The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.planning.273718405003 (2015)DOCUMENT LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat(s) DECISIONS RECEPTION#: 625825, 12/23/2015 at 11:45:25 AM, 1 OF 2, R $0.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PTTKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE REAGAN REQUEST TO ELEMNATE EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Resolution No.&O-2015 RECITALS 1. Thomas P. Reagan ("Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction that encumbers an existing attached unit, in exchange for a fee -in -lieu or buy -down of an existing off-site unit. The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-2 and contains 1.761 acres. 3. Said lot is located at 125 Stillwater Lane, and is more specifically described as Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. 4. The BOCC approved the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Final Plat, pursuant to Resolution No. 94-233. Growth Management allotments for four new lots (including Lot 3) were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 94-125. Each of Lots 2-5 was required to provide "one above grade, low income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit" to be constructed concurrent with the free market residence. The Subdivision Covenants also include the same requirement. 5. The single family residence on the lot was built in 2002. The employee dwelling unit was built concurrent with the residence and a Deed Restriction was recorded against the property (Reception #472145 — Exhibit 4c in the application). The deed restriction states, "This Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a "dwelling unit" as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and must otherwise meet applicable code requirements." 6. The BOCC heard this application at regular meetings on November 18 and December 16, 2015, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. 7. The BOCC finds that it is appropriate to eliminate the employee dwelling unit, as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) does not have documentation that the unit has been rented in compliance with the Deed Restriction. 8. The BOCC finds that it is not appropriate to allow a buy -down as an alternative to the on- site unit, due to concerns raised by APCHA. 9. The BOCC further fmds that it is appropriate to require that a $300,000 fee -in -lieu be paid in for mitigation of the employee dwelling unit, based on consideration of equitability with the fees -in - lieu paid by the owners of two other Stillwater lots; the 1994 fee -in -lieu adjusted for CPI; and recent County housing purchases in the Aspen and Basalt areas. Resolution NoAO -2015 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby grant approval to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction recorded as Reception No. 472145, and special review approval of a caretaker dwelling unit, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. Within 90 days of the date of this approval and prior to release of the current employee dwelling unit deed restriction, the Applicant shall complete both A and B as follows: A. Pay to the County $300,000 as a fee -in -lieu for elimination of the one -bedroom category 1 employee dwelling unit. B. Render the existing unit not a "dwelling unit" as defined in the Land Use Code, which shall be verified by the County Zoning Officer; OR record a caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction to retain the existing unit. 2. If the existing unit is converted to a caretaker dwelling unit, the unit shall be limited to the maximum size specified in the Land Use Code at the time of recordation of the deed restriction. The kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two burner stove with at least a 5 cubic foot oven that can bake and broil, sink of at least 14"W X 16"D X 5.25"H, and at least a 5.3 cubic foot refrigerator and 0.73 cubic foot freezer. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the unit. The caretaker dwelling unit must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared utilities. 3. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 16th day of December, 2015. APPROVED AS 10 FORM: John Ely, ttorney Case #P073-15 PID #273718405003 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO By st"', P " Steven F. Child, Chairman DateZ Z z ZO 1 S� APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: I� G Cindy Houben, Community Development Director STAFF MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting — December 16, 2015 �y THRU: Cindy Hou Commo_l4unity Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: Reagan Request to Eliminate Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction & Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction that encumbers an existing attached unit, in exchange for a fee -in -lieu or buy -down of an existing off-site unit. The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling. The BOCC tabled the request on November 18, 2015 and requested additional information. The Applicant submitted a memo (Attachment A) and an affidavit from the owner (Attachment B). APPLICANT: Thomas P. Reagan REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: 125 Stillwater Lane; Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned AR -2 and contains 1.761 acres. ISSUES: The Applicant has proposed to pay $250,000, which is the 1994 fee -in -lieu adjusted to 2015 by CPI plus 29%. In addition, the on-site unit would be maintained as a caretaker dwelling unit. The Applicant compares this to the amount that the BOCC agreed upon for Lot 4 in 2004, which was $220,400. This amount represented the 1994 fee -in -lieu indexed to 2004 by CPI plus approximately 25%. The Applicant provided a summary of the 2004 BOCC discussion on Lot 4. Lot 2 paid a fee -in -lieu of $160,119.75 in 2004; this fee was based on the 1994 fee -in -lieu adjusted by CPI. An affidavit from the owner addressing the use and rental of the employee dwelling unit is attached. For comparison: The current APCHA fee -in -lieu required to fully offset a one -bedroom, Category I employee unit is $516,384.75. The current Affordable Housing Impact Fee would be $69,366 based on single family residential development of 10,220 square feet. The BOCC requested information on the County's recent purchases of housing units to provide an additional comparison of the cost of a one -bedroom unit. This information will be provided at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a "motion to approve the Reagan Request to Eliminate Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction and Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to conditions." [Staff has not amended the Resolution, pending direction from the BOCC.] Attachments A. Haas Memo 12/16/15 B. Affidavit of Thomas P. Reagan Application provided separately RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITIGN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE REAGAN REQUEST TO ELIMINATE EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Resolution No. -2015 RECITALS 1. Thomas P. Reagan ("Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction that encumbers an existing attached unit, in exchange for a fee -in -lieu or buy -down of an existing off-site unit The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-2 and contains 1.761 acres. 3. Said lot is located at 125 Stillwater Lane, and is more specifically described as Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. 4. The BOCC approved the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Final Plat, pursuant to Resolution No. 94-233. Growth Management allotments for four new lots (including Lot 3) were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 94-125. Each of Lots 2-5 was required to provide "one above grade, low income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit" to be constructed concurrent with the free market residence. The Subdivision Covenants also include the same requirement. 5. The single family residence on the lot was built in 2002. The employee dwelling unit was built concurrent with the residence and a Deed Restriction was recorded against the property (Reception #472145 — Exhibit 4c in the application). The deed restriction states, "This Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a "dwelling unit" as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and must otherwise meet applicable code requirements." 6. The BOCC heard this application at regular meetings on November 18 and December 16, 2015, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. 7. The BOCC finds that it is appropriate to eliminate the employee dwelling unit, as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) does not have documentation that the unit has been rented in compliance with the Deed Restriction. 8. The BOCC finds that it is not appropriate to allow a buy -down as an alternative to the on- site unit, due to concerns raised by APCHA. 9. The BOCC further finds that it is appropriate to require that the fee -in -lieu be paid in an amount equal to the price of a one -bedroom, Category 1 unit, based on the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of payment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby grant approval to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction recorded as Reception No. 472145, 3 Resolution No. _-2015 Page 2 and special review approval of a caretaker dwelling unit, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. Prior to release of the current deed restriction, the Applicant shall complete both A and B as follows: A. Pay to the County an amount equal to the price of a one -bedroom category 1 unit pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of elimination of the deed restriction. B. Render the existing unit not a "dwelling unit' as defined in the Land Use Code, which shall be verified by the County Zoning Officer, OR record a caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction to retain the existing unit. 2. If the existing unit is converted to a caretaker dwelling unit, the unit shall be limited to the maximum size specified in the Land Use Code at the time of recordation of the deed restriction. The kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two burner stove with at least a 5 cubic foot oven that can bake and broil, sink of at least 14"W X 16111) X 5.25"H, and at least a 5.3 cubic foot refrigerator and 0.73 cubic foot freezer. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the unit. The caretaker dwelling unit must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared utilities. 3. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 16`s day of December, 2015. ATTEST: Jeanette Jones Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney Case 0073-15 PID #273718405003 y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO M Steven F. Child, Chairman Indy Houben, Community Development Director Memo To: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Thm: Ms. Suzanne Wolff, Senior Pitldn County Planner From: Thomas P. Reagan, Applicant Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC J. Bart Johnson, Attorney at Law Date: December 16, 2015 Re: Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Removal of EDU Occupancy Deed Restriction and Agreement As you may remember, our land use action hearing held before the BOCC on November 18, 2015, regarding the proposed removal of the Occupancy Deed Restriction and Agreement For An Employee Dwelling Unit Approved Pursuant to Resolution No. 94-233 (Reception No. 472145) was continued to December 16, 2015 in order for additional research to be completed by both County staff and the applicant. We are assuming County staff will provide a memorandum and/or present the findings and conclusions of their research into the County's costs associated with providing housing for 1.75 employees in recent years. On the applicant's behalf, we have provided a notarized "Affidavit of Thomas P. Reagan," which is summarized below. We have also done research to determine the current County affordable housing impact fees relative to the existing home, and to determine more information as to how the fee in -lieu amount for Lot 4 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision was established. Summary ofA„{%idavit Construction of the home and associated EDU on the subject lot commenced in 2001 and was completed in late 2004. The EDU remained vacant until 2012 as, due to the so-called Tellutide Decision, the applicant did not believe he had an obligation to rent the EDU and was under the impression that the County and APCHA believed the same. Indeed, the County had abolished its EDU program entirely. From the time the EDU was completed, the applicant never once received any inquiries or requests for information from Pitkin County or APCHA regarding the occupancy of the EDU until June 2014. Similarly, APCHA never sought to place a qualified renter of its choosing in the EDU. 420 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 10-B • ASPEN, CO 81611 • (970) 925-7819 • rnitch@hlpasperLcom Page 1 S • Had the applicant known in 2004 that rental of the EDU was required, then he would have at that time sought to obtain a release of the restriction just as his neighbor Charles Bellock (Lot 4) had done. • From September 2012 through June 2014, the EDU was occupied by an employee who would have qualified under the terms of the Category 1 Deed restriction had an actual lease been executed. • The EDU has remained unoccupied since June 2014. Current Pitkin County Affordable Housing Impact Fees For the sake of comparison, and in response to this information having been requested during the initial hearing, we have calculated the amount of the Pitkin County affordable housing fee that would be due if the subject home was built today and there was no associated condition of approval requiring a Category 1, one -bedroom EDU. The existing home includes some 10,970 square feet of gross area, of which 585 square feet are the EDU, 3,743 square feet are located below grade and 750 square feet are garage space. When the home was built, the subgrade space and the garage area were considered "exempt" spaces from floor area limitations and calculations. At any rate, the current Pitkin County Affordable Housing Impact Fee excludes garage space and the amount due would be based on a total single-family residential development of 10,220 square feet; the fee due pursuant to the current Land Use Code would amount to $69,366.00. If being as conservative as possible and including the 750 square feet of garage, the total fee due today would be $74,457.00. Lot 4 (Bellock) Fee In -Lieu We looked back through the Bellock land use file to determine what information could be gleaned relative to how the final fee in -lieu was established. The file does not contain much insight other than the BOCC hearing minutes, which make clear that the discussion seemed to focus on the 1994 fee in -lieu adjusted for CPI. The minutes note that Mr. Bellock would have built an EDU, except the County amended its Code to prohibit rental units. It was also noted that Lot 2 had already built an EDU that had (it has since been removed) no enforceable restriction on the price for which it could be rented. These statements support the applicant's understandings at the time, as indicated in the provided, swom Affidavit. In reference to the current applicant, Mr. Bellock's representative explained that Mr. Bellock purchased his property and designed a home in reliance on Planning staff's direction that, instead of building an EDU, he would need to make a cash in -lieu payment based on the fees in effect at the time of the original approvals, i.e., the 1994 fees indexed to the day based on CPI. When, just before the hearing, the then applicant heard that the recommendation had changed to require payment based on current cash in -lieu figures, they argued against as much since the result would be several hundred thousand dollars more than would have been the case based on 1994 indexed to then -current. As the minutes explain was argued, "So the issue, Page 2 L9 for his client, is a fundamental fairness issue in that he relied upon the indication that he was going to be treated the same way as the adjacent lot was treated." Later in the hearing, Mr. Bellock reiterated that, "he doesn't understand why Lot 4 should have to pay so much more than Lot 2 paid two months ago." At the second reading hearing, Mr. Bellock again reiterated his comments from the previous meeting that, "he still thinks the issues about this fee are issues of fairness and equitability. He suggested a proposal that he would pay $220,400 cash in lieu and he would turn the deed restricted fifth bedroom into a deed restricted caretaker dwelling unit." In response, then Commissioner Mick Ireland "proposed an alternative of the applicant purchasing a single- family unit, possibly at the North 40 Subdivision, for $300,000." After a discussion, Commissioner Ireland moved to "accept $300,000 cash in lieu with the caretaker unit," adding that he thinks "this is a reasonable payment because the cost to the County to do housing has gone up faster than the CPI just as the value of property has gone up faster than the CPI and will continue to go up faster than the CPI." This motion died for lack of a second. Next, Commissioner Clapper moved to approve the Resolution on second reading, as amended, and accepting $220,400 as cash in lieu payment with the caretaker dwelling unit. Commissioner Hatfield seconded and the motion passed by a vote of 3-1 with Commissioner Ireland dissenting and Commissioner Roy not present. Summary/Conclusions The current review feels like deja vu. The applicant has relied in good faith on precedent and offered a more than fair cash in -lieu payment to remove his EDU deed restriction (as explicitly allowed under the terms of the Deed Restriction Agreement) and replace it with a standard CDU deed restriction. Had the County but once approved a cash in -lieu payment for a Stillwater Ranch Subdivision property based on the 1995 fee in -lieu indexed to current via CPI, we might look upon such as a mistake or one-off decision. However, having twice based the fee in lieu on that methodology provides a clear precedent that can and should be relied upon. This is particularly emphasized by the fact that the minutes of the 2004 Bellock (Lot 4) approvals indicate there was discussion and even a motion to abandon the Lot 2 precedent in favor of the fee in -lieu for whenever a building permit is issued (i.e., applicable current fees). Just like the current case, in 2004 the BOCC discussed the differences between the fee proposed and the actual cost to provide housing. That motion died for lack of support and the approved motion, instead, supported the Lot 2 precedent plus the extra amount (approximately 25%) offered by the then applicant in negotiation. The current applicant has offered to follow this twice established precedent by offering to pay the 1994 fee in -lieu as adjusted to current by CPI, plus 29% for a total payment of $250,000 while maintaining the unit as a deed restricted Caretaker Dwelling. Page 3 AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS P. REAGAN COUNTY OF PITKIN } } STATE OF COLORADO } I, Thomas P. Reagan, having been duly sworn under oath, hereby state and affirm upon information and belief as follows: 1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age, have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and could competently testify regarding the same if called as a witness. 2. I am the owner of the property in Pitkin County, Colorado, located at 125 Stillwater Lane and described as Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD (the "Property"). 3. The home on the Property includes a one -bedroom employee dwelling unit that was included with the original construction of such home (the "EDU"). 4. I completed my purchase of the Property in 2001 and then began work on development of the Property. I completed construction of the home and the EDU in late 2004. 5. The EDU was vacant from completion of the home in late 2004 until 2012. 6. I did not believe that I had an obligation to rent out the EDU because I thought that, pursuant to the so-called Telluride Decision, rent controls on private property had been rendered unenforceable in Colorado. I thought Pitkin County and APCHA were under the same impression. 7. From the time the EDU was completed in 2004, we did not receive any inquiries or requests for information regarding occupancy of the EDU from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority ("APCHA") until June 2014. Nor did APCHA ever seek to place a qualified resident of its choosing in the EDU. 8. Had I known in 2004 that the EDU was required to be rented, then at that time I would have sought to obtain a release of the restriction just as my neighbor Charles Bellock (the owner of Lot 4) did in 2004. 9. From September 2012 through June 2014, the EDU was occupied by an educational tutor named Alex Price, whom my wife and I engaged to work with one of children with special learning needs. 10. We originally engaged Mr. Price through an agency in New York. This agency was paying Mr. Price less than $24,000 a year in salary when he began staying in the EDU. Thus, when he began occupancy of the EDU, Mr. Price would have qualified for the APCHA Category 1 income and asset limits in effect in 2012. The income limits for Category 1 in 2012 were approximately $35,000. Mr. Price had no assets of significance and was burdened with (Aaom99 i 2 ) F1 significant students loans during his time with us. 11. However, we were, without our knowledge, paying the agency significantly more than they were, in turn, paying Mr. Price. 12. When we learned how much Mr. Price was actually being paid by the agency, we cancelled the contract with the agency and engaged Mr. Price directly at an annual salary of $42,600. This began in December 2012. Mr. Price worked for us as a tutor and stayed in the EDU until June 2014. 13. We did not charge any rent to Mr. Price for staying in the EDU and never had a written lease with him. 14. Since Mr. Price left in June 2014, the EDU has been unoccupied. Further affiant sayeth naught. ,;'I, DATED this _ day of December, 2015. Signature: / � �)'�T Printed Name: Thomas P. Reagan )�-� STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this — day of December, 2015, by Thomas P. Reagan. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: BARBARA J. D'AUTRECHY NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 0 20074042667 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 11 201, 1 A0077799 / 2 I �1 TARY PUBLIC 2 Memo To: Board of Commissioners From: Jon Peacock, County Manager RE: Estimated Subsidies Required for One Bedroom/Category I Units Date: 12/15/2015 The Board requested information regarding recent affordable housing purchases and an estimate of subsidies that would be required to fund the purchase of a category I ownership unit. Housing guidelines (see attachment) specify that the maximum sales price of a category I single bedroom unit is $51,200 and shall have a minimum of 700 square feet. Real estate and construction prices vary greatly by location. Purchasing or constructing units in or around Aspen is significantly more expensive than if units are constructed or purchased outside the Aspen Core. For the Board's information two subsidy estimates have been developed based on replacement in or around Aspen and Basalt. Estimates are derived from: Pitkin County purchases (see table below); recent negotiations on construction projects; and a review of current market listings. To account for market variables subsidy estimates will be given with a +/- 5% variance. Purchase or unit construction in or around Aspen is estimated at $636 sq/ft (for a range of $604 to $668 sq/ft). Basalt is estimated at $300 sq/ft (for a range of $285 to $315 sq/ft). Assuming a 700 square foot unit and a maximum category I sales price of $51,200 minimum subsidies for Aspen and Basalt are shown in Table 1. Table Low Projected High Aspen Area Estimated Cost 700 sq/ft 1 Bedroom 422,940 445,200 467,460 Category I Purchase/owner contribution (51,200) (51,200) (51,200) Aspen Area Estimated Category 1/1 bed subsidy $371,740 $394,000 $416,260 Basalt Area Estimated Cost 700 sq/ft 1 Bedroom 199,500 210,0001 220,500 Category 1 Purchase/owner contribution (51,200) (51,200) (51,200) Basalt Area Estimated Category 1/1 bed Subsidy $150,860 $158,800 $166,740 These are estimates for minimum subsides. While units close to the 700 sq/ft minimum are likely to be found in the Aspen area, unit sizes and therefore prices are often times larger than the above estimate in the Basalt area. o -r C On the following page is a table showing recent affordable housing purchases, with an estimated current value based on 4% annual appreciation since purchase. While real estate markets are volatile, a 4% growth estimate is conservative for recent market conditions. Pitkin County Affordable Housing Purchases Estimated Market $ Per $ Per sq/ft @ Value @ 4% Street Street Purchase Purchase Square sq/ft 4% Annual Annual Number Name city Date Amount Foot Beds Purchase Appreciation Appreciation 603 Wren Basalt 11/13/2012 $ 342,000 1992 3 $ 172 $ 193 384,180 Court 104 Devon Ct Basalt 12/14/2012 $ 330,000 1992 3 $ 166 $ 186 369,600 1216 Vine Aspen 10/8/2014 $ 420,000 581 1 $ 723 $ 757 354,820 Street 326 Midland Aspen 12/6/2013 $ 372,500 624 1 $ 597 $ 645 402,300 415 Pacific Aspen 7/25/2013 $ 372,500 760 2 $ 490 $ 539 409,750 Ave 417 Pacific Aspen 3/5/2015 $ 336,300 685 1 $ 491 $ 506 346,389 Ave Oak Lot H-6 Grove Basalt 7/30/2015 $ 280,000 1072 2 $ 261 $ 266 284,667 Z MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting —November 18, 2015 �y THRU: Cindy Houben1p, o cit unity Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner RE: Reagan Request to Eliminate Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction & Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction that encumbers an existing attached unit, in exchange for a fee -in -lieu or buy -down of an existing off-site unit. The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling. APPLICANT: Thomas P. Reagan REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas LOCATION: 125 Stillwater Lane; Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision ZONING/LOT SIZE: The property is zoned AR -2 and contains 1.761 acres. BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS: BOCC approved the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Final Plat, pursuant to Resolution No. 94-233. Growth Management allotments for four new lots (including Lot 3) were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 94-125. Each of Lots 2-5 was required to provide "one above grade, low income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit' to be constructed concurrent with the free market residence. The Subdivision Covenants also include the same requirement. The single family residence on the lot was built in 2002. The employee dwelling unit was built concurrent with the residence and a Deed Restriction was recorded against the property (Reception #472145 — Exhibit 4c in the application). REFERRAL COMMENTS from Housing are incorporated with the staff comments below and are attached for reference (Attachment A). STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant has requested to remove the employee dwelling unit deed restriction, in exchange for which he will "pay a cash -in -lieu settlement' of $200,000 or buy -down an existing off-site unit to deed restrict for employee housing. The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling unit. The deed restriction states, "This Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a "dwelling unit' as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and must otherwise meet applicable code requirements " The Applicant states that the current APCHA fee -in -lieu required to fully offset a one -bedroom, Category 1 employee unit is $295,077 (based on one FTE). The Applicant proposes a reduced fee of $200,000, based on a recent City of Aspen Residential Employee Generation Study and the Applicant's commitment to maintain the unit as a caretaker dwelling unit. Cindy Christensen of APCHA states that a one -bedroom unit provides mitigation for 1.75 FTE, and, therefore, that the applicable fee -in -lieu is $516,384.75. Ms. Christensen also states that a buy -down "will more than likely not be acceptable to APCHA" due to difficulties they have encountered with other buy - downs. She notes that APCHA has not qualified any tenants of the unit since it was deed restricted in 2002. APCHA supports payment of the applicable fee -in -lieu in order to eliminate the unit. The Applicant notes that the owners of Lots 2 and 4 have eliminated their employee dwelling units via a fee -in -lieu. Lot 2 paid a fee -in -lieu of $160,119.75 in 2004; this fee was based on the 1994 fee -in -lieu adjusted by CPI. Lot 4 paid a fee -in -lieu of $220,400 in 2008. This fee was approved by BOCC Resolution No. 124-2004, and was also based on the 1994 fee -in -lieu adjusted by CPI. Staff agrees with APCHA's recommendation that the fee -in -lieu be paid based on the current APCHA Guidelines. While staff supports having the unit remain as a caretaker dwelling unit, we do not recommend any credit from the CDU towards the fee -in -lieu. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a "motion to approve the Reagan Request to Eliminate Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction and Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to conditions." Attachments A. Housing Office memo Application provided separately RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE REAGAN REQUEST TO ELORNATE EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT Resolution No. -2015 RECITALS 1. Thomas P. Reagan ("Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction that encumbers an existing attached unit, in exchange for a fee -in -lieu or buy -down of an existing off-site unit. The existing unit will be converted to a caretaker dwelling. 2. The Applicant's lot is zoned AFR-2 and contains 1.761 acres. 3. Said lot is located at 125 Stillwater Lane, and is more specifically described as Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. 4. The BOCC approved the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Final Plat, pursuant to Resolution No. 94-233. Growth Management allotments for four new lots (including Lot 3) were granted pursuant to Resolution No. 94-125. Each of Lots 2-5 was required to provide "one above grade, low income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit" to be constructed concurrent with the free market residence. The Subdivision Covenants also include the same requirement. 5. The single family residence on the lot was built in 2002. The employee dwelling unit was built concurrent with the residence and a Deed Restriction was recorded against the property (Reception #472145 — Exhibit 4c in the application). The deed restriction states, "This Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a "dwelling unit" as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and must otherwise meet applicable code requirements." 6. The BOCC heard this application at a regular meeting on November 18, 2015, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to the application. 7. The BOCC finds that it is appropriate to eliminate the employee dwelling unit, as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) does not have documentation that the unit has been rented in compliance with the Deed Restriction. 8. The BOCC finds that it is not appropriate to allow a buy -down as an alternative to the on- site unit, due to concerns raised by APCHA. 9. The BOCC further finds that it is appropriate to require that the fee -in -lieu be paid in an amount equal to the price of a one -bedroom, Category I unit, based on the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of payment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby grant approval to eliminate the employee dwelling unit deed restriction recorded as Reception No. 472145, 3 Resolution No. _-2015 Page 2 and special review approval of a caretaker dwelling unit, subject to the following conditions, which shall run with the land and be binding on all successors in interest: 1. Prior to release of the current deed restriction, the Applicant shall complete both A and B as follows: A. Pay to the County an amount equal to the price of a one -bedroom category 1 unit pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines in effect at the time of elimination of the deed restriction. B. Render the existing unit not a "dwelling unit' as defined in the Land Use Code, which shall be verified by the County Zoning Officer, OR record a caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction to retain the existing unit. 2. If the existing unit is converted to a caretaker dwelling unit, the unit shall be limited to the maximum size specified in the Land Use Code at the time of recordation of the deed restriction. The kitchen shall contain a minimum of a two burner stove with at least a 5 cubic foot oven that can bake and broil, sink of at least 14"W X 16"D X 5.25"H, and at least a 5.3 cubic foot refrigerator and 0.73 cubic foot freezer. Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for the unit. The caretaker dwelling unit must have separately accessible utilities. This does not preclude shared utilities. 3. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 18`s day of November, 2015. ATTEST: Jeanette Jones Clerk to the BOCC APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney Case #P073-15 PID #273718405003 9 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PffKIN COUNTY, COLORADO a Date Steven F. Child, Chairman APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: C dy Houben, Community Development Director MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA DATE: October 30, 2015 RE: REMOVAL OF EDU DEED RESTRICTION FOR LOT 3, STILLWATER RANCH Parcel ID No. 2737-184-05-003; P073-15 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to remove the employee dwelling unit (EDU) deed restriction for Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch, 125 Stillwater Lane, Aspen, recorded at Reception No. 472145 on September 11, 2002. BACKGROUND: The EDU deed restriction required a 585 square foot, one -bedroom, Category 1 unit, to be rented to a qualified employee who works within Pitkin County. To date, APCHA has NEVER qualified a tenant for the unit. The request is to remove the EDU deed restriction, record a caretaker dwelling unit (CDU) deed restriction on the property, and satisfy the one -bedroom, Category 1 mitigation by a fee -in -lieu or providing a buy -down unit. The EDU requires the unit to be rented to a qualified Category 1 household, whereas the CDU does not require the unit to be rented. DISCUSSION: A one -bedroom unit provides mitigation for 1.75 FTE's; therefore, any fee -in -lieu would be the Category 1 fee times the 1.75 FTE's. The current fee -in -lieu as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines is: 1.75 FTE's X $295,077 = $516,384.75 A buy -down option will more than likely not be acceptable to APCHA. In most instances, deed - restricting a single unit in a free-market complex is wrought with problems. Most HOA's have added language to their Condominium Documents that do not allow an owner to deed restrict a unit. HOA fees could tender the unit unaffordable as well. RECOMMENDATION: APCHA would approve the removal of the unit since it has never been rented according to the restriction as far as APCHA is concerned. APCHA would also not recommend approval of a buy -down unit. APCHA recommends that the full fee -in -lieu amount be required as stated above. S APPLICATION MATERIAL Stillwater Ranch Subdivision Payments In -Lieu of 1994 Requirements For Category 1, One -Bedroom EDUs LOT 1 (Not applicable; lot donated to Pitkin County) LOT 2 (paid fee in 2004) • CPI adjustment of 1994 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $153,911.43 • 2004 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $416,087.00 • Actual Amount Paid = $1609119.75 • Note: Amount paid was 4% more than the 1994 adjusted FIL, but less than half (38%) of the then -current FIL. LOT 4 (paid fee in 2008) • CPI adjustment of 1994 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $175,424.00 • 2008 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $462,399.00 • Actual Amount Paid = $2209400.00 • Note: Amount paid was 25% more than the 1994 adjusted FIL, but less than half (48%) of the then -current FIL. LOT 3 (paying fee in 2015/2016) • CPI adjustment of 1994 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $193,785.00 • 2015 Fee In -Lieu @ 1.75 FTEs = $516,384.75 • Lot 4's payment in 2008 adjusted for CPI to 2015 = $243,468.48 • Proposed Payment = $250,000 • Note: Proposed payment is 29% more than the 1994 adjusted FIL, but less than half (48.4%) of the current FIL. LOT 5 (Not applicable; lot annexed into City of Aspen prior to development) lel Lot 3, S tal/w atelr lZ awrrk (Y 2 5 Staotw ateor L a4iR/, A sp elrv) AN APPLICATION FOR: Re4MO-vaV of they EwvpLoy e.,ei DwaWmW u mX D �e & R elktrf ctio-w SUBMIrrEv BY HAAS LANE) PLANNING, LLC 420 E. MAIN SrR£Er, SUrrE B-10 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (9 70) 925-7819 mdtoh@Mpape w. oam O ctobrelr 5, 2015 PID#s 2737-184-05-003 0000;on 1 a- '�o AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO REMOVE THE EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION FOR LOT 3, STILLWATER RANCH AT 125 STILLWATER LANE Submitted by: Thomas P. Reagan 1800 15th Street, #203 Denver, CO 80202 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Planning Consultant 420 E. Main Street, Suite B-10 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Email: mitch@hlpaspen.com PID#s 2737-184-05-003 000002 This document is an application to remove the existing Employee Dwelling Unit (EDU) Deed Restriction from Lot 3 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. After renting the attached EDU for more than 12 years, the applicant is now interested in converting the space to a Caretaker Dwelling Unit (CDU), which would effectively eliminate the occupancy requirement carried by the EDU restriction. The owner is willing to pay a cash -in -lieu settlement or buy -down an existing free market unit (i.e., would like to maintain both options) in exchange for this right. It is the applicant's understanding that the owners of neighboring Lots 2 and 4 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision have each been granted similar approvals to eliminate the EDU restrictions on their properties, subject to a requirement to pay cash in -lieu of the unit. This application is submitted by Thomas P. Reagan (hereinafter "the applicant"), owner of the subject property, pursuant to Pitkin County Land Use Code (the Code) Section 2-20-150(b), Minor Amendment to a Development Permit. The application is divided into five sections. This Section I, is a brief introduction to the application, while Section II furnishes background information. The proposal is detailed in Section III, while Section IV identifies the relevant review criteria of the Code and provides responses demonstrating compliance and/or consistency with each standard, as applicable. The final section is a concise summary. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting documents are provided in the various exhibits to the application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, HLP will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. 11. BACKGROUND The Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD Plat was approved in 1994 with the Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) adoption of Resolution Number 94-233 (Reception No. 377678). The plat included five residential lots, the first of which was later offered to Pitkin County for the purposes of constructing employee housing. Lots 2 through 5 were platted for single-family residential development. Condition 8 of the Resolution required "one above grade, low income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit on each of the five new lots" to be constructed concurrently with the free market residence. Lot 1 was granted an exemption from this requirement, as the parcel was deeded to Pitkin County for the purpose of developing employee housing thereon. Covenant restrictions for the subdivision were approved in 1994 as well (Reception No. 377682). Similar to the BOCC Resolution, item 4 of the covenants also required the following of each lot owner: (a) provide a deed -restricted, one bedroom affordable housing unit simultaneous with the development and Certificate of Occupancy for the primary residence on said lot, (b) the affordable housing unit must meet or exceed APCHA standards for a Category 1 unit, and (c) the deed -restriction must be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Stillwater Lot 3 PID: 2737.184.05.003 Page 1 000003 When the subject property (Lot 3) was developed in 2002, construction included an Employee Dwelling Unit, satisfying the PUD and covenant requirements. The 585 square foot unit was built in compliance with all regulations, met the applicable APCHA standards, and a Deed Restriction was recorded against the property (Reception No. 472145). This EDU had been occupied per the requirements set forth in the deed restriction until last year. The property owner had most recently been renting the unit to a tutor for the owner's child, in exchange for services. However, subsequent to the tutor's departure, the owner has neither a replacement tenant nor the desire for continued in -residence help. Due to this change in need, the owner has decided to pursue other uses for the unit. The aforementioned Deed Restriction includes a clause (Item 9) allowing the agreement to be removed by the owner with approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This application seeks to pursue such removal and either convert the Employee Dwelling Unit to a Caretaker Dwelling Unit or remove the dwelling unit altogether. III. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to remove the Deed Restriction for an Employee Dwelling Unit one the property, in exchange for a deed -restricted Caretaker Dwelling Unit and a reduced cash -in - lieu payment. Alternatively, the owner will buy -down a qualified and satisfactory free market unit, per existing APCHA policies. Unfortunately, appropriate free market units are rare and difficult to find, so the owner will need to provide details on available units at the time of the BOCC hearing. The applicant is seeking the right to both of these options, provided that the EDU restriction will not be vacated until one of the two options has been satisfied. The current APCHA cash -in -lieu required to fully offset a 1 -Bedroom, Category 1 employee unit is $295,077. The owner is proposing to convert the EDU to a CDU, with a partial cash -in -lieu payment of $200,000, or the buy -down of an acceptable unit, if available. A recent and comprehensive study completed by the City of Aspen shows that employee generation rates for residential development have historically been over -calculated [Aspen Residential Employee Generation Study, March 4, 2015). While this may not specifically apply to developments outside the City boundaries, it is worth considering, especially for a property as close to the City border as the subject lot (Lot 5 of the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision is actually within the City of Aspen). Based on Pitkin County's generation rate calculation of 1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee per 3,000 square feet of floor area, a 6,500 square foot home (comparable to the applicant's) would be required to mitigate for 2.5 FTE. The City's report reveals the actual generation is 1.355 FTEs. This most closely aligns with the employee mitigation of a Studio Unit (1.25 FTEs). The study also shows that the occupancy of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the City is much higher than previously thought. As shown in Figure 41 of the report, 40% of units on owner -occupied properties are rented full-time to locals with an additional 7% occupied by caretakers. On other properties the rates are even higher with 39% rented to locals and 26% by caretakers. It has historically been understood that County CDUs tend to be occupied at an even higher rate than City ADUs. Stillwater Lot 3 PID: 2737.184.05.003 Page 2 000004 Based on the results of this study, there is justification for reducing the employee mitigation requirement for the property as well as justification for keeping the unit as a CDU. The property currently provides a one -bedroom unit, which mitigates for 1.75 FTEs where the generation rate for the home is only 1.355 FTE. This should be considered when determining the terms for eliminating the EDU Deed Restriction. Similarly, a lower cash -in -lieu payment than required under the APCHA Guidelines should be accepted since the unit will be maintained as a CDU and will very likely continue to provide housing for a person(s) employed in Pitkin County. Accordingly, the $295,077 cash -in -lieu figure for 1.75 FTE is proportional to the more appropriate ratio of $228,473.91 for 1.355FTE. Further, there is a real employee housing benefit to maintaining the unit as a CDU, as opposed to simply eliminating the unit altogether, converting the space into the free-market residence, and requiring no additional employee housing mitigation for the converted space. Since the applicant is willing to keep the unit as a CDU, it is reasonable to reduce the payment in lieu requirement to an even $200,000. Again, the applicant would also like to maintain the option of pursuing a buy -down unit as a replacement alternative. IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Code Section 2-20-150(b) provides that a minor amendment to any development permit is one that meets criteria cited below, and each of the applicable criteria is followed by a response demonstrating compliance and/or consistency therewith. The proposed minor amendment: (1) Is consistent with action(s) taken during previous development approvals for the property; and This amendment is consistent with prior approvals for the subject property as well as similar actions taken relative to neighboring properties within the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. The primary use of the property and its applicable dimensional limitations will not be changed by conversion of the Employee Dwelling Unit to a CDU (plus cash -in -lieu) or by its elimination in favor of an off-site buy -down unit. (2) Does not change the use of the proposed development between residential, commercial and tourist accommodation uses; and The use of the subject property will not change, as it is currently residential and will remain residential (single-family). (3) Does not change the basic character of the approved use of land on which the activity occurs, including basic visual appearance and method of operation; and The basic character of the land use will remain unchanged in visual appearance and method of operation. (4) Does not constitute a new land development activily; and Stillwater Lot 3 PID: 2737.184.05.003 Page 3 000005 Approval of this application would not constitute a new land development activity, as the previously approved ancillary use would be converted to a similar use or simply eliminated. To the extent that any remodeling would occur to change or eliminate the unit altogether, such would be internal to the structure and would not involve any new land development activity. (5) Does not increase off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood, and No increased off-site impacts are anticipated in the surrounding neighborhood. If converted to a CDU, the use will be the same with only the terms of the occupancy restrictions changing. If the unit is eliminated altogether, off-site impacts in the surrounding neighborhood would decrease accordingly. (6) Does not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and The proposal requested herein will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare. (7) Does not violate any Land Use Code standard; and The application does not violate any Land Use Code standards. Moreover, the current Code no longer includes the restrictions or requirements for an EDU (Code Section 6-30-40(d), Employee Dwelling Units is simply "Reserved"). Both EDUs and CDUs remain as "Special Review" uses allowed in the AR -2 zone district. Given the removal of applicable requirements for an EDU from the Code, it seems conversion to a CDU would actually increase consistency with current Code provisions. (8) Does not substantially increase the need for on-site parking or utilities, or affect affordable housing generation; and No substantial increase in on-site parking demand, utilities, or affordable housing generation will be created with the approval of this application. If the unit is converted to a CDU, parking and utilities needs will remain the same, and the balance of cash -in -lieu to be paid will mitigate all affordable housing generation. If the unit is eliminated, parking and utilities needs will decrease accordingly. (9) Does not increase the floor area of the use by more than five (5) percent or decrease the open space on the site by more than five (5) percent. The net floor area will not change with the approval of this application. The EDU already counts as existing floor area. V. CONCLUSION Based on changing family dynamics, the owner of Stillwater Ranch Lot 3 is interested in eliminating the EDU on his property. Owners of Lots 2 and 4 have previously eliminated their respective EDUs by conversion/absorption into their principal units and payment of cash -in -lieu. The current applicant is open to several options that would eliminate the full-time rental requirement of the unit. The preference would be to maintain the unit as a CDU and pay a reduced cash -in -lieu fee. This would keep a separate unit that could be occupied by a local Stillwater Lot 3 PID: 2737.184.05.003 Page 4 QOOOOG resident again in the future. This would also allow the kitchen facilities to remain within the unit and avoid the waste of demolition. In the alternative, the applicant would like to have the option of pursuing a buy -down unit as a replacement alternative. The applicant appreciates your consideration and looks forward to discussing the proposal further with staff and the Board of County Commissioners. EXHIBITS: 1. Proof of Ownership 2. Authorization for Haas Land Planning to Represent the Applicant 3. Pre -Application Conference Summary 4. Prior Approvals a. BOCC Resolution 94-156 b. BOCC Resolution 94-233 c. Occupancy Deed Restriction, Reception #472145 5. Signed Fee Agreement Stillwater Lot 3 PID: 2737.184.05.003 Page 5 000007 WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON &VELASQUEZ; October 5, 2015 VIA HAND DELIVERY Suzanne Wolfe Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 EXHIBIT 11 .1 Cheryl Velasquez 970.544.4612 velasquez@wcrlegal.com Re: Proof of Ownership for Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch Subdivision/PUD, according to the Plat Recorded December 30, 1994 in Plat Book 35 at Page 86, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Dear Suzanne: 1 am licensed to practice law by the State of Colorado. By this letter, I am confirming that the above -referenced property, located at 125 Stillwater Lane in Pitkin County, Colorado, is owned in fee simple by Thomas P. Reagan. The property is subject to the following Deeds of Trust: (i) a Deed of Trust to secure a loan from JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. in the amount of $4,900,508 and recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Records") on October 29, 2012 under Reception No. 593502, and (ii) a Deed of Trust to secure a loan from Alpine Bank in maximum principal amount of $2,500,000 and recorded in the Records on April 15, 2005 under Reception No. 509030, as modified by the Modification of Deed of Trust recorded in the Records on May 15, 2015 under Reception No. 619881. The property is subject to other matters of record. An Ownership and Encumbrance Report issued by Land Title Guarantee Company, dated September 30, 2015, with an effective date of September 21, 2015 is enclosed with this letter. Sincerely, 0 -- Cheryl A. Velasquez for WARS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOI-INSON & VELASQUEz LLP Enclosures t A0074708P I 1350SEVENTEENTN ST RE ET SUITE 450 DENVER COLORAIXISOM2 x720-351-4700 1,720-351-4745 420 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 210 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 x970-544-7006 1,866-492-0361 WCRLEGAL.COM Customer Distribution Land Title —Sr., 967— Property Address: 125 STILLWATER LANE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Our Order Number: QPR62007005 Date: 09-30-2015 For Title Assistance KIM SHULTZ 533 E HOPKINS #1G2 ASPEN, CO 81611 970.927-0405(phone) 970-925-6243 (fax) valleyfesponse@ltgc.com Lender - New Loan i WARS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ dautrechypwcrlegal.com, velasquez@v Kegal.com Delivered via- Electronic Mail 00000 Land Title Guarantee Company ',,r� -may' Property Report Land I IUe Order Number: 62007005 cwurnvE w�+vury This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the names) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject Is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company Is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report Prepared For: WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ This Report is dated: 09-21-2015 at 5:00 P.M. Address: 125 STILLWATER LANE, ASPEN, CO 816U Legal Description: LOT 3, STILLWATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 1994 IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGE 86. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO Record Owner: THOMAS R REAGAN We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1. DEED OF TRUST RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 2012 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 593502. 2. DEED OF TRUST RECORDED APRIL 15, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 509030. SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 2012 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 593501. MODIFICATION RECORDED MAY 15, 2015 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 6198. """""•*""" PROPERTY TAX INFORMATION PARCEL NO.: 273718405003 2015 LAND ASSESSED VALUE $398,000.00 2015 IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSED VALUE $395,470.00 2014 REAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,324.28. 00001;) EXHIBIT Pitkin County Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 RE: Removal of Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction at 125 Stillwater Lane, Aspen (Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch, PID# 2737-184-05-003) To whom it may concern: As owner of the above -referenced property, I hereby authorize Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as my designated and authorized representative with regard to all actions required in route to obtaining the the approval captioned above. HLP is authorized to submit an application for the approval(s) necessary to allow removal of my EDU; HLP is also authorized to represent me in meetings with Pitkin County staff, the Hearing Officer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Housing Board and the Board of County Commissioners. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. Yours truly, � P Thomas P. Reagan 180015th Street, #203 Denver, CO 80202 000011 rro# 2737-184-05-003 EXHIBIT PITKIN COUNTY PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Suzanne Woiff DATE: 4/14/15 PHONE: (970) 920-5093 E-MAIL: suzanne.woiffO-pitkincounty.com LOCATION: 125 Stillwater Lane ZONE: AR -2 PARCEL ID #: 273718405003 SIZE: 1.761 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas Reagan REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas EMAIL: mitch@hlpaspen.com Type of Application: Removal of Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction Description of Project/Development: The Applicant is requesting to amend a condition of approval in order to remove the one -bedroom, category one employee dwelling unit and the deed restriction, and to provide alternative employee housing mitigation. An on-site unit was required by BOCC Resolution No. 94- 233, which approved the Stillwater Subdivision. The deed restriction is recorded as Reception No. 472145. Alternative mitigation would be provided by payment -in -lieu as calculated by the Housing Guidelines or buy -down of an existing unit. Land Use Code Sections to address in letter of request/application: • 2-20-150(b), Minor Amendment to Development Permit Review by: BOCC Public Hearing? NO Staff will refer to: East Aspen Caucus, Housing FEES: $1,426 (make check payable to 'Pitkin County Treasurer") g 3S ➢ $926 Planning flat fee (non-refundable; based on 3 hours of staff time; if staff review time exceeds 4.83.6 hours, the Applicant will be charged for additional time in excess of 3 hours at a rate of �312/fr6Cr) is,�� ➢ $130 Clerk ➢ $360 Housing To apply, submit 5 copies of the following information, unless noted otherwise: 1. Letter of request, summarizing prior approvals and addressing (in detail) each of the provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code identified above, and the applicable provisions of the Housing Guidelines; 2. Copies of prior approvals and deed restriction 3. Consent from the owner of the property for the representative to process the application and represent the owner (1 copy); 4. Disclosure and proof of ownership of the property, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property and all mortgagees, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting use and development of the parcel and proof of the owner's right to use the land for the purposes identified in the development application. 5. Street address and parcel description, including legal description, and 8-1/2"x 11" vicinity map locating the subject property within Pitkin County; 6. Executed Pitkin County Community Development Agreement for Payment of Land Use Application Fees (1 copy) (form attached); 7. This Pre -Application Conference Summary Sheet. 000012 NOTES: ➢ PLEASE SUBMIT ONE UNBOUND AND ONE-SIDED COPIES OF YOUR COMPLETE APPLICATION. PLEASE SUBMIT TWO-SIDED COPIES OF ALL REMAINING COPIES OF YOUR APPLICATION (IF POSSIBLE). ➢ ALL MAPS SHALL BE FOLDED. ➢ This pre -application conference summary is advisory in nature and not binding on the County. The information provided in this summary is based on current zoning standards and staffs interpretations based upon representations of the applicant. Additional information may be required upon a complete review of the application. 000013 ys�. r^p'fiy ;w s :5s- 1 .. I. 'di q '°y, •.y�4p7y� r x n� C s• -y 1 4~% €; 376344 3-767 0-12 I1/'l4/'?4 10:38A PG 1 OF 5 HEC JCC - . SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CI=RK b RECORDER 0.00 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .-i or PITEIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING GENERAL SUBMISSION APPROVAL r - TO SUBDIVIDE THE BENEDICT STILLWATER RANCH INTO 6 LOTS AND A - GHQH EIffiTION AND SPECIAL REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE -. ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Resolution No. 9h/� RECITALS 1. Fabienne Benedict, hereafter "Applicant", has applied to the _q Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, _ hereafter "Board", to subdivide the Stillwater Ranch into six lots. - 2. The subject property is zoned AFR-2. 3. The property is located adjacent to and east of the City of Aspen, southwest of Highway 82, more specifically described - in Exhibit "A'L, attached hereto. S 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at their regularly scheduled public hearing on January 18, 1994, and recommended General Submission approval subject to 1 s • conditions. i 5_ The Board granted five GMQS' allotments to the applicant by Resolution Na_ 94-125. .-.. - 6. The Board heard this General Submission application at a ' regularly scheduled and noticed public hearing an August 30, 1994, at which time evidence and testimony was presented in regard to this application. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it hereby grants - {la. '-- .....:, ...... L-iG+ay+T. a-,w^..•eriL,de:5�;4'i'�+kypy:.�s.:w.�-�".s3Yub1e8'onCs:'yN .:.:u...+----'--""^•aSbv.... a 376,344 9-767 P-13 11/14/94 10:3600 PG 2 OF 6 General Submission approval and GMQS exemption and Special Review approval for the on-site affordable housing units to the Applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility extensions shall be located underground, and appropriate easements shall be dedicated to the various public and private utilities as may be required. All utility extensions will be located in the property's existing road r system to minimize site disturbance. If utility, extensions are proposed outside of approved road alignments, these extensions shall be shown for review and approval at Detailed Submission. 2. All development on Lots 1 through 5, shall be limited to access roads, the individual driveways, utility extensions, irrigation ditches, fences meeting Division of Wildlife requirements and the building envelopes. No disturbance, including vegetation removal, (unless required by the County for fire protection) shall occur outside these areas. Landscaping outside of building envelopes may be permitted upon approval by the Planning Department. 7. The applicant shall dedicate a fishing easement along the southerly bank of the river to include the river and five feet of bank above the high water mark. The applicant shall work - with the County to realign those portions of the "winter" p trail that are located within hazardous avalanche zones, to the extent feasible. 4. All residences shall be connected to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Districts (ACSD) main sever line that runs through 00001J 0010 r 1 6 nl:. �.Sg "1 -tWY`�A ;. Not N ��,.•�t 376344 P-767 G-14 11/14/?4 10:3DA PG 3 OF v the property. The owners of said lots shall pay the normal ' e + connection fees, along with an additional prorated surcharge 'i that will be used to recover the costs of repairing a yr - downstream constraint. The pro rata share shall be determined Is by the ACSD. If a sewage pumping system is necessary on any y parcel, a conventional septic tank shall pretreat effluent r prior to discharge into a pumping chamber, as recommended by .. the Environmental Eealth Department. 5. The applicant commits to mitigate any increase in AMID Z. '�- attributable to the project (including that associated with - any increase in vehicle miles travelled VMT). The applicant ' shall work with County Staff to establish enforceable and verifiable measures for mitigating the increase in PM10 for the single family residences on the five lots. The PM10 mitigation plan shall require approval by the Board of County commissioners or the Aspen/Pitkin county Environmental Health Department concurrently with Detailed Submission approval. 6. The applicant shall obtain access permits and submit erosion ----=+=? and sediment control plans as required to the County Engineer ''..t: for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. - 7. The Fire District shall be allowed on the property to check fire hydrants and water pressure prior to building permit issuance. 8. The Applicant or owners shall provide one, above grade, low yy income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit on each of the k i 90 five new lots within their designated building envelopes, l concurrently with the construction of each four-bedroom free �.� _ -----+.•per _ ....r,..aw,...n--.�.�—wr,au.,---:-� 1sb:$'. + .1 r E 0010 376344 3-767 P-15 11/L4/94 10:38A PG 4 OF 6 i market unit. An appropriate deed restriction shall be C,a executed and filed with the Housing Office. The affordable units shall meet or exceed Housing office'sminimum, net S livable area requirement for low income units, and shall be deed restricted to the Category 11 income, price and occupancy guidelines in effect at the time of .issuance of a building permit. Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval is hereby granted to allow smaller lot sizes as necessary for the provision of detached or attached affordable housing units on each of the lots. 9. Dogs shall be kenneled or leashed at all times. Fencing shall comply with Division of Wildlife standards, including a maximum height of 4211, four strands or less. _ 10. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall supply evidence of an adequate water supply. 11- Prior to submittal for Detailed Submission, the building envelopes for Lots 1 and 2 should be moved farther back into the property to minimize Scenic Overlay impacts. On Lot 4, the building envelope should be revised to avoid the , .stream/wetland area that drains the gravel pit ponds. 12. At Detailed Submission the applicant shall submit architectural controls and guidelines that address materials, . building height, lighting and landscaping. Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be limited to 6,500 square feet of residential floor area (subgrade basements shall be exempt up to 4,000 square 2�. ttitii feet). 13. At Detailed Submission, the proposed building envelopes shall 00017 000013 litF r j 376344 5-767 P-16 11/14/94 10:38A pO 3 OF 6 be adjusted to minimize the removal of mature trees on the property. Removal of mature vegetation outside of any building envelope on Lots 1 through 5 is prohibited except as provided for in Condition 2 above. Removal of mature trees .' within the building envelopes shall require approval of a tree iY removal plan by the Planning Office. Mature trees means any 3 - i deciduous tree of six-inch caliper at diameter -breast -height 4. or any evergreen taller than six feet in height. I 14. Livestock grazing and Livestock impounding is prohibited on ' Lots 1 through S. Livestock grazing and livestock impounding - is permitted within the Open space parcel and a. 15. All material representations made by the applicant in the ' application and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Hoard of County Commissioners at a regular 3 meeting on August 30, 1994. HOARD OP COUNTY CO14499IONERS, 1 ATrEaT. ?ITEM COUNTY, COLORADO y. ... By J■ att■ o Robert W. Child, CII■' �`. .. Oe uty Clerk and Reoordar Date APPROVRD AS TO CONTENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: h e c��1 sm■ a sono-�° maitaitt ` Coam Plain 4 Director rnap 1 1 fxk/benedict.reso _ ___ "'-':: ...a.+can.........�...+w..u.i.ws.+w......�.:q�.:+•'- . - _ 000013 1 RECITALS 1. Pabienne Benedict, (hereafter "Applicant"), has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, (hereafter "Board"), to subdivide the Stillwater Ranch into six lots. 2. The subject property is zoned AFR-2. PUD. 3. The property is located adjacent to and east of the City of Aspen, southwest of Highway 82, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application. at their regularly scheduled public hearing on January 18, 1994, and.recommended General submission approval subject to conditions. S. The Board granted five GMQ5 allotments to the applicant by Resolution No. 94-125. 6. The Board heard the General Submission application at a regularly scheduled and noticed public hearing on August 30, 1994, at which time evidence and testimony was presented in regard to this application. 7.. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Detailed and Ficial Plat application at their regularly scheduled public meeting an November B, 1994, and recommended approval subject to conditions. 8. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed this application C (1(�L fl EXHIBIT n Jr Y ( J B-770 REC 000 P-783 12/30/94 04:05P PG I OF B 0 00 377678 PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 4 RECORDER sILVIH DFVis RESOLUTION OF THE HOARD 07 COUNTY COMNISSIORERS OF PITEIN COUNTY, 'i COLORADO, GRANTING DETAILED AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO THE -g STILLNATER RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD jResolution #94-A 1 RECITALS 1. Pabienne Benedict, (hereafter "Applicant"), has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, (hereafter "Board"), to subdivide the Stillwater Ranch into six lots. 2. The subject property is zoned AFR-2. PUD. 3. The property is located adjacent to and east of the City of Aspen, southwest of Highway 82, more specifically described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application. at their regularly scheduled public hearing on January 18, 1994, and.recommended General submission approval subject to conditions. S. The Board granted five GMQ5 allotments to the applicant by Resolution No. 94-125. 6. The Board heard the General Submission application at a regularly scheduled and noticed public hearing on August 30, 1994, at which time evidence and testimony was presented in regard to this application. 7.. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Detailed and Ficial Plat application at their regularly scheduled public meeting an November B, 1994, and recommended approval subject to conditions. 8. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed this application C (1(�L fl EXHIBIT n 377678 B-770 P-784 12/30/94 04405P pO 2 OF 8 Resolution NO. 94-M Page Z VW for Scenic overlay requirements at a regularly scheduled public hearing on November. 29, 1994, and approved the Scenic overlay review subject to conditions by their Resolution No. P2-94-15. NOW, TRRREFoRR, RE IT ReaOLVED by the Hoard of County Commissioners that it hereby grants Detailed and Final Plat approval to the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. A11 utility extensions shall be located underground, and appropriate easements shall be dedicated to the various public and private utilities as may be required. All utility extensions shall be located in the property's existing road system to minimize site disturbance. If utility extensions are proposed outside Of approved road alignments, these extensions shall be shown for review and approval at Detailed Submission. 2. All development on Lots 1 through 5 shall be limited to access roads, the individual driveways, utility extensions, irrigation ditches, fences meeting Division of Wildlife requirements and the building envelopes. No disturbance, including vegetation removal, (unless required by the County for fire protection) shall occur outside these areas. Landscaping outside of building envelopes may be permitted upon approval by the Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall dedicate a fishing easement along the southerly bank of the river to include the river and five feet of bank above the high water mark. A fishing easement shall also be granted between the common boundary of the out parcel !00021 , .•'; r t .'y Sian V I r 1Y 4,4.gi4�oF,:i FYI � .. a• ' 377678 8-770 P-785 12/30/94 04:0ZP PS 3 OF 8 Pe olution No. 94 [.3 Page 3 c� and Lot 6 and the centerline of the river. The applicant shall work with the County to realign those portions of the 'tl "winter" trail that are located within hazardous avalanche i i zones, to the extent feasible. shall be connected to the Aspen Consolidated 4. All residences i Sanitation Districts (ACRD) main sewer line that runs through 9+ the property. The owners of said lots shall pay the normal connection fees, along with an additional prorated surcharge that will be used to recover the costs of repairing a downstream constraint. The pro rata share shall be determined by the ACSD. If a sewage pumping system is necessary on any parcel, a conventional septic tank shall pretreat effluent prior to discharge into a pumping chamber, as recommended by the Environmental Health Department. 5. The applicant shall make a contribution of $12,600 to the County trails program prior to recordation of the final plat. - --- No building permit shall be issued within the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision until the County shall have expended the I- - contribution on specific trails improvements. { i- 6. The applicant shall obtain access permits and submit erosion and sediment control plans as required to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 7, The Fire District shall be allowed on the property to check fire hydrants and water pressure prior to building permit k }} issuance. S. The Applicant or owners shall provide one, above grade, low y 000022 Resolution No. 94-M Page 4 income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit on each of the five new lots within their designated building envelopes, concurrently with the construction of each four-bedroom free market unit. An appropriate deed restriction shall be executed and filed with the Housing Office. The affordable units shall meet or exceed Housing Office's minimum, net livable area requirement for low income units, and shall be deed restricted to the category tl income, price and occupancy guidelines in effect at the time of issuance of a building. permit. Planned Unit Development (PVD) approval is hereby granted to allow smaller lot sizes as necessary for the provision of detached or attached affordable housing units an Lots 2 and 7. 9. Dogs shall be kenneled or leashed at all times. Fencing shall comply with Division of Wildlife standards, including a maximum height of 4211, four strands or less. 10. Prior to final plat recordation, the applicant shall supply evidence of an adequate water supply. 11. The protective covenants for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision shall be revised to permanently restrict the use of the open Space Parcel to agricultural uses and improvements, the pasturing of horses and related uses and improvements, and such other open space uses and improvements as may be approved from time to time by the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners Association, and the continuation of existing uses. Th. covenants shall also prohibit further subdivision of the Open Space Parcel, although a lot line adjustment shall be permitted between the open Space Parcel and the Out Parcel if County and landowner approval can be obtained. M 40. 4¢i )00023 0 m i n e r r m m r r r � { 7� F Resolution No. 94-M Page 4 income, one -bedroom affordable housing unit on each of the five new lots within their designated building envelopes, concurrently with the construction of each four-bedroom free market unit. An appropriate deed restriction shall be executed and filed with the Housing Office. The affordable units shall meet or exceed Housing Office's minimum, net livable area requirement for low income units, and shall be deed restricted to the category tl income, price and occupancy guidelines in effect at the time of issuance of a building. permit. Planned Unit Development (PVD) approval is hereby granted to allow smaller lot sizes as necessary for the provision of detached or attached affordable housing units an Lots 2 and 7. 9. Dogs shall be kenneled or leashed at all times. Fencing shall comply with Division of Wildlife standards, including a maximum height of 4211, four strands or less. 10. Prior to final plat recordation, the applicant shall supply evidence of an adequate water supply. 11. The protective covenants for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision shall be revised to permanently restrict the use of the open Space Parcel to agricultural uses and improvements, the pasturing of horses and related uses and improvements, and such other open space uses and improvements as may be approved from time to time by the Stillwater Ranch Homeowners Association, and the continuation of existing uses. Th. covenants shall also prohibit further subdivision of the Open Space Parcel, although a lot line adjustment shall be permitted between the open Space Parcel and the Out Parcel if County and landowner approval can be obtained. M 40. 4¢i )00023 0 0024 .14 r '] L y'{�y'��\.4 (.3! .• 4+g.//�� (, •ln i1 y� 'y''(�, .• r '_w.iti "C1L >:. -w 'FL 4) iew lution No. 944A 11:090 _ Pr0 5 ""'""x"'""""7777 12. On or before March 1, 1995, the applicant shall form a Homeowners' Association comprised of the owners of the cix (6) lots in the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision, and shall convey the open Space Parcel to the Homeowners' Association. The deed shall reserve the exclusive use, control and expense of the open Space Parcel to Fabienne Benedict and Fredric A. Benedict for the rest of their lives. • 13. Removal of mature vegetation outside of any building envelope r on Lots 1 through 5 is prohibited except as provided for in i m condition 2 above. Removal of mature trees within the building envelopes shall require approval of a tree removal plan by the Planning Office. Mature trees means any deciduous n _ u tree of six-inch caliper at diameter -breast -height or any . n evergreen taller than six feet in height. m O 14. The northern boundary of the building envelope on Lot 1 shall be relocated twenty (20) feet to the south to reduce potential P . i M visual impacts. The applicant may relocate the eastern and/or a western boundaries of the building envelope so as to maintain - � m the size of the building envelope. n -• a 15. The building height on Lot 1 shall be limited to a maximum of m 20 feet measured from existing grade or finished grade, n whichever is lower, to the top of a flat roof or the nidpo int m - m of a pitched roof. The ridge of a pitched roof shall not - exceed 25 feet above existing or finished grade, whichever is 4 - n ^ lower. 16. The building height on Lot 2 shall be limited to (i) a maximum 0024 .14 r A-1yl svoPV 000?J A Resolution ■o. 94- b Page a Of 20 feet measured from the existing elevation of the 7F northeast corner of the building envelope to the top of a flat roof or the midpoint of a pitched roof, or (ii) the maximum height allowed in the AFR-2 Zone District, whichever is lower. The ridge of a pitched roof shall net exceed 25 feet she i 4 said existing elevation. The applicant shall establish said elevation by field survey and shall incorporate the same in the Protective Covenants for the Stillwater Ranch Subdivision. 17. The height limitations imposed on Lots 1 and 2 may be varied . subject to obtaining a new scenic Overlay approval pursuant to the standards and procedures in effect at the tine of a new m a application. 18. The owner of Lot 1 shall submit a landscape plan for review - _ a and approval by the Planning Office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residence on Lot 1. The purpose of �m a the landscape plan shall be to reduce the visual impact of ' 'm a development on Lot 1 from Highway 82. P -`,4, n 19. Section 2(f) of the covenants (lighting) shall be revised to -.. M preclude outside lights on the north side of the buildings on ' m Lots 1 and 2 (facing Highway 82). The architectural). m n "guidelines" shall be renamed to "requirements". - s 20. With the exception of one entrance light at the intersection 4 .f mo1 Highway 92 and Stillwater Road, and one outdoor light for the garage or home entrance (unless otherwise required by the m � Uniform Building Code), access drive and landscape "accent" r M lighting shall be prohibited on Lots 1 and 2. Law level 000?J A J. `f N; �� < �:gr „.e•' sr s lrr �v f' xkp ;9 4 Resolution No. 94-4411 Psqe 7 "'°%7 walkway lighting, however, shall be allowed for safety purposes. All exterior lighting shall comply with the applicable requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 21. Livestock grazing and livestock impounding is prohibited on Lots i through 5, with the exception of horses, which may be impounded on Lots 4 and S. Livestock grazing and livestock impounding is permitted within the Open Space parcel and 6. 22. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1994. AT 1111HI-V IV ne ones, Deputy C rk and Record BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PIT&IN COUNTY, COLORADO m FckhaL C. 196}*uP By: G19 ASas airman Dat APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: cam Tim fiWh is tt, 4Q Suzanne R y , Cov ty t rney County Pl&nning Director 472145 II�III VIII �III�TKIN I COIIIII�III�IIIIIIMIO O 9/1 p�0010:26A OCCUPAIVCFDEED RBSTRIL77ONAND AGREEMENT FORANE"LOFEEDWELLINC UNIT APPROVED PURSUANTTORESOLUTmNO, 94-133 ®® EXHIBIT D 9 Pitkin County MAY 0 2 1012 THIS AGREEMENT is [Wade and entered into this - day of 1ks�4 9ppZ by 771om� Reagan (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), whose address is located in the County of Pitkin, and the multi jurisdictional housing authority established lied pursuant ton/pitkin County o the SECONDEDL�ing �A), a RESTATED INTER -GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDED AND of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office (hereinafter referredtoass "Ah bority"5444 of the records WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Owner owns real property more specifically described as Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch and further stated in Exhibit "A" (hereinafter referred to as "Real one "Free -Marker' unit and one affordable dwelling unit to contain on "b which Real Property shall contain feet approved by the Board of CountyC � 585 square Reception No. 377678 of the Pitkin County ClerkandRecorder's OtLce, on No. 94 2 3, orded at the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Real Property, and all a s Agreement, associated therewith shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Propertypnancea' improvements and fixtures WHEREAS, this Agreement imposes certain covenants upon the Property that restrict the use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit to empleYees and their families who are employed in Pitkin County and meet the qualification guidelines established and indexed by the Authority on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained herein, the Owner hereby covenants and agrees as follows: I • Owner hereby covenants that the Employee Dwelling Unit described above shall at all times remain a rental unit and shall not be condominiumized. 2. 'Ile use and occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall hence housing for employees and their families who are emplforth be limited exclusively to aye in Pitkin County and who meet the definition of "qualified Category I employee" as that term is defined by the qualification guidelines established and indexed by flue Authority on an annual basis. The Owner shall have the right to lease the Employee Dwelling Unit to a "qualified Category t employee" of his own selection. 3. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall not be occupied by the Owner or members of the immediate family ("Immediate Family" shall mean a person related by blood or marriage who is a first cousin [or Closer relative] and his or her children) nor shall the Employee Dwelling Unit be used as a guesthouse or guest facility. 4. Written verification of employment of amployee(s) proposed to reside in the Employee Dwelling Unit shall be completed and filed with the Authority by the Owner of the Employee Dwelling Unit prior to occupancy thereof, and such verification must be acceptable to the Authority, 00002 1111111111111f1{111111111111111111111111111111111111111009/11/2002 a72145 111D 0 2 10:20A 5. The Employee Dwelling Unit shall be required to be rented for periods of no less than six (6) consecutive months. Upon vacancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit, the Owner is granted forty-five (45) days in which to locate a qualified employee. If an employee is not placed by the Owner, the Authority may rent the Employee Dwelling Unit to a qualified employee, 6. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category I rental tate as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as tth by the submission and approval of the lease. Employees sset for Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent for the unit on the date of execuion this deed or restriction is $463 per month. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority open employment, maximum income and asset limitations. hall be qualified by the Authority as to 7. The Unit must meet minimum occupancy; i.e., one person per bedroom. 8. Lease agreements executed for occupancy of the Employee Dwelling Unit shall provide for a rental term of not less than six (6) consecutive months. A signed and executed copy of the lease shall be Provided to the Authority by the Owner within ten (10) days of approval of employees) for the Employee Dwelling Unit 9. Tbis Agreement may be removed by the Owner with the approval of the Pitkin County Board of County CommiSaioners, subject to the requirement that the Employee Dwelling Unit is removed or modified. If modified, the remaining improvements must no longer be capable of occupancy as a "dwelling unit" as defined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code and must meet otherwise applicable code requirements. 10. Unless modified as stated above, this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with the Real Property as a burden "thereon for the benefit of, and shall be specifically enforceable by, the Authority, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin, Colorado, and their respective successors as applicable, by any appropriate legal action including, but not limited to, injunction, abatement, or eviction of non-qualified tenants. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on this date and year above first written. OWNER; (Notary on following page) 0000%% PITH COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEP AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Thomas P. Reagan (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinance No. 30-2009 establishes a fee structure for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. The fee structure is based on the County's policy that development shall pay, in full, the cost of development review in Pitkin County. Fees have been set to be consistent and fair to the public and to reflect the expense incurred in providing such services to the public. 3. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it may not be possible at the time of application to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and COUNTY agree fees charged for the processing of land use applications shall accumulate if an application includes more than one type of land use review. 4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay a base fee in the amount of1$ •426* which is for 3* hours of staff time, and if actual time spent by staff to process the application exceeds the average number of hours by more than 201/o, then the COUNTY will bill the APPLICANT quarterly for the additional time spent. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. PITION COUNTY Cindy Houben Community Development Director APP ANT Q Thomas P. Reagan Mailing: 1800 151h Street, 9203 Denver, CO 80202 *Includes Planning Office flat fee: $936 (non-refundable; based on 3 hours of staff time). Also included: Clerk Fee of $130 and Housing Referral Fee of $360. 000030 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS PITK N COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 PHONE# (970) 920-5526/FAX# (970) 920-5439 October 16, 2015 Mitch Haas 420 East Main Street, Suite 410-B Aspen, CO 81611 mitch@hlpaspen.com Re: Reagan Removal of Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction (PID #2737-184-05-003; CASE# P073-15) Dear Mr. Haas: The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. After a more detailed review of the submittal information, additional information specific to the application may be requested in order to adequately review and process the application. The planner in charge of the review will request the information from you directly. PLEASE SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL $39.00 FOR FLAT FEE DUE TO A CHANGE IN FEES SINCE YOUR PRE -APPLICATION. We have scheduled this application for review by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, at a meeting to begin at 12:00 P.M. in The Gant -Molly Cambell Conference Center at 610 S West End, Aspen. Should this date be inconvenient for you, please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Department. If you have questions, please call Suzanne Wolff, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-5093. Sincerely, Bonnie Shiles Administrative Assistant PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5526 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: East of Aspen Caucus Housing FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department Suzanne.wolffkpitkincounty.com RE: Reagan Removal of Employee Dwelling Unit Deed Restriction (CASE P073-15; PID 2737-184-05-003) DATE: October 16, 2015 Attached for your review are materials for an application submitted by Thomas P. Reagan. The Board of County Commissioners will review the application on Wednesday, November 18, 2015. Please return your comments to me by Friday, October 30, 2014. http://i)itkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/6242 Thank you. MEMORANDUM TO: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, APCHA DATE: October 30, 2015 RE: REMOVAL OF EDU DEED RESTRICTION FOR LOT 3, STILLWATER RANCH Parcel ID No. 2737-184-05-003; P073-15 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting to remove the employee dwelling unit (EDU) deed restriction for Lot 3, Stillwater Ranch, 125 Stillwater Lane, Aspen, recorded at Reception No. 472145 on September 11, 2002. BACKGROUND: The EDU deed restriction required a 585 square foot, one -bedroom, Category 1 unit, to be rented to a qualified employee who works within Pitkin County. To date, APCHA has NEVER qualified a tenant for the unit. The request is to remove the EDU deed restriction, record a caretaker dwelling unit (CDU) deed restriction on the property, and satisfy the one -bedroom, Category 1 mitigation by a fee -in -lieu or providing a buy -down unit. The EDU requires the unit to be rented to a qualified Category 1 household, whereas the CDU does not require the unit to be rented. DISCUSSION: A one -bedroom unit provides mitigation for 1.75 FTE's; therefore, any fee -in -lieu would be the Category 1 fee times the 1.75 FTE's. The current fee -in -lieu as stated in the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines is: 1.75 FTE's X $295,077 = $516,384.75 A buy -down option will more than likely not be acceptable to APCHA. In most instances, deed - restricting a single unit in a free-market complex is wrought with problems. Most HOA's have added language to their Condominium Documents that do not allow an owner to deed restrict a unit. HOA fees could tender the unit unaffordable as well. RECOMMENDATION: APCHA would approve the removal of the unit since it has never been rented according to the restriction as far as APCHA is concerned. APCHA would also not recommend approval of a buy -down unit. APCHA recommends that the full fee -in -lieu amount be required as stated above. S PITKIN AUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELIIMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00039096 Name: THOMAS P REAGAN Date:10/6/2015 Project Address: 125 STILLWATER DR Type: check # 5483 Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0073.2015.PLAN PP- Flat Fee 936.00 0073.2015.PLAN PP- Clerk Fee 130.00 0073.2015.PLAN PP- Housing Referral Fee 360.00 Total: 1,426.00 Name: Project Address: Type: Permit Number 0073.2015.PLAN PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00039167 Haas Land Planning LLC Date:10/20/2015 125 STILLWATER DR check # 3453 Fee Description PP- Additional flat fee Total: Amount ME cm