Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20080512
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 12, 2008 5:00 P.M. Call to Order Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Outstanding Employee Bonus Award b) Proclamations -Aspen High School Sports Teams IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #40, 2008 -Contract Golf Course Banks Mower b) Resolution #41, 2008 -Contract Golf Course Rough Mower c) Resolution #42, 2008 -Contract Tandem Axle Flush Truck d) Resolution #43, 2008 -Contract -Fleet Replacement e) Resolution #44, 2008 -Contract Fleet Purchase Housing Department f) Minutes -April 14, 2008 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #15, 2008 -Commercial Core Moratorium Amendment P.H. 5/27 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #11, 2008 -Clarifying Definition of Maintenance of Wheeler Opera House b) Ordinance #14, 2008 -Supplemental Appropriations c) Ordinance #7, 2008 -Code Amendment -Non-conformities ADUs d) Ordinance #1, 2008 - 434 East Cooper (Bidwell Building) Subdivision IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting Mav 27. 2008 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. .,.~.P. `,, Ads en Recreation Center ~~561 Maroon Creek Road Aspen, CO 81611 (970)544-4100 May 12, 2008 130 S. Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Dear Patrick, CONGRATULATIONS! It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been selected to receive a City of Aspen Outstanding EmployQe Award for the second quarter of 2007. Please plan to attend the May 12th City council meeting to formally receive your award. You are receiving this award because of a five-year record of outstanding contributions to the City of Aspen and the Aspen Recreation Department. These contributions have demonstrated an extremely high work ethic, focus on communications, teamwork, safety, environmental stewardship and a continuous demonstration of exemplary customer service with regard to both the public and your co-workers within the City of Aspen. Specifically, you have worked long hours outside of your normal schedule providing construction services that have enabled numerous enhancements to City of Aspen facilities, and completed these without special funding or the involvement of private contractors. These projects include: 1) temporary building heating and ventilation systems that kept the patrons of the ARC comfortable this winter while the regular building HVAC systems were being retrofitted with energy saving devices, 2) the removal and relocation. of masonry walls, ceilings, floors, lighting, heating, and ventilation to create highly popular fitness rooms from previously under utilized space at the ARC, 3) the construction of a 16 foot wide by 33 foot long steel structure outside of the ARC to shed falling snow away from the receiving area and emergency access doors, 4) the trenching and installation of over 250 feet of conduit to-bring data and communication lines into the tennis facility by the Maroon Creek Bridge, 5) the installation of a guardrail/safety barrier on the stage at the Red Brick, 6) the installation of a glass entry vestibule at the Red Brick, 7) the fabrication and installation of a welded stainless steel frame to support the swim team's timing system at the ARC, 8) the installation of a 3000 gallon reverse osmosis system to bring the ice to world class standards and save energy at the Lewis Ice Arena, and 9) most recently the fabrication and installation of the steel structure to rebuild of the batting cage at Iselin Park that was damaged by this winter's heavy snows. Your contributions have increased both the safety and the enjoyment of the City of Aspen's recreational facilities for thousands of locals and guests alike. Thank you sincerely, Brad Fite Manager of Plant and. Engineering ~~ ~C~~ MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council THRU: Hal Schilling, City Manager FROM: Tom Baker, Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: INDEPENDENCE SQUARE PRESENTATION DATE: ~September~4`;";19',85Y' SUMMARY_ At the request o€ City Council, this memorandum evaluates several public/private options for the use of the parcel at the. corner of Cooper and Galena Streets, known as Independence Square and the Volk Property.. PREVIOUS COUNCIL_ ACTIO_N_ During a Planning Office presentation on August 26 concerning the Downtown Plan and Transportation Element, the Council heard a request from Robin Molny and Stacey Standley. Robin and Stacey asked the Council to evaluate the potential for acquisition of the Volk Property. The Council asked the Planning Office to prepare a report on the property for the meeting on September 9, 1985. BACKGROUND: The Planning Office has concentrated its efforts on formulating site development alternatives for the property, placing it in the context of the existing malls and the poten- tial for mall expansion and considering the planning for the entire downtown. At a meeting of the City Agency Directors on August 27, it was decided that Ron Mitchell and the Finance Department would be responsible for contacting the property owner and reporting to Council on the possible costs of acquisition. A_L_TERNATIVES: The accompanying figures illustrate several alternatives for the use of the Volk Property and summarize their advantages and disadvantages as follows: 1. Figure 1 illustrates the existing Volk parcel, consisting of approximately 4005 square feet of land, zoned CC, depicting its existing uses. 2. Figure 2 illustrates the owner's proposal to develop the lot for commercial purposes by constructing a building of 1,500 square feet of reconstructed space and 5,300 square feet of new commercial space. The Building Footprint includes 2,977 square feet of the lot and 1028 square feet (25A;) are shown as landscaping/circulation and open space. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to evaluate this W W Z LL H Q W ~ ~ Q Q W ~ ~ ~ Q U ~ O ¢ ~ o ~ ? W I a m ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~O ~O ~ ~ i O ~ G O ~ ~ o ~~ ~ 0 O O ~ ~I~ O N O O MEMO: INDEPENDENCE SQUARE PRESENTATION Page 2 September 4, 1985 project as the only competitor in the Commercial GMP on September 17. 3. Figure 3 illustrates a public/private partnerships option, allowing a more limited commercial development on the site and utilizing an open space easement to compensate the owner for the public's use of the property. In our review of designs for small urban spaces, we have found that a certain amount of commercial use of a site can add to the life of the space, while providing an economic return to the landowner and saving the city some of its site development and maintenance costs. Please note that we have not analyzed the technical feasibility fo the building as shown, and it should be considered illustrative only. 4. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate two potential public development strategies for the outright purchase of the property. The figures are intended to illustrate the range of uses to which the property could be put, from the most heavily landscaped and water-oriented approach, to more of a mall-oriented approach with tables, a performance area and fountain. Once again, these figures are illustrative only and should not be considered final design sketches. 5. Figure 6 takes some of the elements included in the prior two figures and illustrates how they might fit into the larger context of Independence Square. From our review of the original mall drawings, we have discovered that a public square comprising the Cooper-Galena right-of-way and this r corner property can be accomplished through the purchase of I the Volk Property and the closure of the two streets. The square becomes the central people place in the downtown area, surrounded by mall restaurants (Guido's and Pablo's), seating, a fountain and a performance area on the Volk Property. The corner works alone as an impromptu location for performers and a sunny spot for lunches, and through temporary closure to traffic on Galena and Cooper Streets, becomes a natural place for parades, awards ceremonies (Coors Classic, World Cup) events, and the like. Eventual mailing of the entire corner creates an ideal pedestrian, human environment, free of the present conflicts with traffic and presenting options to shop, to eat, to drink or simply to stroll or congregate. EVALUATION: The Planning Office believes that the accompanying figures illustrate the enormous potential for public amenities to be created through the use of the Volk Property. Options for public use range from the limited alternative associated with acquisition of an open space easement, to development of a corner downtown park, to the ultimate creation of a town square in the ( MEMO: INDEPENDENCE SQUARE PRESENTATION Page 3 September 4, 1985 heart of the City. Given the limited time available to us, we have not yet looked at the financial aspects of any of these development alternatives. What we believe we have done is to set a context for Council evaluation of the citizen initiative, and to begin to formulate in our own minds one possible vision of a future downtown Aspen. Given the development pattern which is emerging for the downtown, with the approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD, the rehabilitation of four of our principal historic structures, the investigation of transportation solutions for Rubey Park, parking and a downtown shuttle, and the proposed redevelopment of the Little Nell Base, we see a renewed emphasis on the pedestrian elements of the core of the City. We feel that the acquisition of this parcel gives us another key building block in this planning and development program, and will also help significantly in enliven- ing the presently underutilized Cooper Street Mall. As noted in the citizen report on the property, this corner has an except- ional orientation toward Aspen Mountain views and sunshine, and is the most significant remaining open corner in the commercial core. Based on all of these reasons, we conclude that the purchase of this property would have great public benefit, and even though we are at a very early stage of the downtown planning process, we conceptually endorse the proposal for its purchase. RECOMMENDATION: Should Council agree with the Planning Office's finding that public use of the Volk Property has merit and that it should be acquired by the City, we suggest that the following actions be taken: 1. Continue to pursue negotiations with the owner as to outright acquisition of the property or purchase of an open space easement for a portion of the property. 2. Consider having a "design competition" among local and national architects and land planners to identify the best uses of this property and the surrounding mall property. If a design competition is found to be too complex or inappro- priate, then an RFP (Request for Proposal) process could be initiated, requiring Council to choose a design program for the site which an architect would follow. 3. Consider holding an "event" in September for the purposes of evaluating how the corner would work as a pedestrian environment. The Galena and Cooper blocks could be tempo- rarily closed for a weekend Festival, in a manner similar to the temporary closure which occurred in the mall area prior to its formal construction. AR.klm }z ~o ~~ wo r .z " J vo ~~ Yz J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z O H a 0 Z w ~- w z $ ~ 3 ~ ~ w a ~ O w S2 ~ Y 52 to W g ~ ~ ~ f.. Z LL a O J W ( ~ W D 'W^ VJ ^O 1~ /O~ L~ w U O Ca U a ~ ~ E H OZ H ~ W U cn W a ~ o ow a z F ~ H N a F E ~ [~ C1 ~ F W U O ~ A D z F W ~ LL p RC q ~ H ~ U W W - -- - -- -- ___ _. - - a ---- _ -, --•_ __ a w __ _ E _ V ._ `. -- - --.. ~ FC Cx7 _._. _ --. -{-~ w _ ---- -_ ~ -- __ ___ ____._ E __.. --. ---- ... _. o __ w - _ _ __ _ _. EW EW ~ z cn U V W W cnHx ax w MHz ~ E ~ H _. __ te W m r . Z _0 ~"' a O w i ,~ a U J m a a E as 2E oa m uw a o w o F az aw A ww xaw a a5 FO W m C7 ~ z aH x°O~ OZ o HQ ww d w~HO as H lq ~: P; OU] O w a ~o U aaa~o ~ ~w (. ~ t1] HODF a FF W E F E tOZ 4. F ~'?' z ~ U 3 a ca .<' WLL.~ F-. ¢¢~ v ~ I ~ -. I _ -. ' .' ~....~- w - 1S tlN3ltlJ a o a ~ F C~, A x w a ~ F ~ ~ 0 a owl w ~~ a w H U1 z o `~ o ~ z m wwa w ao w x ~ H W ~ F cn O a ~ z Q ~ a o ~ H ~ Q 8 U r- 'QSQ~~ V 1S tlN31tl~J ~' This letter is written in anticipation of your agenda item forthcoming on August 26th relating to overall transportation and concerning land uses in the downtown area. It is spec- ifically in regard to the property located at the intersection of Galena and Cooper Streets which is commonly known as "Independence Square" or "The Sinclair Station." Interested and concerned citizens have attended several meetings Ito discuss the potential impacts of the eventual use of the property and this letter and the attached Outline Report have been prepared based on information brought to light at those meetings. It was concluded that the property is unique to the downtown area and that prior to its being developed for commercial uses, it deserves the City Council's and the Staff's careful evaluation of the desirability of its acquisition for open space use. As has been the case when. other strategically located properties have been proposed for development; we feel the historic open space slogan, "when it's gone, it's gone" to be particularly applicable when regarding the future of Independence Square. The attached Outline Report attempts to examine the pros and cons of the acquisition of the property for open space use, suggests some of the uses to which it might be put if acquired and includes an examination of several techniques for funding-- we do not suggest that the contents of the report are comprehensive, but rather that they might serve as a basis from which you, the Council, might begin deliberations if you choose to do so. Respectfully submitted, Robin Molny Stacey Standley August 23, 1985 RM:sm OUTLINE REPORT .~ -~ ~. ~~ ~, ~ , Proximity to and Enlivenment of Cooper Street Mall and Mall Activities Exceptional Orientation toward Aspen Mountain Views and Sunshine Potential for Uses Not Currently Compatible with or Available to Existing Malls Preservation of Activities Similar to Those Currently Available to the Public on the Site Elimination of Impact of Delivery and Service Vehicles Anticipated from Proposed Commercial Development Counter Indications to Acquisition Cost of Acquisition Cost of Development Cost of Maintenance Loss of Tax Revenues Increased Pedestrian/Vehicular Hazard Increased Pedestrian Congestion Limitation of Uses Due to Size of Property Impact of Building Masses on Adjacent Properties on Design of Improvements Civic Fountain Landscaped Park Area- Passive Uses Activities Center - Music, Gatherings, Speechmaking, Bulletin Kiosks, etc. Passive Uses of Activities Center When Appropriate *Present or similar uses could be preserved on property prior . to its eventual development. ~......~...~-. F;~. - ~_ 'S~ ~ '~i Ca 4Mt~.Hiroa+~. :tit m-.+ . .., rµ~. -Y K r , S. .... .. .. ~ .f .. 'Y -Z~~,.w,r.~. .~ -FC~c _ _ _ .. .:~. T ~t.y a. L .. W " ='-POTENTIAL""FUNDING SOURCES "^ _~. . _: _ _ _ _ (' __ _. _..... `.LAND FUND _ - . . , _ ;..,; Funds Allocated but Uncommitted after Purchase of "Little Cloud"......... ...:$120,000.00 Anticipated 1985 Revenues from 6th Penny and Other Land Fund Sources in Excess - of 1985 Budget Projections ................. ...$170,000.00 RED ROOF SALE Proceeds From Sale in 1985 ......................$500,000.00 Rental Loss in 1985 ............................-$250,000.00 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS TOTAL...........$540,000.00 As with other open space acquisitions, this proposed purchase should be undertaken on an installment basis. In the event that a portion of the proceeds from the Red Roof Sale are required to refund existing bonds, additional 6th penny funds would become available. The potential of the availability of state lottery funds for such a purchase should be investigated. Partial .interim retirement of the debt.can be expected from revenues obtained from existing uses. vla~ Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Steve Aitken CGCS Director of Golf Thru: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager Thru: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director Date: April 25, 2008 RE: Golf Course Banks Mower Purchase Request of Council: Staff requests Council to approve the purchase of the Jacobsen AR- 522 for mowing rough azound green and tee banks on the Aspen Golf Course. Discussion: As requested in the fleet management program for 2008 the Golf Department is replacing its banks mower. The John Deere 2653 mower that was purchased 9 yeazs ago, did a good job, and is now past due for replacement. This mowers engine failed late in the 2007 mowing season and isnon-operational. Request for proposals on the banks mower were sent out in March and three bids were received. L.L. Johnson proposed the Toro 4500 D (60 horsepower.) with a bid of: $46,344.00 2. Colorado Golf and Turf proposed the JD 8800 (44 horsepower.) with a bid of: $38,876.25 Mcphilomy Turf Equipment proposed the Jacobsen AR-522 (60 horsepower) with a bid of : $44,034.00 Only the Jacobsen AR-522 and the Toro 4500 D mowers aze capable of performing mowing operations at the golf course with adequate horsepower. Staff believes that only one of these units (The Jacobsen AR-522), is the best for the Aspen Golf Course. Five significant reasons stand out that support the selection of the Jacobsen AR-522. 1. Low bid compared to the Toro 4500 D. 2. Weight transfer option, for superior traction. 3. Lowest center of gravity for safety on steep banks 4. Tightest turning radius for maneuverability and increased production. 5. Increased operator visibility. Financiall Budget Impacts: The fleet management budget for 2008 for the Golf Fund has allotted $47,000.00 for the purchase of this mower. With the selection of the Jacobsen AR-522 the Golf Fund will have the necessary money available for this purchase. Due to inoperative condition of the mower being replaced no trade in value or resale value is anticipated. The old mower will be scrapped. Environmental Impacts: The Jacobsen AR-522 mower will provide improved fuel economy over the Toro 4500 D due to higher amount of acres mowed per hour. Recommended Action: Staff requests Council approve the purchase contract with Mchilomy Turf products for the purchase of the Jacobsen AR-522. Alternatives: If council does not approve the purchase of the Jacobsen AR-522 conditioning of the golf course would need to be adjusted for this decision with increased costs for mowing. City Manager Comments: PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # `7 ~. of 2008 On the consent calendar of Monday M.4 `/ / ~ 2008 CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Mcphilomy Commercial Products Companv, Inc, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Mc tun 'lorry Commercial Products Company Inc a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Mcphilomy Commercial Products Com~any Inc a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: , 2008 Mick Ireland Mayor SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID N0.2008 -1 FM - A THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 22ntl day in April of 2008, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and McPhilomv Commercial Products Comoanv.INC ,hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) Jacobsen model AR-522 rotary Mower Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Forty Four Thousand Thirty Four and no cents dollars ($ 44.034.00 ). 2. Delive . (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH - A.DOC 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment Suspension Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees Gratuities Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH - A.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract beiween the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH - A.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: ///C / ~i ~i~,v ~a~~~A~F2C~R-~ //~a~c~7 S sy: ~k'ct C~ ~. Sri ~ y'~ Title. ~F2~/ O.Q /~/~Y~! ' 'E~ 7-PORCH - A.DOC Vlb Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Steve Aitken CGCS Director of Golf Thru: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager Thru: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director Date: April 25, 2008 RE: Golf Course Rough Mower Purchase Request of Council: Staff requests Council to approve the purchase of the Toro 4100 D for mowing rough adjacent to fairways on the Aspen Golf Course. Discussion: As requested in the fleet management program for 2008, the Golf Department is replacing its large acreage rough mower. The Toro 455 D mower that was purchased 7 years ago did a good job and is now past due for replacement. Average replacement interval for a mower of this type is approximately 2000 hours. The mower that the Golf Department owns and operates has 2463 hours and has had increased need for maintenance and repairs. Request for proposals on the large acreage rough mowers were sent out in March with 3 bids received. L.L. Johnson proposed the Toro 4100 D Bid Price: $47,240.00 Colorado Golf and Turf proposed the JD 1600 T Bid Price: $43,480.51 3. Mcphilomy Turf Equipment proposed the Jacobsen HR-6010 Bid Price: $43,999.00 Staff believes very strongly that only the Toro 4100 D is correct for mowing and maintenance operations at the Aspen Golf Course. The reasons for this aze: 1. Performed superior among staff ratings during a one week demo period at the Aspen Golf Course. 2. The most acreage mowed per hour. 3. Highest quality of cut. 4. Lowest center of gravity for operator safety. 5. The only mower which can be utilized for other uses such as sweeping and snow removal. Staff will utilize this feature in fall and spring for other maintenance responsibilities. FinanciaU Budget Impacts: The fleet management budget for 2008 for the Golf Fund has allotted $50,000.00 for the purchase of this mower. With the selection of the Toro 4100 D the Golf Fund will have the necessary money available for this purchase. The old rough mower will be sold or auctioned off, as staff believes this should yield a higher value than the trade in amount of $2,500.00. Environmental Impacts: This mower will utilize less fuel than the other 2 mowers due to a higher level of mowing efficiency. Recommended Action: Staff requests Council approve the purchase contract with L.L. Johnson products for the purchase of the Toro 4100 D large acreage rough mower. Alternatives: The other two mowers could provide the mowing capabilities. This decision however would be less efficient, yield inferior quality of cut, less safe, and would not provide for the equipment being used in other maintenance operations. PROPOSED MOTION: L~/ "I move to approve Resolution # ,T of 2008 On the consent calendar of Monday May 12, 2008 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~Q~L,o-ruiu~.,~R Q ,. r,.n„-b.~. - ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND L.L. Johnson Distributing Companv , AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and L.L. Johnson Distributing Company a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and L.L. Johnson Distributing Company a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: , 2008 Mick Ireland Mayor 4 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2008 -1 FM - B THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 22nd day in Aoril of 2008, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and L.L. Johnson Distributino Comoanv .hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, One (1) Toro Groundsmaster 4100 - D rotary Mower Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Fortv Seven Thousand.Two Hundred Forty and no cents dollars ($ 47.240.00 ). 2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be pertormed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be pertormed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment Suspension Ineligibility. and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Continoent Fees Gratuities Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Aooroval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: ey: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: L• L„TUHnISUN (7~ sT. ~o . Title. V. ~? ~ ~, ~~~ 7-PURCH.DOC VIG MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager March 24, 2008 May 12th, 2008 Contract 2007-13FM Purchase of tandem-axle flush truck unit REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that Council approve contract 2007-13FM for the purchase of one tandem-axle flush truck unit for the Streets Department. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In September and November of 2007, Council approved a diesel retrofit project and a flush truck purchase respectively. Together, these projects comprise the City's 2007 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant as awazded by the Colorado Department of Transportation. In previous years, CMAQ funds were utilized for the purchase of a street sweeper as well as for Truscott pedestrian improvements and the construction of the Cemetery Lane trail. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen is receiving $177,000.00 in 2007 CMAQ funding. Approximately 68% of this CMAQ funding is dedicated to the purchase of the second flush truck, with the remaining 32% dedicated to a diesel retrofit project being undertaken by Environmental Health staff. Staff worked with CDOT to develop flush truck specifications and to meet CMAQ-required bidding guidelines. The resulting contract between the City of Aspen and low-bidder Western Colorado Truck is the culmination of this competitive bid process. Page 1 of 3 DISCUSSION: The Streets Department currently operates one flush truck to clean and flush City streets daily during warm-weather months. The purchase of an additional flush truck was approved for CMAQ grant funding for several reasons: • it will allow the coverage of twice as much azea in the same length of time; • it will reduce the amount of time the PM 10 dust being disbursed into the air; • it will allow for the cleaning of storm drains in addition to normal flushing/cleaning operations; and • it will provide a spaze should the current flush truck need service. FINANCIALIBUDGET IMPACTS: The low bid price for the flush truck, $160,282.00, was provided by Western Colorado Truck. The Streets Department portion of 2007 CMAQ funds is $116,035.00 The City's matching requirement for this project is $44,247.00 which staff recommends funding via Streets Department savings. Additional annual operating expenses for the new flusher, including preventative maintenance and additional fuel costs, are estimated at $4,328.00 per yeaz. The current flush truck is on a ten- year replacement cycle, with the next replacement due in 2010. If approved, the new flush truck would also be replaced every ten yeazs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The purchase of a new flush truck will increase the Street Department's ability to reduce PM-10 by flushing the sanding materials and fine particulates that are in embedded in the pores of the asphalt from the middle and driving lanes of the streets to the side where a sweeper will then pick them up. This will allow the department to flush and sweep more street azea each day and reduce the length of time that PM-10 particles aze airborne. The flush trucks will also help the City to meet its stone water mission by increasing the Department's efficiency when cleaning storm water vaults and catch basins. At the same time, the additional of a new flush truck will increase the department's fuel and water usage. Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approval of Contract 2007-13FM in the amount of $160,282 for the purchase of one flush truck unit, with $44,247 of the cost being taken from departmental savings and the remainder of the cost paid with CMAQ funding. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to reject the attached contract, the CMAQ grant funding and the use of departmental savings to purchase a second flush truck. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Contract 2007-13FM I ~~,~ k.i~r-~-,~~ ~~.~ On the consent calendar of Monday ~~ ~j'/Z 2003` CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENTS: Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. ~~ Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Western Colorado Truck Center ,AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Western Colorado Truck Center a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Western Colorado Truck Center a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: , 2008 Mick Ireland Mayor Willy McFarlin From: mack888@juno.com Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:49 AM To: Willy McFarlin Subject: 2009 Mack Willy Removing the full locking rear carriers and replacing the 18,000 front axle with a 14,600 to get the additional 3 years warranty would give you a deduction of $2,289.00. Final bid price with Faris Machinery would be $160,282.00 Zf you have any questions please call me at (970) 210-3031 Click here for free info on Graduate Degrees. http://thirdpartyoffers.Juno.com/TGL2121/fc/REAK6aAXOpsz6ERAdsXa7I2YTwFMozY6APFY56jPNBL1GK RdW9yOzX/ 1 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID N0.2007-13FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 20"' day of March of 2008, between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Western Colorado Truck Center . hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase. One (1) Tandem axle streets flusher truck Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any assoaated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as speafied in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contrail Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of One Hundred Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Eiahri Two and no cents dollars _ ($ 160.282.00 ). 2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contrail Documents. This Agreement shall inGude all Contrail Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties assoaated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefd of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or constnred to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to Gaim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or cond'Rions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent defauR of any of the terms, covenanrts or condtions herein contained, to lie performed, kept and observed by the other party. by and 7-PURCH.DOC 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so constnied. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attomev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension. Inelioibilitv, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its princpals is pn~ently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, decared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this cause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solictations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier particpant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solid or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agences maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or fonner employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any speafication or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor n:preserrts that no offical, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Councl approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC «- In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contrails; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for DefauR or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the Gity prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financal obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Councl Aoaroval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Councl of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiskximination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Intesaration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modfication to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to lie duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall lie considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: ey: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: eJES ~EeN '~caCq do Te.~c C GE •u rye Title. 7-PURCH.DOC v~ ~t MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE: Apri129, 2008 RE: Contract Approva12008-2 FM-A & B REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the approval for the contract 2008-2FM-A & B for the fleet replacement purchase of Three (3) '/< ton 4x4 pickup's and Three (3)'/4 ton 4x4 pickups PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Asset Management Plan contains the funds for this purchase. City Council approved the 2008 Asset Management Plan in the 2008 Budget. BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of a compe6ve bid process in which Glenwood Springs Ford was the apparent low bidder for both the''/a ton and'/a ton pickups. DISCUSSION: In this yeaz's fleet replacement we have three'/< ton 4x4 pickups from the Pazks Department, and we will also have three '/< ton Ford ranger pickups for replacement: 1 from Parks, 1 from Water and 1 from Asset Management. Three of the pickups that aze being traded in from the Parks Department aze'/a tons and will be replaced with'/a tons. These pickups will be equipped with rear lift gates that will help in the ease of heavy lifting and hauling the heavier loads in their daily work duties. The staff that uses these vehicles needs to remain with this size of truck to accommodate the lift gates and heavy loads. At times these trucks pull trailers, which the smaller trucks won't safely handle. The three '/< ton pickups will replace: one '/< ton Ford Ranger from Water, one '/< ton Ford Ranger from Pazks, and one '/o ton Ford Ranger from Asset Management. All of the trucks that are being traded in aze five years or older in age and have in excess of 60,000 miles. The new vehicles will be placed on the same cycle of replacement at 5 years or 60,000 mile and will be assessed for replacement needs at that time. Page 1 of 2 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The 2008 Asset Management plan contained $135,000.00 for the Fleet Replacement Purchase of the six pickup trucks with an estimated trade in total of $33,500.00 for all six trucks. The actual trade in total amount was $31,500 and the actual total amount before trade is $117,151.56, leaving a total contract amount of $85,651.56 net due to the vendor after trade. The 2008 Asset Management plan has sufficient funds to purchase these 6 vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed purchase is basically trading "Apples for Apples" except for the fact that these will be new vehicles. Auto manufacturers aze currently cutting down more and more on emissions and getting as much as they can out of a gallon of fuel. Staff is relying on the new technology on these pickups to help with lower emissions and a higher fuel consumption rating. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the contract approval for 2008-2FM A & B for the purchase of the three `/< ton Ford Ranger's and the Three '/. ton Ford pickups for the City of Aspen. ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: /L "I move to approve Resolution # 7 3 of 2008 On the consent calendaz of Monday ~tL~ l Z 2008 CITY MANAGER N ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Glenwood Springs Ford, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Glenwood SPrines Ford a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Glenwood Shrines Ford a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: , 2008 Mick Ireland Mayor SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2008 - 2FM - A and B THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 29th day in April of 2008, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Glenwood Springs Ford. ,hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, Three (3) '/, ton 4x4 small pickups and Three (3) 9/. ton 4x4 pickups Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Eightv Five Thousand. Six Hundred Fiftv One and Fifty-Six Cents dollars. ($85.651.56). 2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC 8. Aoreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Reaarding Debarment. Susaension. Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: ~~--r/i~/~.c,~~~~~.z~~ ey: Title. ~; ~ 7-PURCH.DOC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDER'S RESPONSE CITY OF ASPEN BID N0.2008- 2FM-A ITEM DESCRIPTION RESPONSE General Based on the specs written herein, the Clty expects to receive bids on 3 (Three) New year model 1l4 ton y~ / 5, extended cab 4x4 Pickup, ENGINE 4.0 LTR. min ~• G COLD WEATHER YES -Must include HD battery, block heater, -30 PACKAGE deg. coolant minimum. ` e S HIGH ALT. PACK. YES ~ ~ s ALTERNATOR HEAVY DUTY ` ('- WHEEL BASE 120" min. ~'~ ~ FUEL TANK 15 GAL. min. 4X4 YES/auto hubs AXLE RATIO Bid standard with automatic transmission < < • . TIRES ALL SEAS RADIAL /FULL SIZE SPARE ~ s EXTENDED !JUMP SEATS I FULL HEAD LINER / CAB DOME LIGHT /OUTSIDE REAR BED LIGHT ~ r r , BED STANDARD TRANSMISSION AUTOMATIC / 3 SP. min. ~ i 5 POWER /DISC FRONT / ABS WHERE POSSIBLE ~ r S . BRAKES AIR COND. YES "' SEATS CLOTH/ SCOTCHGAURD rr RUBBER OR VINYL r s, FLOORING RADIO Standard package ` c MIRRORS I OUTSIDE LEFT AND RIGHT -bid standard REAR BUMPER STEP ~ " s' TOW PACKAGE Yes,with frame mounted class 3 reciever hitch and ` wining harness. t' VEHICLE COLOR WHITE ' ter' TOW HOOKS FRONT -Installed pre-delivery y r s Bed Liner Yes. r e.. x~ ,,r. Options Heavy Duty off road suspension. Please give us a c d price on this option but do not include it in your bid l~ `~ I price. Options Fiberglass camper shell-with swing upside and rear windows with lockable handles. Please give us a bid price but do not include it in your bid price.• ~p ~ r Options Power mirrors,windows and door locks please give .vA g~rc us a price on this option but do not include it in your i'~ 6~1 ~ / bid price. WARRANTY All standard warranties, published or implied are 3~3 ~ , ~,,~ assumed to be included in the bid price. Copies of said published warranties shall be included in your ~~~ ~ /' rs sealed bid envelope. Any additional or extended warranty options which the bidder may wish to offer, shall be listed separately with associated costs, within the sealed bid envelope, but not included in your actual bid price. TRADE-INS Trade-in viewing is at Aspen City Shop -1080 Power Plant Rd. -Aspen on Friday April 4th,2008 from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm COA Veh #'s 910101 - 2000 ford ranger SQo~ 430105-2002 Ford ranger ~~G00, 550166 -1997 ford ranger c k ~ Q OPTIONS not included in base bid Item: Cost: Cost: Cost: r TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND BIDDER'S RESPONSE CITY OF ASPEN BID N0.2008-2FM-B ITEM DESCRIPTION RESPONSE General Based on the specs written herein, the City expects to receive bids on 4 (four) new year model 3/4 ton regular cab 4x4 Pickup, ~ GVWR 8,500 LBS. min. '"~CCC Wheel base 131" min. /~ `7 Engine 8 Cyl., 5.3 Itr. min. S. ~/ . CAB Regular Cab ~ s Bed Long Bed ~ r s- Alternator H/D Alternator and HID Battery ~ ~ s Transmission Automatic, 3 speed w/ OD or 4 speed min. ~ r 1'. 4 X 4 YES I auto hubs ~ ~s - Axle ratios 3.73 min ~ ~s- Shocks HD Front and Rear ~ ~r- Brekes ABS ~ s Tires All season radial's with full size spare Seats Cloth ~ s' Air Conditioning Yes ~ ~ s Bumpers Rear step. ~ ~.< Tow package Class 5 reciver and 7 blade plug ~ s - Trailerwiring harness YES i ~ s- Radio Standard AM/FM ~ ~ s- Fuel tank standard i r s Air Cond. Yes ~ ~ J Wipers Intermittent ' ~ s. Vehicle color Body =White - ~ ~ r- Tow hooks Front ~ s Flooring Rubber ~ ~ ~- Available options Please give us a price on the options listed below but do not include the price In your bid. EXT cab long bed 3 or 4 door .2 4'I 8 D Flex fuel option /+ Heavy duty suspension ! " ~ Bed liner a ~ ~ uo Snowplow package Would like one of the plow prices be on the Boss 8.2 VXT `f ~ o C ~ ~ I ~ ' plow and this price is to include Installation. a2. ! 5 Lift gate Simmular or equivalent to the Tommy Gate model 60- 1040 F11 TP 1,000Ibs capacity and this price to include ?o installation. a 04~ Warranty All standard warranties, published or implied are assumed 3/Bh 3 !% to be included in the bid price. Copies of said published S/~ ~ n i warranties shall be included in your sealed bid envelope. Any additional or extended warranty options which the S ~ ~ bidder may wish to offer, shall be listed separately with associated costs, within the sealed bid envelope, but not included in your actual bid price. TRADE-INS # 550103 - 2000 GMC 2500 #550119 - 2002 F250 # 550122 - 2002 F250 Viewing of trade-ins will be at the Cily Shop, 1080 Power Plant Rd, Aspen, on Friday April 4th from 10:OOam to 12:OOpm Use the space below to offer any additional options not listed or spec'ed above, which you wish the City to consider. Include their costs to the right, but not on the bid page following this section. Item: Description: Cost: y o Item: Description: cost: ~ /j La Item: Description: Cosl: ,, o Item: Description: Cost: ,~c,~. 3oss . Vle MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE: April 29, 2008 RE: Contract Approval 2008-4 FM for the purchase of Two (2) Ford Escape compact Hybrid 4x4 SUV'S REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the approval for the contract 2008-4FM for the fleet replacement purchase of two (2) Ford Escape Hybrid compact SUV' S. One will be for the Housing Department and the other for Community Development. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Asset Management Plan contains the funds for this purchase. City Council approved the 2008 Asset Management Plan in the 2008 Budget. BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of sole source through Glenwood Springs Ford. DISCUSSION: The Housing Department currently has a 1991 Jeep Cherokee that will be traded in for one of the Ford Escapes. The other vehicle will be going to Community Development. Community Development has increased their staff and has added more field inspectors which justifies the need for an additional vehicle. The Ford Escapes currently in use by the City have been reliable vehicles and have reduced fuel consumption. We aze currently getting around 28 MPG with these and no major problems have been encountered in servicing the hybrid vehicles. Because these vehicles have 4 wheel drive, they do well in snow and icy conditions. Community Development inspectors need to go to azeas like Red Mountain, and to the Little Annie Road among other off road type azeas. Staff feels that this small 4x4 will work well for the service needs. Also because it is a hybrid vehicle, it will help to decrease fuel consumption. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The price for the Escape is $30,085each. The General Fund fleet replacement budget for this yeaz is $998,000. One of these vehicles will be funded Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Cindy Tucker-Davis Tom McCabe Apri123, 2008 May 12, 2008 Vehicle Replacement Changes REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Increase the Housing fleet from 3 vehicles to 4 vehicles. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A BACKGROUND: Currently for 2008 Housing is scheduled to replace the 1991 Jeep Cherokee with a hybrid vehicle, and replace the 2002 GMC truck with a new truck. We are requesting permission to keep the GMC truck as well as receive a new truck. DISCUSSION: Due to the increasing workload of the Housing Maintenance Team, we aze finding it difficult to keep up with the normal, emergency, and the preventive maintenance and snow removal issues that arise at the 5 properties (29 buildings) we currently manage. The housing units increased by 99 units and 14 buildings, 4 laundry rooms, 3 boiler rooms, additional landscaping, streets, stairs and sidewalks in 2002 when Truscott expanded. As the inventory of units age there is an increased need for maintenance at all 5 properties. The number of staff now located at Truscott, Marolt and Aspen Country Inn including the maintenance staff constitute 7 of our 13 total Housing staff members and is the focal point of our vehicle use. The number of vehicles required to accomplish the work has not been evaluated since prior to 2002. To help us work more efficiently we would like to keep the GMC pickup truck that was scheduled to be traded in this yeaz as well as purchase the new truck that was to be the replacement for it. This will give us an additional plow for Marolt Ranch enabling us to plow first thing in the mornings on snow days. With 5 properties to cover it is impossible to get to all of them early enough to prevent packed snow and ice buildup caused by our tenants going to work. The additional plow would result in safer access for our residents and less packed snow and ice removal challenges for our crew to address. Page 1 of 3 In the summer months this would provide our maintenance crew with an additional vehicle to cover all the properties without a valuable technician having to "taxi" other technicians between locations. This results in a savings of time and fuel and increases technician productivity. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Since the replacement of two vehicles was scheduled for 2008, the only financial impact at this time will be the $6,000 loss of trade-in value. The larger financial impact will be seen in 2 to 3 yeazs when we will request the replacement of the GMC with a new vehicle. The anticipated cost will be approximately $25,000 (new truck) - $4,000 (trade in on old truck)=$21,000. The Housing AMP schedule shows $50,000 planned for replacements this year. The actual cost, including a new plow, will be over that amount by $9,451 if the $6,000 trade does not go forwazd. The Truscott Phase I and Marolt Ranch budgets have adequate funds and the money required to make up the difference and can be provided by simple budgetary line item adjustments. The city's finance department has confirmed this and will make the adjustments should this be approved. The Aspen Country Inn, Truscott Phase II and Smuggler Mtn. Apartments, while not owned by the city, do have oversight by the city finance department which confirmed that adequate funding exists in those budgets. These properties would participate proportionately in the purchase of the vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By increasing the Housing fleet by one vehicle, the recorded fuel usage and emissions will be increased compazed to previous years. The continued use of our old truck will squeeze more use from the energy embodied in the production of the vehicle, and as such is another, less apparent type of energy efficiency. Replacing the 1991 Jeep Cherokee with a more efficient and clean hybrid vehicle is a clear net environmental benefit because the Jeep vehicle is quite worn out and inefficient and is used frequently to travel to meetings or run errands between properties or to town, when a lazge vehicle is un-necessary. The elimination or reduction of the need to "taxi" employees will also result in significant reduction in mileage between worksites thus decreasing total emissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the approval of the increase of the Housing fleet by one vehicle. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the staff recommendation, the 2002 GMC truck will be traded in as scheduled and the fleet number will remain at 3 vehicles and the temptation for staff to use their personal vehicles to take up the slack will remain high. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # ~!~_ of 2008" on the consent calendaz of Monday, May 12, 2008. Page 2 of 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_ ~ v-~- -~'. ATTACHMENTS: N/A Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Western Colorado Truck Center AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Glenwood Sprin sg Ford_ a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Glenwood Sprin sg Ford_ _a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: , 2008 Mick Ireland Mayor ~. SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2008 - 4FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 15th day in April of 2008, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Glenwood SDringS Ford. hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase, Two (2) Ford Escape Hvbrid compact SUV .Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _ Fiftv Nine Thousand. Four Hundred Seventv and no cents dollars ($ 59.470.00 1. 2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment. Susaension. Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties against Contingent Fees Gratuities Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VEND By: Title. ~~~~ ~ `~~iC 7-PURCH.DOC X12/24/2001 09:14 PM Dlenwood Sprinea Ford 9709450489 7/1 HP LaserJet 4100 MFP Glenwood Springs Ford 9109950969 12/24/2004 02:45 AH r r Job DeU/lima Typa Identificati oa Duration 18898 12/24 02:45 AM Send 9205015 00'00 »~ Pages Result 0 ~N)o Resnponse 'J CNGP530 VBNICLE ORDER CONFIRMATION 04/02/08 16:11:27 __~ Oealei: F5fi9B3 2008 ESCAPB Page: 1 of 1 Order No: 1000 Priority, F3 Ord FId: QLB22 Otder type: 58 Price Level: 840 ON Code: 700A Cuet/Pit Name: A6 PEN PO Number: RETAIL RETAIL U59 9DR 4ND HYBRID $20390 SOB y2 ORnBR .103• N86ELBASB PRT LICEH88 BRT NC YZ ORFORD NHITE CC SP -LR ACCT A0.7 2 PREM CLTN BRT 6P FLT ACCT CR S STONE 3 U.S. OAT. GAS 700A ORDER CODR 84A N£T INV PLT OPT NC .EAPR7Y CANOPY OHST ANO OBLN fi95 DATC AIR COlID TOTAL BASE AND OPTIONS 29085 .POG LAMPS TOTAL 29085 .ALUlDNUM Nf188L •TXIS I9 NDT AN INVOICB• .AUTO 118ADLAMPS .PWR DRIVBR BRAT 99H .2.3L I9 FNGINB NC 49H .HCVT AUTO TRANS NC ^59 .P235/70R16 BEW NC P1=Help F2-Return Co Order P3/F12-Vd1 Ord Menu P9-5ubmi[ PS-Add to Library 8099 - PR868 P1 TO BUIDD:I 00031721 ANN 9~O`+915 a9~8z 006' ~ipuci /~~.,/ 3 38v ~8-" 6 n-4101 niRFT.cr.T Anr ~. 2nna 2,07: se pr ~rt~ a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner ~ ~~~p/j THRU: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development (/v"' ' DATE OF MEMO: May 5, 2008 MEETING DATE: May 12, 2008 RE: Additional exemption to Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006 First Reading, Ordinance No./Public Hearing REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff has included an additional exemption to Ordinance 51, Series of 2006, which is included in the attached ordinance. Staff requests that Council consider this additional exemption, as requested by local resident Peter Fornell. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On April 28, 2008, Council directed staff to draft an additional exemption to Ordinance 51, Series of 2006. DISCUSSION: The City Attorney drafted the following exemption language: "The Community Development Director shall exempt from the provisions of this moratorium building permit applications that replace, do whole or in part, basement restaurant uses with more than one retail uses with no single retail space exceeding 750 square feet, and continue to have a restaurant use. " RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.~S ,Series of 2008, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. ~~ (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 51, SERIES OF 2006 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2006, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, establishing a six month temporary moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications regulated by Section 105 of the International Building Code for any property located in the Commercial Core (CC) District of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, City Council extended the moratorium to December 12, 2007 pursuant to Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2007; and extended the moratorium to June 12, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2007; and extended the moratorium to December 12, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance No. ] 0, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, as an effect of the moratorium, certain building permit applications are not permitted to be submitted; and WHEREAS, there is substantial public interest in the preservation of the unique historic nature and character of certain structures, including their interiors and current uses, located within the commercial core district of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, it is not the intent of the City Council to unnecessarily postpone projects that comply with the stated intention of Ordinance 51, Series of 2006, therefore an amendment is appropriate. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Exemptions from the moratorium Section 2 of Ordinance No. 51, Series of 2006, is hereby amended by the addition of a new exemption to read as follows: "The Community Development Director shall exempt from the provisions of this moratorium building permit applications that replace, in whole or in part, basement restaurant uses with more than one retail space with no single retail space exceeding 750 square feet, and continue to have a restaurant use." Section 2• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the offices of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27m day of May 2008, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, Colorado, fifreen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12m day of May, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney v~~~a~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director DATE: April 7, 2008 RE: Clarification of the definition of "Maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House" SUMMARY: We are seeking Council approval of the attached Ordinance, amending section 23.48.060 (c) of the municipal code, by clarifying the definition of the term "maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House" as it relates to the Wheeler Opera House Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund (RETT) and clarifying appropriate expenditures from said fund. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In a work session on July 6, 2004, Wheeler staff was asked to develop the definition of "maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House". Towards the end of 2004, action on approving these changes were suspended indefinitely. On January 29, 2008, Wheeler staff, the City Manager's office, and the City of Aspen Attorney met with City Council to discuss possible legal limitations of the RETT for funding of the City's grant program for arts not-for-profits. Subsequent to that meeting, Wheeler staff received direction to review the 2004 language for modification and later submission to City Council for its input and possible approval. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In 2004, meetings were held that included Wheeler staff, the City Manager's office, and the City of Aspen Attorney, as well as the Wheeler Board for comment and review. At that time, consideration was given regazding dictionazy definitions, voter intentions, and how "maintenance" was interpreted from the inception of the RETT. In 2006, Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton was asked by the City Manager's office to review non-RETT revenue sources from Wheeler operations that could support an increase in funding activity for the arts grants program. Starting from a conservative reading of the RETT ballot language, Slaton found that there were very limited revenue streams available and advised City staff appropriately. As the stream of available funds began to reach its ceiling after several years of growth in arts funding, Slaton worked with City staff and the Arts Grants Review Committee to investigate ways that would meet the arts groups' needs while remaining within the pool of available funds. In the fall of 2007, several possibilities were raised, as well as concerns about the direction of arts grants funding that the Arts Grants Review Committee felt should be taken before City Council for future direction. By clarifying certain azeas in the RETT ballot language, the original intent of the provision for arts funding can be maintained, as well as more clearly define the revenue streams from Wheeler operations that are appropriate for non-RETT funding of the arts grants program. Approval of this ordinance would define "maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House" as "those activities, operations or physical improvements or additions necessary to ensure a performing arts venue that provides arts programming opportunities to the citizens of the community and an endowment fund in perpetuity." FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no change in the Wheeler operating budget with this clarification of the definition of the word "maintenance:" RECOMMENDATION: The Wheeler staff and Board recommend support of the attached ordinance and the clarification of terms. ALTERNATIVES: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~ ~~~.~ ORDINANCE NO. 11 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING SECTIONS 23.48.060 (c) AND (g) TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE "RENOVATION, RECONSTRCUTION, AND MAINTENANCE" AS IT RELATES TO THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND (RETT) AND CLARIFYING APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURES FROM SAID FUND. WHEREAS, the electorate of the City of Aspen approved adoption of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1979, imposing a''/z of 1% real estate transfer tax for the purpose of renovation, reconstruction and maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House or for the payment of interest on bonds issued for such purposes and for the purpose of supporting the visual and performing arts (limited to $100,000.00 per year); and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen renovated and restored the Wheeler Opera House in 1984 for the purpose of establishing and providing the community with an active performing arts facility whose mission is: to preserve the historical and cultural integrity of the Wheeler Opera House; to nurture artistic diversity; to provide educational opportunities; to provide local accessibility to the arts; and to provide excellence in performance and production for community members and visitors. To that end, a professional staff maintains the operations and physical facility; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has used RETT funds and earned revenues to maintain the operations and physical facility since the 1984 renovation; and WHEREAS, in 1997 the electorate of the City of Aspen authorized the expiration date of the real estate transfer tax to be extended to December 31, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City Council established a separate fund (Endowment Fund) for the future financing of the Wheeler Opera House and into which a certain portion of annual net revenues in excess of the budgeted operating and capital expenses and operating reserve shall be deposited; and WHEREAS, the City Council also established expenditure and investment parameters for said Endowment Fund in order to establish a secure funding source for the Wheeler Opera House and local non-profit arts organizations considering first the operations and capital improvements of the Wheeler Opera House and secondly to support local arts non-profit organizations; and WHEREAS, Memam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th Edition, 1993) defines maintenance as both "the state of being maintained: support," and "the upkeep of property or equipment;" and WHEREAS, it is the goal and intention of the City Council to clarify the definition of "maintenance" as it relates to the use of RETT funds and to define available revenue sources for additional arts funding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Wheeler Opera House real estate transfer tax. Section 23.48.060(c) of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (c) Application of funds. All funds received by the City of Aspen pursuant to this section 23.48.060 shall be deposited in the Wheeler Opera House real estate transfer tax special revenue fund, which fund is hereby created. The account shall be subject to appropriation by the City Council of the City of Aspen only for the purpose of renovation, reconstruction and maintenance of the Wheeler Opera House or for the payment of principal and interest on bonds issued for such purposes and for the purpose of supporting the visual and performing arts. However, the City Council shall not appropriate in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) of real estate transfer tax funds in any single calendar year for the purpose of supporting the visual and performing arts without obtaining the approval of sixty (60) percent of the electors voting at a regular or special election on the same.. The City Council, pursuant to ordinance, and without an election, may borrow money, issue bonds, or otherwise extend the credit of the city for renovation and reconstruction of the Wheeler Opera House provided that the bonds or other obligations shall be made payable from the funds derived from this chapter. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: "Renovation, Reconstruction and Maintenance" shall be deftned as those activities, operations, or physical improvements necessary to ensure a performing arts venue that provides arts programming opportunities to the citizens of the community and an endowment fund in perpetuity. Funds available `for the purpose of supporting the visual and performing arts " in addition to the $100, 000 of real estate transfer tax funds shall include all revenues generated by the operation of the GVheeler Opera House to include gross revenues generated from lease agreements for space within the YYheeler Opera House, gross theater rental revenue, gross ticket processing fee and ticketing services revenue, and gross artist concessions revenue. Section 2. Section 23.48.060(g) of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (g) Administration. The Director of Finance shall administer this section 23.48.060 and shall prepare such forms and adopt such regulations consistent with this chapter, as he or she deems necessary to implement the same. The Arts and Non Profit Grant Review Committee for the City of Aspen shall submit a report to the City Council on an annual basis describing funding activities for the past year and [he available funds for the support of the visual and performing arts for the next fiscal year. This section 23.48.060 shall be administered in accordance with chapters 23.04 through 23.28 of this title, to the extent that they do not conflict with the provisions of this section, for all taxes due or paid after November 1, 2000. Section 3 This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 28w day of April in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14`" day of April, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk :,.... v~ ~~ b ~; ~p /'.. '~ ~u •. •. 1 ~~ • ~~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Manager DATE: May 5'", 2008 RE: Second Reading: Adoption of Budget Supplemental -Ordinance No.~ (Series 2008) this item will be discussed on Monday, May 12t", 2008 SUMMARY: Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2008 budget that increases the city-wide total expenditure appropriation from $104.7 to $127.9 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority increases from $84.4 to $102.1 million. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. Attachment E provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2008 interfund transfers. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. CITY OF ASPEN - 2008 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET Description Amount Reference 2008 Adopted budget: $104,744,910 See Attachment A Total New Requests: $3,50,300 See Attachment B Total Managers Savings: $163,440 See Attachment C 50% Carry Forward Savings: $2,071,870 See Attachment C Total 100% Carry Forwards: $13,558,470 See Attachment D Technical Adjustments: $4,179,750 See Attachment F Second Reading Changes: ($389,790) See Attachment G Total Supplemental Re uests: 23 114 040 TOTAL ORDINANCE: $127,858,950 See Attachment A Less Interfund Transfers: $25,709,760 See Attachment E NET APPROPRIATIONS: $102,149,190 See Attachment A As noted in the chart above, this supplemental is substantially comprised of annual carry-forvvard appropriations. These requests are for projects previously appropriated, and for which cash reserves are set aside. Different categories of requests include: • Attachment B: "New Requests" of $3,530,300 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year, new requests, and capital requests that have gone beyond the two year automatic re-appropriation time frame provided by the City's Asset Management process. Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below. • Attachment C: "Manager 10% Carry-forward Savings' of $163,440 which represent 10% of operating budget savings from all departments of the City in previous years. These one-time appropriations are allocated the City Manager's office (See Attachment C) for use in addressing mid-year issues with citywide implications. • Attachment C: "Departmental 50%Carry-forward Savings" of $2,071,870, which represent 50% of previous year operating budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these amounts as a reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals while spending less than their total appropriations. These one-time appropriations can be spent on items related to the department's mission (See Attachment C). • Attachment D: "Departmental "100% Carry-forward Requests": These requests are for operating items and capital improvement projects budgeted in 2007 that require completion in 2008. Requests total $13,558,470. This category includes the City's personal computer and workstation replacement programs -which keeps the City's computer technology new and efficient, and significant re-appropriation of ongoing capital projects. Attachment D details these requests by department. • Attachment E: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2008 of $25,709,760 in total. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. • Attachment F: This attachment details all of the technical adjustments in 2008 of $4,179,750, in total. • Attachment G: This attachment details all of the adjustments for the second reading totaling $(389,790). These include new requests and additional technical adjustments. New Requests: In the General Fund, new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $461,160. These requests are made up of the following: City Contributions- The City Council Department is requesting $35,000 in total. $10,000 is for the formal appropriations approved by Council on 4/15108 for ACRA for the "Faces of Aspen." See memo for details. $25,000 is for the formal appropriations of the JAS Aspen 2008 contribution approved during a work session on March 18~", 2008. See memo for details. These requests will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. City Council- The City Council Department is requesting $26,250 in total. $6,250 of this request is for the senior housing and care survey. $20,000 of this request is for the costs associated with the Citizen's task force. See memo for additional details. These two requests will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Human Resources- The Human Resources Department is requesting $72,040 in total. $72,040 is for the payout for the Risk Management position who retired on March 28`", 2008. Payout per policy is required. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. CityAttomey-The City Attorney Department is requesting $40,960 in total. $40,960 is for payroll in the City Attorney's office due to staff changes. This will bring the payroll budget in line with the 2008 payroll expenses. See memo for additional details. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Finance Department- The Finance Department is requesting $75,000 in total. $75,000 is for the formal appropriation of the Finance Development use tax position that was approved during 2008 budget development. This request is funded from the use tax revenue. Community Development- The Community Development Department is requesting $143,100 in total. $45,000 is for the City's portion of the Lift One Neighborhood Master Plan. This request will be funded from General Fund cash reserves. $75,000 is for the formal appropriation of the Community Development use tax position that was approved during 2008 budget development. This request is funded from the use tax revenue. $23,100 is to study the deterioration and conservation of wooden artifacts in cemeteries. This request is 100% funded by a grant. Engineering Department- The Engineering Department is requesting $2,000, in total. ($52,000) is shifting a portion of an Engineering staff member payroll expense who currently is performing Stormwater work into the Stormwater Fund. $54,000 is for 25% of rent, utilities and cleaning activities associated with the new office space at 517 E Hopkins. See memo for more details. These requests will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Environmental Health- The Environmental Health Department is requesting $2,000 in total. $2,000 is for a variety of noise related outreach materials. See memo for additional details. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Police- The Police Department is requesting $68,810 in total. $5,810 is for the formal appropriations of the LEAF grant funding. This request is 100% offset by grant revenue. $15,000 is a request to move the bear enforcement from the Transportation Department into the Police Department. This position was funded by the General Fund by a transfer from the General Fund to the Transportation Fund. This transfer will be reduced and there will be zero net impact to the General Fund operational expenses. $48,000 is a request to appropriate funds to cash out a Police staff member leaving the City; payout is per City of Aspen's policy. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Streets Department- The Streets Department is requesting $($37,500), in total. ($37,500) is shifting a portion of the Street's staff payroll expenses that currently is performing Stormwater work into the Stormwater Fund per design. GIS Department- The GIS Department is requesting $3,500 in total. $3,500 is for a census and address update project. See memo for more details. This request is 100% offset by a County reimbursement. Special Events- The Special Events Department is requesting $20,000, in total. $20,000 of this request is to appropriate funding for the 2008 New Year's Eve Celebration; similar to the 2007 celebration. See memo for additional details. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Recreation Department- The Recreation Department is requesting $10,000, in total. $10,000 is request to open the clay tennis courts for this summer season of tennis. See memo for additional details. This request will be funded by the General Fund cash reserves. Parks Operational Fund- The Parks Fund is requesting $7,400 in total. $7,400 is for a request to fund the cash out of a Parks employee leaving the City of Aspen; per City policy. This request will be funded by the cash reserves in the Parks Fund. Housing Development Fund- The Housing Development Fund is requesting $30,000 in total. $30,000 is for the formal appropriations of funds to lobby to issue tax free bonds in the Housing finance packet in 2008. The Finance Department has determined that the Housing Development Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request. Stormwater Fund- The Stormwater Fund is requesting $815,900 in total. $815,900 is for the formal appropriations of 2008 operational and capital budget for the Stormwater Fund. This request is 100% offset by the property tax mill levy and the development fees. See attached LRP for additional details. Parks Capital Fund- The Parks Capital Fund is requesting $500,000 in total. $500,000 is for the purchase of Lot C. See memo for additional details. The Finance Department has determined that the Parks Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request. Transportation and Parking Fund- The Transportation and Parking Fund is requesting $15,000 in total. ($15,000) is for the reduction in bear patrol payroll expense that is now being expensed in the Police Department. $30,000 is for the in town towing charges associated with the towing activity for 2008. This request will mainly be funded from tow fees that are in place to offset the expense. Golf Course- The Golf Course Fund is requesting $2,000 in total. $2,000 is for the purchase of benches for the golf course. This request is 100% offset by contribution funding. Truscott Fund- The Truscott Fund is requesting $211,500 in total. $180,000 is for roof repair due to excessive snow and ice this winter. This project was originally scheduled to be completed in 2009, however is being accelerated due to the severe winter weather in 2007/2008 winter season. See memo for additional details. $6,500 is for a water softening system. See memo for additional details. $25,000 is for additional snow removal in the 2008 winter season. See memo for additional details. The Finance Department has determined that the Truscott Fund has sufficient prior year cash balances to support this request. Asset Management Capital- The Asset Management Capital fund is requesting $1,487,340, in total. $32,040 is for the formal appropriations of Council recommended studies of the Park Ave pedestrian improvements (see memo for details). $170,000 is for Curb and Gutter work that is tied in to the Streets overlay program. (See memo for details) $25,000 is to provide negotiated exterior improvements to ISIS "notch" area. (See memo for details). $5,700 is for parking lot lighting at the new animal shelter per agreements associated with the construction and management of this building. $50,000 is funded from the Finance Department's savings for new furniture and equipment associated with the remodel. $170,000 is funding for the completion of the 1s~ and 2"' floor remodel. (See memo for details.) $834,600 is for the remodel of 517 E Hopkins. (See memo for additional details) $200,000 is to fully fund the Council chamber remodel project. (See memo for details.) These requests will be funded from the cash reserve in the General Fund. Second Reading Additions and Adjustments: New Reauests: In the General Fund, new requests for the second reading to be reviewed by the City Council, total $43,780. These requests are made up of the following: Community Development- The Community Development Department is requesting $35,000 in total. $35,000 is for the PRI consulting contract to research the growth by category of land use, including scrap and replace activity. This research will be part of the Existing Conditions report for the Aspen Area Community Plan. See the department's memo for more details. This request will be funded from the cash reserve in the General Fund. Streets Department- The Streets Department is requesting $8,780 in total. $8,780is for the formal appropriations of the Streets' shop building repairs from an incident earlier this year. This request is 100% offset by a reimbursement from CIRSA. Electric Fund- The Electric Fund is requesting $136,000 in total. $96,000 is for formal appropriations of the Insulate and Seal Grant funded from the GEO. See department's memo for more details. $40,000 is for the formal appropriation of the Energy Star New Homes Program funded from the GEO and existing budget authority in the Community Development Department. See departmental memo for more details. Truscott Fund- The Truscott Fund is requesting $18,430 in total. $18,430 is for fleet vehicle purchase. See department's memo for additional details. Asset Management Fund- The Asset Management Fund is requesting ($588,000) in total. ($588,000) is a reduction in the 2008 AMP plan. This reduction moves the Firehouse Data Center Project from 2008 into year 2010. Technical Adjustment: Golf Fund- The Golf Fund is requesting $75,000 in total. During 2008 budget development a decision was made to have the Park's Fund pay an additional $75,000 a year of the 2005 Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds as it relates to open space. After further review this transaction needs to be setup differently in the Eden Financial system to meet accounting standards and to achieve transparency. This adjustment corrects this issue. The debt service payment will be made from out of the Golf Fund, funded from a transfer in from the Parks Fund. Debt Service Fund- The Debt Service Fund is requesting ($75,000) in total. During 2008 budget development a decision was made to have the Park's Fund pay an additional $75,000 a year of the 2005 Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds as it relates to open space. After further review this transaction needs to be set up differently in the Eden Financial system to meet accounting standards and to achieve transparency. This adjustment corrects this issue. The debt service payment will be made from out of the Golf Fund, funded from a transfer in from the Parks Fund. ORDINANCE NO. ~'~ (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,479,650, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $3,323,660, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND OF $103,200, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $1,578,850, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $216,480, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $5,413,880, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $97,410, AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $815,900, A REDUCTION IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF ($75,000), AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $2,136,990, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $33,190, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $729,320, AN INCREASE IN THE HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY FUND OF $229,690, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND OF $599,860, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF FUND OF $77,000, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $4,320,100, AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $24,880, AND AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND OF $8,980. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current yeaz revenues and/or unappropriated prior yeaz fund balance available for appropriations in the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER, DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, GOLF FUND, TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current yeaz revenues and/or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER, DEBT SERVICE FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, HYDROELECTRIC FACILITY FUND, TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING FUND, GOLF FUND, TRUSCOTT FUND, MAROLT FUND, AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 28th day of April, 2008. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 12th day of May, 2008. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor John Worcester, City Attorney Attachment A Total City of Aspen 2008 Appro priations by Fund Fund Name Total Expenditures 8 Transfers Out 2008 Supplemental #1 2008 Amended Expenditure Budget General Government Funds Asset Management Plan $5,390,630 $3,479,650 $8,870,280 General Fund $25.458.750 3 323 66 _ $28.782.410 Subtotal General Gov't Funds: _ $30,849,380 $6,803,310 _ $37,652,690 Soecial Revenue Funds Parks and Open Space $9,524,200 _ $ 103,200 $9,627,400 Wheeler Opera House $3,388,560 _ $1,578,850 _ _ _ $4,967,410 Lodging Tax Fund $1,330,360 $0 __ _ $1,330,360 Parking Improvement Fund -__ - $1,528,640 - $216,480 $1,745 ,120 Housing Development - - $12,307,810 - $5,413,880 _ $17,721,690 _. Early Childhood Educ. Initiative - AVCF $347,950 - - $0 - _ _ $347,950 Kids First/Yellow Brick $1,780,940 $97,410 _ $1,878,350 --- Stonnwater Fund -- . ~ _. 815 900 815 900 Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $30,208,460 $8,225,720 $38,434,180 Debt Service Funds Debt Service Fund $4.119 480 - 7 000 54.044.480 Subtotal, Debt Service Funds: $4,119,480 -$75,000 $4,044,480 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $2,854,380 $2,136,990 $4,991,370 Enterprise Funds Water Utility $10,065,220 $33,190 $10,098,410 Electric Utility __ $7,418,850 ~ $729,320 ~ $8,148,170 __ Hydroelectric Facility $4,131,560 $229,690 $4,361,250 Transportation Fund $5,106,260 $599,860 $5,706,120 Municipal Golf Course $1,241,320 _ $77,000 _ $1,318,320 _ TruscottHousing _ $1,723,820 $4,320,100 $6,043,920 Marolt Housing $1.166.480 24 880 51.191.360 Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $30,853,510 $6,014,040 $36,867,550 Internal Service Funds Health Ins. Internal Service Fund City Employee Housing Fund $3,662,430 $1.043.890 $0 ~ _ $3,662,430 $1,043,890 Subtotal, Internal Service Funds: -- $4,706,320 - $0 $4,706,320 Trust 8 Agency Funds Housing.Authority $1,076,700 $8,980 $ 1,085,680 Smuggler Mountain Fund _ _ 76 680 ~ _ 76 680 Subtotal, Trust 8 Agency Funds: $1,153,380 $8,980 $1,162,360 ALL FUNDS: $104,744,910 $23,114,040 $127,858,950 Less Interiund Transfers $20,358,760 $5,351,000 $25,709,760 ALS NET ALL FUNDS APPROPRIATIONS: $84,386,150 $17,763,040 - - $102,149,190 City of Aspen Attachment B 2008 Supplemental Budget I OHaeHing Offsetting New Funding Requesb All Requests are one-time unless otherwise noted. ' j Rev Source Rev Source De arpnent New Repueat Descdotlon Amount 'Subtotal by Dept. One Time On oin City DOOVIbp%OOS -- _-- - ---~- Ciry Council approvetl an addflional 310,000 to ACRA for "Faces of 001.02.04324.84002 'ASpen'on 4/15/08. This is the formal request for the appropriation $10,000 Stag is requesting formal appropriations of the JAS Aspen 2008 007.02.' __- cemribu5on approved during a work session on March 161h, 2008 ~' _--- $25,000 ~ - -_- - _-- -- -- Subtotal, City COUndI' $35,000 C Council ------ 00(03.03000_.'_ ___ _ _ Senior Hauaing andCare Survey. Se_e memo Por Details ~ 36,250 _ _ The Ci0zen's Budget Taak Force was created in 2008. Sea Attached memo far costs assodated with this cemminee. Stag are requesting $20,000 to cover most o(the expenses and will ux Coundl's '.. 001.03.03000.8299963999 depanmental savings for the remaining expenses. j $20,000 _ Subtotal, City GOUOdII $20,250 __ _ __ Human Resources I _ _ R k M ag n n a h a ~ e ~ ~~-~-~~ OI S r ui ed SP%~s re uesO ihea ro nation of ihe f din tp P cY ~ eq 9 9 OP p~ 9 001.06.0600080' ~ Y make this em to ee a out. See attached memofor more deleile. ' $72,040 '~ _ ' - Subtotal, Human Resources. __ _ _ _ $72,040 _ _ __ ___ Ciry Atomey _ _i _ The Ciry Attorney's office has a new position wtth James R. True as Spedal Counxl which salary range exceeds the Assistant City Attomey position. Also, the City Attorney's office needs to pay the former Assistant City Attomey, David Haefer, for the pay periods in 2008 while he was employed. This amount will adequately balance the Ciry Attomey payroll. 001.09.09000.(10' --._.. See attached memo far more tletails. __ $40,960 $UWOtel, City Anome : y $40,960 __ - Finance Department _ ___ --- This b an ongoing request Stag is requesting to formally appropriate ' the funding for the approved use tax postion. This pos0ion was approved "', during 2008 budget development. This pos0ion is 100% paid by the ~i I 001.11.11000.(10' / 83999 ~ Transportatipn Fund from ux tax revenue. This is an ongoing request __. _- $75,000 _ $75,000 Subtotal, Ciry Attorney: __ ~ $75,000 Commun DevalopmeM _ This request ist00%oRset by grant funding. Ron Amhony, a prominent wood sdamist, received a grant from the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT), a subsitliary o/the National Perk Service, to stutly the deterioration and conservation of wooden artifacts in cemeledes. Ron is assodated wtth the preservation team xledetl to work on the Aspen Grove Cemetery preservation plan to fulfill the Slate Historic Fund grant, and derided to use Aspen Grove as his stutly area of wooden grave markers. The Ciry of Aspen is not conmbuting any money ' Ao the raxarch Of wooden anifads. NCPTT is (unding the entire rexarch ', project, which costs $23,100, through the City of Aspen. See attached ' OOL13.13410.82999 _ memo for more details. $23,100 __$23,100 ' The LiR One Neighborhood Master Plan COWOP and cent sharing agreement was approved by CiOnnLll on 2/25/2008. This is a request for a 25% portion of the estimated planning casts assodated w6h the project. 001.13.13200.60030 / 82999 See attached memo for more details. $45,000 This is the Community Development Use Tax Poshion. This posttion was approvetl in the 2008 tlevelopmem process. This is the fprmel appropriation request This request is 100 % funded from a transfer from the Transponation and Parking Control Fund. See attached memo for mare details. This is a one time appropriation. The need far this position will be evaluated at the end of 2008 and may be requested to be extended 001.13.13200.80' at that time. $75,000 $ 75,0 00 Subtotal, Communit Development: $143100 _ _ NG B. New Reques6 Pepe 1 Ciry of Aspen _ _ _ Attachment B 2008 Supplemental Budget I ~, Offsetting Offsetting New Funding Requeats All Requests are one-time unless otherwise notetl. I~ Rev Source Rev Source Daoarbnent New Request Description I Amount Subtotal by Daot One Time On oin Engineedng Daparonent _ __ _ _ Due to lack of space available in Ciry Hall, add'Rional space is neetl for the .Engineering Department. The office space is located at 517 E. Hopkins. '~. ' Staff is requesting funding for the final 25% of this lease. Originally, A was ' '~ determined that the Asie space was not going to ba needed in 2008 and '. the funding Por this space was going to be used to pay far the remainder of. 'the 517 E. Hopkins lease. Since butlget tlevelopment tt was determined that the Asie office space is needed. See attached memo far more 001.15.15000.62510 details. $54,000 Thia Is an ongoing request Shifting a portion of the Engineer staff budget authority into the Stormwater Fund. One for one reduction in 001.15.1500075200.80` budget authority. ___ ($52,000)__ ____. _ ___ Subtotal, Engineering Department: $2,000 Environmental HeaIN This funds a variety of noise related outreach materials to indude ttems '~, such as ordinance enfarcamem signega at both entrances to Aspen, quiet Aspen buttons, bumper stickers, hotel mom tent cards, posters, and 001.25.25500.83999 informational leaflets. See adachad memo for more details $2,000 Subtotal, Environmental Health Department: ~ $2,000 Police Payout per policy is required. Staff is requesting the appropriation of the ' I 001.31.xxxxx.80' funtling to make this employee payout. $48,000 001.31.31700~31200.82999801IThis is a tlistnbution of the LEAF Brent to the Aspen police and the 040 ~Snowmass police Departments i $5,8101 $5,010 _-.__- ir_ - __._ __.- _ _-_.__ __ __- _. __ ,This is an ongoing request This request is to appropriate $15 000 in Il existing funding in the Transportation and Parking Control Fund far the i seasonal Wildlife/Bear alficer into the police department budget. This I request is 100 % oRSet by redudng the trensfer of cash from the Generel 'I, Fund to the Transportation and Parking Control Fund. See attached ' 001.37.xloccx.80030 mama for more details. _ ~ $15,000 Sublotal, Police Departments. $68,810 Streets Deparhnent ', This la an on going request Shifting a pgrtign of the Street's staff I~, I budget author8 into the Stormwaler Fund. One for one reduction in ! 001.41.41000.80' I 'budget authority. ($37,5 0 0 ) _-- ~--~--~--~'- __- -- u tdla[Streets Departmeht:' . __ _ _ __ $97500) GIS Deparonent The Census and Address Update-funding of $3,000 was re-appropriated from current butlget appropriations in the AACP project budget in COM DEV planning departmem. The total project is expected to cost $6,500 with remaining $3,500 of the funding coming from a County ' reimbursement. Staff is requesting the appmpration of $3,500, this request will be funded by 100% reimhursement from the County. See I 001 61.60100.50030 atachetl memo (or more details. ~ubtoEal, Streets Department: . ~ $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Special Events ~ '.This is an ongoing request Provitling fun, safe and alcohol-free I lalternatives for families, untlerege guests and other members of our 'community is the goal of this effort. Aspen is a world class resort attrecting j 'visitors from a wide variety of locations antl those visROrs expect "the best" 'I 001.70.71728.82999 rof this community, including fireworks on New Veafs Eve. j $20,000 Subtotal, Special Events '. $20,000 Recreation This is an ongoing request The Clay Courts near the Gob course require adddional clay to be adtled each year, new lines, and surveying to see that they are level and all lines placed accordingly. The labor to do this is extensive as well so that we may provide the highest qualtty tennis courts each summer. This request is for the preparation and maintenance 001.94.71635.80012 of the tennis couss each summer. See attached memo for more details. $10,000 -- - Subtotal, ARC '. $70,000 _._- _..._. _ Transfers Subtotal, Transfers , $0 SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND: . $461,160 $107,410 $75,000 nn s. rvew nequaem aeea z City of Aspen i Affiehment B 2008 Supplememal Budget ' '~, Offsetting Offsetting New Funding Requests All Requesb ere One-time unless otherwise noted. ' RBV Source Rev Source Da arlment New Request Deacdptlon Amount Subtoal h De t Ona Tlme On oin Parks OPeretlons: ~ - Payout per policy is required. Stag is requesting the appropriation o(the '. 100.55.55000.80' funding to make this employee payqul. ' , $7,400 _. u f,ParkS Fund: , . i $7400 Houain Development '$30K for lobby to issue tax free bonds in the housing finance package - 150,23.tbd ~~2008 I $30,000 ' 3ubtofLl, Housing Development Fund:, $30,000 Stonnwabr 1 __- __..-_ _..._ _ _ ___- - - __ _ - Formal appropriation of the approved budget authority for the Slonnwater '. 160.".' Funtl. Far details see attached documents. '' $815,900 __ $815,900 _.. __- Suhtofal, Stormwafer Fund:'. $818,900 Parks CapBal _ _ _ _ _ 340.94.82746.86000 Pumhase of Lot C -See attached Memo $500,000 _ __ _ Subtotal, Parks anA Open Space CapRal Fundr. $500,000 7renaportatlon Bear patrol was shined into the General Fund per request by the Police 450.32.32000.80' (Department. See attached mama for more tlelails ($75,000)( ~~iTow Fees have gone up this year. Tows in January 8 February ' ~ ~. '.dramatically increased due to the number of snow tovn $30,000 is based ~. 'on $81,075 already spem this year. Any additional expense will come from'. dept. savings. This is requestetl in both Revenue and F~pense because '~ 450.32.32000.82920 all but $7,000 will be reimbursetl. - -- $30,000 ---- _ - - - --~-~- SUbtotal,TrensPOnad00 Fund:', E1s,ooo Got( _ I I~, Contributions are given to lha Gos Course and used to purchase goR ~. ~ '. course henches. This is a request to appropriate $2,000 for the purohase ~ ' 471.73.73300.83900 lot the benchs. This request is 100%o8set by the $2,000 in comrihutians. ~, __ $2,000 $2,000 _______ ___. __-_.__ j __._.__ Subtotal, Truseott Fundr. $1,000 Tmscott '.The roof was deemed ok through 2009 by Stark roofing so H was placed ~' i on the AMP budget as a 2008 project. Due to excessive snow and ice this 'winter, the roof aged quicker than expected. The heat tape failed in places and could not keep up wdh the snow load. Ice dams damaged the roof I edges and gutters, creating leaks in needy all of the storage unds. Many ~ 'shingles have been destroyed antl are missing. The roof will net last until 2009 so we are requesting the project be moved up a year to 2008. The new estimate is higher due to unknown damage tq the root deck and an ', TBD upgrade to the heat tape. ____..__________-. $180,000 - -_ _. _._ _._ i Due to recent damage in the pipes of the 100 domestic bailer, k was I brought to our attention that the water is causing the pipes to corrode. Pipes that are less than 2 years old have certoded to the point of ', resembling "Swiss cheese." Plumbers re-plumbed the pipes and ' ~ ~recommended a water softening system. This is the domestic hot wafer far TBD (tenants in the 100 building. $fi,500 'The Truscott maintenance crew was short staHetl due to a resignation and we experienced unforeseen ambunts of snow leading us to hire temporary help with snow removal. Large storms in December and Jenuery buried (the property and we needetl antra personnel to help vnth snow duties. ~ '., Hauling snow from the property was necessary to free up our snow 491.01.45042.82999 Islorege areas, which filed to capacity by mi_d-_J_a_nuary. $25,000 Subtotal, Troscott Funtl: $2N 500 Atl B. New Repuwb Pepe 3 CI of Aspen T ' AttachmentB _. __ _____- -___. _. 2008 Supplemental Budget ' Offsetting Offsetting New Funtling Requests All Requests are one-time unless otherwise noted. Rev Source Rev Source Deoarenent Naw Request Deacdodon - Amount ~ Subtotal by Dept One Time On oln Asset Mana ement Capital - - -- _-- -- -- Formal appropriations for Ccuncil recommended stutlies to develop the '.pedestdan improvement plan For Park Ave, which exceeded contrect ~ 000.18.TBD 'amaunl. See attached memo for more details. $32,040 ~' ~'~ Formal appropriations for Curb & GuBer func0ons far safe pedestdan j I 000.16.TBD __ _.. facilities. See aOached memo for more details. -.___ _. $170,000 ~. _. __ _ _- -__ T Dudng the negotiations assodated wdh the purchase o(the Isis, ._ agreements were entered into to that provided for some exterior 000.91.TBD improvements to the "notch" area. See adached memo for more details. i $25,000 Per agreements associaletl wkh the construction and management of the _ _ _ new animal shelter the Cily of Aspen and Pitkin County are responsihle far! tappet improvements to the shelter. Two improvements have been identified. Perking Ict lighting upgrades are necessary and a portion o(the ', ~ ~. roof that has the potential for dangerous snow slides is being retrofd. '~ (Arrangements will be made with Pdkin County to recover appropdate 000.91.TBD 'expenses. See attached memofor more details. $5,700 The $50,000 is to be used specifically Por Finance FumOure and necessary. '~ equipment upgredas as part of the City Hall remodel project, and the I ~ funds will he moved from Finance's 2007 carry PorwaM. See attached '~, memo far more details. This request is 100°k o8set by the reduction of '~ 000,91.81107.86000 Finance's Departmental savings budget authority. $60,000 $60,000 000.91.81107.86000 / One-time request to complete the Cey Hall remodel of designated spaces 000.9t81007.66000 on the fret and second floors. See aflachad memo for mare details. $170,000'" _ Due to the fact that negotiations regarding the lease of the 517 E. Hopkins ~', property were inbiated subsequent to compe0lion o(the 2008 budget there. ' ,was a general expectation that atld'dional funding dudng the fret ~isupplemental appropriation would be necessary. See attached memo for 000.91.TBD ~, more tletails. $834,600 ' 'Council Chamber Remodel: Based on newer/up-toEate information and '. an expansion of the fadlRies provided to Grass Roots N add'Aional '~, eppropdations for the remodel project are necessary. Bee attached I 000.9iTBD memofor more tletails. $200,000 Subtotal, ASSet Management Capital Fund:', --. _ $1,487,340 $50,000 _ _ Total New Requests un s:, §3,530,300 $3,530,300 $zo9sto $890,900 o ew aquas a se ng avenue:'. $2,429,990 an e. hew 9eaumn Pese s ATTACHMENT C _ __ City of Aspen __ _ -- - - 2008 Supplemental Budget Request _ 10% and 50% Carryforward Requests -- - - - C ity Manager "10%" Operating Budget 50% Department _ ~, Ca rryforward Savings ', _Ca_rryforward Savings Council i $0 $13,910 City Manager r _ _ _ $79,740 _ _ $47,960 HR /Risk Management - 06000 ' _ $240 $17,400 City Clerk _ I _ ._ $0 ~ $118,890 City Attorney _ ' __ __$2,3701 _ $11,840 _ Finance De artment _ p _ $0' $183,170 Community Development _ $1,880 $15,150 Engineering $570 _ $27,510 Building Inspection _$1,310 _ $7,580 Environmental Health $410 - $16,340 - --- - Police Department _$5,870 _ _ $234,440 Public Safety Records $740 -- _ $12,420 Streets Department _ $19,300 _ $333,510 __ - Geographic Information Systems - - - $0 -- _ _ $0 - _ - Information Systems $2,100 _ _ $69,100 Special Events $0 _ $0 Aspen Recreation Center _ $3,060 _ $15,290 Asset Management Dept _ $1,250. $39,520 Parks Department Fund $13,860 $69,280 Wheeler Opera House Fund $2,190 $127,330 Parking Garage Fund $6,360 $69,320 Kids First Fund $4,550 - $82,060 - Water Utility Fund $15,350 _ $247,860 Electric Utility Fund $1,010 _ $90,230 Transportation Fund $1,280 $221,760 Totals $163,440 $2,071,870 Total Savings $2,235,310 Att.C - 10% & 50% Savings Page 1 - T - Clty Off Aapa~ _ All Requests are one-time ATTACHMENT Di _ 2008 Supplemental Butlget _ _ _ _ - -- - 100% Carry forward Appropriation Request _ ~_ -.- '~- _~ ~ - - _ - -- --TUbtotal by T Offset By Department DescrlDtion '~, Amount Department Revenues fonverd - s 0 Carry forwaN OS 00.83855 IPC Replacement a~ $ 0,570 - 00 $15,080 Subtotal, City ManaBer t ~ M anagemen _ - - HR I Rlak 83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forward - HR - $8,640 00 . 001.06.080 .55,550 _ 001.08.06000.83855 PC Replacement Carry forward -HR - -' ~ $74,190 Subtotal, Human Rescurces:. City Clark ~ - - - 001.07.07000.83825 Workstation Replacement Carry forward _ $4,790_ $11,300 83655 PC Replacement Carry forn~erd: 07000 00107 ~~ _ - _ . . _ S 490 815 Clerkr btot l Ci , u a , ry AKOme ' _ CR -. y _ _ _ y 007.09.09000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forn~aN 54,130_ I .. - - _ 001.09.08000.83855 IPC Replacement Carry forward: ~i $1,320 - _ Subtotal, Ciry Attomeya $5,450 Finance Da t p . 001.1171000.83825 Workstation Re lecement Carryforverd $7,560,_ _. -- - 56,690 _ 00111.11000.83655 PC Replacement Carry forward: $14,250 Subtotal, Finance Department ~. Community Deval. ~ 001.13.13200.83635 ~a tl ? ~e % ~e tr 5,390 ._ -. $ rd' Ca fo PC Res ceme 00113.13200.83655 P rrY - - - ~ -- $60,000. _ _ _ 001.73.13316.82999 Moratorium - - ~ _ _ $30,920! - _ _. 001.13.13378.82999 ZUPencis to Mill Conceptual Plan _ 001.13.13319.82999 West of Aspen SubArea Plan ~. __ $50,000 _ _ - - ~._ $10,000 _ _ 001.13.13351.82000 ZUpancis Property Analysis _ _- 001.13.73362.82000 Civic Center Project _ _ 58,920 _ _ -- 001.13.73400.82900 and 82970 'I HP Video 8 Consultant -Historic Preservation Task Force $119,7201 _ -- 001.13.13410.82999 Aspen Grove Cemetery $36,500 - _.. ._ :. 001.13.47507.82900 'Aspen Area Community Plan _ _ __ $84.270T_ _ - - _ __ -$10,800 001.13.13200.82999 Sketch Up Modeling - _ $469,030 ""- - ' Subtotal, Community Development:'. En ineerin - - -- g g 001.15.15000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forwaM _ $3,710 _ arty forward: - _ $3,740 _ 83655 PC Replacement C 001.15.15000 _ _ : Subtotal, Engineering Depertmentc $6,850 Builtling Inspection - - - - -- 001.21.27000.83625 Workstation Replacement Cam/forward $480__ - _ -_ Replacement Carry forward: $6,430 _ 001.21.21000.83655 ~ _ . 001.21.21000.82729 ,Harvard Grant-This grant was received in 2007 - _ _ $10,000 _ _ 001.2121000.82900 'Energy coda Analysis 8 Conaoltant - - $10,000_- _ __ - ~ - Subtotal, Builtling Inspection: $26,970 Rb ~ ~; Workstation Replacement Carry fanvartl _ _' - _ $4,62_0 _ _. 001 25.255 0 83625 00125.25500.83655 CPC Replacement Cony forward: $4,070 _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ - "- - - Subtotal, Environmental Health $8,690 Police - - - -- - - 001.31.37000.83625 jWorkstatian ReplacemeaEbarry forward _- _$27,660 _ _. 001.31.31000.83635 Eq. Mnt 8 Repaif 100°k Carry forward $44,030 _ _ - _ _ 007.3131000.83655 PC Replacement Carry forwaro 576,810 _ -___ _ _ -- _ - _ _ - - --- - - Subtotal, Police Department. $88500 Att D 100%CNN Page 1 Clty Of ASpen -- I All Requests are one-tlme _ -- - - - - _ ATTACHMENT DI 2008 Supplemental Budget -- - - - - - - 100 % Carry forward Appropriation Request -_- -_. _ , - - - -- _- - - - - __ - i - - ~ -_ _ _ Subtotsl by i Offset By De artment I Description Amount - Department I Revenues Public Sakty Records - ---- -- - - 001.33.33000.83825 -_ Workstation Replacement Carrykrwerd - - _ ~ -_ - $800 - -- ---- - 0.01.33.33000.83655_ i ___ - _ _ PC Replacement Carty forxard: - $1,48 0 _ - -- Subtotal, Public Safety Records:. _- . -- --- - -- _ $2 280 Streeb Department 1 , 001.41.41000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carty forwaN - $6,670 - 00141.41000.83635 _ _ Eq. Mnt&ftepair 100%Cany forwaN- ~ - - - _ $16,480 - - 001.4141000.83655 _ IPOReplacement Carty fOM2rd --: $3940 - - - - - 001.41 41100.8.3036 ~. EPA Retro Fit- Clean Diesel - 100% offset by grant $20,0 00 $20 000 Subtotal, Streets Department: . _ _ $47,090 _ , Geographic Info Sys. 007 60 60000 83625 Workstatio R l t C o ~ - - ~ - - - - . . . n ep acemen arry f rwartl $2,880 - 001:60.fi0000.83fi55 - PC Replacement Carry fonvaN! - -- - ~. - ~ - - $0 - ~ - - Subtotal,-GIS:. - -- -$2,6a0 Information Systame 001 61fi1000 83625 Workstatio ft l r - ~-~ - _ - . . n ep acernent Ca ry forviard $15,640 - 001.61.61000.83655 PC Replacement CarryfiirwaN: -- ~ - - $2 000 - - - -- - - 001.61.61000.8299~ _ Spillman Maintenance ~ - ~ $23,000 - _ ~- Suhtotal, LS. Departmant - - $40,640 Special Events Dept 001.70.71000.83625~ - Warkstatice Replacement Carty forward - $900 007_.70.710.00.8365_5 _ ___ ' PC Replacement Carry forwartl: - - $2,220 _ - - Subtotal, Special Eventsi ~ $3,120 ~ Recreatlo_n Depart i ~ _ - 001 71 71000 83825 - _ _- - -~ Workstati R l me C f - _ - - - - - . . . on ep ace nt arry orward $4,040 001.71.71000.83655 PC Replacement Carry forwaM: _ $5, 12 0 -- _ _ Subtotal, Recreation:. - _ . - $9,160 - Aspen Rec. Center 001.72.72000.83625 _ Workstation Replacement Carry forward - - - - ~~.... T-_. - - - $7,530 - - - 001.72.72000.83655 _ _ PC Replacement Carry fdrwaN: - - $2,830 '. _. _ - _ - - - 00172.72700.83625~ _ _ Workstation Replacement Carry forward - 1 $900 007_.72.72700.83655 _ _ PC Replacement Carry fdrn~ard: - - - ~, I - _ $1,850 - - Subtotal, ARC". .- $13,110 Ice Garden 1 007.74.74000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry farwertl -- - -- $5,620 - - - - - 001.74.74000.83655 _ IPC Replacement Carry fonvartl: - - - - --~ _ $q,300 ~ _ - - - Subtotal, Ice Garden: $g 940 Asaet Management 001 9105000 836 'W k t ti R e i ( -- ~ - - _ . . 25 or s a on e lacam r t Car orn~ard I ~ $q 140 - - 001.91.05000.83655 - , PC Replacement Carry forv+artl: - - - - $7,770 ~ _ - - Subtotal, Asset Management: $jf 910 ' SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND:: $804,550 Att 0 100 % Ctwtl Page 2 All Requests are one-time ~ Clty Of ASpe~ ATTACHMENT D 2008 Supplemental _ Budget- _ -_ _ -_ _ _ _ -~-- - 100°k Ca forwartl Appropdatlon Request ', '~ _ - - - - - of ~ - i -" ~ Subtotal by Offset By Departm Deserlptlon Amount Department Revenues Parks 8 Opan Space Fund: _ ' ~ - - - _ 100.55.55000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carty forward I . $3,140 _ _ 100.55.55000.83655 ~ PC Replacement Carry forward _ - $9,520 _ _ "- Subtotal, Parka and Open Space Fund: i E12,850 Wheeler Open Houae Fund: - - 120.93.93000.83625 _ _ - - - WOrksfation Replacement Carry tarward - $2.930 _ _ 93000 83635 0 93 Mnt 8 Repair 100% Carry forward E $89,57 _ . . . 12 120.93.83000.83635 - q. PC Replacement Carry forwaN: _ _$27,250 _ ~ _ 93200 82000 120 93 iARTIST FEES ~ _ $i 7.340 - . . . 82115 g3200 120 93 00 PROMOTION SETTLEMENTS _ $322,020 - . . . 93200 82140 93 (ADVERTISING /PUBLICITY _ $159,610 ~ -. . . 120. 720.93.93750.82900 21ST CENTURY MASTER PLAN I . $249,220 _ _ 120.94.82054.88000 - AABC HOUSING-- $307,470 _ 120.94.81022.88000 ROOF REPAIRS - - - $75,000T- __ _ _ _ - 720.94.81024.86000 GENERAL MAINTENANCE- BUILDING ~ K $8,420 ' - _ 120.94.81102.88000 I STAGEIMPROVEMENTS B CACA $21,200_ _ $27180___ 120 94.81101.86000 LOBBY DRAPES _ - _ $34 730. _ I I $52 050 - - 120.9 8308586000 ' _ NANbE TECH _ _ GENERA LMAIN7E _ $16030 ~ - 94.83091.86000 720 ADMINISTRATION OFFICES CARPETING _ _ $9,780 - ., . 120.94.83092.88000 ~IADMINISTRATION OFFICES CONSTRUCTION _$35,590 _ - - Subtotal, Wheeler Opare Houae Funtl° 57,449,J30 Parking Garage Fund: __ -- - - 740.54.54000.83625 j Worksta6ori Replacement Carry forwaN - $1,230 _ _ _ 140.54.54000.89635 `Eq. Mnt 8 Repair 100% Carry forward $39,090 140.54.54000.83855 PC Replacement Carty forward $1,980 _ _ _ 140.94.61023.88000 (PARKING GARAGE INTERIOR LIGHT REPLACEMENT - .$98,500 '. _ - - Subtotal, Parking Garage Funtl:. Ef4Q800 Housing DevelopmaM '. Fund: - - - -- 150.23.23128.86000 DEER HILL RE-USE WATER ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE '~ $48,360 _ _ - _ 150.23.23120.66000 ANNIE MITCHELL HOUSING $148,890 _ _ _. 150.23.23121.88000 HOUSING-BURLINGAME AH $1,488,000 i - _ ~ _ _ _ 150.23.23122.86000 '~. BAR - X -TRAIL _ I $47,310 _ _ - EARLY RETIREMENT OF 2001B HOUSING GO BONDS - 150.95.31059.95491 'TRANSFER TO TRUSCO F 53,922,190_ I~. btotal, Housing Development Fund:, Su I $5,852,750 Kitla Ftrot Day Care Fund _ - .- - 152.24.24000.83625 WOrkstation Replacement Carry forward _ $800. _ _ _ 152.24.24000.83655 _4 ~ PC Replacement Carry forward: _ _ _ $0 - _. _ _ - 152.24.24700.82917 ASPEN VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION GRANT $10,000 - _ _ __ - Subtohl, Kitla Flret Day Care Funtl: ' $10,800 Att D 100%CNN Page 3 _ City Of Aspen All Requests are one-time ~~ -- - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - .ATTACHMENT D 2008 Supplemental Budget -- --- -- - - - - _ -- - -- - - I _ --- 100°/ Carry forward Approprlatlon Request j - -_. -_ ~. Subtotal by Offset By - Da artment ~ Descrlotion ~ - - Amount Department Revenues Parks60Pen SPace - - - -_ - - Capital i. 340.94.81015.86000 (MALL BRICKS $17,300 340.94.81077.86000 _ JAMES H. SMITH WILDLIFE BLIND $10,000 340.94.81079.86000 ',COMMUNITY CAMPUS TRAIL SYSTEM $35,000 _ 340.94.81087.86000 ISELIN /ROTARY FIELD - _ _ ~ _ $1 7, 240 - _ - 340.94.81089.86000 - - - _ __ 'MALL FOUNTAINS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR - - - . _ $16,900 -- - - -- _ - - 340.94.81092.86000 - __ _ _ 'MOORE FIELD DRAINAGE - - _ - -- $4,430 '- - 340.94.82004.86000 _ _ (PEDESTRIAN TRAIL DEVELOPMENT ' _ __ $17,18 0 - 340.94.82047.86000 _ _ ___ ENTRANCE TO ASPEN IMPROVEMENTS ~ _ . - $74,060 - - 340.94.82048.B6000 _ __ _ _ ~FRANCIS WHITAKER PARK IMPROVEMENTS _ 340.94.82054.86000 - _ __ _ _ CITY HOUSING/AABC - ~ ' _ _ $306,550 - - - $137,670 _ 340.94.82067.86000 - _ __ WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM - - - $682,320 -- - -- 340.94.82086.86000 _ _ _ 'YELLOW SHADE PICNIC SHELTER $27,000 _ 340.94.82098.86000 SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN $39,310 340.94.82100.86000 jTRUSCOTT LANDSCAPING - _ $62, 05 0 340.94.82143.86000 __ _ (PICNIC PAVILION-ARC-ROTARY FIELD T _ __ $137,980 -- _ - 340.94 83007.86000 340 94 83093 _ ANDERSON PARCEL-RANCH RENOVATION_ _ _ _ $50,000 _ . . .86000 DRILL SEEDER $22 ,000' Subtohl, Parka and Open Space Capital Funtlr _ 81,0.18,980 water unuty - 421.43.43000.83625 ', Workstation Replacement Carry forward - --- ~ $0 -- -- 421.43.43000.83835 _ - i Eq. Mnt 8 Repair 100% Carty forvrerd - ~ $12 580 - _ - 421.43.43000.83655 -- -- _ PC Replacement Carty fonBaN - ._ , " - $4,720 -- '- - -- I REDUCTION RE-APPROPRIATED CAPITAL PROJECTS 07 TO - - - 421.94.43490.86000 - - x,08 ~- ~ -- - ($293.910) ~- ~ Subtotal, Water Utlliry: -827!1,810 - - ElectHc Utility 43145 45000.83625 - I Workstation Replacement Carty forwaN- $720 431.45.45000.83635 __ ~ Eq. Mnt 8 Repair 100% Carry fonverd ~' _ - 431 45 45000 83655 _ _ _ _ PC R l ~ _ $4,320 . . . ep acement Carry fon8ard $1,480 _ (THIS AMOUNT IS NEEDED TO FULLY RE-APPROPRIATE THE it _ - 431.94.43490.86000 PROJECTS FROM 2007 TO 2008. $495,560 Subtotal, ElecVlc Utility:. _ 8502,080 Hydroalectnc Fund 444.94 ` __ CASTLE CREEK PIPELINE $5,070 - 444.941 CASTLE CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PLANT - $25,520 _ 444.94.' _ _ MAROON CREEK HYDRO _ _ $16,000 444.94.' _ RUED( MAINTENANCE ~ $178,020 _ - 444.94.43505.86000 '~RUEDI SITE IMPROVEMENTS - - -- - $5,080 Subtotal, Ruatlir - -- -~ - 5228,690 - TranaportatlOn Funtl 450.32.32000.83625 _ _ '. Workstation Replacement Carry forward _ I _ $22 ,810 ' 450.32.32000.83835 _ _ _ _ _ Eq. Mnt 8 Repair 100% Carry (Onn-aN - ~ - - _ ~ $44,980 - - -- - 450.32.32000.83655 _ PC Replacement Carty forA~aM $19,fi90 450.3232100.83035 - ~ _ _ EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY _, - _ $52 800 --- - - - _ 'CONSULTANT SERVICES-SPLIT SH0T8REVERSIBLE LANES - _ , -- ___ 836,080 _ - 450.32.32100.82180 STUDY $56,000 _ CONSULTANT SERVICES-TRUSCOTT SIGNAL STUDVB --- - -' - - -- - -__-- - 450.32.32100.82999 - - - , IMPLEMENTATION _-_ _ $59,00 0 450.32 32100.83900 - - - _ _ PEDESTRIAN 8 TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS _ . _ - $33,000 - _-- -- - - 450.94.83055.86000 -- - _ __ _ RUBEY PARK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - _ _ _ -- $35,000 --_-- -- _-_ -- 450.32.32100.82185 -- - -- _ _ TAXI SERVICE _ - - _- - -.. - - - - $20,000 -_ - - - Subtotal, Trensportatlon Funtl: - _ -- - $J43 280 - - Truacott Housing , 491.01.45044.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forward _ _ - ' _. $1 320 - - - - -- 491.01.45044.83655 - _ PC Replacement Carry forward: - - -- - - , _ _$3,700 - -- -- 49!84.82079.86000 _ 'COTTONWOOD TREE MAINTENANCE - -- -- -- $5,320 -- - - 491.94.8208$.86000 _ REPAINT METAL STAIRS/RAILS - - -_-- - - -- $fiz,ooo -- _-- - -_ 491.94.82080.86000 _ _ COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT - -~ - _ - $6 730 _ _ - - -- 491.94.82081.86000 - EXTERIOR PAINTING - -- - - _-- - ~ , - _ $5 000 _ _. 491.94.82083.86000 LAUNORV FLOOR REPLACEMENT - - _-- - , - $2,fi00 _ - 491.84.820l14.e600d - _ _ LAUNDRY HWH/PLUMBING REPLACEMENT- -- - -- _ _ - -- $61,310 - - - - Subtotal,Troacott:. _ - - $167,aaP - - Att 0 100% CM1Vd Page 4 - - _- eO All Requests are one-time Of AS Clt ATTACHMENT D - _ _- _ - - - _ _ p y ~ 2008 Supplemental Budget _ __ ~ -- - - - - 100°/r Carry forward Approprlatlon Request ___ _ - ~ - _- - - -. - _ - _ , - - -- -- __ __ -- - I Subtotal by Offset By De artment _ Description _ -- Amount Department Revenues MaroltSeasonal I _ - Houeing -___ _-_ . __. - _ ~WOrkst~tion Replacement Carry forward 492.01.45043.83625 $1,260 _ _ - ~ 492.01.45043.83655 PC Replacement Carry fonverd _ $2,220 ~.. -- -- 94.45051.88000 'BOILER PROJECT 492 _$21,400 _ _ - - _ . - _ Subtotal, Marolt Seasonal Housing: 524,880 Housing Authority I, ' OPeraBOns _ - - -- 620.23.45002.83625 ~, Workstation Replacement Carry forward $4,320 ' _ 45002.83655 PC Replacement Carry forward: -_ 23 620 $4,660 , _-- _ _ - - . . - _ Subtotal, Housing Authadry:', $8,880 Asset Management i _ Capital Funtl: 000.07.83095.86000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS REMODEL . $274,980 - -- 000.11.82080.86000 (CITY HALL-FIRST FLOOR RENOVATION $16,020 _ 000.13.82078.86000 SKETCH UP SOFTWARE _$3,420 - - 000.15.82002.86000 - CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT - _ $12,360 _ 000.15.82130.8600 P AVE PED /TRANSPORTATION STUDY _ $31,550 _ 000.31.83044.88000 .RADAR TRAILER - - $8,500 _ -_ _ _ 000.41.81097.860 0 MASON WORK $6,150 _ 000.41.87098.88000 CONCRETE /ASPHALT REPAIR _$40,000 _ _ 000.41.81090.86000 EFFICIENCY MEASURES $50,000 _ _ 000.41.83005.86000 .FLEET 000.61.81500.88000 -~ IS -COUNTY SHARE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS I - $88,000 _ $112,270 _ _ $112,270 000.61.82057.86000 IS-GENERAL FUND SYSTEMS - $347,590. _ _ _ - 0007t71005.86000 ~MATSFOR GYMNASTICS & CLIMBING PROGRAM _ $1,780 _ _ 000.71.83070.88000- .RED BRICK ENERGY SAVING IMPROVEMENTS. __ $38,870 _- __ - 000.72.72101.86000 jARC OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS $5,150_ _ _ __ 000.72.72600.86000 ARC UPPER LEVEL_COOLING SYSTEM - _ $26,790 - _ - 000.72.72612.86000 (UNDERWATER POOL LIGHTS _ $8,740 _ - 000.72.72813.88000 .POOL LIGHTING $11,720 _ - -. 000.72.72641.86000 BACK ENTRY CEILING REPLACEMENT ~ $8,000 _ _ -. _ 000.72.82062.86000 (ARC MECHANICAL RETRO FIT - - - _ $126,200 - _ - _ _ _ 000.72.72609.86000 'SPOOL SPRAY FEATURES $4,790 _ _ - - _ 00072.72648.86000 SLIDE-SAFETY SHROUD - $4,450 _ _ _ 72601.86000 - ARC-OUT DOOR SWIMMING POOL 000 90 $289,010 _ _ . . 82076.BBOOO~CITV'S SIDEWALK 8 TRAIL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 000 90 $t 031,710 _ _ - . . 000.91.81007.86000 CARPETING $2,800 _ 000.91.82084.86000 AMP-AABC Housing $118,260 __ - 91.82060.86000!CITY HALL ANNEX ' 000 $1.81,180 _ . - - - - ~6to>~A$s~danagement aTtali $1,850,310 'Total 100 % Carry forward $upplemantal Request: $13,558,470 $188,350 otal 1 °° arry rwa upp emental equests: '. Net Revenues $13,390,120 Aa D t00Wo Cfwd Page 5 Attachment E ~_ _ CITY OF ASPEN i I 20091ntertund Transfer i. - TrenarerFrom Fund Transfer TO FUnd i Amaurd afTrenafer Pu ee of lrrter/untl TrenaMr ern: _ _ _ I 000 - MaN Managem - 1998 Street Improvements 10 Yr IF wheeler Opera HOU50 _ $1e8.d10 Laan _ ~ - - " Red Brick West End Project 10 yr IF "~ Wheeler Opere HOUSa 'i _ $85,000 LOaO - - I i 1990 Slreet Improvements 10 Yr IF E1e1,69o'i Loan Igaa First wne ~ _ _ _ Debt service Fund 9;~iTransferto Debt Service Fund _ _ Subtotal, Transfers From Asaet Menage 3348.400 001-Generel FUnd: _ -..._ -- - - - - ~ Annual Partial Subsidy of Food Tax 1 $85,240 1 Refund _ Perks ana open Space FUnd: _. " - Transfer to fund budgeted AMP AMP FUntl 81,761,eao Capital impfOVementprojects. _ zeol Retired Employee Premiums '~Healm Insurance Funa ~'T aef , _ ary Employee Housin Funa 5529.2601 Transfer-5mployee Housin Fund _ 'water umiry Fund $72,e4o 1/3 of Global Warming Program - Transfer-Energy Star Homes - Electric FUntl E15,000~1 Program - -- - - ~ IT2nsfer-Zupancis Property Re- Housing Development FUnd - _ $580,000'purthase _ _ _ Operations Subsidy ITrensponation Fund 145 7240 ~ ..- '~. Subtotal,Trensfere ham General FUntl' S2,852,500 100-PaMS antlO e~aFUnd: _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ - _ Transfer to fund budgeted 340 Capital ~IParks ana Open Space capital FUnd $2,81 ],5]OI~emeOl pfojects. _ 'General FUnd _ . E13,660'~Transfer to fund Mangers Savings - Debi Service Funtl $847,850 Parks 2005 Open Space Bonds _ _ ___ - - - I Parks PON00, 2001 Sales Tax Sess,lmi Revenue Bonds (Debt service FUnd _ __ - ~ - - - - - 2005 Parks and Open Space Revenue Bonds -refunding 1999 Debt Service FUntl I $75~000'ibOnds -- ~ - i 12005 Parks and Open Space Revenue Bonds-refuntling 1999 _ $951,290 bonds _ Debt Servic»Funtl _ '.Overhead Payment-General ' - 'Govemment Support of Fund Operati0n8 _ ~IGeneral FUnd E~08,250 . _ _ _ city empiayea Housing Funa _' _ 215 4 980iTransf_er -Employee Housing Fund _ Subtotal, Tansfers from Parks antl ~ '~ I,Open Spaces Fund 38,282,890 120-WOeelsr Opere HOUae FUnd _ _ __ - ciry Employee Housing Fund i _ S~a,9~o~Transfer- Em lop yes Housing Fund _ Icenerel FUnd ' $2,190Transfer to fund Manger's Savings _ -. _ _ ~' Overheatl Payment -General '1 ',GoVernment Support of Fund General FUnd ' 251 950.Operalion3 _ _ _ _ -- 'Subtotal, wheeler Opere HOUSe: 3329,050 -- 140-Parking Gan9a FUntl _ _ _ _ "_ __ -- ---- 2004 Certifcate of Participation (Refunded, Originally issued in 1989 ' to construct Rio Grande Parking Debt Service FUntl $698.~50.Gara9e _ ~ _. _ $fisfio Transfer to fund Manger's Savings General Fund _ _ _ Cary Empioyee Housing Fund _ s21,99o Transfer- Employee Housing Fund Overhead Payment -General ''. Government Support of Funtl Generel FUntl _ 8185,120 Operat100$ _ - 5ubtbtal. Parkin Gera a Fund. 5912,220 CITY OF ASPEN ~ ~ _ - _ -- - - T-- 20081Merfuntl Transfer _ - -_-- '~- - -- __ ifi0. Houeln_p Davelopmerrt Funtl Truscett I, 2001 Housing Bonds _ ~ __ _ Tmswn HOUSin Funtl g 8749620 Subsidy _ _ _ _ ~Truscott I, 2003 Housing Bonds _ _ _ Tiuscon Housing FaOtl _ _ 8312,830 Subsidy Truscott1,2001BHOUSingBOnds- iTmswd HOUainp FUntl $3,922,1901Called '. t- - _. _. __ This is the third year of a three years rmswn Lantlswping-340 Tunas ssD,occ Transfer for landscaping at Truscott _ !APCHA Housing Office, Operations Subsidy (50 % of total Subsidy, Split ' ~, Mousing Olfica Oparetlona FUna _ $184,t5_Oiwith Pitkin County ~! !'Overheatl Payment-General Govemment Support of Fund (General FUntl _ 522730~Operat1003 _ ` Subtotal, Housin Develo merit Funa E6,741,]20~. 1fi1 -EarIY Chlltlhootl Etlucatlon Innlatlve _ _ I, Payment to Kids First Fund for _ .Kms First Funtl zo 31D ~gdministtation Services Subtotal, Eatl Chiltlhooo' Funtl: 520,]10 162 -Day Care (Kltla Flret lyellow Bdck( Funtl _ city Employee Houaing Funtl _ ~ _ g3o 94o~~.Trensfer -Employee Housng Fund _ .General FUna _ S455o. Transfer to Pontl MangeYS Bavin9s _ _ ~i ~i~Ovemead Payment-General 'Govemment Support of Fund __ Generel Fund _ 68880 Operators _ Subtotal, Klda Firot FUntl' f102,170i 160-Stormwater FUntl _ _. Overhead Payment - General Govemment Support of Funtl (G eneral FUnO f80,000iQ efatiOnS 340 -Parks entl Open Space Capkal Funtl _ _ ~ ~ '~ Overhead Payment-Generel GOVernment Support of Funtl ~ (Generel FUntl f32,]20 10 erat100fi 421 -Water Utllily Fund __ _ - Retum on Investment Payment, .General Fund Sale of Land to Water ~ General Funtl_ _ Stooo,pcD 'Utili for Operations Facilities General Funa ~~._ gt5,35p Tansfer to fund Manger's Savings Fund Capital Projects moved from Ne _ _ _Hytlroelecvlc Funa $en,eoo; Water Funtl to the Hydroelectric Fund ~ cry Empioyee Houaing Funb '~, _. _ $$0720 Transfer -Employee Housing Fund _ _~ParkS entl Open Spaw Funtl $150,000,, Watef tlSage CDn$eNatDn PfOgrem3 __ ~',. Overhead Payment-Generel Government Support of Fund ~ _ iGeneral FUntl _ $849560LOparation3 Subtotal, Water U6li Funtl: 52,73],4]0 4]i - ElecMe~ Funtl _ _ _ Franchise Fee Transfer to General -- '..General Funtl g408,990fund General Fund _ _ s1 010 Transfer to fund Mangers Savings _ _ Overhead Payment -General Govemment Support of Fund General Funtl $330,360 Operd110nS _ 'city Employee Houaing Funa _ $18 730 Transfer- Employee Housing Fund _ _ - __._ - Funtl Capital Projects moved from the Hytlroelegnc Funtl $2ao,000 Water Fund to the Hydroelectric Fund _ _ Purchase of Hydroelectric power from _ Hytlroelectric Funa _ s414,1c0 Ciry-owned Generating Facility _ Purchase of Hydroelectric power from _ _ Hytlrcelectdc FUntl _ _ _ __ $76,000 City-owned Generating Facility General Funtl 572,640 1/3 of Global Warming Program _ Electric Utility portion of Utility Billing _ water utility FUntl 165230 _S_ervic_es _ _ _- _ Subtotal, Electric U01i Funtl: f1 727,080 Attachment E Attachment E CITY OF ASPEN _ 2008 Intertund Transfer - - - - 444-Xydroeleetrlc FUntl _ _ _ - - _ - _ -0vemead payment-General ' '..Government Support of Fund _ _IlGenaral FUntl _ t1980_Operation_s - Subtotal H tlroeleMc Fund: 511,980 460-Tranaportatlon FUntl _ _ _ _ __ _ - - 'I ''-0verhead payment-General I Government Support of Fund General Funtl 5453,050 Ope2t10n8 - _ _ _ ',Ganerel FUna '_ s12so'Transfer to fund MangeYS Savings _ _ ~~Genaral FUntl 8150,oooUse Tax Administration ,City Emyloyee Housing Fund _ Sao,720 Transfer- Employee Housing Fund - - ~ IContrihution for Mall Rubey Park Mall ' Packs antl Open Spew FUntl 5354330'M810IenenCR _ _ _ Subtotal,Tnna ortatlon FUntl: 5998,]80 4T1-Gott coume Fun ~ _ $18,730Transfer - Em IP oYee Housing Fund Oiry Employee Housing Funa _ _ i Overhead Payment- General ' Government Support of Funtl General FUna I 115720;OperailOns" _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~SUMatel, Golf CaafaO Fund: 6]0.480', _ _ 491 - Truscon Rental Xowin Fg antl _ _ _ _ - - - Overhead payment-General I '~, Government Support of Fund _ _ _ General Funtl _ 823,540 Opefati0ns _ _ _ 'city em_pwyee Ha_using Funa _ _ f3o Sao Transfer- Employee Housing Fund _ ' '.Overhead Payment-Housing -0perations Support of Fund Housing Operations FUna _~_ __ of 75200perations _ _ _ _._ _ ISUbootal, Truacatt XOUaln Fund: f102,000~. _ 491-Merott Ranch Seasonal Housing FUntl - _ - Overheatl Payment- General '~, Government Support of Fund Genaral FUntl S188200pefallOns _ _ I _. l 21 99o Transfer -Employee Housing Fund 5 ,City Employee Housing Funa . _ _ Overhead Payment -Housing 'Operations Support of Fund HOUSing OperaOOns FUntl _ 8~400'Operati0ns _ _ _ _ _ Subtctel, Mamlt Rand1 Funtl'. 5102,010 _ 820 - Xowing Olllce Operatlona Fund _ _ - ' Overheatl payment-General Government Support of Funtl General Funtl: - 10$ 0690,OpefallOnB _ _ _. _ _ Subtotal, Hcusin O ara0ans Fund: 5100,880' Smu991er Xauaing Funtl _ - -.. Overhead payment-General ,Government Support of Fund General FUntl 58,010''-0pefatlpn9 _ _ __ HOUSing Opertions FUntl a2.ezo HOUSing Ovemead ___ _ 'Subtoaal, Smu ler Funtl 510,8]0 ___ _ - --_ Health insurance FUntl - _.-.. 801 -City Employee - ~ -- ---- _ Transfers into the City Employee Health Insurance Fund -Health 'Healtn Care Internal service find et 52,908,750 Insurance Premiums _ _ 2008 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS 525,709,760 City Of Aspen i, Attachment F 2008 Technical AdJustments DeoartmentlFund Technical Adlustment Description Amount ~ Subtotal b De General Fund --'_ --- General Fund Operational payroll was overstated by !, 001.*.*.80* project staff. This corrects this o versi ht (8113,290) _ Transfer to fund the project request in 2008 - li Transfer to AMP from Finance's Departmental I Savings to fund furniture for remodel. The Finance I Departmental Saving's was reduced by this $50K to fund this request. The net effect is a zero increase in budget authority. Moved a capital project budgeted in the GF for $26,790 to the AMP Fund. This transfer is to keep the AMP Fund in balance. This is a 001.95.00000.95000 technical adjustment. 876,790 This is a transfer from the General Fund cash i !, reserves to fund the 2008 new requests in the Asset 001.95.00000.95000 Mana ement Fund 8,285,050 _ The General Fund was funding the bear patrol in the ', Transportation and Parking Control Fund. This ', service will now be conducted by the Police Department, therefore the transfer is no longer needed. There will be zero net impact with this change to the General Fund's fund balance. The budget authority for this service was shifted into the 001.95.00000.95450 General Fund. (815,000)1 Zupancis Property repurchase will be made in 2008 l 001.95.00000.95150 and 2009. Spreading th_e_final payment over 2 years (SSas,eso) i Subtotal, General Fund I $686,700 Parks Fund ~ - ___ ___ --- _ ,_ _ _ - -- Transfer to General Fund to fund City Manager's 100.55.55000.88901 Savings $13,860 Subtotal, Parks Fund $13,860 Wheeler Fund - -_ _ _ -- Transfer to General Fund to fund City Manager's 120.93.93000.88901 Savings $2,1901 __ _ ---- ' Subtotal, Parks Fund $2,190 Parking Garage Fund Transfer to General Fund to fund City Manager's 140.54.54000.88901 ' Savings $6,360 Subtotal, Parks Fund $6,360 Housing Development Fund Civic Master Plan appropriations were moved into 150.23.* future years ($250,000), Single family home lot subsidies will be paid out over two years 2008 and 2009. This adjusts the appropriation to match the expected timing of the 150.23.* a out $331,500 Transfer to fund the debt service in the Truscott Fundl I in full. During 2008 budget development it was thought that the 2003 bonds were going to be '. refunded in advance. The 2003 bonds were not ii advance refundable and were budgeted in the I ', Truscott Fund late in development. The transfer I ( from the Housing Development Fund to fund the last I years payment was overlooked. This corrects that 491_ _ 150.95.00000.95 oversight. $_312,630 . Subtotal, Water Fund' I $268,870 Kids First Fund I Transfer to General Fund to fun s 152.24.24000.88901 Savings _ S $4,550 I, _ Fund Subtotal , Wate $4,550 Water Fund I __ _ Transfer to General Fund to fund City Managers 421.43.43000.88901 Savings ___ $15,3501 Transfer to fund approved projects moved from the 'I 421.95.00000.95444 Water Fund into the Hydroelectric Fund _$46,5.90 ' Subtotal, Water Fund. $61,940 ctnc Fund Ele I I _ Transfer to General Fund to fund City Managers I 901 431.45.45000.88 Savings ' $1,010 __ _ _ Subtotal, Water Fundl $1,010 Transportation and Parking !, Control Fund - - Reduction in bear patrol payroll /this is now 450.32.*.80' budgeted in the Police Department. ($15,000) _ Transfer to General Fund to fund City Managers I 4_50.32.32000.88901 Savings $1,280 _ .During 2008 budget development there were 10 I different versions of the LRP for Transportation and the Parking Control Fund. These were all formula ~idriven and in the end these plans were used to adopt the 2008 Resolution budgeted authority amount. The formulas and the actual hard numbers developed in the Eden Financial System had a variance of $33,540 or .009% of the total budget authority. This ', 450 .3 2.'.' will correct the oversight. ' $33,540 ' _ _ . Subtotal, trans ortation and Parkin Control Fundi $19,820 Truscott Housing 491.98.31059.89610/89630 Early retirement of the 2001 B Housing GO bonds $3,922,190 - - Subtotal, Truscott Housin Fund $3,922,190 AMP Reduction in 2008 adopted capital plan -Reduced the Rio Grande Recycle Center ($150,000). Shifted the maintenance expenditures for the City owned housing to the new City Employee Housing Fund; Water Place housing repaint ($80,000), Cemetery Lane maintenance ($15,000), Water Place Furnace OOO.xx.xxxxx.xxxxx .($25,000). ($270,000_).. Subtotal, AMP fund $270,000 Total Technical AdJustment All Funds: $4,179,750 54,179,750 City Of Aspen Attachment G Changes for Second Reading New Requests '~ Onetime - Fund /Department Ongoing Description Amount _ _ _ _ _.__ General Fund ', PRI Consultlng Contract -researching the growth by category of lantl ' use, including scrape and replace activity. This research will be part of Community the Existing Conditions report for the Aspen Area Community Plan. ' Development one time See the department's memo for additional tletails. $35,000 _ _ __ _ Subtotal, Com D ev - ._ 835,000 _ _ _ _ This request is 100% reimbursed by CIRSA. Staff is requesting the _ the Streets shop building repairs from an l Streets one time nt earlier th s year in tle $8 7801 _ _ Subtotal, Streets) 88,780 ' . __ _- .... ~ 1. Total, Generel Fundi $43,7801 $43,780 100% Grant funded request from the Colorado Govemor's Energy ~'. i Office. The Insulate and Seal grant funded program has a goal to increase wnsumer awareness of residential energy efficiency options and to actively promote the installation of additional whole-house energy savings measures through rebates. See the department's Electric Fund one time memo for additional details .. _ _ $96,0001, _. _.. __~~_~__ . Ene Star Homes Grant from the Colorado Governor's Ener Office. 9Y rgY I The Ene Star New Homes ro ram has the goal to market and ~y g conduct Vainin for home ener raters. See the de artment's memo p 9 gy one tlme for additional details $40 0001 ' Subtotal, Parks Ca ifal Fundl $138,000 Truscott Housing I~ Fund one time Fleet vehicle request -see department's memo for additional details _ _ $18,430 __ Subtotal, Housin Fund $18,430 Asset Management i, i Fund .Moving the Firehouse Data Center project from year 2008 into year one time 20 10. ($588,000} _ 1 _ _ . -- Subtotal, AMP Fund ($588,000) - _. __ ____ _. ' Total New Re nests _ (8389,790) 8389,790) Technical Adjustments ' ' City of Aspen -Debt Service ~'', ~ _ _ I During 2008 budget development a decision was made to have the ', 1. ~ Park's Fund pay an additional $75,000 a year of Ne 2005 Sales Tax , Revenue Refunding Bonds as it relates to open space. Aker further ', review this Vansactlon needs to be set up differently in the Eden Financial system to meet accounting s[antlartls antl to achieve I. transparency. This adjustment wrrects this issue. The debt service payment will be made from out of the Golf Fund, funded from a transfer Golf Fund on going in from the Parks Fund $75,000 During 2008 butlget development a decision was made to have the ~. Park's Fund pay an additonal $75,000 a year of the 2005 Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds as it relates to open space. Aker further review this transaction needs to be set up differently in the Eden Financial system to meet accounting standards and to achieve transparency. This adjustment corrects this issue. The debt service payment will be made from out of the Golf Fund, funded from a Vansfer Debt Service Fund on going in from the Parks Fund. _ ($75.000) _ Subtotal 80 Total Technical Ad'usfinents 80 80 Total Requests for Second Reading ($389,790) ($389,790) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: 2008 Supplemental Budget Request (?QMQS Research - RPI Consulting Contract Amendmdent DATE: Apri128, 2008 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department recently reviewed the scope of work for Gabe Preston of RPI Consulting with City Council. Mr. Preston is reseazching the City's growth history by category of land use, including scrape and replace activity. This research will be pazt of the Existing Conditions report for the Aspen Area Community Plan. At City Council's request, additional services detailing trends in construction activity will be added to the contract. Mr. Preston had originally estimated this additional work at $28,209.50. Including some additional correlation work with voter registration and property tax information, staff expects this estimate to increase. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $35,000 to cover this contract amendment. ComDev staff will work with the Finance Department to include this additional request in the second reading of the supplemental budget. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~~ ~ ~~ G ~ ~-I,.Q. a ~r, .~~ ~`~ ~,~, THE CITY OF ASPEN Back Up Documentation For: Memos for second reading new requests MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: Don Taylor, Finance Director / FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I I/' ~'' ' RE: 2008 Supplemental Budget Request (}fQMQS Research - RPI Consulting Contract Amendmdent DATE: April 28, 2008 SUMMARY: The Community Development Department recently reviewed the scope of work for Gabe Preston of RPI Consulting with City Council. Mr. Preston is reseazching the City's growth history by category of land use, including scrape and replace activity. This reseazch will be part of the Existing Conditions report for the Aspen Area Community Plan. At City Council's request, additional services detailing trends in construction activity will be added to the contract. Mr. Preston had originally estimated this additional work at $28,209.50. Including some additional correlation work with voter registration and property tax information, staff expects this estimate to increase. Staff is requesting an additional appropriation of $35,000 to cover this contract amendment. ComDev staff will work with the Finance Department to include this additional request in the second reading of the supplemental budget. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~,~,~, a ~~ ~- {~<< 1~,`~, MEMORANDUM 'IO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Kimberly Peterson, Global Warming Project Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE OF MEMO: Apri121, 2008 MEETING DATE: April 28, 2008 RE; Request to Accept Two Grants from Governor's Energy Office REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen is the beneficiary of two grants from the Colorado Governor's Energy Office (GEO): 1) the Insulate & Seal Program Grant; and, 2) the Energy Star Homes Program. This memo is to request that the City be allowed to accept the grants and to commit budget authority to spend money to fulfill the grant requirements. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In May 2007 Council adopted the Canary Action Plan to reduce Aspen's contribution to global warming. The Action Plan calls for the City of Aspen to actively promote the implementation of local residential energy efficiency programs. These two grants will help accomplish those objectives by facilitating energy audits and weatherization for households in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. At the passing of the Canary Action Plan Council gave specific directive to staff to pursue a rating system for home energy use (similar to a mpg sticker for cars). The application to the Home Energy Star grant is a direct result of that directive. DISCUSSION: Here is a summary of each of the grants: Insulate and Seal: The GEO is working with several Colorado partners and insulation contractors to support the proper installation of insulation and air-sealing measures in Colorado homes. The program aims to increase consumer awazeness of residential energy efficiency options and to actively promote the installation of additional whole-house energy savings measures through rebates. The Roaring Fork Valley has been awazded $96,000 through the GEO grant. CORE will match this with another $96,000 of REMP funds. CORE will administer the program which will provide homeowners in Aspen, Basalt and Carbondale with reimbursements of up to $300 to add insulation to their residential dwellings. This is enough to serve over 200 Aspen households. Page 1 of 3 For this grant, it is requested that the City of Aspen simply act as a "pass through agency" to accept funds from GEO and disburse them to CORE. This is necessary since GEO's rules require that a municipality rather than anon-profit organization be the recipient of State monies. Eneray Star Homes: GEO is working with a consortium of Roaring Fork Valley cities, led by Aspen, to implement the Energy Star New Homes program. We have received at $25,000 grant from GEO. Matching funds will be provided by other cities in varying amounts. The City of Aspen will contribute matching funds of $15,000 from the Building Department's budget which has already been approved. These funds will primarily be used to mazket and conduct training for home energy raters. There is an independent consultant who will serve as the grant administrator and will coordinate the receipt and disbursement of funds from all the participating jurisdictions. Her fee is included in the grant received from GEO. We aze requesting that Council allow the City to commit budget authority to spend funds to implement this grant, which will be reimbursed by GEO. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The implementation of both grants will be performed by the private sector and CORE. The cost to the City will be in the form of some hours of administrative time to coordinate the receipt and disbursement of funds and contribution of matching funds. The matching funds for the Energy Star Homes program in the amount of $15,000 aze already approved and enacted in the Building Department's budget per Stephen Kanipe. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings comprised one- third ofAspen's GHG inventory, and the average Aspen home produces 23 tons of C02 annually. The first step in bringing down building emissions is to aggressively pursue energy efficiency. By helping 200 Aspen households to properly insulate and seal their homes, we will be making a good first step in this effort. The grant monies will also help build professional capacity in our Valley to provide energy rating services. Deliverables from both grants will work towazds achieving our Canary goals of reducing GHGs 30% by 2020. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City accept both grants. It is further recommended that both revenue and appropriations be increased within the Electric Fund in the amounts described for each program. ALTERNATIVES: The original concept for these grants was for CORE to both accept and administer the grants. This option is not available because Colorado's grant requirements do not allow grants to non-profits. If a qualified entity does not accept the grant, the State funds would Page 2 of 3 be lost to Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley and would go towards other grant projects in another azea ofthe State. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 3 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cindy Tucker-Davis THRU: Tom McCabe DATE OF MEMO: April 23, 2008 MEETING DATE: May 12, 2008 RE: Vehicle Replacement Changes REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Increase the Housing fleet from 3 vehicles to 4 vehicles. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A BACKGROUND: Currently for 2008 Housing is scheduled to replace the 1991 Jeep Cherokee with a hybrid vehicle, and replace the 2002 GMC truck with a new truck. We aze requesting permission to keep the GMC truck as well as receive a new truck. DISCUSSION: Due to the increasing workload of the Housing Maintenance Team, we are finding it difficult to keep up with the normal, emergency, and the preventive maintenance and snow removal issues that arise at the 5 properties (29 buildings) we currently manage. The housing units increased by 99 units and 14 buildings, 4 laundry rooms, 3 boiler rooms, additional landscaping, streets, stairs and sidewalks in 2002 when Truscott expanded. As the inventory of units age there is an increased need for maintenance at all 5 properties. The number of staff now located at Truscott, Marolt and Aspen Country Inn including the maintenance staff constitute 7 of our 13 total Housing staff members and is the focal point of our vehicle use. The number of vehicles required to accomplish the work has not been evaluated since prior to 2002. To help us work more efficiently we would like to keep the GMC pickup truck that was scheduled to be traded in this year as well as purchase the new truck that was to be the replacement for it. This will give us an additional plow for Marolt Ranch enabling us to plow first thing in the mornings on snow days. With 5 properties to cover it is impossible to get to all of them eazly enough to prevent packed snow and ice buildup caused by our tenants going to work. The additional plow would result in safer access for our residents and less packed snow and ice removal challenges for our crew to address. Page 1 of 3 In the summer months this would provide our maintenance crew with an additional vehicle to cover all the properties without a valuable technician having to "taxi" other technicians between locations. This results in a savings of time and fuel and increases technician productivity. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Since the replacement of two vehicles was scheduled for 2008, the only financial impact at this time will be the $6,000 loss of trade-in value. The lazger financial impact will be seen in 2 to 3 yeazs when we will request the replacement of the GMC with a new vehicle. The anticipated cost will be approximately $25,000 (new truck) - $4,000 (trade in on old truck=$21,000. The Housing AMP schedule shows $50,000 planned for replacements this year. The actual cost, including a new plow, will be over that amount by $9,451 if the $6,000 trade does not go forwazd. The Truscott Phase I and Marolt Ranch budgets have adequate funds and the money required to make up the difference and can be provided by simple budgetary line item adjustments. The city's finance department has confirmed this and will make the adjustments should this be approved. The Aspen Country Inn, Truscott Phase II and Smuggler Mtn. Apartments, while not owned by the city, do have oversight by the city finance department which confirmed that adequate funding exists in those budgets. These properties would participate proportionately in the purchase of the vehicles. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By increasing the Housing fleet by one vehicle, the recorded fuel usage and emissions will be increased compared to previous yeazs. The continued use of our old truck will squeeze more use from the energy embodied in the production of the vehicle, and as such is another, less appazent type of energy efficiency. Replacing the 1991 Jeep Cherokee with a more efficient and clean hybrid vehicle is a cleaz net environmental benefit because the Jeep vehicle is quite worn out and inefficient and is used frequently to travel to meetings or run errands between properties or to town, when a large vehicle is un-necessary. The elimination or reduction of the need to "taxi" employees will also result in significant reduction in mileage between worksites thus decreasing total emissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the approval of the increase of the Housing fleet by one vehicle. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the staff recommendation, the 2002 GMC truck will be traded in as scheduled and the fleet number will remain at 3 vehicles and the temptation for staff to use their personal vehicles to take up the slack will remain high. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # of 2008" on the consent calendaz of Monday, May 12, 2008. Page 2 of 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: N/A Page 3 of 3 v~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEMO DATE: Apri124, 2008 MEETING DATE: May 12, 2008 RE; Code Amendments to Section 26.312.030 (C) -Nonconforming Structures -Ordinance No. 7, Series 2008 - 2"d Readine SUMMARY: Alice Davis, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted a number of text amendments with regard to the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code as it relates to a code amendment submitted on behalf of the Lauders in 2004 (Ord. No. 35). The City sponsorship allows the Amendment to be submitted by a private entity. Staff has worked with the applicant to clazify the language of the original ordinance. Staff recommends approval of this application for vazious code text amendments to Section 26312.030 (C), Extensions. 1ST READING SUMMARY: City Council requested the following from Staff: • Is the Lauder Accessory dwelling Unit (ADU) the only Mandatory Occunancv unit? It is uncleaz from the APCHA records and history how many were created and how many units aze still in existence today. After reviewing the list with Cindy Christensen from APCHA, three other units (101 Dale Ave and (2) units at 2 Williams Way). Include the relevant packet information from the 2004 hearing includine the minutes. The packet information from the 2004 and 2008 Planning and Zoning and Clty Council public heazings are included as "Exhibits B, C, and D." LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The City Council is requested to take the following actions: • Determination if anolication to amend code text meets Standazds of Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26310.040 Standards of Review. On February 19`h, a noticed public heazing on a text amendment was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and a recommendation of approval has been presented by the Commission to the City Council. APPLICANT: Alice Davis, Davis Horn Inc. and Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Attorneys, representing Gary and Laura Lauder, property owners and Chris and Lynn Seeman, ADU residents. Page 1 of 4 PREVIOUS ACTION: On February 19` , a noticed public hearing on a text amendment was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the commission voted 5-0 in favor of a recommendation of approval for an amendment to the non-conformities chapter. Previously in 2004, The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an amendment to the Non- conformities chapter of the Land Use Code and recommended denial at a public hearing on October 5, 2004. The City Council approved Ordinance #35, Series of 2004, on November 22, 2004, allowing for amendments to the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code. The amendment allowed a property that was legally established and non-conforming with regazd to floor azea (over the maximum allowable) to add up to 500 squaze feet of floor azea to an ADU. BACKGROUND: (FROM THE 2004 STAFF MEMO) The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor area bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primazy residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and provided mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code requirements were subsequently amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor azea exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either anoff--site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the mazket value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally established non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor azea exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non-conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor azea cannot be added on to). The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor azea. The storage azea was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain its being exempt from floor area. Basement levels count towards floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the Page 2 of 4 exposure and require more of the basement level to count towazds the property's total Floor Area allowance. Prior to the initial Code Amendment request in 2004, a building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor azea. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. An application to amend the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code was submitted in 2004 requesting modifications to the nonconforming structures section with regard to extensions and ADUs and Carriage Houses. Public hearings followed at both Planning and Zoning and City Council. As a result, Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 2004) was passed, amending the text of the Land Use Code to permit additional development on properties containing and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area. (2008 Background) In March 2007, the City was approached by Alice Davis and Gideon Kaufman to discuss the possibility of acting upon the approved language of Ord. #35, Series of 2004. Staff and the applicant representatives have worked to clarify the language which is applicable to only one mandatory occupancy unit (Lauder ADU). See summary of the proposed ordinance below for clarification on the text changes to the Land Use Code. On February 19, 2008, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that the application for the code amendments met the applicable standards of review and recommended approval (by a 6-0 vote). STAFF COMMENTS' Staff has enclosed an Ordinance that demonstrates code text amendments using strileethreuglis in red for removed text and underlined blue shading to denote new text. Each change, or set of related changes, is accompanied by a numbered red box in the left column. To understand the vazious code text amendments, it may be easiest to look through the Ordinance to see the exact code language changes -- while consulting the explanatory text below, which offers a rationale for each code text amendment, using the red boxes. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE: The general allowances for non-conforming structures is now rolled in Section C, the exceptions to "C" aze now formatted as a subsection of "C". Clazifies the current text by following a more logical format -that the increase in floor azea is only available for ADUs with mandatory occupancy and then breaks the procedure and review standazds into subsections. To increase floor area on a property, the application is reviewed as a special review application (requiring notice and hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the application must meet the design review standazds for an ADU or carriage house and meet additional review standards in the non- Page 3 of 4 conforming section. Most important is mitigating for the additional floor area via extinguishment of a TDR or un-built floor area from another property. Combines standards 1 and 2, eliminates standazd 5 (no variance from setbacks can be required), clarifies the standard for TDR extinguishment, and the final standazd language has been modified to omit a squaze footage number from transfer from non-historic properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application for various code text amendments to Section 26.312.030 (C), Extensions. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2008, upon second reading". ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff findings ExxtstT B - 2004 P+Z packet information (memoranda, Staff findings, Resolution, Minutes) EXHIBIT C - 2004 City Council Packet information (memoranda, Staff findings, Ordinance, Minutes) ExxtstT D - 2008 P+Z packet information (memorandum, Staff findings, Resolution, minutes) EXHIBIT E -Ordinance 35, Series of 2004 Page 4 of 4 /~ J ~. 1, ORDINANCE No. 7 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.312.030 -NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES - MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. WHEREAS, previous amendments to Section 26.312.030 submitted by Gary and Laura Lauder, 850 Roaring Fork Road, Aspen, CO were adopted in Ordinance 35, Series of 2004, but were not codified; and, WHEREAS, after meeting with the Lauder representatives, the Community Development Director requested that the representatives submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.208, to clarify the adopted language; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030 C., Extensions, of the Land Use Code and would permit additional floor azea on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which aze legally established nonconformities with respect to floor azea; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote of six to zero (6-0); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code aze delineated as follows: Text being removed is strikethrough and red. T°°' "°~-•- '°•"°°°'' '°°''° '~''° '"'°- Text being added is underlined and blue. Text beine added looks like this. Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL as follows: Section 1: Section 26.312.030 -Nonconforming Structures, shall read as follows: Sec. 26.312.030. Nonconforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. C. Extensions. '~~-~^a°~~'. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlazgement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. 1. Historic structures. The an}y first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmazk Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and reaz yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlazgement does not exceed the allowable floor area of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. 3r. 2. Mandatory occupancv Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The ~` second ether exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit ~"~ or Carriage House (`'ADU"1 havine a mandatory occupancv requirement. Such a detached ADU or ~=se may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) squaze feet of floor azea, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU ~_ ..~==ag~se and also provided that the ADU or ;,curing-horse does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. l,v Cw4^tc: 2~.~"' .-, r .,, ,...~~~o=T ct~.,...e.. ~ G n Z n ~~ Tf N.,.: ....a.. ..f hl,° ° «A°A . .,..h ti,° ~„fF. ° ,.:°„N.....:h:,...h,.,7 ..hT.,.w...:n° .~v hl... 1°..A .. h.. ....ti......:..1, TJ:..h..«.. T...,«..F «..1.1,. Tl....°L......,°..h D:..l.h~ r .._......««.,. ter,°.,,°.. ~~ cac .... h° ° «n°.,:.,...... °s a..°T,. e ...a..°a icnm ~,.,,°.o F oh T.. ..,1,]:h:...n h.. hl.° „l.:l:h., h.. ,..,t:......: ,.1. .. 7S:..h. .«:° T«°.,..4~..°1.1° P°.,ol......,o,~t f f . ..,°.,:..,.. ' .,, ,,,,.,,.o 4 C T,:..h°w ~~ .~ ~ k°a «h h~. " ~ f ° ° ~ ° ~ ° h r. FF ~ «f nn.a~~~ {roox v ° x i, ~c.aa rtn,TCVrx2m~.j~-xc~r6i3Bcca~ r8pc ccc ~ ro x ,,.°.........°.. n.nh h,. hl.° ..«°°:°1 .°.,: °... ...°°oA...o~ Aoh~a c„~ ...... .. c x,cisS Sa.xxx i ~ :.. h7.:., c°,.h:,.« a) Procedure. The procedure for increasing the maximum floor azea of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU requires the submission of a development application. The development application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b) Review Standards. An application for increasing the maximum floor area of a property for the pumose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the T~ °aa^~°~ h° '''° '°' ~ standards in Section 26.520.050 Design Standards, unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review, "°°~ °~°° ~°--• ° TT'D -•' ° ''° a}~preved pursue-te as well as the following additional review c-riteria standards: (1)Newly established floor area may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of 500 sg. fr. of floor area and is required to be mitigated by either of the following two options. alExtineuishment of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"). A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of 250 sq. fr. of floor azea per each certificate. Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extinguishing certificates. (b)Extinguishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of a property for the pumose of increasing the size of an ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of 500 ware feet of available unbuilt floor area from one property to the ADU. (~j(2) The additional floor azea is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable). „~`-TT or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (~ ~ The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (-0~ ~ The increased impacts from the larger size aze outweighed by the benefits of having a lazger, more desirable ADU. ((6j(~The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (6) For the transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. /^/\ U' .. T«....°F «„1.1° T\... ..1 .....~°..~ D:..l.t.. .M° ...:41. 41. e ° (8~ (For the transfer of allowable floor area ~°••°«° c °'°~° ••~ '~ ~°° ~,..~a«°a /cnm ..°...._° F °* from a nonhistorically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declazed unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized city official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. F. Ability to restore. 1. Non-purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandard parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single-family floor azea requirements. Section 2• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein recommended, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of May, 2008, at a meeting of the City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifreen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND OD PD as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on th day of 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings The proposed code amendments clarify the language, procedure and standards of the nonconforming structures section of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes eliminate confusing language disallowing variances for properties with bonus floor area, which created an inconsistency with the Variance Chapter of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: Allowing for additional area in an Accessory Dwelling Unit to accommodate a family currently residing in the ADU is consistent with the AACP's goal to provide affordable housing. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findings: There were originally only three approved ADU's/Carriage Houses as mandatory occupancy units in the short period of time the legislation was in effect. One of these three ADU's has had its restriction removed and the Seeman's live in a remaining mandatory occupancy unit. The applicability of the legislation is quite narrow, therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Findings: The amendment will affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Sta Findings: The amendment will affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findings: The amendment will affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Sta Findings: The expansion of an existing ADU is consistent with the community character. Mass and scale can be reviewed through the development application process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surcounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Findings: The expansion of the caretaker family (by one) has affected the subject parcel, requiring additional square footage for the changed condition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: Because of the narrow scope of applicability for this amendment, and that the intent is to allow an existing family to remain in Aspen, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Stafffands this criterion to be met. 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner EXHIBIT B. RE: Code Amendment -Section 26.312.030 -Non-Conforming Structures DATE: September 7, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code. The amendment would permit the development of additional floor area on a property that currently exceeds its maximum allowable floor area. The additional floor azea would be transferred from another property through a new TDR program. The specific case involves an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was built, along with the primary residence, with certain floor azea bonuses that have since been amended. The Background section of this memo goes into greater detail. Staff is not supporting the code amendment as proposed and is recommending denial. Staff strongly prefers any transfer of floor azea use the fledgling Historic TDR program. Otherwise, a new TDR program may dilute the potential of the Historic TDRs. The proposed text is uncleaz as to whether the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the nonconformity plus the expansion or only just the expansion floor azea. And, staff prefers a system whereby a P&Z review of the specific case is required - not a "by-right" system. However, there may be some value in further discussing the ability ofnon-conforming structures to expand or the use of more than one Historic TDR per residence through an additional review. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is interested in such a system, staff suggests P&Z provide guidance to staff for further analysis. It should be noted that, associated with asoon-to-be submitted land use application, staff is expecting a request to amend the TDR program to permit more than one TDR be landed per residence. Staff recommends denial of the proposed amendment and that P&Z provide guidance to staff on any desired alternatives to be further explored. APPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishler Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission has not previously considered this application. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor azea bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 % exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either an off-site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the mazket value of the bonus azea. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor azea exemption and the property contained too much floor azea. The City's non- conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor azea cannot be added on to.) 2 The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor azea. The storage area was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain it being exempt from floor azea. Basement levels count towazds floor area proportionately to the extent they aze exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of that basement level to count towards the property's total Floor Area allowance. The Lauder family now wants to convert the basement to habitable space to accommodate the caretaker's expanded family. To do so requires the installation of window wells to serve as emergency egress, requiring floor azea. The non- conforming status of the property prevents any additional floor azea to be developed although two development options exist. A no-net-gain plan, whereby the increase in floor azea on the ADU would be balanced with an equal floor azea reduction to the primary house, and deed restricting the ADU and selling it to the caretaker. Neither of these options have been sought. A building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor azea. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. Code amendments can be initiated by the Planning Director, the P&Z, or the City Council. Amendments can be initiated by a private party if one of the three bodies allows the application. The applicant requested staff initiate a code amendment to alleviate this circumstance and staff declined to initiate the action. The applicant approached City Council and requested they allow the application to be submitted. In allowing the application to be submitted, City Council did not endorse or otherwise address the merits of such an amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this code amendment, as written, for the following reasons: Introducing a new transferable development rights program is not recommended. The City recently created a Historic TDR program in to transfer floor area from historic landmazk properties to non-historic properties. The Historic TDR program is in its infancy and no transactions have yet occurred, although interest has been expressed. At a minimum, this proposed amendment should rely on and bolster the existing Historic TDR program and not dilute it through creation of a new system. It is uncleaz with this proposed language whether or not the proposal is to transfer only enough floor azea to accommodate the expansion or if the intent is to first accommodate the floor azea overage and then the expansion. Staff recommends that a system of permitting oversized houses to expand should require a transfer of floor azea equal to the overage plus the expansion, not just the expansion. 3 Staff also believes a review process with P&Z should be included for such an action as opposed to a by-right system as proposed. A P&Z review could weigh the merits of a specific case, the benefits to the community, impacts on the neighborhood, the resulting house size, etc. The idea of permitting more than one Historic TDR to be landed per residence may be worth pursuing. The intent of the one-per-residence allowance was to reduce potential impacts on surrounding properties and not create significantly over-scaled houses. Allowing more than one TDR to be landed per residence could be administered through a Planning and Zoning Commission review to address issues of neighborhood compatibility. The P&Z should consider the application, as submitted, and render a decision on it's merits. If the P&Z does not recommend approval of the application, staff recommends a more general discussion take place regarding the merits of permitting non-conforming structures to expand through some process and the concept of permitting more than one Historic TDR per residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed amendment as described in Resolution No. ,Series of 2004. If the proposal is not endorsed, Staff recommends P&Z conduct a general discussion and direct staff accordingly. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2004, recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion ofnon-conforming structures Note: Motions should always be made in the positive and then voted upon. This eliminates the possible confusion of a failed negative motion. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -Application 4 RESOLUTION N0. _ (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.312.030.0.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE - NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishler Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.0.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor azea; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public heazing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a to L-~ vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.312.030.0.3 to include the following text: 26.312.030 Non-conforming structures. (c> (3) Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlazged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor azea shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carnage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlazgement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 squaze foot floor azea expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standazds of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to transfer the 500 square feet of floor area, or any amount up to 500 squaze feet, from a property with excess or unused floor azea (the sending property) to the site containing the detached Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House (receiving ADU/Carriage House property). The amount of the floor area expansion bonus up to 500 square feet, will be subtracted from the maximum floor azea allowed on the sending property. Only available floor area not developed or utilized on the sending site can be transferred. A deed restriction encumbering the sending site shall be recorded to reflect the extinguished floor azea which has been transferred and is no longer available for use on the sending property. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor azea from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (1) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor azea. (Example: storage space made habitable.) (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor azea creates a unit which is more suitable for cazetaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the lazger size aze outweighed by the benefits of having a lazger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The azea and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the sunrounding neighborhood. By way of example, a 15,000 square foot lot in the R-15 zone district is allowed 4,500 square feet of floor azea. If 3,500 squaze feet of floor area in an existing home has been developed on the property, the sending site, there is 1,000 square feet of excess, unused floor area remaining. Five hundred (500) squaze feet of this unused floor azea can be transferred to an ADU or Carriage House which is non-conforming with regard to floor azea. A deed restriction limiting the allowed floor azea on the sending site to 4,000 squaze feet (4,500 square feet allowed minus the 500 square foot bonus transferred) must be recorded. To utilize this floor azea bonus, the receiving property's ADU or Carriage House after the expansion must not be lazger than the maximum size allowed APPROVED by the Commission during a public heazing on APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: 2004. Jasmine Tygre, Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Code Amendment -Public Hearing continued from September 7, 2004 Section 26.312.030 -Non-Conforming Structures DATE: September 21, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code to allow the transfer of Floor Area to accommodate the expansion of an ADU on a property with nonconforming FAR. The P&Z reviewed the amendment on September 7s' and continued the heazing with several requests for additional information. P&Z requested an understanding of the number of properties which might be eligible for this new provision. Without an extensive FAR review of the residential inventory, it is not possible to know precisely how many properties containing ADUs aze nonconforming. Staff estimates this number is very low. If the City lowers the FAR schedule in the future, more nonconformitiestyould be created and additional properties may be eligible for this provision. P&Z should not expect this provision to apply to a significant number of properties. Mr. Kaufman provided criteria for which a Special Review would be judged. These have been incorporated into the proposed resolution. These criteria should adequately address the circumstances of each case and staff supports these criteria. Staff has also provided criteria from the City's Historic TDR code for creating and extinguishing Historic TDRs. These have been modified to address this Floor Area transfer provision and cover such issues as analyzing a property for unbuilt FAR, deed restricting the sending site, acknowledging additional rights on the receiver site, and not creating or increasing nonconformities. These additional criteria maybe useful in P&Z's discussion and aze attached as Exhibit B. Lastly P&Z requested a definition Carriage Houses. Carriage Houses aze essential lazger ADUs. This term was recently defined as follows: Carriage House. A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detached from a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, and requirements set forth in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. The design standazds of the ADU/Carriage House section of the code states: An ADU must contain between 300 and 800 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be a closet or storage area. A Carriage House must contain between 800 and 1,200 net livable square feet, 10% of which must be closet or storage area. Staff recommended denial of this application due to the uncertainty of the text, a desire for these cases to be reviewed by P&Z, and a desire for the transferred floor azea to rely on the City's newly-created Historic TDR program. The first two issues are addressed with the revised text. Again, P&Z may want to consider some or all of the Historic TDR criteria of Exhibit B. Staff continues to believe the floor area should be achieved through the City's Historic TDR program is recommending denial for that reason. APPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonazd Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission considered this application on September 7, 2004, and continued it to this date. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed amendment as described in Resolution No. _, Series of 2004. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2004, recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion ofnon-conforming structures Note: Motions should always be made in the positive and then voted upon. This eliminates the possible confusion of a failed negative motion. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Proposed Resolution Exhibit B -Additional Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program Exhibit B Criteria adapted from Historic TDR Program 1. The development of asingle-family or duplex residence is a permitted use on the sending site, pursuant to Chapter 26.710 -Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. 2. It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt Floor Area, for either asingle-family or duplex home equaling or exceeding the requested Floor Area to be transferred and that the transfer will not create a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 3. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development, any approved development order, and the allowable development right prescribed by zoning for asingle-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives. 4. If the sending site has a Development Order to develop a site-specific development plan which can no longer be developed due to Floor Area being transferred from the property, then that Development Order shall be considered null and void. If the sending site has a Development Order which is unaffected by the transfer of Floor Area, then that Development Order shall remain valid. 5. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for asingle-family or duplex residence (whichever is established as the property's use) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 6. For properties with multiple or unlimited Floor Areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the Floor Area of asingle-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus the amount of Floor Area transferred. 7. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a squaze footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area for asingle-family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area. 3 9. The Receiving Site is not restricted by a prescribed Floor Area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of Historic TDR Certificates for additional development rights. 10. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the Receiver Site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. 11. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the Receiver Site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building Permit, and the additional development can be accommodated on the Receiver Site in conformance with all other relevant requirements of the Land Use Code. The transfer of Floor Area shall not permit the creation of anon-conforming use or structure. 12. Prior to, and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit on the Receiver Site for a development requiring the transferred Floor Area extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate(s), the Sending Site property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 13. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the transfer of Floor Area and increasing the available development rights of the Receiver Site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the Piktin County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable Floor Area, according to the zone district and land use of the Receiver Site at the time of building permit submission. The Receiver Site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable Floor Area and eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 4 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.312.030.0.3 OF THE CITY LAND USE CODE -NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishler Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.0.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which aze non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public heazing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued to October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and voted against, three in favor to four opposed (3-4); recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described in the land use application submitted by Gideon Kaufman. WHEREAS, the failed motion to recommend approval is considered a recommendation to not approve the project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that City Council should not approve the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described in the land use application submitted by Gideon Kaufrnan. APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on October 5, 2004. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. , Series of 2004 Page 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Ruth Kruger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. _, Series of 2004 Page 2 COMMENTS ..................................... ,, ,,. ~ ..:. 2 MINUTES ......... ......... .......... :.:...... ....m:. ,. ..h....:a ..:.:.... ':L..2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF IN'T'EREST „_, _ ,~ _~ ....... , ................. 2 INNSBRUCK INN MINOR T~~'ATIMESHARE RE VIEW...... ................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT -TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS .............. 9 1 oil and grease interceptor in the multi purpose room/kitchen._ 23,..Th_g,Applicant shall join any future improvement districts that areformed to completefuture Ciry approved improvements to the adjoining/ surrounding right-of--ways. 24. Al! exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, as maybe amended from time to time. 23.. Ali design, installation, and maintenance of the pool and spa must comply with the State of Colorado's "Swimming Pool and mineral Bath Regulations. " Poql water shall be drained directly into the sanitary sewer and shell not be drained into the storm sewer T/te Applicant must have the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District approve the dram size for the swimmngptiol and spa before installing them. 26. Each owner of an estate shall have an undivided interest in the common recreational areas within the facility, 27. The Applicant shall pay the applicable school land dedication fees as determined by the Cry of Aspen Zoning Officer prior to building permit issuance. 28. All unsold tmeshare un-}ts that are not„ , used by the Applicant for exchange, marketing or promotional purposes shall be made available for shard-term rent until purchased. This condition. shall be included ~n the PUD/Subdivision Agreement to be recorded in the Pitkn County Clerk and Recorder's O-(J3ce. 29. Nothing in the timeshare documents shall prohibit short-term rentals or occupancy. It is the intent. of this condition that the, nqn-deed restricted units shall be available for short-term rental purposes when not occupied by the purchaser or its guests or utilized for exchange programs. The Applicant shall submit timeshare documents to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to recording them at the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 30. The Applicant shall maintain the option of signing up to two (2) on-street parking spaces adjacent to the Innsbruck Inn asshort,term drgp-offparking for guests checking in and checking out. If the Applicant chooses tq sign up to two (2) on-street parking spaces as short-termdrop-offparking, they may sign the spaces either on Main Street or South Second Street. SecOnd~ by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote:. Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, no; Tygre yes. APPROVED 4-j PUBLIC HEARING:.. rnnF ~t~rFrmNrr.~v'r' _ Tu ANCFF,RABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the TDR Code. Amendment; notice was provided. Joyce Allgaier explained that Gideon Kaufinan presented this code amendment on behalf of the Lauder. family. City Council requested per Gideon Kaufman this code amendment and after_thg P&Z review it_will go to Council. Allgaier stated the former code granted floor area bonuses .for 50% for detached ADUs and another 50% for deed-restricted ADUse,so m this. situation therADU was 100% exempt from the floor area charge. The Lautier's built the main residence to the maximum floor area,.. Allgaier said. after this.. was built there was. a code. change that required ADUs to be detached and the floor area exemption was revoked unless it were condominiumizedand sold,to arworking resident. That was what .~,.~, made this property non-confornung; the Lauder property was a legally created non- conforming ADU. The applicant's wanted to convert the basement,nto livable space. Staff identified 2 options that could exist where the Lauders decreased the size of their house in order to add to the floor area of the ADU or deed„restrict and sell the ADU and neither option was being sought by the applicant at this time. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes Seutember 07, 2004 Staff did not recommend approval because it was unclear if the proposal was to allow only enough floor area to accommodate the expansion or that the TDR purchase would make up for the deficit. The proposal was for a by right system and staff felt it should be a special review to weigh in on each case-by-case scenario. Allgaier said there was the possibility of a number of applications but were not sure how many and would like to see the fledgling HPC TDRs get under way before adopting another TDR program. Gideon Kaufinan, represents the proponent of this code amendment, said that a detached and deed-restricted ADU created floor area exemptions for the residence; the code changes created the non-conformity. Kaufman said when the ADU was built there was a kitchen, bath, bedroom and living area and below grade there was an existing office, storage, mechanical and a full bathroom. Because it didn't have the required ventilation and light it didn't count in FAR. Kaufman said it was probably the best ADU built in Aspen but they have tried to figure out how to accommodate the growing needs of a family. If 2 window wells were added for the required light and ventilation then the FAR counts and you cannot add FAR because it was non-conforming. Kaufman said that was why they came forward with the proposed code amendment to help these detached and mandatory rented ADU units; he distributed an amendment to the code amendment adding special review. These TDRs from free-market housing can only be transferred to an ADU and would only count for the amount of square footage added. Kaufrnan illustrated through photos and drawings the placement of the window wells. Kaufman restated the floor area would be utilized from free-market to enhance Affordable Housing Frogram; it would be positive for the community. Jasmine Tygre inquired about the number of ADUs .that would be affected by the code amendment. Kaufman said the size of the ADU has also increased acid at special review P&Z would make the decision. Johns asked why-the TDR part of this speak to the free-market and not tie into the Historic TDR program. Kaufinan replied the Historic TDR program means that a TDR can only come from a Historic structure; those TDRs are worth $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 per TDR, which makes sense because it is free-market value but if you increase an employee unit they don't want to pay those TDR prices. Tygre asked where these TDRs would come from that would be so much cheaper. Kaufrnan replied that there were a few properties and the. TDR would include deed-restrictions but Historic TDRs could not be used for this program. io ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMT5SION -Minutes September 07.2004 Steve Skadron asked how the TDR receiving property would be able to accept the TDR if it was built to what was at the time the maximum and now why would it be acceptable. Allgaier replied that was one of issues. Kaufinan responded it was only for the affordable housing program and would not exceed what the code allowed for the ADU to be expanded up to. Tygre asked what the criteria would be cited. Kaufman replied the code for special review, compatibility with the neighborhood, impacts on water and sewer. Tygre stated that everything was in pieces and it was not clear what P&Z was to vote on; those criteria were not included. Kaufinan answered it was referenced in the code. Tygre said she wanted all the pieces in front at the same time and how many properties were involved in this type of situation. Skadron asked the size of an ADU. Johns replied the size ranged from 300 to 900 square feet net livable. The commissioners voiced concern for the incomplete information on the number of units that could be affected; the specific criteria for the special review; specific and detailed restrictions on the sending party, site specificity; the addition of dimensional requirements regarding the detached ADU and enforcement. The commissioners were concerned about the TDR program. MOTION.• Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the 7DR Code Amendment to September 21, 2004; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ckie Lothia ,Deputy City Clerk I1 ASPEN PLANNING.& ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October OS 2004 COMMENTS ...................... .:..:.:.. ......:.. ~ .....:.. ....:.:.:~ ....,:::: :.,:.;,v.:::.~.:2 MINUTES ..............................:............. ,....... ....:.... .:....::~. .~..;,.::..r....,,,..:hr::.,.:2 DECLARATIQNS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST :.....................:......:....................... 2 CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S ........:...................:.:................:....,...........::............:............. 2 LOT 1, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ......................................... a 707 E. HYIVIAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT... 5 ASPEN PLANNING & .ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October O5, 2004 Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister. Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brandon Marion, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Steve Skadron were present. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Chris Lee, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City. Clerk. COMMENTS. Ruth Kruger hoped this meeting would adjourn by 6:45 p.m. Kruger inquired about the new windows in the Elli's building and asked if they were historic or went through a historic review process. _ James Lindt will follow up on Ellis. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from July 27, August 03'd, 11 `h and 17`x, September 7`~' and 21 s` 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. Rowland, Johnson and Skadron approved the minutes, Motion Carried. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/21/04): CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Code Amendment; Chris Bendori noted this was a continued hearing from 9/21 S`. There were 5 members present for this hearing. Gideon Kaufman addressed the 2 items that concerned P&Z and placed suitable review by Planning & Zoning and staff. Kaufman raised questions regarding staff's interpretation that the only way. to accomplish this was through the Historic TDR Program. Chris Bendon stated there was concern that this would take away from the Historic TDR Program, which has not yet been pioven. Kaufman said this code amendment was for this particular unit because of code changes, which has made this anon-conforming unit so they cannot add 2 window wells to make the downstairs legally 2 bedrooms. Kaufman said their TDR code amendment was only used for employee housing; their TDR program enhances only affordable housing and doesn't have the same mark-up as the Historic TDR Program so they are not taking from that existing Historic TDR Program but they are creating a market from the surplus of free-market housing and converting it for the community. Kaufman said that each special review would go through P&Z for approval for each particular situation, which accomplishes a valuable community goal. Kaufman provided the criteria for P&Z to follow. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COIVIIGIY`SST(S1V ylifiinutes ~cfober Ug; 2~d04 Ruth Kruger asked where the TDR was coming from. Kaufman replied that it was from afree-market house that did not want to use al] of the FAR allowed. Kruger reiterated that K ~ fman was creating a new program (code amendment) that would create sendin sit es that were not historic and opening the market for a larger opportunity taking FAR from afree-market house to an ADU.' Bendon re- stated concern for the demand and the Historic Program could leverage the TDRs. Jack Johnson asked if the code had never been changed would there havebeen sufficient FAR on this property to amend this ADU. Bendon answered no. Johnson asked if the transferred floor area must acconunodate the extent of the non-conformity plus the expansion or if only just the floor area has been resolved. Bendon replied that Joyce covered the first meeting on this and P&Z addressed that question by saying that you should only cover the amount that is necessary to accommodate the actual expansion and should have to first cover the overage. Johnson asked the overage. Bendon answered it was 750 square feet. Johnson stated that was only created because the bonuses were taken away, correct. Bendon eXplained that between 1999 and 2002 where there were 2 bonuses for ADUs; one for detached ADUs that provided 50% bonus and the other was for mandatory occupancy. Bendon said there were 3 mandatory occupancy ADUs created and this was the only one occupied. Bendon said in 2002 the bonuses were taken away and the only way to ensure the 100% bonus was if the ADU was sold through the housing lottery system. Johnson asked by simply selling this ADU to the family that was living there was insufficient without a TDR. Bendon replied that was correct. Public Comments: Lynn and daughter, who live in this ADU, were present. Kaufman stated that when this unit was legally built it was mandatory rental. Kaufman stated that this code change would allow this ADU to expand and continue to house this family. Bob Staradoj, public, asked if there had ever been a case where an ADU on site has been sold. Bendon replied no; the community was looking,for the first one to be sold. Bendon added if the ADU were sold the property owner would gain a 100% of the FAR, which was exempt and the property owner gains an additional 50% FAR bonus. David Hoefer reiterated that the commission was not dealing with'a specific case for this code amendment. Bert Myrin, public, stated that the code that Jack and Chris spoke about gave an incentive to the employee side and what was presented tonight was from the employee side not the owner side. Myrin reiterated whaf Chris stated for the bonuses. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes -October OS 2004 John Rowland stated that he was in favor of this code change and the only negative aspect was administrative for staff; he said that staff could handle, the, challenge. Steve Skadron shared John's thoughts considering the resMctions placed on the economics on the property and there was a viable argument for this but Skadron also shared Jack's concem of getting this done under the.current code. rather than actually changing the code: Jack Johnson stated 3 issues: there were ways that this could be done for this family under the existing code; this code change was in the best interest for this applicant. but not for the city and voiced concerned about the TDR sending and receiving sites. Brandon Marion mirrored Jack's no vote because of the far- reaching effect on the entire city. Ruth Kruger asked how long the historic TDR program has been in existence and the number of applications to date. Beandon replied it has been iri place for about 7 months and there was one application pending. Kruger said that the vote on this. code change wouldn't diminish a program that wasn't being utilized. Kruger did not see a problem with this application and P&Z would look at each application for these types of situations. MOTION.• Brandon Marion moved. to approve Resolution #34, 2004 recommending approval of a code amendment to permit expansion of rion- conformingstructures; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Johnson, no; Marion, no; Kruger,. yes, DENIED 3-2. Bendon asked the commission if there was a particular element of this code amendment that if it were different then you would support it. Marion replied he liked the concept of giving FAR to affordable housing but wanted a more comprehensive plan than the one presented. Johnson said it would have to be a last resort otherwise more big houses were being created and Johnson wanted the Historic TDR Program to prove itself prior to creating another TDR program. Chris Bendon introduced Chris Lee the new planner. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT i, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Stream Margin Review for Lot of the Oden Lot Split. David Hoefer said that the notice was received and the requirements have been'met; the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. James Lindt stated that the Stream Margin Review was to determine the top of slope; Lot 4 EXHIBIT C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director FROM: Chris Bendon, Senior Planner RE: Code Amendment -Section 26.312.030 -Non-Conforming Structures Second Reading of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 DATE: November 22, 2004 SUMMARY: Gideon Kaufman, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted an amendment to the City's Land Use Code. The amendment would permit the development of additional floor area on a property that currently exceeds its maximum allowable floor azea. The additional floor azea would be transferred from another property through a new TDR program. The specific case involves an Accessory Dwelling Unit that was built, along with the primary residence, with certain floor area bonuses that have since been removed from the Land Use Code. The Background section of this memo goes into greater detail. Staff is not supporting the code amendment as proposed and is recommending denial. Staff strongly prefers any transfer of floor area use the fledgling Historic TDR program. Anew TDR program may dilute the potential of the Historic TDRs. During the Planning and Zoning Commission review, two other aspects of the proposed code amendment were addressed. Clazification was provided on whether the transferred floor azea must accommodate the extent of the nonconformity plus the expansion or only just the expansion floor azea. The proposed text was revised to clarify that TDRs would only be needed to cover the expansion, not the current overage. The second issue dealt with staff and P&Z's preference for a system whereby a P&Z review of the specific case is required - not a "by-right" system. The proposed text was amended by the applicant to this effect. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial by a three to two (3 against, 2 for) vote. Staff is also recommending denial of this proposed code amendment. Staff would support this amendment if it relied on the Historic TDR Program. Minutes of the P&Z hearing are being prepared and will be provided for second reading. 1 APPLICANT: Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishler Attorneys, representing Leonazd Lauder, property owner. PREVIOUS ACTION: The Commission recommended denial of this code amendment by a three to two (3-2) vote. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. BACKGROUND: The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor azea bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 % exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor area bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either anoff--site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the mazket value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor azea exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non- conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor azea cannot be added on to.) 2 The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor azea. The storage azea was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain it being exempt from floor azea. Basement levels count towazds floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of that basement level to count towazds the property's total Floor Area allowance. The Lauder family now wants to convert the basement to habitable space to accommodate the cazetaker's expanded family. To do so requires the installation of window wells to serve as emergency egress, requiring floor azea. The non- conforming status of the property prevents any additional floor area to be developed although two development options exist. A no-net-gain plan, whereby the increase in floor azea on the ADU would be balanced with an equal floor azea reduction to the primary house, and deed restricting the ADU and selling it to the cazetaker. Neither of these options have been sought. A building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor azea. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. Code amendments can be initiated by the Planning Director, the P&Z, or the City Council. Amendments can be initiated by a private party if one of the three bodies allows the application. The applicant requested staff initiate a code amendment to alleviate this circumstance and staff declined to initiate the action. The applicant approached City Council and requested they allow the application to be submitted. In allowing the application to be submitted, City Council did not endorse or otherwise address the merits of such an amendment. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff does not support this code amendment. Introducing anew transferable development rights program is not recommended. The City recently created a Historic TDR program to transfer floor azea from historic landmazk properties to non- historic properties. The Historic TDR program is in its infancy and no transactions have yet occurred, although interest has been expressed. A potential applicant has pre-app'd with staff and a potential 16 Historic TDRs could be created. At a minimum, this proposed amendment should rely on and bolster the existing Historic TDR program and not dilute it through creation of a new system. The Historic TDR Program was established to facilitate an important community goal - the preservation of historic resources - and a demand for Historic TDRs is critical for the program's viability. 3 The applicant has clazified the proposed text addressing whether or not the proposal is to transfer only enough floor azea to accommodate the expansion or if the intent is to first accommodate the floor azea overage and then the expansion. The text was also amended to require a P&Z review to weigh the merits of each specific case, the benefits to the community, impacts on the neighborhood, the resulting house size, etc. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council not adopt this ordinance. Staff does support a similaz code amendment which relies on the Historic TDR Program for transferring squaze footage. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.35, Series of 2004." ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.35, Series of 2004, with the amendments described in Exhibit D." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Review Criteria and Staff Comments Exhibit B -Application (provided with 151 reading packet) Exhibit C - P&Z minutes. Exhibit D -Proposed amendments to Ordinance to use Historic TDR Program. 4 Exhibit A Non-Conforming Structure Amendment STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Findin¢: The proposed code amendment intends to create a process to allow a property owner to expand anon-conforming structure by transferring floor azea from another property. The proposed text does not cleazly indicate whether the floor azea by which the structure is non-conforming (the overage) is to be part of the required floor area transferred. This ambiguity needs to be corrected. Otherwise, the text will need to be interpreted prior to its use. Staff does not believe this standard is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP speaks to both limiting the size of houses, for community chazacter reasons, and promoting affordable housing opportunities, especially by the private sector. This code amendment could address both issues by transferring floor area from one lot to another and by increasing opportunity for affordable housing. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Findin¢: This amendment is proposed for all residential zone districts and is not specific to one parcel. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergericy medical facilities. staff comments page 1 F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findine: The proposed amendment does not allow for any density changes and no impacts on infrastructure aze expected as a result of the amendment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: The amendment would make it easier to make an addition to existing ADUs located on lots where more than the allowable floor azea has been developed. The flexibility for ADUs is compatible with community chazacter. The increase in allowable square footage for a particular lot could be out of scale with surrounding properties and could be considered out of chazacter. Without a review process to determine the neighborhood compatibility of each use of this code amendment, staff does not believe this standard is met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Findine: The amendment is not specific to one pazcel. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Findin¢: This proposed amendment could dilute the potential of the recently adopted Historic Transferable Development Rights Program. This would occar if any property could become a sending site for floor azea. Staff believes this represents a conflict with the public interest -namely the public interest of preservation of historic resources through the Historic TDR program. staff comments page 2 Ordinance No. 35 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA -SECTION 26.312.030.0.3 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE -NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonard Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.0.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor azea; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a three to two (3-2) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1• Section 26.312.030.0 of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwellin¢ Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) squaze feet of floor azea, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carriage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlazgement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 squaze foot floor azea expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor area) is required to be mitigated. If the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise, an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to extinguish Historic Transferable Development Rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.535, up to a maximum of 500 square feet. In addition to the ability to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right, as discussed above, an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, and only an ADU unit that is deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, shall have the option to apply to transfer up to a maximum of 500 square feet from anon-historically designated property that has sufficient available floor area pursuant to the special review procedures detailed in this section. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor area from a TDR maybe approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (1) The additional floor azea is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor azea. (Example: storage space made habitable.) Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 2 (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor azea creates a unit which is more suitable for cazetaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor azea approved through this section of the Code. (6) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor azea, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (7) Historic Transferable Development Rights, commensurate with the floor azea expansion, aze extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535 -Historic Transferable Development Rights. (8) For the transfer of allowable square footage up to 500 squaze feet from anon- historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, the Applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the Mandatory Occupancy ADU. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 3 Section 5• A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22"d day of November, 2004, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _day of _, 2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Reconsideration of Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Code Amendment for Non-Conforming Accessory Dwelling Units DATE: January 10, 2005 SUMMARY: On November 22, 2004, City Council considered Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, and voted to adopt it by a 3 to 2 vote. At the next regulaz City Council meeting, December 13, 2004, City Council voted to reconsider the Ordinance with specific questions regazding the number of Historic TDRs the Ordinance allows to be transferred to a property. The Ordinance was amended during the motion and discussion to permit up to 500 square feet to be transferred to anon-conforming property containing an Accessory Dwelling Unit through the City's Historic TDR Program. This equates to two (2) TDRs of 250 square feet each. The amended Ordinance also permits up to 500 squaze feet to be transferred from anon-historic property to anon-conforming property contain an ADU which is restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. There is no TDR equivalency for this second option, only a square footage limit. The specific question relates to the number of TDRs which Council intended to be transferred to any one property through Ordinance 35. City Planner James Lindt, who presented the amendment, recalls the discussion leading up to the motion as involving a total limit of 500 square feet, equivalent to two TDRs of 250 square feet each. The code amendment application, submitted by Gideon Kaufman, requests the ability to transfer 500 square feet and the Applicant's recollection of the heazing is that the ability to transfer 500 squaze feet was approved. City Clerk Kathryn Koch listened to the tape of the heazing. The motion included reference to a maximum of 500 square feet and the discussion included a clarifying question from Planner Lindt. Verbatim minutes are attached. Staff believes Council's intent was to permit up to two Historic TDRs (500 squaze feet) to be transferred to anon-conforming property containing and Accessory 1 Dwelling Unit and up to 500 square feet to be transferred from anon-historic property to anon-conforming property containing an ADU restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. Based on this review of the record, staff recommends City Council approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, as amended. STAFF COMMENTS Planning staff is satisfied with the result of the code amendment discussion of November 22"d. Staff originally objected to the creation of another TDR program as staff believed it could detract from the Historic TDR Program. The result of Council's discussion on November 22nd is satisfactory in that it relies on the Historic TDR Program in all cases accept when the Accessory Dwelling Unit is restricted to Mandatory Occupancy. There aze three properties containing ADUs restricted to Mandatory Occupancy and staff does not believe this represents a significant threat to the Historic TDR Program. Staff believes Ordinance 35, as amended, represents a reasonable solution. Staff amended Ordinance 35 according to the motion of November 22"d. These amendments aze reflected in the attached version of Ordinance 35, Series of 2004. CITY MANAGER°S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004, as amended." ATTACHMENTS: A -Proposed Ordinance 35, Series of 2004. B -City Council verbatim minutes of 11.22.04 motion and discussion. 2 Reeular Meetine Asaen City Council November 22, 2004 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ................................................................................. ..... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................................................... ..... 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ....................................................................................... ..... 3 • Resolution #122, 2004 -State Rehabilitation Tax Credits ................................ ..... 3 • Resolution #117, 2004 -Contract Parking Gazage Equipment .......................... .... 3 • Minutes -November 8, 2004 .............................................................................. .... 3 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ............................................................... .... 3 • Ordinance #38, 2004 -Fees ................................................................................ .... 3 • Ordinance #41, 2004 -Utility Rates .................................................................. ..... 3 • Ordinance #42, 2004 -Supplemental Appropriation ........................................ ..... 3 • Ordinance #43, 2004 -Code Amendment -Historic Benefits ......................... ..... 3 • Ordinance #44, 2004 - De-listing From Historic Inventory 308 and 719 E. Hopkins ...................................................................................................................... ..... 3 • Ordinance #45, 2004 -Aspen Meadows SPA Amendments ............................ ..... 3 RESOLUTION # 114, SERIES OF 2004 -Highlands Villas Annexation Compliance With State Statute .............................................................................. ..... 5 RESOLUTION # 115, SERIES OF 2004 - Baz/X Annexation ..................... ..... 6 RESOLUTION #116, SERIES OF 2004 - AMCORD/AVLT Annexation... s RESOLUTION #120, SERIES OF 2004 -Burlingame Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD ........................................................................................................ ..... 9 ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2004 -Code Amendment Non-Conforming Structures ..................................................................................................................... ... 14 ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2004 -Chart House GMQS Allocation. ... 16 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2004 -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District PUD/Master Plan ....................................................................................... ... 17 RESOLUTION #118, SERIES OF 2004 -Adoption of 2005 Budget........ ... zo RESOLUTION #119, SERIES OF 2004 - 2005 Mill Levy .......................... ... 22 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2004 -Bar/X Annexation ......................... ... zz ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2004 - AMCORD/AVLT Annexation... ... 22 1 Reeular MeetinH Aspen Citv Council November 22, 2004 Council agreed to continue the list of design options to December 14`h ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2004 -Code Amendment Non- conforming Structures James Lindt, community development department, told Council this code amendment proposes a new TDR system to allow for transfer of allowable FAR in 500 square foot increments from properties that have excess FAR available to properties that have exceeded their allowable FAR but the TDRs would only be allowed for the expansion of ADUs or carnage houses. Lindt told Council staff does not support this code amendment. Staff feels this will take away from the demand side of the historic TDR system recently adopted by Council. Lindt noted this could be accomplished through the historic TDR system with some language changes, which language is presented in the staff memorandum. Council's options are to approve the ordinance as written with the creation ofnon-historic TDRs, or approve staff's recommended language using historic TDRs, or deny the code amendment. P&Z recommended denial of this code amendment. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council this code amendment would allow for a positive result for employee housing. Kaufman told Council this is about a caretaker unit approved and built. After the cazetaker unit was built, there was a code amendment, which made the caretaker unit non-conforming as to FAR and eliminated any flexibility. The cazetakers of this particular unit are a couple with two children. Kaufman showed pictures of the freestanding caretaker unit. Kaufman told Council in order to accommodate two bedrooms in the lower level, window wells are required. Installation of window wells changes the FAR. Kaufman said the TDR in this code amendment can only be used in an ADU; it cannot be used to expand a free market house. The staff's recommendation will not work as the existing historic TDR program is not allowed to expand ADUs. Historic TDRs are to be used to increase the size of free market units so the cost of historic TDRs will be higher. The proposed code amendment will help affordable housing in Aspen at no cost to the city. Kaufman told Council there were people here to testify in favor of this code amendment who had to leave before this public hearing. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. t4 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council November 22, 2004 Dwayne Romero urged Council to support this TDR program. Romero said the sales price for historic TDRs would overwhelm this type of program; the historic TDRs are not economically viable for increasing the size of ADUs. Toni Kronberg said this is a creative way to keep families in town. Lyrm, asked for the opportunity to make Aspen their home. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau asked about selling the ADU to the occupants. Kaufman said then the owner of the property would lose control of their caretaker unit. Kaufrnan told Council this code amendment will apply to mandatory occupancy ADUs only. Mayor Klanderud said the free market house with the ADU got the full benefit of the code in place at the time. Mayor Klanderud said she feels the historic TDR would solve the problem. Kaufman said it is an economic issue. Mayor Klanderud stated she supports the goal the applicant is trying to achieve. Kaufman reiterated this TDR program is only going to ADUs, not free market houses. Councilwoman Richards the goal of making the basement livable and keeping a family in town is laudable. This is one of the only mandatory ADUs where the owner has not tried to get rid of that condition. Councilwoman Richards said she feels the free market house sizes in Aspen are too large and she would favor ways to use up FAR for free market structures. Councilwoman Richards said she has no problem with this code amendment as long as it is to the benefit of families staying in town. Lindt noted if this is mandatory occupancy only, it would apply to 2 units in the city. Councilman Torre asked if there will be value added to this property by converting a two bedroom ADU to a three bedroom house. Kaufman said this mandatory ADU is right next to the main house and the benefit is having employees close and allowing that family to grow. This would allow community housing. Councilman Torre said the owners of the property will see an increase in the value of their structures. Mayor Klanderud said she supports the goal in this code amendment; however, she is concerned that this is an exception for 2 or 3 properties. Also this code amendment could have broad implications unknown at this time. Mayor Klanderud stated she could support staff's recommendation incorporating the historic TDRs. This would dilute the benefit of historic properties. 15 Regular Meetine Aspen City Council November 22, 2004 Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2004, amending it allow mandatory occupancy only ADUs to take advantage of either a historic TDR or a transfer of FAR from a free market lot; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Councilwoman Richards said this is a very limited in scope and a subset type of growth in the city's code. This may make more ADUs used and livable in the future. Councilwoman Richards noted the city eliminated mandatory occupancy of ADUs in the code because no one was building these units. Developers preferred payment-in-lieu. Councilwoman Richards stated it is worth rewarding someone who is not asking to get out from their mandatory occupancy ADU. Councilwoman Richards amended her motion to include to the maximum allowable FAR for an ADU or a maximum of 500 fee for a TDR; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; 5emrau, no; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #36. SERIES OF 2004 -Chart House GMQS Allocation James Lindt, community development department, told Council this ordinance grants a growth management allocation to the Chart House for 11 tourist accommodations. The applicants originally took the project to P&Z for growth management scoring before conceptual PUD. P&Z did not give it a passing score because it did not have conceptual PUD approval. After that review, P&Z restored the application and granted a passing score. Council may accept the score, amend the score or remand it back to P&Z. Lindt noted P&Z acted appropriately and scored this under the land use code. Staff reports there are enough tourist accommodation available. Staff recommends allocating 11 growth management quota contingent upon receiving final PUD approval. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, reminded Council they granted conceptual approval October 23'x. When P&Z reviewed this, they gave above threshold scores in all categories. Clauson stated this project will go back to P&Z and to Council for final review. 16 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council January 10, 2005 ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING ....................................................................... 2 COUNCIL MEETING ................................................................................................... ..... 2 OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARD ...................................................... ..... 2 GIS PRESENTATION .................................................................................................. ..... 2 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... ..... 2 COUNCII.MEMBER COMMENTS ............:.....................................:.......................... ..... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR .................................................:............................................. .... 4 • Resolution #1, 2005 -Posting of Public Notices ............................................... .... 4 • Boazd Appointments ........................................................................................... ....4 o Wheeler Opera House Jim Berdahl -Music Representative ............................ ..... 4 o CCLC Terry Butler ............................................................................................ .... 4 Shae Singer ................................................................................................................. .... 4 Don Sheeley ..................................................................................:............................ ..... 4 Stan Hagenga ............................................................................................................. ..... 4 o P&Z Brian Speck, altemate .............................................................................. ..... 4 o HPC Michael Hoffrnan ..................................................................................... ..... 4 o LLA Jeff Wertz ................................................................................................. ..... 4 • Minutes -November 30, December 13, 2004 .................................................... .... 4 SKI COMPANY SPECIAL EVENT SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST .......................... ..... 5 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ......................................................:................... .... 5 • Ordinance #1, 2005 -Little Ajax PUD .............................................................. .... 5 • Ordinance #2, 2005 -Code Amendment -Seasonal Outdoor Food Vending.. ..... 5 • Ordinance #3, 2005 - 1201 Riverside Drive Rezoning ..................................... ..... 5 • Ordinance #4, 2005 - 701 West Main Street Historic Lot Split ........................ ..... 5 • Ordinance #5, 2005 -Code Amendment -Commercial Design/Pedestrian Amenities ................................................................................................................... ..... 5 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2004 -Highland Villas Annexation ......................... ..... 6 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2004 -Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Master Plan/SPA ........................................................................................................................ ..... 7 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2004 - Baz/X Annexation ......................................... ..... 8 ORDINANCE #4Q SERIES OF 2004 - AMCORD/AVLT Annexation ...................... ..... 8 CLARIFICATION ON ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #35, 2004 -Code Amendment TDRs for ADUs ............................................................................................................. ..... 9 X GAMES WINTER CONCERTS NOISE VARIANCE ............................................. ..... 9 1 Reeular Meeting Aspen City Council January 10.2005 CLARIFICATION ON ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #35.2004 -Code Amendment TDRs for ADUs Chris Bendon, community development director, reminded Council there was some confusion with the intent of Council and the minutes. Bendon said he met with staff and listened to the tape of the Council meeting. The intent of Council was that 500 square feet could be transferred to the property that has anon-conforming ADU. The change Council made at the meeting November 22 was to allow that squaze footage to come from any property if the ADU is mandatory occupancy. Bendon said this 500 squaze feet can be 2 historic TDRS or 500 squaze feet from anon-historic property. Bendon said the amendment made at the November 22"d meeting is an improvement to the ordinance. There aze only 3 ADUs restricted to mandatory occupancy. Bendon noted Ordinance #35 has been updated to included the amendments made in November. Councilman Semrau asked what mechanism will be used to freeze the square footage on the property from which the squaze footage is being transferred. Bendon said there will be a deed restriction on the sending property. Bendon said they will have to keep files of property that have sent square feet. Council agreed with the amended Ordinance #35, Series of 2004. X GAMES WINTER CONCERTS NOISE VARIANCE John ffigney, Aspen Skiing Company, told Council this request is for atwo-day event in conjunction with the X games and they thought Wagner Park would lie a fun and new venue. David Laughren, Avalanche Productions, told Council he met with the Crystal Palace and they have reached an agreement that their show will start earlier and the X games concert will start slightly later. Laughren said these are free concerts for the participants; they aze not free to put on. In order to put on these types of events, there are sponsors and the concert venue will have a sponsor tent. This tent is not in front of the stage; there are no roped off areas and the tent will not block any views. The sponsor tent is to the west side of the pazk. Tom Rubel, pazks department, noted there is concern about winter events in Wagner pazk that are not floored. Most of the events that have been approved for this winter will be floored, which is expensive. Rubel said there is a possibility that Wagner Park would have to be resodded as a result of the compaction if there is a wet, heavy snow and a lot of people in the park. Laughren said they aze working with the pazks department to alleviate these issues. There will be no wheeled vehicles in the pazk; they will use a snowcat to bring in all equipment. They plan on grooming the park before the event, which should set up and provide a hazd snow surface. Councilwoman Richards said it is appropriate that staff bring these issues to Council to make decisions. Councilwoman Richazds asked the cost to resod the park. Rubel said it could be up to $60,000. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to support this to find out how the park will stand up. Councilwoman Richards said she does not want to 9 EXHIBIT D MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jason Lasser, Special Projects Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director MEETING DATE: February 19, 2008 RE: Code Amendments to Section 26.312.030 (C) -Nonconforming Structures -Resolution No. _, Series 2008 -Public Hearing SUMMARY: Alice Davis, on behalf of the Lauder family, has submitted a number of text amendments with regazd to the nonconformities chapter of the Land Use Code as it relates to a code amendment submitted on behalf of the Landers in 2004 (Ord. No. 35). The City sponsorship allows the Amendment to be processed outside of the biannual dates typically required. Staff has worked with the applicant to clarify the language of the original Ordinance. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The City is requesting the following from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Determination if application to amend code text meets Standards of Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310.040 Standazds of Review. A noticed. public heazing on a text amendment is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission so that a recommendation can be provided by the Commission to the City Council. Final decision is by the City Council. APPLICANT: Alice Davis, Davis Horn Inc. and Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Attorneys, representing Leonazd Lauder, property owner and Chris and Lynn Seeman, ADU occupants. PREVIOUS ACTION' The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an amendment to the non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code in 2004 and recommended denial at a public heazing on October 5, 2004. The City Council approved Ordinance #35, Series of 2004, on November 22, 2004, allowing for amendments to the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code. The amendment allowed a property that was legally established and non-conforming with regard to floor azea (over maximum allowable0 to add up to 500 square feet of floor azea to an ADU. BACKGROUND' The Lauder residence and ADU were built in compliance with the City's Floor Area code, which has since been amended. The former code granted two floor azea bonuses for Accessory Dwelling Units. Fifty percent of an ADU's floor area was exempt if the ADU structure was detached from the primary residence and another 50% was exempt if the ADU was deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Together, a 100% exemption was available for an ADU that was both detached and mandatory occupancy. The Lauder ADU qualified for this 100 exemption and the primary house was developed to the maximum size considering the bonus. During the period of this mandatory occupancy floor azea bonus, three ADU's were developed with a mandatory occupancy restriction. The City experienced significant difficulty in administering the mandatory occupancy and, in 2001, decided to remove this option from the code altogether. The ADU code was amended to require ADUs be detached to gain a growth management exemption for the primary residence and the floor area exemption was retooled to provide a 100% exemption only if the ADU was condominiumized and sold to a local working resident through the Housing Authority's Guidelines. The program allows the property owner to choose the first purchaser, as long as that person qualifies through the Housing Guidelines. At the same time as eliminating the mandatory occupancy bonus, the City amended the code to provide a process of removing the mandatory occupancy restriction from an existing ADU through a landowner provision of either anoff--site deed restricted unit or a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the mazket value of the bonus area. This was done in response to a landowner with a mandatory occupancy ADU. The City's code amendment in 2001 made the Lauder property a "legally created non- conformity." Specifically, the Lauder ADU no longer qualified for a floor area exemption and the property contained too much floor area. The City's non-conforming regulations allow legally created non-conformities to exist in perpetuity, but prohibit expansions of the non-conformity. (i.e. a house that is over it's floor azea cannot be added on to.) The Lauder ADU is a one-floor unit developed over a storage basement that was also exempt from the calculation of floor area. The storage area was purposely developed as non-inhabitable space (no window wells) to maintain its being exempt from floor azea. Basement levels count towazds floor area proportionately to the extent they are exposed. Window wells increase the exposure and require more of the basement level to count towazds the property's total Floor Area allowance. Prior to the initial Code Amendment request in 2004, a building permit to install window wells in the ADU structure was submitted to the Building Department and denied due to a lack of floor azea. The improvements were built without a permit and the construction was "red tagged" by the Building Department. The improvements were then removed and the property returned to its previous condition. An application to amend the Non-conformities chapter of the Land Use Code was submitted in 2004 requesting modifications to the nonconforming structures section with regard to extensions and ADUs and Carriage Houses. Public heazings followed at both Planning and Zoning and City Council. As a result, Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 2004) was passed. Page 2 of 3 ¢t In Mazch 2007, the City was approached by Alice Davis and Gideon Kaufrnan to discuss the possibility of acting upon the approved language of Ord. #35, Series of 2004. Staff and the applicant representatives have worked to clarify the language which is applicable to only one mandatory occupancy unit (Lauder ADU). STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has enclosed a Resolution that demonstrates code text amendments using °'°~'°'°"'°~.~ in red for removed text and underlined. blue shading: to denote new text. Each change, or set of related changes, is accompanied by a numbered red box in the left column. To understand the vazious code text amendments, it may be easiest to look through the Resolution identified as Exhibit B to see the exact code language changes -- while consulting the explanatory text below, which offers a rationale for each code text amendment, using the red boxes. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The general allowances for non-conforming structures is now rolled in Section C, the exceptions to "C" aze now formatted as a subsection of "C". Clazifies the current text by following a more logical format -that the increase in floor azea is only available for ADUs with mandatory occupancy and then breaks the procedure and review standazds into subsections. To increase floor area on a property, the application is reviewed as a special review application (requiring notice and heazing before the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the application must meet the design review standards for an ADU or carriage house and meet additional review standazds in the non- conforming section. Most important is mitigating for the additional floor azea via extinguishment of a TDR or un-built floor azea from another property. Combines standazds 1 and 2, eliminates standrsd 5 (no vaziance from setbacks can be required), clarifies the standard for TDR extinguishment, and the final standard language has been modified to omit a square footage number from transfer from non-historic properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this application for vazious code text amendments to Section 26.312.030 (C), Extensions RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2008, finding that the application for code text amendments meets the applicable Standards of Review." ATTACHMENTS: Ext IIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff findings EXHIBIT C -Color coded Resolution with proposed text amendments EXHIBIT B - 2004 Minutes - P+Z (Sept. 7, Oct 5), City Council (Nov. 22) Page 3 of 3 EXI3IIlIT A Chapter 26.310 AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Sta Findings: The proposed code amendments clarify the language, procedure and standards of the nonconforming structures section of the Land Use Code. The proposed changes eliminate confusing language disallowing variances for properties with bonus~loor area, which created an inconsistency with the Variance Chapter of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. StaffFinding_sr Allowing for additional area in an Accessory Dwelling Unit to accommodate a family currently residing in the ADU is consistent with the AACP's goal to provide affordable housing. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Sta11'Findings: There were originally only two approved ADU's/Carriage Houses approved as a mandatory occupancy unit in the short period of time the legislation was in effect. One of these two ADU's has had it's restriction removed and the Seeman's live in the one mandatory occupancy unit remaining. The applicability of the legislation is quite narrow, therefore Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. StaffFindinQS: The amendment will only affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Stafl'Findings: The amendment will only affect one unit and family. Staff does not fnd this criterion to be applicable. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Findings: The amendment will only affect one unit and family. Staff does not find this criterion to be applicable. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Findings: The expansion of an existing ADU is consistent with the community character. Mass and scale can be reviewed through the development application process. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Stafj Findings.• The expansion of the caretaker family (by one) has affected the subject parcel, requiring additional square footage for the changed condition. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: Because of the narrow scope of applicability for this amendment, and that the intent is to allow an existing family to remain in Aspen, Staff finds that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION No. (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ASPEN, COLORADO, DETERMINING THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AND SECTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.312.030 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES -MEET APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF REVIEW. WHEREAS, previous amendments to Section 26.312.030 submitted by the Lauders were adopted in Ordinance 35, Series of 2004, but were not codified; and, WHEREAS, after meeting with the Lauder representatives, the Community Development Director requested that the representatives submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.208, to clarify the adopted language; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030 C., Extensions, of the Land Use Code and would permit additional floor azea on properties with a mandatory occupancy accessory dwelling unit and which are legally established nonconformities with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council afer reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Februazy 19, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Nonconforming Structures, as described herein, by a vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text being removed is strikethrough and red. ' .Text being added is underlined and blue. Text being added looks like this. Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: Section 1: Section 26.312.030 -Nonconforming Structures, shall read as follows: Sec. 26.312.030.Nonconforming structures. A. Authority to continue. A nonconforming structure devoted to a use permitted in the zone district in which it is located may be continued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance to nonconforming structures may be performed without affecting the authorization to continue as a nonconforming structure. C. Extensions. lrr A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A nonconforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the nonconformity. ~: 1. Historic structures. The sn4y first exception to this requirement shall be for a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such structures may be extended into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, may be extended into the minimum distance between buildings on a lot and may be enlarged, provided, however, such enlargement does not exceed the allowable floor azea of the existing structure by more than five hundred (500) square feet, complies with all other requirements of this Title and receives development review approval as required by Chapter 26.415. 3- 2. Mandatory occupancy Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. The exly second ethee exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (t4BFJ~ or Carriage House ("ADU") havine a mandatory occupancy requirement. Such a detached ADU may be enlarged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor area, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU eF-ea~iage-I~eNSe and also provided that the ADU e~s~iage-}~ec~se does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or carriage house. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title and shall receive development review approval as required herein. n ~..:,.... nl .... _....n..« «,, rl.n..«,... ~G non T6n C...n 1.....,1..,,,1 /Cnn\ ......non Cn..« Fl,.,.~ n~nn n.,..n....:.... ... n., l.n nll,...,n,l :C «6e ....:« I:«.:«n,l « n C.«,J:«.. «H n« «I.n n nl.nll l.n n ..n«:l.ln ...:tl. «l.n nl.n~nn«n,. ,.4' «I.n In..nll., n nn«n.J ., n.. Cn.......:.... ~l,.n~ n n /al.n n ., 11,.,.E n Ana «,. l.n ~~ TC «l.n : ,.{~ «l.n ,~ n«.Jn,J « I.n n..CC. n: n..«I.. ...: «:..n«n,l ..«l.n~..,:..n Li: nar...:,, T...,.,nF .°t,l° Tl,...,.1..«.,,..«a D:T6en n..a ar. !`1....,a°.. 7G c']C .... a,. n .,.,., ..:........ ..C F...n 6,.«.l.n.l /[!1!1\ ~.... n.e F ea T« ...lrJ:a:..« a,, al,,...l.:l:a. a ,..,a: «....: nl, n Ll:na,.«r, T~n.,nF .n l.In Iln.,nl..«. .. n.,a TJ :..I.a n a:n,,..nn.,.l ., 1.....° A Tli i .1.....1 ....na..:.,a,. ,l ., «.ina,.~., ,. .,:a n«A ll..l., n A Tii at...a :n a°°a .. a,.,l n «.1 nar.~., ,. .,:a nl.nll 1, n..n al.° ....a:..., ar, a) Procedure. The procedure for increasing the maximum floor area of a proper ~ for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU requires the submission of a development application. The development application shall be processed under Chapter 26.430, Special Review. b) Review Standards. An application for increasine the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU shall meet the fn sr~ileria standards in Section 26.520.050, Design Standards, unless otherwise approved pursuant to Section 26.520.080, Special Review, "°°- °-°° ~°--• TT1D --•°• '•° °-°-°°°a p~suan~-te as well as the following additional review er-iteeis standards: {1)Newly established floor area may increase the ADU up to a cumulative maximum of 500 sa. ft. of floor area and is reouired to be miti¢ated by either of the followingtwo options alExtineuishment of Historic Transferable Development Rieht Certificates ("certificate" or "certificates"). A property owner may increase the ADU by extinguishment of a maximum of two certificates with a transfer ratio of 250 su. ft. of floor area ner each certificate. Refer to Chapter 26.535 for the procedures for extineuishine certificates (blExtinsruishment of unused floor area from another property. A property owner may increase the maximum floor area of a property for the purpose of increasing the size of an ADU by extineuishment of a maximum of 500 square feet of available unbuilt floor area from one property to the ADU. (a-j(2) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) '''~ or the additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional impacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3j ~ The additional floor area creates a unit which is more suitable for caretaker families. (-0j ~ The increased impacts from the larger size are outweighed by the benefits of having a larger, more desirable ADU. ((kj (5) The area and bulk of the ADU structure, after the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (6) For the transfer of allowable floor area through the use of Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates, the certificates shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights. /7\ Ll:..t,.~:.. T~......F ~..l.le Tl,.....1,....«,...~ D:..6 ~,. ....f.. .. d~6 t6., A,.,.. ;siar,;-~-a~~inguished~arsuent to EhaPter 26.333 u:~«,._;,.._......r _„wie (8j (~ For the transfer of allowable floor area /cnn~ from a nonhistorically designated property to an ADU deed- restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, the applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor azea from the sending property to the mandatory occupancy ADU. D. Relocation. A nonconforming structure shall not be moved unless it thereafter conforms to the standards and requirements of the zone district in which it is located. E. Unsafe structure. Any portion of a nonconforming structure which becomes physically unsafe or unlawful due to lack of repairs and maintenance and which is declared unsafe or unlawful by a duly authorized city official, but which an owner wishes to restore, repair or rebuild shall only be restored, repaired or rebuilt in conformity with the provisions of this Title. F. Ability to restore 1. Nonpurposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is demolished or destroyed by an act of nature or through any manner not purposefully accomplished by the owner, may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued withintwenty-four (24) months of the date of demolition or destruction. 2. Purposeful destruction. Any nonconforming structure which is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a different structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of this Title or unless replacement of the nonconformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.430, Special Review. Any structure which is nonconforming in regards to the permitted density of the underlying zone district may maintain that specific nonconformity only if a building permit for the replacement structure is issued within twelve (12) months of the date of demolition or destruction.* *A duplex or two single-family residences on a substandard parcel in a zone district permitting such use is a nonconforming structure and subject to nonconforming structure replacement provisions. Density on a substandazd parcel is permitted to be maintained but the structure must comply with the dimensional requirements of the Code including single- family floor area requirements. (Ord. No. 1-2002, § 6 [part]; Ord. No. 9-2002, § 5; Ord. No. 35-2004, § 1) Section 2• A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on the 19th day of February, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Room, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. ~'E~ Section 3• This Resolution sha-1 not effect/affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein recommended, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of , 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: JimTrue, Assistant City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Aspen Planning & ZOn-ng Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 MINUTES ..................................................................................................................2 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ....................................................2 CODE AMENDMENT PUBLIC NOTICE ...............................................................2 CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NON-CONFORMITIES ............................5 ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICALLY PLANNED AREA ...................6 I Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 LJ Erspamer, vice-chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners present were Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia and Dylan Johns were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Jason Lasser, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Dina Bloom moved to approve the minutes from January 29`" and February S`"; seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor, approved. Stan Gibbs requested that staff memos be embedded in the documents for one point of reference to follow the resolutions. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LJ Erspamer wanted to disclose that he was the main organizer for the 3 committees for the ARC but at the time there were not any weight rooms or aerobic rooms; so this was a disclosure. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT PUBLIC NOTICE LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Jim True stated this was a public hearing and it was duly noticed; published once, all that was required. True said the two questions that remained after last week's discussion were 1. the content of the notice and if there should be a mailing address and additional information provided by an applicant; there would be a statement that a hearing may be continued from time to time and 2. whether the posted notice shall remain on the property throughout the process or some other aspect of that, shall the dates be changed rather than the from time to time language. True reiterated the two issues 1. is the content of the notice as far as the name and additional information of the applicant and 2. whether posted notices shall remain up after the initial hearing if there is a continuance and how it should remain up. True said this was totally discretionary at P&Z and will go to Council with either a recommendation of approval or denial. Michael Wampler said he read the minutes and memo and he agreed that the notice should stay up through the hearing and if the hearing is continued the date should be posted on the notice because things were changing. True said that there would 2 Aspen PlanninL+ & Zonine Commission MeetinE Minutes -February 19, 2008 be a change to the code that says there need not be any new notice or second notice and there would have to be an additional affidavit before every continued hearing that was re-posted; again there wasn't that significant a problem and it was a legitimate request on this commission's part. Stan Gibbs asked what was the point of "the best of the applicant's ability". True replied that was a comment that Jennifer made at the meeting saying that we would not require a new affidavit saying it had been up that would be their best efforts to keep it up throughout the process; she did not want notices to disappear and applicants not necessarily know that the notice was gone and have somebody come in a say the process is defective because it was not up. Gibbs said that they understand that there is some room but it was like saying you have to stop at a stop sign to the best of your ability; laws were not written that way. True stated that you were just trying not to create a situation where somebody says the process was defective or you make a requirement then there needs to be affidavits. Dina Bloom said that Jennifer made it clear that in other communities there have been problems of signs that did not stay throughout and then the process would stop and she did not want that to happen here so "the best of the applicant's ability" makes sense. LJ Erspamer asked the consequences if the sign does fall down and the applicant does an affidavit that it was up. True said there was a risk that somebody says that you have to re-notice and start over or get a continued hearing. Chris Bendon said that they prefer "to the best of the applicant's ability" because often times Council will continue a public hearing to the next night. Bendon noted that in the winter, especially this winter, signs get piled up with snow piles. Gibbs said that "the best of the applicant's ability" made sense after the discussions; more affidavits make it difficult. Gibbs stated the posting should be continue throughout the process with "continuing from time to time" and the best of the applicant's ability" to keep it visible to the public was good enough. Erspamer asked if an affidavit was needed to change or add the dates of the meetings. True responded that the situation of continuation to the next day or continuation for a week had to be addressed. Erspamer asked if this commissio; put something together where they recommend some ideas or some thoughts on this issue to think about and address. True said that Council will make this determination; this was a recommendation, it was a resolution recommending something to Council. 3 Asaen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 Bendon noted there was no place in the code that said after so many continuances the public hearing had to be re-noticed. Gibbs asked if P&Z should recommend something like that to Council. Bendon replied that would be easier to administer then deciding on an arbitrary basis when you need to re-notice. True said an applicant has the ability to request a continuance and after that it was more discretionary with Council; it is just discretionary to re-notice. True said that it can be written that if the hearing is continued more than "x" period of time it will be re-noticed. Erspamer asked if on the other part of the noticing it was name, address or email. True stated that he re-wrote based on what the group was most interested in was name and either a mailing address of the applicant or a phone number or email address of applicant or the representative. Erspamer said that this was a public notice and people should have the right to know and comment to a contact on the project and he thought email should not be the only contact; there should be a phone number of a representative somewhere. Cliff Weiss requested the mailing address be required and the other two were optional (phone number or email). Michael Wampler said that in 5 years people would not be mailing anything; this was a band aid; email was the future not snail mail. Brain Speck noted that sometimes email goes through Spam filtering and you don't get it. Erspamer asked either/or; and/or; or just require a113. Gibbs agreed with what Dylan had to say that some people just don't want their phone number out there; it was a reasonable compromise to the have mailing address as a requirement but the phone or email should be the applicant's choice, which one they want to provide. Gibbs said that snail mail will actually only go away when you can actually verify the receipt of an email; until certified mail can be replaced reliably. True reiterated that the mailing address was required and the mailing address and either the phone number or email for the applicant or the applicant's representative. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Toni Kronberg thanked John Worcester and Jim True for taking on this issue; the content was important because as a member of the public we don't care about the mailing address we care about the address of the development application. Kronberg said that the person to contact was in Community Development and included on the notice; email was not legally recognized by the state statute as a form of communication because there was no way of knowing if someone has received that notice that was the purpose for mailing certified. Kronberg said the Council notice and said that the public notice has to stay through the public hearing; she suggested a 7 day time frame be changed for continued hearings. Kronberg said that she has never seen a notice intentionally taken down. 4 Aspen Planning & ZOnlrig Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19, 2008 2. Gideon Kaufman said that the number one way somebody opposes a project is on notice because that was the most strictly construed way to oppose a project; he has had signs disappear when people want to find a way to challenge a project. Kaufman said that if you don't have language "to the best of someone's ability" you are opening them up to have a situation that someone takes the sign. Kaufman said neighbors don't like the signs because they don't think they are very attractive also when you constantly continue a hearing that means you have to change the sign every 2 weeks, every month, that becomes a real burden and it is not that simple. Kaufman said the bottom line was that you are going to follow up on it. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #007-08 as amended in the discussion to include the mailing address and either the phone number or email of the applicant or its representative and the applicant shall maintain this notice on the property throughout the hearing and continuances to the best of the applicant's ability; seconded by Michael Wampler. Roll call: Bloom, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss, yes; Wampler, yes; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, yes. All in favor approved 6-0. The commission requested Council consider placing a date deadline for continued meetings and re-noticing. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NON-CONFORMITIES LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for non-conformities. Jason Lasser said that Alice Davis represented Gary and Laura Lauder. Lasser provided the history of these mandatory occupancy units which was before the Telluride decision that talked about privately owned rental housing that can't be required to be deed- restricted because it was considered rent control and that was a decision that made the City of Aspen change the way that they do things. APCHA now controls that an ADU or Carriage House has to be deed-restricted for sale and run through APCHA, which clears up the rental issue decided in the Telluride case. Lasser stated that what they were talking about today were mandatory occupancy units to clear up the language in the code. Lasser read the definition of non- conforming structure: a structure which was originally constructed in conformity with the zoning and building codes or ordinances in effect at the time of this development which no longer conforms to dimensional or other requirements by the title to the zone in which it is located. Lasser said because of code changes the property could have more FAR than it was allowed with the new code so technically it's non-conforming. Lasser said the code amendment in 2004 was that the Lauder's wanted to expand and propose changes to the code and staff did not 5 Aspen Planning & ZORIng Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 recommend approval and P&Z voted no for those code changes but Council approved that through Ordinance 35 and it was codified and in the code now. Staff was going to eliminate a general section making historic structures the first exception and mandatory occupancy for accessory dwelling units and carriage houses the second extension in the non-conforming structures and extensions section of the code; that cleans up the language so it is easier to read going through "A" (procedure) and "B" (review standards) and "B 1" (maximum cumulative 500 square foot of floor area from historic transferable development rights or extinguishing unused floor area from other properties). Staff recommended approval. Gideon Kaufman introduced Alice Davis from Davis Horn Planning. Kaufman said they were just cleaning up the language with no substantive issues or changes. Michael Wampler asked for clarification on the 500 feet coming from the house, Kaufman replied there were 2 options (1) purchase a historic TDR or (2) go to another free-market property in the City of Aspen and take the square footage off of that property and put it into a mandatory occupied ADU. No public comments. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve Resolution #10-OS finding that the application for the code text amendments meets the applicable standards of review; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Bloom, yes; Wampler, yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes. All in favor APPROVED 6-0. Discussion: Stan Gibbs asked what the difference was with an ADU and Carriage House. Kaufman replied that they are now referenced the same way (page 35 defines it the same way). Lasser stated it was basically a square footage issue; the carriage house was 800 to 1200 square foot and ADU was 300 to 800 square foot. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICALLY PLANNED AREA LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Club. Chris Bendon recused himself from the public hearing. LJ Erspamer stated that he organized the 3 groups that built the ARC; it didn't have the weight room or the aerobics room. Jessica Garrow mentioned 3 letters from neighbors in the packet and another letter from Peter C Meining added. Garrow noted there was a site visit at noon. Garrow 6 Aspen Planning & ZOlling Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 said that on March 4`~' the issues of transportation, parking, factional unit components, the lock off scenarios, affordable housing as well as more depth in the architecture; tonight would be a conversation of the area and proposed site plan. Garrow provided a brief history beginning with appendix b exhibit 1, an overview of the original subdivision approved in 1976 with 16 lots; lot 15 was where the club currently sits; lot 14A was designated a parking facility, across the river from lot 15, the club was access from that parking area via a walkway that goes over the river; lot 14 was intended to be a club facility. The club was built in 1977 and throughout the 70s and 80s there were some changes to the PUD that allowed an increase to the size of the club and also changed lot 14 into a single family lot; in the 1980s and 90s the owner, Dick Buetera, amended the PUD a number of times again and split lot 14 into 2 single family homes. Also at this time parking was added to lot 15 and the primary access to the club was moved to Ute Avenue instead of from Highway 82. Garrow said that lot 15 was zoned rural residential with a PUD overlay; lot 16 (the Benedict Building) was zoned rural residential with a PUD overlay and SPA overlay to allow commercial uses on the property; the rest of the subdivision is zoned R-15 PUD and includes single family homes and multi-family homes (Aspen Club Townhomes no relation to the club). The club currently includes 35 parking spaces on lot 14A, 56 spaces on lot 15, 5 outdoor tennis courts (1 under the bubble for winter use), the Aspen Club and Spa and an outdoor deck. There is an Aspen Club trail that traverses the property near the river and the 100 year flood plane is located immediately below the trail. Staff talked about benches; the upper bench contains the Aspen Club and the lower bench is essentially where the 4 tennis courts are located, which is proposed to be new fractional units. Garrow stated that the proposal retained the Aspen Club trail, it adds 12 affordable housing units, 19 timeshare units (13 of these timeshare units are stand alone townhouse units in 4 different structures and 6 are flats added on top of the existing building), a total of 42 parking spaces are proposed to be added to the current parking (133 spaces total with 35 spaces remaining on lot 14A and 98 spaces would be on lot 15). Garrow stated the reviews before the Planning Commission were all conceptual. Conceptual PUD, which allows changes to the dimensional requirements to the existing PUD, variances in 2 setbacks for the proposed affordable housing units, front yard setback requirement is 30 feet and this request is to amend that setback to 7 '/z feet and the east side yard the setback should be 20 feet and they are requesting to amend it to 3 feet. Conceptual Specially Planned Area (SPA) to permit the construction of affordable housing and timeshare units; an SPA enables a parcel to have different uses then are permitted in the underlying zoning. The third is Conceptual Timeshare review which is required when a timeshare 7 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008 development is proposed. Conceptual Commercial Design Review is required at conceptual and final level at anytime a commercial or lodge project is proposed; this has a lodge component so therefore a commercial design review is required. Staff determined that this project should go through the small lodges area review because this is in a residential area. Staff is supportive of this general concept of healthy living facility and was a different exciting use and would be a good amenity for the community. There were some concerns regarding the architecture, transportation and parking elements, which will be discussed at the next meeting in more detail. Cliff Weiss asked for the terms of the Butera agreement. Sunny Vann replied the agreement was in the appendix. Garrow explained some of the exhibits in the application; the 1980 approvals permit the use of the Ute Avenue entrance. Sunny Vann introduced Chris Wright and Richard DeCampo from Poss Architects. Chris Wright identified the context of the neighborhood with a handout of drawings that shaped the project; he said that the neighborhood was pretty eclectic. Erspamer asked the lot size of the adjacent parcels. Garrow responded that she would get them for the next meeting. Richard DeCampo utilized the board drawings and the handout of drawings to show the different parts of the 5 acre site with the existing building and the access from Ute Avenue. DeCampo utilized sheet 2 from the packet to show the property line and setbacks, some setbacks were determined by the stream margin review criteria and the 100 year flood plane which was below the trail. DeCampo said that the proposed buildings were setback and there was a sewer easement through the property. DeCampo noted there had to be emergency access and the biggest were the fire department trucks. DeCampo said there were just a couple of places that could be developed because of site constraints. Erspamer asked if the hammerhead turnaround was big enough for emergency vehicles. DeCampo replied that if you don't go too far into the site that you were allowed to pull something in and back out to a turning radius. Vann showed more pavement for the access. Erspamer asked about the setbacks. DeCampo replied that the front yard setback was 30 feet and they were asking for 7 1/2 feet and a side yard was 20 feet and they were asking for 3 feet; if you look at the site for the surrounding area you are quite far back from the public areas. Stan Gibbs asked if they were cutting the corner of the building. DeCampo replied that was correct. 8 Aspen Planning & Zonine Commission Meetine Minutes - February 19, 2008 Vann said the only setback variance requests were those 2 setback points for the affordable housing and could be done within the setbacks themselves but it would significantly reduce the amount of housing that could be placed on the site. Vann said that backing up to the Silver Lining Ranch had no adverse impacts. Cliff Weiss asked how many parking spaces were there for the affordable housing. Vann replied the affordable housing parking spaces were based on the code at 1 per unit and they are providing those 12 spaces in the sub-grade garage to discourage the use of the vehicles, which would be a place to store the vehicles; there were 5 spaces in front of the affordable housing units which will be signed for temporary drop off or a timed period. Michael Wampler asked with the exception of those spaces if all the rest of the new parking would be underground. Erspamer asked about parking design. Vann replied the site design was why the parking was where it was. Vann reiterated what Jessica had said about the parking and added that Butera made a pitch that the parking was insufficient for the operation of a facility like that yet Council restricted and reduced the amount of parking as an attempt to limit vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. Vann said what was there today in parking spaces were 56 in the surface parking lot and 35 across the river; the new proposal the fractional ownership units require''/z space for each unit, all of these units have lock-outs with a total of 38 keys so the code requires 19 spaces that will be located in the sub-grade garage. Vann said the surface lot would be reduced to 40 parking spaces and changing the way it is laid out to improve circulation; the sub-grade garage includes 22 spaces for the club. Vann stated there were a total of 133 spaces with 53 spaces in the garage. Erspamer asked for the location of the hydrants. Vann replied that they were in the application on the improvement survey. Chris Wright said that Michael Fox was trying to create a project that addresses spending time together as a family and extended family; creating spaces from a building program by which an extended family can vacation together and spend time and take advantage of the opportunities that the Aspen Club has to offer. Wright said that our society was changing with people living longer and finding the opportunities to travel together; that was a big component to create a building program that allows this kind of activity to take place. Wright said there were a lot of different activities that this property has to accommodate. Wright said that they were approaching this on sustainability on a lot of different levels; sustainability in terms of energy usage to upgrade the existing building; the use of ground source geothermal, solar voltaic and a mixture of things to get the most efficient system that they can. Wright said the other aspect of sustainability was the construction of these units, the units themselves being energy efficient, the type of materials, the 9 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19 2008 quality of life, the quality of daylight and use of the site. Wright said there were constraints to this site and the next phase was to work with the topography of the site with the two benches on the site. Wright noted that they were sensitive to the area and applied for LEEDS development and they are in the pilot program because they are taking a site that is developed and they are recycling the site. Weiss asked how many apartments (flats) there were. Vann replied there were 6; 4 on the upper level. Erspamer asked if the growth management was on a point system. Garrow replied this would potentially play into the point system when they get to the growth management application; they will need growth management allotments for the affordable housing units after conceptual; the earliest would be August or this time next year. Erspamer asked if LEEDS was a requirement. Garrow responded that it was a way to get points in the competition for growth management allotments. Garrow presented the "sketch up" model of the project; the immediate context was used; the model was generated from wire frames taken from the 2004 fly over for the GIS Department. The wire frames are accurate with respect to height and grade that used 2 foot contours. MOTION.• CI~Weiss moved to continue the Aspen Club Conceptual SPA, PUD, Timeshare and Commercial Design Review to March 4`h; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor APPROVED. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIII~ 5©62ee0 e1~aol SILVIR DRVIS PITK IN COVNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 Ordinance No. 35 (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE CODE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR AREA -SECTION 26.312.030.0.3 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE -NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the applicant to submit an amendment to the Land Use Code, pursuant to sections 26.208; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is Gideon Kaufman, Kaufman Peterson Dishier Attorneys, representing Leonazd Lauder, property owner; and, WHEREAS, the requested amendment is to Section 26.312.030.0.3 of the Land Use Code and would permit additional development on properties with an Accessory Dwelling Unit and which are non-conforming with respect to floor area; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewe~and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Planning D ector and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action s all be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended denial of amendments to the Land Use Code as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public heazing to consider the proposed amendments, as described herein, on September 7, 2004, and continued October 5, 2004, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by a three to two (3-2) vote, City Council not adopt the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, as described herein. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the application according to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the application meeting or exceeding all applicable standards of the land use code of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 1 IIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIINHIIIIIII 5°~?a° ~140I 6ILVIR DRVl6 PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section I• Section 26.312.030.0 of the City of Aspen Land Use shall include a new subsection 3 to read as follows: 3. Accessory Dwelline Units and Carriage Houses. The only other exception to this requirement shall be for a property with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or Carriage House. Such a detached ADU or Carriage House structure may be enlazged or expanded by up to five hundred (500) square feet of floor azea, provided that this bonus floor area shall go entirely to the detached ADU or Carriage House and also provided that the ADU or Carnage House does not exceed the maximum size allowed for an ADU or Carriage House. The enlargement or expansion must comply with all other requirements of this Title, and shall receive development review approval as required by 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units, and Special Review approval pursuant to Section 26.430. The 500 square foot floor area expansion may be allowed if the unit complies with the review criteria and standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations Sections 26.520 including, but not limited to, a finding that the expansion shall be compatible with the character of surrounding uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. The expanded use shall not have adverse impacts on the surrounding uses or those impacts will be mitigated.. Only the floor area which will increase the ADU or Carriage House beyond the legally created non-conforming floor area (the expansion floor azea) is required to be mitigated. if the impacts of the expanded use cannot be sufficiently mitigated otherwise,.an additional method for mitigating those impacts and other impacts considered in the land use review, is to extinguish Historic Transferable Development Rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.535, up to a maximum of 500 square feet. In addition to the ability to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right, as discussed above, an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, and only an ADU unit that is deed-restricted as a mandatory occupancy unit, shall have the option to apply to transfer up to a maximum of 500 square feet from anon-historically designated property that has sufficient available floor area pursuant to the special review procedures detailed in this section. In addition to the special review criteria in Section 26.520.080, floor azea from a TDR may be approved pursuant to the following additional review criteria: (]) The additional floor area is a conversion of existing square footage which was not previously counted in floor area. (Example: storage space made habitable.) Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 2 IIIIIIIUIIIUIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUNIIIIIIIII a°620 01.e~ SILVlq DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 (2) The additional floor area creates a more desirable, livable unit with minimal additional jmpacts to the bulk and mass of the ADU structure. (3) The additional floor azea creates a unit which is more suitable for cazetaker families. (4) The increased impacts from the larger size aze outweighed by the benefits of having a lazger, more desirable ADU. (5) No variance from setbacks can be required to accommodate the bonus floor area approved through this section of the Code. (6) The azea and bulk of the ADU structure, afrer the addition of the bonus floor area, must be compatible with surrounding uses and the surrounding neighborhood. (7) Historic Transferable Development Rights, commensurate with the floor azea expansion, aze extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.535 -Historic Transferable Development Rights. (8) For the transfer of allowable square footage up to 500 square feet from a non- historically designated property to an ADU deed-restricted as a Mandatory Occupancy unit, the Applicant shall record an instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney removing floor area from the sending property to the Mandatory Occupancy ADU. Section 2• All material representations and commitments made by the developer pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public heazing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, or the Aspen City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 3 IIIIII VIII ~~~~~~ VIII VIII ~~~~ III ~II III IIII IIII ~~~~ 0 ©62 6 0 61 :40~ SILV3R Oi1V15 PITK[N CWNTY CO R 21.00 D 0.00 Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22"d day of November, 2004, at 5:00 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (t5) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following fmal adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLIS pr ided by law, aytha~City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~ day ~~ ci~+ OF AJ~f ,y ~ $i I{ h, City Clerk elen Kalin anderud, Mayor ~con~- FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of QA ~ ~, ~t o n o es~City Attorney Helen Kalin Klan erud, Mayor Ordinance No. 35, Series of 2004 Page 4 MEMORANDUM ~' 1 TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director( FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director ~~~ RE: Mountain Plaza Building (AKA Bidwell Building - 434 E. Cooper Ave.) - Subdivision Review, Second Readine of Ordinance No. 1. (Series 2008) (Continued from 4/14/08) MEMO DATE: May 3, 2008 , MEETING DATE: May 12, 2008 SPECIAL NOTE: This staff report is new since the April 14th hearing and addresses proposed changes to the application by the Applicant. It contains the following: • A summary of the proposed changes to the application since the April 14`h hearing; • Staff recommendation & motion; and • A revised ordinance. Also attached is the staff report from April 14, 2008. This is attached primarily to show the development proposal, background and dimensional standards table associated with the development so that you Gave this information at hand. Please refer to the orieinal January 28~h April 14'h staff resorts to reference the exhibits. SUMMARY: At the April 14`h second reading for the Mountain Plaza application, the City Council discussed a number of issues at the public heazing on the application. Below are amendments to the application that are being proposed by the Applicant. Comments from Staff follow in a separate, italicized paragraph. The Applicant proposes that the three affordable housine units be available for rental through the Aspen/Pitkin Countv Housine Authoritv (APCHAI rather than selected by the property owner(s). Although the Applicant agrees that allowing the units to be rented by business employees would be an asset to persons employed on site, allowing the units to be rented through APCHA provides for occupancy of the units that will not be tied with employment. A condition to this effect has been incorporated into the attached ordinance. • The Applicant is proposing one off-street parking space to be allocated to each affordable housing unit. The remaining nine (9) spaces aze not allocated at this time. Page 1 of 9 A condition to this effect has been incorporated into the attached ordinance. • The Applicant is reseazchine the feasibility of making the roof decks accessible to all six (6) residential units. The Applicant does not want to increase the height of the building in any way and is exploring design options that meet building code requirements with regazd to accessibility. • Value En ing Bering. The Applicant is requesting a condition of approval be included in the ordinance disallowing the approved exterior palette of materials to be replaced with similar less expensive materials. A condition to this effect has been incorporated into the attached ordinance. • Homeowner Association Fees. The Applicant's representative has indicated that the Applicant's counsel will provide a letter addressing concerns relative to homeowner association dues and assessments relative to the affordable housing units. At the time of the packet deadline (5/5/08) a memo had not been submitted and staff hopes to get any correspondence to council prior to the hearing. An option to consider for handling assessments and dues of the building is to tie the assessment or dues as a proportion based on the "actual value" of the units provided by Pitkin County Assessor information for each unit. • Re-establishment ofreal estate o(~ces. Clarification on why a real estate offrce cannot be re-established on the ground floor if the existing building is demolished and redeveloped was requested. Office uses are a prohibited use on the ground floor within the Commercial Core zone district unless the use is located forty feet from a street. Legally established Office uses that do not meet the above-mentioned standard are allowed to continue as a Nonconforming use. The Nonconformities chapter of the land use code notes that "any nonconforming use located in a structure which is purposefully demolished....may not be continued or restored. "With the purposeful demolition of the building the existing Office use cannot be re-established. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standazds in the City Land Use Code. This project provides affordable housing and net leasable space downtown. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, approving with conditions, subdivision review of the Mountain Plaza Building to construct amixed-use structure on the property known as 434 E. Cooper Avenue." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings (provided in January 28`n staff memo and May 12`n memo) EXHIBIT B -Historic Preservation Commission minutes dated May 9, 2007 (provided in January 28`n staff memo) EXHIBIT C -Historic Preservation Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007(provided in January 28`n staff memo) EXHIBIT D -Planning and Zoning Commission minutes dated October 2, 2006 (provided in January 28`n staff memo) EXHIBIT E -Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.26, Series of 2007(provided in January 28`n staff memo) E7cI-IIB[T F-Application (provided in January 28`n staff memo) EXHIBIT G- Preliminary Construction Management Plan (provided in February 14`s staff memo) EXHIBIT H - Proposed vs. Existing Net Leasable Commercial Space (provided in February 14`n staff memo) EXHBIT I - Tenant List (provided in February 14`n staff memo) EXHIBIT J - LEED for New Construction Checklist (provided in February 14`n staff memo) ExtttstT K - Energy Analysis (provided in February 14`n staff memo) EXHIBIT L - Memo from Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC dated May 6, 2008 February 14th Staff Memo SUMMARY AND FIRST READING QUESTIONS: At the January 28`n first reading for the Mountain Plaza application, the City Council raised a number of issues that they asked to have addressed in further detail prior to the scheduled second reading and public hearing on the application. Below, the concerns voiced by the City Council are itemized issue by issue. The Applicant's representative has responded to the questions in the attached Exhibits. Comments from Staff follow the issues raised in a separate, italicized paragraph. 1) Provide insight on affordable housing needs with regard to "for sale" vs. rental units In speaking with Tom McCabe, the ratio of `for sale" to rental units has traditionally been about half 'for sale" and half rental. Currently, `for sale" units are a slightly greater percentage of the inventory. The Housing Board will be discussing this issue of housing needs at their March 19, 2008, meeting and staff may be able to provide additional information at the hearing. As the City's Land Use Code is currently written, affordable housing units shall be deed restricted as 'for sale" units unless permitted to be rental units by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Applicant requested that the units be rental units and the Planning Commission approved the units as rental units during their review of the application; however, if the rental units become noncompliant with the housing guidelines in the future, then the units shall be converted into `for sale" units as written in the ordinance. 2) Are there any tools to limit the uses for the commercial use of the property to provide locally serving uses such as medical offices? An Applicant can voluntarily restrict the uses permitted on a property through a deed restriction. A deed restriction needs to be truly voluntary, as the Council does not have the authority to require the placement of a deed restriction on the property. 3) One of the AACP policies states "retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character of the community" under the Design Quality chapter. Does demolition of an eclectic building further the AACP? As noted in the AACP, "the purpose of the Aspen Area Community Plan is to serve as a guide for the future" and "should be interpreted to apply generally to all properties and issues in Aspen. " While retaining and encouraging an eclectic mix of design styles is a policy of the AACP, the intent of the Design Quality chapter is to "ensure the character of the built environment is maintained" both in the maintenance of existing budldings and the construction of new ones. Although City Council may feel that the Mountain Plaza building is one that contributes to an eclectic mix, the building has been through a number of land use reviews: to determine if the building can be demolished and to historicplly designate the building. The land use reviews did not result in the designation of the existing building and determined that it could be demolished. Subsequent reviews by the Historic Preservation Commission conceptually approved a building that is found to meet the adopted criteria for development within the Commercial Core Historic District and contribute to the character of the historic district. 4) Address the construction management plan, pedestrian amenity and the potential for a restaurant. During the Development Review Committee meeting with the Applicant, the Engineering Department put the Applicant on notice that the construction management plan (CMP) is a critical component to the redevelopment of the site due to its downtown location and proximity to the pedestrian mall. A preliminary CMP is provided in Exhibit G. The requirement for Pedestrian Amenity was reviewed and approved as a cash-in-lieu payment by the Historic Preservation Commission. Restaurants are a permitted use in the Commercial Core zone district, but the Applicant will need to expand on any anticipated uses within the building. 5) Clearly show height/elevation changes at second reading. The Applicant will provide additional drawings to address height at the hearing. 6) Provide mitigation information on the development. The land use code allows an applicant to satisfy multiple mitigation requirements (both the residential and commercial components of the project) concurrently when on-site employee housing is provided. Table 5 shows the required employee mitigation for both the commercial and the residential component of the proposal. Since the Applicant is providing on-site affordable housing units, the Applicant is required to provide employee housing for the residential component only as the proposed commercial component is provided a credit generated by the existing commercial net leasable area. The Applicant's affordable housing will house 5.25 employees. Table 5: Emnlovee Mitieation S . Ft. Re aired Miti a6on Commercial Prc~osed 10,585 s . ft. 22.98 -2.12 Net'; _ Employees Leasable ~xistutg' 12,081 sq. ft. 25.10 Area* New Free Market 6,000 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 4.5 Itesideritial Net Livable Employees Area**' Notes: *An employee generation credit is provided for the existing project's commercial net leasable area resulting in less employees generated by the proposed net leasable area compared to the existing net leasable azea. ** Based upon the proposed affordable housing units (Table 2 of the January 28, 2008 staff memo), 5.25 Employees are housed. 7) How can the City ensure that the property is redeveloped? The City often requires some form of collateral when development occurs, often in the form of a letter of credit or bond. The collateral ensures that the proposed work is completed and this same tool can be used for this project as a condition when issuing a demolition or building permit for this project. 8) Provide a table that shows existing uses, tenants, and square footage compared to the proposed development. The table is provided in Exhibit H of the memo. As proposed, the building will contain 1, 496 sq. ft. less in net leasable area (the obvious loss being the current basement level retail). With the redesign of the building the net leasable area provided on the ground floor will increase by 1, 048 sq ft. while the second floor net leasable area will increase by 391 sq. ft. 9) Has the Applicant considered the relocation and return of existing tenants? The Applicant has provided a tenant list and terms of leases in Exhibit L Of the seven (7) tenants listed, Kemosabe is expected to return after reconstruction (but will close during the interim). 10) What aze the major parts to get Leeds Certification LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification is a point based system where a projects scored is evaluated in a number of areas and scored for a project total to meet a certain certification level (certified, silver, gold, or platinum). The categories by which a project can gain points are as follows.• sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials & resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation & design process. A total of 69 points can be achieved. Exhibit J provides a summary of the LEED points available for new construction. Further information on the scoring system can be reviewed at http://www.usQbc.orQ/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentlD=1095 11) Is the parking garage aself-service type and how congested is the alley? The parking garage will be aself-service style garage access. Tim Ware of the parking department did inform staff that the alley is quite busy with use. 12) What is the comparison of energy usage for the existing project to the new project? The applicant has provided an energy analysis of the project as provided in Exhibit K. .Ianua ca ~rarr memo APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, Staff recommends that the City Council approve c/o Mark Bidwell the subdivision review. REPRESENTATIVE: SUMMARY: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC. The Applicant requests of the City Council approval of the Subdivision Review. LOCATION: Lots Q, R, and S, Block 89, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 434 E. Cooper Ave. CURRENT ZONING a4: USE Located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district containing a two story (above grade) with 12,081 sq. fr. of office/retail Net Leasable Area. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to develop a three story (above grade) mixed-use building containing sub-grade parking, three (3) affordable housing units (containing 2,241 sq. ft. of net Livable Area), three (3) free-market housing units (containing 6,000 sq. ft. of Net Livable Area), and commercial/office uses (containing 10,585 sq. ft, of Net Leasable Area). Photo of the subject property GENERAL BACKGROUND This application was submitted in Mazch of 2006, prior to the passage of the moratorium and therefore not affected by it or the subsequent code amendments. The existing property is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. It is also located in the Commercial Core Historic District although not deemed contributing to the period of architectural significance of the district. The existing building has been approved for demolition by the Historic Preservation Commission after an application for designation was initiated by the City and subsequently denied. As a proposed building in the Commercial Core Historic District, the Historic Preservation Commission has purview over the design of the building and has granted conceptual approval of the new building. The application was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission in October of 2007. As a result of the heazings conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 26 (Series of 2006) was passed by a three to one (3-1) vote. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution approved three growth management reviews, and made a recommendation of subdivision approval. The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code (see section 26.104.100, Definitions). If the Applicant is interested in creating individual ownership interest in the units, condominiumization must be undertaken. Once construction is nearly completed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer must file a condominium plat and associated documents for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. This is required to demarcate ownership units within a single building. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to redevelop the site: • Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the following growth management reviews at the October 2, 2007 public heazing: • Growth Management Review for Exnansion/New Commercial Develonment in the development of a new mixed-use building pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080 (1). • Growth Management Review for New Free-Market Residential Units within a Multi- family or Mixed-Use Project in the development of new free-market residential units within amixed-use project pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.080 (2). • Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing in the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070 (4). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation, has requested approval to demolish the existing office/retail building located at the corner of Cooper Avenue and Galena Street that is located on a 9,000 squaze foot lot and redevelop the site with a new mixed-use building containing commercial, affordable housing, and free mazket residential uses. As proposed, the new four story building (some of which is below grade) contains: • A completely sub-grade parking gazage. Vehicular access to the property and the garage will be from the alley right-of--way that is adjacent to the north property line of the subject property. The gazage will provide eleven parking spaces. • The at-grade level contains two (2) commercial/office spaces and a Galena Street entry to the second and third story space. • The second level contains three (3) affordable housing units and commercial/office space. • The third level contains three (3) free-mazket units. Table I : Comte ison of Proposed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements. ;' Proposed e~al cial C re r o Under Comme ~, .„ ~ . ~ . 2 __' ..x . __-_ Minimum Lot 9,000 sq. ft No requirement Size Minimum Lot 90 Feet No requirement Width Minimum Lot N/A No requirement Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 0 Feet No requirement Yard Setback Minimum 0 Feet No requirement Alternative Front Yazd Setback Minimum Side 0 Feet No requirement Yazd Setback Minimum Reaz 0 Feet No requirement Yazd Setback Maximum Height 41 Feet 42 Feet 46 Feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjacent to a street ri ht-of-wa Floor Area Ratio 2.61:1 or 1.47:1 or Cumulative Maximum: Commercial: 1.5:1 or (FAR) 23,503 sq. ft. 13,275 s . ft. 3:1 or 27,000 sq. ft. 13,500 .31:1 or Affordable Housing: No 2,835 s . ft. limitation .82:1 or Free-Market: 1:1 or 7,392 s . ft. 9,000 sq. ft. ~:~ e~ D~meas-onal ~p~s. ~., _ Underlying.~tnerc~al Care 7~rae Dig ~ ~ #±eq'iremea#s Maximum 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. Residential Unit Size Minimum Off- 11 spaces Residential Multi-Family: No requirement Street Parking Commercial: One space per 1,000 net leasable sq. ft. of commercial s ace or 10.5 s aces. Table 2: Proposed Affordable Housing STAFF COMMENTS' SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION: Table 3: Proposed Free Market Residential Table 4: Proposed Commercial Net Leasable Area Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.620, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay acash-in-lieu payment. The Applicant has proposed to pay acash-in-lieu payment pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.620. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building. IMPACT FEES The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site and additional net leasable created, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. The impact fee for this project shall be calculated at the time of building permit submittal. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed resolution requiring that a Park Development Impact Fee be paid at prior to building permit issuance. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: Referral departments have reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. Ordinance No. 1 (SERIES OF 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR THE MOUNTAIN PLAZA (BIDWELL BUILDING) REDEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 434 E. COOPER AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No.2737-182-16-011 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Bert Bidwell Investment Corporation requesting three (3) Growth Management Review approvals and Subdivision to develop amixed-use building known as the Mountain Plaza Building located at 434 E. Cooper Avenue; and, WHEREAS, prior to applying for the Growth Management Reviews the Applicant received approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission For Conceptual Design Review, View Plane Review, and Commercial Design Review via Resolution No. 20, Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 26.470.120, staff reviewed the application and assigned a Community Objectives Score which is based upon developing the project at a Leeds Silver level and providing lazger affordable housing units than required; and, WHEREAS, prior to applying for subdivision approval the Applicant received three Growth Management approvals and a recommendation of subdivision approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for aMixed-Use Building which contains 10,585 sq. ft. of net leasable azea, three (3) free-mazket residential units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .82:1 or 7,392 sq. ft. and individual net livable area of 2,000 sq. ft. each, and three (3) affordable housing units with a total of 2,241 sq. ft. of net livable area via Resolution No.26, Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision approval of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on Mazch 24, 2008, the City Council continued the public hearing to April 14, 2008. On April 24`h, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and continued the public hearing to May 12, 2008. On May 12~', the City Council again opened the public hearing, took public testimony, and considered recommendations provided by Page 1 of 7 staff and referral agencies, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and adopted Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the Subdivision application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standazds and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves subdivision review for the development of a mixed-use building containing three free-mazket units totaling a Floor Area Ratio of .82:1 or 7,392 sq. fr., three affordable housing units containing a minimum of 2,24] sq. fr. of net livable azea (two Category 2 units and one Category 4 unit), and a commercial component containing a maximum of 10,585 sq. fr. of net leasable azea as shown in the floor plans of Exhibit F of the staff report dated January 29, 2008. All material representations including off-street pazking and the dimensional standazds of the project included in the application and subsequent staff memos shall be incorporated into the materials for building permit application. Anv final approvals granted by the Historic Preservation Commission for this project shall include a condition specifvine the approved exterior building materials palette and prohibitive the developer from chancing exterior materials with those that aze similar but of a lesser quality and cost. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of this approval. The 180 days shall commence upon the granting of Final Design Review approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. The subdivision agreement shall require recordation of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3: Building The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Additionally, as represented in the growth management and subdivision application dated August 15, 2007, the Applicant will attain, at a minimum, a LEED Silver Certification by issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or by such time as agreed to by the Chief Building Official. Page 2 of 7 Section 4: Engineerin¢ The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A Stormwater System development fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit application. The construction management plan required as part of building permit application is a critical component of this redevelopment project as it is located adjacent to a pedestrian mall and public impacts shall be minimized. The Applicant shall follow Title 21 regazding encroachments associated with the construction. Any deviation from adopted requirements with regazd to encroachments shall require City Council approval. Regrading of the pedestrian mall may be necessary to achieve accessible access. Above ground utilities shall be located on the site and not within the public right-of--way. Sectiou 5: Affordable Housine A. The affordable housing requirements of the project shall be met with provision of three units. The Applicant shall provide aone-bedroom, Category 2, 701 squaze feet unit; a studio, Category 2, 530 square feet unit; and atwo-bedroom, Category 4, 1,010 squaze feet unit as represented in their application. The ApRlicant shall designate one off-street parking space in the pazking gazage for each affordable housing unit. B. Rental units aze allowed with the following conditions: 1) The units will be deed-restricted as Category 2 for the studio and one-bedroom units and Category 4 for the two-bedroom unit. 2) The deed-restriction will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCHA deems one of the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. If any of the units aze found to be out of compliance for one yeaz, or the owner elects to sell the units, all of the units would be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at Category 2 for the studio and one- bedroom units and Category 4 for the two-bedroom unit maximum sales prices, based on the sales price stated in the Guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed restriction, appreciated as stated in the deed restriction (3% or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less), as of the date of the listing of the units. 3) Rental of the units shall be open to all qualified employees in Aspen and Pitkin County. The rental units shall be made available for occupancy through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing_Authority' however the HOA may maintain ownershiro of the units If in the future the rental units house on-site emroloyees the units shall not be tied to employment. 4) The governing documents of the development shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units; i.e., the Protective Covenants, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, etc. Since the project is a mixed Page 3 of 7 free-mazket/deed-restricted project, the assessments shall be determined based on the relative "actual value" provided by the Pitkin County's Assessor's office for the free-mazket component compazed to the deed-restricted component. This language shall be required in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction shall be allowed without the APCHA's approval. 5) As long as the units remain as rental units, APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the employee housing units only such that an undivided 1/10' of 1 percent interest in the ownership of each of the employee units is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 6) Language shall be provided in the Protective Covenants covering the units' assessments upon the units becoming "for sale" units. The assessments shall be based on the relative "actual value" provided by the Pitkin County Assessor's Office for the free-mazket units compazed to the deed-restricted units. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project and allow for the same voting privilege as the free-mazket residential units upon the units becoming "for sale" units. No changes to this restriction aze allowed without APCHA's approval. 7) The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condominium Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Section 6: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 7: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. Oil and Grease interceptors (not traps) aze required for all food processing establishments and shall be identified and specified prior to building permit. Oil and sand sepazators aze required for the parking garage. Driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains must flow through o/s interceptor. Old service lines must be excavated and properly abandoned, to the extent required by the district. Below grade development may require Page 4 of 7 installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed; however shared service line agreements may be required. Where additional development produces flows that negatively impact the planned reserve capacity of the existing collection and treatment system, fees will be assessed. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regazd to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be awaze of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 10: Exterior Liehtin2 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 11: School Lands Dedication and Impact Fees The Applicant shall pay the Park Development impact fee and the School Lands Dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 12: Parks A. A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Tree Removal Pennit is required for the removal of the Crabapple street trees. B. Excavation of materials, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic associated with construction is prohibited on Cooper Ave Mall, unless permitted under condition "E" within this section.. C. Utility connections located within the mall shall be coordinated and designed in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones or disturb the surface of the mall. If a utility is located within the mall, it must be direct bore minimizing surface disturbance to the location of abandonment and new taps. Water taps and abandonments will not be approved within designated tree protection zones; no traditional excavation will be allowed in the mall for water or electric connections. D. If temporary construction access to the site is requested on Cooper Avenue Mall, a ROW permit is required for approval. Access will only be granted during the off season; all work within the Mall has to be done and completed during these times: Spring: March ] 6`h till June I5` /Fall: Sept 15`h till Dec 151. E. Damage to mall brick or mall amenities will be the responsibility of the developer, replacement of brick will be done to COA standards and require the developer to use the City's contractor for mall brick replacement. F. New landscaping in the right of way located on Galena Street will be done to the Landscaping in the Right of Way standards. Pazks is recommending Summit Ash, a species of Green Ash, planted on 20-foot centers throughout the entire strip. All trees Page 5 of 7 will be planted with irrigation and a planting strip shall be installed using structural soils. The developer shall meet with the Pazks Department to design the appropriate planting trench and spacing of the trees. Section 13: Vested RiHhts The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 26, Series of 2006 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 434 E. Cooper Ave., City and Townsite of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 1 Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council. Section 14: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 15: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 16: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17• A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24s' day of Mazch, 2008, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen Page 6 of 7 City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28s' day of January, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Page 7 of 7 Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Sta Finding The project provides affordable housing within the city limits which meets one of the AACP's housing goals. It also contains new development within the Urban Growth Boundary which is a goal of the managing growth section of the AACP. With the location of the development, the building supports the opportunity for choice in travel modes: transit, walking, and bicycling. Additionally, the building is required to be rated as LEEDS Silver. Specifically, the application is consistent with the following goals of the AACP: • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary... " The proposed development and subdivision is within the Aspen Community Growth Boundazy. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • "Foster awell-balanced community through integrated design that promotes economic diversity, transit and pedestrian friendly lifestyles, and the mixing of people from different backgrounds. " The subdivision and development creates spaces for free-mazket and deed- restricted residences, and spaces for office and commercial uses. The location of the development fosters lifestyles conducive to transit and pedestrian use, as it is located within the Aspen Infill Area, has access to the bus route, and is within the Commercial Core. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • We should endeavor to bring the middle class back into our community. We should discourage sprawl and recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open spaces and our rural resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with the physical infrastructure of sprawl. " The Housing Guidelines maintain seven (7) Categories of affordable housing; in furtherance of this AACP goal, the Code was written to require affordable housing at the middle category level, namely Category 4. The proposal provides a mix of Categories 2 and 4 units. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • "Reduce the adverse impacts of automobiles on the Aspen area. " The development includes underground parking for tenants and residents of the building. The location of the parking reduces the impact these cars would otherwise have on the surrounding community if they were required to park at street level. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling. " The proposed development is served by transit and is composed of compact mixed-uses conducive to walking and bicycling. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • "Encourage development to occur within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary and emphasize `good city form'. " The proposed subdivision is within a development located within the Aspen Growth Boundazy and within the Aspen infill azea. The development also promotes "good city form" through its improvements to the street facing fagades, which make the building more pedestrian friendly, and through its consistency with the Commercial Design Standazds and Historic preservation Guidelines. Staff finds the subdivision meets this goal of the AACP. • "Retain and encourage an eclectic mix of design styles to maintain and enhance the special character to Aspen. " Again, this sectiori relates more to the overall development rather than the subdivision. The development itself represents a high quality design that will work with and enhance Aspen's unique character. The buildings mass is broken up through facade fenestration and the use of different materials, which helps it relate to Aspen's historic thirty (30) and sixty (60) foot lot widths. Staff finds the subdivision and development meet the goals and intent of this section of the AACP. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed mixed- use is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity which include commercial office uses, retail uses, affordable housing uses and free- market multi family uses within the downtown core. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. The construction will impact neighbors and visitors and a detailed construction management plan to mitigate those impacts will be required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Commercial Core zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no overly steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staf Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Stafffrnds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicant is providing affordable housing units as required by the Land Use Code and meets the affordable housing review standards of the GMQS system. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) StaffFindinQ Allotments for the proposed three free-market unit and three affordable housing units have been granted. / ~ V ~~ \ Lam/ KLEIN, COTE &EDWARDS, LLC A'r1'ORNEYS A1' LAw HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk~ijkcelew.net LANCE R COTE, PC• Iron kcelaw.net JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, BI, PC jeengkcelaw.net COREY T. ZURDUCH clzQkcelaw.net EBEN P. CLARK cpc®kcelaw.nel MADHU B. KRISHNAMUR T[ mbkQkcelmv.nct DAVR)C. UHLIG dcu3a kcelaw.ne[ MATTHEW M. LOWRY mmi@kcdaw.nH • ~iw+d~nM m CYifomii May 6, 2008 Via Email Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Bidwell Building- HOA Assessments Dear Jennifer: 201 NORTH MRL STREET, STE. 203 ASPEN, COLORADO B 1611 TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700 FACSG4IR-E: (970) 925-3977 vssw.kcelflw.nct At the last City Council meeting concerning the Bidwell Building, there were questions raised by the Councilors concerning the dispropor[ionatelyhfgh impacts of commercial units on homeowners' assessments. The Councilors are not concerned about protecting the free-market residential unit owners from disproportionately high assessments; they are concerned about providing protection for the owners of affordable housing units from disproportionately high assessments. I suggest the City Council add the following condition which should address the concern: The covenants of the project shall contain a limitation which provides that the co7mnon expense assessments for the affordable housing units shall be the lesser of: (I)an assessment of $50.00 per month (increased by 3% per year beginning the first January after the affordable housing units are occupied), or (2) the assessment which would otherwise be made based on the budget of the Association provided that the share of the assessments payable by any affordable housing unit shall in no case exceed the relative valuation of that affordable housing unit as compared to the combined values of all of the other units in the building as determined by the County Assessor's office. For example, if the vahlation of a particular affordable housing unit shall be 2% of the combined valuation of alt of the units for the entire building, then the assessment payable by the owner of such affordable housing Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director May 6, 2008 Page 2 unit shall be the lesser of $50.00 per month (as adjusted) or 2% of the budget. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this. Very truly yours, KLEIN, C E & EDWARDS, L.L.C. r" c"+ _ -~-~. E. Edwards, [II Cc: Mitch Haas & Mark Bidwell