below the natural grade. OPEN SPACE: The open space calculations include 3 exterior s~irway areas which will not comply with the standard that open space cannot include areas more than 2 feet below natural grade or 4 feet above natural grade. The calculations also include the trash enclosure area, which is an area containing a structure and therefore is not an open/unobstructed area. FLOOR .-kR~A: The floor area volume' penalty. for the single family residence will be ~eater than depicted by the applicant. The pertain' is assessed on the area benveen the exterior wall and the f'Lrst interior wall. DEMOLITION: A precise depiction of how the appiicam intends to retain at least 50% of the existing single family structure will have to be provided at time of building permit application. All setback. lot area and open space calculations wi11 be reveri~ed when working drawings are submitted to the Building Deparauem for building permit review. analysis of floor area and height has not been conducted as of this time, as the drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. .Zspep. C'onsohb"'aled'c. Ja. nsiat)ba.:,. · 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Teie. .970/ 925-3001 F.-LX ~i970) 5y Kc:!y Chmrman Michaei Keily Paui Smith. Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish · See,..'. Bruce Matneriv. Mgr. February 20. 1998 Mitch Haas Cornmural.' Development 130 S. Galena Aspera CO 81611 Re: Day/1035 E Durant PUD Dear Mirth: The commen~s ~ we have made m previous referrals remain accurate. The applicant agrees to comply the conciitxons th~ we have described earlier. We cunently have trecm~em ca~.ei~' to serve th~s project. Downs~eam conswamts in Galena street v, ill be eliminated through a system of prorated a-4aitionat fees which v, iLl be applied to thjs project. Service is contingent upon compliance with the Dismct's rules. re~tauo~. and specificauons which are on file at the Dxsmct office. It appears as through the applicant wall be rurmmg an eight inch service Line to serve the project. The existing pubhc manhole will need to be replaced at the applicant's cost in order to make this COnneCt the project to the public system Our Line supenntendent. Tom Bracewell. ~?;11 need to revie~v $d approve the details of the on sxte system and connection. Shared service line a~eements will be needed for the common service line connects each dwelling umt to the public ~'stem. Once detailed pl~n$ are avallzble. a tap pertrot can be completed which estimazes the fees for the project We woudd also like to review the mechamcal plans once the. become available. We request that the applicant be required to complet~ a tap permat prior to the issuance of a building pernut. The par 'l<Jng area dram x&ill need to mchicie a sand ~d oil interceptor to keep contarninants fi'om entering the cixS' wells. We would also suggest that the cross pan at the garage entrance be separated from the garage drams to rnln~mi~, flows to the drains. The applicant represems that all surface water nm off will be directed to dr5.' well or swale. Please call i.fyou have any. questions. Sincerely, Bnace Matherly *" ~'' ' EP.-~ .'~wards of Excellent: 1976. 1986. 1990 I>-e~ion~! and Narlonai MEMORANDUM TO: Mi!;Cn Haas, Planning Office Through: Lee Cossin, Assis-Cant Environmental Health Officer ~.~. , From: Nancy MacKenzie, Environmental Health Officer :~ Date: July 21, 1997 Re: DaV suPdivision, Sl~eam Margin and GMQS Exemptions Parcel ID // 2737-182-64<)01 The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authori~ of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following commen~s. SEVVAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section !I-1.7 "It snail be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any Pullcling usea for residence or business i~urposes wjthin the ciCv :o construct or reconstruct an on-site sewage disposal device." The plans :o provide wastewater disposal for this l~roject through the central collecl~on lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanita~on DiS~TjCC (ACSD) meet ~he requirements of this department. The atgili~ of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation OiS~TiCt tO handle the increased flow for the project should be determined bY the ACSD, The applicant rids failed ~0 l~rovide documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually taound to the proposal and that the service agency is capaPle of serving the development ADEOUAT~ PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 "All buildings, s~Tuctures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water snail be connected to the municipal water uCilitV sVslzem ." The provision of potable water from the CIW of Aspen ~rcem is consis-Cent witli Environmental Health policies ensuring the SuPPlV of safe water. The CI~ of Aspen Water Depa~'trnent shall determine if adequate water is available for the project The CIty of Aspen water supply meets all s~andards of the Colorado Department of Health for drinking water ciualiCy. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Set'don 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and Protecting municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated Ilmi~ of the City of Aspen and over all sl_Teams anQ sources contributing to municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above ~he poin~ from which municipal water supplies are diverted." A drainage plan to mitlgate the water Quality impacts from drive and pa~ing areas will be evaluated by the Cloy Engineer. The applicant has provided written doCumental~on that federal permits, including but not limited to 404, 201,208, or Clean Water permits from the Army Corps of Engineers 1 are not neec~ed. The project proposec~ to increase ~e setback from the ~auilc~ings to the river,anq this woulcl have a positive impact on water ciuality. AIR' QUALITY: Sections I1-2.1 "lt is tile purpose of [t~e air qualitV section of tlle MUniCipal COC~el tO achieve tile maximum practical qegree of air purity possible bV requiring tile use of all available practical metRocks and tecnniques to control, prevent anc~ rec~uce air pollution througilout the city..." Tile LaRd USe RegulatoRs seek tb "lessen, congestion" anc~ "aVOid transportation c~emands that cannot be met" as well as to "proviqe clean air by protecting the natural air silecls anti reducing pollutants". The major concern of our c~eparbT~ent is the impact of increasing traffic in a non-attainment area designatecl Py t~e EPA. Uriclet the requirements of tile State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area, PM/10 (WiliCil comes almost all from traffic oriving on paved roacls) must De rec~uced bY 25% bv 1997, in order to achieve that reduction, traffic increases t~at orciinarily would occur as a result of cievetolament must Pe mitigatecl, or else the gains brougllt about ,hv community control measures will be lost in adc~ition, in orelet to comply with the municipal cone requirement :o achieve the maximum practical c~egree of air purity bV using all available practical mothotis to rec~uce pollution, traffic increases of development must be offset. The plan proposes to reduce the number OF housing units from 37 to 17 and to clecrease the number of allowed partdng spaces, This project should not increase PMIO in the non-attainment area and mitigation is not required. RREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a ~replace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Depar D'~lent before the building permit will De issuecL In metropolitan areas of Piti~in County which includes this site, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified wooclstoves (or I of each) and unlimited numbers Of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building, New homes mav NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor ma~/anv heating tievice use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural DUilclings maV not install any type of fireplace c~evice. FUGITIVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required wilich includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of I~aul roacls anc~ disturbed areas, claily cleaning of ac~jacent pavec~ roam to remove muc/that has Deer carried out, speec~ limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown Oust from crossing the propere/line or causing a nuisance. This plan must be approved by the Aspen/PitXin Environmental Health Department before the building permit can be issued. · DIEVlOLITION Prior to demolition the applicant must have the buildings tasted for asbestos, and if any is present, should COnsult the Colorado Health Department regarding proper removal. Tests of suspect asbestos containing material must be provided to the Asper~Pitkin Environmental Health Depa,~a,,ent before the building permit can be issue~ UNDERGROUND PARKING The applicant must consult with an engineering firm about the design of the underground partdng structure ventilation system to ensure that ventilation is adequate to prevent carbon monoxide from reaching high levels inside the Facility or in the nearby areas outside it In order to determine whether the proposed design prevents excessive levels of carbon monoxide from concentrating inside the structure and in nearby areas and buildings, the applicant will need Co have a Registered p~ofessional Engineer who specializes in vent system design certify that the system is adequate to accomplish these goals. CONFORMANtE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS: NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 1 ~1 "The City council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollu~jon that re~3resen~$ a present and increasing threat to the put3iic peace and 1:o the health, safety. and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its Visitors. ..... Accordingly, it is the policV of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and a~ various times anc~ to prohibit noise in excess of those levels." During cons~Tuc~on, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level s~andar~s, and construction canno~ be done exce~ between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. it is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of tills projec~ will have some negative impact on the neighDOrhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise level.~ POOLS AND SPAS All design, insc3tla~on and maintenance must complV witJ1 "Swimming Pool and Mineral BaCh Regulations, COlorado Deparcmen~ of Health, Water Quali~ Control DiviSion, adopted AUgUSt 15, 1993." A COpy can De obtained from our office. A condition of approval should be that at least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the plans and specifications complete with piping layout, equipment and mechanical specifications along wit~l design calculations, shall be submitted for review and approval by this department- RESOLUTION NO. (Series of A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF .-LSPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING ~ W1TI:t~W~ OF ~ ASPEN/DAY FAMILY PARTNEll.SHIP'S REQUEST FOR A LA~YD USE CODE INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 20, RESIDENT MULTI-F.~MIT-Y HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS. the AspenYDay Family Pm'mership. · Land Use Applic:xion for the redevetoproent of their propere7 az 1035 E:Lq. Dur2n~ Av:nue to the Conunity Devetoproent Depariment; and WKEREAS, sr..tf-f reviewed the appticant's proposal to ci~2d-r~smct twelve of the existing thinT.-slx resicl,-nt routti-farm]y bedroom in or~r. to demolish twenty-four of the resident multi-family bedrooms and construct four. new free-raaz~t townhoroes; and WHEREAS. sniff dete..'Tmnect that the appticant's development proposal did not comply with the Section 20.0sL030 Housing rep. l~.'ment requir~roents of the Aspen Municipal Code: and WKEREAS. ,,he appiican,, .ap. pealect the Community Development Director' s finding to City. Council pursuant to Chapter 25.112 ime.~.retations of Tkle: and WHEREAS, City Council indicated their su.~pon of the Community Development Director' s Intern. rotation of Title in a public discussion of the issues ar a regularly scheduled Council meeting on 11 November 1996; and WlalEREA. S, Ci~ Council also indicated that staff did not a~quatety inform the applicant of this interpretanon dunng informal and pre-application r~views of tiffs project; and W1;I'~.REAS, it was detertinned that staff and the applicant shall work together to bring forward a coropromise ~velopment proposal which may b~ .acceptable to all parties while serving the public interest: and WKE~, the applicant a=,,r~s to withdraw their appeal to City Council of the Community Devetoproent Directcr's I. nterpretation of Ti~e CExtfibit A) and to submit a r~vised Land Use Application as negotiated with staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that: 1. The aFpiic.~t has ~'.=d in good faith based upon repr~senr~ions m,a, by srzf-f dunn~ informal and pr~-applicauon project reviews; and 1. The .n~plicant agrees to withdraw their ~ before City Council of the Cornrnunity Develo.vment Director' s Inr~rl3reux/on of Title; and 3. The amended Land Use Application shall/nctude 5vo additional cl~edo resmct~d msidem mutU-family bedrooms for a b~dmoms in order to m~et the negotiamd mquiz=menu of Tide 20, Re~ideor Muid-family Housing Reptac=rr~nt Program of the Aspen Municipal Cod~: and 4. The ~velo!~ment r~view shall be a consolidated :wo-~p PLrD pmc=ss and shaJl allow minor variations in open spate and off-s=ee.t parklag stauci~rds: and 5. The Community Development Direc:or's lut~rpretauon of Tir. le (Exhibit shall be effecUve a~ of 3 September 1996. t. he a,,. of i~s issuance. and shall not affect the further evaluation of this project: and 5. Staff has identified several other ajtemUons and clar~c=ions with respect :he Resident Muki-farrdly Housing Replacement Pro=.~T~m which Shall be brought forward to r. he Planning and Zoning Commission and Cityy. Council for review and approval. Resolved and adopted this ldth d~y of December. 1996. by the City Council of the City of .~pen. Color'~lo. John S. Bemqe.~. Mayor I. K,v. n S. KOch, duly al oknt d and a:ting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a n'ue and accurar~ copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen. Colorado, a~ a meeting held December I6, 1996. Kattu'y.n S. Koch, City Clerk EXHIBIT E,i II Building I ' Building 3 Buildin~ 4 ....... .,~. :-~., ~)... 7 II '" ' . ."::" ~.~"!~'i~ding 2 ..... ,,'M':"~ "' ""3"="' -: ::*:' ',".'. ,:,-.,~ ...........'~: i : : i r~Z:??-'--~., ~,:-'T:,'~ - L ':: = .'." ' '~ ...... _,.,_, ! .... ~- c:- "-':--:'-': ~-~-~-- SITE PLAN OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Start Clauson, Communit~)Se~elo. pment Directoz~:.6~ C1~.stophe~ Bendon, l>lazme~ RE: "Snyder Park" Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Park Conceptual & Final Planned Unit Development; Subdivision; Rezoning; Growth Management Exemption; and Fee Waivers. -- First Reading DATE: July 13, 1998 SUMMARY: "Snyder Park" is a joint housing and neighborhood park development proposed for a City- Owned parcel in the Smuggler area proposed for annexation into the City of Aspen. The pro.~ect is before Council for PUD, Subdivision, P, ezoning and an exemption from Growth management. The Council has differing recommendations from staff and the various recommending bodies which are more fully described below. For first reading, staffs goal is to briefly describe the project, the review procedure and criteria, and the nature of the recommendations before Council. The applicant may provide more detail on the project's details and of the planning process and public involvement used in programming the site. Staff recommends City Council approve, upon first reading, the "Snyder Park" joint housing and park development. MAIN ISSUES: The City Council has conflicting recommendations from staff and the various referral boards. Staff has summarized the recommendations below. Referral Agencies. The various referral agencies (Engineering, Environmental Health, Sanitation, etc.) reviewed this application with respect to how it conforms to the requirements of subdivision, PUD, etc. and recommend approval with a set of conditions. These conditions ensure compliance with plat requirements, air quality standards, infrastructure upgrades, etc. Comments from these agencies are individually attached to this memo as Exhibit "B" and have been incorporated into the staff recommendation. Planning Staff. The recommendation from staff incorporates the concerns of the referral agencies and includes a discussion of the project's conformante with the applicable review criteria, the zoning, and area and master plans - including the Smuggler Area Improvements and the AACP. While staff understands, and agrees in part, with the comments and decisions by the various boards, staff is recommending approval of this development. The design approach used in this project, a pedestrian courtyard and rehabilitation of the ponds and wetland areas, is a viable and commendable approach. Given the site's natural features, the auto access, and the desire for a neighborhood park, the courtyard concept is the most likely scenario. However, this type of design does have drawbacks, especially with the topographic change and the auto access from one side. The entrance of the project has the feeling of arriving "where the cars live." This can be minimized and mitigated, but not eliminated. Also, there will exist a "shlep factor" with this type of development. Residents will have groceries; trash, and they will buy couches. The applicant did make a statement about improving the pedestrian access way to the courtyard to accommodate vehicles under special circumstances, such as moving trucks. Again this "shlep factor" can be minimized but not eliminated. Many of the comments about "optimum density" are valid. Sites within tow?~ and easily serviced provide more efficient opportunities for housing than more remote, greenfield sites. The infrastructure is readily available, residents can walk to activity centers, and the development is within an established neighborhood. However, while there is a value in determining an "optimum density" early in the planning process, this project was initiated when the emphasis and direction given to the Housing Authority was neighborhood acceptance. The applicant conducted neighborhood meetings and developed a concept and a program for the site. Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission were invited to these meetings. This is a valid planning process and staff finds it very credible. Growtit Management Commission. The combined Planning and Zoning Commissions from the City and County make recommendations regarding exemptions from the GMQS system and the way in which affordable housing is proposed for a project. For this project, they recommended approval by a 6-2 vote after adding a condition for better moving vehicle access to the upper courtyard area. Concerns were expressed by members of the Commission about the project's density. Members did feel that more residential units could be built on this site without greatly impacting the integrity of the site plan or the neighborhood. An "optimum density," an idea brought about in the latest Citizen Housing Guidelines, would probably prescribe more units on this property due to its location in-town and proximity to infrastructure. The Commission did, however, value the neighborhood planning process used by the Housing Authority. Planning and Zoning Commission. The City P&Z considered and made a recommendation to Council forthe majority of the reviews being considered. By a 3-1 vote, the Commission recommended against Council approving the Subdivision, PUD, and Rezoning. Their concerns were centered around the design concept (pedestrian courtyard) and the resulting site plan. Conformante with the "Residential Design Standards" with the garage door presence at the entry of the project and access to units for residents with groceries, trash, etc. received the most discussion. The P&Z also voted individually on the "Residential Design Standards" and the Special Review for Parking. Both of these votes were for denial. These two votes would normally conclude with the Commission vote. However, because this project is also being considered for PUD approval by City Council and that review includes specific criteria for parking, architecture, and site planning the Community Development Director is of the opinion that City Council may consider the parking and residential design as part of the PUD. ,APPLICANT: City of Aspen - Owner Represented by: Dave Tolen -- Director, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Kevin Dunnett -- Parks Planner, City of Aspen Parks Department Dave Wamer -- Lipkin-Warrior Architects. Heidi Hoffman -- H3 Architects. Julia Marshall -- Mr. Daly Enterprises (landscape architects) LOCATION: 2 10 Midland Avenue. ZONING: R-15 Moderate Density Residential (Pitkin County). This zone would allow for a 15,000 square foot single family home as an exemption from growth management. The most likely growth management scenario would include 4-7 new home sites, subject to subdivision. LOT SIZE: 143, 109 square feet = 3.3 acres. LOT AREA & ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA The proposed subdivision divides the parcel into a 54,574 square foot "housing" parcel and a 88,535 square foot "park" parcel The.slope reduction forthe housing parcel reduces the new lot area to 48,477 square feel. The Allowable Floor Area for this parcel is 29,086 square feet, 85% (24,723) of which can be built by right or 100% by Special Review. DENSITY: Gross density ~'or the project will be approximately 4.6 dwelling Units per acre (15 unit~/3.29 acres). Net density for the project after subtracting those areas proposed for park use will be approximately 12 units per acre. CURRENT LAND USE: Vacant. Single-Family residence (recently demolished), accessory buildings, three man- made ponds. PROPOSED LAND USE: 15 residences in townhouse and duplex configurations, accessory buildings, and a public park. The Housing will be 100% affordable housing restricted to Category sales prices and exceeds the "70/30" requirements of the AH1-PUD Zone District PREVIOUS ACTION: A worksession on this project was held on January 13, 1998, with both the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions. No action was taken. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application on February 3, and March 3,1998. No action was taken and the application was withdrawn. The applicant conducted a wdrksession with the Planning and Zoning Commission and with surrounding neighbors prior to submitting this application for a combined review. The project has been reviewed by staff, referral agencies, the Growth management Commission, 3 and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The comments and recommendation are discussed above. REVIEW PROCEDURE: PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, and Growth Management Exemptions. The City Council shall consider the application and the recommendation from agencies and referral boards at a public hearing and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Fee Waivers. City Council may waive Land Use fees, Park Impact fees, and Water Tap fees for affordable housing projects. BACKGROUND: The Housing Authority held several meetings with surrounding landowners in developing the program for the site. Also; the Housing Authority held a joint worksessiOn with the Housing Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to submitting this application. The applicant has kept the surrounding neighbors informed of the app~:oval process and many of these neighbors have participated in public hearings and in the worksession. STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency referralI comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application materials have been included as Exhibit "C" RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve, upon first reading, the "Snyder Park affordable housing and neighborhood park development with the following conditions: 1. Recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Growth Management Commission are subject to annexation of the property into the City of Aspen. Failure to complete annexation shall render these recommendations void. 2. The Final PUD / Subdivision plat shall include all necessary plat requirements of the City Engineer including site plans, grading plans, architectural plans and elevations, and a landscape plan. In addition, the plat shall show each parcel created, a permanent access easement across the park parcel to the housing parcel along the access drive, a permanent access easement across the park parcel fqr the ADA accessible trail from the proposed parking area to the housing courtyard; a permanent easement for the proposed bus shelter. Adequate snow storage areas shall be delineated on the final plat. All utility easements shall be shown, an easement shall be granted to the City Parks Department for maintenance 0fthe proposed Ditch along the east and north property boundaries. The plat shall delineate the required monuments for each corner of each pamel and range point(s), and shall show an approved street name for the proposed access drive. 3. Priorto issuance ofabuilding permit, the final plat shall be approved and recorded and the applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD agreement binding the property, to this development order. The agreement shall be approved by.the City Attorney prior to recordation. 4. The Subdivision~PUD agreement shall describe maintenance of the housing parcel 's common areas, maintenance of the access way on both parcels, and a 2 year gu~:rantee on landscape 4 improvements for the housing parcel, including trees, starting on the issuance day of the last Certificate of Occupancy for a housing unit. 5. Pri~rt~issuance~fabui~dingpermit,a~~uti~ity~~nstructi~nplanssha~~beappr~vedbytheCity Engineer of the appropriate utility agency. The applicant is responsible for necessary utility upgrades related to the development, including City Water and sanitary sewer service. The applicant shall coordinate utility upgrades, when appropriate, with surrounding development. Landscape im. provements within utility easements shall be approved by the respective utility agency. 6. Pri~rt~issuan~e~fabui~dingpennit~theFireMarsha~~sha~~appr~vethedeve~~pmentp~ans. The structures shall be sprinkled. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer shall approve the applicant's Drainage Plan which shall be prepared based on a 2 year event cycle, and include lining the ponds to prevent seepage to Midland Avenue, and accepting historical drainage from Midland Avenue. The plan shall ensure no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after construction and that mud will not be tracked onto City Streets during construction. 8. Construction vehicles, including personal vehicles, and material may only be stored on the subject property and may not encroach on City Streets. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Environmental Health Department shall approve the applicant's Dust Control plan and Air Quality Mitigation Plan. All Air quality mitigation measure shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable school land dedication fees for each unit. The fee is $I21 for each one-bedroom unit and $1,647 for each three bedroom unit. $]0,971 total. 11. The applicant shall coordinate construction activities for improvement to Midland Avenue with the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install a pedestrian path along the property to the intersection of Highway 82, and shall repair with a full width patch the disrupted portions of Midland Avenue. In order to minimize the disruption to Midland Avenue, The City Engineer shall coordinate speed hump improvements along Midland with the applicant's development schedule. 12. The applicant shall install a stop sign at the access way exit. And the necessary street lights required by the City Engineer. Placement and standards for these improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. 13. The applicant shall post the 4 "park" parking spaces as two hour parking. The condominiums documents or homeowners association documents shall state the nature of this parking as available for temporary or guest parking but not for the purpose of long-term parking. 14. The applicant shall specify cotton-less varieties of Cottonwood trees for construction drawings. 15. All site lighting shall be downcast and lighting shall not be used to accentuate landscape or architectural elements. The Parks Department is encouraged to provide lighting bollards along the proposed trail parallel to Midland Avenue at either side ofth~ access way, at the northern intersection of the trail with midland Avenue, one at the "T" intersection near the south-western property boundary, and one near the proposed steps to the upper bench grass area. 16. The dimensional requirements for the parcel are as follows: Minimum distance between buildings As represented on Final Plat 5 Maximum height (including viewplanes) As represented proposed elevations and recorded with Final Plat Minimum front yard At represented on Final Plat. Minimum rear yard As represented on Final Plat. Minimum side yard As represented on Final Plat. Minimum lot width No requirement. Minimum lot area As represented on Final Plat. Trash access area Minimum I0' wide, unobstructed. Internal floor area ratio Allowable Floor Area = 21,500 square feet. Minimum percent open space. As represented on Final Plat. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing public rightZof-way improvements. This requirement may be waived of the improvements are proposed as part of the development. 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments. 19. AII utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's propeay and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the Final Plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 20. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for mailboxes and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 21. The applicant should be aware of the City's noise ordinance prohibiting construction between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The applicant shall observe concerns of neighbors by ceasing outdoor mechanical activity past 7 p.m. each night. 22. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution and the Growth Management Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 23. The pedestrian path proposed to provide handicapped access to the upper courtyard from the south end of the parking area shall be designed to accommodate limited automobile access from the parking area to the intersection of the courtyard loop path. 24. The applicant shall not be responsible for any Land Use Application fees, Water Tap, or Park Development Impact fees associated with this development. 25. Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation and Garage Placement for the housing portion of this development are hereby waived. Any substantial changes to the housing development as proposed which affect the elements being granted a waiver, or which require an additional waiver, shall only be approved by the Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC). 26. The parking requirements are established at 21 and 4 spaces respectively for the housing and park parcel of this development. The 4 parking spaces for the park development shall be signed for two hour (maximum) parking and the homeowner's documents for the housing development shall state that the 4 spaces may be used for temporary or guest parking, but not for long term parking. 27. The City Council hereby grants an exemption from the scoring and competition procedures of the growth management quota system for fi~een (15) affordable housing units and deducts these units from the annual pool of development allotments. 28. The project shall consist of fifteen (15) affordable housing units deed restricted to Category sale prices and restrictions and shall be available through the Housing Authority Lottery System. RECOMMENDED MOTION: ~ "I move to approve Ordinance series 1998, upon first reading," ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Development Application 7 ORDINANCE N0. 24 (SERIES OF 1998) AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING REZONING FROM PITKIN COUNTY ZONE DISTRICT "MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" (R-15) TO CITY OF ASPEN ZONE DISTRICT "AFFORDABLE HOUSING-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" (AH1-PUD); CONCEPTUAL AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, AN EXEMPTION FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION AND SCORING PROCEDURES, APPROVAL OF THE METHOD IN WHICH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS TO BE PROVIDED, AND WAIVER OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION, ZONING, AND PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE "SNYDER PARK" AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROJECT, 210 MIDLAND AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, rapresented by David Tolen, Director, (Applicant) submitted an application (development proposal) to the Planning Office to develop fifteen (15) affordable dwelling units on a 3.3 acre parcel at 210 Midland Avenue, kno~vn as the "Snyder Parcel;" and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the parcel from Pitkin County Moderate Density Residential Zone District (R-15) to Affordable Housing-Planned Unit Development (AH1-PUD) in conjunction with an application for Annexation, Conceptual'and Final Planned Unit Development approval, Subdivision approval, Special Review approval to establish the parking requirements, waivers from the "Residential Design Standards", an exemption from the competition and scoring procedures of the Growth Management Quota System, approval of the method in which the affordable housing is to be provided, and waiver of land use, zoning, and park development impact fees; and WHEREAS, 'the Plato'ring Department reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedure and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.32, 26.44, 26.52, 26.56, 26.58, 26.64, 26.84, 26.88, 26.92, and 26.100 of the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Growth Management CommissiOn conducted a public hearing on June 30, 1998, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed and considered the development proposal in accordance With those procedures set forth in Sections 26.52 and 26.100 Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 1 of the Municipal Code, and recommended approval for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System and approval of the method in which affordable housing is being provided; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 30, 1998, in accordance with Section 26.52 of the Municipal Code, reviewed the development proposal in accordance with all applicable procedures and review criteria set forth in Sections 26.28, 26.32, 26.52, 26.58, 26.64, 26.84, 26.88, and 26.92 of the Municipal Code, denied, the Special Review to establish the parking requirements, denied the request to waive provisions of the "Residential Design Standards," and recommended Council deny the Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, 'Conceptual and Final Planned Unit Development, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified in Sections 26.28, 26.32, 26.44, 26.52, 26.58, 26.64, 26.84, 26.88, 26.92, and 26.100 of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered those recommendations and denials by the Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Housing Authority, and. has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the Council' found that a fv. it four step PUD review process would be redundant and serve no public purpose and a two step consolidated PUD review process would be more appropriate; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 2 Section 1: That it does hereby grant an amendment to the Official Zone District Map for the subject parcel, as described on the final plat, from Pitkin County Zone District "Moderate Density Residential" (R- 15) to "Affordable Housing -Planned Unit Development" (AH 1-PUD). Section 2: The Official Zone District Map for this City of Aspen, Colorado, shall be and i~hereby amended to reflect the amendment as set forth in Section 1 above. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 26.84.030 of the Municipal Code, City Council finds that a four step review process would be redundant and serve no public purpose and approves a consolidated two step PUD review process. Section 4: Pursuant to Sections 26.28, 26.44, 26.52, 26.84, 26.88, 26.92, and 26.100, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified hereinafter, the City Council hereby grants approval for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, Planned Unit Development approval, Subdivision approval, exemption from the Growth Manageme. nt Quota System scoring and competition procedure for affordable housing, approval of the method of providing affordable housing, and waiver of the land use and park development impact fees for "Snyder Park", with the following conditions: 1. Recommendations made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Growth Management Commission are subject to annexation of the property into the City of Aspen. Failure to complete annexation shall render these recommendations void. 2. TheFina~PUD/Subdivisi~np~atsha~~inc~udea~~neeessaryp~atrequirements~ftheCityEngineer including site plans, grading plans, architectural plans and elevations, and a landscape plan. In addition, the plat shall show each parcel created, a permanent access easement across the park parcel to the housing parcel along the access drive, a permanent access easement across the park parcel for the ADA accessible trail from the proposed parking area to the housing courtyard, a permanent Ordinance No. 24~ Series 1998 Page 3 easement for the proposed bus shelter. Adequate snow storage areas shall be delineated on the final plat. All utility easements shall be shown, an easement shall be granted to the City Parks Department for maintenance of the proposed Ditch along the east and north property boundaries. The plat shall delineate the required monuments for each comer of each parcel and range point(s), and shall show an approved street name for the proposed access drive. 3. Pri~rt~issuance9fabui~dingpermit~the~na~p~atsha~~beappr~vedandrec~rdedandtheapp~icant shall record a subdivision/PUD agreement binding the property to this development order. The agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 4. The Subdivision/PUD agreement shall describe maintenance of the housing parcel 's common areas, maintenance of the access way on both parcels, and a 2 year guarantee on landscape improvements for the housing parcel, including trees, starting on the issuance day of the last Certificate of Occupancy for a housing unit. - 5. Pri~rt~issuance~fabui~dingpermit~a~~uti~ityc~nstructi~np~anssha~~beappr~vedbytheCity Engineer of the appropriate utility agency. The applicant is responsible for necessary utility upgrades related to the development, including City Water and sanitary sewer service. The applicant shall coordinate utility upgrades, when appropriate, with surrounding development. Landscape improvements within utility easements shall be approved by the respective utility agency. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Fire Marshall shall approve the development plans. The structures shall be sprinkled. 7. Pri~rt~issuance~fabui~dingpermit~theCityEngineersha~~appr~vetheapp~icant~sDrainageP~an which shall be prepared based on a 2 year event cycle, and include lining the ponds to prevent seepage to Midland Avenue, and accepting historical drainage from Midland Avenue. The plan shall ensure no sediment loaded drainage will be leaving the property during and after construction and that mud will not be tracked onto City Streets during construction. 8. Construction vehicles, including personal vehicles, and material may only be stored on the.subject property and may not encroach on City Streets. 9. Pri~rt~issuance~fabui~dingpermit~theEnvir~nmenta~Hea~thDepartmentsha~~appr~vethe applicant's Dust Control plan and Air Quality Mitigation Plan. All Air quality mitigation measure shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable 'school land dedication fees for each unit. The fee is $121 for each one-bedroom unit and $1,647 for each three bedroom unit. $10,971 total. 11. The applicant shall coordinate construction activities for improvement to Midland Avenue with the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall install a pedestrian path along the property to the intersection of Highway 82, and shall repair with a full width patch the disrupted portions of Midland Avenue. In order to minimize the disruption to Midland Avenue, The City Engineer shall coordinate speed hump improvements along Midland with the applicant's development schedule. 12. The applicant shall install a stop sign at the access way exit. And the necessary street lights required by the City Engineer. Placement and standards for these improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 4 13. The applicant shall post the 4 "park" parking spaces as two hour parking. The condominiums documents or homeowners association documents shall state the nature of this parking as available for temporary or guest parking but not for the purpose of long-term parking. 14. The applicant shall specify cotton-Iess varieties of Cottonwood trees foe construction drawings. 15. All site lighting shall be downcast and lighting shall not be used to accentuate landscape or architectural elements. The Parks Department is encouraged to provide lighting bollards along the proposed trail parallel to Midland Avenue at either side of the access way, at the northern intersection of the trail with midland Avenue, one at the "T" intersection near the south-western property boundary, and one near the proposed steps to the upper bench grass area. 16. The dimensional requirements for the parcel are as follows: Minimum distance between buildings As represented on Final Plat Maximum height (including viewplanes) As represented proposed elevations and recorded with Final Plat Minimum front yard As represented on Final Plat. Minimum rear yard As rapresented on Final Plat. Minimum side yard As represented on Final Plat. Minimum lot width No requirement. Minimum lot area . As represented on Final Plat. Trash access area Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed. Internal floor area ratio Allowable Floor Area = 21,500 square feet. Minimum percent open space. As represented on Final Plat. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing public right-of-way improvements. This requirement may be waived of the improvements are proposed as part of the development. 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit GIS data including property lines, building footprints, easements, and encroachments. 19. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the Final Plat. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 20. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for mailboxes and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 21. The applicant should be aware of the City's noise ordinance prohibiting construction between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The applicant shall observe concerns of neighbors by ceasing outdoor mechanical activity past 7 p.m. each night. 22. The applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution and the Growth Management Commission ResolUtion with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 5 23. The pedestrian path proposed to provide handicapped access to the upper courtyard from the south end of the parking area shall be designed to accommodate limited automobile access from the. parking area to the intersection of the courtyard loop path. 24. The applicant shall not be responsible for any Land Use Application fees, Water Tap, or Park Deve. topment Impact fees associated with this development. 25. Residential Design Standards for Building Orientation and Garage Placement for the housihg shall only be approved by the Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC). 26. The parking requirements are established at 21 and 4 spaces respectively for the-housing an~t park parcel of this development. The 4 parking sphces for the park development shall be signed for two hour (maximum) parking and the homeowner's documents for the housing development shall state that the 4 spaces may be used for temporary or guest parking, but not for long term parking~ 27. The City Council hereby grants an exemption from the scoring and competition procedureslof the rowth mana ement ' ' g . g quota system for fifteen (15) affordable housing umts and deducts the~e units from the annual pool of development allotments. I _'8. p l:eUao 7;essht; lct ooZ:i:tn:fs a :;; aLSa l:hlffc; tdh; ;gh; Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the de'~elopment proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Growth Management Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, and or City C~tmcil, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied ~vith as if fully set forth heroin, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 6: 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 heroin provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 6 Section 7: 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 8: 'That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 9: A public heating on the Ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of July, 1998 at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado,' fifteen (15) days prioi' to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 7 Presented to the Aspen City Council Monday, July 13. 1998 On the Occasion of the Presentation oi: the Shytier Redevelopment Proiect to the City Council Honorable City Councilpersons; The undersigned represent a sampling of those who have followed the Snyder Redevelopn~ent neighborhood process from its beginning. We strongly approve of the final design as presented by the Housing Authority and reject the Planning and Zoning Commission's effort to introduce a major conceptual redesign at this late stage. During tl]ree years of community inVOlvement many disparate views were sounded. considered, argued, examined, and rehashed. Egos flared and subsided as this superb design took form, ulti- mately, in a spirit of enthusiasm for the gestation of an excellent project. The astonishing patience and listening skill of Dave Tolen, his staff and colleagues, was a remarkable example to all. The result is a marvel of cooperation, expertise, exuberance, deter- mination, and good faith. Our community would lose a lot of that faith if that process were sidetracked by the P&Z in their new role as design team. Had members of the P&Z been involved in this long and fruitful series of meetings, they would have seen the design preferences they now hold analyzed as were so many other viewpoints. The truth is that we've been there and gone past that. The design the Housing Authority now offers really is a better solution. The Neighborhood Review, the Housing Authority, the Parks Department, and othem con- tributed to a sterling piece of civic planning. Please no not allow their exemplary efforts to be marginalized by an opinion less studied, regardless Of where that opinion may originate. x,X,~ urge you to unanimously approve the Housing Authority Design for the Snyder Project with only minor revisions, if necessary. Signed, ,.TIJL-.!.3:-:l. 998 J.O;FJ6 E~[G ~IR DESZGNS 9?0 928 45,'7F.~ P,v32 Prcgnted to the Aspen City Cuuncfi Monda)-,J'uly 1~. 19~8 On the Occasion of the Prc-~entation of the 5nyder Redevelopmenc l:Yoje~t to the Cit),,- COuncil Honordbl.. City Counciltxrsons; The undersigned represenI a sampling Of those who have followed the ~nyder neighix~rimood princess from its begimming We stn~ngly apprOvg of the final d~igu a,~ l~r~:u:nted by the Housing Authorigy and reject the Planning and Zoning Commls~ion's e_~ort to introduce '-, ma~or conceptual redosign at this Durtn8 ~hrcc yc-ars of ¢:ommunity involvemaxt many d/sparatc view~ were ~oandedl considered, argued, ,-ramified, and reha,~hctt, Egos I:]~c~ and submidtxl a~ this superb design took them, ulti- mately, in a spirit of eatht~ia~m l~f the gestation (ff an excellent project_ 'Iqme agontshlr~g patience aud listening skill of Dav~Tolen, his staff and colleagues, was a reruark- able _~.'~ple to all. The resuit is a marvel of cooperation, expertly, exubermce, determination. ;rod good faith. 0%u' couununiry wOUld lose a lot of that faith ff that process were ~idetracked :~T; the P&Z in their new r~l¢: ;is tkslglm te. uri. Had members of the PiZ been involved m this long and meetings, they would l'r, tve ~cen the design p~efefencc~ they now hold analyzed a,: : · ~ many t~tht-r viewpoints. The truth is that we've been there arid gone pa~t that,The d~ig,~ AufAl~rity now oft~rs really is a beret solution. The Neighborhood Revlcw, the Hou~ing Authority, the Paxks Department, and othcrr~ contributed to a sterling piece of civic plarlntx~ Please no not allo~' their exemplary efforLs ~O be marginali~ed by an opinion less z~udied, regaxdle~ of where that opinion taffy originate. We urge you to un-.mi- rllousiy al:lpR)ve tile I4ousing Authority Design for the Snyder Project with only minor revisk)ns, if necessary. Si$netl, ZiJ_-I 1998 19: 37 97~E~j258e349 P. 02 TOTAL P.82 ...................... =--. .............. ~ ................... INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of July, 1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: CityAttorney John Bennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of ,1998. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: CityAttorney JohnBennett, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ordinance No. 24, Series 1998 Page 8 EXHIBIT Staff Comments: Snyder Conceptual & Final PUD A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements: A. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen AreasCommunity Plan. Staff Finding: Community Vision: The proposed development increase~ resident housing opportunities, encourages a balanced permanent community, may provide residents with a transportatioxi alternative if they choose to walk to town, work, etc., and is a relatively sustainable development pattern. The proposed development furthers stated goals of the community by providing affordable housing via small, micro-community development patterns in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Community Vitality: The proposed development contains a community park and 15 affordable housing units. This addresses both the community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable walking distance to employment and neighborhood recreational resources. Locating a "critical mass" of residents within town furthers the goals of maintaining the character of Aspen and is far superior to housing those employees in a remote location. Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need to use a vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development within the tov~site reduces the need to extend services beyond the town limits and preserves those natural open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions. The development pri>posal includes 2 acres of passive and active open space to be conveyed to the City Parks Department. The plan includes the rehabilitation of wetland areas as well as development of a neighborhood park. B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: With the goal of compatibility with the neighborhood, the Housing Authority sought input from the surrounding neighbors through a series of design charettes. This Staff Comments 1 development proposal is a reflection of both the neighborhood's goal of compatibility and of the Housing Authority's goal of providing affordable housing. Existing land use in the immediate vicinity are all residential. The surrounding zone districts allow between 2.9 and 7.3 net units per acre (not including public streets). Due to the high number of non-conforming lots, non-conforming structures, and ADU' s, actual densities are as high as 16-20 units per acre in isolated locations. Typically, the areas west and north of the subject parcel are developed at 7-9 units per acre and the areas south and east of the parcel are developed at 1-3 units per acre. The proposed development will have a gross residential density of approximately 4.6 units per acre, clustered in the north-eastern section of the property, and a neighborhood park with semi-active uses. Net density for the housing site (excluding th~ park) is approximately 12 units per acre. This proposed resident!al and park land uses are consistent with the surrounding residential land uses. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The surrounding area' s development or redevelopment potential will not be affected by this development. The applicant is upgrading infrastructure as affected by this development. City Water mains will be improved for this development and the adjoining Alpine Cottages development. The sanitary sewer main in Midland Avenue will be improved. Midland Avenue R.O.W. improvements include a sidewalk from the parcel to the intersection with Highway 82, speed humps (part of the Smuggler Area Improvements), and stop signs at the East end of Hopkins and at the exit of the subject parcel. D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Staff Finding: The application must receive development allotments for 15 residential units. Affordable housing is eligible for an exemption from growth management by the City Council. The Growth Management Commission has made a recommendation tO City Council. 2. Density: A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the Underlying zone district. Furthertoo're, densities may be reduced if: 1. There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed development; 2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development; 3. The land is not suitable for the propo'sed development because of slope, ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers; Staff Comments 2 4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution; 5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the city; or 6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain o[ causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. B. Reduction in density for slope consideration. I. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor: a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the'maximum density allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district. b. For lands between twenty-one (21 ) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the underlying zone district. c. For lands between thirty-one (31 ) and forty (40) percent slope, the density shall be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone district. d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be allowed. 2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit. 3. For parcels resting in more than one (1) zone district, the density reduction calculation shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district. 4. Density shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Xrea. Staff Finding: A site improvement survey and a slope analysis was included with this application. The proposed subdivision divides the parcel ~nto a 54,574 square foot "housing" parcel and a 88,535 square foot "park" parcel. The slope reduction for the housing parcel reduces the new lot area to 48,477 Square feet. For PUD parcels, density and allowable floor area are both based on the net lot area after slope reduction. Density. Allowable density in the AH Zone District is based on the type of unit proposed. The application mis-sitei the density requirements for a parcel this size. Unless varied by Special Review, the proposed residential units require the following lot area per unit: [ Unit Type RequiredLotArea(s.f.) Number TotalLotArea(s.f) Single Family 1,500 0 0 Duplex 1,500 4 6,000 M/F Studio 1,000 0 0 M/F One Bedroom 1,250 5 6,250 M/F Two Bedroom 2,100 0 0 M/F Three Bedroom 3,630 6 21,780 Proposed.' 15 34,030 Staff Comments 3 Allowable: 48,477 Floor Area. Net Lot Area x .6:1 = Allowable Floor Area. 85% by right. 100% by Special Review Allowable: 29,086 Proposed: 21,296 (73% of allowable) 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted in the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property to two zones. The "housing" parcel is proposed as Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH 1-PUD). The "park" parcel is proposed for Park (P) Zone District. Please refer to the rezoning s~ction of this memo for those review criteria. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: a. Minimum distance between buildings; b. Maximum height (including viewplanes); c. Minimum front yard; d. Minimum rear yard; e. Minimum side yard; f. Minimum lot width; g. Minimum lot area; h. Trash access area; i. Internal floor area ratio; and j. Minimum percent open space. lfa variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any Variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan. Staff Finding: The applicant is not requesting any dimensional variation from the proposed AH 1-PUD or Park Zone requirements. The applicant will most likely condominiumize the housing parcel after construction to allow for separate titles. Staff suggests establishing the following dimensional requirements: a. Minimum distance between buildings As represented on Final Plat Staff Comments 4 b. Maximum height (including viewplanes) As represented proposed elevations and recorded with plat e. Minimum front yard As represented on Final Plat. d. Minimum rear yard As represented on Final Plat. e. Minimum side yard As represented on Final Plat. f. Minimum lot width No requirement. g. Minimum lot area As represented on Final Plat. h. Trash access area Minimum 10' wide, unobstructed. i. Internal floor area ratio Allowable Floor Area = 21,300 square feet. j. Minimum percent open space. As represented on Fin_al Plat. 5. Off-street parking. The number Of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. b. The parking need of any nonresidential units. c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the city. Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change Staff Finding: The requirements for parking in the AH1-PUD Zone District are established by the Planning and Zoning Commission through Special Review. The benchmark formula for parking are 1 space per bedroom with a 2 per unit maximum. Special Review allows an applicant to lower the required number depending upon the specific site conditions, but the City may not require more than the benchmark formula would provide. The parking requirements for Park zoned properties is established by Special Review. There is no benchmark formula for Park parcels. The applicant has proposed 21 spaces for the residential development and an additional 4 for the neighborhood park which may also serve as guest parking for the residences. The 21 spaces represents the benchmark for the housing portion of the development. The City cannot require more and the applicant is not requesting fewer. Staff supports the proposed parking requirements for the park portion of the development. The park will serve the neighborhood and is not expected to generate a large parking demand. The Council should require Signage for these spaces so they are not used for long-term parking by the residents or day parking by commuters. Staff Comments 5 6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common park or recreation area if it: a. Is to be used and is suitable 'for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is intended. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the permanem care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned facilities. Staff Finding: The proposal includes more than a sufficient amount of open space when considering the park will be more than double the size of the residential development. The open space for the residential portion of the property will need to be maintained by a homeowners association. Legal documents for this common maintenance will need to be provided as part of the Final PUD. 7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable forthe Aspen area elimate. Staff Finding: A landscape plan was submitted with the application for both the park and housing parcels. The hOUsing parcel landscape plan does propose a generous amount of additional exterior treatment. The plan does call for a variety of plat materials appropriate for the climate. Staff does suggest the proposed cottonwoods be a cotton-less narrow leaf species. Also, due to the small caliper trees specified staff suggests the Council should require the applicant to guarantee the landscape improvements for two years after issuance of a Certificate of 0ccupancy. This would require replacement of trees lost or - severely damaged during the initial growth period. The parks parcel also proposes a nice variety and generous amount of landscape treatment. The street tree requirement of subdivision is met with the proposed addition of the cottonwoods along Midland Avenue. Again, staff suggests a cotton-less variety. Staff Comments 6 The Parks Department should consider a downcast lighting bollard for strategic locations on the proposed trail. At a minimum, these should be along the trail on both sides of the subdivision entrance, one near the northern trail intersection with Midland, one near the trail "T" intersection on the south-western property boundary, and one near the proposed steps to the upper bench grass area. The standard for this bollard should coincide with the one used on the housing parcel. 8. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City., It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. Staff Finding: The proposed site plan is very respectful of the site's existing natural features. The location of the housing development requires minimal removal of existing trees, preserves the pond and wetland areas, and preserves the large grove of Aspens in the upper bench; The proposed architecture takes advantage of the site's natural terrain change by 'tucking' the garages under two of the residential structures. The proposed mussing along Ardmore Drive is primarily one to one and a half stories. This respects the typical development pattern along Ardmore and represents an agreeable solution to these neighbors. The proposed materials represent an eclectic mix of traditional materials and more contemporary Aspen architecture. The proposed use of color and materiali helps to break up the mussing and provide visual interest. In staffs opinion, the proposed site plan, mussing, and use of materials will promote a very high quality living environment and wilt contribute positively to the affordable housing inventory. 9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged sO as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Staff Findirkg: Lighting should be downcast. No up-lighting of landscape elements or architectural features should be permitted. 10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. Staff Finding: The development has been clustered. Staff Comments 7 11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Staff Finding: There will be costs associated with upgrading public facilities for this project. The applicant will be responsible for costs associated with upgrading the City Water service and the sanitary service. Improvements and repairs to the Midland R.O.W_. will include a paved trail along the parcel and south to Highway 82 (pan of air quality mitigation), improvements to the ponds to prevent damage to the street due to water seepage, accommodating drainage from the street, and repairing the cartway after construction. The structures will have to be sprinkled for fire protection and adequate space to turn around a fire truck will be required. As proposed, the Fire Marshall has adequate room to maneuver equipment in the driveway access. The applicant is proposing an emergency fire access from Ardmore Drive to meet additional requirements of the Fire Marshall 12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic. c. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing access to a public street. e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances. Staff Finding: The applicant has stated that the interior street system will be dedicated to the public after construction. The public should not maintain an access way used primarily to gain access to a parking lot. These areas, as well as any shared site improvements, should be maintained by a homeowners' association. The park parking will probably be maintained by the Parks Department, but snow removal wilt probably be done by the homeowners Association with some moneys coming from Parks. Staff Comments 8 Staff Comments: Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of thiS title. Staff Finding: Please refer to Staff Findings for PUD #1 a-c. The PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the parcel. The Plat and Subdivision/PUD agreement will bind the property to the conditions of approval and compliance with this Title. 2. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography, or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to Create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: The land is suitable for the development proposed. No known natural hazards exist on this site and the applicant has intentionally proposed development away from steep slopes, areas of poor drainage, water features, and wetlands. The spatial pattern proposed will not create inefficiencies or cause the premature extension of public services. 3. Improvements. ' a. Required improvements. The following shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. Staff Comments 9 1. Permanent survey monuments, range points, and lot pins. 2. Paved streets, not exceeding the requirements for paving and improvements of a collector street. 3. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. 4. Paved alleys. 5. Traffic-control signs, signals, or devices. 6. Street lights. 7. Street name signs. 8. Street trees or landscaping. 9. Water lines and fire hydrants. 10. Sanitary sewer lines. 1 I. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers. 12. Bridges and culverts. 13. Electrical lines. 14. Telephone lines. 15. Natural gas lines. 16. Cable television lines. b. Approved plans. Construction shall not commence until on any of the improvements required by this Section 26.88.040(C)(3)(a) until a plan, profile, and specifications have been received and approved by the City Engineer and, when appropriate, the relevant utility company. c. Oversize Utilities. In the event oversized utilities are required as a part of the improvements, arrangements for reimbursement shall be made whereby the subdivider shall be allowed to recover the cost of the utilities that have been provided beyond the needs of the subdivision. Staff Finding: As a condition of approval, the City should require the applicant to provide the appropriate infrastructure upgrades to the parcel. These requirements are more fully discussed in the Engineering Department referral comments and have been included as conditions of approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit, engineering plans for approval by the City Engineer or the appropriate utility agency. Oversize utilities will be installed for City Water. As part of the Alpine Lodge redevelopmerit proposal, a condition of approval was for the upgrading of the City Water facility through the Snyder property 4. Design Standards. The following design standards shall be required for all subdivisions. a. Street and related improvements. the following standards shall apply to streets regardless of type or size, unless the street has been improved with paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 1. Conform to plan for street extension. Streets shall conform to approved plans for street extensions and shall bear a logical relationship to the Staff Comments 10 topography and to the location of existing or planned streets on adjacent properties. 2. Right-of-way dedication. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entire width for all local, collector, and arterial streets. 3. Right-of-way width. Streets and alley right-of-way widths, curves and grades shall meet the following standards: Street Min. Curve ROW Max % Class. Radius Width Grade Local 100 60 10 Collector 250 80 6 Arterial ' 625 100 5 Alley 50 20 5 4. Half-street dedications. Half-street dedications shall be prohibited unless they are for the purpose of increasing the width of an inadequate existing right-of-way. 5. Street ends at subdivision. When a street is dedicated which ends on the subdivision, the last foot of the street on the terminal end or outside perimeter of the subdivision shall be dedicated to the City of Aspen in fee simple and shall be designated by using outlot(s). The City shall use the dedicated land for public road and access purposes. 6. Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed four hundred (400) feet in length and shall have a turnaround diameter of one-hundrec~ (100) feet. A cul-de-sac of less than two hundred (200) feet in length in a single- family detached residential area does not require a turnaround if the City Engineer determines a "T," "Y" or other design is adequate turnaround for the vehicles expected to use the cul-de-sac. 7. Dead-end streets. Dead-end streets, except for cul-de-sacs, shall be prohibited unless they are designed to connect with future streets op adjacent lands that have not been platted. In cases where these type dead-end streets are allowed, a temporary turnaround of one hundred (100) feet shall be constructed. 8. Centerline offset. Street shall have a centerline offset of at least one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet. 9. Reverse curves. Reverse curves on arterial and collector streets shall be joined by a tangent of at least one hundred (100) feet in length. I0. Changes in street grade. All changes in street grades shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum length in feet equivalent to the .- . following appropriate "K" value multiplied by the algebraic difference in the street grades. Street Classification: Local Collector Arterial "K" Value for: Crest vertical curve 28 16 55 Sag vertical curve 35 24 55 11. Alleys. Alleys shall be provided in subdivisions where commercial and industrial development is expected, except ~vhen other provision are made and approved for service access. 12. Intersections. Intersections shall approximate right angles and have a minimum tangent of fifty (50) feet on each leg. The subdivision design shall minimize the number of local streets that intersect arterial streets. Staff Comments 11 13. Intersection grade. Intersection grades shall not exceed four (4) percent for a minimum distance of one hundred (100) feet on each leg. Flatter grades are desirable. 14. Curb return radii. Curb return radii for local street intersections shall be fifteen (15) feet. Curb return radii and corner setbacks for all other types of intersections shall be based upon the expected types of vehicle usage, traffic volumes, and traffic patterns using accepted engineering standards. In caseof streets which intersect at acute angles, appropriate increases in curb return radii shall be made for the necessary turning movements. 15. Turn by-passes and turn lanes. Right-turn by-passes or left-turn lanes shall be required at the intersection of arterial streets or the intersection of an arterial street and a collector street if traffic conditions indicate they are needed. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate such lanes when they are required. 16. Street names and numbers. When streets are in alignment with existing streets, any new street shall be named according to the street with which they correspond. Street which do not fit into an established street- naming pattern shall be named in a manner which will not duplicate or be confused with existing street names within the City or its environs. Streel numbers shall be assigned by the City Building Inspector in accordance with the City numbering system. 17. Installation of curb, gutter sidewalks, or driveways. No finish paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, or driveways shall be Constructed until one year after the installation of all subsurface utilities and improvements. 18. Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be eight (8) feet wide in the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C 1 ), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Commercial Lodge (CL) Zone Districts and five (5) feet wide in all other zone districts where sidewalks are required. Consideration shall be given to existing and proposed landscaping when establishing sidewalk locations. 19. City specifications for streets. All streets and related improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City specifications which are on file in the office of the City Engineer. 20. Range point monuments. Prior to paving any street, permanent range point monuments meeting the standards of Section 26.88,040(C)(4)(d) shall be installed to approximately finish grade. Permanent range point - boxes shall be installed during or a soon as practicable after paving. Street name signs. Street name signs shall conform to the type currently in use by the City. 22. Traffic control signs. Any required traffic-cOntrol signs, signals, or devices shall conform to the "Manual of Unifurm Traffic Control Devices." 23. Street lights. Street lights shall be placed at a maximum spacing of three hundred (300) feet. Ornamental street light are desirable. 24. Street tree. One street tree of three-inch catiper for deciduous trees measured at the top of the ball or root system, or a minimum of six-foot height for conifers, shall be provided in a subdivision in residential zone districts for each lot of seventy (70) foot frontage or less, and at least two (2) such trees shall be provided for every lot in excess of seventy (70) feet frontage. Corner lots shall require at least one tree for each Staff Comments 12 street. Trees shall be placed so as not to block sight distances at driveways or comers. The City Parks and Recreation Department shall furnish a list of acceptable trees. Trees, foliage, and landscaping shall be provided in subdivisions in all other zone districts in the City in accordance with the adopted street landscaping plan. Staff FindiRe-: The applicants proposed street design meets these design standards. The dead end is approximately 200 ~'eet to the "T" intersection which is acceptable to the Fire Marshall. The street design, although not technically an alley, is appropriately design with the alley dimensions for width and grade. The street name shall be approved by City Council and recorded on the final plat. Hopkins Avenue is the closest intersecting street, although significantly offset. The close~st corresponding street is Ardmore Court. However, the disconnect may cause confusion for emergency services. "Snyder Park" may be appropriate if approved by the appropriate utility and emergency services. A stop sign shall be installed at the parcel exit The City Engineer has asked for three street lights along the property. The standard for this fixture shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The landscape plan meets the requirements for street trees. b. Easements. 1. Utility easements. Utility easements often (10) feet in width on each side of all rear lot lines and five (5) feet in width on each side of lot lines shall be provided where necessary. Where the rear or side lot lines abut property outside of the subdivision on which there are no rear or side lot line easements at least five (5) feet in width, the easements on the rear and side lot lines in the subdivision shall be between twenty (20) fiet and ten (10) feet in width, respectively. 2. "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs. Easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided in "T" intersections and cul-de-sacs for the continuation of utilities or drainage improvements, if necessary. 3. Potable water and sewer easements. Water and sewer easements shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width. 4. Planned utility or drainage system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a planned utility or drainage system designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. 5. Irrigation ditch, channel natural creek. Where an irrigation ditch or channel, natural creek or stream traverses a subdivision, an easement sufficient for drainage and to allow for maintenance of the ditch shall be provided. 6. Fire lanes and emergency access easements. Fire lanes and emergency access easements twenty (20) feet in width shall be provided where required by the City Fire Marshal. Staff Comments 13 7. Planned street or transit alignment. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of an existing or planned street or transit alignment designated on an adopted plan, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan with the subdivision. 8. Planned trail system. Whenever a subdivision embraces any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or hiking trail designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, an easement shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the subdivision. Staff Finding: Utility easements must be provided for the appropriate utility agencies and in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. These easements shall be delineated on thee final plat. The park and housing parcels shall have an easement along the east and north boundary lines for the purpose of maintaining the proposed ditch. The plat shall designate an easement for a bus stop to the approval of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority. The park parcel shall designate an easement on the access trail to the housing courtyard. This easement shall allow for the perpetual use by residents, and their future assignees, of the housing parcel. Lots and blocks. 1. General. Lots shall meet all applicable regulations of this title. 2. Side lot lines. Side lot lines shall be substantially at right angles or radial to street lines. 3. Reverse, d comer lot and through lots. Reversed comer lots and through lots shall be prohibited except where essential to provide separation from arterial streets because of slope, or to prevent the development of incompatible land uses. 4. Front and street. All lots shall front on a public or private street. 5. State Highway 82. No lot shall front on, nor shall any private driveway access to State Highway 82. 6. Block lengths. Block lengths shall normally be at least four hundred (400) feet in length and not more than on thousand four hundred (1400) feet in length between street intersections. 7.. Compatibility. Block lengths and widths shall be suitable for the uses contemplated. 8. Mid-Block pedestrian walkways. In blocks over five hundred (500) feet long, mid-block pedestrian walkways shall be provided. Staff Finding: Staff Comments 14 The proposed subdivision meets the lot line design standards. d. Survey Monuments. 1. Location. The external boundaries ofall subdivisions, blocks and lots shall be monumented on the ground by reasonably permanent monuments solidly embedded in the ground. These monuments shall be set not more than fourteen hundred (1400) feet apart along any straight boundary line, at all angle points, and at the beginning, end, and points of change of direction or change of radius of any curved boundaries. 2. C.R.S. 1972 38-51-10I. All monuments shall be set in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1973 38-51-101, as amended from time to time, unless otherwise provided for in this title. 3. Range points and boxes. Range points and boxes meeting City specifications shall be set on the centerline of the street right-of-way unless designated otherwise. Staff Finding: Each comer of the two lots created shall be monumented as required. The applicant shall set a range point in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer. The Planning Department suggests either one of the two corners on Midland Avenue. e. Utilities. 1. Potable waterline and appurtenances. All potable waterlines, fire hydrants and appurtenances shall meet the City' s standards on file in the City Engineer's office. 2. Size ofwaterlines. All potable water lines shall be at least eight (8) inches in size unless the length of the line is less than two hundred (200) feet. Where the potable waterline is less than two hundred (200) feet in length, its minimum size shall be six (6) inches in width. 3. Fire hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no farther apart than five hundred (500) feet in detached residential and duplex subdivisions. Fire hydrants shall be no farther apart than three hundred fifty(350) feet apart in multi-family residential, business, commercial, service, and industrial subdivisions. 4. Sanitary sewer. Sanitary sewer facilities shall meet the requirements of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. Underground utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except transformers, switching boxes, terminal boxes, meter cabinets, pedestals, and ventilation ducts. 6. Other utilities. Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be provided in accordance with the standards and regulations of the applicable utility department or company. Staff Comments 15 7. Utilities stubbed out. All utilities shall be stubbed out at the properly lines of lots. Staff Finding: All utilities shall be developed in accordance with this section and in compliance with the City Engineer or the appropriate. utility agency. All utility easements shall be delineated on the final plat. f. Storm Drainage 1. Drainage plan. The drainage plan for the proposed subdivision shall comply with the criteria in the City's "Urban Runoff Management Plan." 2. Detention storage. Short-term on-site detention storage.shall be provided to maintain the historical rate of runoff for the one-hundred- year storm from the undeveloped site. 3. 'Maintain historical drainage flow. In cases where storm runoff from an upstream basin passes through the subdivision, the drainage plan shall provide adequate means for maintaining the historical drainage system. 4. Calculations and quantities of flow. The drainage plan shall include calculations and quantities of flow at the points of concentration. Staff Finding: The applicant's drainage plan mus;c be accepted by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. The existing ponds shall continue to receive historical drainage and the site shall continue the same rate of drainage discharge during a 100 year event as prior to development. The ponds shall be lined to prevent damage from seepage to Midland Avenue. g. Flood hazard areas. The following standards shall apply to special flood hazard areas as defined in Section 26.68.040 of the Municipal Code. 1. The proposed subdivision design shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage to public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electricity, and potable water systems. 2. Base flood elevation data shall be provided for any proposed subdivision of at least fifty (50) lot or five (5) acres, whichever is less. h. The design and location of any proposed structure, building envelope, road, driveway, trail, or other similar development is compatible with significant natural or scenic features of the site. i. Variations of design standardsL Variations from the provisions of this section, "Design Standards," may be granted by special review as provided for in Chapter 26.64. Staff Finding: This parcel is not within a special flood hazard area. The proposed structures are appropriately located considering natural features of the site. The application does not request any variations from these design standards. Staff Comments 16 5. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.48, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.100, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This standard is applicable. The applicant is requesting an exemption from GMQS by City Council. The Growth Management Commission has made a recommendation to City Council. 6. School land dedication standards. c. Dedication Schedule. I. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed according to the following schedule: Unit Type Land Dedication Standard Dormitory .0000 acres (0 sq, ft.) Studio/One bedroom .0012 acres (52 sq. ft.) Two bedroom .0095 acres (416 sq. ft.) Three bedroom .0162 acres (707 sq. ft.) Four bedroom .0248 acres (108I sq. ft.) Five bedroom .0284 acres (1236 sq. ft.) 2. Cash-in-lieu payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the City, or make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this section. Because the cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the Schobl District and Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash-in-lieu amount which is less than the full market value of the land area. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu payment for each residential dwelling unit is as follows: Market value of land x applicable land dedication standard x 0.33 = cash payment. Payment of cash-in-lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwellings. Staff Finding: This section is applicable. The property does not represent an appropriate place for a dedication of land and staff recommends the City require the cash-in-lieu payment. The land dedication schedule is based on the type of unit and the resulting square footage requirement for dedication. The City has recognized the high market value of land and has introduced a .33 multiplier in the calculation. If a payment-in-lieu is preferred, 1/3 the value of that land is rendered. (Market value $) x (.33) x (square foot dedication requirement) = cash payment-in-lieu square foot Staff Comments 17 The first step in this calculation is determining the per square foot value of the land. The property was purchased for 1 million in 1994. One third of this figure is $333,333. Divided by 143,109 square feet results in $2.33 per square foot. The square foot dedication requirements by unit are 52 square feet per studio/one bedroom unit and 707 square feet per three bedroom unit. So, each one bedroom generates a $121 payment and each three bedroom generates a $1,647 payment. $10,971 total. This payment shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. STAFF COMMENTS: Rezoning Section 26.92.020, Standards Applicable to ReZoning In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed zone change is part of the proposed PUD/Subdivision. Those criteria are addressed in this review to ensure conformance With this Title. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Please refer to AACP compliance, criteria 1A and 1B of the PUD criteria. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Road safety has been an issue in the smuggler neighborhood for several years and is being addressed with the Smuggler Area Improvements plan. The applicant has worked with the City Engineer to mitigate the increase in trip generation on road safety. The applican~ will be installing a sidewalk from the property to Highway 82 (also part of air quality mitigation) and the City will be installing speed tables along Midland Avenue. With the expected improvements to the area and the proximity to the commercial core, the' amount of residential density proposed is not expected to make Midland Avenue unsafe. 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 facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: Staff Comments 18 The applicant is providing physical improvements and/or impact fees for the development' s effects on infrastructure. The appropriate utility agencies were referred on this application and none reported a capacity problem that could not be mitigated by the applicant. F, Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The natural features of. the site are largely being preserved with this proposal. Also, development of employee housing within walking or transit distance to activity centers reduces the demand for long distance vehicle trips. G, Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The Housing Authority developed this proposal with the involvement of the surrounding neighborhood. Their involvement and support for the project indicates neighborhood compatibility. Staff believes the rezoning is consistent with the AACP and the proposed development reflects well on the Housing Authority and the City in general. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: Purchase of the property by the Housing Authority alone is not a reason to amend the official map. Acceptance of the development plan by the neighbors, the decrease in the resident wbrker population, the increase in long distance downvalley commuting, the community's charge of developing affordable housing in town, and the preservation and enhancement of some significant natural features of the property support a rezoning. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. The AACP reflects a community desire for integrated affordable housing opportunities within established neighborhoods. The community has favored infill opportunities over large scale greenfield solutions to affordable housing. Staff believes this development will promote the purpose and intent of this Title. This plan promotes the permanent community by creating additional housing opportunities for working residents and reducing the dependence of the automobile by providing housing near employment and recreation centers. Fewer long distance commuter trip represents good environmental policy and well appointed site and unit plans promotes healthy and high quality living conditions. Staff Comments 19 STAFF COM~IENTS: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below. B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in lieu by special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. tn all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shail demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for . residents, guests, and employees. Staff Finding: Both the AH1 and Park Zone Districts require the parking requirements to be established by Special Review. The housing development of 9 one-bedroom units and 6 three-bedroom units would require 21 off-street spaces given the requirements for residential development throughout the City. The proximity of the development to downtown could warrant a reduced parking requirement. However, this contemplates a lower car usage which may not correlate to a lower car'ownership. The applicant has proposed 21 spaces. The park development is not expected to generate a high demand for parking. It main service area is the surrounding neighborhood and not the entire City. The Parks Department has . proposed 4 spaces which could serve as overflow and guest parking for the housing development. Staffs concern over these spaces is that they remain available for park users and not for long-term residential parking. Staff suggests these spaces be signed for two hour parking and the condominium documents or homeowner's documents state the nature of these spaces. STAFF COMMENTS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN WAIVERS DRAC may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the vai-iance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. BUILDING ORIENTATION: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: The orientation of the principal mass o fall buildings must be parallel to the streets they face. Staff Comments 20 In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: For this parcel, the proposed design is more appropriate. The building orientation is generally parallel and designed in a way which respects the natural features of the site. Staff recommends a waiver of this standard. PRINCIPAL WINDOWS: The applicant' s proposed development is in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All single-family, townhouses, and duplexes must have a street-oriented entrance and a street-oriented principal window, except townhouses and accessory units facing courtyards or garden& where entries and principal windows should face those features. Multiple unit residential buildings must have at least one street-oriented entrance for every four units. Front unit must have a street-facing principal window. Staff Finding: Staff believes this project meets this standard. The project incorporates a center yard where each unit appropriately has a pedestrian access. The entrance and principal window for each unit should face this center courtyard. BUILDING ELEMENTS (ONE-STORY ELEMENT); The applicant' s proposed development is in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All residential buildings must have a one-story street facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty percent of the buildings overall width. Staff Finding: Staff believes this project meets this standard. The project incorporates a center yard where each unit appropriately has a pedestrian access. Each building has a one-story element facing this feature. The one story garages meet the standard and provides Midland and the access drive with a one-story element. The garages Staff Comments 21 on the three-story structure do have one-story element over the garage entrances to break-up the massing. Staff does not believe a variance is necessary. BUILD-TO LINES: The applicant's proposed development/s in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: if 75% or more of the residential buildings on the face of a block where a project is to be located are within 2feet of a common fi'ont setback line, a minimum of sixty percent of a proposed project 's fi'ont facade must also be within two feet of that front setback. Staff Finding: Staff believes this project meets this standard. There is no such common setback established on this block face. GARAGES: The applicant's proposed development is not in compliance with the following Residential Design Standard: All portions of a garage, carport or storage parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the fi'ont facade a minimum of ten feet. Garages..: with a vehicular entrance width greater than twenty-four feet, and garages with vehicular widths greater than forty percent of the j~ont facade in total shah meet one of the following standards 1. All elements of the garage shah be located within 50feet of the rear lot line. ' 2. All elements ofthegarage shah be located farther than on hundFed- ~fty feet pom the J~ont lot line. 3. The vehicular entrance to the garage shah be perpendicular to the fi'ont lot line In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposed variance is not in greater compliance with the goals of the Community Plan. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff believes the proposed site plan in appropriate considering the sito's natural features and represents a qualified design approach; a pedestrian courtyard. Inherent with this type of design is both the "schlep factor" and the "what to do Staff Comments 22 with the autos." In staffs opinion, the applicant has addressed these issues with the site programming (locating the larger units closer to the parking) and site design (minimizing the presence of the auto and garage doors). Due to the location of the proposed lot line separating the park and housing parcels, the garages cannot be located more than 150 feet from the front lot line. Staff believes the proposed garage are appropriately sited to preserve the intent of the "Residential Design Standards." The garages take advantage'of the site's . topography and remove the auto from the pedestrian courtyard of the project. The one-story garages present a non-garage aesthetic on arrival with the introduction of porches and fenestration. Staff Comments: GMQS Exemption The exemption by City Council is subsequent to review and consideration by the GMC. There are, however, no specific review criteria for this review other than the more general criteria listed below. To the extent possible, staff has incorporated general observations of the project in relation to the Community Plan, the Interim Housing Guidelines, and pertinent criteria of PUD and Subdivision requirements. "Approval of the method by which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Growth .Management Commission. In evaluating the applicant's proposal, the advice of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be sought in considering the following factors:" 1. Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. 2. FVhether the city hqs an adoptedplan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. Staff Finding: The City, through the Housing Authority, has developed an affordable housing plan for both public and private monies. The site is not identified in the Community Plan as a potential affordable housing site. The Plan, however, only identified individual parcels and did not provide direction in evaluating all sites in general. The Interim Housing Plan provides criteria for evaluating any site whether or not it has been identified by the community. The Interim criteria are more fully discussed below. Based on it's location, size, and proximity to general services, staff believes this site is an appropriate site for affordable housing. 3. PFhether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to Staff Comments 23 employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints to development or historic preservation concerns. Staff Finding: The site is an excellent site for affordable housing. Its proximity to physical and social infrastructure, transit and the Hopkins bikeway, employment and recreation opportunities, and location within an established neighborhood make this a great site. Development is somewhat constrained by environmental concerns. There are some steep slopes, some wetlands, obvious surface water, and large groves of well established trees. These constraints, however only affect the programming of the site and do not significantly reduce the ability to develop the parcel. The site is not constrained by historic preservation concerns. 4. ~Fhether the method proposed will result in employee housing being producedprior to or at the same time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. Staff Finding: By default, the proposed employee housing will be produced'at the same time as the impacts of the development. 5. ~Vhether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs. Staff Finding: Because the proposed project is 100% affordable housing, no other on-site housing is required. Services will most likely be provided through a homeowners' association and there may be an on-site manager associated with the housing development. The proposed development shah be consistent witIt the Aspen Area Community Plan (requirement of PUD and Subdivision). StaffFindirxg: Community Vision: The proposed development increases resident housing opportunities, encourages a balanced permanent community, may provide residents with a transportation alternatiye if they choose to walk to towp, work, etc., and is a relatively sustainable development pattern. The proposed development furthers stated goals of the community by providing affordable housing via small, micro-community development patterns in character with the surrounding neighborhood. Community Vitality: The proposed development contains a community park and 15 affordable housing units. This addresses both the community's desire to provide affordable housing opportunities within a reasonable walking distance to employment and neighborhood recreational resources. Locating a "critical mass" of residents within town furthers the goals of maintaining the character of Aspen and is far superior to housing those employees in a remote location. Staff Comments 24 Open Space and Environment: Providing housing opportunities within walking distance to employment, entertainment, recreation, and other residences reduces the need Ito use a vehicle for every trip. Also, compact development within the townsite reduces the need to extend services beyond the town limits and preserves those natural open space areas for their wildlife and aesthetic functions. The development proposal includes 2 acres of passive and active open space to be conveyed to the City Parks Department. The plan includes the rehabilitation of wetland areas as well as development of a neighborhood park. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area (requirement of PUD and Subdivision). Staff Finding: With the goal of compatibility with the neighborhood, the Housing Authority sought input from the surrounding neighbors through a series of design charet~es. This development proposal is a reflection of both the neighborhood's goal of compatibility and of the Housing Authority' s goal of providing affordable housing. Existing land use in the immediate vicinity are all residential. The surrounding zone districts allow between 2.9 and 7.3 net units per acre (not including public streets). Due to the high number of non-conforming lots, non-conforming structures, and ADU's, actual densities are as high as 16-20 units per acre in isolated locations. Typically, the areas west and north of the subject parcel are developed at 7-9 units per acre and the areas south and east of the parcel are developed at 1-3 units per acre. The proposed development will have a gross residential density of approximately units per acre, clustered in the north-eastern section of the property, and a neighborhood park with semi-active uses. Net density for the housing site (excluding the park) approximately 12 units per acre. This proposed residential and park land uses are consistent with the surrounding residential land uses. Interim Housing Criteria: Generally, staff believes this project meefs the criteria established with the Interim Housing Plan. However, these criteria are relatively new and have not been applied on numerous projects. The project is within the metro area. Furthermore, the project is within the more urbanized portion of the metro area. Transit service is already provided in the area and may be relocated to Midland Avenue with regardless of this application. Staff believes this development itself will not prematurely extend services to remote locations or promote sprawl. However, additional units could prevent the need for other extensions which may be perceived as unnecessary sprawl. The provision of public facilities in this location is entirely realistic and is not expected to affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development is similar in density to the surrounding neighborhood, is respectful of existing natural features of the site, and is not expected to significantly change the fundamental character of the neighborhood. Staff Comments 25 The site is well situated with respect to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to activity centers, and recreation. The proposed site plan and architecture demonstrate compatibility with the features of the site and provide a mix of traditional and more contemporary uses of form and material. Given the site proximity to services, downtown, recreation, employment, transit, and the bike/ped way, the ai~plication is not pushing the carrying capacity of the site. However, the site is serving both the housing needs of the community and the recreational needs of the neighborhood with a park. The ponds, proposed wetland rehabilitation areas, and tree preservation serve an important environmental and scenic component. Also, to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, the applicant has sough much input from the surrounding landowners in developing this proposal. The Council may want to discuss the relative merits of the application with respect to the optimization critiria. The housing proposed does represent, in staffs opinion, a high quality living opportunity. With good site design, architecture, landscaping, construction, and proximity to the park and downtown, this proposed housing development will be in much demand. The applicant will have to upgrade a water main (in cooperation with the Alpine Cottages development) and upgrade the sanitary sewer on Midland Avenue. Basic services, such as fire protection, police, road repair, etc. should not be outstanding compared with more remote sites. The Parks Department will be creating another park which will require additional maintenance. The development is not expected to generate a significant number of employees. Staff Comments 26 MEMORANDUM ~' :" "~.~r Thru: Nick Adeh, City Enginee~/,~ From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer ~. Date: June 16, 1998 Re: Shytier Park Affordable Housing -- Combined Conceptual & Final (210 Midland Avenue) The Development Review Cornrim-tee has reviewed the above referenced application at their June 3, 1998 meeting, and previously the preliminary submittal at their Janum'y 14, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: 1. P.U.D. Plat - The application includes a preliminary plat, and the final plat must include "P.U.D." in the title. The property boundaries, both exterior and interior, must be monumemed prior .to signing the plat. It is not clear what sheets are intended to be included in the final plat. Typically, site plans, utility plans, architectural elevations, and landscaping plans are inclJaded. An index must appear on the first sheet. Reference must be made to a current (within I2 months) title commitment for easement information. P.U.D. plats are also approved and signed by utility providers. Plat certificates for the utilities must be included on the master utility plan. Note that the applicant must allow time for final plat review and corrections well in advance of the actual 120 day recording deadline. The labels "Parks parcel, access and drainage easement" are unclear and appear to indicate the entire park parcel. Both sides of the Midland Avenue right-of-way must be shown and the width indicated. Add approval-blocks for the Parks Director and Fire Marshal. As part of the subdivision improvements, the applicant is required to install three street lights along the property, one at each comer and one at the private drive access on Midland Avenue. This must be shown on the site and utilities plan and is subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 2. Site Plan - The site plan must also show the proposed fire response access from Ardmore Drive. 3. Improvement Survey - Include the name of the irrigation ditch and a 10 foot wide easement if there is no easement of record. If there is an easement of record, indicate'the recording information. 4. Slooe Reduction - The slope analysis sheet must be signed and sealed by a Colorado professional land surveyor as it relies on surveyed information including topography. 5. Encroachmerits - Existing fences in the public right-of-way must be removed or relocated to private property prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 6. Site Drainage - The Engineering Depaament is currently reviewing the drainage plan with the applicant's engineer. The drainage plan must be accepted prior to signing the final plat. 7. Trash & Utilities - All utility. meters and any new utility. pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals, easements must be provided. The building permit drawings must indicate all utility. meter locations. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Separate utility meters must be installed for each dwelling unit and the public restroom for the park. 8. City Streets Del~artment - There is a history of drainage problems on Midland and Highway 82~ that resulted from seepage from the pond. The ponds should be lined to prevent recurrence of the problem. A portion of Midland Avenue currently drains to the site and is connected by a ditch to the pond. Any site improvements must accommodate this drainage because of a low spot in Midland Avenue. 9. City Water Del~artraent - The water system improvements should be constructed prior to improvements for the park. Each unit must be served by separate water taps. curb boxes. and service lines. The Water Director cautioned that backflow preventers require a large amount of space and that the developer should be sure to provide sufficient space in utility. mores. Plans for the water system which are stamped and signed by a Colorado registered engineer must be received by City Water prior to issuance of any building permits. The sprinkler system for fire suppression will be raw water. The restroom in Building "F' is intended for park users and therefore needs an easement. Separate utility. meters are needed. (Note that the Buildings "F' and "G" designations are switched between the plat and Exhibit 19 in the application book.) 10. Parks Det~artment - The Parks Department staff is working closely with the applicant concerning both the project as a whole and the parcel intended for dedication as a park. The landscape plan meets tree mitigation requirements. The four "extra" parking spaces are for park users. (This should be included in the affordable housing declarations and/or covenants to preclude homeowners from using those spaces.) 2 1 I. Environmental Health Del}artment - The cost of extending the sidewalk to Highway 82 will be acceptable towards PM-10 mitigation. Another part of the project mitigation will be to provide bicycle racks. These should be shown on the site plan. 12. Buildina Denartment - The windows and window wells in the basement need to be enlarged for fire protection. It is a concern that there are building spaces that axe indicated as storage rooms which could become living spaces. I3. City Engineer -The entire street frontage of Midland Avenue will need to be re-surfaced with asphalt at the conclusion of construction. Certificates of occupancy for individual units will not be withheld from owners due to developer obligations. 14. Ashen Consolidated Sanitation District - The applicant needs to meet with ACSD to determine project requirements and performance standards. i5. Snow Storage - The applicant is advised to designate snow storage axeas in the site design and to indicate those areas on the final PUD site plan. 16. Imnrovement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of- way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building inspection. 17. Work in the Public Riaht-of-wav - Given the continuous problems of unapproved ~vork and development in public fights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way, parks depamnent (920-5120) for vegetation species, and streets depaxtment (920-5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of- way from the city community development alepax tment. DRC Meetin~ Attendees Staff: l~hil Overeynder, Nick Adeh, Bill Eaxley, John Krueger, Chris Bendon, Stephen Kanipe, Jancite Whircomb, Kevin Dunnett, Nancy Mackenzie, Chuck Roth 98M145 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,, Tote. ~970) 925-3601 F.~X ~(970~ 925-2537 Sy Kelly. Chairman Michael Kclfy Paul Smith · Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish. Secy. Bruce Mathefty, Mgr. June 5, 1998 C~is Bendon CommuniW Development dUN J j99~ 130 S. ~lena =:.,.:..~ :,,,,~ Mpen, CO 81611 M=~ Re: Snyd~r P~k ~or~ble Housing Dear Chris: The ~xisting development a~ the Snyder prope~ is ~u~ently sewed by our Dis=i~. Du~ to the magirude of development proposed a mmn line e~ension ~11 be required. A lin~ e~ension request and coll~ion system ~e~ment must be ~ompleted at our o~ce for ~1 mmn line e~ensions The s~dard fo~s for ~h ~e availabl~ at our business o~e. Only ACSD prequalified ~on~ors may be used for the cons~ction on-site main lin~ ~olle~on system. Derailed plus for the on-site ~olle~on system must be reviewed md approved by ~ Dism~t's ~ngin~er prior to ~ons~tion. Funding for reviewing th~ plus for th~ collection system ~d obse~ing the ~ons~ion of the ~oll~tion system will need to be deposited ~ ~ Dismet in adv~ of ~h ~k. ~1 ~emenm required must b~ ~ted a~cording to s~d~d Dism~t fo~. Semite is ~ontingent upon ~ompli~e ~ ~e Dism~t roles, regulations, and speci~tibns which ~e on file at ~e Dism~ o~e. Th~ ~ppli~ant is encouraged to ~onm~, Tom Bm~wetl, our line superintendent for more specific ifo~afion. There is a do~s~ ~ons~int ~at ~11 need to be ~liminated in order for the Dis~ to provide sewi~e. Appro~mamly 150 fe~ of lin~ ~d ~o m~holes ~11 need to be mpla~ed at ~e appli~t's expense. ~1 p~king s~mres ~11 b~ required to have Dis~t approved s~d ~d oil separators. We would like to r~view drainage p!~s for ~e project when ~y beceme avmlable. No ~1~ ~mr ~oB~ons or su~a~e ran-off is allowed in ~e Dism~ system. We n~d d~iled utiliW pl~s, ~nds for review, a ~ompl~ed lin~ e~ension requ~t ~d ~ollecfion s~ ~eem~n~ ~d ~nds for ~ons~fion obsew~tion, ~ soon ~ possible, if~e appli~t hopes to br~ ~ound soon. PI~ ~11 if you have ~y questions. Sincerely, Brace ~therly Distri~ ~ager EPA Awards of Excdlence 1976-1986. 1990 Region~ and National MEMORANDUM To: Chris Bendon, Corrmatmity Development bepm b~Lent Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Director From: Nancy, MacKenzie, Environmental Health Spedalist ",x ~i '~.4~ Date: lune 17, 1998 Re: Snyder Affordable Housing - Combined Conceptual & Final _ 210 Midland Avenue The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Depa~L~ient has reviewed the land use submittal under authori,ty of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum pract~cai degree of air purity, possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city...." The Land Use Regu/ations seek to "lessen congestion' and "avoid transportanon demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide dean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutmats". The proposed mitigation measures are suf~dent to offset the increases in PM10 caused by the project. It was determined at the trine of the Conceptual application that 56 vehicle trips per day will be generated by this project. The applicant has committed to extend the sidewalk beyond this project along Midland Avenue to provide a Link down to the sidewalk on Hwy 82. This wou/d reduce total trips in the City by 47 vehicle trips per day, leaving 10 vehicle trips per day that still require additional mitigation. The applicant has further committed to provide bike racks, to work with RFTA to provide a transit stop and bus shelter near the project and to reduce the number of parldng spaces by 22% (from 28 spaces to 21 spaces. These measure are more than enough to mitigate the remaining 10 trips. A condition of approval should be that the proposed mitigation measures (including the Sidewalk extension, bike racks and reduced parking spaces) must be in place before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any of the units.