The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20060710 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 10, 2006 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Commuter All-Star Awards 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 Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #53, 2006 - Supplemental Request - Deep Powder Cabins b) Appointment to Open Space Advisory Board c) Minutes - June 13, 26, 2006 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #30, 2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment P.H. 7/24 b) Ordinance #31,2006 -100 East Bleeker Establishment of 2 TDRs P.H. 8/14 c) Ordinance #32,2006 - 403 West Hallam Establishment of 2 TDRs P.H. 8/14 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #24, 2006 -1001 Ute Consolidated PUD b) Ordinance #25, 2006 - Code Amendment Lodge District c) Ordinance #26, 2006 - Boomerang Lodge PUD IX. Action Items a) Resolution #54, 2006 - Electric Distribution Wheeling Agreement for Burlingame Village X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting Julv 24. 2006 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A IS MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM VI-a TO: I THRU: FROM: COPY: RE: DATE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ \V) James Lindt, Senior Planner ::::s L Paul Menter, Finance Director Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager Resolution No. 53, Series of 2006. Deep Powder Cabins Supplemental Funding Request July 10, 2006 I I I SUMMARY: In February of this year, City Council approved the Limelight Final PUD to allow for the Limelite, Inc. and Limelite Redevelopment LLC. to redevelop the Limelite Lodge, Snowflake Inn, and Deep Powder Lodge properties pursuant to Ordinance No. I, Series of2006. As part of the approvals (please see final ordinance attached as Attachment "B") l,'Tanted for the redevelopment, the City was supposed to find a location on which to relocate the two (2) oldest Deep Powder cabins and pay all but $20,000 (to be provided by the Applicants) of the relocation fees. Staff has had several work sessions with City Council and the HPC and it has been determined that the two (2) Deep Powder cabins should be moved to Willoughby Park. Staff has received cost estimates from the house mover through the Applicants' contractors. The cost estimate provided to Staff suggests that it will cost $62,652.50 (cost estimate is attached Attachment "C") to move the two (2) cabins to Willoughby Park. Staff also conducted a work session with City Council on June 19th to review the cost estimate and the members of City Council that were present indicated that the cost estimate was acceptable. Therefore, Staff is requesting a $47,000 increase in supplemental funding to cover the relocation as p'rovided in the cost estimate attached as Attachment "C" and an additional several thousand doUars to accommodate moving irrigation systems in Willoughby Park to accommodate the structure as was discussed at the June 19th work session. I I I STAFF COMMENTS: Staff had originally anticipated needing a budget supplemental between $20,000 and $30,000 (anticipated total relocation cost was $40,000 to $50,000) for the relocation of the cabins in addition to the Applicants' contribution. Unfortunately, as with many construction related costs, the costs of relocating the cabins have increased above what was originally anticipated. That said, Staff has worked with the Applicants and the house mover (Bailey House Moving) to get the cost of the relocation down from the first cost estimate that we received to $62,652.50. The first cost estimate that Staff received on May 15th was for $98,031.73, so since that time there have been some significant negotiations between Staff, the Applicants, and the house mover to reduce the costs of moving the cabins. Staff feels that this estimate of $62,652.50 is likely as low as we can I I . on May 15'h was for $98,031.73, so since that time there have been some significant negotiations between Staff, the Applicants, and the house mover to reduce the costs of moving the cabins. Staff feels that this estimate of $62,652.50 is likely as low as we can get the costs of the relocation given the short timeline that we have to be prepared for moving the cabins since the Limelight is ready to start moving on their demolition plans, with a target moving date of around August 1st. I At the June 19'h work session, Council asked about the "Schelling Fine Fund". This fund was established with monies collected from a property owner who violated a Historic Preservation Commission decision. This fund has been fully allocated to educational programs. Please see Attachment "D", which is a brief memo from Amy Guthrie identifying how the" Schelling Fine Fund" is currently earmarked. City Council may reallocate this money towards the Deep Powder project and reduce the necessary supplemental accordingly. As is discussed above and as was briefly discussed at the June 19'h work session, Staff has also built in $4,348.50 into the supplemental request to cover moving portions of the irrigation system in Willoughby Park to accommodate the structures. Staff is requesting a total budget supplemental of $47,000.00 to aecommodate the reloeation of the Deep Powder Cabins. C~if ~~"""'''' : YIZ · <(, ",:. T~ . '. . ' , :t_fi}~'~Q:~;;;L~ i "i~.:..,;.... RECOMMENDED MOTION: . "I move to approve Resolution No.5,2, Series of 2006, approving the supplemental funding of$47,000.00 to relocate the Deep Powder Cabins." ATTACHMENT: Attachment "A"- Proposed Resolution N063, Series of2006 Attachment "B". Ordinance No. I, Series of2006 Attachment "C"- Cost Estimate Attachment "D"- Memo about Schelling Fine 2 /fl+c<<:A~~t{1 ~/( RESOLUTION 53 (Series of 2006) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE DEEP POWDER CABINS. WHEREAS, Ordinance No. I, Series of2006, approved the Limelight Final PUD to redevelop the Limelight Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn properties; and, I WHEREAS, Section No. 15 of Ordinance No. I, Series of 2006, establishes that the City of Aspen will find a location to relocate the Deep Powder Cabins to and pay all but $20,000,00 of the relocation costs; and, WHEREAS, after several work sessions of the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council, it was determined that Willoughby Park is the appropriate location to accommodate the cabins; and, WHEREAS, a cost estimate of $62,652.50 has been provided for the relocation of the cabins; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has requested $47,000,00 in supplemental funding to cover all but the $20,000.00 to be provided by the owners of the Deep Powder property to relocate the cabins to Willoughby Park; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: I I I I I Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves a supplemental funding request in the amount of $47,000.00 for the relocation of the Deep Powder Cabins to Willoughby Park. Helen Kalin Klanderud, 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 July 10, 2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk A--lI-ac~ wPt/~V' ORDINANCE 1'\0. 1 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LIMELIGHT LODGE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REVIEWS TO CONSTRUCT 125 LODGE ROOMS AND 15 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE LIMELITE LODGE, DEEP POWDER LODGE, AND SNOWFLAKE INN PROPERTIES, DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERNMOST 10 FEET OF LOT C, LOTS D-I AND LOTS O-S, BLOCK 76, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND LOTS A-I, BLOCK 77, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-182-19-001 Parcel No. 2737-131-05-001 Parcel No. 2737-182-18-001 Parcel No. 2737-073-42-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Limelite Inc. and Limelite Redevelopment LLC, owners, represented by Stevc Sz}manski, requesting approval of a Final Planned Unit Development, Partial Alley Vacation, Rezoning, Subdivision, Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review, Residential Design Standards Variances, Commercial Design Standard Variances, and Growth Management Review, to construct 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free market residential dwelling units on the properties described as the easternmost 10 feet of Lot C, Lots D-I and Lots O-S, Block 76, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots A-I, Block 77, City arid Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject properties contain approximately 64,000 total square feet and are located in the Lodge Zone District; and, I WHEREAS, the Community Development Dircctor has determined in consultation with the Applicants that it would be appropriate for the review of all of the land use requests associated with the fmal PUD application to be combined with the review of the final PUD application to ensure clarity in the final decision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.304.060(B)(I), Combined reviews; and, ~ WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development, the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Final Planned Unit Development request during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, I . I I I WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 6. 2005. the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the review of the proposal to December 13, 2005; and, I I WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 38, Series of 2005, by Ii five to zero (5-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Limelight Lodge final PUD and associated land use actions to construct an incentive lodge consisting of 125 lodge units and seventeen (17) free-market residential units; and, I WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 23, 2006, the Aspen City Council continued the review ofthe application to February 6'h; and, I I I I WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted a revised proposal containing 125 lodge units and fifteen (15) free-market residential units; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on February 6, 2006, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. I, Series of 2006, by a four to one (4-1) vote, approving with conditions, the Limelight Lodge final PUD and associated land use actions to construct an incentive lodge consisting of 125 lodge units and fifteen (15) free-market rcsidential units; and, I I I WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral. agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, I I 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves the Limelight Lodge Final PUD application, partial alley vacation. subdivision, rezoning to include a PUD overlay, Wheeler Mountain View Plane Review, Commercial Design Standard Variances, and Growth Management Review to construct 125 lodge units and fifteen (15) free market residential dwelling units on the properties described as the easternmost 10 feet of Lot C, Lots D-I and Lots 0-8, Block 76, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and Lots A-I, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Rezonin!! to include a PUD Overlay Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, City Council hereby rezones the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn properties to include a PUD overlay. Section 3: SnbdivisionIPUD Plat and Al!reement The Applicants shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval. Additionally, a final Subdivision/PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shaH include the following: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing: easements, encroachment agrecments and licenses (with the reception numbers) for physical improvements, and location of utility pedestals. b. An iHustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A final grading and drainage plan. e. A final utility plan. Section 4: BuUdin!! Permit Applicatioo The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. . b, The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. The tree removal permit application shaH be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. e. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on:site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5- year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. f. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in Section 6 of this ordinance. I . I g. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. h. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. Section S: Dimensional ReQuirements The dimensional requirements established in this PUD are as follows: Dimensional PUD Dimensional ReQuirement ReQuirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet Minimum Front Yard o Feel Setback Minimum Side Yard o Feet Setback Minimwn Rear Yard o Feel Setback Maximum Height Lodge: 46 Feel for Primary Roof Height, 50 Feel for limited accent elements, elevalors, mechanical enclosures, etc.'" Per Roof Height Plan Presented at 2/6/06 City Council Meeting Residential: 42 Feet. measured from existing grade and 46 feet for elevator head enclosures, fireplace flues, and vent terminations.'" Per Roof Height Plan Presented at 2/6/06 City Council Meetin!!. Minimum Percent Open 77% Maximum Site Coverage Snace Allowahle External 2.43:1 FAR Minimum Off-Street .4 Parking Spaces pe' Lodge Unit Parking 2 Parking Spaces per Residential Unit I . I I Section 6: Construction Manal!ement A construction management plan shall be submitted with the building permit application that meets the requirements of the current "Components of a Construction Management Plan" handout that is available in the City of Aspen Building Department. The construction management plan shall include at a minimum, a construction parking plan, a construction staging and phasing plan, a construction 'worker transportation plan, a plan for accepting major construction-related deliveries with estimated delivery schedule, the designation of haul routes, and an agreement with the City to participate with other neighboring developments under construction to limit the impacts of construction. This agreement shall be prepared by the developer and accepted by the Community Development Director. As part of the construction management plan, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project shall be applicable. The construction management plan shall also include a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed by the City Engineering Department that includes watering of disturbed areas (including haul routes, where necessary), perimeter silt fencing, as-needed cleaning of adjacent right-ol-ways. and a representation that the City has the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City's right-of-way for construction purposes. The Applicants shall not be allowed to close Monarch Street during construction except when doing utility work in Monarch Street and constructing comer bulb-outs. The Applicants shall coordinate with the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFTA) and the City to schedule a closure of Monarch Street. Street closures concurrent with significant public events in Wagner Park shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible, Street closures of South Monarch Street and East Cooper A venue shall be administered by the City of Aspen Building Department subject to obtaining temporary encroachment licenses. I I I I I The Applicants shall also provide phone contact information for on-site project management to address construction impacts to: The City of Aspen, the 210 E. Cooper Condominiums, the Park Central Condominiums, the Park Central West Condominiums, and the Towne Place of Aspen Condominiums. Section 7: Pre-Construction Meetin!! The Applicants shall conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal for a building permit application. This meeting shall include the general contractor, the architect producing the construction drawings, the Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, and the Community Development Department's case planner. I I I I I Section 8: Fire Milie.lion The Applicants shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall in both the residential and lodge developments. The .water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The Applicants' design team shall meet with the Fire Marshall to formulate a plan for fighting fires in the below-grade parking garage structures prior to building permit submittal. I Section 9: Water Department Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreemcnt with the City and complete a common scrvice line agreement for the residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meter but the Applicants will be required to pay only one tap fee for the residential unit building and one tap fee for the lodge building. Section 10: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, pcrimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. Oil and sand separators meeting the ACSD's requirements shall be installed in each of the parking garages. In addition, the driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator, One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed for cach of the buildings within the development. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right-of-way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicants shall enter into a shared service line agreement. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Section II: Sewer Line Relocation The Applicants shall fund the relocation of the main sanitary sewer line that serves the Prospector Lodge. Section 12: Transformer Relocation The Applicants shall relocate the existing transformer onto their property. The location for the transformer shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicants shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the relocated transformer for maintenance purposes. Section 13: Deliveries in Block 76 Allev There shall be no deliveries to the extent practical to the Limelight Lodge via the remaining Block 76 alleyway. Section 14: Lodee Emplovee Audit An employee audit on the lodge component and residential component of the development shall be conducted after two full fiscal years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy to verify that only 40 FTEs are needed to operate the new lodge, pursuant to the following terms: a. The Applicants shall provide an up-to-date report on the current employees at the time of final plat. b. The Applicants shall retain an auditor and shall gain prior approval from the Housing Office Operations Manager for the selection of the auditor. I I c. The Applicants shall be fully responsible for all fees associated with retaining an auditor. d. The audit shall occur after two full fiscal years of operation. Should the housing audit referenced above indicate that the new Limelight Lodge is employing more than the forty (40) full-time employees (the Limelite Lodge, Deep Powder Lodge, and Snowflake Inn to be demolished had 42 full-time employees after consolidating ownership of the properties, of which 2 FTEs shall be credited to the free- market residential component in order to lower its employee housing mitigation requirement to 3.36 I-bedroom affordable housing units or cash-in-Iieu thereof) that are anticipated to operate the new lodge, the Applicants shall return to the Housing Authority under the following tenns: a. The Applicants shall provide deed restricted, affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof to mitigate for 30% of the additional employees above 40 full-time employees. b. The Applicants shall abide by the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of the audit. c. The tenn employee shall include all full-time payroll and non-payroll employees generated by the application. d. Employee housing units or cash-in-lieu thereof equal to 3.36 I-bedroom units shall be provided prior to requesting a final building inspection on any of the residential or lodge units within the project. I I I I I I I I I Section 15: Deep Powder Relocation The A licants shall pay $20,000.00 towards, schedule, and supervise the relocation of the two (2) oldest eep powder cabins to a site rovlded by the city. Tfie landmg site of the cabins shall be identified by the City in a timely manner..! ow for the relocation of the eabms on or around Mav I , 2006. to accommodate the demolition plans 0 t e . Applicants. Section 16: Landscapine The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscaping plan as part of the building permit application. This landscaping plan shall include a plan for right-of-way landscaping and irrigation without trenching under the roots of trees to be preserved to the extent possible. If trenching is neccssary it shall be done by hand. The plan shall also include a parkway landscaping strip adjacent to all abutting public streets of at least five (5) feet in width. Appropriate street tree plantings are required along all streets adjacent to the property, The Applicants shall preserve the existing Cottonwood tree located on the comer of South Monarch Street and East Hyman A venue and the large Cottonwood tree that exists between the Deep Powder Lodge and the Limelite South Building that were slated for removal in the conceptual POD application. Additionally, the stand of large Spruce trees located to the north of the existing Limelite South Building shall be thinned for health and preserved. The Applicants shall also install tree saving construction fences around. the drip line of any trees to be saved subject to the following provisions: I I I . I a. The City Forester or hislher designee must inspect this fence before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the drip line. The Applicants shall also remove the three (3) conifers located adjacent to the proposed parking garage entrance to the lodge building along East Hyman Avenue. A 2-year maintenance bond shall be secured by the Applicants for any trecs to be preserved in which there will be planned excavation within or adjacent to their driplines. Section 17: Pedestrian Amenity The Applicants are proposing to provide pedestrian amenity for I % (approximately 550 square feet) of lot square footage. The Applicants shall pay a cash-in-lieu fee of providing pedestrian amenity in the amount of $732,900 (15,208 SF which is 25% of 60,834 SF property size minus 550 square feet of pedestrian amenity space provided= $14,658 SF, multiplied by $50 per square foot) prior to building permit issuance. Section 18: PM-IO Miti!!ation The Applicants shall execute the following methods ofPM-IO mitigation: a. Sell the residential units with only one parking space per unit and require that purchasers of a unit be required to purchase a second space at an additional cost. b. Provide free RFT A bus passes to employees that live outside the City of Aspen. c. Advertising to potential guests that a personal or rental car is not necessary due to the extensive public transportation system. Section 19: CorDer Bulb-Outs The comer bulb-outs shall contain tapered curb lines of 15 degrees leading into the comer bulb outs proposed in the South Monarch Street and East Hyman Avenue right-of-ways for snow plowing purposes. Additionally, a street width of 28 feet, from the face of curb to the face of curb, shall be maintained on South Monarch Street where the comer bulb-outs are proposed. I I Section 20: Ri!!bt-of-Wav Improvements The Applicants shall reconstruct E Cooper A venue between South Aspen Street and South Monarch Street and split the drainage flows to South Aspen Street and Monarch Street. Additionally, if it is necessary to install a new storm drainage pipe in E. Hyman A venue and resurrect the storm sewer inlet on the southeast comer of S. Aspen Street and E. Hyman Avenue, the Applicants shall reconstruct the south half of E. Hyman Avenue. The Applicants shall also reconstruct the west half of S. Monarch Street and pave the alleyway of Block 77. All of the improvements set forth in this section shall be made prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any part of the development. I I I I . I Section 21: Sidewalk. Curb. and Gutter Sidewalk, curb, and gutter meeting the City Engineer's design requirements shall be constructed in the right-of-way adjacent to all of the property subject to this development prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the development. On Cooper A venue between South Aspen Street and Monarch Strcct all curb and gutter shall be replaced. Tbe sidewalk locations shall be in substantially the same location as is depicted on the site plan in the final PUD application submittal. The north-facing curbs shall be heated. Section 22: Park Development Impact Fees Park Development Impact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance on both the new rcsidential bedrooms (including the affordable housing bedrooms) and the lodging bedrooms to be added to the subject properties pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fees. The Park Development Impact Fees shall be calculatcd by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit application. Section 23: School Land Dedication Fees School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication. because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code. The school lands dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit application. Section 24: Exterior Lil?:htinl?: All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. .. Section 25: Wildlife Trash Containers The Applicants shall install a wildlife-proof trash container for the residential building that meets the requirements of the Environmental Health Department. The Applicants shall install a trash compacter for use of the lodge building to limit solid waste pick-ups in the alleyway of Block 76. Section 26: Food Service Facilities Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a Colorado Food Service License. I , Section 27: Pool and Spas All design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa shall comply with the Colorado Department of Health's "Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath Regulations". The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall review and approve the drain size for the swimming pool facility prior to installation. . I I , . I I Section 28: Development Timinl! The Applicants shall obtain a certificate of occupancy on all the lodge component of the development prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy on any of the residential units within the development. Section 29: A1lev VacatioD The eastern 150 feet of the alleyway located in Block 76 of the City and Townsite of Aspen is hereby vacated subject to the following requirements: a. Ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section 43-2-302 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. b. The City Clerk is hereby directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. c. The City Engineer is hereby directed, upon adoption of this ordinance, to make all corrections necessary to the Official Map ofthe City of Aspen, d. The alley vacation is approved based on the finding that the vacation will not leave any adjoining lands without a means of access over an established public right-of-way connecting such lands to an established public street. . e. An alley vacation plat shall be filed and recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's office in association with recording the final subdivision plat and PUD plans. Section 30: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 31: 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 32: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to. this application, whether in public hearings or docwnentation presented before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, or City COWlcil. are hereby incorporated in such plan approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. I I I I I I I Section 33: A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 23rd day of January, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado and continued to the 6th day of February, 2006. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of January, 2006. I I I I Attest: FlNALLY, adopted, passed and approved by a vote of four to one (4-1), this 6th day of February, 2006. . Attest: Approved as to form: ~~/?,(A=- . n P. orcester, City Attorney 'u ::::- ~ :> -1-- ;S-. \JJ ~ ~ I C l- .2 m16 ~ " 0.2 o..m 0-0:: m c m .- 0'2 u z. 0: v>' ....- W' Z: <(~ cr:~ ~~- w w . o z u u c Qi ii · 0 0 iO U 1J ~ ~~z ~ :I: .~S~ ~~.. l~ j~.5~ ~e : ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ; .8 ;-j ii-=EEi~2 5"g g:il ii :g ~ !II ~ ... ~ '" flI - f>> III 1:) .D <II € ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~I ~ g ~ J e ~ 0 8 E EI ~ _ ~j~~B:~I~g u :i :gr!;:' a .t;.r:. ... 'j c u~ ~I ,= D t:: 4.> 3: S C; ~, i 21 0 0 ~ .... "" ~~~~~~~~~~ .e1l:~';i'ti~~-ilI~ ,e5",~i:~~~,g<l> ,...u8.....~-c.!:~I~'ii ~ g ;: ~ ~I~~ E ~~ ~~~..::a~2jij U E U u ~ U < - ~u ~ ~ ~ E ~ ... ~ ~ - g 0 ::i5i" ~ ! i t g W ~ -5 ~ r li: '" NN :E c: c: I-~~ N 11 ~ . ~ o U ~ o , o . ;l "O1! U ~ . ~,g . . ~ 0 , ~ u [l. ~ ~ . . . w w U Z W '" W " W '" . w o u 88E!E!8~ dl!l!H ...,~~ &l 8 88g8,; ~ g g' g ~ ~ o 00 g~ z o " . ~ u w w o ~ ~ .~ li oil ' -.2 . ' ~ ~ . . ~ 5! ~I i ~ ~'S~S~ E :5 C; ~ B a~~8~ ~ ~ . 3 "-", ~ j .~ ~~2~ ~~ U1f ~ ~ c: "5 ~ ~ I~il{.~~ 1-~r1lJ5~w . ~ o U UH ".' ":"..,"':" .... -- N N 000008"'gg Q 0 1:)~. ~~J~~~~,- . o U o o ci w o iil ~ . " . ~ , w ~ ~ M '" ~ .2 ~ ~ ~ ~ c E ~, 1:: .~ '28 l5 H. ~~ o o ci ~ ;; . ~ ~ ~ " , o ~ u .. ~ u . ii ~ "- ~ o " .. N j " o o U " ~ .Ji iil N iil .. w o . ~ o o U E! w o o w ~ " :'? . . " " ~ '" ~ w N 3: .. "0 .... . o o .. , u " W '0 C . . c E ;;; ~ ;; , . ~ . ~ g . ,< ~ ~ I ~ c ~ , f . . , ~ w ,; ~ . ~ ~ u < ~ '" ~ . . J 8 " 1: ! E 8 . ~ 'i . ~ . :5 u ~ ~ ~ . ~ : ~ o '. c ~ " i ~ ~ 5 " o .. o o " ;; " .: u , ~ ~ c ~ . & " ~ ~ ~ . . ~ o 11 ~ . . ~ s ~ . . ~ ;; o 'j ;; 'i ~ "' ~ . . . ~ . ~ o ~ i ,S 1: u , " < ~ ,< . ;; E : . . ~ o . s l? ~ u ~ ~ . . ~ . , . . 8 ~ . ~ o . ~ ~ : . . ~ o . S . '0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ,; . ,; ~ . . ~ " ~ i ,; . ~ " o ~ ~ o ~ o " " ;J: w .. ~ , . .Ii s . 1l . ~ " o ~ ~ " . ~ ~ , ~ . .Ii .. . 8 i 8- . ~ . ~ . " 'j . ;; '. " . . ~ . .. c " .. ~ 3 ~ . ~ . i ~ . 5 ;; ~ , a ~ ~ Oi ~ g . 1 w >. c o ~ I!. ~ ~ go Ii ~ s o ~ . u . 5 ~ . g . . u , ~ g- ~ . , . o . S " 'Il ~ ~ ,S ~ 5 ~ i .. 5 a o '6 ~ . >. ;; . : . . ~ . u ~ " c . ~ g- u .. . ~ o I I &~~-t- b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Status of funds collected from Schelling fine DATE: July 10,2006 I I I In 2001, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the Schelling family, who were found to have violated an HPC approval by essentially demolishing the landmark house that they were supposed to be in the process of restoring and expanding. Council adopted a resolution establishing penalties, including a fine of $125,000. The fine was paid in full. $20,000 was distributed to the Building Department, City Attorney's office, and Clerk's office in order to offset their costs in enforcing on this situation. Community Development met with City Council in 2004 to discuss expenditures of the remaining funds. A number of specific projects were discussed and funds have been spent on the following efforts, which are still in process: scientific assessment of the condition of a historic derrick structure at Holden Marolt and original wood grave enclosures at Ute Cemetery, completion of a National Register nomination for the Aspen Institute, and an update the City's Historic Preservation Contractor licensing program. The current balance in this account is $82,699.00. Approximately $5,000 more dollars will be spent to complete the projects named above. The 2004 worksession included future priorities listed below, which total approximately $73,000. Approximately $5,000 remains available that could be allocated towards the relocation of the Deep Powder cabins. Alternatively Council could decide to. reprioritize projects or to pay for these projects through General Fund monies. Holden Marolt Derrick restoration: During a City sponsored project to install a new interpretive trail around the Holden Marolt Lixiviation Plant ruins, and impressive original derrick structure was found, collapsed on the ground. Community Development is interested in pursuing the possibility of restoring. this artifact. Restoration/reconstruction costs are estimated to be $5,000-8,000. Ute Cemetery: The City has not been successful so far in receiving additional grants to complete the restoration of wooden plot enclosures at the cemetery, and other important work such as a finalized survey. The cost of the highest priority work remaining is approximately $20,000. Markers for the Historic Districts: Community Development is interested in the possibility of adding small markers, signage, or symbols on the lampposts throughout the Commercial Core and Main Street Historic Districts to indicate the important designation of these areas. This is commonly done in other communities. Cost is not known at this time but is estimated to be $10,000. I I I Markers for designated landmarks: The historic preservation benefits package that Council adopted in 2002 included the proposal that the City try to offer landmark plaques to property owners who desire them, Cost could reach $25,000 for all 300 landmarks. I I I History of Aspen brochure: The City could do a great deal more to promote the history of Aspen and the many interesting places and stories here by creating more marketing tools such as brochures or pages on our website, Costs would be approximately $S,OOO- $10,000. I I , I I I I Vlb MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: July 3, 2006 RE: Open Space Board Appointment I I I I Attached is an application from Arthur B. Ferguson to the Open Space Advisory Board. Staff has been attempting to set up an interview with Ferguson since March; two of these were cancelled due to continued Council meetings. At the June 27'h discussion, I requested Council's agreement to put on the consent calendar and have the appointment made official. By approving the consent calendar, Council is approving Ferguson's appointment to the Open Space Advisory Board. Attachment I FEB-13-2006 11:50 FROM: .All. \2. 2GW10:25Ar---CIP OF mEl~ TO:970 920 5197 P.2 ~~. '26' I. r. II I - CITY OF ASPEN APPOINTMENT APPLICATION NAME ARTHUR B. FERGUSON, JR. STREET ADDRESS 965 Cemetery l.,me AspfOn (;0 B1611 MAILING ADDRESS Holland & Kart: 600 E. Main Ste 104 I\~pen CO 81611 HOME PHONE 970 925 6316 WORK PHONE 970 925 3476 CELL PHONE 970 948 7097 E..MAIL B_ferguson(dhollandhart. com BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE: . . I I I I I .... Planning & Zoning Commission .. Board of Adjustment Board of Examiners & Appeal ..ri HistoriC Prl!servatJOn Commission Wheeler Board of Directors Commercial Core & Lodging .. Roaring Forie Transit Agency .. Housing Authority + Liquor License: Authority Child Care Advisory Committee .. Open Space Advisory Board xx ... HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OR P & Z APPLICANTS, PLEASE ATTACH A BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSING YOUR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ON: 1.) Aspen Area Community Plan. on which aspects you may agree or disagree 2.) Growth in Aiipen and the Aspen Area 3.) Affordable HousIng + CITY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS 1 YEAR EMPLOYMENT PREVIOUS lWO YEARS: Holland & Hart STREET ADDRESS PREVIOUS TWO YEARS: 965 Cemetery Lane Aspen CO 81611 INVESTMENTS ANDIOR LANDHOLDINGS IN PITKIN COUNTY: Home at 965 Cemetery Lane. I desire the Bppolntm~nt for the following reailons: I would like to further the \Jork I have d<>ne In the private-sector to preserve open space and trails 111 the cuy. SIGNATURE: DATE: 9 Oil apptlpp.dOt ...^"-, .-. .~t"':Inor" n~.""70I"tM r:OVoQ7c:. q~ c;'1Q7 10: PAGE: 001 R=9S>' VI' a. MEMORANDUM DATE: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council /J f. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director l)A VVl James Lindt, Senior Planner::fL First Reading of Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006- Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendmcnts- Public Hcarin!! scheduled for Julv 24. 2006 July 10, 2006 TO: THRU: FROM: RE: PROJECT: BURLINGAME RANCH PUD AMENDMENTS REQUEST SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Asset Management Department is requesting amendments to the Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionlPUD. The amendments being requested include a reduced rear yard setback on the single-family residential lots within the subdivision, an increased allowable FAR for the sin~~mi~~.d~ntial lots of 2,500 square feet plus a 500 square f06t1\ n 1ncr e'in the maximum building height for the single-family residential lots of thirty (30) feet, and the deletion of the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family lots. ApPLICANTS: City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the Phase I Lot Owners. PROPERTY: Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionlPUD. STAFF Staff is recommending approval of the setback amendments, but is RECOMMENDATION: recommending denial of the remaining requested amendments. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Project received final approval in April of 2005, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005. The project was approved as a three (3) phase project in which Phase 1 is to contain 97 deed-restricted affordable housing units. Thirteen (13) of the 97 units in Phase I were approved to be constructed on single-family lots. The City has sold many of these lots in Phase 1 and the purchasers of the lots are preparing to build on the lots. Purchasers of the lots have worked with the Asset Management Department to propose several amendments to the Phase I PUD approvals that the lot purchasers have argued are necessary to keep the construction of the units affordable for the purchasers amid rising construction costs. Specifically, the Applicants have proposed an amendment to the building setback requirements for the single-family lots in Phase I to reduce the rear yard setback on these lots for accessory structures from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. The Applicants have also proposed to amend the allowable FAR on the single-family lots in Phase I to allow for an FAR of 2,500 square .feet with a 500 square foot garage exemption. Finally, the Applicants would -)- like to increase the maximum height limit for single-family residences in Phase 1 to thirty (30) feet and delete the requirement for fire sprinkler systems to be installed in the single- family residences. REVIEW PROCESS: The Applicants are requesting amendments to the original PUD for the development. This action would amend the land use entitlements for the development and include the following land use actions: . Planned Unit Development Amendment Typically, a PUD amendment requires approval by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the case of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD, Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, established that any substantial amendments to Phase I of the PUD would be reviewed by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission since the original development was reviewed through the COWOP process, which did not include a Planning and Zoning Commission review. Review of this amendment proposal by City Council without first obtaining a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission is also consistent with the process undertaken when the Burlingame Ranch PUD was previously amended to add several single-family residential lots in Phase 1 of the development. STAFF COMMENTS: REAR YARD SETBACK AMENDMENT: As was briefly introduced above, the Applicants have proposed to amend the rear yard setback for the single-family residential lots for accessory structures like garages/sheds from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet so that they have adequate room to construct their garages. The lot owners have expressed that they believe the setbacks as approved in the original PUD are too tight on some of the lots to permit a garage to be built. Staff has evaluated the claim and concurs that it will be pretty tight on many of the lots to include a garage without pushing a considerable amount of the allowable FAR for the main residence to an upper floor. Staff further believes that the amendment will have minimal impact on other properties in that all of the single-family lots in Phase 1, with the exception of two (2) of the lots, back up to considerable amounts of open space and will have vehicular access from the rear. Staff supports this proposed amendment. ALLOWABLE FAR: The Applicants would like to amend the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR, plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, establishes a total FAR of 24,200 square feet for all of the single-family residential lots in Phase 1, but does not specify how it was to be allocated on a per lot basis. In speaking with the design team, the original concept was to have a massing envelope, in which the setbacks and the height limit would limit the overall developable square footage. The total FAR of 24,200 square feet was put into the ordinance to give - 2- Council an overall idea of what the total buildout would be. The massing envelope concept was confusing to many of the lot purchasers and was apparently misrepresented to the lot purchasers in marketing the lots. Also, conflicting unit size caps in the Employee Housing Guidelines that set a unit size cap of 2,200 square feet plus a five hundred square foot garage apparently further provided confusion in marketing the lots. In response to the confusion, the Community Development Director issued an administrative PUD amendment (attached as Exhibit "C") clarifying that the allowable FAR for the single- family lots is 2,200 square feet (24,200 square feet identified in the ordinance divided by 13 single-family lots in Phase I) plus a 500 square foot garage exemption (derived from the provision in the Employee Housing Guidelines that allowed for a 500 square foot garage in addition to a 2,200 square foot unit). This was done as an effort to give the lot purchasers a consistent standard to work from in designing their residences given all the confusion that had occurred in marketing the lots. I I The request for 2,500 square feet of FAR per lot appears to be derived from a comment that Leslie Lamont (member of the Burlingame Ranch design team) made asserting that with the massing envelope concept that the design team originally had, some of the larger lots may have received approximately 2,500 square feet of FAR. However, Lamont has indicated that the massing envelope concept was considered only on early iterations of the project and would have provided a gross FAR (including garage space) of2,SOO square feet on only some of the larger lots. Staff is of the opinion that the 2,200 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption that was established in the administrative amendment is a good compromise between the provisions of the Employee Housing Guidelines and the allowable FAR that was provided in the approving ordinance. Staff further feels that an allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet plus the 500 square feet garage exemption that is being requested is not even feasible to build given the setback limitations, height limit, and site coverage requirements on most of the single-family lots in Phase 1. Therefore, Staff does not support the FAR amendment request. I I I . I I HEIGHT LIMITATION AMENDMENT: The Applicants have proposed an amendment to increase the height limit for the single- family residential lots in Phase I from twenty-five (25) feet to thirty (30) feet. The Applicants have expressed that the existing height limit of twenty-five (25) feet does not easily accommodate standard modular construction given the grade change on the single- family lots. It has further been argued that a thirty (30) foot height limit is necessary for standard modular construction to be used that does not have to be considerably altered or specially designed. An argument has also been made by the Applicants that the lots subject to the amendment application are unique and should not be constrained by the typical height requirements for single-family residential development in the remainder of town in that there are not minimum roof pitch requirements on houses elsewhere in town as there are in the Burlingame Ranch PUD. Contrary to some of the statements in the application, Staff does believe that stick built houses could be designed and some modular designs could be modified to step down - 3- with grade and meet the twenty-five (25) foot height requirements on the sloped lots, regardless of the roof slope requirements in the PUD. Houses are frequently designed with steeply sloped roofs that meet the twenty-five (25) height limit throughout town on steeper lots than the ones at Burlingame. For this reason, Staff does not support a height increase on the single-family lots. However, the Applicants' contention that standard modular designs would have to be altered to step down with grade to meet the twenty-five (25) foot height limit, and that this would increase the construction costs of the residences to be constructed on these lots is a dynamic that City Council should consider. A principle goal of this project was affordable housing opportunities and the manner of construction plays a certain role in total cost. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AMENDMENT: The original PUD approvals require that all of the structures within the Burlingame Ranch development install sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal, Ed Van Walraven. The Building Code is written such that all structures of 5,000 gross square feet are required to have sprinkler systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire Marshal. However, because the lots are within a PUD, the Fire Marshal requested that the all of the structures including the single-family residential lots that are to contain residences below 5,000 square feet should be fitted with fire sprinkler systems. This adheres to the philosophy of the Housing Authority to further enhance the life safety of the occupants. The Fire Marshal has indicated that many of the municipalities through out the country and many cities and counties in Colorado are changing their residential standards to require all structures regardless of size to be sprinkled. Typically, the Fire Marshal encourages all residences to be constructed with fire sprinkler systems and he has expressed that he believes it necessary to maintain the requirement at Burlingame Ranch because of its distance from the existing fire station and typical fire behavior. In addition many of the residences in Burlingame Ranch wi11likely be constructed well before the new fire station at North Forty is completed. Staff cannot support the proposed amendment to eliminate the fire sprinkler requirement if the Fire Marshal is not comfortable with deleting the requirement. Ed Van Walraven will be present at the public hearing on July 24th if Council has questions on this matter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed PUD amendments related to amending the rear yard setbacks as proposed. Staff further recommends that City Council not adopt the proposed PUD amendment that would establish a 2,500 square foot FAR and a 500 square foot garage exemption, the height revisions, or the amendments that would delete the fire sprinkler requirements for the single-family residences in Phase I of the development. If Council agrees with Staffs recommendation, Staff would suggest that Council remove these elements from the proposed ordinance. - 4- CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve Ordinance No.3C> , Series of 2006, upon first reading, approving amendments to the Burlingame Ranch PUD to establish five (5) foot rear yard setbacks for accessory structures, establishing an allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing a 30 foot height limit, and removing the fire sprinkler for the single-family lots within Phase I." A TT ACHMENTS Exhibit A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Administrative Decision Notice Exhibit D - Ordinance No. 24, Series of200S Exhibit E - Ordinance No. 55, Series of200S I I I I I - 5- I ORDINANCE NO. '30 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT TO BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. I WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Asset Management Department, with consent to apply from the single-family residential lot owners, requesting approval of subdivision/PUD amendments to the Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionlPUD to amend the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase 1 to five (5) feet, to amend the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase I to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, to establish an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase I, and to amend the PUD to delete the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family residential lots in Phase I; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Series of 2000, determined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Project") eligible for the process of the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", datcd aftcr September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the development standards as required by the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final PUD and Subdivision approval and land use entitlements for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase 1 of thc Project through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of200S, approved April II, 2005; and, I I WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, the entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project, including amendments to Phase 1, shall remain active as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions arc cstablished as applicable; and, Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 1 WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final review and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the amendment or final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land use actions to gain entitlement for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be by Ordinance. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entire project, the City Council exempted the development from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.44S.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribed limit or timeframe for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, are applicable and amendments may be made. Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase or amendments to the plan. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase or amendments to phases; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have filed an application for the amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and the Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application requirements and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, I WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review proccss. Futurc steps may include applications for amendments and Final PUD Plans of Phases II and lI1 of the development and/or Conceptual PUD revisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the PUD and Subdivision Amendment proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase 1, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, especially those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and IS necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. . Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 2 I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a Subdivision/PUD Amendment to the Burlingame Ranch Subdivision/PUD, amending the rear yard setback requirement for accessory structures on the single-family residential lots in Phase I to five (5) feet, amending the allowable FAR for the single-family residential lots in Phase 1 to allow for 2,500 square feet of FAR plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, establishing an allowable maximum height of thirty (30) feet on the single-family residential lots in Phase 1, and deleting the fire sprinkler requirement for the single-family residential lots in Phase I, with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Amended Approved Dimensional Requirements Amendments to the Phase 1 dimensional requirements are identified in the table below: Standard PUD Amendment via this Ordinance 97 Deed-Restricted Units 15 I-bedroom l\1aximum Allowable Unit Density 302-bedroom 52 3-bedroom (exoandability will effect bedroom counll l\laximum Site Coverage 44% for total subject area 45% for individual lots .33:1 (176.948 sq. ft.) .36: I (195.508 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154,738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings Allowable FAR 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3,161 sq. ft. for transit stops 32.500 sq. ft. for single family homes (last four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with expandabilitv) 34 feet for multi.[amily and community buildings Allowable lIeight 30 feet for single family lot buildings in Phase I 25 fect for single family lot buildim!s in Phases 2 and 3 l\'1inimum front, side, rear yards for Multi-family As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feet front,S feet side, 10 feet rear. Lots 9 & 10, Block I: 5 feet fronl, 10 fect side. 5 feel Minimum front, side, rear yards for Single-family lots rear. All Phase I lots: 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear for orincioal residence,S feet rear for accessorY structures, J\linimum lot width and size 32 foot width and 3,000 sq, f1. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings Minimum distance between structures 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-familv and transit buildinlls Minimum Off-Street Parkin. bv Snecial Review 1.67: I Parkin. Soaces oer Unit, 162 lolal Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 3 Section 2: Subdivision/PUD A!!reement Amendments The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the subdivision/PUD agreement representing the amendments approved herein. Section 3: Dcsi!!n Guideline Amendmcnts The Applicant shall prepare and record an amendment to the design guidelines representing the amendments approved herein. Section 4: Phasc 1 Sin!!le-familv Lot FAR The allowable FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I of the development shall be 2,500 square feet plus a garage exemption of 500 square feet as measured by the calculation methodology set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020, Calculations and measurements. Section 5: Fire Sprinklers Sprinkler and fire alarms are required in all buildings within the development, except for the single-family residential lots in Phase l.ofthe development. I I Section 6: Applicability of Ordinance No. 24. Series of 2005 and Ordinance No. 55. Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, granting final subdivision and PUD approval to Phase 1 of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Development, and Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, amending the final approvals granted in Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, shall remain in full force and effect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance. Scction 7: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 8: This Ordinance shall not affect any eXlstmg 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 a separate, distinct and indcpendent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance No. Series of 2006. -' Page 4 Scction 10: 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 11: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of July, 2006, 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 shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10th day of July, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City CIcrk Helen K. K1anderud, Mayor FIN ALL Y, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helcn K. K1andcrud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. _' Series of 2006. Page 5 I EXHIBIT A PHASE I PUD AMENDMENTS: STAFF FINDINGS . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? T YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the original development approvals were consis1ent with the AACP. Staff also believes that the proposed amendments are proposed with the intent of keeping the costs associated with constructing the affordable housing units low. However, Staff feels that the request to remove the fire sprinkler requirement is a safety hazard that is not consistent with the objectives of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion met be all of the requests except the fire sprinkler amendment. 2. The proposed dcvelopmcnt shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED. Staff feels that the proposed dimensional amendments with the exception of the FAR amendment are consistent with the character of development originally approved. Staff believes that the FAR amendment would somewhat overwhelm the lots and change the character of the single-family lots that were originally approved. Staff finds this criterion to be met by all of the dimensional amendments, except the proposed FAR amendment. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect thc future development of the surrounding arca. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPL V? I YES Staff really does not feel that these amendments will significantly impact development in the surrounding area since these amendments only apply to the single-family residences in Phase 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considcred prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. I I I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The appropriate growth management exemptions were previously granted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. I. The proposcd dimensional requirements for the subjcct property are appropriate and compatible with the following influenccs on the property: I I a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uscs in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as stcep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. I STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed FAR is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable FAR will efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional changes with the exce tion of the ro osed FAR amendment. 2. Thc proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of opcn space and sitc coverage appropriate and, favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and ofthe surrounding area. I , STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that the proposed height and setbacks are appropriate, but feels the proposed FAR is somewhat excessive given the small nature of the lots. Staff does not believe that the increased allowable FAR wi11 efficiently fit on the lots given the setback and site coverage limitations. Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposed dimensional chan es with the exce tion of the ro osed FAR amendment. 3. The appropriate numbcr of off-street parking spaces shall be established bascd on the following considerations: 2 I a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of eommon parking is proposed. c) The availability of publie transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. DOES IT COMPLY? N/A amended. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The ermitted density is not bein amended. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: I a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) 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 eritical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: The ermitted densit N/A 3 I 6. Thc maximum allowable dcnsity within a PUD may bc increased if there exists a significant community goal to bc achieved through such increasc and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding developmcnt patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum dcnsity of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density scrves one or more goals of thc community as expressed in thc Aspcn Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) Thc site's physical capabilitics can accommodate additional density and therc exists no negative physical characteristics of thc site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, thosc areas can bc avoid cd, or those characteristics mitigated. c) Thc increasc in maximum density results in a dcvelopmcnt pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, thc surrounding existing and cxpected dcvelopmcnt pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/ A The permitted density is not being amended. C. Site Design. The purposc of this standard is to cnsure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to thc sitc's natural and man-made fcaturcs and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The propos cd development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-madc fcaturcs of thc site which are uniquc, providc visual intcrest or a spccific rcfcrence to the past, or contribute to thc identity of the town arc preserved or cnhanced in an appropriate manncr. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff does not feel that any of the proposed amendments impact natural or man-made features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structurcs have bcen c1ustcred to appropriatcly prcserve significant open . spaccs and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed amendments do not impact the clustering of structures that was approved in the original PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I I I I I I I 3. Structures are appropriately oricnted to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual intercst and engagement of vchicular and pedestrian movemcnt. 4 STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? T YES The proposed amendments will not impact street orientation or the rural context. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? T YES Emergency access will not be impacted by the proposed amendments. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I 5. Adequate pcdestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COl\IPL Y? Pedestrial1 and handicapped accessibility will Staff finds this criterion to be met. TYES not be impacted by the amendments. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A detailed drainage plan has been submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed grading a drainage plan accommodates all of the site drainage within the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? T YES The proposed amendment does not impact this requirement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 5 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The landscape guidelines are not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. . E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficicnt use of resources. Architectural character is based upon thc suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of thc building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scalc, orientation to public spaccs and othcr buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly reprcscnt the character of the proposcd development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of thc devclopment shall: I I I I 1. Be compatible with or enhancc thc visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architccture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, thc .intendcd usc, and respcct the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of thc property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and watcr in a safe and appropriate manncr that does not require significant maintenance. I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, AS NOTED Staff believes that all of the dimensional amendments comply with this criterion except for the amendment to the allowable FAR. Staff feels that the proposed allowable FAR will overwhelm the lots and will not respect the FAR of the neighboring single-family lots to be built in Phases 2 and 3. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and gencral aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 6 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES All Ii tin must meet the Cit 's exterior Ii tin standards. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances 'the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The location, design, or amount of common park is not proposed to be amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: I I I I I 7 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Public infrastructure and utilities are not impacted by the proposed amendments. finds this criterion to be met. Staff I I 1. Access and Circulation. I The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate 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. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed development has adequate access to each building. Emergency vehicle access has been fine-tuned since the conceptual approval was provided and the City of Aspen Fire Marshal has indicated that sufficient emergency access is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specifie plans regarding reereational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, 8 and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The approved trail plan is not proposed for amendment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The ownership and dedication of streets is not being amended. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed development will not have a security gate or guard posts. Staff finds this criterion not to be a licable to this a Ii cation. I I J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in- lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed phasing plan allows Phase 1 to stand alone regardless of whether Phase II and Phase III are ever developed. These amendments only apply to the single-family lots in Phase 1. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9 &i11 '0 ,'f i;gl -, . THE CITY OF ASPEN Chris Bendon, Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Burlingame PUD Amendment June 23, 2006 Dear Chris; The City of Aspen Engineering / Asset Management department requests your consideration for favorable approval of the following modifications to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing PUD. . 1. Amend the PUD so that,the building envelopes as defined by the building setback requirements are changed by the modification of the rear yard requirement to read (5) five feet minimum for garages and related accessory structures only. 2. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has an allowable maximum FAR of 2,500 square feet based on the City's Land Use Code methodology and a garage exemption of up to 500 square feet. This would include a basement only limited to the extent that it counts towards the allowable FAR of 2,500 square feet for the parcel. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 fe-et. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.S7S.020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. 4. Amend the PUD to delete the requirement that each single-family residence be required to install a fire sprinkler system. In the effort to achieve incentives for the development of affordable single-family residential homes it appeared that one of the tools used was the development of small and restrictive lots that they themselves would demand a level of affordability. Well, the best intentions of the planriing process never could have anticipated the rapid escalation of construction cost and the inability to capture home contractors in a competitive climate. Today, the lot owners are faced with 'utilizing the services of modular builders from out of the valley and in some cases even out of the State. This effort does not provide much financial comfort since the costs of construction are -sti11 very high, however; it does achieve goals of constructability imd relative affordability. With modular construction comes some limitations and while it is true that you can change the limitations, those changes come with increas~d cost. 130 SonH G..\L~NA STREET' ASPEr\, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHO:\:F 970.920.5000. FAX 970.920.5197 www.aspengov.com Print\."dllnR",yrll'dPdpt'r City should permit lots that have the capability of building the full 2200 liveable square feet to build to capacity by permitting all lots to have 2500 square feet of FAR. Lots with special constraints would still be limited by their constraints to a lesser FAR. Community Development has taken the position that basements should be excluded per Code except to the extent that they would be included under FAR, i.e. where the foundation is exposed for window wells or due to the sloping nature of the lots (further described under height considerations). Unfinished basements are the key concern here. In order to accommodate modular construction, lot owners must have a basement or crawl space for the entire area of the foundation, which is not possible under an FAR reduction scenario. Most owners cannot afford to finish their basements, but desire economic efficiency by having a full basement instead of some partially engineered basement and partially engineered crawl space. This is the primary reason for the additional FAR request. 3. Amend the PUD so that each single-family residential lot has a maximum building height of 30 feet. Height determination will be consistent with the existing city Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(B) Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. A 25' Height Restriction was applied to Burlingame based on a standard set for other areas in the City without taking into consideration the special requirements of the P.U.D. that advocate for a unique height in character with these requirements and the City's flexibility with addressing these issues in a Planned Unit Development I Community Development, although it initially recommended a variance to a 28' height to address the Burlingame Owner's needs with respect to modular construction on the lots, changed its position, citing a reluctance to grant a variance from the "standard" 25' height limitation in the Code. However, Burlingame is zoned AHIPUD, and the AHIPUD zone district, defined by Code Section 26.710.110, does not contain a 25' height restriction; in fact it contains no height restriction, and the City is permitted to establish a height restriction in the P.U.D. based on all of the factors applicable to that P.U.D. Thus forcing us into a height restriction found in any different zone district and not taking into account the special needs, goals and requirements of this project and its occupants is inequitable and unrealistic. I For instance, many of the zone districts in the City with a 25' height limitation are essentially flat, contain view plane issues that do not apply to Burlingame, and are not subject to the same lot size, slope, and affordability and design constraints as Burlingame. Because Burlingame is a specially created, unique, "affordable," stand-alone community situated in the midst of a number of conservation easements and bounded by Deer Hi11, if all single family homes in Burlingame were permitted a 29' height, and since the multi-family units are 35' in height, a height increase to 29 ' would be beneficial to all single family owners and harmful to none. We believe the City applied the 25' height standard without taking into consideration the uniqueness of the Community and the lot constraints, which are detailed herein and provide support for a greater height standard. In addition, we have also been informed that the original development team recommended a higher height in the initial application. We believe this significantly supports the need for a PUD amendment to increase the height. If there needs be further substantiation for the height issue to put forth to Community Development, we offer the following. Code Section 26.710.130 establishes a 28' height limitation for the Rural 3 would be for the City to amend the PUD to permit an up to five and one-half foot height variance for any lot in accordance with the topographical variance within each lot's building envelope. The following information supports the need and our request: I I I I I 1) Lot owner's have obtained cross-section samples from several modular manufacturers indicating that a 25' height is required for standard floor plans with minimum roof pitch requirements. A minimum 6: 12 roof slope is required for Burlingame single family homes. Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Design Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), p. 17. The Cross- Sections attached hereto depict that a typical house built with the 6:12 roof pitch, standard nine-foot first floor ceilings and eight-foot second floor ceilings require a minimum of twenty-five feet in height to the mid-point of the roof (where the height measurement would be taken at this pitch under the Code). Community Development ("ComDev") has reviewed the samples for accuracy. Building a twenty-one foot house rather than a twenty-five foot house to accommodate elevation loss on the lot would result in lowered first floor ceilings and lowered second story walls, resulting in a substantial loss of use able livable square footage due to downward-sloping roofs. This would also minimize or completely eliminate the Owner's option to have attic space for storage, since vaulted upstairs ceilings would be required to maintain minimum interior height standards per the Code. Alternatively lot owners would be required to construct dormers to maximize available square footage and usability of upper story space. These types of design modifications greatly increase costs for lot owners in that 1) owners will not be able to utilize existing free/affordable floor plans; 2) some modular companies may not be able to make these modifications; 3) Lot owners will be required to engage the services of architects and professional engineers to modify plans accordingly; and each new design element results in an increased cost to the Owner.2 I I I I I I 2) Down-sloping topography of approximately 4 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height on entire structure; side-slope of approximately 2 feet prohibits Owners from maintaining a 25' height from front fal;ade without sub-grading a portion of the front fal;ade. Under the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code"), height limitations are calculated from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. Code ~26.S7S.020(B) (I) (b) &(c). Given the four- foot downslope in the topography of our building envelopes, as depicted in the engineered plans provided by Shaw (samples are attached hereto), the height ofa uniform, level twenty-five foot structure from the BACK of the lot line exceeds the twenty-five foot height limitation by approximately four feet, resulting in a measurement closer to twenty-nine feet. After examining the modular cross-sections & calculating the height with the Code (as referred to in ComDev's 5/23/06 memo,) ComDev has indicated that maintaining the 25' height limit on the entire structure is not possible without "stepping" down the house height one or more points as the elevation drops or subgrading the portion of the house which is higher in elevation. (See attached example with Chris Bendon's notes.) I I In addition, the Code mandates that the front fa9ade of each house will be measured at the lowest point at the front of the house. Due to the two-foot side-slope at the front fa9ade of each house, a twenty-five foot house would need to be sub-graded approximately two feet to maintain the 25' height regulation from the front fa9ade. 2 According to modular manufactures, the less "modular's/boxes" required in the design, the more cost effective. For example: simple 4 box construction, 2 on the bottom & 2 placed directly on the top. Dormers and creative roof configurations will be an added expense to owners. 5 4) Affordability. . I I Code Section 26.S7S.020(B)(2) addresses the special needs of down-sloping lots. This section permits the twenty-five foot height at the front facade of a single family home on a down-sloping lot to extend for the first thirty feet of the building's depth. However, due to the fact that our lots are configured as long and narrow (40-46 feet wide) rather than wide and short, each Owner will need to build back further than thirty feet to attain even a modest amount oflivable square footage. After the first thirty feet, the building height would be required to step down four feet to match the building height required at the back of the slope. The effect would be essentially splitting the sixty foot house in half and dropping the floors by four feet in the middle of the house" Additionally, due to the side-slope, each Owner would need to build part of the front fayade two feet sub-grade to maintain the 25' height limitation on the front fayade (this would still result in a two foot drop at the middle of the house). It is NOT affordable nor efficient to build at varvinl!. stepped-down heights from the front to the rear facade of the house (as demonstrated on Chris Bendon's example) nor to have to excavate four feet lower to build sub-grade or employ architects and engineers to creatively, and more expensively, address the height issue. Burlingame is an affordable housing development. Given the high costs of construction in the Roaring Fork Valley, stick-building is not an option for most or all lot owners. Modular (or Pre- Fabricated) housing is the only way most of us we will be able to afford to build, especially given the construction cost caps. Whether stick-built or modular, our expenses will increase greatly if we need to engineer floor plans which drop four feet after the first thirty feet from the front fayade of the house, engineer creative floorplans, dormers and differentially pitched roofs, and/or to excavate further and re-slope our lots to make functional facades and porches four feet subgrade. 5) Our intent is to respect the streetscape and not to create a large, over-whelming mass. A majority of the increased height will be measured from the BACK of the lot, which is Open Space on R.O. lots, and will not impede other's views. We are not asking for the ability to build mansions. We are trying to create livable homes with a good quality of life. A slight increase in the front fayade height will accommodate the front porch requirement and maintain the sense of community and character Burlingame is striving for. A majority of the increased height will be located at the back side oflots, because of the down sloping topography.5 Because these lots are on the edge of the project and the back side of the houses will face an Agricultural easement, increased height at the rear of the lots will not affect or impede any neighbors or view planes. 6) Multi-family units are 35' High and will not be affected by our variance request. An increase in height will not result in units that are higher than the multi-family units, which have a thirty-five foot height limitation. In addition, the multi-family units primarily sit higher on the 4 See Bendon diagram attached hereto. 5 Again, this reference is to R.O. lots 1-5. Category 6 lots will have a greater challenge because these lots slope up from the front fa,.de rather than down, and arguably the Code height variance found in ~26.575.020(B) (2) would not benefit these lots. 7 which includes 9' ceilings on the first floor, and a small yard. We do not believe these are unreasonable requests. A slight height increase will allow us to build modular & to do so affordably. We have also been informed that the multifamily units have 9' or higher ceilings to increase their quality of life. As single family lot owners we are asking for the same consideration. CONCLUSION AS TO BUILDING HEIGHTS Whether we build modular or stick-built, the design and lot constraints, cost considerations, minimal impact on surrounding units, and the Design intent favor a variance from the Code's twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope. In this manner, Burlingame single family lot owners would be able to design twenty-five foot houses without being forced to manipulate their front facades and grading to build four feet sub-grade or to engineer complex, unsightly and expensive four-foot drops in our building elevation or creatively designed lowered roofs with dormers at a compromise to existing free/inexpensive modular pre-designed plans and affordable and comfortable interior layouts and attic storage areas. . As to zoning, the zoning designation for Burlingame is AHlPUD as set forth in the ordinance that approved the PUD. The property was rezoned as a par1 of the PUD approvals. First and foremost, Burlingame was handled as a PUD which is a very common land use tool used in the city. It allows developers and the city to look at the development project individually and set the dimensional standards (i.e. height, setbacks, density, and floor area) specifically for the development. That is exactly what happened with Burlingame, except we do not believe the City looked closely enough at the Design requirements in conjunction with the sloping lots and other lot limitations in placing a 25' height limitation, as we are doing now in planning our houses. I I I I Community Development tells us that it is common for developments to come back in for PUD amendments (both administratively and by council), so we do not feel our request for a height variance is unusual. We feel that the dominant reason for changing the single family height limit is AFFORDABILITY-modular construction is the most cost effective and timely type of development that allows the project to be affordable. Therefore, we appeal to the City of Aspen City Council to enact a PUD and Guideline amendment permitting a variance from the twenty-five foot height limitation for Burlingame Single family lots of one foot for each foot of grade change within a single family lot building envelope, side-to-side and front-to-back, as needed and determined on a case-by-case basis based on house size and design, to permit us to build twenty-five foot houses in an affordable and aesthetically pleasing manner. This amendment could alternatively be couched in terms of an extension of the twenty-five foot height limitation for the lemtth of the house from the front fa<;ade of the house, similar to Code Section 26.S7S.020(B)(2), combined with a modification of the measurement standard at the front fa<;ade to be measured from the higher point of the building at the front fa<;ade (which would eliminate the requirement of sub-grading of the front fa<;ade to address the side- slope). 9 Gx~1 ~I<f \\c (( I I I MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Communi1y Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Senior PlannercrL Burlingame Ranch Insubstantial PUD Amendments RE: DATE: June 20, 2006 ApPLICANTS: City of Aspen Asset Management Department with consent to apply from the Phase I, Burlingame Ranch Lot Owners. LOCATION: Burlingame Ranch SubdivisionIPUD. ZONING: AH/PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: Insubstantial amendmcnts to an approved POO may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Communi1y Dcvelopment Director, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.l00(A), PUD Insubstantial Amendments. REQUESTS: The Ci1y of Aspen Asset Management Department ("Applicant") with consent to apply from the individual lot owners have applied for an insubstantial PUD amendment to the Burlingame Ranch PUD to clarify some discrepancies in thc approvals that were granted to the subdivision. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2006, which approved an amendment to thc Burlingame Ranch POO that added two (2) single-family dwelling lots to the subdivision, allocated a total FAR of 28,600 square feet for the all of the single-family residcnces. However, the ordinance did not describe how this allowable FAR was to be allocated for the lots within the developmcnt. Part of this amendment request is to clarify how the allowable FAR is to bc allocated amongst each of the single-family lots within Phase 1 of the developmcnt. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2006, also establishcd a minimum Op~.l space requirement for the individual single-family lots within the developmcnt. Typically, a minim~m open spacc requirement is used in the downtown core area for commercial or mixed-use buildings w;d is defined in a manner that significantly limits the portion of a lot that can be count cd towards open space. Thercfore, the Applicant has requcsted to replace the rillnimurn opcn space requircment with a maximum sitc coverage requirement that is more traditionally been used in the Ci1y of Aspcn to limit the amount of building covcrage for residential structures. I The Applicant has also requested an amendment to the PUD approvals to set the minimum efficient building score requircd for the single-family lots at 70 points. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, established the minimum efficient building score at 145 points. The reduction is requested becausc the 145 points is not realistic for a single-family residence of the size allowed in the development. The score requirement of 145 points was meant for the I I I I I I I multi-family residential units. Finally, the Applicant has also requested to amend the right- of-way landscaping responsibilitics adjacent to the single-family rcsidentiallots and shift the rcsponsibility to the City. The Applicant has requested this part of thc amendment to shift somc of the costs away from thc individual lot owners so that the units remain affordable to build. STAFF COMMENTS: Maximum Allowable FAR: As was described above, the Applicant is proposing to allocate the FAR allowed for the singlc-family lots on a per lot basis to better clarify for the individual lot owners what thcy can build on the lots that they have purchased. These amendment requests relatcd to the allowable FAR further stem from some contradiction between the RO unit size rcquirements in the Employee Housing Guidelines and thc allowable FAR approved in thc PUD, which added to the confusion experienced by the individual lot owners in trying to develop their properties. Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, allotted a total allowable FAR of 28,600 square feet for all of the single-family residences within the development and Part VII, Section 7 of thc Employee Housing Guidelines places a maXimum gross floor area of 2,200 square feet plus a maximum garage size of 500 square feet and a maximum bascment size of 800 square footage. It was argued by the lot owners that some of them rclied on the FAR allowance in the PUD and some rclicd on the housing guidcline requiremcnt for the size of RO units in purchasing their lots. . In an effort to clear up the confusion, the Applicant has proposed an allowable FAR of 2,200 square fcet for each of the single-family lots to evenly distribute the allowed FAR amongst the lots (28,600 square feet allocated in Ord. 55 divided by 13 single-family lots= 2,200 square fcet). Thc Applicant has further proposed that a 500 square foot garagc be exempt from the allowable FAR of 2,200 squarc feet because the requirements in the RO guidelines allowed for a garage of 500 square feet in addition to the 2,200 gross floor area requirement (Part VII, Section 7 of the Employee Housing Guidelines). Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to clarifY that the basement space is counted towards the allowable FAR to the extcnt that it counts elsewhcre in the City pursuant to the calculation methodology set forth in City Land Use Code Section 26.S75.020(A)(4), Calculations and measurements: Subgrade areas. I I Staff believes that the proposed amcndments to clarify thc allowablc FAR of thc individual lots is appropriate and can be rcvicwed at an administrative Icvel as an insubstantial POO amendments because they simply further clarify the dimcnsional requircments approvcd in the original PUD and do not provide'ft sllbstantive change to the approved proj ccl. Staff also feels that thc allowable FAR amcndments described herein are necessary to allow for the individual lot owners to commencc designing their residences. Most importantly, Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the allowable FAR meet the revicw criteria for approving an insubstantial amendment to an approvcd subdivisionIPUD pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100, Insubstantial PUD Amendments. I I Minimum FAR: Currcntly, the Burlingame Ranch POO has a minimum FAR requircment of 1,900 square fcet for each of the individual single-family lots. The Applicant has requcsted that the minimum FAR be amended to 1,200 square feet for each of the individual lots in ordcr to allow the lot owners the possibility to build a smaller unit initially and then subsequently expand the unit in the future. This amendment is intended to allow for expandability as a lot 2 I I I I I I I owner moves through different life s1ages. Additionally, this proposed amendment may yield more affordability in the units in the long run in that it will not force the first lot purchasers to build out to the maximum allowable FAR for their lots. Staff supports this proposed amendment and belicves that it is consistent with one of the significant themcs of the Burlingame Ranch PUD design, which is to incorporate potential for expandability amongst the units. Oven Svace to Site Coveraze: As was discussed in the description of the amendment requests above, the original PUD approvals establish a minimum open space requirement of 55% for the single-family lots. The Applicant has proposed to amend the PUD to convert this requiremcnt into a maximum site coveragc requirement of 45% because open space is a term of definition in the land use code that is meant primarily for the commercial core area of town. Open space is defined in a manner that significantly limits the portion of a lot that can be counted towards open space. For example, open space as defincd by the City's Land Use Code would only includc space that is open from the ground to the skY' that you can see from the adj acent street at a pcdestrian level. That said, if open space were maintained as the requirement that is applicable to the single-family lots within the PUD, the back yards for the lots would not be able to be used to meet the minimum open space requircment because they would not be able to be viewed from the street. Staff believes thc intent of thc' open space rcquirement that was placed in the ordinance was to provide a mcchanism in addition to the setback requirements to limit the amount of building footprint on a site. Therefore, Staff fecls that the most appropriate requircment to fit this intent is thc maximum site covcrage requiremcnt as defmed by the calculation methodology in the City Land Use Code. Staff agrees with thc Applicant that if a maximum site covcrage is to be used rather than a minimum open space requirement, thc maximum site coverage percentage should be the inverse of the minimum open space requircment since one requirement is a maximum and the other requircment is a minimum. Efficient Buildinrz Points: The Applicant has requcsted an amendment to the approved PUD to rcduce the required number of efficicnt building points from 145 points down to 70 points for thc singlc-family lots. Staff believes that the requirement of 145 points was incorrectly applicd to thc singlc- family lots and is not a realistically achievable requirement for the single-family lots. The Building Dcpartmcnt has indicated that it would bc very difficult for a single-family residential structure with an allowable FAR of 2,200 square feet to achieve a score of 145 points and that publicly funded affordable housing that is under 2,500 gross square fcct is typically requircd to provide a minimum 70 points. Therefore, Staff feels that this is anothcr clarification amendmcnt that is not substantive in nature and should be enactcd. Rirzht-of-Wav Landscavinrz: Thc Burlingame Ranch Design Guidelines require the lot O\vners to plant one tree and three (3) shrubs in the right-of-way adjacent to their property. The Applicant has rcquested an amendment to the PUD that shifts the responsibility for these plantings from the lot owners to the City of Aspen. This amendment is intended to help lower the construction costs on the lots to kccp the units affordable for the purchasers. The Planning Staff feels that this is a positive step towards keeping the construction costs down without sacrificing the level of I I I 3 . landscaping that was envisioned in the original PUD. Staff believes that this amendment is not substantive in nature and will not change the character of the approved development because the landscaping standards are not bcing amcnded, only the rcsponsibility for installing thc landscaping is bcing altered through this amendment rcquest. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff believes that the proposed amendments detailed hcrein meet the review standards for approving an insubstantial PUD amendment pursuant to Land Use Codc Section 26.445.100(A), PUD Insubstantial Amendments. Therefore, Staff rccommends that the Community Developmcnt Director approve the proposed amcndments, clarifYing that the allowable FAR for the single-family lots in Phase 1 of the Burlingame Ranch PUD is 2,200 square fcet each plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, and clarifying that basement space on the single-family lots is only limited to the extent that they count towards the allowable FAR for the properties using the subgradc exemption mcthodology established in Land Use Code Scction 26.575.020(A)(4), Subgrade areas. I I I I I I Staff recommends that the Community Development Director also approve the requested amendments establishing the minimum FAR for the single-family lots in Phase I as 1,200 square feet, changing the minimum opcn space rcquirement of 55% on the single-family lots in Phase 1 to a maximum site coverage of 45%, establishing a minimum efficient building scorc of 70 points for the single-family residcnces in Phase 1, and switching the responsibility for the landscaping in thc right-of-way adjacent to the single-family Jots in Phase 1 from the lot owners to the City of Aspen. ApPROVAL: I hcreby approve this insubstantial PUD amendment, clarifying that the allowable FAR for the single-family lots in Phase 1 of the Burlingamc Ranch PUD is 2,200 square fcet each plus a 500 square foot garage exemption, and clarifying that bascment space on the single- family lots is only limited to the extcnt that they count towards the allowable FAR for the propertics using the subgrade cxemption methodology established in Land Use Code Section 26.575.020(A)(4), Subgrade areas. This amendmcnt also establishes the minimum FAR for the single-family lots in Phase 1 at 1,200 square fect, changes the minimum open space requirement of 55% on the singlc-family lots in Phase 1 to a maximum site coverage of 45%, establishcs a minimum efficient building score of 70 points for the single-family rcsidcnces in Phase I, and amends the responsibility for the landscaping the right-of-way adjacent to the ""I._I, I,,,,, Ph~, I - 0~~ 'Oil' A:~I~ G(~.o& Chris Bendon, Community Devclopment Director APPROVED I I I JUN 2 1. 2006 COMMUNITYDEVELOPI.lCNI UItit:'"IOi CITY Of' ASPEIi I I 4 I I I I ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B --Application Letter Exhibit C --Ordinance No. 55, Series of200S Approving an Amendment to Burlingame PUD Exhibit D --Ordinance No. 24, Series of200S Approving the Burlingame PUD I I 5 Exhibit A Review Criteria and Staff Findings Insubstantial Pun Amendment. 1. A change in the use or character of the development. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed amendments change the use or character of the development in that they are primarily for clarification purposes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. Staff Finding: The proposed amendments will change the approved coverage of structures. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. Staff finding: Trip generation and demand for public infrastructure are not affected by these amendments. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this request. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Staff Finding: The amount of opcn space will not be reduced by the amendment. The proposed amendment related to changing the minimum open space requirement to a maximum site coverage requirement simply applies the appropriate method of measuring vacant land required to be on a single-family residential parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be mct. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. I Staff Finding: The Applicant is not requesting an amendment to the number of approved parking spaces. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. Stafffinding: The Applicant is not proposing changes to adjacent right-of-way widths. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasablefloor area of commercial buildings. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing to increase the gross leasable floor area of a commercial building. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Staff Finding: The Applicant is not proposing a change in the approved residential density. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this application. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the projects approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with a condition of approval or representation made in the property's original approval. The proposed amendments are also not establishing new dimensional requirements, but instead clarifying the existing dimensional requirements that are currently in place or that were intended to be put in enacted. Staff finds this criterion to be mct. &~ ,'kJ ,I j ''/J r I I ,- .. "., ~., ., ,..... 'O~~ <.D ., ., N -~c (1).~ .... .., . ., LD 0. G 6) ., iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu:i !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!r- 0: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; - . I I I ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!o ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;u -> =~ _z -" -0 =u - _z ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;- -" =~ -- _0. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;'" -- > =a ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;0 -a ====;: =.... ====:Ui ,-- '...- ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING THE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR 97 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS (PHASE I), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY USES IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZA TlON, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AH PARKING, , REZONING TO AH/PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, VESTED RIGHTS AND APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR ALL PHASES OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel In No. 273S~03-10080S WHEREAS. the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Serics of 2000, dctermined Burlingame Ranch PUD (hereinafter the "Projcct") eligible for thc process of the Convcnience and Wclfare of the Public (COWOP) for the l1urpose of developing deed restricted affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use rcview process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Usc Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community intcrest. 'Nhcn determined nccessary by the Aspen City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of intcrcst, and assembling a Burlingame Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspcn City Council; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled thc planning and design of the Project to rcflcct cssential community goals and valucs, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-view from neighbors, the land owncr, citizens and city staff; and, WHEREAS, thc Project is of higher quality as a result of the Burlingame Affordablc Housing COWOP Task Forcc Team review proccss and its thoughtful and interactivc discussions, than may have otherwise rcsulted if the project had not been reviewed as a COWOP application; and whereas, the COWOP land use review process docs not and has not lesscncd any public hearing. public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be rcquircd; and, WHEREAS, the Burlingame Affordable Housing COWOP Task Force Team met nine (9) times, at lcgally noticcd public hearings, to idcntify thc site's opportunities and constraints and to develop guidelines for the development of the property. The COWOP Task Forcc Tcam forwarded a recommendation to thc Aspen City Council who adopted the recommendation through Resolution No. 98, Serics of 2003, at a regular meeting; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Asset Management Departmcnt conducted a Burlingamc Ranch "Design/Build" competition in ordcr to find a capablc dcvelopmcnt Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page J , team to design and build an exemplary affordable housing development. The designs submitted for the compctition were publicly displaycd at the Pitkin County Library and public commcnts were takcn on thc designs at public meetings of the Aspen City Council on October 25 and November 8, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Aspcn City Council chose the proposal submitted by Shaw Builders, LLC, Poss Architecture, and DHM Design. This group scrvcs as agents for the owners, the City of Aspen, in this development proposal and togcther these two entities arc refcrred to as the "Applicants"; and, I WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, the City Council granted, through Ordinancc No. 120, Scries of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a thrcc-phase development plan as proposed by the applicants in thc "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after Septembcr 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the developmcnt standards as required by the Aspcn Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants have procceded to gain approvals and land use entitlements for Phasc 1 of the Project by submitting a final developmcnt plan application entitled, "Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing", datcd Fcbruary 14, 2005. Such application addressed the application rcquirements and applicablc review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewcd the proposcd dcvelopment in considcration of the recommcndations of the COWOP Task Force Team, thc conditions of thc conceptual approval, the rcquircments of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of the Final PUD subject to conditions of approval as described hercin; and, WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority conductcd meetings to discuss the development project and providcd input and rccommcndations to thc City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered thc development proposal undcr the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommcndation of the Burlingame Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable rcferral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, I I I WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not compIetc the COWOP process, but constitutes another step of the COWOP review process. Future steps may include applications for Final Pun Plan of Phases 11 and ill of thc dcvelopmcnt and/or Conceptual PUD rcvisions, followed by land usc cntitlement by the Aspcn City Council, pursuant to provisions of thc Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary Jor the Convenience and Welfare oj the Public; and, WHEREAS, the Aspcn City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicablc developmcnt standards and that the approval of the Final PUD plan for Phasc 1, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, cspecially those goals rclating to the developmcnt of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24. Series of2005. Page 2 ,- .. oil'" ~.... r- .... 10 6'1 Wogs N N~O ('f) U ~ ..- 1lO' .'" U> o."~ Ul ~... " o u ~ z 3 u ~z - ~o;;: m ;; l5 -a - ~ - _m . WHEREAS, the Aspcn City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public hcaIth, safcty, and wclfarc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: I I Section 1: Amended Conceptual Plan Approved Thc Burlingame Ranch project (all phases) may include up to 236 deed-restricted employce housing units, community buildings, parks and recreational facilities, transportation facilities, and other infrastructure and amenities as dcscribed in the ShawlPosslDHM Conceptual PUD submittal dated, Septembcr 7, 2004 and revised through thc Final PUD (Phase 1) Submittal dated, February 14, 2005 and including revisions to address any conditions of approval. Conceptual approval is applicabIc to all phases with each phase subject to final approval and entitlement pursuant to the standards and processes of the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the Municipal Codc, and as spccified herein. Page L-l, Phasing Plan, of the Final PUD submittal shall be updated to reflect the final PUD approval of Phase I and shall be retitled to, "Reviscd Conceptual Master Plan & Phasing Plan". Components of the Conceptual PUD plan shall be confirmed or amended in conjunction with the final approval of cach phase. Development features of future phases may bc amcndcd by the Aspcn City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for each particular phase. '. In considcration of the phascd aspect of the entire project, City Council hcreby exempts the developmcnt from the limitations of Conceptual Dcvelopment Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.D of the Land Use Code. No prescribcd limit or time frame for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thereof, shall apply. Section 2: Process for Gainine Final Approvals for Each Phase The final review and entitlement for each phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a review of the final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporate all required land usc approvals necessary for thc particular phase, such as GMQS Excmption, Subdivision, Condominiumization, etc. and other necessary land usc actions to gain entitlemcnt for the particular phase of the project. Final entitlcment for each phase shall be by Ordinance. Thc entire Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing project,t including Phase I, shall remain activc as a COWOP land use review until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion ofthc COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP review is concluded for a particular phasc, amendments to development within the phase shall be subject to the processcs and standards of the Land Use Code unless other provisions are established as applicable. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 3 .... .. "'''' -.... t--- 'O~~ <D .... N r<)~c ('I) ;; ~ ...... ,"' LO:' ~& .. .; -.... 0: - 8 - -> .... _z ;; <:s ~z - -" .... -- .. :': > :5 -" ;: ;o! -'" I The Applicant for each phase shall submit application materials, as listed below, for all required land use actions to gain full cntitlement of each phase of thc dcvelopment, including a draft Subdivision plat and PUD plans along with agreements meeting the land use code requirements established in Sections 26.480 - Subdivision, 26.445 - Planned Unit Devclopment, 26.470 - Growth Managemcnt (exemption), and other Sections and Chaptcrs of the Land Use Code as applicable. . Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans . PUD/SIA Agreement . Architectural Character Plans . Dctailed Private and Public Utility Plans . Detailed Phasing Plan . Detailed Parking Plan . Detailed Landscaping Plan . Dctailed Street Lighting Plan and Extcrior Lighting Plan for Multi- family Buildings . Detailed Trails and Recreation Plan . Detailed Vcgetation Restoration Plan . PM-lO Mitigation Planfrransportation Plan . Acccssibility Plan (site only, not building interiors) . Homcowner's Association Documents and initial budget Each of the abovc submission componcnts shall bc reviewcd by the applicable rcferral agencies prior to submitting for final PUD approval. A pre-application conference with the Community Development Department is required prior to submission of a land use application for entitling cach phase. The required land use reviews and thc application materials and criteria of future reviews are subject to change. Applicants of future phases of Burlingame Ranch shall submit final applications pursuant to the submittal requirements in place at the timc of the final application. I I I Section 3: Phase I Final pun Plan Approved Thc Burlingamc Ranch Affordable Housing development is hcrcby granted a development order for a site specific dcvclopment plan as described in the ShawlPossIDHM Phase I Final PUD/Subdivision Development Plans, dated 2/14/05 and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final PUD, Rezoning of the subject property to thc Affordable Housing PUD (AHIPUD) Zone District, Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization, Grow1h Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Dcvelopment, Special Rcview for All Parking, Conditional Use, and Vested Rights, subject to conditions of approval as described herein. I Section 4: Rezoninl! Thc Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the Subdivision plats and Final PUD Plans associated with the Project, amended by the Community Dcvelopmcnt Director to reflect the following property as included in the Affordable Housing/PUD (AHlPUD) Zone District on all portions of said land: , Burlingame Ranch Final pun Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005. Page 4 " .. oil" _0 '" 1'- ..... In SI c.oo~& N .~o ('t) ~ ~ ....... "" .'" U).. 0 ~ ui -" Q: ~ - - o o -~ ,.. ~ =0 - _Z ;; ... -- ~ _:2 > " o -" ;: --' -- -~ Lot 2A of the Exemption Plat, Burlingame Village Lot 2 of the Final Subdivision Plat ofParccl2, Park Trust Exemption Section 5: Phase I Approved Final Proiect Dimensions Phase 1 dimensional standards are identified below: ......~ I 97 Deed-Restricted Units 14 I-bedroom 31 2-bedroom 52 3+ bedrooms ex andabilit will effect bedroom count 56% for total subject area 55% for individual lots .32: 1 (169,957 SF) .35: 1 (187,669 SF wi possible expansions) 144,738 for multi-family buildings 5,570 SF for commons building 3,061 SF for transit stops 24,200 SF for single family homes on lots nwnbcrs show maximum with ex andabili 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 25 fcet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feet front, 5 feet side, 10 feet rear 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feel between multi-family and transit buildin s 1.67: 1 Parkin S aces er Unit. 162 total Section 6: Phasin!! Phase 1 of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing dcvelopment shall consist of 97 deed-rcstrieted residential units, the commons building, parks, trash/recycling facilities, three trmsit stops, trails, and basic utility infrastructurc including access roads to servc Phase I. Phase I will be developed as a whole in tcrms of infrastructure and the readiness of lots for development as multi-family strueturcs and lots for single-family developmcnt. Phase II and Phase III may bc developed in the future in accordance with Section 2, above. Section 7: Parkin!! Phase 1 parking ratio is 1.67: 1. Three (3) spaces shall be reserved and designated for car- share program uses. All parking spaces shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements as stipulated within the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24. Series of2oo5, Page 5 I"- .. "OJ -.. .. f'.. _inS (() o~$ N It)~c (1) ;;:! .- .., '^ . OJ U.I 0. QIS) .. ~m ~,.. -'" - - - ~o u -> ,. -z -" -8 z -- -~ =,. -- -" -'" -- -~ _0 =" =; =-' ====u; Section 8: Affordable Housinl! and Accessory Dwellinl! Units (ADUs) The 97 housing units in Burlingame Ranch Phase I shall be 100% affordable housing units. As this project relates to the Stage Road PUD/Subdivision, the number of affordable housing units within the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing developmcnt meets the 70% to 30% ratio requirement for affordablc housing bedrooms to free market housing bedrooms as required in the AHlPUD Zone District. Specifically, the bedroom count for the Stage Road POO/Subdivision is sixty (60) bedrooms, which requircs that one hundred forty (140) affordable housing bcdrooms be provided. Thc Phase 1 bedroom count for the Burlingame Ranch AH projcct is 232, excceding the onc hundred forty (140) bcdrooms to mcct the AH/POO zoning. The provision of affordable housing at Burlingame Ranch is in conformancc with the 4th Amended and Restated Pre-Annexation Agreement between the City of Aspen and Bar/X Ranch, allowing for the development of the Stage Road POO/Subdivision approvcd through Ordinance No.6, 2005. The dctermination of the specific maximum income Categories of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines shall be finalized prior to Certificate of Occupancy by the City Council after recommcndation from the Housing Board. Designation of categories shall take into consideration unit size, type, cost and other factors that establish value and atfordability. The general goal for the categories of Phasc I of thc development is as shown below, but final designations of categories may deviate from this schedule at thc discretion ofthc City Council. . Cat. I &2 Cat. 3 & 4 Cat. 5 & 6 Cat. 7 & R. O. Totals UP lBr 8 2 4 0 0 14 (1 bath) 2 Br 5 13 12 1 0 31 (I bath) 3 Br 0 15 19 7 0 41 (2 bath) Lots 0 0 2 3 6 11 (3.5 baths) Totals 13 30 37 11 6 97 Six of the clcven (11) single-family lots are designatcd as Rcsident Occupied with a maximum sales price to be established by thc City Council. Accessory Dwelling Units arc not allowed within the Projcct. Section 9: Expandabilitv of Units A maximum of sixty-six (66) units ofthc eighty-six (86) multi-family units within Phase I arc eligible for vertical expansion. Prior to the signing of the Final POO Plans and Subdivision Pial, the specific units designated for expansion shall be idcntified and maximum allowable floor area of expandability per unit shown. This information shall also bc included in' the SlA/POO Agreement and in the Homeowners Documents. The expansion of these units will be at the cost of thc unit owner but will be considered as a capital improvcment into the pricc of the unit for resale purposcs. All expansions require Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 6 r- " "'" .' " t- ~...:l: 0" . W "" '" .. N " '" ('t) ..co ." .... "" to ." 0."" " ~ui !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!r- -'" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; - ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!o ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;U ->- =~ _z !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!;l =u - _z ===~ =~ -- _0. -'" -- =it ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;" ~" =;; =-' ~in building permits. The expansion of any unit shall not affect the unit's dcsignation in the affordable housing invcntory or category, such that if another bedroom has been added into a two-bedroom unit, it remains in the inventory as a two-bedroom unit. Section 10: Conditional Use The Park and Open Use Recreation Sites, Transit Facilities and Child Care Center are hereby approved uses in accordancc with the approved PUD plan speci fications for size, location and architecturc. Conditional use approval is necessary for these uses in the AH/PUD Zone District. The Child Care Center shall gain a final Conditional Use approval from the City Council prior to the occupancy of the commons building for this use. The operational characteristics and potential impacts of the use shall be evaluated and approved separately with conditions, if necessary, in accordance with the conditional use review criteria. The child care facility shall meet the State of Colorado licensing requirements and shall comply with Land use Code Section 26.575.080, Child care center. In addition Conditional Usc Application plans shall address fencing, required outdoor play space and its grading, access (walkway and vehicular), adequate bathroom and kitchen facilitics for childcare opcrations and after school programming. . I I I . Section II: Architectural Character and Residential Desil!n Guidelines: Reliance is placed on the architectural standards and illustrations contained within thc Final PUD Plan submittal as establishing a cohesive architcctural vernacular for the development. The development shall be in gcneral compliance with the "Architectural Character" drawings contained in pages. A-IOl-AIII in the application. The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Dcsign Guidelincs shall apply to and govern all rcsidential design. The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410 shall not apply to this dcvelopment. The Residential Design Guidelines shall not be amendcd without thc approval of the City Council. Such guidelines are a component of the applicatiori and. are herein incorporated into this ordinance by reference and shall be recorded with the final PUD plans. Prior to recordation, the Guidelines shall be amended to state the building heights for multi-family (34 feet) and single-family dwellings (25 feet) and speci fy how height is measurcd. I Section 12: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the dcvelopment is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Dcvclopment Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall bc borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of owncrship of thc condominium. ...... Section 13: Homeowner's Responsibilities The Final Homeowner's documents shall ensurc that the maintenance and operations of thc following components of the development arc the responsibility of the HOA. "'-,.' Burlingame Ranch Finat PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 7 t- ., "'" -.. f' "'l(): c.o o~$ C\jt-N ('t) ..;;:;0 ... ~ "" lD 0." ".. .. .. . je .. - 8 ~ ~ ~ " -" I" -- _0. -'" -- -> ~g =" ;; = -'" I I I I I . Storm water facilities, including drainage ponds, outside ofthc public right of way; . Irrigation systcm; . Parking courts and private and public sidewalks; . Landscapc area maintenancc (where thc City of Aspen is not responsible) and weed management; . Bluff Trail; . Agreement for common water line leading into multifamily; and . Common open space, play areas and park areas. The HOA document shall also include a detailed plan specifYing what duties, or additional dutics for later phases, the Homeowner's Association will bc responsible for and projccted monthly Homeowner Association dues. The documcnts shall also address the mechanism for integrating future phases into the HOA. Section 14: Roads Thc roads contained within the development shall bc dcdicated as public right of way and are approved as to general design and dimensions contained within thc Final POO Plan submittal and must meet with the technical standards ofthc City Engineering Dcpartment. Thc roads will be public and will bc available for all public purposes including, but not limited to, thosc associated with the provision of utilities, maintenancc, transportation, pcdestrian, rccrcation and cmergency scrvices. The City of Aspen reserves the right, for itself and thc utility districts and companies serving the development, to use the roadways and parking arcas to providc services. In addition, Mining Stock Parkway may be used by the City of Aspen and service providers in a dual directional way for official business on thc one-way road. Roads will be maintained by the City of Aspen. I Section 15: Landscape Plan The Final POO Landscape plan shall specifY the areas for stockpiling of soil outside of thc limits of Phase I, as being those in the northwest and southwest comcrs of the intersection of Mining Stock Parkway and Range Road. The plan shall also show the grading and reseeding plan for the stockpiled soil that meets with the approval of the City of Aspen Parks Dcpartment. Final Landscape plans shall include details and standards for seeding, mulching of seeded areas. soil replacemcnt and depth, and soil type. As addressed on Page L-8 #15 of the POO plans, protcction of off-site vegetation shall be designed and installed to City of Aspcn standards. A native vegetation protection fencing system shall be installed at the edgc of the construction limits. This fencing shall consist of a type of barricr fencing. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to standards. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, or vehiclc traffic is allowed outsidc of this protection fencing. The fence is required to be crected and inspected prior to any construction activity on the property. As addressed on Page L-8, #18 of the PUD plans, the seed detail shall include the covcring of the seeded arca with certified weed free straw and meet this standard as follows: City of Aspen Secding Requircments 1. Soil Preparation, top soil 6" deep 2. Hand broadcast seed, this is the preferred method of seeding Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 8 ,- .. """ _G> '" to tJ~: N lQ~c ('t) U ~ .... ,"' .^ . '" ...,.. "'z iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiw ~r- -" ~ ~ - ~ ~o ~" ->- =r _z -" -0 =u - _Z -;;; =r -- _D. ~~ -> =a ____ 0 -a ====;: :=-' ====v; I 3. Rake into area 4. Fertilize area (Boise is recommended) 5. Mulch with weed free straw Changes to the sceding protocol may be approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Detailed landscape maintenance guidelincs for the Homcowner's Association and future property management personncl shall be dcveloped and rccorded prior to the sale of any unit. Section 16: Irril!ation The source of irrigation waters for Burlingame Ranch shall be from ditch water rights associated with the property and/or domcstic sources. The irrigation plans of the Pun plan shall be rcvised to show additional detail including head spacing, main line locations and secondary line locations. This plan shall include and show temporary irrigation for the native restoration of the disturbed arcas and opcn space areas. The developer shall provide an as-built drawing to the Parks Departmcnt showing the irrigation system for the parks areas. Section 17: Watcr Department Services The follow items shall be shown on final plans. 1. Final fee schcdule for the devclopment, 2. Grading plan for Forge Road, 3. Utility plans for sewer crossings must show depth of greater than seven feet so that there is no conllict with water, 4. Service line locations, 5. Trust blocks, 6. Additional in-line control valvcs with distances no further than 500 feet apart, 7. Pressure reducer valve vault, and 8. Service line locations on pages, KI, Dl, CI, G2 & K2 necd reevaluation by applicant and possible relocation. A separate water metcr and billing account is required for each residential unit. The Final Pun submittal shall include a detail of proposed fire hydrant locations within the development. All requirements of thc Watcr Department shall be complied with. Thc applicants shall work with thc Water Department in planning for a water reclamation system that would utilize treated wastewater for the purposcs of irrigation. Section 18: Sanitarv Sewer and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) Thc following items shall be shown on final plans. 1. Final depths of sewer lines and width of easements shall be approved by the ACSD prior to plat and Pun plan recordation. 2. Othcr Sanitation District Requircmcnts: . Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rulcs, regulations. and spccifications. which are on file at thc District office. Durlingame Ranch Fmal PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 9 ~ .. .,0) -.... ,...... 'D~~ 1.0 .... N "'~Cl (<) ;;:l ..- ...... ... L!) 0. .. Z ..; _r- '" o " ->- .... _z 5 " - z ;; .... 0: ~ > g -" - > d -'" I r" . ....... I I ,_. . ACSD will rcview the approved drainagc plans to assure that c1car water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewcr system. . On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. . Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. . Onc tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreemcnts may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. . Permancnt built improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. The HOA documents shall includc a provision that puts the owncrs on notice that any private or HOA landscaping that is placed within an ACSD or other utility eascment is subject to damage or removal by utility providers in the course of installation, repair or replacement at the owncr's expense and loss. . All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 19: Environmental Health New residential buildings arc limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must filc a fireplace permit with thc Building Departmcnt before a building pcrmit will be issued. New homes may not have wood buming fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilizc coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specity closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 20: Transportation Manal!ement and Plan Burlingame Ranch is a transit-oriented development with transit stops, car sharing, bike racks and trails/sidewalks connecting to key pedestrianlbikeways of thc city. The Final PUD Plan submittal includes three (3) mobility plan options that meet the standards of thc PUD/Subdivision requirements ofthc city to adequatcly address ncw automobile trips gcnerated by the development. The mobility plans go bcyond mitigation of the ncw trips by adding capacity to thc transit program which address some existing transit needs in thc vicinity. The City Council will further evaluate the options and select a preferred alternative for implcmentation. The City Council shall determine and commit to a . detailed mobility plan for the project within six (6) months of the effective datc of this ordinance. Such plan shall bc recorded as an addendum to the PUD/SlA Agreement. All bus capital, service and operations shall meet with the approval of the Transportation Options Program through the Assistant City Managcr. Additionally, transit support facilitics such as pull-outs, curb and gutter shall be constructed to RFT A's construction specifications. Section 21: Snow Storal!e The snow storage areas arc expected to accommodate 100% of the snow storage rcquired by the development on the site. Snow-storage arcas shall be dcsigned to filtcr run-off prior to discharge into the storm drainage system and may be planted with vcgetative types in quantities and locations that will not impede plowing, storagc or water flow. Burlingame Ranch Fin.1 PUD Ordinance No, 24, Series of 2005, Page 10 ~ " Ill" -" -.... l'o~~ to Q slS.) N -~c ('I) ..:l ~ "" l!) ." a..... .. ~ -" ........ ........ !!!!'!'!!!!!!!!o ........ u ->- =>- _z _::> -0 u - _Z -;;: =>- -0: ~ ,. l5 -" - -:; ===U; I I r- "-- Section 22: Exterior Lil!btinl! The Final PUD plan shall include an outdoor lighting plan and exterior lighting fixture specifications for all of the multi-family buildings that demonstrate compliance with the City of Aspcn Lighting ordinance at thc time of Final PUD submission pursuant to and meeting the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. Prior to issuance of building pcrmits for single family residences, compliance with the above- noted section shall be demonslnlted. Section 23: Street Lil!htinl! Phase I street lighting is acceptable with lights located at key road intersections and at major community-oricntcd locations such as the commons huilding and transit stops. Conduit for future street lighting shall be set in place in conjunction with Phase I infrastructure. I Section 24: Trails The Applicant shall install a pedestrian trail that is three (3) feet in width and made of crusher fine matcrial that runs along the top of the Roaring Fork River bluff, connccting with the parking court at World Cup Court and thc southernmost transit stop on Forgc Road. Thc trail will be open to the public and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. This trail shall be installed in conjunction with Phase I of the development Scction 25: "Efficient Buildinl!" Each building shall achieve a minimum 145 points within the City of Aspen Building ,. Program. ....... Section 26: I mpact Fees Park Imoact Fees Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.080, Impact Fees-Affordable Housing, City Council hcreby waives the Park Devclopment Impact Fees for thc Burlingame AfTordable Housing Development finding that approximately 195 acres ofland are being preserved as opcn space in conjunction with the BarlX and Burlingame Affordable Housing Developmcnts_ School Land Dedication in Lieu Fees Thc Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Developmcnt shall provide a cash in lieu fee to the Aspen School District bascd on the formula contained within Section 26.630 of the Land Use Code. Thc Aspen School District has indicated their intercst in having land dedicated to the district for the purpose of housing district employces, for othcr district purposes, or selling land dedicated to thcm within Burlingame Ranch for rcvenue. The intcnded purpose of the Burlingamc Ranch dcvelopment is to provide affordable housing and not to creatc a public facility such as a school would encourage. The City Council may providc to the Aspen School District, with their agreement, a subdivided residentiallot(s) in Burlingame Ranch at a value equal to the fee. Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residcntial units on a pcr acre basis. The City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Projcct to be $12,448.62 per acrc from Burlingame Ranch Final pun Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 11 r- 0> 0() .. -" .. ~ .. .......... 0 &nG ,- "". (Q .... 0(5) N _N ,C (1) ..., ."" ...... "" ,.... .., UI CL. Gig "" iiiiiiiiiiiiiiir.ti !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!r- ===.. === ---- - ---- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!o ____u -,. =r- -~ =u - _z ---- - ->< =r- -- _0. =", ===;; =a ____ 0 -a ==== :; ===... ====:n recent transactions and information from thc Pitkin County Assessor. This value divided by the land dedication standard for the numbcr of units in each of the bedroom categories results in a total impact fee of$157,517.41. House size Land Dedication Per unit Fee Standard One bedroom .00 1 2/acre $153.06 Two Bcdroom .009S/acre $1,211.77 Three .01 62/acrc $2,066.38 Bedroom Four Bedroom .0248/acre $3,163.33 TOTAL for 97 units $157,517.41 Amendmcnts to the projcct shal.1 include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. I I Section 27: Firc Safety Mitil!ation An buildings within the development shan include fire sprinkler and alarm systems meeting the requirements of the Aspen Fire District. Fire hydrant locations and spacing, as wen as the location and dimcnsions of an fire lane and turn-around areas for fire apparatus shan mcct with thc approval of the Aspen Fire Marshal. Section 28: Coordination with Bar/X The Applicant shan coordinate with the Bar/X developer to ensure, that where the projccts are related, utility instanation, storm water management facilities and construction managcment are as efficient as possible and minimizes environmental impacts. Section 29: Vested Ril!hts Thc land use approvals contained within this ordinance shall constitute a site-specific development plan and vcst for a period of three (3) years as provided by law. An extcnsion may be applied for under the land use codc provisions in place at the time of rcquest. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising thc general public of thc approval of a sitc specific developmcnt plan and creation of a vcsted propcrty right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shan bc substantially in the following form: "Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site spccific development plan, and thc creation of a vcsted propcrty right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Rcvised Statutes, pcrtaining to the following described property: Burlingamc Ranch Affordable Housing Development (Phase 1)." Section 30: final Plat and PUD Plans Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(A) and Scction 26.445.07O(B), Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, the Applicant shan prepare ~d record a final PUD Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Page 12 t- .. "' .. -'" .. ... .. ,...... 0 III & '" . to N IS) IS,) ~,- '" ,~ ,Q C') .. '" ... .... "" ,^ . '" UI Q.lSl'G) .. ----- ~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!t- =.. ~ - ~ - ~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!o ~u -~ =~ ===~ -0 ;;;;;;;;;;;u _z ~- ==== ~ -- _a. -'" -- =1I ~" =" -~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- -'" ,..., "-- dcvclopment plan and applicable subdivision plats at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recordcr's Office within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. The Applicant shall also preparc and record a SubdivisionIPUD agreement at thc Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office pursuant to Land Usc Code Section 26.445.070(C), PUD Agreement, within 180 days of adoption of this ordinancc. No building permits shall bc applied for or issued prior to rccording thc documents dcscribed herein. I Scction 31: Access/Infrastructure Permit Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Applicant may submit an application for an AccesslInfrastructure (NI) permit with the City of Aspen Building Department in order to commence grading and construction of the roads and utilities within thc development. An access/infrastructure permit may be applied for and issued, upon the ordinance becoming effcctive, and prior to the recordation of thc Final PUD plans and agreements, provided that sufficient plans accompany the All permit application as' shall be determincd by the Chief Building Official. The All permit application shall include the following: a. Site Improvement Survey that contains topography at 5' contours, all existing structures and improvcments, location of existing trees, and all easements and right-of-ways. b. Detailed Grading Plans showing existing conditions and proposed improvemcnts. c. Dctailed Drainage Plans that include erosion control measures. d. State Storm Water Management Permit. e. Construction Managcment Plan. f. Road Profiles. g. Tree Removal Pcrmit. h. Dust Suppression Plan. ..... I ~ . Section 32: Build;nl! Permit Application Thc building permit application shall include the following: a. A lcttcr from thc primary contractor stating that the approving ordinance has been rcad and understood. b. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. Copies of the executed PUD plans and agreemcnt. e. A construction management plan mceting the Community Development Department's rcquiremcnts. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmcntal Health Department, which addrcsscs watering of disturbed areas. Section 33: Annexation All approvals contained within this ordinance shall be subject to the successful annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen. All approvals contained herein shall be null and void should annexation not occur. Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. Page 13 t- ot '" .. -a> ~.... __ D 11') S ,- ... to M l'::" N ........0 ('l") ,,10 ... ..... <>, "., . a> u, Q.&s .. ~u) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!r- -", - ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; o ul-~ _!Z -=> -0 u - -" ;;: .. --- .. '" -- > -g -a - ~ :===;:;; ......_.~ Section 34: Order of Recordation Filing of the plats, plans, documents and agreements associated with this approval shall bc filed with the Pitkin County Clcrk and Recorder in the following sequcnce unIcss determined necessmy to be changed by the Community Dcvelopment Director: I. Agreements with Utility Providers 2. Final Subdivision Plat of the two-lot subdivision of Burlingame Ranch Lot 1 3. Final Subdivision Plat of the two-lot subdivision of Parcel 2, Park Trust Exemption 4. Burlingame Ranch Subdivision, Filing No.1, Final Plat S. PUD Plans (Improvement Survey, Engineering Site Plan, Utility, Grading, Drainage, Phasing Plan, Site Plan, Acccssibility Plan, Landscape Plans, and Architectural Character Plans 6. PUD/SIA Agreement 7. Mastcr Homeowner's Association Documents 8. Residential Design Guidelincs 9. Other plans or documents, as deemed necessary by the Community Dcvelopment Director I Section 35: All material reprcscntations and commitmcnts made by thc applicants pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, as prcsented in public hearing or documentation before the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unlcss amended by other specific conditions. "- Section 36: This ordinance shall not affcct any cxisting litigation and shall not opcrate as an abatcment of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtuc of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded tinder such prior ordinances. Section 37: If any section, subsection, scntencc, 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 separatc, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thcreof. I I I I I I Section 38: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance and exhibits in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 39: That the Community Development Director is directed, upon thc adoption of this ordinancc, to cause the Official Zoning Map of the City of Aspen to be amcnded to reflect the rczoning of the subject property as herein described. Section 40: I Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of2005, Page 14 ,.. .. "' .. -., " ~ ., ..... 0 U')$ UJ... gQ N -~o ('l") ~ ~ ~ "" ,^ .., ...... Q.. $lS) .. .. t- O< " _u I:: ~ u " -- ~ -0- 0: "' -- ~ _0 -" - :; ===~ ~ . I '-- I A duly-noticed public hearing on this ordinance was held on the 25th day of April, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by thc City Council of the City of Aspcn on the 11 ,h day of April, 2005. Attest: FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 25th day of April, 2005. Attest: Approved as to form: ~LCI//J/'./../~ n orcester, City Attorney Burlingame Ranch Final PUD Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, Pagc 15 ,. .. Ill.' ~" ..... ....... 0 III Q ,- ... to In ei) 151 N....!:!c '^ .. co ,., ... ~ "" LO :~Q .. ~u:i !!!!!!!!"!!!!!... -0: - - .-= !!!!!!!!"!!!!!o .-=" -~ =~ _z -=> -0 =" - _Z -;< =~ -- -~ ~~ -,. a '-=0 -a ====;: -... ~- -" I . I I I I I I I I I I &hl'b'l l(f!! ORDINANCE NO. 55 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND SUBDlVSION, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH), GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ACCESSORY USES IN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR CONDOMINIUMIZATION, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AH PARKING, VESTED RIGHTS AND APPROVING THE REVISED CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF THE BURLINGAME RANCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID No. 27350-03-100805 WHEREAS, the Aspcn City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 120, Scrics of 2000, dctermincd Burlingame Ranch PUD (hercinafter the "Projec1") cligiblc for the process of the Convenicncc and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) for the purpose of developing deed restrictcd affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, thc COWOP land use review proccss, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Codc, was created and adoptcd by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projccts of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the Aspcn City Council according to said Section, to conduct an iterativc process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public. and other parties of interest, and asscmbling a Burlingamc Affordable Housing Task Force Team, providing recommendations directly to Aspen City Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 22, 2004, thc City Council granted, through Ordinance No. 120, Series of 2004, conceptual approval with conditions to a three-phase dcvclopment plan as proposed by the applicants in the "Conceptual Master Plan Submittal", dated after September 7, 2004, after finding that the Project met with the devclopment standards as required by thc Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the applicants gained Final POO and Subdivision approval and land usc entitlemcnts for the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Phase 1 of the Projcct through City Council Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, approvcd April 11, 2005; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 24, Series of 2005, thc entirc Burlingame Ranch Affordablc Housing projcct, including amendments to Phase I, shall rcmain active as a COWOP land usc rcview until determined concluded by the Aspen City Council. City Council may stagger the conclusion of the COWOP review on a phase-by-phase basis. Once the COWOP revicw is concluded for a particular phase, amendments to development within the phase shall be subject to the processes and standards ofthc Land Use Codc unlcss other provisions are established as applicable; and, Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005. Page I 1111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~~~~~;! ~9: 53, JANICE K vas C~ILL PITKIN COUNTY co R 36.00 0 0.90 WHEREAS, Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, the final revicw and entitlement for any amendment or phase shall be subject to the COWOP land use review process pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public. This step shall consist of a rcview of the amcndment or final development plan for each phase by the Aspen City Council and shall incorporatc all required land use actions to gain entitlcment for the particular amendment or phase of the project. Final entitlement for any amcndment or phasc shall be by Ordinancc. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24. Series of2005, and in consideration of the phased aspect of the entirc project, the City Council exempted the dcvclopment from the limitations of Conceptual Development Plan approval as specified in Section 26.445.030.0 of the Land Usc Codc. No prescribed limit or time frame for submitting a final development plan for the project, or phases thcreof. are applicable and amendments may bc madc. Components of the Conceptual POO plan shall be confirmcd or amended in conjunction with the final approval of each phase or amendments to the plan. Development features of future phases may be amended by the Aspen City Council, in conjunction with final approvals for cach particular phase or amcndments to phases; and, WHEREAS, thc applicants have filed an applica1ion for thc amendment to the Burlingamc Ranch Affordablc Housing Final PUD and Subdivision Phase I and thc Conceptual Plan, and for related land use actions. Such application addressed the application rcquiremcnts and applicable review standards of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, I . I I WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Devclopmcnt Director has reviewed thc proposed POO and Subdivision Amendment in consideration of the recommendations of thc COWOP Task Forcc Tcam, the conditions of the final approval, the requirements of thc land use code, and comments from applicablc referral agcncies and has recommended approval of the POO and Subdivision Amendment subject to conditions of approval as describcd hercin; and, WHEREAS, the Aspcn City Council has reviewed and considercd the POO and Subdivision Amendment proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has found the amendment to be consistent with the final approval and recommendation of thc Burlingamc Ranch COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Dcvclopmcnt Dircctor, thc applicable refcrral agencies, and has takcn and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, I WHEREAS, approval of this ordinance does not complete the COWOP process, but constitutes another stcp of thc COWOP rcview process. Future stcps may include applications for amendments and Final POO Plans of Phases II and ill of the development and/or Conceptual POO rcvisions, followed by land use entitlement by the Aspen City Council, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, including Section 26.500, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public; and, WHEREAS, thc Aspcn City Council finds that the POO and Subdivision Amendment proposal mects or exceeds all applicable developmcnt standards and that the approval of thc PUD and Subdivision Amendments for Phase I, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and clcmcnts ofth~ ,)Mrl A.npn Arp, rnmmllnitv Plan. esneciallv Burlingame Ranch pun Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of2oo5, Page 2 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 :~~;~~~;~ ~9:'3 JANICE K \105 CI=lUOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0.00 those goals relating to the development of affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary and the preservation of open space; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is nccessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and wclfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Amended Conceptual and Final Plan Approved The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Conceptual and Final POO Plan and Subdivision is hereby amended and approved through this POO and Subdivision Amendment. The amcnded POO and subdivision plats and documents shall serve to confirm the amcndment to the Conceptual Plan as it was approved through Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. The approved amendment includes the creation of Lots 9 & 10 of Block 1 and the dcsignation of those lots for single family dwellings; the addition of Building D-3 to Phasc 1 and its designation as a 5 unit, multi-family building; revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines; finalization of thc third transit stop; and the addition of right of way arca to Harmony Road. I I Section 2: Development Order for Amendment The Amcndment to the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing development is hercby granted a development order for'a site spccific dcvelopment plan as described in the Shaw/PosslDHM Final POO/Subdivision Phase 1 Application Devclopment Plans, dated Noveber, 2005, and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final POO Amendment, Subdivision, Subdivision Exemption for Condominiumization, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for Affordable Housing, GMQS Exemption for Accessory Uses in Mixed Use Developmcnt, Special Review for AH Parking, and Vested Rights, subjcct to conditions of approval as dcscribed hcrein. Section 3: Applicabilitv of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 The requirements and conditions of Ordinance No 24, Series of2005, granting Final POO and Subdivision approval to Phase I of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing devclopment, shall remain in full forcc and efTect except as otherwise specifically amended by the provisions of this ordinance and the approved plans. Section 4: Amendments to Phase I Approved Proiect Dimensions Amendments to Phase 1 dimensional standards arc identified below on thc following pagc. 11(~I~J(llt(~mlIIJjl~IJJllI11(~J~ 11111 11111111 ~~~~:;! ~g: 5. Y co R 36.00 D 0.00 Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55. Series of 2005, Page 3 I' 97 Deed-Restricted Units IS I-bedroom 302-bedroom 52 3-bedroom ex andabiIi will effect bedroom count 56% for total subject area 55% for individual lots .32:1 (173.048 sq, ft.) .35:1 (t91,608 sq. ft. wi possible expansions) 154,738 sq. ft. for multi-family buildings 5,570 sq. ft. for commons building 3.161 sq. ft. for transit stops 28,600 sq. ft. for single family homes (last four numbers above show maximum sq. ft. with ex andabiIi 34 feet for multi-family and community buildings 25 feet for sin Ie famil lot buildin s As represented on the Final PUD Plans 10 feet fron~ 5 feet side, 10 feet rear Lots 9 & 10, Block 1: 5 feet front. 10 feet side, 5 feet rear 32 foot width and 3,000 sq. ft. size for lots 10 feet for single family lots buildings 21 feet for multi-family buildings 20 feet between multi-family and transit buildin s 1.67: I Parkin S aces r Unit, 162 total Section 5: Parkinl! With this PUD/Subdivision Amcndment, the Phasc 1 parking ratio shall continue to bc 1.67: 1. Section 6: Architectural Character and Residential Desit!n Guidelines & Heit!ht: The Residential Design Guidelines shall be amended to allow for sidc-loadcd garagcs for Lots 9 & 10 of Block 1. The Guidelines shall specifically note that the applicability of this provision is only for the above-noted lots. The hcight ofthc new singlc family lots shall be limited to 25 feet and the multi-family building D-3 shall be limited to 34 fect. Section 7: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to rccordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at thc time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall bc submitted to the Community Dcvelopment Departmcnt for evaluation and approval by the Community Dcvclopment Enginecr prior to rccordation. The cost of recordation shall bc borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of2005, Page 4 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 :~~;~~:;! ~9: 5< JI=INICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 0 0.00 . . I I I I Section 8: Homeowner's Documents The HOA documents shall be amended to reflect any necessary provisions that arisc from this Pun and Subdivision Amendment as dctcrmined by the Community Development Director. Section 9: Water Department Services The watcr service lincs that are to serve the new single family lots in Block I, Lots 9 & 10 are to be taken off of a new looped 4" line that connects to the Water Department main Iinc in Forge Road. Such 4" water Iinc shall be located on private property of the HOA and bc the responsibility of the Homcowner's Association and the maintenance and owncrship requiremcnts shall be included in the HOA documents. Section 10: "Efficient Buildine" Each building shall achieve a minimum 145 points within the City of Aspen Building Program. Section 11: Impact Fees Park Imoacl Fees In keeping with Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 and pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610.080, Impacl Fees-Affordable Housing, City Council hereby waives the Park DcveIopment Impact Fees for the Burlingame Affordable Housing Development finding that approximatcly 195 acrcs of land are bcing preserved as open space in conjunction with the Bar/X and Burlingame Affordable Housing Developments. School Land Dedication in Lieu Fees The Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Dcvelopment shall provide a cash in lieu fee to the Aspen School District based on the formula contained within Section 26.630 of the Land Use Code and consistcnt with the valucs and calculations contained with Ordinancc No. 24, Series of 2005. The Aspcn School District has indicated their interest in having land dedicated to the district for the purpose of housing district employees, for other district purposes, or selling land dedicated to them within Burlingamc Ranch for revenue. The intcnded purpose of the Burlingame Ranch development is to provide affordable housing and not to create a public facility such as a school would encourage. The City Council may provide to the Aspcn School District, with their agrcement, a subdividcd residentiallot(s) in Burlingame Ranch at a value equal to thc fcc. Fees are asscssed bascd on onc-third thc valuc of the unimproved land dividcd by the proposcd number of residential units on a per acre basis. Thc City of Aspen verifies the unimproved land valuc of the lands underlying thc Project to be $12,448.62 per acre from recent transactions and information from the Pitkin County Assessor. This value divided by the land dedication standard for the number of units in cach of the bedroom categories results in a revised total impact fee of $160,361.11. The following fees are due for the cntire Phase 1 as amended. and take thc place of the calculations contained in Ordinancc No. 24. Series of2005. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, Page 5 111111111\1\ 111I11 \\11111111111111111111111111\ 1111111\ :~~~~::~ ~9: 5< JANICE K ,,"os CAUDILL PITIc:IN COUNTY CO R 36,00 0 0.00 House size Land Dedication Per unit Fee Standard One bcdroom .0012/acre $153.06 Two Bedroom .0095/acre $1211.77 Three .01 62/acrc $2,066.38 Bcdroom Four Bedroom .0248/acre $3,163.33 TOTAL for 97 units $160,361.11 Further amendments to the project shall include an adjustment to this fee according to the above calculation methodology. Section 12: Vested Ril!bts The land use approvals contained within this ordinance shall constitutc a sitc-specific development plan and vest for a periOd ofthree (3) ycars as provided by law. An extension may be applied for under the land use code provisions in place at the time of request. No latcr than fourteen (14) days following final approval, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspapcr of gcneral circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a noticc advising the general public of the approval of a site specific dcvelopment plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following fonn: "Noticc is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site spccific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Burlingamc Ranch Affordable Housing Development (Amendment to Phase I and the Conceptual Plan)." I Section 13: Amended PUD Plans and Subdivision Plats Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(A) and Section 26.44S.070(B), Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, the Applicant shall prepare and record an Amended PUD developmcnt plan and applicable subdivision plats at thc Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. Thc Applicant shall also prcpare and record a revised SubdivisionIPUD agreement at thc Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's OlTIce pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.070(C), PUD Agreement, within 180 days of adoption of this ordinance. Building pcrmits may be applicd for, but not issued prior to recording the documents described herein. Section 14: All matcrial representations and commitments made by the applicants pursuant to the developmcnt proposal approvals as hercin awarded, as presentcd in public hearing or documentation bcfore the Aspcn City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the samc shall be complicd with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series on005, Page 6 1III11III111II11II 11II1I1I11I III 1IIIflI III filII '1111'" ~~~~:;! ~9 5' JANICE I( VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 00.00' OJ I I I I I 1 . I I I " " '.' Section 15: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operatc 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 16: If any section, subsection, scntcnce, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall bc dccmed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affcct the validity of the remaining portions thcreof. Section 17: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance and exhibits in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 18: A duly-noticcd public hearing on this ordinance will be held on the 9th day of January, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Aspen City Hall, Aspcn, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of December, 2005. Attest: 4~ FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of January, 2006. Attest: Approved as to form: ~~ '. \ It }Vorcester, City Attorney '-' . \, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~~~~:;! ~9: 531 JANICE K VOS CRUOILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 36.00 D 0.00 '/>'" .' .~~ ,// ~:;f~ Burlingame Ranch PUD Amendment Ordinance No. 55, Series of 2005, Page 7 MEMORANDUM '11\ b FROM: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director cffiW) Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner TO: THRU: RE: 100 East Bleeker Street- Establishment of Two (2) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, First Reading of Ordinance # ~ Series of 2006. DATE: July 10,2006 I SUMMARY: The application before the City Council is for the establishment of two Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) Certificates. Each TDR comprises 250 square fcet of Floor Area. The purpose of a TDR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non-historic property within the City of Aspen. The program enables standard market forces, and the demand for residential Floor Area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. Funds that are gained from the sale ofTDR's may be invested back in the landmark. The proposed "sending site" is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and contains a miner's cottage that was built in 1884. The historic property comprises a 3,000 square foot lot located at the northeast corner of Garmish and Bleeker Streets. The neighborhood context consists of single family residences and the Yellow Brick School. Every property on this block exccpt one is a historic landmark. . The issuance of two TDR certificates to the sending site of 100 East Bleeker, will remove a total of 500 square feet of developable Floor Area from the historic property, thereby reducing the base allowable FAR from 2,900 to 2,400 square feet. I Staff recommends that City Council validate and issue two Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates to the "sending site" of 100 East Bleeker Street. The review criteria are met and TDR certificates are a good tool for preserving a historic resource by reducing development pressure. APPLICANT: Nancy M. Spears represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC. PARCEL 10: 2735-124-37-005. I I I ADDRESS: 100 E. Bleeker Street, Lot K, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Residential TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) In order to complete the establishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights, the applicant shall meet the following requirements listed in Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Land Use Code. I I I I . Section 26.535.070 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: I a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single- family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Staff Finding: The proposed 3,000 square foot sending site is located within the R-6 zone district, which allows residential single-family use. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark, listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted un built development rigilts, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. I I Staff Finding: The subject property has a total allowable FAR of 2,900, which comprises the 2,400 square feet allowable FAR for a 3,000 square foot property in the R-6 zone district, and the 500 square foot FAR bonus awardcd by HPC during conceptual review. The proposed plans approved by HPC at the conceptual level require 2,400 square feet, which is less than the allowable 2,900 square feet of FAR. This leaves 500 square feet of unbuilt FAR available on the site for a single-family home. Therefore, two TDRs of2S0 square fee1 each are eligible for establishment. c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Staff Finding: 2 Staff finds that the approved development conforms to the R-6 zone as s1ated in Section 26.710 of the Land Use Code. Establishing two 250 square feet Historic TDR Certificates will not create or increase a non-conformity. d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only inelude the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not inelude the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. I I Staff Finding: The total existing built FAR on the property is 1,790 square feet out of an allowable FAR of 2,400 square feet. The HPC approved plans for the development of 2,400 square feet on the property, and awarded a 500 square foot FAR bonus. In reviewing this case, HPC understood that they were granting a 500 square foot FAR bonus that would free up some of the base allowable FAR to be sold as TDRs. The code notes that the FAR bonus itself is not transferable, however this bonus has to be proven to be a valuable preservation incentive and prohibiting its award in cases where TDRs are possible would be counterproductive. The award of an FAR bonus, which is determined at Conceptual Review, is taken very seriously by HPC. The board has required significant restoration work and high quality design efforts in order to qualify for this incentive. TDRs such as those proposed will have the intended effect of removing square footage that would otherwise be built on the property to a less sensitive, non-historic site. As stated by review criteria (d) above, the potential for the "sending site" to gain a floor area bonus is not included in the analysis of unbuilt development rights. Therefore, the allowable FAR on the subject property will decrease from 2,400 square feet to 1,900 square feet (after severing two TDR), exclusive of the already realized potential to gain an FAR bonus. e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Staff Finding: The property will not include any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after the establishment of two TDR certificates. The applicant proposes that, between the reduced base FAR of 1,900 square feet and the 500 square foot bonus, the approved development order will not involve any more Floor Area than permissible under this standard. I I I 1 f) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred andfifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amendedfrom time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use 3 Code, as may be amendedfrom time to time. Tlreform of tire deed restriction sir all be acceptable to tire City Attorney. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes that the sending site will be deed restricted such that it will be limited to 500 square feet less than the allowable Floor Area under the applicable zoning and will remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives. g) A real estate closing Iras been sclreduled at wlriclr, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, tire City slrall execute and deliver tire applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to tire Sending Site property owner and tlrat property owner sir all execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening tire available development riglrt of tire subject property togetlrer witlr tire appropriate fee for recording tire deed restriction witlr tire Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Staff Finding: The application states that the requirements of section (g) are understood by the applicant and her legal counsel. Ir) It slrall be tire responsibility of tire Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of tire Sending Site to tire satisfaction of tire Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for tire confirmation of built Floor Area. I Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of section (h). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance #3\ Series of 2006, the request for two Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the sending site located at 100 East Bleeker Street on First Reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve Ordinance #3\, Series of2006, upon first reading. " I I I I CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Exhibit A - Application 4 ORDINANCE NO.:S \ (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING TWO (2) 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATES FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 100 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOT K BLOCK 65 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID #: 2735-124-37-005. WHEREAS, the applicant, Nancy Spears, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning LLC, has requested the establishment of two (2) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the sending site located at 100 E. Bleeker Street, Lot K, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.535.070 which is as follows: I I 26.535.070, Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Ril!ht. A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finding all the following standards met: I I I I a) Tile Selldillg Site is a Historic Lalldmark 011 whicll tile developmellt of a sillgle-family or duplex residellce is a permitted use, pursuallt to ClIapter 26.710. Properties 011 wllicll sucll developmellt is a cOllditiollal use sllallllot be eligible. b) It is demollstrated tllat tile Selldillg Site lias permitted IlIIbuilt developmellt rigllts, for eitller a sillgle-family or duplex lIome, equalillg or exceedillg two-lI/11ldred ami fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by tile lIumber of Historic TDR Certificates requested. c) It is demollstrated tllat tile establislrmellt of TDR Certificates willllot create a 1I0llcOlrformity. 111 cases wllere 1I0llcollformity already exists, tile actioll slrallllot ill crease tile specific 1I0llcollformity d) Tile allalysis of IlIIbuilt developmellt rigllt sllallllot ollly ill elude tile actual built developmellt, allY approved developmellt order tile allowable developmellt rigllt prescribed by ZOllillg, alld sllallllot ill elude tile potelltial of tile Selldillg Site to gaill Floor Area bOil uses, exemptiolls, or similar potelltial developmellt illcelltives e) AllY developmellt order to develop Floor Area, beyolld tllat remaillillg legally cOllllected to tile property after establislrmellt of TDR Certificates, sllall be COllsidered lIull alld void. 1) The proposed deell restriction permanelltly restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amellded from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. I h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. I WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed and recommended approval of the application, finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.535.040 of the Municipal Code, the City Council may establish Historic Transferable Development Rights during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public and recommendations from the Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meets or exceeds all applicable standards and that the establishment of Historic Transferablc Development Rights 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: . Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26.535.030 and Section 26.535.070, and applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and I I I I I Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish two (2) Historic Transferable Development Rights of 250 square feet of Floor Area to the sending site located at 100 E. Bleeker Street, Lot K, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: I. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the city of Aspen shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site (100 East Bleeker Street, Lot K Block 65 City and Townsite of Aspen) by 500 square feet with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. I 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, dis1inct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. I I Section 5: A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 14th day of August, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10th day of July, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of August, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney I HAAS LAND PLANNING. LLC I I I I I I I I June 16,2006 Mrs. Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application for Establishment of Two (2) Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the Spears Sending Site (100 E. Bleeker Street) Dear Amy: Please consider this letter to constitute a formal request to establish 100 East Bleeker Street (Lot K, Block 65, City & Townsite of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number 2735-124-37-005) as a "Sending Site" for two (2) Historic TDR. The proposed sending site is a 3,000 square foot lot located at the northeast corner of Garmish and Bleeker Streets and is a designated Historic Landmark. The site is zoned R-6 and is surrounded by single family residences and the Yellow Brick School. The property is adjoined on three of its four sides by public rights-of-way: to the east is Garmish Street, to the north is an alley, and to the south is E. Bleeker Street. The adjacent property to the west is also a designated historic landmark. A vicinity map (not to scale) showing the location of the subject property is provided below. ii;"lwf_:r~"t.,",-;~, \"ll\C:~. ~.... -;%~iW:'iij,~'~~~~,~, .,,~,~,:-,~:._":,,;:;.,,"~ ,,~-~~,-~~r~ .,';,~,~: "."","!::,"..,:;:r... d'li!. ,i""""'. "~:;... .....';". il "i.m;;'-.... '. .........:=-.r.;E~jti'.'.V.:ii.. ~""'." ~.?f~i..~a;.:~~.:;.:'ll-~a;i~O: ~.~'~~k. ~)...~G;,,: ='" I &11..:11_.--1--.... .",""'''-1_. 'A spen'\COIB16HI:'~ ~ ; ~ V) -r" ,,~ / ',..,.., .;,_.w.._.~,>. "_ :..r_,__....:l.."". ..... ~ ;.. .... ',"" -.. "\ ";?,,,.,.g'i. $; )-'. Rio Gr.n~e \ -J il,. ..~ fi-'-T-.lt>-.--:JiJ~1I Fi~(1 -"'II' ~!' ' " , ' /'1 -""tEl-';5l' \'l' '%:'Gra/lt. ; 1lS4l1::L I ./82 I , . "-,,~~.'- ( ,.. T-"-I!.' I II I -,c.~ WfrlJlJr,l / ~Nts"ll(..". &f f', !1ilh {.41'e~C''?-~.;q !. ~~--+~.~Ln I . '~--l ,g;. J~---~~ I "'1~ t\ "'ii~_/ rit,41'E-~: .6);" ",,' ;,.j,' ,.,,,~,;.,E"G I Vicinity Map The allowable FAR floor area for a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district is 2,400sf, but since the HPC awarded the subject property a 500sf FAR bonus, 2,900sf of . 201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 108 . ASPEN. COLORADO' 81611 . PHONE: (970) 925-7819 . FAX: (970) 925.7395 . 100 E. Bleeker TDR Sending Site June 16, 2006 Page 2 af4 FAR floor area is allowed on the subject site. The applicant plans to sever 500sf of this allowable FAR from the site as a pair of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), pending approval to do so. Review Criteria for Establishment of a Historic TDR, Section 26.535.070 A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: A. The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.7/0. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. The proposed sending site is a 3,000 square foot lot located at the northeast corner of Garmish and Bleeker Streets and is a designated Historic Landmark. The site is zoned R-6 and single-family residential development is a permitted use. B. It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. The allowable FAR floor area for a 3,000 square foot lot in the R-6 zone district (such as the proposed sending site) is 2,400sf. In the subject case, the HPC awarded a 500sf FAR bonus with its conceptual approval of plans for work involving a remodel, addition, and historic restoration. Consequently, the total allowed FAR on the subject site is 2,900sf. Thc HPl.-approvecl plans ca 11 for o,",v,",lopment of less than 2,400sf of FAR; therefore, more than 500sf of FAR available for single-family residential use on the subject site will be unbuilt and can accommodate two (2) TDR worth 250sf each. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. Please refer to the response provided for the previous criterion. Development of the HPC-approved plans will use 1,900 square feet of base allowable FAR, plus the 500sf FAR bonus awarded by the HPC, This development conforms to the requirements of the R-6 Zone District, as varied by the HPC. Severing two TDR certificates worth 250sf each will not create or increase any nonconformities. D. The ana~ysis of unbuilt development right shall on~y include the actual built development, any approved development order, the allowable 100 E. Bleeker TDR Sending Site June 16, 2006 Page 3 of4 development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. Please refer to the response provided for the previous criterion. Existing conditions floor plans and Floor Area calculations have been prepared by Rally Dupps, AIA, of Consortium Architects. The plans and Floor Area calculations show a total built Floor Area of I, 790sf, of which 418sf are in a detached garage that is not afforded an exemption due to lack of alley access, and 1,3 72sf are in the residence. Development of the HPC-approved plans will use 1,900 square feet of base allowable FAR, plus most of the 500sf FAR bonus that has been awarded by the HPC. For purposes of this application, the allowable FAR on the subject site will decrease from 2,400sf to 1,900sf, exclusive of the site's already realized potential to gain Floor Area bonuses. E. Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. The property will not include development of Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to it after establishment of two TDR Certificates. Between the reduced base FAR of 1,900sf(remaining after severing two TDR) plus the FAR bonus awarded by the HPC, the approved development order will not involve any more Floor Area than permissible under this standard. F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance fur tl sillgle-fltlllily or duplex residence minus twu hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate all absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square .footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. The sending site will be deed restricted in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney such that it will be limited to 500sf less than the allowable Floor Area under applicable zoning, as may be amended from time to time, plus any potentially available Floor Area bunuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. The deed restriction will be executed and recorded simultaneous with the closing discussed in the next standard. 100 E. Bleeker TDR Sending Site June 16, 2006 Page 4 of4 G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The requirements of this standard have been read and understood by the applicant and her legal counsel. It is requested that the closing be scheduled for a date as soon after adoption of the approval ordinance as practicable. H. It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. The sending site property owner will provide building plans and a zoning analysis, to the extent required by the Community Development Director, with the building permit application set for development of the HPC approved plans. The building application permit set will clearly demonstrate that the project's total FAR will not exceed that allowed after severing of the two TDR. Existing built FAR is 1,790sfas demonstrated on the accompanying existing conditions floor plans. We hope the information and responses provided above prove helpful in your review, and we look forward to working with you toward approving this worthy application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please c10 not h~sit~t~ to c.ont~ct m~. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitch Haas, AICP Owner/Manager c: My Documents/City Applications/HPC ApplicationsfSpearslTDR Application Name; Address; Phone #; I I. Name: Address: Phone #; I I I I I '1 I , ~= ,.~ r I Land Use Application ~ THE em or As'EN PROJEcr: Name: Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description ofproperty) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2t~, !?~-:~;r- 005 E-mail;SCEI\.l~AOl..CO.".. Fax#: TYPE OF ApPLICATION: lease check all that a I ; o Historic Designation o Certificate of No Negative Effect CI Certificate of Appropriateness 0, -Minor Historic Development o -Major Historic Development . 0 -Conceptual Historic Development o -Final Historic Developmcnt o -Substantial Amendment o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) o Demolition (total demolition) o Historic Landmark Lot Split g f%\l?USt1lO~ ~i)ltlGSrr€ S6~ Aj'f>Uc1\1lcv:'l TeXT tf f'w ~G PROPOSAL: descri tion of ro osed build in s, uses, modifications, etc. ~ l\WL.tcA:1i~ lexig Pl..J.;N S~ ;5oBMnf€O fbIL tift:. ~A'::-S - June 15,2006 Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 Re: 100 East Bleeker Street (Lot K, Block 65, City & Townsite of Aspen; Parcel ID 2735-124-37-005) Establishment as a TDR Sending Site To whom it may concern: I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC, to submit and process an application for the above-captioned approval with respect to my property located at 100 East Bleeker Street. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address are provided in the application. Sincerely, N""'~" CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A=ment for Pavroent of City of Asoen Develoomeot Aoolication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Nancv M. Suears (hereinafrer APPLlCAND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLjCANT has submitted to CITY an application for ,S1\'i3U?l11..l6 II- lOR. %N.~1tl0 '7116 .. .. (hereinafter, TIlE PROJECD. 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of applicat{on completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agrce that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascenain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make paymeot of an initial deposit and to Olereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrnefollowing their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liqnidity and will make additional payments npon notification by the CITY when they arc necessary as costs are incnaed. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its fnll costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient infonnation to the Planning Commission andlor City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. L 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver ofilS right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 13.50."" which is for...2l.><' eft,) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of lbe application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit Such periodic payriierits shall be made within 30 dayS of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated ",ith case processing have been paid. I I i I CITY Of ASPEN Uy: Clii,. Bendo'! Conununity Development Director ~~~lLlCA:~#~<r Date: /' ry0.3Nr; Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number: /c CJ d~ ~ cJ ~4/.7lV1 , ---- 9~ j'YJ""J ,r'rJ , ~ g: \support\forros\agrpayas. doc 02/0J./06 I 1 I I ~ ~ "1 ~ - - ~.u ""~TI\I"""'n- llI:I--~...1lIlU; - . ~ t t.,. 00W0100 'N3dsv ,...."..,.. "'."'.- ,... ll:l~'""" '.... 'ill YO'" ~ l33l1.LS lI3>a31Ii lS\'3 OOt , f . N3dsv "0 3lJSNMcll 0N't Am ')f lOl 'OOllOO18 ~""t"Sta'Oll3:lll\ld [SI091/40Je] ,I 0) I 3:)N3a'S3~ S~\f3dS , ~ 11 c:::( LUnqJosuoo <:l 1 1 ~ I ....." f [PI ~ f ;:: I '" I B ~ {J 0 ~ I ~ 1 g ~ -g ~ i ~ I t I ~ I I i -.r , tl ~EB ~I - ~ - ll> ~ 0.. ...: ui 0 \0 " 8 '" S ~ :; ~ ...: 0; ui l;l 0 0 co '" Ol) - ~ =- 0 CIl CIl ~ c: ::E :;; ""' j '" <( g ~ ~ co co ~ E ..,. () iii co OJ ..,. 8 CIl '" <i oci @) ~ a:: :; ";I ~ oc ~ " '" \0 ~ 0 c: - c: '" '" N '" OCll", a:: 9'- Ol) 0; Q. It; w '- >.c ~ oCll a ~ 00/ Q.~- "c: ~ ., :g - Z1 ECIl'" 0>""' .s 5 CIl CIlc:'" - '" c: "0 ''OJ! 0 .. ~ a.;:: ~ o iE " ~ :r CIl >. '" ...: .He u 0 - ..., 0-.- ui :~ e~ ~ >: C) c:c:.c: 0 ~ 0> Z 00 0> Q. '" , ,.- 0> .c: '" '" ~ '" i= .f " O~NU) -fir.. :g '" 00 ....:"'"-: - U)N.~ .s c:l:;;;: '" uSU)....: lIJ ~ .c: ~ " 'I:: co N "">,,, C1J ~ ~ E co N . '" - Q.~ 0) ::J 13<(") '" C1J -" '" c: U) 0 I 1:J """'lO E &: ~oR= "'- 0 x .;.; -0> "" tS';cr' 0 '" .. II II N .~ 818gj':~l'! ~"" .. ~ .c e .. .s .;.; :go CDQ)lI Ol) 5 .,., ~ c ~ "'","", 19 lif'J ~,.....w~~::: . ~..... - i .. ~ l'!~o =15.co:3~~ > Ol) ~ \0 00 00 0.., Ol) "'OCll ~ 0:: 8.::?1Il Q. CIl IZU> C):z:o -""..-._-~..."""'''-_._......" MEMORANDUM VIIC TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~M THRU: FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: 403 West Hallam Street- Establishment of Two (2) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, First Reading of Ordinance # ~eries of 2006. DATE: July 10,2006 SUMMARY: The application before the City Council is for the establishment of two Historic Transferable Development Right (TOR) Certificates. Each TOR comprises 250 square feet of Floor Area. The purpose of a TOR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non-historic property within the City of Aspen. The program enables standard market forces, and the demand for residential Floor Area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. Funds that are gained from the sale of TORs may be invested back into the landmark. The proposed "sending site" is a miner's cottage constructed before 1893, and is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. The historic property comprises a 4,500 square foot lot located among a number of other Victorian era homes. The issuance of two TOR certificates to the sending site of 403 West Hallam Street, will remove a total of 500 square feet of developable Floor Area from the historic property, thereby reducing the base allowable FAR, as per zoning, (excluding bonuses) from 2,820 to 2,320 square feet. Staff recommends that City Council validate and issue two Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates (250 square feet of FAR each) to the "sending site" of 403 West Hallam Street. The review criteria are met and TOR certificates are a good tool for preserving a historic resource by reducing development pressure. APPLICANT: Stanley Gibbs and Mary Janss, owners. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-33-005. 1 ADDRESS: 403 West Hallam Street, Lots I and the east Y, of Lot H, Block 36, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: R-6, Residential , , " , TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) In order to complete the establishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights, the applicant shall meet the following requirements listed in Section 26.535.070 of the Aspen Land Use Code. Section 26.535.070 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. A Historic TOR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City .council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single- family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Staff Finding: The proposed 4,500 square foot sending site is located within the R-6 zone district, which allows residential single-family use. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark, listed on the Aspen InventtJry of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. Staff Finding: The subject property has a total allowable FAR of 3,170 square feet, comprising 2,820 square feet allowable FAR for a 4,500 square foot property in the R-6 zone district, and 350 square foot FAR bonus awarded by HPC. The applicant received HPC approval for a project that they have chosen to construct in phases. Phase 1, recently completed, has utilized 1,831.9 square feet of FAR, which provides 1338.1 square feet of remaining allowable FAR for a single-family residence. Two TORs of250 square feet each are eligible for establishment, which would reduce the remaining unbuilt FAR to 838.1 square feet to build out the approved design. c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 2 Staff Finding: The establishment of two TORs will not increase the existing non-conformity: the garage, an older structure, encroaches on the alley. No new non-conformities will be created. d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. Staff Finding: The total existing built FAR on the property is 1,831.9 square feet out of an allowable FAR of 3,170, which includes a 350 square foot FAR bonus. The granted FAR bonus is consumed by recent construction, and therefore counts toward the analysis of actual built development. Therefore, the allowable FAR on the subject property will decrease from 3,170 square feet to 2,670 square feet (after severing two TOR). HPC granted a 350 square foot FAR bonus for two main reasons. First the application, which included rehabilitation work and a sensitive new addition, met required criteria. HPC approved the FAR bonus on the finding that, when applied to the available FARon the site after the approved development, it will result in an FAR balance that can be sold in the form of two 250 square foot TORs, which may help to fund some of the restoration work. The code notes that the FAR bonus itself is not transferable, however this bonus has proven to be a valuable preservation incentive and prohibiting its award in cases where TORs are possible would be counterproductive. The award of an FAR bonus, which is determined at Conceptual Review, is taken very seriously by HPC. The board has required significant restoration work and high quality design efforts in order to qualify for this incentive. TORs such as those proposed will have the intended effect of removing square footage that would otherwise be built on the property to a less sensitive, non-historic, site. e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. Staff Finding: The property will not include any development order to develop Floor Area beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after the establishment of two TOR certificates. Between the reduced base FAR of2,320 square feet and the 350 square foot bonus, the approved development order will not involve any more Floor Area than permissible under this standard. f) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area 3 incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. Staff Finding: The applicant clearly states an understanding of this standard (f) in the application. g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Staff Finding: The application states that the requirements of section (g) are understood by the applicant. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. Staff Finding: The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of section (h). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance -2;-Series of 2006, the request for two Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the sending site located at 403 West Hallam Street on First Reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance ii3~eries of2006, upon first reading. " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Exhibit A - Application 4 ORDINANCE NO. .3,2.. (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING TWO (2) 250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATES FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 403 W. HALLAM STREET, LOTS I AND THE EAST Y, OF LOT H, BLOCK 36 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID #: 2735-124-33-005. WHEREAS, the applicant, Stanley Gibbs and Mary Janss, have requested the establishment of two (2) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the sending site located at 403 W. Hallam Street, Lot I and the East Y, of Lot H, Block 36, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal Code: Section 26.535.070 which is as follows: 26.535.070. Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable Development Riehl. A Historic TOR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finding all the following standards met: a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested. c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity d) The analysis of un built development right shall not only include the actual built development, any approved development order the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void. f) The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be requiredfor the confirmation of built Floor Area. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director reviewed and recommended approval of the application, finding that the applicable review standards have been met; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.535.040 of the Municipal Code, the City Council may establish Historic Transferable Development Rights during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public and recommendations from the Community Development Director; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meets or exceeds all applicable standards and that the establishment of Historic Transferable Development Rights 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as stated in Section 26.535.030 and Section 26.535.070, and applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and Section 2 The City Council does hereby establish two (2) Historic Transferable Development Rights of 250 square feet of Floor Area to the sending site located at 403 W. Hallam Street, Lots I and the east Y, of Lot H, Block 36, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: I. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish a date on which the respective Historic TOR Certificates shall be validated and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 2. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the city of Aspen shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TOR Certificates to the property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site (403 West Hallam Street, Lots I and the east II, of Lot H Block 36 City and Townsite of Aspen) by 500 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on the 14th day of August, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 10th day ofJuly, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14th day of August, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney . PROJECl': Name: Location: ParcellD # Land Use Application . TMB Cm OF AsPEN r/Ws)-IGI8B~ l2e:stPeNCe ,y'O:S W. ~ sr, fffpt:.7J Co q L-tL 3i LoT:r -r E' 'Iz-..' f/o-r H (Indicate street addniss. lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) (REQUIRED) :;735 -/:J-t/- Js-tJoS REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Address: Phone #: APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone #: s~tA;-Y ;11, GIBItS f- 111~1 .:J'7/7VS5 Lf.:J.~ W. ~ Jr. 1ls17e:N', C-o. ~/6IJ-/2.r/t./ I ' 97,}- w-2ft.Z-- Fax#: 77~f~..2.r-SfJ~'1-E-mail: 5 11, ikhs@.h . eo#! Fax#: E-mail: TYPE OF APPLICATION: check all that o Historic Designation o Certificate of No Negative Effect o Certificate of Apll1~ o -Minor Historic Development o -Major Historic Development o -Conceptual Historic Development o -FmaI Historic Development o -substantial Amendment o Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) o Demolition (total demolition) o Historic Landmark Lot Split ~ T1>~ EXlSTINGCONDmONS: R e.tJ-/e-1~ 1<7 !>-(, . . nof . . ~~ etc. e/"~ ~ ~ e. 2- C!...C1Z'r/'? ;C~ RETAIN fOR PERJAAMEMT ~ FEESDUE: $ 1'3~O.O-O , General Information . Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necesscvy, coordinate with other agencies that may be inVolved YES NO 1- tf o o o "f - ~ o ;c Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualifY for state or federal tax credits? )( If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential properties are not.) o If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check ail City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: o Rehabilitation Loan Fund 0 Conservation Easement Program 0 Dimensional Variances 0 Increased Density 0 Historic Landmark Lot Split 0 Waiver of Park Dedication Fees 0 Conditional Uses 0 Exemption from Growth Management Quota System )rrax Credits f'o,g w: /-Mu.-~ -::r~.> - c;I88S ~'!/1>f:7I/C.t;' Si"7'ffVt.-e:Y G/~'l:S ~o J vJ ~ ,fr.,t?&:,'7I/' . JMC))//14tA 'pe-V~/'rl ,e~~/.Dt;VT/~ ,ec. ~v'S. k _/ f7?) 4~ (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, ~, and steep slopes. Please refi:r to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on tbe submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) ExIsting: ExIsting: ExIsting: Proposed: ( Proposed: 3 Proposed: Commercial net leasable: Number of residential units: Number ofbedrooms: DJMENSlONS: (write nla where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: ExIsting: 1131.1 A.llowable: J..~ 2-tl Proposed: Heildrt Principal Bldg.: Aca:ss<<y Bldg.: On-Site parking: ExIsting: 20 I "3 ~ Allowable: ExIsting: Y jA-- Allowable: , ExIsting: I Required: ExIsting: Required: ExIsting: pin Required: " Front Setback: ExIsting: /6'. .iN Required: Rear Setback: ExlSting:&r.~quired: Combined Front/Rear: /(, I ~ Indicate N. S. E. W tv' ExIsting: It ~ 2Jlll Required: Side Setback: j['" ExIsting: ~~ Required: Side Setback: vJ ExIsting: :5 I Required: Combined Sides: ExIsting: 3 ' Required: Proposed % of demolition: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Distance between buildings: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: Proposed: ..I- ExIsting: .... Proposed: Required: Existing non-=:~~ encro~and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: a~ /P1...Ala ~. Variatia requested (identify the exact variances needed): BUILDING AREA HOUSE GROUND FLOOR: (943.9 SF EXTG.) AS PROPOSED: LlVING 1076.5 SF STORAGE 4.9 SF 1,081.4 SF'ITL 1,079.0 SF FAR 2ND FLOOR: (534.0 SF EXTG.) AS PROPOSED: LIVING 436.6 SF STORAGE 236.3 SF 672.9 SF TIL 554.8 SF FAR BASEMENT: ( 228 SF EXTG.) AS PROPOSED 966.3 SF AREA OF BASEMENT PERIM. 1,404 SF AREA OF EXPOSED BASEMENT = 133 SF = 9.5 % OF TOTAL AREA 966.3 SF'ITL 91.8 SF FAR ~: TOTAL HOUSE AREA 2,720.6 SF -V TOTAL HOUSE FAR 1,725.6 SF FAR TOTAL GARAGE AREA 462.6 SF 250 SF EXEMPT REMAINDER @ 50 % GARAGE FAR = 106.3 SF FAR ~ TOTAL FAR 1,831.9 SF ALLOW ABLE AREA: BASE ALLOW ABLE AREA : LOT AREA = 4,500 SF BASE ALLOW. AREA = 2,820 SF REMAINING BASE ALLOWABLE 988.1 SF BONUS UP TO 350 SF (PER HPC APPROVAL) REMAINING ALLOWABLE INCUDING BONUS 1338.1 SF Affadavit The undersigned owner of the property located at 403 W. Hallam St., Aspen, CO, acknowledges the following in relation to the issuance of historic TDR certificates established from this Sending Site: 1) A deed restriction will permanently encumber the Sending Site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of Historic TOR Certificates established from that Sending Site. 2) For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular Sending Site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of Floor Area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. 3) The Sending Site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the Historic TOR Certificate. By day of May, 2006, Witnessed by: My Commission Expires 03/28/2009 :..t. NELS , ()Y"':...........01- ~.~01'~A~,........ . . . , . . . . . . . . , :0 <l';.....~UB\..'5t...~ 'f..,,- ......... 0'<' .. "OFCO\.l 5\1'5'\ 0 Ie ~~Cb GvJa ~ p\~ DEED RESTRICTION THIS DEED RESTRICTION ("Agreement") is made as of the day of , 2006 by the Mary Janss 1992 Revocable Living Trust ("Declarant") for the benefit of the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ("City"). RECITALS A. Declarant owns certain real property, legally described as 403 W. Hallam St., BLK 36, LOT I and east half of LOT H, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (the "Property"). B. Concurrently with the execution ofthis Agreement and pursuant to Ordinance No. 50. Series of2004, the City is executing and delivering to Declarant two (2) separate Historic Transferable Development Rights, bearing Certificate Numbers~ 403 W. Hallam TOR No. I and 403 W. Hallam TOR No.2 (the "Certificates") evidencing the permanent severance from the Property of development rights in the amount of 500 square feet of Floor Area. C. In exchange for the issuance of said Certificates by the City, Declarant is prepared to deed restrict the Property to an allowable Floor ~ as such term is defined in the City Land Use Code, as amended (the "Code"), specified by the applicable zone district regulations applicable to the Property in the Code~," 1 'i0 "'l"~r" f_t gfFlogr Area gJ"'nt~~ the ASJ'f'n l:Iistonc PrP.P~'atjgD Committ! e, minus .. that amount of Floor Area pennanently severed from the properly, as stipulated above. Now, therefore, in consideration of the issuance of the Certificates to Declarant, and for other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Declarant agrees as follows: 1. Deed Restriction of Property. Declarant hereby permanently restricts the Property to an allowable Floor Area as described in Recital C above. 2. Covenants Running with the Land. Binding Effect: The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants that run with the title to the Property for the benefIt ofthe City, its successors and assigns, and shall be deemed appurtenant to the title to such lands. Response to Review Criteria for Establishment of a Historic Transferable Development Right, section 26.535.070 of Aspen Land Use Code. Project: 403 W. Hallam St, Aspen A) Sending site is on the list of historic properties. B) Current development will leave 1338 sq. ft. ofun-buiit FAR, which includes 350 sq. ft. granted by HPC during the review process. Two TOR certificates are being requested, which would leave 1338 - 500 = 838 sq. ft. FAR. C) Nonconformity?? D) The analysis does include the 350 sq. ft. previously granted by HPC because that FAR is being consumed by the current construction. E) Ok. F) This is understood. G) Ok. H) Ok. <<".u, H' XYl . 1"'-I1I:'.U 111 . n,,,O:l .....'1 . ..,n.-o-. .OJ 'UadsV 'WllHllH lSilM EOt a:maplSa'M SQQ19 - SSUl~f n 'II 0 .i :> I A D ~ IT I' II 11I1! Ii Iili I I I I Ii' . _ 'Ii M 1~~ II I _..JI.J ~ h _..JI.J ~ '- JI I II - II ~ ---u !I Ii IU I I I l~ II ! Ii' !ll IIII : III III mil I 'I II 10 ! Ii IIi! 1 I' I II,! l I,. I il Iii II L' ~ t'1 'I ,II I III . - tfl f-"rn I -";-H, .~=.k, --u " IIPl. [ I ~<' I IllllIi .... I! II!! T T III '1 11111 i, I dh W'.- II I Illll 'Iili! I ' ! I !!i !II 4-"-II!' I! II II .. I!.J I I I \ I I II I ~ I. ~ - -:: \ L _ _ _'- I / / 1 _ -;- - -!- 1 !. - -'- -!I I " I_ - ~ ~~"-L -I I -~ D HU. U' ... (vJ . Ill.' lIE. la 111 . UtllO;:O '..J,V . ." .~. 'O"d w 'OJ 'uadsv 'W-en-eH lsaM EOt>' a:maplSa'}l SQQ19 - SSUl~f n II 0 :I :) ^ T T I _ f W'--"- ~ Ij'l\ lihL I Ihl -.. .., ~ ..,~ ~ ~ .., ill 1,1 ,Ill .,.. ~..- ..: J "c OITJ " nidI! !! I!!! T [OJ! l----..-.-l [Be!! :IO]I" I I--...--J 'i h-J If !D:p1eill I[all" 111~; 1.1 I h.-1 I' I -- H I [e:::!!@ II iElElln H". H" IH XV. . ,.....U "" 11.L . u.lt 0:) 'v"'V . Iii .., .0-" Ow 'OJ 'uadsv 'urelll!H lsaM EOt a:maplSa'll sQQ19 - ssu-ef [J w n 11 0 i ~~ I -..-.-, ~. ~. ~ _.. .J! . ,( ~~ ~ < ~ ~ ~.._..- ..-..4 , A ~ lalll!!, d,l! ~~ I!!! I' ~~ I I I I ~ -..-..-W ~- ~ ffi ~ I I I ~ 'f' ~... .. ~ .. ~ I g f' II I !: WI I ~ i~11 .. .. .. -1...4):: ! " g I !l>g h~i I II!~ , . ,I !IIi 44 ~ L - - - I i ~ I I !I II . II h II I I ~ ~ I )t, -~- - '- ---:ti I \ D ..,,".Ii ,,, "Vl . IUo.."'" 1U . 1""03 ""'V' .U....O., !IIIIII J Ii!! nlf 'OJ 'u;}dsV 'm-en-eH lS;}M lOOt a:)uapISa}l sQQl9 - sSUl~f w n }l 0 :I , A ::> 4-. -- ~J, ! I ! _J ~ I - - - - I I !I I :;-,A i I h ~ I I < ~ " I '. I " I! 0 ~ L 4--.---- -----4 0 - - - - - -li- - -.J I ~~ . i I I . ~ il! ~ II I lIlh ! h III i II I II II -..ltrv- ~~ il !1 .' "' !' ;~ ~ ~ o i !Ihl !;!l!~ ~ I ~._--- --4 I I I . < H,,' oti OH lY. . IUO. ou 0'" 1lI..L . In" 0;) .....Y . Hi '0' .0.. [J 'OJ 'uadsv 'm-en-eH lsaM EOt ;):)U;)PlS;)~ sqql~ - sSUl~f ,!I I 'I! " il ~..-l-- I I I I I " n 11 0 :l I ~h! !I'! ~m ~1Y -, -.-.., . . . I I 44 , A ~ 1Y1Y + i 'V'-..--. ~ - -if' ~j ~r' .. ~ k ! ' ~- I I I I 44~ U[]] ! 11111 ! II!! ="1 I -li-"~ II ,; . ~ ~ -..-..4 'I :-.._..~ " ~ -, ! 1>". ~ ~ . -, I I .-..4 ---I I I L___ [J Uu . au .'" ~,,~ . IU I ... "'" U.1 . 11911 0:' . ....y . Iii '0' '0'. On' o 1111, llillh I! II!! 'OJ 'u;}dsV 'm-eI[-eH lS;}M EOt <}:>U<}PlS<}~ sqqlD - ssu-e[ w n 11 0 :I . ! 11 I " - -I . Iii iI., ,i "llIi"lllll,'11 'I '",l'l ,- Ii t.! '. II- 1!11!1!lllll!I!I!liliil!illli! ..II-~ )l~Iill9~<}00~l!lI'H" '" s.. 011"" 01 ~ '" '" Q D6l . i ~ ~ ~H~ ; . !" . · ! iI 'I: I . II ; IPlndjH!lii ,I 1111 IdI1lijHH!I!!IP !Llil lilll; I!,!dil,illl!!l ~w~u~$a~0~~~~ O~~l&&..~&.m.. . ! ! . I "II . I,ll! "' ! I !! 11m !! dlllm , ~l 18 u~!l ( ; . i ,111111 I III l!!idllillill """'1' I.' iillllLI II Ii c."Go,,- H ~ II g~ ^ J 1Y~ w-..- ~ . ~ -..-..-4>- -..-..-4} I I ! ~.._..- ..-..-4} I I . . . ~~~ TO: MEMORANDUM Vu I a. Mayor Klanderud and City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ James Lindt, Senior Planner 3L- THRU: FROM: RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006 -1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Consolidated ConceptuaI/FinaI PUD, Growth Management Review for Preservation of Significant Open Space ParceIs- Public Hearine DATE: July 10, 2006 ApPLICANT IOWNER: Leathem Stearn REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Horn Incorporated. LOCATION: 1001 Ute Avenue. CURRENT ZONING: Northernmost 2.7 acres is located in City's R-15 Zoning wi a PUD overlay. Southernmost 4.1 acres is located in Pitkin County's AFR-lO Zoning. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision approval to divide the existing parcel into six (6) separate parcels; two (2) of which are to contain single-family residences, one of which is to contain a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit, one of which is to contain the existing tennis courts used by the Gant, one of which is to contain a common driveway, and the other parcel is to be common open space. Photo Above: Property as seen from Ute Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the requests with a lower FAR than is being proposed for each of the single-family residential units in the subdivision. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the land use actions being requested. . LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant, Leathem Stearn, is requesting the following land use actions to develop two (2) single-family residences and a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit on the subject property: . Subdivision · Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD · Administrative Growth Management Review for Detached Single-family Unit · Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing · Growth Management Review for Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels . 8040 Greenline Review REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval of 8040 Greenline Review and a Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing. City Council shall be the final review authority on the Subdivision, Consolidated PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcel requests after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The administrative growth management review for the construction of a detached single-family residential dwelling unit shall be granted by the Community Development Director subject to obtaining final subdivision/PUD approval. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Leathem Stearn, requests Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, and associated Growth Management approvals to subdivide a 6.8 acre metes and bounds parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) parcels (24,851 and 30,058 square feet respectively) of land for the construction of two (2) single-family residences of 5,040 square feet of FAR each, a parcel for the development of a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit, a 24,677 square foot parcel that includes the tennis courts that are leased by the Gant on a long term basis, two (2) other common open space areas, and an open space parcel of approximately 178,000 square feet on which a conservation easement is to be placed. The map below identifies the different parcels that are proposed: 2 The fathering parcel to be subdivided is located in both the City and the County. The proposed 178,000 square foot parcel that is to contain a conservation easement is located entirely outside of the City limits. Subdivision review is required to divide the fathering parcel into the proposed parcels pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision. Additionally, the Applicant requires PUD approval because all portions of the fathering parcel that are located within the City limits contain a PUD overlay. The Applicant has requested consolidation of the Conceptual and Final PUD reviews, which had been granted by the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2), Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review, finding that the proposal has limited issues that would be typically addressed in the PUD process. A growth management approval to obtain one of the two (2) proposed single-family residential development allotments in exchange for placing a conservation easement on the area of land in the County of 178,000 square feet pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(0)(4), Growth Management Review: Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels, is also required. The other growth management allotment for the second single- family residence in the proposed subdivision requires an administrative growth management review for the development of a detached single-family dwelling unit pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(J), Administrative Growth Management Review: Detached single-family or duplex dwelling units. And finally, 8040 GreenJine approval and the approval of a Growth Management review for the Development of Affordable Housing was granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission to allow for the installation of the utilities and driveway improvements to the proposed single-family parcels since they are located within 150 feet of the elevation of 8040 feet above sea level and for the construction of the proposed affordable housing unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Proposed Dimensional Requirements: The proposed dimensional requirements for the entire PUD are as follows (Dimensional Requirements required to be established from the underlying zoning through the PUD process are shaded): Minimum Lot Area Per Dwellin Unit Minimum Front 15,000 SF 25 Feet 3 Minimum Off-Street Parkin 5,040 SF per each of the two (2) single-family residential dwelling units as calculated based on the City Land Use Code's methodology in affect at the time of building permit submittal. Additionally, 1,400 SF is to be allocated for the construction of the "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit. 2 Spaces per Residential Unit 5,040 SF per each of the two (2) single-family residential dwelling units as calculated based 2 Spaces per Residential Unit Develooment Rif!hts without Subdivision Aooroval: Staff believes that it is important for City Council to have an idea of what is allowed by right on the property subject to this application before commencing the review. If the Applicant were not to obtain approval of the proposed development application, the Applicant could still construct two (2) residential units on the portion of the fathering parcel that is located within the City, subject to 8040 Greenline Review approval. However, the allowable FAR for the two (2) units combined would be 7,419 square feet, or approximately 3,700 square feet per residential unit. Therefore, if the Applicant were to receive approval of the development as proposed, the Applicant would gain approximately 2,661 square feet of allowable FAR over what is currently allowed on the property. Subdivision/Consolidated PUD: The parcel of land to be subdivided has a storied history of land use requests that have never been constructed as is described in the application. These past land use requests have ranged from one single-family residence with an ADU to a four (4) lot subdivision consisting of eight (8) units. In 1986, a four (4) lot subdivision was denied because it did not meet the residential GMQS scoring threshold that was in place at the time. Subsequently in 1989, conceptual PUD approval was granted for two (2) single-family residences and an ADU. Later in 1989, an 8040 Greenline approval was granted for one single-family residence and an ADU on the site. And finally, 1990 approvals for a lot split and final PUD development plan were granted for the construction of two (2) single-family dwelling units and two (2) ADUs. A primary discussion item of the past development applications on the site included the scale of buildings that would be built on the parcel. In reviewing the subdivision and consolidated PUD requests, Staff is concerned about the amount of allowable FAR that is being proposed for each of the single-family residences in the development because the proposed residences 4 will likely be very visible from Ute Avenue. Both the subdivision and the PUD review standards require the proposed development to be compatible and in character with the development on surrounding parcels. As was described above, the Applicant has proposed an allowable FAR of 5,040 square feet per residential parcel. The Applicant came up with an allowable FAR of 5,040 square feet per residence by taking the total lot size attributed to the proposed residential development and removing the lot area that is over 20% slopes for slope reduction. After coming up with the total lot size for the two (2) parcels after slope reduction, the Applicant divided this lot area by the two (2) parcels and calculated the allowable FAR based on the underlying R-15 Zone District requirements. In order to determine compatibility with the neighborhood and to get a sense of the residence sizes in the immediate area, Staff reviewed building permit files and land use approval documents to obtain the allowable F ARs for the surrounding properties (spreadsheet and map attached as Exhibit "C" in 1 st Reading Packet). Development of single-family residences in the Hoag Subdivision located directly to the east of the adjacent Ajax Park mostly allow for around 5,000 square feet of FAR before slope reduction is taken into account, and average around 3,830 square feet of FAR after slope reduction is accounted for. The allowable FAR for the residences to the west of the proposed subdivision along Ute Avenue range between 2,700 square feet and 3,200 square feet. Finally, the single-family residences in the Aspen Chance Subdivision located to the southwest of the subject property have an average allowable FAR of 5,400 square feet. That said, Staff believes that City Council has four (4) justifiable options for allocating allowable FAR to the proposed parcels, which are outlined in the chart below: Allowable FAR Methodology Options 5,040 SF per Based on underlying R-15 Zone District Requirements. residence 5,400 SF per single- Average allowable FAR for single-family residences in the family residence neighboring Aspen Chance Subdivision. 3,830 SF per Maximum allowable FAR for the smaller lots (1095,1105,1115, and residence 1125 Ute Ave) in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision located along Ute Avenue. 3,000 SF per Average of the allowable FAR for the three (3) parcels (961, 971, and residence 991 Ute Ave) directly west of the subject property on Ute Avenue. Staff believes that the proposed subdivision would be more consistent with the surrounding development if the allowable FAR was limited to below the proposed 5,040 square feet for each of the single-family residences to be built within the subdivision. Staff feels that the dynamics of the proposed residences will be more consistent with that of the residences in the Hoag Subdivision than the houses in the Aspen Chance Subdivision because they will be significantly visible from Ute A venue, like the nearby Hoag Subdivision lots. Staff supports limiting the FAR below the proposed 5,040 square feet due to the likely visibility of the residences. The proposed ordinance represents the Applicant's request for 5,040 square feet on each of the single-family residential units. The majority of the Planning 5 and Zoning Commission felt that the 5,040 square feet per residence as is proposed was the most justifiable option because it represents the underlying allowable FAR for the new parcel sizes being proposed. Many of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners also felt that there was a better spatial relationship between the proposed subdivision and the Aspen Chance Subdivision than there was between the proposed subdivision and the Hoag Subdivision. Growth Manaf!ement Allotment for Preservation of County Parcel: As was described earlier in this memorandum, the Applicant has proposed to place a conservation easement on the portion of the fathering parcel that is located within Pitkin County, preserving this land against future development. In exchange for preserving the 178,000 square feet of land against future development, the Applicant has requested that the City grant one of the two (2) single-family residential development rights being proposed. The Open Space Acquisition Board has indicated that they are in support of preserving the land against future development (please see letter attached as Exhibit "0" in I st Reading Packet). Additionally, the land slated for conservation is identified as private land with conservation value on the "open space and trails map" and on the "future land use composite map" in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as was discussed previously. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings on this matter, the Pitkin County Planning Staff expressed that they believe the fathering parcel only has a total of one development right and that if the Applicant uses that development right inherent to the fathering parcel on the first single-family residence being proposed in the subdivision, the portion of the fathering parcel in the County would have no development right to exchange (please see e-mail attached as Exhibit "E" from Pitkin County Community Development Deputy Director, Lance Clarke). The County Planning Staff expressed that in the proposed scenario, the Applicant could possibly gain a single-family development right, but that they would have to apply through the County's growth management competition to gain such a development right. The City Planning Staff agrees with the County Staff that there is only one inherent development right on the parcel that would be used up in the proposal for the construction of the first single-family residence in the subdivision. Since the County did not believe that there is an inherent development right to the fathering parcel for both the portions of the parcel that are in the City and the County respectively, Staff could not support providing the Applicant an additional single-family development right without providing employee housing mitigation for the free-market development right at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. However, during the fmal Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the Applicant consented to providing a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit of 1,400 square feet to mitigate for the second free-market residential dwelling unit. Therefore, Staff now believes that the combination of placing the conservation easement on the upper portion of the site and the employee housing mitigation being provided in the Category 4 affordable housing unit is sufficient community benefit to be gained in exchange for the second free-market development right in the subdivision. 6 Compliance with AACP: Staff feels that the proposed subdivision/consolidated PUD would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) if a change were required to the proposal. This change to make the proposed subdivision compatible with the AACP, would be to limit the allowable FAR for the proposed single-family residential units in order to be consistent with the allowable FAR in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision as was discussed above. The proposed uses for the different parts of the fathering parcel are consistent with the AACP's "future land use map" and "open space and trails map". The proposed subdivision would further protect the natural environment by preserving the upper portion of the subdivision against future development by placing the land to remain in Pitkin County under a conservation easement. Placement of Buildinf! Envelopes: The Applicant has proposed to locate the building envelopes for the two (2) single-family residential units so that they are on the flattest portions of the fathering parcel. However, even the areas proposed for the building envelopes have considerable slopes and are going to require considerable grading to flatten them to accommodate the proposed single-family development. Staff believes that the Applicant is proposing to locate the building envelopes in the best area possible on the fathering parcel for development. The only portion of the property that has more moderate grades than the building envelope is the area that was graded in the past for the tennis courts. The Applicant has proposed for detailed grading plans on the individual building envelopes be provided in conjunction with an 8040 greenline review application for each of the single-family residences on the site as is required by the proposed resolution. Subdivision Related to Tennis Court: The application indicated that the Gant's long-term lease of the tennis courts that is in place until the year 2083 constitutes a subdivision. The City Attorney believes that the lease of the tennis courts to the Gant constitutes an illegal subdivision that should be cleaned up as part of this subdivision application. Therefore, the proposed resolution includes provisions for legally subdividing off the area ofland on which the tennis courts are to be relocated. Drivewav: The Applicant is proposing a common driveway to the residential properties to be accessed from Ute Avenue that winds its way east of the relocated tennis courts. Due to the topography of the parcel, the driveway will start out with a moderate 4 percent grade and increase to a 12 percent before the driveway reaches the proposed single-family residential parcels. Additionally, a hammerhead fire truck turnaround is proposed near the top of the driveway. A substantial retaining wall of approximately 14 feet tall would be needed to support the driveway. The Fire Marshall has indicated that the proposed fire truck turnaround meets his requirements, but that the driveway would have to be snowmelted and that the snowmelt system would have to be on all of the time during the winter to serve the properties. As far as the visual impact of the proposed retaining wall is concerned, the Applicant is proposing to plant a series of Colorado Blue Spruce trees on the north side of the wall to screen it from 7 being viewed from Ute Avenue. Additionally, the tennis courts are proposed to be relocated between Ute A venue and the retaining wall for the driveway to further screen the wall from Ute A venue. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the driveway be snowmelted and requiring that the subdivision covenants include that the snowmelt system shall remain active during the winter months in perpetuity so that property can be served by the Aspen Fire Protection District. Staff has further required a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that the north side of the retaining wall be developed in a neutral color to blend into the hillside. Mine Tailinl!s and Soil Stability: Much of the fathering parcel consists of mine tailings and potentially hazardous soils. Staff has proposed conditions or approval in the resolution requiring measures that are similar to mitigation requirements that were typically required of those properties in the former Smuggler Superfund site before it was delisted. Wildfire Mitil!ation: The Fire Marshall has recommended that the Applicant be required to meet the Colorado Defensible Space standards to mitigate for forest fire danger on the proposed residential units. Staff has reinforced this requirement in the proposed conditions of approval. The Colorado Defensible Space standards require an area around the residential units be cleared of vegetation to reduce the initiation and spreading of forest fires. This requirement should not cause significant disturbance to vegetation since the building envelopes being proposed are on mine tailings that do not generate significant natural vegetation. Rock Fall and Avalanche Mitil!ation: The engineering reports that have been provided for the site show that there may be debris flows from Spar Gulch on the lower portion of the site. However, the Applicant has represented that the proposed residential units are to be constructed above the area to be impacted by the aforementioned debris flows. Additionally, the Applicant's engineer believes that there may be minor rock fall potential in the areas of the proposed building envelopes, but that the nature of the rock formations and the dense vegetation above the proposed building envelopes reduce the exposure of the proposed residences to rock fall hazards. That said, the Applicant's engineer has recommended that I) the rear foundation walls should be designed to extend at least four (4) feet above finished grade and that 2) the residences be designed without doors or windows on the upslope facing side. Alternatively, the Applicant's engineer has recommended that the Applicant could create a wall or berm at the rear of the yard before the break in slope of at least four (4) feet tall. Staff has included a condition in the proposed resolution requiring that all houses to be developed within the subdivision shall follow the Applicant's engineer's recommendations related to rock fall mitigation. Possible avalanche hazards also exist. The application includes an avalanche hazard report. The report indicates that if the dense forest were not in existence above the proposed building sites, they would be subject to avalanche danger. However, the Applicant's avalanche expert indicated that the mature forest above the proposed residence sites should protect the residences from serious hazard. The avalanche expert did recommend that there only be small or no windows placed on the uphill side of the residences or that a protection walllberm 8 of at least four (4) feet tall be constructed. Staff has reinforced this recommendation as a condition of approval in the proposed resolution. Location of Trail Easement: The City of Aspen Parks Department would like the Applicant to grant a trail easement across the southeastern corner of the proposed eastern single-family residential parcel to accommodate the trail down to the adjacent Ajax Park. The Applicant has indicated that they would be willing to grant a trail easement as the Parks Department has requested. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that a twelve (12) foot wide trail easement be granted to the Parks Department across the southeast corner of the eastern single-family parcel prior to recording a subdivision plat. Improved Pedestrian Access to Tennis Courts: Since the Applicant has proposed to relocate the existing tennis courts approximately 30 feet to the west of their current location to make way for the proposed driveway, the City Building Department is requiring that the Applicant revise the sidewalk from Ute Avenue to the tennis courts to meet the accessibility requirements. This will require regrading the sidewalk because the existing slope is too extreme to meet accessibility requirements. School Land Dedication: The application is subject to school land dedication for the addition of the residential units to be developed within the proposed subdivision pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Land Dedication. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of dedicating land. The amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment is based on the following equation: Cash Payment=Market Value of the Land Proposed for Subdivision x Land Dedication Standard (based on number of bedrooms proposed) x 0.33 The dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated based on the number of bedrooms being proposed within the subdivision, which is still an uncertainty. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for the first residence in the subdivision. Staff has proposed a condition of approval, ensuring that the school lands dedication fee will be paid. Thus, staff believes that the proposal will meet the land dedication standard. Park Development Impact Fee: Development within the subdivision is subject to a park development impact fee upon construction of new residential bedrooms or commercial/office space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring that the applicable park development impact fee be paid prior to obtaining a building permit for new development within the subdivision based on the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030 at the time of building permit issuance. First Readinf! Issues: At first reading of the ordinance, the Mayor requested information about how the City can be approving an application that deals with land that is in Pitkin County. To clarify this concern, the City is not being asked to approve development in the County. All of the development that is proposed is within the City limits. The only portion of this application 9 that deals with the part of the property that is located within the County is the request for the conservation easement. The City Planning Staff consulted with the County's Community Development Deputy Director, Lance Clarke, prior to the application being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Clarke indicated that the placement of a conservation easement on the portion of the property located within the County would be an administrative action (please see e-mail attached as Exhibit "E). The County was primarily interested in the fact that the conservation easement would prohibit future development on the property in the County and Clarke expressed that they wanted to review the conservation easement language to ensure that it prohibited future development before it was recorded. Staff has included a condition requiring review of the conservation easement language by the County prior to recordation. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Streets Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed subdivision and their comments have been included as conditions of approval as deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has concerns about the proposed FAR of 5,040 square feet for each of the single- family residences in terms of neighborhood compatibility. That said, Staff believes that the conservation easement and the detached, "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit provides a considerable amount of community benefit. If City Council agrees with Staff that the development is only consistent with the surrounding development if the allowable FAR is capped below the 5,040 square feet per residential parcel being proposed, City Council could amend the allowable FAR in the dimensional requirements table in Section 3 of the proposed ordinance. The ordinance represents the dimensional requirements that have been requested in the application. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the proposed Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD requests. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution was attached as Exhibit "G" in the 1st Reading Packet and the minutes from their review are attached hereto as Exhibit "I". CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "} move to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the 8040 Greenline Review and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the 1001 Subdivision, Consolidated PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels to divide the property at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential parcels for single-family residential development, a parcel for the development of a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit, and three (3) separate common areas." 10 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application (Provided in I st Reading Packet) Exhibit C -- Neighboring FAR Spreadsheet and Vicinity Map (Provided in 1 st Reading Packet) Exhibit 0 -- Letter from Open Space Acquisition Board (Provided in 1 st Reading Packet) Exhibit E -- E-mail from Pitkin County Community Development Deputy Director Exhibit F -- Referral Comments (Provided in 1 st Reading Packet) Exhibit G -- P & Z Resolution (Provided in 1 st Reading Packet) Exhibit H -- Letters from Public (Provided in I sl Reading Packet) Exhibit I -- Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes II ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION REVIEW, CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, AND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE PRESERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS FOR THE 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDlVSION, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ParcelID: 2737-182-00-063 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Leathem Steam, owner, represented by Davis Horn Incorporated, requesting approval of Subdivision, Consolidated Conceptual/Final Planned Unit Development, 8040 Greenline Review, Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties and four (4) separate common open space areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(I), Detached Single-family and Duplex Dwelling Units, the Community Development Director approved a Growth Management Review for the construction of one single-family dwelling unit, conditioned upon approval of the other associated land use actions requested; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2), Consolidated Conceptual and Final Review, the Community Development Director consented to allow for the development application to be reviewed as a consolidated PUD review because of the anticipated limited scope of issues involved with the review; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable sections of the land use code, the Community Development Director has reviewed the requested land use actions and recommended denial of the growth management review for the preservation of significant open space parcels and that a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of only 3,830 square feet be allowed per residential lot; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 4, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to April 18, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on April 18, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing on this application to May 2, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the development application to include the development of a Category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate for the second free- market residential unit in the subdivision; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on May 2, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 16, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, approving with conditions an 8040 Greenline Review, a Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, Subdivision Review, Consolidated ConceptuallFinal PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential properties, a parcel for the development of a Category 4 AH unit and four (4) separate common areas, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision and approved Ordinance No. --' Series of 2006,by a to L---.J vote, approving with conditions, the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision, Consolidated ConceptuallFinal PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels; 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions, a Subdivision Review, Consolidated ConceptuaVFinal PUD, and a Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels for the 1001 Ute Avenue Subdivision to divide the parcel at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) single-family residential properties, a property for the development of a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit and four (4) separate common areas, subject to the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Approved Development Development of two (2) free-market single-family residential dwelling units and the development of one ADU on Lot I, and the development of a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit, the relocation of the existing tennis courts approximately thirty (30) feet to the west of their current location, along with the necessary road improvements to access the residential lots are hereby approved subject to the terms of this ordinance. Section 3: Dimensional Reauirements The approved dimensional requirements are as follows: Dimensional Approved Requirement Dimensional R~uirements Minimum Lot Size Lot 1- 24,850 SF Lot 2~ 30,060 SF Common Area I Open Spacer 20,860 SF Common Area 2 Open Spacer 24,860 SF Common Area 3 Access EasemenF 15,290 SF Common Area 4 Open Space~ 920 SF Minimum Lot Width 25 Feet for Common Area 2 Qpen Space Minimum Lot Area 31,655 SF in PUD Per Dwelling Unit Minimum Front Per Building Envelope Yard Setback Minimum Side Yard Per Building Envelope Setback Minimum Rear Yard Per Building Envelope Setback Maximum Height 25 Feet as measured from finished grade Allowable External 5,040 SF per each of the FAR two (2) single-family residential dwelling units as calculated based on the City land use code methodology in affect at the time of building permit submittal. Additionally, 1,400 SF is allocated for the development of a "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit. Minimum Off-Street 2 Spaces per Residential Parking Unit Section 3: Subdivision/PUD Plat and Aereement The Applicant shall record a subdivisionlPUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code within 180 days of approval. The Plat shall contain the property boundaries, easements, and the building envelopes. Section 4: 8040 GreenIine Review The 8040 Greenline approval granted herein is only for the road serving the single-family residence parcels and the relocation of the tennis courts. Prior to applying for building permits on the two (2) free-market residential units or the associated accessory dwelling units within the subdivisionlPUD, an 8040 Greenline Review on the specific residence designs shall be applied for and approved pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review. Section 5: Residential Desil!:D Standards The two (2) single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivision shall be required to meet the applicable City of Aspen Residential Design Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Section 6: Affordable Housine Mitieation The Applicant shall either pay a cash-in-lieu fee normally associated with single-family residential development in the City of Aspen or build an ADU for the single-family dwelling unit to be constructed on Lot I of the subdivisionlPUD pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(B)(I), Detached single1'amily or duplex dwelling units. ADUs to be constructed shall meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. A "for sale", Category 4 affordable housing unit consisting of a minimum of 1,400 square feet of net livable space shall be constructed to mitigate for the free-market residential dwelling unit to be constructed on Lot 2 of the subdivision. Section 7: Conservation Easement The Applicant shall deed the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to be placed under a conservation easement to the City of Aspen. Subsequently, the City of Aspen shall record a conservation easement to be held by a third party on the 4.1 acres of the fathering parcel to remain in Pitkin County, that will be sterilized in perpetuity against future development in exchange for one of the two (2) single-family development rights within the subdivision. The property shall be deeded to the City and the conservation easement document shall be recorded prior to submission for an access/infrastructure permit on the common driveway improvements within the subdivisionlPUD. The conservation easement document shall be reviewed by the Pitkin County Community Development Department prior to recordation. Section 8: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.630.030, School Lands Dedication: Dedication Schedule. Section 9: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any construction within the subdivision that adds new residentialJIodge bedrooms and/or commercial/office square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule. Section 10: Soil Subsidence. Rock Fall. and Avalanche Hazards The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development in conjunction with the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual residences proposed within the subdivisionlPUD. The designs for the single-family residences within the subdivisionlPUD shall comply with the recommendations of the Applicant's Avalanche Specialist, Peter Lev, which is that there shall only be small windows with shutters or no windows proposed on the uphill side of the residences. Altematively, a four (4) foot reinforced wall could be constructed above the residences to block snow slides. The residence designs shall also comply with the recommendations of the Applicant's Geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, which is that rear foundation wall shall be at least four (4) feet above finished grade and be without windows and doors on the uphill side of the residences. Section 11: Mine Waste The Applicant shall provide a mine waste testing and handling plan to the City prior to submitting a building permit application on either of the residences, that complies with the following conditions of approval regarding development in an Environmentally Sensitive area and handling of any hazardous or toxic soils encountered on the property pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: a. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be stored above ground shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or other protective barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil. Disturbed soil or material need not be removed if the City's Environmental Health Department finds that: I) the excavated material contains less than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total lead, or 2) that there exists a satisfactory method of disposal at the excavation site. Disturbed soil and solid waste may be disposed of outside of the site upon acceptance of the material at a duly licensed and authorized receiving facility. b. Non-removal of contaminated material. No contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. c. Dust suppression. All activity or development shall be accompanied by dust suppression measures such as the application of water or other soil surfactant to minimize the creation and release of dust and other particulates into the air. d. Vegetable and flower gardening and cultivation. No vegetables or flowers shall be planted or cultivated within the boundaries of the site except in garden beds consisting of not less than twelve (12) inches of soil containing no more than .999- ppm lead. e. Landscaping. The planting of trees and shrubs and the creation or installation of landscaping features requiring the dislocation or disturbance of more than one cubic yard of soil shall require the same measures outlined in sub-sections a, b, c, f and g. f. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock that is either disturbed or exposed shall be contained on the property such that runoff does not exit the property or contaminate clean soils existing elsewhere on the property. g. Any contaminated soil or mine waste rock to be left on-site shall be placed under structures or pavement. Soils used in landscaped areas or engineered fills shall be covered by a minimum of I foot of clean soil that contains less than 1,000 ppm lead. Section 12: Fire Mitieation Fire sprinkler and alarm systems that meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be installed in each of the single-family residences to be constructed within the subdivisionlPUD. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. The residences to be designed and constructed within the subdivision/PUD shall meet the Colorado Defensible Space Standards. Compliance with the Colorado Defensible Space Standards shall be verified as part of the 8040 Greenline Review process on the individual residences. Section 13: Drivewav Construction The driveway shall be constructed to the grades that are proposed in the application and shall not exceed twelve (12) percent at any point. A hammerhead fire truck turnaround meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be installed as proposed in the application. The common driveway shall be snowmelted and the Homeowner's covenants shall contain language requiring that the snowmelt remain active and turned on at all times during the winter months of October to April. An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to commencing any grading or construction activities related to the installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels. A geotechnical report shall be submitted as part of the access/infrastructure permit application. Section 14: Landscapine The Applicant shall install landscaping that is consistent with the landscaping plan that is proposed in the application for screening of the retaining wall. A tree removal permit and tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the City of Aspen Parks Department prior to commencing construction activities related to the subdivision access improvements. Additionally, individual landscaping plans for the residential parcels shall be submitted and reviewed by the City Parks Department as part of the 8040 Greenline Review applications for the individual residences. The Applicant shall provide a financial security to ensure the completion of the landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan in the application is completed prior to a building permit application being submitted on any of the residential units within the subdivision. Section 15: Relocation of Tennis Courts The Applicant shall relocate the existing tennis courts prior to or in conjunction with the installation of the common driveway to the residential parcels within the subdivisionlPUD. An access/infrastructure permit shall be applied for and approved prior to the commencement of construction activities related to relocating the tennis courts. The pathway from Ute Avenue to the relocated tennis courts shall be improved to comply with applicable ADA accessibility requirements. Section 16: Trail Easement The Applicant shall grant a public trail easement to accommodate the existing Ajax Trail if it is found to be located outside of the existing trail easement in areas. Additionally, the Applicant shall grant a permanent public trail easement meeting the approval of the City of Aspen Parks Department along the eastern corner of single-family residential Lot 1 in order to accommodate a pedestrian trail from the Ajax Trail down to Ajax Park prior to recordation of the final subdivisionlPUD plat. Section 17: Water Department Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. The Applicants shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Section 18: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicants shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. The sanitary sewer lines serving the residential properties within the subdivision shall be constructed out of a yellowmite material since adequate separation between the water and sewer lines cannot be maintained under the common driveway. If a glycol heating and snowmelt system is to be installed, the glycol storage areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to installation. Section 19: Vested Ril!:hts The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1001 Ute Avenue, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council. Section 20: 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 construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 21: 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 22: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 10th day of July, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 10th day of July, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit "A" Subdivision REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area of town, which should encourage the residents to use alternative means of transportation such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would place a perpetual conservation easement over the 4.1 acres of land to preserve it from future development. Additionally, the area of land to be preserved was identified as private land with conservation value on the future land use map in the AACP. Finally, the Applicant has proposed to develop a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit as is consistent with the AACP's goals related to the private sector participating in the development of affordable housing and integrating the development of affordable housing with other uses. However, as was discussed in the memorandum, Staff is concerned about allowable FAR being proposed for the single-family residences and believes that a reduction in the proposed FAR warrants discussion. Staff does not find this criterion to be met because Staff feels like the FAR being proposed is a little too large to be compatible with the neighborhood. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the allowable FAR of 5,040 square feet being proposed for each of the single-family residences is consistent with the size of other residences in the immediate neighborhood that are visible from Ute A venue as Staff believes these residential units will be. Therefore, Staff has recommended that the Applicant be required to reduce the allowable FAR below the proposed 5,040 square feet being proposed. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the allowable FAR is reduced to approximately 3,830 square feet each to be more consistent with the neighboring Hoag Subdivision residences. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the future development of surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. 12 Staff Finding As has been discussed throughout this memorandum, with the exception of the proposed FAR, Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the applicable requirements in the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the allowable FAR were to be reduced to be more compatible with the neighborhood. B. 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 Staff believes that the properties are suitable for subdivision if the conditions of approval that are proposed in the ordinance are adhered to. There are possible geologic, rockslide, and avalanche hazards on the site, but the Applicant's engineers have made recommendations as to methods of mitigating for these hazards. Staff has reinforced these recommendations in the proposed conditions of approval. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the conditions of approval proposed ordinance are adhered to and complied with. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. 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 26.520, 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 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. 13 Staff Finding The application does not propose to replace any existing dwelling units on the site. The application has further requested the necessary growth management allocations for the proposed single-family residences within the subdivision and Staff now believes that the review criteria are met for granting the necessary growth management allotments now that the Applicant has amended the application to include the development of a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land. In this instance, the amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment cannot be determined at this time because there is not a specific plan for each of the residences that are proposed to be constructed within the subdivision. Therefore, the dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated based on the number of bedrooms being proposed in the subdivision, which is still an uncertainty. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Thus, Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management ApprovaL Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, * 2) Staff Finding The application has requested the necessary growth management allocations for the proposed single-family residences within the subdivision and Staff believes that the review standards for the growth management review being requested are met by the proposal. If the necessary growth management review is approved, Staff finds this criterion to be met by the proposal. 14 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS In accordance with Section 26.445.050 of the Land Use Code, an application requesting conceptual PUD approval requires that the following review standards be met. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area of town, which should encourage the residents to use alternative means of transportation such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would place a perpetual conservation easement over the 4.1 acres of land to preserve it from future development. The area of land to be preserved was identified as private land with conservation value on the future land use map in the AACP. However, as was discussed in the memorandum, Staff feels that the proposed FAR for each of the single-family residential units is a little large to be compatible with the residences in the immediate neighborhood. Staff would find this criterion to be met if the proposed FAR were to be scaled down. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the allowable FAR of 5,040 square feet being proposed for each of the single-family residences is consistent with the size of other residences in the immediate neighborhood that are extremely visible from Ute Avenue. Staff has recommended that the allowable FAR for each of the single-family residences be reduced to be more consistent with the allowable FAR of residences in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the allowable FAR for the proposed residences were to be reduced to be more compatible with the residences in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed request will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. 15 Staff Finding As is described in the growth management implications section of this memorandum, the Applicant has concurrently requested the necessary growth management allotments to construct the two (2) proposed single-family residences within the subdivision. Staff believes that the review standards for the associated growth management review are satisfied by the proposal. If the growth management allotment for the second single-family residence in the subdivision is granted, Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural and man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding As is discussed throughout the staff memo, Staff does not believe that the proposed allowable FAR for the two (2) single-family residences is consistent with the allowable FAR in the surrounding neighborhood for those residences that are highly visible from Ute Avenue. Instead, Staff is of the opinion that the allowable FAR should be for the two (2) proposed single-family dwelling units should be reduced to be more consistent with the allowable FAR in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. Related to natural hazards, Staff believes that the Applicant's engineers have proposed acceptable means to mitigate for the avalanche and rock fall hazards that exist on the site. Staff has further reinforced with conditions of approval, the mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant's engineers. As far as natural characteristics of the site are concerned, there is steep topography on the site, but the Applicant appears to have proposed the building envelopes on the portion of the site that will be the flattest after regrading and removing the mine tailings. A large portion of the site, which was recognized by the Open Space Acquisition Board as significant area with conservation value is also proposed to be placed under a conservation easement to protect it against future development. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the allowable FAR for the proposed two (2) single-family dwelling units are limited to be more consistent with the allowable FAR of the residences in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. 16 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding As was discussed above, Staff believes that the proposed FAR for the single-family residences within the PUD need to be limited to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. However, Staff feels that the amount of open space and limited site coverage of building envelopes being provided within the PUD is a positive attribute of the PUD. Over four (4) acres of land is being preserved against future development under a conservation easement as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the allowable FAR for the proposed residences were to be limited to be more consistent with the allowable FAR of the residences in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) 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. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed to meet the off-street parking requirements of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding Staff believes that sufficient infrastructure capabilities exist to accommodate the proposed development. The City of Aspen Fire Marshall, the City's Public Works Director and a representative from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and have proposed conditions of approval to mitigate for any insufficiencies. Additionally, the Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed application and has indicated the hammerhead fire truck turn-around is sufficient to meet their service needs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: 17 _.~,,-~--------'~''"--~. a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) 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 Staff does believe that the parcel has possible rock fall and avalanche hazards. However, the Applicant's engineers have proposed methods of mitigating those hazards as are being reinforced as conditions of approval. The proposed driveway will require a significant retaining wall as was discussed earlier in the memorandum. The Applicant has proposed to screen from view with substantial tree plantings between it and the tennis courts. Additionally, the fencing on the tennis courts will also shield the retaining wall from Ute A venue to an extent. The Applicant will also be required to submit a drainage plan at the time of building permit submittal that demonstrates that there will not be an increase in the historic runoff from the proposed PUD. The City's Environmental Health Department has also reviewed the proposed development and has expressed that the two (2) single-family residences will not have a significant pemicious effect on the air quality within the City due to the limited density and the fact the driveway will have to be paved given the steep slope. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. 18 .~_..._~" ,~"~'~--'--'-'~'--"'~-- Staff Finding The Applicants are not requesting to increase the allowable density through the proposed PUD. In the past reviews of development on this site, the main concerns have been about placing too much density on the site. Staff finds that this review standard to be met. B. Site Design: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed to place a conservation easement over 4.1 acres of land to preserve it against future development. Staff believes that the land that is to going to be preserved by the conservation easement is a significant natural area that was designated in the 2000 AACP as private land with conservation value. Additionally, the Open Space Acquisition Board has identified the land that is subject to the proposed conservation easement as a significant parcel for preservation. That said, Staff believes that the site's most significant natural feature is being preserved by this application. The most significant man-made feature is the tennis courts adjacent to Ute Avenue. The application proposes to maintain these courts but move them to the west by approximately 30 feet. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding The two (2) proposed building envelopes for the single-family residences are to be located on the flattest portions of the lot and are in close proximity to each other on the fathering parcel. Additionally, the affordable housing unit being proposed is to be on the lower portion of the site adjacent to Ute Avenue to preserve views of the open space above from Ute Avenue. Staff believes that the building envelopes are appropriately located on the site and are not in any ofthe designated view planes. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding There are not specific designs for the residential units that would be placed within this subdivision. However, Staff has proposed a condition of approval in the ordinance requiring that the residences meet the residential design standards and the residential design standards regulate street orientation. Staff finds this criterion to be met with the requirement that the residences meet the residential design standards. 19 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed subdivision and has expressed that emergency services can serve the property with the driveway as proposed as long as the snowmelt system remains active all of the winter months. Staff has reinforced that the snowmelt system will remain active by placing a condition of approval in the resolution requiring that the covenants contain language to this affect. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding This standard is not applicable to the single-family residences. However, because the Applicant is proposing to move the tennis courts, the City Building Department is requiring that the Applicant make the tennis courts accessible from street grade on Ute A venue. This is reinforced as a condition of approval in the resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the conditions of approval are adhered to. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding The Applicant is required to provide site drainage plan as part of the building permit applications for the residences that does not increase the historic rates of runoff from the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the conditions of approval are satisfied. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately de- signed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. StaffFinding This is a residential PUD and there are not any non-residential land uses proposed within the PUD. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. C. Landscape Plan: The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserving existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding The Parks Department has reviewed the proposed landscaping plan for the common areas of the development and has expressed that it is appropriate for the rural nature of the area. The Parks Department has further indicated that the proposed Evergreen trees will provide good screening for the retaining wall that is necessary for the driveway. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 20 ~~-_........,----~_._._-._."" 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding As was mentioned above, the Applicant has proposed to place a conservation easement over 4.1 acres ofland to preserve it against future development. Staff believes that the land that is to going to be preserved by the conservation easement is a significant natural area that was designated in the 2000 AACP as private land with conservation value. Additionally, the Open Space Acquisition Board has identified the land that is subject to the proposed conservation easement as a significant parcel for preservation. That said, Staff believes that the site's most significant natural feature is being preserved by this application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding The Applicants have consented to following the recommendations of the City Forester in regards to protecting the mature trees to be preserved. That being the case, the City Forester has recommended that the Applicants install construction fencing around the drip line of any trees to be saved and to limit trenching for irrigation as much as possible. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Architectural Character: It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan and architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. . 3. Accommodate the storage and shielding of snow, ice, and water in a safe an appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding The Applicant is not designing the residences to be developed on the site. Instead future reviews of the single-family residences to be constructed within the Subdivision/PUD are required to go through the 8040 Greenline Review process for their specific designs. As part of the 8040 Greenline Review for the specific residence designs, the mechanical systems and 21 ."~-"~~-- .---'~~ -- ---,,---_...~_.- the snow shielding will be reviewed. However, Staff has recommended that the allowable FAR be limited to be more consistent with the allowable FAR in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the allowable FAR is limited to be more consistent with the allowable FAR in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. E. Lighting: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any king to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding The Applicant is required to, and has consented to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code for any exterior lighting that is proposed. Therefore, the proposed development will be lighted in a manner that will not provide direct glare on adjoining streets or property. The Applicant will be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the City Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance on each of the single-family residences within the subdivision. Staff believes that the Applicant's required compliance with the City Lighting Code ensures that the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding The Applicant has committed to meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code on the proposed development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area: If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the .various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding The tennis courts will be available for use of the Gant as has been the case for the last twenty (20) years or so. Additionally, the upper area to be preserved under a conservation easement shall be open to the public and accessed via the public trail that already runs through the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 22 Staff Finding The Applicant has proposed that each property owner in the PUD shall own a proportionate share of the common areas within the PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development Staff Finding The application indicates that the private covenants for the subdivision/PUD will provide provisions for permanent maintenance of the common areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and Public Facilities: The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose any undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development Staff Finding Staff believes that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the proposal if the Applicants make the improvements required by the City Water Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding The Applicants are required to upgrade sidewalk to the tennis courts from Ute A venue to meet accessibility requirements. In addition, the Applicants will be required to mitigate for the existing trees to be removed from the public right -of-way and install landscaping that meets the City's requirements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the adduionalimprovement Staff Finding The Applicants are not proposing to install oversized utilities or public facilities and it is not anticipated that the Applicants will be required by the City to provide oversized utilities. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this application. I. Access and Circulation (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to Minor PUD applications): The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 23 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through and approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding The Applicant is proposing to construct a shared driveway from Ute Avenue to the two (2) proposed single-family building sites. As long as the snowmelt is active during all of the winter months, there is adequate access to the proposed residential units. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the conditions or approval proposed in the ordinance are complied with. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding Staff does not believe that the proposed vehicular access points and parking arrangement will create traffic congestion. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of these criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding The Applicant is not proposing to phase the construction. However, the Applicant is proposing to construct the infrastructure for the subdivision and each of the two (2) single- family residences would be subsequently developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 24 PRESERV A nON OF SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE PARCELS REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels. On a project specific basis and upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny development of one or more residences in exchange for the permanent preservation of one or more parcels considered significant for the preservation of open space. The preservation parcel may lie outside the City of Aspen jurisdiction. The exempted residential units shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotment established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D and the Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C. The exempted residential units shall provide affordable housing mitigation, pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.470.040.B.l. This exemption shall only apply to the specific residences approved through this provision. Other residences within a project not specifically exempted through this provision shall require growth management approvals pursuant to this Chapter. The criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include: 1. The strategic nature of the preservation parcel to facilitate park, trails, or open space objectives of the City of Aspen. This shall include a recommendation from the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board. Staff Finding The Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board has recommended that the land subject to the proposed conservation easement be preserved and that it is land with significant conservation value. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Identification of the preservation parcel as "private land with preservation value" in the Aspen Area Community Plan or as a parcel desirable for preservation in any other adopted master plans of the City of Aspen. Staff Finding The AACP's "future land use composite map" and "open space and trails map" both indicate the land subject to the conservation easement as private land with conservation value. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Proximity and/or visibility of the preservation parcel to the City of Aspen. Staff Finding The proposed preservation parcel is visible from both Ute Avenue and the Ute Trail. The proposed parcel to be preserved is contiguous with the City limits. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The development rights of the preservation parcel, including the allowed uses and intensities and impacts associated with those uses if developed to the maximum. Staff Finding The application expresses that the land subject to preservation would allow for a single- family residence with no maximum floor area in the County's AFR-I0 Zone District. Staff has consulted with the Pitkin County Planning Staff and they do not believe that the portion of the property that is going to be placed under a conservation easement will have a 25 development right after the single-family development right inherent to the fathering parcel is used for the first single-family residence to be constructed within the subdivision. Therefore, if the Applicant were to construct the first single-family residence proposed in the subdivision, there would not be a development right inherent to the portion of the property in the County to be preserved. That said, the Parks Department has indicated that they believe that there is significant value in the conservation easement related to a defacto preservation of the parcel by the execution of the inherent development right in that the conservation easement would ensure that the property would not be developed in the future. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed a Category 4 affordable housing unit, which would be the affordable housing mitigation normally associated with developing the second single-family residence through the 60% affordable provision. Therefore, Staff believes that the conservation easement in combination with the Category 4 affordable housing unit provides significant benefit for the creation of the development right for the second free-market residential unit in the subdivision. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The proposed location of the parcel(s) being granted growth management approvals and the compatibility of the resulting uses and intensities of development with the surrounding neighborhood, including the impacts from the specified method of providing affordable housing mitigation. The new residences shall be restricted to the underlying zoning restrictions of the property on which they lie unless additional restrictions are necessary in order to meet this criterion.. Staff Finding Staff believes that the relocation of one single-family development right to within the City limits would be consistent with the uses and density in the immediate vicinity of the landing area for the development right as long as the allowable floor area for the development right is limited to be more consistent with the allowable FAR of the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to provide employee housing by either paying cash- in-lieu or by providing an ADU for the first single-family residence in the subdivision as is consistent with the normal affordable housing mitigation methods for single-family residential development within the City of Aspen. Finally, the second single-family residential unit is being mitigated for because the Applicant is proposing to provide a "for sale" Category 4 affordable housing unit. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the FAR of the single-family residences in the subdivision are limited to less than is proposed to be more consistent with the residences in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision. 6. The preservation parcel shall be encumbered with a legal instrument, acceptable to the City Attorney, which sterilizes the parcel from further development in perpetuity. Staff Finding A perpetual conservation easement is proposed to be placed on the 4.1 acre parcel to sterilize it from future development. Staff has proposed a condition of approval in the ordinance requiring that the Applicant deed the property to the City and then place a perpetual conservation easement on it. Staff finds this criterion as long as the conditions of approval are complied with. 26 8040 GREENLlNE REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.435.030 -8040 GreenIine Review Standards. No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed building sites do contain the possibility of avalanche and rock fall hazards. Additionally, the proposed building sites are located on mine tailings. However, the Applicant's engineers have recommended mitigation measures for these hazards that have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the proposed resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met as long as the conditions of approval in the resolution are complied with. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the development will have an adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion, or have consequent effects on water pollution. The Community Development Engineer will review a grading and drainage plan for the site upon permit for the subdivision improvements and for the proposed residences when they are submitted for 8040 Greenline Review. The drainage plan will have to demonstrate that there will not be an increase in the historic run-off from the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Finding Staff does not believe this project will have an adverse effect on the air quality of the city. The Environmental Health Department does not require air quality mitigation for singie- family residences. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 27 Staff Finding Staff agrees with the Applicant's contention that the proposed building sites are sited on the flattest portions of the site. Staff does believe that the retaining wall necessary for the driveway will be substantial in size. However, Staff also feels that the tennis court fencing and the proposed Evergreen trees will screen the retaining wall from significant view after they mature. Staff does not really see a better location on the site from which to take access. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Finding As was previously discussed, the Applicant has proposed to site the building envelopes in the flattest portions of the site. However, further grading of the building envelopes may be required in the future when the lots are to be built upon. The Applicant has proposed that more specific site grading plans will be submitted in conjunction with 8040 Greenline applications that will be needed for the actual development of the single-family residences. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed building envelopes are clustered to allow for a common access driveway that will be installed prior to application for residences on the lots. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Finding As was discussed in the Staff Memorandum, there are not specific designs for the residences to be constructed on the parcels. This standard will have to be met by residence designs when they are developed and go through the 8040 Greenline Review process in the future. However, Staff has recommended that the residences be limited to a allowable FAR that is more consistent with the allowable FAR in the neighboring Hoag Subdivision to limit the potential mass of the structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the residence designs are reviewed under future 8040 GreenJine Review. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Finding Utility services would have to be provided to the property. The City Water Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District have reviewed the proposal and their comments have been incorporated in the resolution as Staff deems appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 28 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff finding As has been previously discussed, a common driveway would be installed to serve both of the residential properties. The Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be sufficient to serve the properties with emergency services and a hammerhead turn around is provided for fire truck access. Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long as the conditions of approval are complied with. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Finding The Fire Marshall has indicated that the road would be sufficient to serve the properties with emergency services and a hammerhead turn around is provided for fire truck access. Therefore, Staff believes that this criterion is met as long as the conditions of approval are complied with. Additionally, the City Streets Department has reviewed the application and expressed that the proposed driveway is acceptable to serve the property with snow removal equipment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practicaL Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed SubdivisionlPUD enhances the goals and objectives of the AACP's Parks! Recreationffrails Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 29 Page 1 ofl GXiI\16J}l'E-11 James Lindt From: Lance Clarke Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:34 PM To: James Lindt Subject: Chozen property/Glenn Horn James- -The important issue for this property is that the City/County line does not create two parcels or any kind of subdivision. The owner could pursue development in the City or in the County subject to whichever jurisdiction's regulations are enforceable on the chosen development site. -As far as the County is concerned there is one development right for the entire site. If that development takes place on the City side there is no remaining development right on the County side for transfer or any other purpose. _ If development takes place on the City side there is no County process or procedure required. We would like any plat or site plan recorded to show the City/County line and to specifically state that the property is "developed out" by virtue of the development in the City. If there is some sort of conservation easement placed on the County side as part of the approval, the County would like to review that document regarding what types of "development" are to be allowed on the conserved parcel. 6/23/2006 MEMORANDUM /U47J -=r{IO lo,h TO: File FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director ~ Aspen Chance Insubstantial PUD Amendment RE: ~,~ I I I , DATE: May 15, 1989 ================================================================ ISSUE: The applicant requests an insubstantial amendment to the approved PUD agreement for t~e Aspen Chance PUD. The purpose of the amendment is to transfer the remaining unbuilt square footage (1,593 sq. ft.) from Lot 6 to Lot 7 of the PUD. The resulting allocations of square footage to the 7 lots in the PUD are shown in the proposed revised PUD agreement.. FINDINGS: The applicant has demonstrated compliance with the basic criteria for a PUD amendment in the attached letter from Chuck Brandt. Moreover, the amendment is consistent with the conditions and representations of the original proj ect for the following reasons, or with the following conditions. 1. e intent of the ori inal PUD was to kee as much of the bulk off ute Avenue and to ste the building mass a m h1S roa, owar the mountain. The requeste rans er 1 perm1t -a limited expansion of the home now under construction. on Lot 7, with much of the expansion being internal or to the rear. A site visit confirmed that this expansion will not be apparent from Ute Avenue. I I 2. The original PUD limited the size of the various homes . through qesignation of footprints. It was not until the PUD was subsequently amended that the concept of taking the total FAR allowed and allocating it among the lots was established. Therefore, moving FAR among the lots is certainly not prohibited by the original approval and is a well established principal for this proj ect, based on the prior two PUD amendments. 3. Since no FAR is allocated to Lot 4 and none remains to be re-allocated, the lot's development potential should no longer be reflected in the PUD. This can be accomplished by merging it into one or more of the other lots or by labelling it as "co=on open space". To eliminate all future uncertainty as to this lot, an amended plat removing this lot's development potential should be recorded. 4. The owners of all six lots must sign the amended .PUD agreement prior to its being signed by the Planning Director or City Attorney. ., I I . I I I . I I I I . I I I I I I I I I ACTION: I hereby approve of the insubstantial amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signatures shall be obtained from all lot owners, from the Planning Director and City attorney before a building permit may be issued for any floor area included in the subject exchange. 2. The homeowners' association shall submit an amended plat for signature of the Planning Director, city Attorney and City Engineer which represents that Lot 4 has been merged into one or more of.the other lots, has been designated as common open space or otherwise has no development potential. The plat shall be submitted and recorded within 90 days of the date of recordation of the third amended PUD agreement. chanceinsibstantial ';'1 _.. ':-".: . BOUll 592 PAGf853 ~ - ~ ~ ?:: :z'" ...;::: :.< ....,- '-<>- ",'" "'~ ~:$ .,,'" "" .. '" "" w "'" . .~,., THIRD AMENDMENT TO P.U.D. AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR ASPEN ClffiNCE SUBDIVISION <:::>> ..... .... ""'" = OJ 1'0 ai .... m This Third Amendment is made this ~ day of V\i\~ ' 1989, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a Colorado nicipal corporation ("City"), Aspen Chance, Inc., a Texas corporation ("Aspen Chance") and American Red Oak 'rrust ("Red Oak"). I I R E C I TAL S: 1. The City and Aspen Chance entered into the P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Chance Subdivision ("P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement") dated July 25, 1984 and recorded July 27, 1984, in Book 470 at Page 758 of the Pitkin County, Colorado real property records; alld 2. The P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement has been amended by instruments recorded in Book 530 at page 88 and in Book 567 at page 943 of said real property records; and 3. The owners of Lots 6 and 7 of the Aspen Chance Subdivi- sion, being Red Oak and Aspen Chance, respectively, have . requested the City .to amend the Second. Amendment to the P.lI.D. and Subdivision Agreement' to permit the transfer of 1,593 floor area square footage from Lot 6 to Lot 7; and 4. The purpose of the reallocation is to permit the owner of Lot 7 to incorporate the additional floor area square footage in the residence currently being built on said lot; and' 5. The City has determined that the requested amendment is within Section 7-907 A of the Aspen Land Use Code whereby insubstantial amendments to a P.U.D. plan may be authorized by the Planning Director; and I I I I 6. The Planning Director has authorized the requested amendment provided that certain conditions are met, which condi- tions shall be deemed met upon the execution by all parties hereto, including all consenting parties as noted below.' / I . I I ; -, BOOK 592 P:\!if854 WIT N E SSE T D: - -- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, the P.U.D.and Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Chance Subdivision, as amended, is hereby amended with respect to the following matters: . I I I I I 1. Use of Additional Floor Area Square Footage on Lot 7. The owner of Lot 7, Aspen Chance Subdivision, may utilize 1,593 floor area square feet from Lot 6 for the purpose of increasing the floor area square footage in the residence on said Lot 7. Following the transfer, the total floor area square footage on Lot 7 shall be 9,271. 2. Allocation of Floor Area Square Footage. paragraph 2 of the Second Amendment to P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement for Aspen Chance Subdivision is hereby amended and restated as fol- lows: The building foot print square footage set forth in Exhibit "B", Site Data Tradition, of the P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement, is hereby deleted. Subject to the provisions set forth below, a total floor area square footage of 32,466 shall be allowed to be constructed on the seven (7) lots within Aspen Chance Subdivision. Said total is hereby allocat~d amongst the seven (7) Aspen Chance Subdivision lots as follows: Lot Number Floor Area I.ot 1 3,215 square feet Lot 2 3,223 square feet Lot 3 5,468 square feet Lot 4 0 square feet Lot 5 5,419 square feet Lot 6 5,870 square feet Lot 7 9,271 square feet Total 32,466 square feet 3. Amendment. The parties agree that the P.U.D. and Sub- division Agreement shall be deemed amended by the provisions of this Third Amendment. All other provisions of the P.U.D. and Subdivision Agreement not so amended by this Third Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Consent to Amendment. The undersigned owners, being all of the remaining owners of the lots in Aspen Chance Subdivi- sion hereby consent to this Second Amendment. I -2- I -, ) --,\ BOOK 592 PAGf855 5. Counterpart Execution. executed in multiple counterparts constitute one instrument. This Second Amendment may be which when taken together shall IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date first written above. .'.'~ APPROVED AS TO FORM ~~n~ CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation I I . By: Alan Richman, Planning Director pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 7-907A of the Aspen Land Use Code I AMERICAN RED OAK TRUST, owner of Lot 6 ^ By: /7ft/V \\ ~ Michael D. Ding ASPEN CIU\NCE, INC., a Texas corporation, owner of Lot 7 '/ltM ~~ Myers, Pre dent The undersigned, being all of the remaining owners of the lots in Aspen Chance Subqivision, in addition to the owners of Lots 6 and 7, hereby consent to the provisions of this Second Amendment. LOT 1 I I Lot 1 Development Partnership, a Colorado general partnership I I By: I I -3- .~~ --\ ( , Boor 592PAGE85B 5. Counterpart Execution. executed in multiple counterparts constitute one instrument. This Second Amendment may be which when taken together shall I I I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment on the date first written above. FORM CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado municipal corporation By: Alan Richman, Planning Director pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 7-907A of the Aspen Land Use Code AMERICAN RED OAK TRUST, owner of Lot 6 By: Michael D. Dingman, Trustee ASPEN CIUlliCF., INC., a Texas corporation, owner of Lot 7 By: Neal Myers, President The undersigned, being all of the remaining owners of the lots in Aspen Chance Subdivision, in addition to the owners of Lots 6 and 7, hereby consent to the provisions of this Second Amendment. LOT 1 Lot 1 Development~rtnershiP' a Colorado genera. partnership / -3- ner By: Kerry I I -, I'" I . I I I , , 592 f'AliE857 BGOlI ~&:i/) John Nickel I I LOTS 3 AND 4 .~ Powder Lane Associates, a Colorado partnership, by Red Oak of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation By: Michael D. Dingman, President LOT 5 Bertram R. Firestone STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ., 1989, by Alan Richman, Planning Director, on behalf of City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 7-907A of the Aspen Land Use Code. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public I -4- I I I -\ ss. '" BOOKS92 PAEf858 LOT 2 John Nickel LOTS 3 AND 4 Powder Lane Associates, a Colorado partnership, by Red Oak of Colorau , Inc., :y:~~~1~ora ioo Michael D. , President LOT 5 Bertram R. Firestone The foreg . g instrument was acknowledge efore me this /3/L, day of A.c.o ,1989, by Alan Richm ,Planning Director, on behalf of CityVof en, a Colorado unicipal corporation, pursuant to the authorit In Section 7-907A of the Aspen Land Use Code. I I I Witness my hand I . I , /'Z:?t:/P/ .... .--eg~~L -:.. T\ -.~ ..z,--' Q " ,'\ "'. , ..... -4- ". , . v ....~~. ~.l ~ ~~. -- \ -'\ "9') ~""O BOOY. ~ ~ ?~it ,-,:).J LOT 2 John Nickel I I LOTS 3 AND 4 .'..t..... Powder Lane Associates, a Colorado partnership, by Red Oak of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation I I I By: Michael D. Dingman, President LOT 5 Y1' -, ri I,U_...}:'-<--. fa. I-.M.<-.....~ "'"""'- Bertram R. Firestone STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. ) COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this . day of , 1989,- by Alan Richman, -Planning Director, on behalf of City of Aspen, a Colorado municipal corporation, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 7-907A of the Aspen Land Use Code. .' Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public -4- /. I I I I I I . I I -, , , " STATE OF COI41fcJ.D COUNTY OF ~rl'Lr--- ) ) ss. - ) (--, BOOK 592~860 ,: . The fOre~g instrument was acknowledged before me this I:{j~"'" day of I , 1989, by Neal Myers as President of Aspen Chance, Inc., a exas corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF NE~;; HAMPSHI~ ) ss. COUNTY OF ROCKINGHA~ C) /1'5/'11 So~n~ Notary Public ...1........... /<,>:,:,:,~.:...:~. . :: . 1'\ \ ' ..,t -, " ...-""'\ .: :' .J .' "'" &:aAilJ~;:: :'~. 0 ~ f~.. "...L'.I "f ," ('''',<0- -:.... .$}..... .,- ..'..... 1...<:" .......~ ,... .' .:' "1" ...J .~..: ". ..11' 'Ol""ll';l'o\";'" The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /?I-':,.dayof /;:'0:/ , 1989, by Michael D. Dingman as Trustee of American Red Oak ~rust, owner of Lot 6 and as President of Red Oak of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation, general partner of Powder Lane Associates, a Colorado partnership. ." My commission expires: Witness my hand and official seal. /~G/.?/ ctb:a16878017a ,..11\.\."....... ./.;~\:......~;...:;:~:..\ .// //::;:' '-'= '. .:', .~ ~~../~; :. <::r i;' ~ ;~:-: ./ : :: ~ ~.. ..: ~. : Nota~~~' -5- o ~ : - Q ,,' .:, . .' . -' , )':""?' , I I . STATE OF \/,,0,',,;,<>./ -' COUNTY OF Lou..Je-........ ". ss. (~ i. SoOK 592 ?AGfB61 Witness my hand and official seal. I'(;':~:~:'~'''~'''~~ ~:'~'~~': 0::""'" c c ;""'" My commission expires: Feb. 2-1... /993 ....'.'~ ~...:.......~.'.--... ..- ~.... .,'.. . , " .-" '0, f .~. {/.;.~: (.. '. I I " --:~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 17ft.... day of May, 1989 by Bertram R. Firestone as owner of Lot 5. . .. (,; ,'. . .' ...... "\ Y ~. ...."."...,... ctb:a16878017a ~. Notary " -6- _ e. Put3ic ~, ~" J.- I I I .-, ........ '. BOOK 59CFl\lifB6"2 STATE OF ss. . COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of May, 1989 by Bertram R. Firestone as owner of Lot 5. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: I I I Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. ) COUNTY OF PITKIN 1/ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ...LJ1l-- day of May, 1989 by Kerry Dunn as general partner of Lot 1 Development Partnership, a Colorado general partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. ....,..My. commission &".",. . .",:,.~~ ~:JU1'/' ~ ~", 0" . ~ S''r-''.'' ", .J. t..,"\\f01I:..Fr) :; ~. -0- ~_.~:. =-. ':PUn' .\, '_ 0\-"" 0.. L: -' . t:~ ~... ..... . ~'"": / <" ..... . '. '. OF CO\'-' expires: 5//;//1,2,; /l,. U"I/UC " .....i -6- ctb:a16878017a " . '. STATE OF COUNTY OF ~'~ ss. ~ BOOK 592 p~Gr853 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of May, 1989 by Bertram R. Firestone as owner of Lot 5. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY OF CHEROKEE Notary Public ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of May, 1989 by John T. Nickel as owner of Lot 2. Witness my hand and off1ca1 seal. ,._~~,..~ommiSSion expires : <.t,~'" .... ;\ t, 'J;,.lI'" c t~:: ~ .... ~'~~~:.c \,t ,~ . "~"'~ oI'~~:....,' '"." ~ ~. / .... .~.. :" II \-.. .'~ '. f>.I', .......-:.. -., ~".:~;~;;;~~:. ctb:a16878017a 10-19-92 ,{jr1tfi)f. -6- ,'/ V4;PAP ~M)'16\ f II Asoen Plannine & Zonine Commission - Minutes - Aoril4. 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue to AprilUfh,. seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/28): HAANNAH-DUSTIN SUBDMSION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing with notice provided at a previous meeting. James Lindt stated this was a continued public hearing to consider the subdivision and associated land use actions to construct additions to the Hannah Dustin Building at 300 South Spring Street. Lindt explained the proposal was a 3 story office space addition to the northwestern comer of the existing building and a two bedroom affordable housing unit and a residential addition to the building where the existing parking lot is located Gust east of the existing building). The proposal includes 2 free-market residential units (about 4500 square feet each) and 2 sub-grade affordable housing units (30% of the total free market residential floor area in the project). The applicant proposed a bench as a pedestrian amenity, a sidewalk to extend along Hyman A venue (the sidewalk currently ends at the end of the neighboring Benedict Commons building), street tree landscaping along East Hyman Avenue as well as along Spring Street. The applicant proposed parking off the alley and in the garages for the residential units. Lindt noted the elevator tower on the residential component was brought down to meet the height requirements. Lindt said the proposed pedestrian amenity location was moved from the comer area to the courtyard area by the existing Hannah- Dustin Building. Lindt said the applicant proposed the residential component entrance to be about 8 feet from sidewalk grade; staff would like P&Z to review. Lindt said the other discussion issues were the sub-grade affordable housing units; the code at the time of application did not prohibit affordable housing units from being below grade but Council voiced concern for the livability of below grade units. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced Hans Berglund, architect; Jeffrey Halferty, commercial designer; Rod Dyer, architect; Joe Krabacher, attorney for the project. Clauson emphasized the heights, setbacks and floor area all were fully conforming to the code; this was not a PUD. Clauson stated the allowable square 3 Asoen Planninf! & Zoninf! Commission - Minutes - Aori118. 2006 Jasmine Tygre asked if the additional FAR was for the affordable housing on site. Bendon replied that Was correct the free market floor area would be limited to 4500 square feet if the affordable units were not located on site. Ruth Kruger asked where the entrances were to the affordable housing units. Hans Berglund showed the plans where the stairs and elevator come down from the vestibule to the 3 apartments. Berglund said per the International Code there were window wells for egress. Kruger said the affordable units were in the back of the lower level. No public comments. Brian Speck asked if one of the conditions was the detached sidewalk and trees. Bendon responded that Section 6 included the ADA requirements for the sidewalk and Section 2 spoke to the tree plantings. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #13, Series 2006, approving with conditions, a growth management review for affordable housing, special review for floor area, and recommending City Council approve with conditions, the subdivision applicationfor 719 East Hopkins Avenue multi-family development. John Rowland seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (4/4/6): 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDMSION/CONSOLIDA TED POO Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 1001 Ute Avenue. Chris Bendon stated the public notice was provided at the last hearing. James Lindt said the application was to construct 2 single family residences at 1001 Ute; Planning & Zoning shall be the final review authority on the ~040 Greenline Review and recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision, PUD and Growth Management requests. The parcel was vacant except for the tennis courts leased to the Gant; the parcel was located to the west of Ajax Park. The parcel was about 7 acres; the 4 acres to the south were located in the county, the 3 acres on the lower portion were in the City zoned R-15. Lindt said the proposal was to subdivide the property into 2 single family houses of about 5,040 square feet each (lot I and lot 2) and subdivide 4 open space parcels (one open space parcel would take care of the access, a single driveway to serve both lots); the second open space parcel would contain the tennis courts, which will be moved to the west by about 30 feet and still leased to the Gant; the third open space parcel was a common open space area and the fourth open space parcel was currently located in the County and would be deeded to the City for open space with a conservation easement. Lindt 8 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006 said that they would either provide an ADU or pay cash-in-lieufor the two proposed single-family houses. Lindt said in reviewing the subdivision request, the applicant has several natural hazards on site to mitigate for mine tailings; there were conditions in the resolution that apply to that hazard similar to the Smuggler Superfund site. Lindt stated there were rock fall and avalanche concerns addressed in the proposed resolution. Lindt said that some of the review standards for the PUD speak to compatibility with the neighborhood; there were three FAR scenarios that could be applied to the proposal. The neighboring Hoag Subdivision, located just to the east, residences contain F ARs between 3800 and ~900 square feet after slope reduction; the Aspen Chance Subdivision, located to the west, with 5400 square feet average and the four houses at the bottom of Ute Avenue with between 2700 and 3200 square feet. The applicant modeled the FAR on the underlying R-15 zone district at 5040 square feet. Staff believed the FAR should be limited to the same as the Hoag Subdivision, between 3800 and 3900 square feet because the lots will be quite visible from Ute Avenue. Lindt stated the applicant proposed a conservation easement on the upper portion ofthe property, which is in the county, in exchange for the additional development right for lot 2. Lindt said the Open Space Board has indicated support of preserving the upper parcel; the county planning staff indicated that there would not be a second development right on the open space portion. Therefore staff can not support the Growth Management Review for the preservation of open space parcels to get the second development right instead they suggest the applicant apply for 60% affordable housing development and provide a category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate that process. Glen Horn introduced the applicant Leathem Stern, Greg Mosian the landscape architect, Jack Miller the architect, Peter Thomas the attorney and Darryl Mackey the project manager. Glen Horn said there was strategic importance of the preservation parcel and a neighborhood compatibility issue with respect to floor area. Horn brought photos and graphics and requested the commissioners to site visit this property prior to the next meeting. Horn explained the history of the site beginning with the prior owner, Allen Chosen, who now lives on Ute Avenue and came up with a plan for the property . that worked. Horn said that Leathem wanted to live on Lot 1 and proceed with the project as proposed. Horn said they made a presentation to the Open Space and Trails Board on this project and received unanimous support because it directly connected with open space properties in the area, Ajax Park, the Aspen Chance, 9 ~,_.._,,~~_.~- ..---"''' As en Plannin& Zonin Commission - Minutes - A rillS 2006 Pitkin County Open Space at the base of Little Nell, the Ute trail, Ajax trail and a popular ski return from Little Nell down to Ajax Park. Horn said this project represents a density reduction by 50% on the R-lS portion; the property in total is zoned for 5 units; the county portion of the site is zoned AFR-IO (1 unit per 10 acres). Horn said that covering up the mine tailings with trees would be a lot more attractive. Horn stated the surrounding land uses were on the Hoag Subdivision, the Aspen Chance Subdivision and the Newfoundland Claim in Pitkin County contained a large house with a retaining wall. The houses on the Hoag Lot 3 and Newfoundland were above the 8040 Greenline. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the hearing to 7: 15pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. Horn said the Aspen Chance looked similar to this property with mine tailing on site prior to development of the subdivision; their goal was to emulate what the Chance did. Horn noted the criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include the strategic nature of the parcels for parks, trails and open space; the Aspen Area Community Plan identified the mapping as private land with preservation value; the proximity from the City of Aspen; the Growth Management Exemption used on the lower portion there would not be a development right on the upper parcel. Horn said by right they could have built a house up to 15,000 square feet on the upper portion in the county but Leathem and Allen did not want to go with that option instead they wanted to do something more compatible with the neighborhood. Leathem agreed to gift the 4.1 acres in the County to the City in fee in addition to having a conservation easement over it. Leathem Stem said that Allen did most of the leg work to preserve the character of the neighborhood and wants to have his residence on the Lot. Stem said landscaping will get rid of the pile and make the property look like a park; the intention was to have the whole thing blend in, Lindt clarified that the development rights for the property was 1 development right, which could be expressed as a duplex or two detached single family houses if the development right is used on the city portion; if they were to use that development right in the county they could build a single family residence. Horn said there would be changes to the county code but the base allotment in the county 10 Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission - Minutes - April 18. 2006 would be 5,750 square feet with the possibility of special review for TDRs; there was only I exemption right on the entire parcel. Kruger asked the ages of the different subdivisions; when were they developed. Horn replied the Ute addition was very old; the Chance was done in the eighties, the last change was made in 1989; the Hoag was done in 1971. Kruger asked how long the Gant's lease was for. Horn replied another 80 years. Kruger asked about cleaning up the mine tailings. Lindt responded they have applied many of the conditions similar those at the Smuggler Superfund site, soils tests and possible capping or hauling away. Horn said there was certification that haulers must have to deal with material like this. Horn said as the applicant they will review soils tests and monitor with the Environmental Health Department and certified trained persons for the entire excavation process. Kruger asked about a third party easement. Horn answered that it was Aspen Valley Land Trust, which made it more complicated to undo it and the chances of getting it undone were unlikely. The commissioner questions included concern about the house sizes, the growth management exception for lot 2, the possibility of development rights on the conservation easement; the commission would like to see a graph with the possibilities for the development rights and go on a site visit. Horn said that there was the possibility of two detached duplexes at 3700 square feet each or 2 free market units and I category 4 unit (30% of the second free market unit) that would be condominimized or build on a separate lot. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the hearing until 7:30pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor. APPROVED. Dylan John excused himself at 7:24 pm. Lindt noted that the deputy director of the county community development stated that there were no development rights on the upper portion after using the development rights on Lot 1. Horn said that was not disputed. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the public hearingfor 1001 Ute Avenue to May 2nd; seconded by John Rowland. All in favor, APPROVED. 7:3~pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 ------.--- CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Steve Skadron asked if Council's decisions on code changes were sent to P&Z. Allgaier replied the normal process for a code amendment was to start at P&Z and forward a recommendation to City Council and Council holds the hearings and makes the final changes. MINUTES Skadron requested an amendment to the minutes. Dylan Johns noted that he was conflicted on the MotherLode. The changes will be reflected in the minutes to be approved. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve/MOTION WITHDRA WN The minutes will be read and approved at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre was conflicted on 1001 Ute Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS 1asmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Lodge District Code Amendments. The proof of notice was provided to the clerk. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Lodge District Code Amendments to May I (/h; Dylan Johns seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDMSION/CONSOLIDATED PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 100 I Ute Avenue. James Lindt stated that notice was provided at the last hearing. The commission and staff completed a site visit at noon. Lindt refreshed the commission and public on the application noting the several parcels; 2 for single family residential development and several other common properties. The applicant proposed to subdivide 100 I Ute Avenue; move the existing tennis courts for the Gant about 40 feet to the west; 2 single family residential parcels; provide a common driveway to the proposed single family residences; another common parcel and a conservation easement on the portion of the property located in the county. The city/county boundary bisects the property; they were proposing the conservation easement in exchange for the second development right. 3 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Lindt said there were 3 discussion items. (1) The natural hazards associated with the single family development, mine tailings and avalanche and rock fall concerns; they have an avalanche expert and a geologist to review the sight and made recommendations for mitigation of the avalanche and rock fall concerns. There were conditions of approval in the proposed resolution; Section 10 regulates avalanche and rock fall and requires a low mitigation wall or benn to be placed at the back portion of the residences or an alternative would be to minimize the fenestration on the back side of the houses. Section 11 regulates mine tailings in the resolution; it requires any soils with greater than 1,000 particles per 1,000,000 particles oflead be removed from the site and the remainder of the soils to be capped with non-hazardous dirt. (2) The allowable FAR was proposed by the applicants to be 5,040 square feet for each of the single family residences. Staff believed there were several justifiable options listed in the memo on page 2; staff recommended 3,830 square feet per residential unit to be consistent with the Hoag Subdivision however they could justify a larger FAR if there were a category 4 housing unit and the conservation unit were proposed because of the additional community benefit. (3) The growth management request was rather confusing. The applicant proposed a conservation easement on the upper portion in exchange for the second development right in the subdivision. Lindt said on page 3 of the staff memo several options relating to the growth management review were presented. The conservation easement would provide additional protection on the upper portion of the property; it would protect the property against future development and any code changes in the county over time that could allow additional development options. Lindt said the conservation easement would also allow public use ofthe upper portion ofthe property because it would be deeded to the city and placed in a third party conservation easement. It would allow intricate trail connections from existing trails. Brian Flynn stated the benefits of the conservation easement were the open space board support because it was a tool that puts a third party in charge of protecting a property from any unknown future uses. Flynn noted there were several properties already under conservation easements around this one; there were benefits with trail connections. Flynn said that Fritz's Vision was to make a circumference of town by trails. Flynn stated this was an important connection for the trail system. Lindt stated staff understood the benefits of the providing a conservation easement but believe it appropriate to require mitigation for the second development right with a category 4 employee unit. Glen Horn introduced Allen Chosen, the prior owner ofthis property and with the vision for this project. 4 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & WNlNG COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Horn stated that this project was Leathem's thinking to be a benefit to the community and consistent with the land use code. Horn said they wanted to add a category 4 house for sale subdivided and located on Ute Avenue. Horn presented graphics depicting the 8000 elevation and 8040 greenline and square footage ofthe houses in the area and a photo from Smuggler across to this area. Horn said that they wanted to emulate the Aspen Chance Subdivision and not the Hoag or Newfoundland. Horn prepared a landscape plan of the site with vegetative screening and trees and for a landscape plan for the 8040 green1ine review for the specific houses when they were actually designed. Horn said that floor area was an issue. There were photos of what the Chance looked like before the Aspen Chance project and subdivision, which was a pile of mine tailings in the 1980s. Peter Thomas said without the second development right the whole subdivision unravels. Thomas said that they were deeding in fee the land to the city and in return they were asking to build two 5,000 square foot homes in the city. Thomas spoke of the Fox Crossing and the Hunter Valley Way conservation preservation parcel with regards to the growth management development rights, Thomas requested the same treatment as Fox Crossing received regarding the value of the preservation parcel and development rights. Lindt said on the changed application they were not far offwith the addition of the category 4 deed restricted unit and the second development right. Staff still had concerns on the floor area and felt some additional FAR would be appropriate. Kruger asked how staff recommended that the commission come up with that number. Lindt said that staff felt these lots were consistent with the Hoag lots, which average 3830 square feet of FAR each. Horn said that without the growth management exemption by right the property could be developed with detached duplexes and associated ADUs; there could be a 3700 square foot duplex on one lot and on the other lot it would be comparable with one-third of the square footage for an affordable housing unit. Horn said that the growth management exemption entitles you to ask for 2 single family lots and some additional floor area. J 000 Rowland asked if the fee for the deeded conservation easement was a gift. Lindt replied that it was a fee simple gift under a conservation easement. Steve Skadron asked who the the owners of the adjacent conservation easements and parcels were. Horn replied the land to the east was the owner of Hoag Lot 3 with no conservation easement; there was forest service land above that parcel and there was unincorporated Pitkin County Land owned by the Newfoundland. Horn 5 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 said they were trying to band together open space land along the top, which was called for in the Aspen Area Community Plan, private lands with preservation value. Skadron asked if there were any cons to a conservation easement. Flynn replied from Open Space there were no cons in their estimation. Skadron asked once that property is deeded to the city what can it do with that property. Lindt replied the purpose of their application and representation of their application is that it would be provided to the city to be placed in a conservation easement so that the city has one option to place in a third party conservation easement. Flynn explained the same day that they acquire the property is the same day that the easement is signed. Skadron asked what benefit the applicant gains from developing and selling the category 4 unit. Lindt replied the applicant would get the income from the sale of the category 4 unit. Skadron asked what is cost to build the unit. Stem replied it was over $300,000.00. Public Comments: Alan Chosen stated that he bought the property at 1001 Ute and owned it until this March 22nd; they bought the property to protect their interests and the interests of the people around them. Chosen explained that they wanted to sell the property to the right buyer who would have the same plans as he and his family had for this property. Chosen stated they wanted to restrict what could be built on the property and utilize the conservation process on the county portion of the property by deeding the 4.1 acres to the city so no one would ever have the ability to build on that parcel. Skadron stated that it was refreshing to hear maximizing your return wasn't always priority number one, which was a rarity. Skadron complimented Glen and Pete for the clear presentation. Skadron said that the motivating factor for this application was the additional FAR; there were two 5,000 square foot houses or 10,000 square feet, which was nearly fifty percent more. Skadron said what was important to him was to understand what the benefit was to the city. Skadron asked if the conservation easement and the category 4 was enough to mitigate for that; he encouraged considering the possibility exists that another applicant similar to this one from the owners of adjacent properties could be asking for similar things. Kruger asked what could come up for adjacent property owners to ask for additional FAR or development rights. Lindt responded that the neighboring parcels have used their inherent development rights to build their single family houses on their property; they would have to obtain additional development rights. 6 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes- Mav 02. 2006 Mary Liz Wilson encouraged keeping the FAR for the 2 residences at 3800 or 3900 square feet and granting the conservation easement. Brian Speck commended the applicant in stating their objectives with the conservation easement and ADD; the proposal fills a lot of the trails system goals, which was a plus. Speck said that he was concerned about the FAR and would like to reduce the FAR. Peter Thomas said that they were entitled to 5040 square feet under the R-lS zoning after the slope reduction. Kruger asked for clarification if they were zoned for 4 houses in the city and 1 in the county although they would be with mitigation. Lindt replied that was based on was the minimum lot size in the R-IS zone; there would be enough lot area to subdivide into 4 separate lots, however they would have to go through growth management. Dylan Johns said the affordable housing was a benefit in a small development; the location of the lot was prime for conservation. Johns said that he saw the comparison with the Aspen Chance subdivision house sizes and did not think it was too much to ask for with the conservation easement and an affordable housing unit being provided. Johns said the underlying zoning was the way to go with respects to the FAR. John Rowland said the application had a lot of positives to it and the FAR was the big issue but he agreed with Dylan that the underlying zoning was the right avenue. Steve Skadron agreed with Dylan and John; he would like to see the square footage as in the Chance subdivision. Skadron said that he could support this if the FAR was consistent with the Chance Subdivision. Ruth Kruger agreed with Dylan and shared concern with Steve about the neighbors possibly adding another house however it would be with the P&Z discretion. Kruger said the site inspection was helpful. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #016, Series of2006 approving with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review and recommending City Council approve with conditions the 1001 Subdivision, Consolidated PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels to divide the property at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential parcels and four (4) separate common open space areas and to amend Section 6 to 7 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & WNING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 required one (1) for sale category 4 unit to mitigate for the residence on Lot 2. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron. yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger. yes. APPROVED 6-0. Glen Horn stated that there would be an 8040 Greenline review to consider the design aspects so the Commission will see this project again. Leathem Stem appreciated the Commissioners comments. PUBLIC HEARING: MOSES PROPERTY. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to continue the Moses property 8040 Greenline Review to May J(jh; seconded by Dylan Johns. All infavor. APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BOOMERANG LODGE PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Notice was provided. Chris Bendon stated the height and design treatment on the east wing of the development were issues to discuss. Sunny Vann, representative for the applicant, stated the project team was a joint venture represented by Steve Stumm, the architect Augie Reno and attorney Michael Hoffman. Vann said that the parcel ofland across from the Boomerang was also owned by Charlie and Fonda Paterson; Steve Stunda became interested in buying the property and assembled a joint venture group to put the lodge and adjacent property under contract. Vann said collectively they determined that an expanded project lodge unit count would comply with the new legislation and could include a free market residential component, which was a key to the projects feasibility. Vann said that the east wing ofthe Boomerang would be retained as a way of preserving the old Aspen without historic designation at this time. Vann stated the project complied 100% with the lodge incentive program development provisions. Vann said there were a setback variances but the rest of the lodge dimensional requirements were met. There were 20 new guest rooms to the lodge; there were 6 free market residential units (from 1800 to 2400 square feet each) within the 25% limitation imposed by the incentive lodge provisions. 39 of the existing 42 trees will be retained on the property; there will be 19% of the site as open space; there will be a sub-grade 8 MEMORANDUM VI" b TO: Mayor K1anderud and City Council /l I. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~I W} James Lindt, Senior Planner 0L- THRU: FROM: RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2006- Code Amendment: Land Use Code Section 26.710.190, Lodge Zone District, Public Hearinl!: DATE: July 10, 2006 SUMMARY: The Lift One Condominium Association (known herein as the Applicant), represented by Paul Taddune, has requested a code amendment to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190, Lodge Zone District. The code amendment has been sponsored by the Community Development Staff because Staff had previously proposed a similar code amendment as part of a larger package of code amendments that were not acted upon by City Council. The code amendment being requested would amend the lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the dimensional requirements section of the Lodge Zone District to eliminate the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for affordable housing units in lodge, multi-family, and mixed-use developments. The Applicant is requesting the proposed amendment in order to allow them to legalize a bandit residential unit in the Lift One Condominiums that has existed since the mid 1970's and deed restrict it as a Category 4 affordable housing unit. However, Staff has split up the review of the proposed code amendment from that of the review of the other land use actions necessary for the Applicant to legalize the existing unit as has been previously requested that Staff do with code amendments that directly relate to a specific land use application. REVIEW PROCESS: City Council shall approve or deny the proposed code amendment after considering a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. STAFF COMMENTS: The existing language that is proposed to be amended reads as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit. a. Multi-Family residential- 3,000 square feet. The Applicant's proposed language is as follows: Land Use Code Section 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit. a. Multi-Family residential- 3,000 square feet, there shall be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for deed restricted affordable housing units in multi-family residential, lodge, or mixed use developments. The Applicant has expressed that they have proposed the code amendment because it would serve their purpose in allowing them to legalize an existing bandit dwelling unit by converting it to a deed restricted affordable housing unit. The Applicant has further suggested that the existing requirement contradicts one of the primary goals of the City's infill initiative, which is to get a greater density of types of development that the community needs such as affordable housing. Staff agrees with the Applicant's suggestion that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the Lodge Zone District does contradict one of the underlying ideas of the City's infill initiative, which was to increase the density of development within the core area of the City to relieve development pressures on the outskirts of the City. Staff also believes that the proposed code language is written in such a manner that encourages density of the affordable housing use, which the community is still in need of. On the other side of this issue, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement could be looked at as a limiting factor in dissuading purely residential development in the Lodge Zone District as was discussed at length during the infill code amendment discussions and favored by the then City Council. However, Staff believes that the smaller allowable FAR and shorter height requirements for purely residential development in the Lodge Zone District is a much more dissuading factor against pure residential development than is the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement. Staff further believes that if a developer is going to construct a purely residential project despite the strict FAR and height constraints, that it would be more consistent with the community's goals to encourage a greater density of smaller units than to encourage fewer large units as the minimum lot area requirement does. That being the case, Staff believes that there is nothing wrong with the Applicant's proposed amendment and that it satisfies the review standards for approving a code amendment. ISSUES FROM FIRST READING: At first reading of the proposed ordinance, City Council requested more information on the possible implications of this code amendment request. To respond to this request, Staff had researched the number of multi-family residential projects that are at or over their allowable FAR in the Lodge Zone District prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission review of the proposed amendment. Using our Geographic Information System (GIS) program and building permit plans that we were able to find, Staff believes that approximately sixteen (16) out of the twenty (20) multi-family residential projects within the Lodge (L) Zone District that are at or over their allowable FAR (please see research findings and map attached as Exhibit "0"). 2 Applying this data, Staff believes that the City will likely see the proposed code language being used for adding affordable housing units within the existing square footage of buildings given that many of these multi-family residential buildings are already at their maximum allowable FAR. In other situations, City may also see the proposed language allowing complexes to legalize existing bandit dwelling units as affordable housing units as has been proposed by the Lift One Condominiums. However, in total Staff does not believe that the proposed code provisions will spur many applications or have a significant impact on the Lodge Zone District. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council approve the code amendment as requested by the Applicant. The Commission indicated that they felt the requested language was geared directly towards the increase in the allowed density for affordable housing, which would be beneficial to the community. Minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission's discussion on this matter will be included in the second reading packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed code amendment as requested by the Applicant, finding that the code amendment request is consistent with the goals of the AACP and satisfies the review standards for amending the land use code. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2006, approving the proposed land use code amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit. removing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for affordable housing units." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application (Included in First Reading Packet) Exhibit C -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution (Included in First Reading Packet) Exhibit 0 -- Lodge District FAR Research and Map 3 ORDINANCE NO. 25 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS IN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), LODGE ZONE DISTRICT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Lift One Condominium Association represented by Paul Taddune has proposed an application for an amendment to Title 26, the City of Aspen Land Use Code to amend Section 26.7IO.l90(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, to allow there to be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for the development of deed-restricted affordable housing in the Lodge Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has sponsored the proposed code amendment to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.310.040, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by resolution make a recommendation to City Council on a code amendment request; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed code amendment, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended by a five to zero (5-0) vote, that City Council adopt the proposed code amendment to amend Section 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, to allow there to be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for the development of deed-restricted affordable housing in the Lodge Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the Code Amendments proposal meets or exceeds all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the Code Amendments, are consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of the public during a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 10, 2006, City Council approved Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2006, by a _ to _ L- --.J vote, amending Land Use Code Section 26.7IO.l90(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, to allow there to be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for the development of deed-restricted affordable housing in the Lodge Zone District; and, Ordinance No. 25, Series of2006 Page I of3 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed code amendments to meet or exceed all applicable amendment standards and that the approval of the Code Amendment, 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 the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves a land use code amendment to Land Use Code Section 26.710.190(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, to allow there to be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement for the development of deed-restricted affordable housing units in the Lodge Zone District, as is noted in the following sections: Section 2: Section 26.71O.l90(D)(2)(a), Lodge Zone District: Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit, of the Aspen Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 26.710.190ID)(2)(a). Minimum Lot Area per DwelIinl!: Unit a. Multi-Family residential- 3,000 square feet. When the development is residential, there is no minimum requirement for an affordable housing unit. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 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 thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the lOth day of July, 2006, at 5 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (I5) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Ordinance No. 25, Series of2006 Page 2 of3 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen at on this 12th day of June, 2006. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed by a _ to _ L-~ vote and approved this 10th day of July, 2006. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 25, Series of2006 Page 3 00 EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CODE REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FiNDINGS Section 26.310.040, Text Amendment Standards of Review 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: Staff does not believe the proposed code amendments are in conflict with any applicable portions of this title or the Municipal Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe that the proposed amendments are in conflict with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff feels that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe AACP. The AACP section on managing growth encourages the community to discourage sprawl. The AACP section on managing growth further states that the City will accept greater density of development to relieve the development pressure in the County and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff believes that the Applicant's proposed language encourages greater density of development and the existing code language to be amended is a hindrance to greater density. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: These two criteria apply to rezoning applications and do not apply to this text amendment. 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. 4 Staff Finding: This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: Staff does not feel that the proposed code amendments will result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: As was described in Staffs response to review Standard B above, the AACP encourages greater density to take development pressure off of the County. Staff believes that the Applicant's proposed language is consistent with the community character of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: This criterion applies to rezoning applications and does not apply to this text amendment. L 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: Staff feels that the proposed code amendment will not be in conflict with public interest. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment is consistent with the Community's stated goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5 Multi-Familv Developments in Lodee District · 14 Complexes Likely at/or Over FAR, No Permit Records* · 2 Complexes at/or Over FAR, Plans · 2 Complexes Likely Under FAR, No Permit Records* · 2 Complexes Under FAR, Plans 04/kJj'i) *- Methodology used for determining approximate existing floor area in buildings that we have no plans for was to measure the footprint of the buildings on GIS and multiply the footprint by the number of floors above-grade. Buildings that are lodges or have a PUD overlay were not looked at because they are not considered to be residential for density purposes. ,,{, , ' .e" 's;*~ / L "1.s>" ~ '}"" ! ''}>?;, , , , , / ~"-'- , ' a;' .'.'// , , , . , , , ' ! /' / / , , " / / / / / / / / MEMORANDUM Vlt Ie FROM: Mayor Klanderud and City Council ~ Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director TO: THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment - 500 West Hopkins Avenue 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, Planned Unit Development, Rezoning for PUD Overlay, Subdivision, Condominiumizaton and Vested Rights DATE: July 10, 2006 REQUEST SUMMARY: The applicant is seeking approval to redevelop the Boomerang Lodge. The existing Boomerang consists of: . 34 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 23,000 square feet. . 3 I parking spaces, all but one of which are partially within the city right-of-way The proposed Boomerang Lodge includes: . 52 hotel units and a total Floor Area of approximately 51,000 square feet. . 6 free-market residential units. . 2 affordable housing units. . 48 oarking soaces - 31 underground and 17 surface. ApPLICANT: Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the project, but has concern about two significant items. Staff recommends discussion of these issues and either resolution of these or continuation. P&Z RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended that the City Council approve of the lodge redevelopment proposal by a vote of four to two (4-2). The two dissenting votes supported the redevelopment concept in terms of bringing new lodge rooms and keeping the "old" Boomerang Lodge component in the site plan. Their dominant reason for dissenting had to do with the height along Hopkins Ave. and neighborhood compatibility. SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC. Represented by Sunny Vann, AICP, is proposing to redevelopment the Boomerang Lodge. The hotel is zoned R-6 LP - Medium-Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation Overlay. The property is a half- block - 27,000 square feet - and is located at 500 West Hopkins. The property is legally known as Lots K through S of Block 31. The R -6 Zone District is a single-family and duplex zone district. (The "west -end" is zoned R-6.) The Lodge Preservation Overlay permits lodging and effectively "legalizes" BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT 5T AFF REPORT PAGE 1 the lodge use. Many of the city's older lodges are within residential neighborhoods and are permitted through a LP overlay. The LP overlay also enables a PUD review to allow for the expansion of lodging in a manner appropriate for the neighborhood in which the lodge exists. The proposed development consists of 52 hotel units, 6 free-market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, 31 underground parking spaces, and 17 surface parking spaces to remain partially within the street rights-of-way. The total FAR of the site would increase from roughly 23,000 square feet to approximately 51,000 square feet. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Dimension R-6 District Existing Proposed Requirement Development Development Minimum Lot Size 6.000 s.f. 27,000 s.f. 27.000 s.f. Minimum Lot 60 ft 270 ft. 270 ft. Width Minimum Front 5 ft. 10-70 ft." 0-5 ft. Yard Setback Minimum Side 5 ft. 6 ft. on west" 0-5 ft. on west Yard Setback 1-5 ft. on east" 1-5 ft. on east Minimum Rear 5 ft. 0-2 ft." 0-5 ft. Yard Setback Maximum Height 25 ft. pitched roofs 30 ft. on alley: 42 ft. for a flat roof. (set in PUD for 20-25 ft on east" Approximately 30- Lodging) 35 ft. on east side. Pedestrian 0% (lot not within 40-50%" 19% Amenity Space PA required area) Floor Area Ratio: Total Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f: 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging Set in PUD .85 = 23,000 s.f: .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non-unit space** Set in PUD Included in lodge .351 = 9.536 space Commercial Set in PUD N/A N/A Free-Market 25% of total project N/A .48: 1 = 12,822 = Residential Floor Area 25% of total project Affordable No FAR limit N/A .05: 1 = 1,452 s.f. Residential nO * These are eslimates by staff and are not measured dImenSIOns. To be finalIzed for 2 reading. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 NECESSARY LAND USE ApPROVALS: The following land use approvals are requested and necessary for approval ofthis project: I. GROWfH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM -INCENTNE LODGE DEVELOPMENT: This review acommodates new lodge allotments (there are 18 requested in this application) and associated new free-market residential allotments (6 are requested). Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. NOTE: The replacement of existing lodge development is exempt from the City's Growth Management System. No review is required. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM - AFFORDABLE HOUSING: This review addresses the development of affordable housing units of which 2 units are proposed. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: This review is required for lodge development in the LP overlay to determine the appropriate dimensions of a project. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&z. 4. REZONING FOR PUD OVERLAY: This review is required to affect a change in the zoning map to indicate a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 5. SUBDIVISION; Subdivision review is required for the 8 residential units being created. There are no lot lines being altered through his application. Final Review Authority: City Council after a recommendation from P&Z. 6. CONDOMINIUMIZATION; Condominiumization approval is required in order to sell separate interests in the lodge and commercial units. The applicant is requesting condominiumization approval for the project concurrent with this application. The Code requires a condo plat to be submitted for review by the Community Development Director as a subdivision, however, a plat cannot be prepared until construction is substantially complete. Including the condo request now will permit the condo plat to be approved administratively after construction. Final Review Authority: City Council 7. VESTED RIGms: Project approvals are "vested" automatically for a 3-year period upon final approval. After this time period, a projects approvals remain valid, but are subject to changes in the Land Use Code. The applicant has requested the standard 3-year vested right. Final Review Authority: City Council. STAFF COMMENTS: Height. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family, duplex, multi-family, lodging, and mixed-use buildings. There is an affordable housing project (Little Ajax) under BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 construction across the street (Hopkins) and a pending redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center (the L' Augberge cabins). The existing development is a mix of two and three story elements with a majority of the project massing located along the alleyway. Structure heights in the neighborhood range from 20 feet to the low 30s. The most-recent approvals have been in the low 30-foot range. The Christiania Lodge was approved at 32 feet, measured at a midpoint (ridge heights are well above 32 feet). The proposed four floors and 42-foot height is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. Staff understands the need for redeveloped lodging facilities and this proposal represents a significant gain in the type oflodge development desired by the City - small units and the regeneration of a small lodge. This goal does need to be balanced with the general character of the neighborhood. The Council should discuss this balance and how it should be struck for this site. While the application was in proceedings with the P&Z and at their urging, the applicants amended the plan by removing 2 lodge units and reducing the height of the building in the northwest corner from 42 feet to 39 feet. The applicant does have a neighborhood model and the heights of this project in relation to surrounding development is best understood with this model. Lodge Unit Density. In an effort to reduce height and massing (points of concern during the P&Z hearings), the applicant reduced the number of units to 52 lodge units, instead of the originally proposed 54 lodge units. This puts the average lodge unit size around 506 square feet instead of the 500 square feet and the density at I per 520 square feet of lot size pursuant to the Lodge Incentive program. Provisions of the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) district allow for an adjustment to the "density standard" and "average unit- size standard" after consideration is given to the following: . The average unit-size standard may be amended by a maximum of 20% to permit an average units size of 600 square feet. (The proposal meets this standard.) . The project includes a generous amount of non-unit space, amenities, and services for guests of the lodging operation. This can be both internal and external. (The proposal keeps the unique original pool, original meetinglbrealifast room upstairs in the old east wing to be named the "Patterson Room ". The project includes a lounge! library, multi-purpose room and concierge area and services.) . The project provides a range of unit sizes and configurations to be attractive to a broad segment of potential guests. Flexible units are encouraged. (Units range in size from 370 to 900 square feet, and include multi-room suites for families.) . There exists a system or strategy for the project to maximize short-term occupancies. (The lodge will be traditional in nature providing a walk-in opportunity for traveling guests. The lodge is not fractionalized, and rooms can not be occupiedfor more than 30 consecutive days.) BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 Staffis satisfied that the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge meets both the specific standards and the overall intent of the Lodge Preservation and Incentive goals. "Historic" East Wing. The City's Historic Preservation Officer and Historic Preservation Commission does believe the existing development has some historic merit. The project is not a designated Historic Landmark and there exists no HPC jurisdiction over the site. The east "wing" of the property has the greatest historic qualities and the applicant has agreed, in principal, to maintain the basic structure and qualities of this east wing through redevelopment and consider Landmark designation of the east wing after redevelopment is accomplished. The entire property would not be landmarked. (Please see Exhibit # 1 ofthe application.) The HPC was allowed an opportunity to review the proposed changes to the east wing. (HPC did not review the entire proposal.) Generally, the HPC does not prefer the . addition of a third floor on the east wing and would like to see this portion of the project remain more true to its original (current) form and receive only minor alterations. If the east wing did incorporate an addition, the HPC suggested it be recessed and of a clearly different architectural character (not mimicking the original wing) so that old and new components could be easily identified. The HPC encouraged the applicant, staff and the P&Z to provide flexibility on the remainder of the development such that this east wing could remain unaltered. The applicants have agreed to addressing the concerns of the HPC relating to a different type of material for the 3rd floor. Staff does want to preserve the quality of this portion of the development to the extent possible. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the general height concerns staff raised above. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff strongly supports the basic concept of the application. The proposal implements both replacement and an increase in the bed base in an area that has historically included lodging within the mix of land uses. This is important to the long-term viability of the resort aspect of the community. Also, the interspersed lodging experience inside the community is nnique and an important part of Aspen's lodging offerings. The design substantially mitigates the project's parking impacts on the neighborhood and, with some very minor changes, will substantially improve pedestrian infrastructure of the area. Staff believes the two issues identified above need discussion. Staff believes the reduction in the height (from four Doors to three floors in some portions) helped the proposal achieve consistency with the neighborhood. The east wing deserves discussion in relation to HPC's desire for this portion of the building to retain it's current character and massing, although the applicants have agreed to make the architectural materials different from those of the lower floors, pursuant to HPC recommendations. BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve upon second reading, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006, approving with conditions the Subdivision, PUD, Vested Rights, Condominiumization and Rezoning reviews for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit 0: Staff Findings on Review Standards Application Letters received by staff Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, 2006 & Minutes BOOMERANG LODGE REDEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Ordinance No. 26 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, VESTED RIGHTS, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , V A 20190; represented by Sunny Vann ofVann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment ofthe Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights-of-way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free- market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31-space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards ofreview for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies and such Growth Management approvals were granted by the Commission on June 13, 2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 -1- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11,2006, continued to May 2, 2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Growth Manal!:ement Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management - approved the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free- market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Approval for Subdivision. Rezoninl!: for PUD OverIav. and PUD Final Development Plan Pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445 - Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively - the City Council grants Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The followin a roved dimensions of the ro.ect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sJ. Minimum Lot Width 270 ft. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0-5 ft. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0-5 ft. on west 1-5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0-5 ft. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat roof. Approximately 30- 35 ft. on east side. **This needs to be more specific Pedestrian Amenity Space 19% City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series 0[2006 - 2- Floor Area: Total 1.86:1 = 50,470 s.f. Lodging .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. Non-unit space .35:1 = 9,536 s.f. Commercial N/A Free-Market Residential .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project Affordable Residential .05: 1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: TrashlRecvclinl!: Area The applicant shall ensure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost of trash pick-up. Section 5: Affordable Housinl!: The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1/10th of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PMI0 Mitil!:ation Plan In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PMlO generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of the residenceslhotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners/gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 3- join the Transportation Options Program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. A fleet of five (5) bicycles shall be provided for use by the lodging guests. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: I. The final property boundaries and disposition oflands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights-of-way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right-of-way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: I. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species oflandscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5th Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right-of-way improvements. 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 - 4- 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Aereement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights-of-way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights-of-way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right-of-way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right-of-way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $42,834 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees - Fees for Proposed Development: 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 2 one-bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 3 two-bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit. 3 three-bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Total =$79,040 = $4,240 =$8,175 = $10,902 = $102,357 Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit =$44,080 =$8,175 City Council Ordinance No. 26,Seriesof2006 - 5- 2 three-bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit =$7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Impacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/Reauirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: I. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. City Council Ordinance No. 26,Seriesof2006 - 6- 10. When new service Jines are required for existing development the old service Jines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre-Construction Meetinl!: Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developerl Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building OfficiallPlans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD/SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Manal!:ement Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: 1. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 - 7 - encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day-to-day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Buildinl!: Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: I. A signed copy of the final P&Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right-of-way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right-of-way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no City Council Ordinance No. 26,Seriesof2006 - 8 - asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos IS present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right-of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: I. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise Durinl!: Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase ofthis project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Ciiy Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006 - 9- Section 18: 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 19: 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 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of June, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this_day of ,2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk City Council Ordinance No. 26, Series of2006 -10 - :~> a~,{ lx&~lv~ ~32rJtp" 1/ '...,/'. ----- :- ._~ ~~ n~J)':it;~. .~ ~gl&~ i,~y/,~ ~ .. ':'.(.,.~(;~ . k~{, fp"V~.~;')J;...'.~r-.,... tA...~;4'.. ~./..a ~. .....G<..yv 1:., ~ .'. &' i'i.Iii. "-( _ . 0 (j J:f, I ~I!!JA.- . /J / / j '1:M.. . .~. :A;. ~?-i ... .,. '/hM.1' -v uu.. /--"C.:JY"-+~ c ____..7 L.. .. ;,;1 / ;, / ,/ ! /' . t!. d7..L..L __*m ~VZ;;~VL't,~ ~-r.,l: t1u..;f;'?'Y<<L~l~ . .1 () I/~/ ~ . ., ""' I -'1 J Il' -ill J _~ ~az I) i~--1, ",-;J!J!. L4 Ju--Jl. /7:~I-1<,/O - -:, j), 1 '/ (j , . I t J 1 I '~~;i~~~~h 7i> ~ ~ ?~r~ //~ ~}"d' . . 7(~. ~,0n/fU~J c:o ~-~7 ,ti> ~ltti ~ ;;/---1---- j J /), J _ --i'<"'j; J 1/;' . ~~ t&v~' ~ h'vv,-:--,- 7J:.e. fur-I #'~../'-: u-vc:J) ~.-t j _ I , ..r ,0 J ~ ~ -"' .II/'/-Y(! /r,..J!.-7v c~ (o. 'f..j(.z Uy,.."j;:.rc-<<--'L,c'v--' ;/ 1..~"'F:(Lt.tI-(, -. .:t<-;z;) k'/f;% I~-'J .$"0C~ t,.riii._dt d~~~7: . ~.J1- 7 l tI 1 Wvd I' }.,/)/\- u.;::;;'JA.- , I - . /) " / ; t? ' ' 1- 1)Jj1 ~ :a~ "jI,,~~ S~ tiJ? ,Av>-e' .~)1;),4 ,'- ._- I ,l'LC-{!t i. '-<fLl->: 1,. I' .1;) /J .. . ~\.{)~...;' ..........-.- -~ UA77fi-t . () .G~JIJ.;:;LL_ . _fo,Boy J 3 6.d--: It:> fi}1/ I 0 f/6'1 ~ ... - .A1S--;~~jJ CiJair! ~CP;M~ f;lii/J_.IJ ~,u it/C';c . {". 0 :.//' CO I PJ'/. ! -'0.,:). I j'; ;q:f i2z' 'v ():, 8/ ! / .:2- .; t '- ;--.. r. .. -- f..7:J -:_ (/ Uj--- Iv.> ....l { I. .~\ 'cllf{ dC6/o To The Mayor and City Council: I am writing this letter in support of the Boomerang Lodge re-development. Tho the impacts on the neighborhood are many--- the Boomerang project seems to be sensitive to them. Namely, the traffic pattern, which will not affect the PEDESTRIAN-WAY, or the TRAIL SYSTEM. The automobile will enter via the alley where the entrance to the parking garage will be. Yes, the project will be much larger than the existing lodge. I do have concerns about the construction process, which Steve tells me will be DstagedD. . ABOVE ALL,I BEG YOU TO KEEP IN YOUR AWARENESS THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS, BY DESIGN, A PEDESTRIAN-WAY TO THE MAROLT BRIDGE. Anything that is done to comprise the beauty and safety of this throughfare is WRONG.!! Lets rename NIMBY to THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. Sincerely, Ms. Martha Madsen Owner/and resident manager MADSEN CHALET APARTMENTS 608 West Hopkins Ave. ~ Joyce Allgaier From: Sent: To: Subject: Helen Klanderud Wednesday, July 05, 20062:42 PM Joyce Allgaier FW: Boomerang project Joyce, For Boomerang Public Hearing. Helen -----Original Message----- From: Mitzi Rapkin Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 20062:34 PM To: JE DeVilbiss Oed@ci.aspen.co.us); Helen Klanderud (helenk@ci.aspen.co.us); Torre; Jack Johnson; Rachel Richards Subject: FW: Boomerang project -----Original Message----- From: Martha [mailto:tiggerflute@earthlink.netj Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:32 PM To: Mitzi Rapkin Subject: Boomerang project Dear Mitzi, Thanks for offering to forward this to the appropriate powers in charge of the July 10 meeting I heard about: To whom it may concern, After just attending a Core Beliefs Focus Group meeting with several hours of discussion about development in Aspen, , also wish to put in specific feedback about the Boomerang project. I am one of apparently many residents lamenting the frenzy of construction of large, ritzy lodgings, leaving smaller, charming and unique places struggling increasingly to survive. 1 am strongly opposed to this and similar developments, and would not be surprised to see a day when Aspen has become overbuilt and large structures suddenly lie fallow. Meanwhile, we will have eliminated more green space, more potential land for smaller businesses, and perhaps driven out of business the few remaining places of charm and accessibility for "normal" visitors of more modest means. Sincerely, Martha Aarons 1 o 0 AFFliL~ATED FXNANC1AL GROUP? MORTGAGE LENDERS ~ q1w/06 ~NC. May 18, 2006 Chris Bendon Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chris: It has been brought to my attention that on May 16th, lody Edwards indicated that he represented the Christiana Aspen Condo Owner's Association, as well as all but one of the homeowners as this condominium project which is in front of the Boomerang Lodge, a topic of discussion on May 16th. I have been the owner of Unit A-204 since the Christiana was re-developed and also serve as Vice President of the Christiana Aspen Condo Owner's Association. In the latter capacity, we decided not to retain lody to represent the Association as not all unit owners were affected by the proposed re-development of the Boomerang Lodge. In my case, my unit faces Main Street and the swimming pool and hot tub and it will have little impact on my views. The Christiana developer and President of our Association (Greg Hills) and I decided that he would approach individual unit owners directly and see if certain ones (who's view would be adversely affected) were interested in challenging the four-story proposal or contributing to such. In addition, since not all unit owners will be adversely impacted by the Boomerang proposal, I would seriously doubt that he represents all but HoneH unit owner. In all fairness, it is my feeling that the Ordinance that permits the redevelopment of lodges by allowing the construction of four story buildings should have been challenged when the ordinance was first proposed. ~'~c~re~l 1 V. . '. (V\..; 1 k Ca er 5690 DTC Boulevard' Suite 400' Greenwood Village. Colorado 80111 . Phone 303-267-0408. FAX 303-267-0413 - ",-.~--"~--""'..-~..-...~..- E,<\Ad<J' + D Resolution No. 18 (SERiES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPROVAL FOR LODGING, FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOTMENTS, AND RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND REZONING FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BOOMERANG LODGE, 500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID:2735.124.49.002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSP-ABR, LLC, (Applicant), c/o Steve Stunda; 11921 Freedom Drive #950; Reston , V A 20190; represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, Subdivision approval, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, Planned Unit Development approval, Condominiumization approval, and vested rights for the redevelopment of the Boomerang Lodge located at 500 West Hopkins Avenue and known legally as Lots K through S of Block 31, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the site currently contains 34 hotel units in a structure of approximately 23,000 square feet of Floor Area and surface parking located primarily within the public rights-of-way. The proposed development includes 52 hotel units, 6 free- market residential units, 2 affordable housing units, a 31-space underground parking facility, and 17 surface parking spaces in a structure of approximately 51,000 square feet of Floor Area as defined by the City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the application according to the standards of review for each of the requested land use approvals and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision Review approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 1 after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission Community, Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.304 of the Aspen Land Use Code and during a regular meeting on April 11,2006, continued to May 2,2006, continued to May 16, 2006, and continued to June 13, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where the recommendations ofthe Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard and approved the request for six (6) free-market residential growth management allotments, two (2) affordable housing growth management allotments, eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, and recommended City Council Subdivision, Rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development approval by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings contained in Exhibit A of the May 16, 2006, staff memorandum and the conditions of approval listed hereinafter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Growth Manal!:ement Allotments The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.470 - Growth Management _ hereby grants to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project six (6) free-market residential allotments and two (2) affordable housing allotments, and eighteen (18) lodge growth management allotments, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 2: Recommendation of A roval for Subdivision Rezonin for PUD Overlav. and PUD Final Development Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.480, 26.310, and 26.445- Subdivision, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development, respectively - hereby recommends City Council grant Subdivision approval, rezoning for a Planned Unit Development Overlay, and Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval to the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project, subject to the requirements listed hereinafter. Section 3: Proiect Dimensions The followin a roved dimensions of the ro'ect shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sJ. Minimum Lot Width 270 It. Minimum Front Yard Setback 0-5 It. Minimum Side Yard Setback 0-5 It. on west 1-5 ft. on east Minimum Rear Yard Setback 0-5 It. Maximum Height 42 ft. for a flat rool. Approxirnately 30- 35 ft. on east side. **This needs to be Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 2 Pedestrian Amenity Space more specific 19% Total Lodging Non-unit space Commercial Free-Market Residential Affordable Residential 1.86:1 = 50,470 sJ. .97:1 = 26,210 s.f. .35: 1 = 9,536 sJ. N/A .475:1 = 12,845 = 25% of total project .05:1 = 1,452 s.f. Section 4: Trash/Recvclinl!: Area The applicant is encouraged to make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection and to make sure recycling containers are present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City's new recycling ordinance requiring haulers to provide recycling in the cost oftrash pick-up. Section 5: Affordable Housinl!: The applicant shall provide two Category 2 affordable housing units as depicted in the application dated December 30, 2005. These units shall be considered full mitigation for the development proposed in said application. A Certificate of Occupancy for the Boomerang Lodge Redevelopment project shall not be issued until such time as Certificates of Occupancy for the deed restricted affordable housing units, which are required for mitigation, have been issued. The employees to be housed in the deed-restricted units shall meet the qualification criteria contained within the APCHA Guidelines, as may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall structure and record a deed restriction for the affordable housing units such that an undivided 1/1 Oth of 1 percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. The affordable housing units shall be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. At such time if the units become ownership units, these units will establish an independent homeowners association. Section 6: Additional Trip Generation and PMI0 Mitil!:ation Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 3 _.m__ In order to reduce the impacts of additional trip generation and PM 10 generated by the project, the project shall provide either: 1) a shuttle service for use by the owners/guests of the residences/hotel, 2) an electric vehicle for use by owners/gusts of the project, 3) secure and covered bicycle storage, or 4) the hotel and homeowners associations(s) shall . join the Transportation Options program. The Subdivision Agreement shall specify which of these options shall be implemented. The project shall be subject to any transportation related impact fees adopted prior to application for a building permit and any of the above options shall be credited towards any fee requirement. Section 7: Subdivision Plat and PUD Plans Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat and Final PUD Plans. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current requirements of the City Community Development Engineer and, in addition to the standard requirements, shall include: 1. The final property boundaries and disposition of lands. 2. The location of Revocable Encroachments for physical improvements within public rights-of-way, including parking to be designated to the Lodge, with reference to agreements and licenses for such improvements. 3. The location of utility pedestals with access easements for the utility provider. Transformers and pedestals shall be located outside of the public right-of-way unless licensed. 4. The applicant shall provide the final approved Subdivision line data or survey description data describing the revised building, street, and parcel boundaries to the Geographic Information Systems Department prior to applying for a building permit. The final building location data, including any amendments, shall be provided to the GIS Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In addition to the standard requirement of Section 26.445.070.B, the Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with adequate snow storage areas and/or snow melted areas depicted. Approved project dimensions shall be printed on the final illustrative plan. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species oflandscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department. 3. A sidewalk and curb improvements plan depicting a detached sidewalk with planting buffer along both West Hopkins Avenue and North 5th Street. The sidewalk shall be five feet in width and be located adjacent to the property boundaries, or as close as possible given existing vegetation as determined by the City Engineer and the Community Development Director. The surface parking along West Hopkins Avenue shall be eliminated. The sidewalk shall incorporate accessible ramps according to the current standards. 4. Design specifications and profiles for public right-of-way improvements. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 4 5. An architectural character plan demonstrating the general architectural character and depicting materials, fenestration, and projections. 6. Scaled floor plans of each level of the building depicting unit divisions. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: Subdivision and PUD Al!:reement Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision and PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.480.070 and 26.445.070.C, in addition to the following: 1. Revocable Encroachment agreements and licenses for physical improvements within public rights-of-way with reference to their locations depicted on the Subdivision Plat. 2. In order to secure the performance of the construction and installation of improvements in the public rights-of-way, the landscape plan, and public facilities performance security shall include and secure the estimated costs of proposed right-of-way improvements. 3. A revocable license agreement to use portions of the Fourth Street right-of-way for dedicated parking. 4. A license agreement to use any public rights-of-way, or portions thereof, adjacent to the project site for construction staging including a fee to use the land at a rate of $1.25 per square foot per month for the time period in which the land is to be occupied for construction staging. Section 9: Impact Fees Park Impact Fees of $41,039 shall be assessed. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. The following fee total is based on the current proposal and fee schedule: Park Fees - Proposed Development: 52 Lodge Units (studio units) @ $1,520 per unit 2 one-bedroom residential units @ $2,120 per unit 3 two-bedroom residential units @ $2,725 per unit 3 three-bedroom residential units @ $3,634 per unit Total =$79,040 = $4,240 =$8,175 = $10,902 = $102,357 Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 5 Park Fees - Credit for Existing Development: 34 Lodge Units 29-studio units @ $1,520 per unit 3 two-bedroom units @ $2725 per unit 2 three-bedroom units @ $3,634 per unit =$44,080 =$8,175 =$7,268 Total Credit = ($59,523) Total Park Impact Fee Due = $42,834 School Land Dedication Fees are assessed based on one-third the value of the unimproved land divided by the proposed number of residential units on a per acre basis. The applicant shall provide and the City of Aspen shall verify the unimproved land value of the lands underlying the Project and determine the applicable dedication fee. The subject subdivision is not conducive to locating a school facility and a cash-in-lieu payment shall be accepted. Amendments to the Project or to the fee schedule adopted prior to issuance of a building permit shall require a new calculation. Other Imoacts Fees. The project shall be subject to amendments and additions to the Impact Fee Chapter of the Land Use Code adopted prior to the application for a building permit. Section 10: Water Department The applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with applicable standards of Municipal Code Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Soil nails will not be allowed in the City ROW. Section 11: Sanitation District Standards/ReQuirements The applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations, including the following: 1. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. 2. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. . 3. A wastewater flow study may be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. 4. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. 5. On-site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. 6. On-site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. 7. Oil and Sand separators are required for public vehicle parking garages and vehicle maintenance facilities. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 6 8. Glycol snowmelt and heating systems must have containment provisions and must preclude discharge to the public sanitary sewer system. 9. Plans for interceptors, separators and containment facilities require submittal by the applicant and approval prior to building permit. 10. When new service lines are required for existing development the old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. 11. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. 12. Generally one tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. 13. Permanent improvements are prohibited in areas covered by sewer easements or right of ways to the lot line of each development. 14. All ACSD total connection fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 15. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Section 12: Pre-Construction Meetinl!: Prior to Building Permit Submission, a meeting between the following parties shall be conducted: Developer/Applicant, Project Architect, Prime Contractor, City Staff Planner, Community Development Engineer, City Engineer, Building Official/Plans Examiner. The purpose of the meeting is to identify the approving ordinance and any amendments, identify conditions of approval, discuss the Construction Management Plan, identify the timeline for plat and PUD/SIA agreement recordation, identify the types of building permits necessary and the development activities that can be conducted prior to receiving a building permit, review any critical timeline issues, review the steps and timing of the building permit process, discuss responsibilities of all parties in getting permits, changes, etc., and review the Building Department checklist. Section 13: Construction Manal!:ement Plan Prior to application for any Building Permit, Foundation Permit, Access Infrastructure permit, Demolition permit, etc., the applicant and the City shall agree upon a Construction Management Plan for the project. For the City, the plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Engineer. The Plan shall include: I. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction phases affecting city streets and infrastructure and provisions for noticing emergency service providers, neighbors, the City Streets Department, the Transportation Department, City Parking Department, and the City Engineering Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 7 Department. Street closures concurrent with significant public events shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. 3. A notice to be sent to neighboring property owners describing the general schedule of the project and the contact information of the general contractor. The City encourages open communication between project representatives and the neighbors such that day-to-day issues can be resolved without involving the City. 4. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. For projects greater than one acre in size a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Air Quality Control Division. 5. Recycling facilities, in addition to trash facilities, for the period of construction. Section 14: Buildinl!: Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A signed copy of the final P&Z Resolution and Council Ordinance granting land use approval. 2. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Resolution and Ordinance have been read and understood. 3. The conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 4. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 5. A right-of-way improvement plan depicting physical improvements to the right-of-way including design specifications and profiles. All improvements shall comply with the City's requirements for accessibility. 6. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan for approval by the City Parks Department. 7. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 8. A grading/drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. Off-site improvement shall be done in coordination with the City Engineer. 9. A fireplace/woodstove permit. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have only two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 8 10. An asbestos inspection report. Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the CDPHE Air Quality Control Division must be notified and a person licensed by the state of Colorado to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 11. A tree removal permit, as applicable. 12. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department which addresses watering of disturbed areas including haul roads, perimeter silt fencing, as- needed cleaning of adjacent rights-of-way, speed limits within and accessing the site, and the ability to request additional measures to prevent a nuisance during construction. The applicant shall wash tracked mud and debris from the street as necessary, and as requested by the City, during construction. Submission of a fugitive dust control plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Quality Control Division may also be necessary. 13. A study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or streets. The City will not approve of soil nails into public right-of- way or utility easements. 14. A construction site management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. The location and design of standpipes, fire sprinklers, and alarms shall be acceptable to the Fire Marshall. Section 15: Noise Durinl!: Construction During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Section 16: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the Project to define separate ownership interests of the Project is hereby approved by the City of Aspen, subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current (at the time of condo plat submission) plat requirements of the City Community Development Engineer. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 9 documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 20: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Resolution, to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on ,2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jasmine Tygre, Chair David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk C:\home\Current Planning\CASES\Boomerang Lodge\Reso.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 18, Series of 2006 Page 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16,2005 Dylan Johns asked what the thinking was behind the 3,000 square foot minimum lot size to begin with. Lindt replied that it was a carry over from the Lodge/Tourist/Residential District that was in place before the infill code amendments changed the code. Lindt said originally there was concern for too much density and that transformed over the years; in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan there were goals that look for ways to increase the density in the core area. No public comments. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #19, Series of 2006 recommending City Council approve the amendments to the land use code Section 26.71 0.190(D )(2A) Lodge Zone District minimum lot area per dwelling unit for affordable housing units. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion of motion: Skadron asked if other properties would be affected by this amendment. Lindt responded there was not a good record of the properties built in the 1970s or before so GIS footprint mapping was used to average the FAR of the properties which might be impacted. Lindt said there would not be expansions of buildings coming out ofthis change but possibly utilizing existing floor area. Johns asked how this tied into the 500 square foot room size. Lindt replied that typically it would not impact the incentive lodge developments because only 25% was allowed unless it was varied in a PUD for residential units. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (512/6): BOOMERANG PUD Dylan Johns opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon provided the history on Lodge Preservation Overlay. The Boomerang Lodge is currently in the R-6 Zone District with an LP Overlay. Bendon said the neighborhood surrounding the Boomerang was eclectic with a broad mix of uses from single family, duplex, affordable housing, free market multi family housing, lodging development, parks, civic use, and one block from Main Street with full transit access. There was a range of sizes of buildings. Staff supports the application with concerns. Bendon noted this was an expansion of lodging units; there were 34 existing units. Staff was concerned for the height of the building; the underlying zoning was a guide for height in a PUD and also the surrounding neighborhood. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Bendon said they have had the historic designation discussions with the former owner and current owner and the focus was on the east wing of the Boomerang as a kind of window of the past. The HPC had concerns for the addition of the 3rd floor on the east wing, which presents a problem for placement of that mass in a way that still meets the consistency of the neighborhood. Sunny Vann appreciated the support of staff. Vann said the code Lodge Incentive Amendment made this project viable with 25% of the floor area free market. Vann said that the underlying R-6 Zone can not be used to design a hotel; there was not enough floor area or height. Vann said this was designed with the Lodge Zone District rules. Vann stated the lodge rooms were increased by 20 and meet the incentives for the average unit size to obtain the free market portion of the project. Augie Reno addressed the height issues beginning with meeting with the Community Development Staff and neighbors. Reno said there were a large number of people in the neighborhood in support of this project, which was important to the owner Steve Stunda. Reno stated the lodge fit into the Incentive Lodge Ordinance as it stands. The building as it now stands was 33 feet to the ridgeline and other building heights would be 30 feet and 31.5 feet. Reno said they were keeping 39 out of the 42 existing trees; they tried to maintain the east wing. The building was pushed as far away from the Christiana as possible in the center section, which is 70 feet away. Drawing AI06 shows the different shades of brown denoting the various heights of the project. The footprint was 27,000 square feet and the roof was about 17,200. Reno reiterated that they were keeping the pool (renovating it), keeping the lower seating area, the lobby, public rooms and meeting room. Vann stated they have the ability to minimize the adverse impact of this building on Hopkins Avenue because of the trees. Vann said they have a project that works with an applicant that wants to build it. Mary Liz Wilson asked that if the east wing was taken down then 5 rooms would be lost. Vann replied there were 5 rooms to the east wing addition. Vann said that as a condition of approval they were willing to have a change in material for the addition to the east wing. Wilson asked if the height were reduced would the rooms become smaller. Vann responded that a couple of rooms just couldn't be pulled out and still maintain the structure. Reno explained the existing east wing with 3 units remained and existing lobby had a new lounge; there were 2 extra rooms. Reno said that everything else was pretty much the same; the configuration was changed without a double loaded corridor. The 3rd floor 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16,2005 contained the 5 rooms from the eastern wing, 3 free market units and lodge rooms in the west wing; the 4th level has 3 free market units and 2 lodge rooms. Steve Skadron asked if it was the applicant's intent to rent the rooms at a moderate price point. Vann replied that rents are not regulated; the size ofthe rooms and the location will dictate. Vann stated the problem was not having the person to rent the room as it was to have the ability to redevelop the property. Skadron asked for a visual of the shading impact with the new height onto surrounding properties for both summer and winter. Reno answered that in the summer time the shadows would be negligible and in the winter the shadows were a 30% angle coming across to the other side ofthe alley. Vann stated with the existing building the alley was pretty much in the shade after midday because of Shadow Mountain. Brian Speck asked why the eastern wing was so important to keep. Bendon responded that it was not designated historic but has been on the HPC radar screen for quite some time to preserve post World War II architecture especially in the lodging districts where the evolution of skiing was partnered with the evolution of buildings. Bendon noted this was also the one of the first modem architectural buildings; beyond that eastern wing there were many changes over time so the architecture was not pure enough. Vann said it was more of a desire to preserve old Aspen than an architecturally or historically significant building in context to what HPC normally regulates. Vann said that they voluntarily agreed to talk to HPC and agreed to preserve it if it could be incorporated into the overall design without being a detriment to the project as a whole. Vann said the applicant voluntarily agreed to designate the portion of the property in which the wing is setting as historic so any further changes to the wing would be subject to HPC review and approval. Speck asked about the pedestrian amenity percentage. Bendon replied this project was outside the zone that required pedestrian amenity; the numbers shown were the open space for the pool. Vann said that they were also making improvements to Hopkins to enhance pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. John Rowland asked in what year was the east wing built. Vann said that it was in 1956 beginning with the cabin in 1955. Rowland asked if there were building sections showing the street and to address the height. Mary Liz Wilson asked the size of the employee housing units. Vann replied they were category 2, one bedroom units with 650 square feet of net livable space. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Dylan Johns asked for a walk through of the operations of visitors and deliveries. Vann replied the parking was relocated to a below grade garage with the exception ofthe parking in front of the east wing entrance lobby (main entrance). Reno said that small deliveries would probably come to the main entrance but larger ones would go down into the parking garage. Reno denoted the enclosed trash area off ofthe back alley. Johns asked ifthe height does become an issue how would that affect the project. Bendon replied that it would affect the unit sizes. Johns asked how many other lodges still exist that would be in an LP Overlay that still function as a lodge. Bendon answered probably 10-15; quite a few have gone through an LP redevelopment process in the last few years. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jody Edwards, represents the Christina Homeowners Association with the exception of Diane, stated the Christiana was opposed to the mass and scale of this proposal and believe that it should be significantly smaller. Edwards said the proposal was out of scale with the neighborhood and will have negative impacts on traffic. Edwards said the objections were the lack of separation of buildings, it reads as one massive building and it was much too high. Edwards said that the Christiana was broken up in heights and varied pitched roof lines and the Christina was consistent with the neighborhood. Edwards utilized the model to show the way the other properties in the neighborhood looked with spaces between buildings that allow light to come through and people to move through; this particular proposal lacked those spaces. Edwards quoted from the AACP why he thought this project did not meet those criteria. Brian Speck asked if there was a lot of public discussion about the height, mass and bulk of the Christina and what we see is the project before getting its height and massing and what we saw with the Sky Hotel neighbors. Bendon replied that there was discussion on the north structures and along the alley massing. Mary Liz Wilson stated concern for the bulk and mass of the project in the neighborhood and would also like to see it broken up more. Wilson encouraged the applicant to bring the height down. John Rowland was sympathetic to the program since the economic driver was why it was in the shape it was in; he said that he could not vote until he saw some cross sections. Rowland requested a macro map of the neighborhood that shows other lodges that could potentially capitalize on this program. Bendon said there was a map of the LP properties. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 2005 Steve Skadron requested any other visuals that this project might impact like shadows cast onto the Christina. Augie Reno noted that Shadow Mountain was about 1,000 feet higher. Skadron asked if the east wing was not maintained could some of the height and massing be moved to that portion of the property. Vann replied that if you take a third ofthe site and restrict it to a small finger building then you could spread the building out. Dylan Johns stated that the scale was an issue but this project was better for the area; the 4 stories was an issue on the west end of the site. Johns said that there was a lot of articulation on the building. Johns said the underground parking would clean things up around the site. Johns asked if the project would fall apart if it were to fall below 54 rooms. Johns said that he really did not have a problem with the size but more of a contextual aspect of fitting into the neighborhood. Bendon said the design team needed to respond to the commission concerns. Vann said that if they went to the 600/600 formula about 5 or 6 units were lost but much more was lost from the building trying to get those 6 units out of the building; they cannot lose a whole floor. Vann said they can look at the articulation to reduce the perception of the mass. Vann noted the majority of the neighbors that were impacted were in support ofthis project. Vann stated this has to function as a hotel and condominium. Vann said that the commission as a whole was not concerned for the historic aspect but the applicant wanted to see it retained. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the Boomerang PUD to June 13, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: MOSES PROPERTY 8040 GREENLlNE REVIEW Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Moses 8040 Greenline Review. Ben Gagnon provided the notice. Gagnon explained the property was located at the end of Aspen Alps Road adjacent to the Alps 700 building. In 1987 the property was rezoned from Conservation to R-15 and approved subdivision known as the Moses Lot Split, which established Lot 1 and Lot 2 (about an acre). Gagnon said the subdivision established the floor area cap at 3800 square feet for Lot 2 (the brown building). In 1992 Council approved a subdivision of Lot 2 granting Lots 2A and 2B as open 7 Aspen Plannim!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - June 13. 2006 Phelan stated the park impact development fee has increased; the air quality and storm drainage fees were new as well as an appeal process. The school land dedication fee was reviewed by the number of students generated by the kind of housing, which the consultant updated. The school land dedication was only assessed through subdivision but this revision would require any bedrooms added would be assessed the fee. Lodges and commercial development were not assessed. Public Comments: Tom Dunlop, former Environmental Health Director for the City and County, stated that the PMlO mitigation program went through a number of processes and it was a battle that went on for years. The Commission agreed with staffs' approach for the changes to the park dedication and school land dedication impact fees. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #23, Series of2006, recommending City Council approve the proposed land use code amendments to Section 26.610 and 26.630 Park Development Impact Fee and School Land Dedication. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BOOMERANGLODGEREDEVELOPMENTPUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment PUD. Tygre noted that she was not at the last Boomerang hearing and has not read the minutes but this was a revised plan. Sunny Vann responded that they had no objections to Jasmine participating. Joyce Allgaier provided the overview ofthe project now with 52 hotel rooms and about 50,500 square feet. There were 6 free-market units proposed with about 12,822 square feet; 2 affordable housing units; 48 parking spaces, 31 in an underground garage and 17 surface spaces. The property was zoned R-6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay; this was a lodge incentive development. Growth Management Review included the lodge units, free-market units and affordable housing units. This was a planned unit development to set the dimensional standards for the project; rezoning for the PUD overlay; subdivision because of the 8 new residential units (6 free market and 2 affordable); and condominiumization. Allgaier stated the issues were height, massing of the structure and the historic east wing; the historic preservation commission would like to see a component of this 3 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006 structure saved for posterity or a reflection of the historic lodge built by Charles Paterson. Allgaier said that the traditional type oflodge was a compliment to the project. Staff supported the application. There were revisions to the resolution that reflect the floor area, height and new cross-sections. Sunny Vann stated the project was designed to comply with the City's new Lodge Incentive Program; those provisions provide an opportunity to take a run-down lodge and renovate and expand it. That made economic sense to produce a new product in a location that was historically served lodging in this community. Vann said the only objections from neighbors came from some Christiania owners located on the back of the building, which several units were impacted by the existing lodge. The current Boomerang Lodge occupies half of a city block and runs from Fourth Street to Fifth Street and has been the biggest structure in the neighborhood with the exception of the redevelopment of the Christiania and some new large homes. Vann stated there were substantial trees that would sustain the visual impact of the new taller building when viewed from the public right-of-way; the trees were large enough to screen it from the public use of Hopkins. Vann stated to reduce the impact of the lodge on the 6 adjacent Christiania units the alley parking was moved entirely below grade and the new building was set back from the alley. Vann stated the principal objectives were to maintain a small lodge; to expand it to recoup some of the lost small lodge units; to renovate and expand the. Boomerang Lodge in such a way that it has a minimal impact on the neighborhood in general and the community at large. Augie Reno, architect, presented drawings showing the existing lodge and proposed lodge footprints; the existing building was broken up into three identifiable masses and tried to follow through with the redevelopment design. Reno stated the center mass of the proposed building was moved 20 feet from the property line. Reno stated the 4th floor plan contained 2 lodge rooms at 42 feet high, which have been removed so the 42 foot roof was 60 feet from the Christiania building being constructed. Reno stated that there were 4 roof heights and it was important to understand that the building was not all one level; adding up all the roofs that were 39 feet or less in height amounted to 89% of the entire roof. Reno utilized cross-sections to illustrate that the pedestrian view plane and shadow studies to show Shadow Mountain's affects on the area. John Rowland asked how the project was left with HPC on the use of materials. Vann replied that they did not have an obligation to be reviewed under HPC but 4 Aspen Planning: & Zoning: Commission Meeting: Minutes - June 13. 2006 Steve Stunda wanted to preserve the east wing and volunteered to place the east wing under HPC review. Vann said HPC would prefer to see different materials on the new addition to the east wing. Steve Skadron asked what the condominiumization had to do with the short term rentals. Joyce Allgaier responded the condominiumization had to do with the free- market units and affordable housing units. Vann explained that it was virtually impossible to build a lodge today and finance it in a seasonal economy, so the lodging community has gone to fractional units with multiple ownerships and making sure it stays available to the public or condominiumize it with the city imposed 30 consecutive day maximum with 90 days total per year consecutive occupancy otherwise it may remain vacant there not functioning as a lodge. Skadron asked how he was reassured that the condominiums would be used as hotbeds. Vann replied that condominiumization was not prohibited so the limitation was imposed on occupancy by an owner and enforced on a complaint basis. Mary Liz Wilson asked ifthe free-market units would be rentable. Vann answered that the units were sold as whole units that were smaller than most units at 1800 to about 2400 for the largest; they would be happy to rent out the units through the front desk. Wilson asked the size difference in the remodeled lodge rooms and the new lodge rooms. Reno replied that the main floor currently had 5 rooms and would be remodeled to 3 and the second level would basically remain the same. Dylan Johns asked if the pedestrian corridor was a permanent trail or a road. Allgaier replied that it was a good corridor connecting the two ends oftown. Jasmine Tygre asked if there was a duplex on the other side of Hopkins approved. Allgaier answered there were 3 free-market units and an affordable housing duplex. Tygre asked if there was a contingency plan for the trees in case someone went after them. Vann replied that it would take a while for 70 foot trees to be replaced; he said the fine associated with those trees would be enormous. Stunda stated that they had a tree consultant retained to meet with the parks department on the trees. Vann said they relocated the garage to accommodate the trees; they were saving 39 out of the 42 trees on the property. Public Comments: A letter from Aspen Stay Snowmass indicating strong support of the proposed lodge expansion on behalf of the board of directors to see one of the GEMS of Aspen expand its bed base, signed by Bill Tomsich. 5 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - June 13. 2006 Affiliated Financial Group, Dick Carter, questioned if Jody Edwards represents all of the owners of the Christiania and felt that Jody only represents one or two owners. Craig Ward, real estate broker, stated that he represented Charlie Paterson in the sale ofthe lodge; he watched Charlie build the lodge. Ward said that he was excited that the east wing was being preserved. Ward hoped the commissioners endorsed this proposal. Steve Skadron asked the traffic flow pattern of the pedestrian way. Sunny Vann responded the pedestrian way was signed and only operates during the summer. Vann said that in the winter most people arrive by plane and the summer was the only time expected to have the garage reasonably full. Skadron said that there was much community benefit to be derived from this project and complied with the city lodge code, acceptable to the neighbors, the sub grade parking, maintains the small lodge component of the city inventory and rooms were retained for the short term rental pool. Skadron said that he could support this project and was comfortable with the 4th floor because the vegetation obscures the building. John Rowland stated that there were a lot of good things about the project and appreciated the studies provided. Brain Speck thanked the applicant for their due diligence coming back with great drawings and he supported the project for the same reasons that Steve did. Mary Liz Wilson agreed and thanked the applicant for the changes and new drawings; she thought that it would be great to have a 50 room lodge in a great location. Dylan Johns found himself torn between running into problems with the 4th story and the proximity to the pedestrian way with 4 stories on that side would raise some eyebrows even though it accomplished a lot of community goals but raises the question about context. Johns said ifthere were only 3 stories it would be easy to support but the 4th story in this location was difficult for him; he felt that city council would have a hard time with the 4th story. Johns said that keeping the quaint and unique (in some respects) east side of the building was somewhat limiting to what could be done on this piece of property and did not feel that it should be a historic resource to drive one-third of the site creating the contextual issue for the rest of the project. Vann responded that without the developable program (room count, etc.) it was not a project but losing the 4th floor would lose a 6 Asoen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes - June 13. 2006 substantial component of the economic engine and lodge rooms, which fall outside ofthe project. Vann said that this was a balancing act of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this project provides substantial community benefit. Johns stated concern for the way the building was perceived from the alley instead of a typical perspective, which would be from the street bringing the building into more ofthe pedestrian view. Jasmine Tygre agreed with most of the members ofthe commission and very strongly with Dylan. Tygre said that part was a philosophical context situation; one of the problems was redevelopment oflodges in residential districts in general. Tygre said there was a neighborhood context to do with height, building size and so forth. Tygre said that one of the biggest objections to infill had to do with height because height has to do with street presence, like Dylan pointed out. Tygre said that she would be much happier if the 42 foot heights were toward the alley rather than toward the street fayade because the impact to the general public would be really important. Tygre said that she became obsessed with the trees for enough screening and if the location of the 42 foot heights were located in a different portion of the building. Tygre stated that as this project is presently proposed she could not support this project. Tygre stated that this project broke up the massing well and was an attractive building; the trees were extremely helpful. Tygre said the intent of the project was exactly what they intended to have with this kind of ordinance and the overall concern was the height and location ofthe height. Reno stated there were only two portions on the south side that went to 42 feet. MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #18, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the growth management reviews of lodging and affordable housing and recommending that city council approve with conditions the Boomerang Lodge Subdivision/PUD to include the corrected technical language. Seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Wilson, yes; Johns, no; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion of the motion: Dylan Johns requested the record reflect that if the 4th floor was not visible from West Hopkins then he did not have a problem with the 4th floor. Johns stated that he was not so concerned about the alley presence. Tygre stated the visible height on Hopkins was her deciding factor. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM l~a. TO: Mayor and Council CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager CC: John Worcester, City Attorney Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director 1--ZY~ FROM: DATE: June 30, 2006 RE: Electric Distribution Wheeling Agreement for Burlingame Village SUMMARY: Approval of this agreement will provide for extension of municipal electric service to Burlingame Village through Holy Cross Energy (HCE) facilities. The option for municipal electric service to Burlingame Village was provided for in the existing franchise agreement between the City and HCE even though the project is located outside the boundaries of the municipal electric utility. Under the terms of the agreement, HCE will wheel power and energy across HCE facilities to a point of delivery on the Burlingame project. The City will then be in a position to set up electric service accounts to the individual residential units. Residents of Burlingame Village will benefit by receiving 100% renewable energy and competitive rates offered by City electric service. BACKGROUND: The retail portion of the City's electric system does not currently extend to Burlingame Village. Under current circumstances, delivery of electric power to new City electric customers in this area will necessitate installation of a centralized metering facility at the site and arrangements for the delivery or "wheeling" of energy across existing HCE facilities. The retail distribution system and connection to individual residences is currently under construction as part of the Burlingame Project. This agreement will provide for the installation of metering facilities and sets forth the terms and charges by which power will be wheeled across HCE facilities for delivery to this new electric customer base. This wheeling agreement was envisioned to be part of the Franchise Agreement between HCE and the City in order to provide electric service details. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2003, City Council entered into a Franchise agreement with HCE that provided for municipal electric service to the residents of Burlingame Village. As part of the 2006 Budget, Council approved increased appropriations for the increased purchase power costs and anticipated revenue from this expanded service area. Council also approved an increase in the amount of the Wind Energy Purchase agreement with Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN) in order to meet the expected electric demand from these new customers. The infrastructure contract for Burlingame Village included the electric distribution system and is currently under construction, with initial electric service scheduled to be available by the end of July 2006. 1 DISCUSSION: Provision of municipal electric service to the residents of Burlingame Village was an objective of City Council in negotiation of the 2003 Franchise agreement. The primary benefit of this provision ofthe Franchise agreement was to arrange for the delivery of renewable energy, resulting in a "greener" project and lower costs to electric customers. Approval ofthis agreement is the last step necessary to achieve these objectives. The increased delivery of wind energy for this project has already been arranged through an agreement with MEAN. The proposed agreement with HCE contains the details necessary to arrange for delivery of energy across HCE facilities and arrangements for tracking and billing for the delivery of electrical energy and power at a metering facility. The metering facility and necessary communications equipment will be installed at the City's cost. The City will also pay HCE the usual and customary wheeling rate of $0.0085/kWh for the time period that energy is wheeled across HCE facilities. The agreement provides for an annual renewal unless terminated by either party on a one-year notice basis. Future extensions of the retail electric distribution system necessary to serve subsequent phases of the project may be necessary, but it will not be necessary to amend the agreement with HCE as long as the residential count does not exceed the limits provided in the HCE Franchise agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The increased revenue and purchased power costs of providing electric service to Phase I of Burlingame Village have been included in the 2006 budget, based on a mid-year start of service. This includes the increased cost of purchasing 100% wind energy for the expected electric load increase and wheeling and facilities charges for delivery of energy, including those charges payable to HCE under this agreement. These amounts are estimates based on an assumed delivery of energy to each customer. Actual revenue and costs may vary depending on customer usage and budget adjustments may be necessary to both electric revenue and expenditures based on actual customer use patterns. Council has not yet approved subsequent phases of Burlingame Village (Phases II and III). No budgetary provisions for the revenue and service costs of further expanded electric service have been made. However, the Electric Long Range Plan does include this expanded service while showing a positive effect on the Electric Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Approval of this agreement is the last step necessary in arranging for delivery of 100% renewable wind energy to Phase I of Burlingame Village and will assist the City in meeting its objectives under the Canary Initiative. Emissions of carbon dioxide would be significantly higher if the project is served by HCE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Distribution Wheeling Service Agreement with HCE. ALTERNATIVES: Provision of direct electrical service over City owned facilities rather than wheeling across HCE facilities would eliminate the need for this agreement. However, this option is not feasible within the time lines required to initiate electric service to Burlingame Village. Entering into the proposed agreement does not in itself eliminate the future potential for this option since the agreement can be cancelled on one year's notice. A second option is to allow HCE to serve Burlingame Village using its own energy resources. This option would not meet Council's objectives of expanding electric services and would not have the same environmental or cost benefits. 2 PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution #~. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 3 RESOLUTION # 54- (Series of 2006) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. (DBA AS HOLY CROSS ENERGY), SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING WHEELING POWER AND ENERGY OVER HOLYCROSS ENERGY'S ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION VOLT AGE FACILITIES TO CUSTOMERS SITUATED ON PROPERTIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN LISTED ON "EXHffiITT A" OF CITY OF ASPEN ORDINANCE 44, SERIES 2003, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Holy Cross Energy, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Holy Cross Energy, regarding wheeling power and energy over Holy Cross Energy's electric distribution voltage facilities to customers situated on properties owned or controlled by the City of Aspen and listed on Exhibit A of City of Aspen Ordinance 44, Series 2003, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Helen Kalin Klanderud, 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 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk DISTRIBUTION WHEELING SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND HOLY CROSS ENERGY This Agreement is made and entered into as of the ___ day of ______, 2006, by and among Holy Cross Electric Association, Inc. (DBA as Holy Cross Energy) organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (hereinafter "Holy Cross"), and the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado (hereinafter "Aspen"). Reference may be made to either Holy Cross or Aspen as a "Party," or collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, Holy Cross is engaged in transmitting and distributing power and energy to its consumers in Pitkin County, Colorado, among others, and owns and operates electric facilities outside, within, and adjacent to Aspen. WHEREAS, Aspen owns and operates a municipal electric system and is interconnected with electric facilities belonging to Holy Cross and others. WHEREAS, the Aspen municipal electric system is an enterprise as that term is used in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. WHEREAS, Aspen receives power and energy from the Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, the Western Area Power Administration, and from Aspen's Ruedi and Maroon Creek hydroelectric facilities. WHEREAS, Aspen has requested, and Holy Cross is willing, to wheel power and energy over Holy Cross's electric distribution voltage facilities to those Customers situated on properties owned or controlled by the City of Aspen listed on 'Exhibit A' of City of Aspen Ordinance 44(Series of 2003) known as the Holy Cross Franchise Ordinance, only pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.3 of such Franchise Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the Parties as follows: 1 . Term of Agreement 1.01 This Agreement shall become effective on _________, and, except as specifically provided herein, shall continue in full force and effect through December 31, 2006, and thereafter from year-to-year unless terminated by at least one (1) year's prior written notice given by either Party to the other Party, which notice can be given at any time on or after January 1, 2007; provided, however, that this Agreement shall terminate on any date upon which the Holy Cross Franchise Ordinance shall have expired or terminated. 1.02 It is agreed between the Parties that Aspen shall incur an obligation hereunder at such time as it commences use of the Holy Cross electrical facilities. The extent of the monetary obligation of Aspen shall be calculated based upon the terms and conditions stated herein. Such obligation shall be promptly paid according to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as an expense of operating Aspen's municipal electric system from gross revenues received by Aspen from its electric customers. The Parties acknowledge that in utilizing the Holy Cross facilities as designated in this Agreement, Aspen is operating as an enterprise. 2 1.03 If any benefit, or thing of value, bestowed upon Holy Cross under the terms of this Agreement, is legally determined or decided to be null and void or is diminished or reduced in value, in any way, and by the most liberal construction or interpretation is deemed to be substantial or material to this Agreement, Holy Cross shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on sixty (60) days written notice to Aspen. 2. Terms and Conditions of Service 2.01 Holy Cross agrees to receive at the designated Point(s) of Receipt and deliver at the designated POint(s) of Delivery such power and energy procured by Aspen for service to the' Exhibit A' loads under this Agreement. 2.02 Upon agreement of each Point of Delivery by the Parties, separate Schedules for each Point of Delivery shall be prepared and signed by the Parties and shall attach to, and become a part of, this Agreement. Each such Schedule shall describe or show the Point of Receipt, Point of Delivery, delivery voltage, metering, loss factors, facilities and equipment to be installed by each Party, and special conditions (if any) applicable to such Delivery Point. 2.03 Each Schedule prepared pursuant to Section 2.02 shall be identified using the letter A; the first Delivery Point Schedule being A-I and the second being A-2, and so forth, hereafter collectively referred to as Schedule A. Such Schedules may be amended from time to time by mutual agreement of the Parties, and subject to the availability and operational limitations of 3 the Holy Cross electric facilites. At no point shall Holy Cross take title to Aspen's power and energy. 2.04 Holy Cross shall exercise reasonable diligence and care to maintain continuity of service and avoid interruptions in the delivery of power and energy under this Agreement, and to restore service promptly after an interruption of service due to power system interruptions, overload of facilities, or other adverse conditions on the Holy Cross system. 2.05 Holy Cross shall exercise no adverse distinction between service under this Agreement and similar service to Holy Cross customers. 3. Payment 3.01 Payment by Aspen for the use of Holy Cross' facilities for all distribution wheeling service provided under this Agreement shall be made monthly based on calendar month delivery. The applicable wheeling rate will listed in Schedule B. 3.02. Holy Cross shall adjust rates in Schedule B from time to time based on any change, positive or negative, in the base rates attributable to the distribution of electricity to Holy Cross' commercial class customers. For example: If Holy Cross' commercial class customer's base rates attributable to the distribution of electricity increase by 2%, all charges in Schedule B would be increased proportionally by 2%. 3.03 Aspen, upon reasonable notice to Holy Cross, shall have the right to review the supporting information and calculations performed pursuant to Section 3.02. 4. Billing 4 ,._____O.^M _ .____..___~~_~_ 4.01 Monthly payments shall be due and payable within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of mailing of an invoice to Aspen as determined by the United States mail postmark. Holy Cross will issue a bill as soon as possible after the end of the month in which service has been rendered. Any late payment beyond the twenty-one (21) day period shall accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1 %) per month computed from the date of mailing. 4.02 Holy Cross may, at any time after a bill is past due and after having given sixty (60) days advance notice in writing, discontinue service until all past due bills, with interest and late payment charges thereon, if any, are paid. Remittances received by mail after the due date will be accepted by Holy Cross without penalty or interest provided the same are mailed on or before the due date as evidenced by the postmark, or other reasonable factors if such postmark is unavailable or unreadable. In the event of a billing dispute, Aspen must pay the billed amount in full and separately note the amount paid under protest if known at the time of payment. Discontinuance of service as herein provided shall not relieve Aspen of liability for payment for services actually rendered prior thereto. 4.03 Holy Cross may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement if (i) Holy Cross has discontinued service to Aspen pursuant to Section 4.02 and Aspen has not remedied such failure to pay all outstanding charges, together with interest and late payment charges due, within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving notice of discontinuation of service, or (ii) 5 Aspen fails to pay in a timely fashion any four (4) invoices in a twelve (12) month period. Such termination will take effect on the last day of the month in which the termination event occurs. Termination pursuant to this Section 4.03 shall not limit in any respect Holy Cross' rights to any and all other remedies which shall be available to it, whether at law or in equity. 5. Power Factor 5.01 Aspen shall be responsible for maintaining, or causing to be maintained, a power factor at the Point of Delivery of between ninety-five percent (95%) leading and ninety-five percent (95%) lagging. Holy Cross, using sound engineering judgment, may determine that Aspen has failed to comply with the power factor requirements hereof for what it considers an unreasonable period of time. In such event Holy Cross may give written notice to Aspen to install necessary equipment to maintain such a power factor, and Aspen shall have six months thereafter to complete such installation. In the event that Aspen fails to complete such installation, Holy Cross may take all steps, including suspension of deliveries of Aspen's power and energy to particular Point(s) of Delivery, to maintain the reliability of its system. 6. Metering 6.01 Aspen will pay for and Holy Cross will own all metering and associated equipment necessary to bill and account to and for the wholesale power and transmission providers of Holy Cross and Aspen. 6.02 Aspen shall provide and maintain, at no cost to Holy Cross, conventional voice grade dial-up telephone circuits to the metering equipment at each 6 Point of Delivery specified in Schedule A. Telephone circuits may be provided directly from the public switched network, or from a dedicated extension of Aspens private exchange (PBX if applicable). The telephone circuit shall provide dial tone, touch tone signaling, ring voltage, and if a PBX extension, twenty four (24) hour direct inward dialing (DID) access. Aspen shall inform Holy Cross of the telephone circuit number, and any changes thereto. In the event of a malfunction to the above mentioned circuits that prevents Holy Cross from communicating with the metering equipment, Holy Cross shall promptly investigate and determine the cause of the malfunction, and notify Aspen if the malfunction is a result of failure of the telephone circuit. Upon such notice, Aspen shall promptly correct such malfunction, and if not corrected within seven (7) days, Aspen shall reimburse Holy Cross for all expenses incurred as a result of obtaining the metering information by other means. Further, if applicable, Aspen shall pay for and provide devices known a Mini-PBX or smart switches to allow multiple metering devices be accessed though one phone line. 6.03 Holy Cross shall provide Aspen's designated representatives with all metering information for billing and energy accounting purposes. 6.04 Upon mutual agreement, Aspen may install on Holy Cross' facilities equipment for any real time monitoring of Aspen's loads associated with this Agreement. Aspen shall pay all costs associated with installation, maintenance and removal of such equipment. Such equipment shall not unreasonably interfere with Holy Cross' other equipment and facilities. 7 6.05 Should any meter fail to register the power and energy delivered during a period, such deliveries shall be estimated for such period by the Operating Representatives (as such term is defined below) of the Parties using the best information available. 6.06 If any inspections and/or tests disclose an error exceeding two percent, a correction based upon the inaccuracy found shall be made in the records of electric service furnished for the two calendar months prior to the month in which such error was discovered; provided, however, that no correction shall be made for a longer period than such inaccuracy may be determined by the Operating Representatives of the Parties hereto have actually existed. 7. Permits 7.01 Each Party grants to the other Party, upon reasonable notice and reasonable terms, the right to install, test, maintain, replace, and repair equipment or facilities, if any, placed on the property of the other Party under the provisions of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement, and also grants to the other Party the right to remove such equipment and facilities at the expiration of this Agreement. All such equipment and facilities shall be removed by the Party who owns such, promptly, at the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7.02 Each Party will coordinate with the other Party, upon reasonable notice and reasonable terms, access to said equipment and facilities. 8. Uncontrollable Forces 8.01 No Party shall be considered to be in default of performance of any obligation under this Agreement, other than its obligation to make 8 payments for services already received, if failure of performance is due to uncontrollable forces. "Uncontrollable forces" shall include any cause beyond the control of the Party affected, including, but not limited to acts of God, failure of facilities, flood, earthquakes, storm, fire, lightning, epidemic, war, riot, civil disturbance, sabotage, or restraint by court order or public authority, which, by exercise of due foresight, such Party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid, and which, by exercise of due diligence, it is unable to overcome. 8.02 In the event that either Party claims that Uncontrollable Forces have impaired performance under this Agreement, the Party claiming such Uncontrollable Forces shall promptly give notice to the other Party describing the particulars of the occurrence. The suspension of performance due to Uncontrollable Forces shall be of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is required by the Uncontrollable Forces event. When the nonperforming Party is able to resume performance, the Party shall give the other Party notice to that effect. 8.03 Should Uncontrollable Forces substantially impede performance under this Agreement for a period in excess of twelve (12) months, either Party hereto shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement. 9. Liabilities and Indemnification 9.01 Each Party, to the extent permitted by law, will be responsible for the facilities owned and operated by that Party and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other Party, including its officers, directors, employees, and agents, from any claim arising from occurrences at or on such facilities except when the negligence of the other Party or its agents 9 was a proximate cause of the injury. Each Party shall be directly liable to the other Party, and to its officers, directors, employees, and agents for any claims, losses, damages, or other costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and costs) arising in connection with or as a result of the negligence of such Party in the performance of this Agreement. Nothing herein waives any of the provision of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CR.S. S 24-10-101, et sea., as these provisions apply to Aspen. 10. Mutual Assistance 10.01 During the term of this Agreement the Parties will cooperate in the operations of their respective facilities which are the subject of this Agreement and will to the extent possible coordinate any necessary interruption in service in a manner which causes the minimum of disruption to the customers of both Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Holy Cross reserves the right to interrupt service to Aspen when, in Holy Cross' sole judgment, such interruptions: (a) will prevent or alleviate an emergency threatening to disrupt the operation of Holy Cross' system, or (b) will lessen or remove possible danger to life or property, or (c) will aid in the restoration of service; provided, however, that any interruptions of service pursuant to this Section 10.01 shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Section 2.05. 11 . Damages 10 11.01 In any claim or cause of action arising under this Agreement, the Parties shall not be liable for any consequential, special or non-direct damages, including but not limited to loss of use of equipment, extra expenses due to the use of temporary or replacement equipment, loss of electronic data or programs, loss of business revenue, costs of capital, or any costs not part of necessary repair to or reasonable replacement of electric equipment whether the claim or cause of action is based upon contract, tort or any other theory of recovery. I 2. Waivers 12.01 Any waiver by a Party of its rights with respect to a default under this Agreement, or with respect to any other matter arising in connection with this Agreement, shall not be deemed to be a waiver with respect to any subsequent default or matter. No delay, short of the statutory period of limitations, in asserting or enforcing any right hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of such right. 13. Successors and Assigns 13.01 No Party shall assign its rights or duties hereunder (except as a part of a merger, reorganization or in connection with the sale or transfer of all or substantially all of its assets), without the prior approval of the other Party, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld. This Agreement shall apply and be binding upon successors and assigns of each of the Parties. 14. Notices 14.01 Any notice, request, demand, statement or billing under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly delivered when 11 sent by regular mail or delivery in person to the following addressee or such other addressee as may be provided by a Party. For Holy Cross: CEO P.O. Box 2150 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 For Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 15. Designation of Operating Representatives 15.01 One Operating Representative for each the Parties shall be designated by written notice upon execution of this Agreement and can be modified from time to time upon written notice by each Party. Unless otherwise agreed by both parties, the Operating Representatives shall meet at least once per year to discuss this Agreement and the provision of distribution wheeling service by Holy Cross to Aspen. 16. Modification of Agreement 16.01 Except as set out in Section 3.02, this Agreement may be modified, amended, or altered only with the written agreement of the Parties. It shall not set a precedent of any name, nature, kind or consequence in regard to any future agreement between the Parties. 17. Attorneys Fees 17.01 In the event any Party to this Agreement shall find it necessary to commence a legal action or proceeding, either judicial or administrative in nature, to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or obtain a remedy related to such Party's rights hereunder, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees, incurred prior to the commencement of such proceedings, and during such proceedings, 12 and the costs and expenses incurred in bringing and maintaining such action or proceeding. 18. Regulatory and Board Approvals 18.01 This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder shall be subject to (i) any regulatory body having authority and to valid laws, orders, rules and regulations of and authorizations or approvals by regulatory bodies having jurisdiction over the provisions hereof, and (ii) any requisite approval of this Agreement by the Board of Directors of Holy Cross or the governing authorities of Aspen. 19. Governing law 19.01 This Agreement shall be Governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of Colorado and all claims, counterclaims, disputes, and other matters in question that are not resolved, will be decided in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Colorado, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over all matters in question. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective authorized officers or agents. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Attest: By: Date: By: HOLY CROSS ENERGY ATTEST: By: Date: By: 14 SCHEDULE A-I Burlingame Meter Number I Point of Receipt: At the Output of Holy Cross's Integrated Transmission System Burlingame Meter # I located near the intersection of Harmony and Forge The Aspen Area Holy Cross Distribution Facilities Point of Delivery: Facilities Involved: Loss Factor: Delivery Voltage: Metering: not applicable for this delivery point 2S kV Ownership - Holy Cross CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Attest: By: By: Date: HOLY CROSS ENERGY ATTEST: By: By: Date: 15 SCHEDULE B Wheeling Charges for Service under this Agreement Effective July , 2006 Customer Charge = $26 per month per meter Wheeling Delivery Charge = $0.0085 per kWh delivered per calendar month for each delivery point in Schedule A Note: This Schedule will be updated from time to time per section 3.02. 16