HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20090526CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 26, 2009
5:00 P.M.
Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Proclamation — Arbor Day
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 may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Request for Funds — Summer mall entertainment
b) Resolution #30, 2009 — Gas Drilling in Pitkin County
c) Resolution #31, 2009 — Underpass on Castle Creek
d) Junior Hockey Settlement
e) Minutes —April 27, May 11, 2009
VII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #14, 2009 — 210 West Francis Ordinance #48 Negotiation
VIII. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #12, 2009 — 627 West Main — TDR Establishment
b) Ordinance #13, 2009 — 219 South Third Ordinance #48 Negotiation
IX Executive Session
Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting June 8, 2009
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
T1 a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Commercial Core & Lodging Commission
Kathy Strickland, Andrew Kole
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: May 13, 2009
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Summer mall entertainment
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request $15,000 for summer mall entertainment. This funding to
be appropriated from Council's Contingency Fund.
BACKGROUND: CCLC has commitments for $5,000, which is the amount CCLC agreed to
raise from outside the city. Additionally, it looks as though we have another $5,000, which up to
$2,500 will go toward the 41h of July Dancing in the Street event sponsored by ACRA. Based on
a 3-1 ratio and based on us raising $5,000 which we have, we are requesting final budget
approval for the mall entertainment program.
DISCUSSION: In an effort to generate vitality in the downtown core this summer, the CCLC
has put together a 10 week entertainment program. Specifically, every Wednesday through
Saturday beginning June 24`h and ending approximately Labor Day mall entertainment will be
provided as follows:
• Each day two musical acts and a minimum of two kid/family oriented acts will be booked on
the mall. Music acts will be located at the clock tower and at the end of the Hyman mall on
the Galena Street corner. The kids/family acts will be located at the fountain and at the
information booth on the plaza. Our plan is to spend $500 per day for all acts, $2,000/week
or a projected $20,000 for the 10 weeks. Local talents will be hired through the CCLC or
sub -committee.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: This appropriation from Council's contingency will
reduce available funds; however, positive revenue impacts are expected. The Clerk's office can
handle the administration of the program.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None.
ACTION:
Page 1 of 2
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to appropriate $15,000 from Council's Contingency for mall
entertainment for the 2009 summer.
Page 2 of 2
YZ bt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: CJ Oliver, Sr. Environmental Health Specialist
THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director 4 t c-
CC: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: May 15, 2009
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Support for Thompson Divide Coalition
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) is seeking a formal statement
of support from the City of Aspen for the TDC's initiative to obtain permanent protection from
energy development of certain federal lands southwest of Carbondale, including land in Pitkin
County.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: none
BACKGROUND: In late 2008, in the face of looming oil and gas development, the TDC, a broad -
based coalition of local ranchers, farmers, hunters, fishermen, recreationalists, conservationists and
community leaders was formed.
The TDC is focusing its efforts on federal lands in an area that includes:
• Thompson Creek and Four -mile watersheds,
• Coal Basin,
• Headwaters of East Divide Creek and Garfield Creek, and
• Northeastern portions of the Muddy Basin, including the Clear Fork and East Willow
Roadless Areas. The area prioritized by the TDC is part of a 122,000-acre roadless
complex that links Grand and Battlement Mesas and the Elk Mountains.
These federal lands provide important habitat for wildlife, and excellent hunting and angling
opportunities. In addition, this landscape provides important summer range for local ranchers
with federal grazing permits, as well as clean water for agricultural operations and domestic use.
Furthermore, this area is exceptionally popular among recreationalists.
Page 1 of 2
Development of these leases would fragment the landscape and allow for development that the
coalition believes could undermine the social, environmental, economic and public health of
local communities.
DISCUSSION: The coalition argues that this is the ideal time to start a community dialog about
how to protect the targeted area from future energy development. After a several -year period of
increased gas -development pressure in western Colorado, and a change in administration in
Washington, D.C., there is a breathing spell in which regional governments can consider how
best to allow energy development without threatening this special landscape. The TDC is
seeking letters of endorsement and formal Resolutions from all interested parties for use in
discussions with our legislators on this initiative. Pitkin County and the Town of Carbondale
have already adopted such Resolutions.
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: none
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are no direct environmental impacts of passing the
resolution but the idea is that with enough support the TDC will be able to have an impact on the
direction of energy development in a beautiful and pristine forest. This can help to protect over
100,000 acres of roadless area from the environmental impacts associated with energy
development. The TDC's efforts are aimed to protect water quality, air quality, and natural
environment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached Resolution in support of the Thompson
Divide Coalition.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to provide formal support of the Thompson
Divide Coalition or to amend the attached resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # �30 Series of 2009 offering the
formal support of the City of Aspen City Council to the Thompson Divide Coalition."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Resolution in Support of the Thompson Divide Coalition
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION No. 30
(Series of 2009)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
PROVIDING FORMAL SUPPORT FOR THE THOMPSON DIVIDE COALITION
WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad -based coalition of local landowners,
ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists, water users, conservationists and local
governments, formed to address mutual concerns regarding the existing oil and gas leases on
federal lands in the Thompson, Fourmile, Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds, and the
headwaters of East Divide Creek, and the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated
with their development.; and
WHEREAS, outdoor recreation and environmental conservation are at the core of what makes
the Roaring Fork Valley an exceptional place to live and vacation for both local residents and
tourists and this area offers exceptional recreational opportunities and is regularly used by bikers,
climbers, hikers, snowmobilers and cross country and back country skiers; and
WHEREAS, the area of concern is part of a 122,000 acre roadless landscape, which is the largest
contiguous roadless area in the state. These federal lands provide important habitat for wildlife,
and excellent hunting and angling opportunities. The area has been recognized by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife as high priority habitat for a variety of species. It is part of a critical big
game migration corridor and provides key wildlife security for species such as deer, elk, bear,
and lynx. The entire area is important elk calving habitat and summer range for big game. In
addition, the Colorado River cutthroat trout (recognized as a Species of Special Concern) is
found in at least one fork of Thompson Creek; and
WHEREAS, energy development in this area is inconsistent with ecological preservation and
would have a deleterious impact on the rural character, natural beauty and serenity of the valley
and would forever ruin the wild character and exceptional habitat of this area; and
WHEREAS, recent air monitoring on top of Aspen Mountain showed the highest ozone level
ever recorded on the Western slope and possible sources include gas drilling and traffic. Ozone
poses a significant risk to human health with its effects targeted on the respiratory system and the
City of Aspen City Council desires to protect the health of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy development;
however it believes it is imperative that energy development occur only in appropriate places and
that it proceed in a responsible manner. The Bureau of Land Management has approved 80
leases on this special landscape, half of which were let in roadless areas without surface
stipulations after the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was in effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO that:
Section 1. The Thompson, Fourmile, Muddy and Clear Fork Creek watersheds, and the
headwaters of East Divide Creek, as well as the local community, environmental and
economic values these areas support deserve preservation and protection; and
Section 2. Energy development on federal lands in these areas is inconsistent with such
preservation and protection, and is indicative of a flawed and irresponsible approach to
energy development; and
Section 3. The City of Aspen supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide Coalition to
explore legislative initiatives and other opportunities to protect these special areas from
energy development.
Dated:
Michael Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held April 27, 2009.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Chism, Project Manager, Parks and Recreation Dept.`
Austin Weiss, Trails Coordinator, Parks and Recreation Dept.
THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Dir r,—A&&j
Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: May 14, 2009
MEETING DATE: May 26, 2009
RE: Resolution #2009-3L: Approval of the Contract for
Construction for the Castle Creek Underpass and
Bugsy/Marolt Trail Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At this time we are requesting you to authorize a Contract for
Construction for the CONSTRUCTION OF THE CASTLE CREEK UNDERPASS AND
BUGSY/MAROLT TRAIL PROJECT for the amount of $365,946.00.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Open Space and Trails Board identified
improvements for this section of public trail as a priority project for 2008. City Council
concurred with the approval of the 2008 budget for parks and open space projects. City Council
approved a Professional Services Contract for Engineering Design Services for this project on
April 14, 2008.
BACKGROUND: The Trail Construction Contractor, JAG'S Enterprises, Inc., was selected
from a group of seven (7) qualified contractors to provide construction services for trail
alignment and drainage solutions to the Castle Creek Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail. The
Contractor has developed a bid proposal that should be acceptable to the City in order to
complete construction of the trail improvements. Following a detailed review by both staff and
the consulting engineer, the bid proposal submitted by JAG'S Enterprises was the lowest and
most responsible of the seven (7) bids received. The bid proposal is a good value for the City
when compared with the cost estimates prepared by the design engineer. JAG'S Enterprises has
documented trail construction experience in Steamboat Springs, Durango, Longmont and other
communities in the Colorado Front Range. All references for JAG'S Enterprises, including the
City Manager of Steamboat Springs, provided high marks for this particular Contractor.
DISCUSSION: The Castle Creek Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail is a trail linkage that
connects Cemetery Lane, through Bugsy Barnard Park, under Highway 82, to the Marolt Open
Page 1 of 3
Space. The existing condition of this connection is problematic due to a lack of sight lines for
trail users, steep grades, poor drainage, and a narrow corridor.
Design work for the Castle Creek Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail improvements included a
total of twenty-one (21) different options that explored variations on how to create a trail
alignment solution that was acceptable to the trail easement and open space donor, responded to
concerns expressed by the Open Space and Trails Board and public over the course of multiple
meetings, and was feasible to construct within the budget.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A project budget of $584,000.00 was established in late
2007 and approved by City Council. Staff has prepared a comprehensive project budget
(Attachment B) that illustrates design costs that have been spent as well as anticipated
construction costs, including this proposed contract for construction.
A portion of the total Scope of Work will be completed by in-house Parks Department
construction staff and resources. The portion of work will include the section of re -aligned
Marolt Trail as indicated in yellow on the plan graphic (Attachment Q. Work was initiated on
this section of trail during the week of May 11`h. In-house resources will also be utilized to
complete all landscape restoration for this trail improvements project.
The Contractor, JAG'S Enterprises, Inc. proposes to complete the contracted Scope of Work
covered under this Contract for Construction for Three Hundred Sixty -Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Forty -Six Dollars ($365,946.00). The technical nature of the trail underpass crossing
under the state highway bridge has primarily contributed to the project cost. The contracted
scope of work is illustrated in red on the plan graphic (Attachment Q.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Castle Creek Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail
provide a connection between the Cemetery Lane Trail and the trail system within the Marolt
Open Space that leads into town over the Marolt Pedestrian Bridge. The connection is well used
but has been the location of a large number of `near misses' and actual accidents due to the
current safety problems of the existing trail alignment. A better, safer trail connection will
potentially encourage more trail use between the Cemetery Lane neighborhood and central Aspen
and reduce vehicular trips on the highway.
The steep embankments under the vehicular bridge will create challenging conditions for
construction of a trail support structure. During construction, a number of erosion control as well
as physical barriers will be put into place to protect Power Plant Road and Castle Creek from
errant storm runoff and possible debris falling down the hillside during excavation. Construction
standards from both the City of Aspen and the CDOT will be adhered to during construction.
One of the many project goals of this project is to improve the condition of storm water drainage
off of the existing steep embankments in order to prevent the type of slope erosion currently
occurring. All disturbed slope areas will be stabilized with native vegetation cover and stabilized
straw wattles where appropriate.
Page 2 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending Council approval of the Contract for
Construction for the Castle Creek Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail Project in order to allow the
project to be completed during summer 2009.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve this Contract for Construction, which
would delay construction work intended to make this trail alignment safer to the general public.
Construction of any improvements would likely be delayed until at least 2010, which would run
counter to the intent and recommendations of the City Open Space and Trails Board.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Contract for Construction between the City of
Aspen and the Trail Construction Contractor, JAG'S Enterprises, Inc. for the Castle Creek
Underpass and Bugsy/Marolt Trail construction for the amount of Three Hundred Sixty -Five
Thousand Nine Hundred Forty -Six Dollars ($365,946.00).
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Contract for Construction
Attachment B: Comprehensive Project Budget
Attachment C: Plan graphic of work scope
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 2009
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CASTLE CREEK
UNDERPASS & BUGSY/MAROLT TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ASPEN AND JAG'S ENTERPRISES, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council, a contract for
construction between the City of Aspen and JAG'S Enterprises, Inc., a true and accurate
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves a contract for
construction, between the City of Aspen and JAG'S Enterprises, Inc. for the Castle Creek
Underpass & Bugsy/Marolt Trail Improvements Project, a copy of which is annexed
hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to
approve said engineering professional services contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the day of , 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Attachment A
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on May L022009 , by and between the CITY
OF ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the "City". and JAG'S Enterprises Inc
hereinafter called the "Contractor
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law, specifications
and other Contract Documents for the work herein described, and has approved and adopted said
documents, and has caused to be published, in the manner and for the time required by law, an
advertisement, for the project Casde Creek Underoass & Buesv/Marolt Trail hn rovernents
Project. and,
WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in response to direct
invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the time specified, a sealed Bid in
accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened, examined and
canvassed the Bids submitted in response to the published Invitation for Bids therefore, and as a
result of such canvass has determined and declared the Contractor to be the lowest responsible and
responsive bidder for the said Work and has duly awarded to the Contractor a Contract For
Construction therefore, for the sum or sums set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for Construction
herein mentioned:
1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work as fully
described in the Contract Documents.
2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment, labor and other
services necessary for the construction and completion of the Work described herein.
3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract Documents within seven
(7) consecutive calendar days after the date of "Notice To Proceed" and will complete the
same by the date and time indicated in the Special Conditions unless the time is extended in
accordance with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents.
4. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract Documents and
comply with the terms therein for a sum not to Three Hundred Sixty -Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Forty -Six Dollars (5365946 O) DOLLARS or as shown on the BID proposal.
5. The term "Contract Documents" means and includes the documents listed in the City of
Aspen General Conditions to Contracts for Construction (version GC1-971) and in the
Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are included herein by this reference and
made a part hereof as if fully set forth here.
A. Notwithstanding anything to the contran contained in Section 5.3.1 through Section
5.3.3 of the above referenced General Conditions. the following provisions shall apply with
respect to the types and limits of insurance that the Contractor shall procure (The remaining
provisions of Section 5.3, Contractor's Insurance shall remain the same.)
i. The Contractor shall provide certificates of insurance to the City which
certificates shall be made available to the Colorado Department of Transportation for the
types and limits of insurance as set forth below.
ii. Workers, Compensation as required y state
he cstatute,
and
scope Employer's
their
Liability insurance covering all employees acting certain
employment and work on the activities authorized by Section
e3, I suranorado a of that Department of
Special Use Permit between the City of Aspen
a
Transportation by this reference made a part of this Contract.
Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence
pen
rm CG
00 01 10/93 or equivalent, covering Premises operations, fire damage
Consultants, blanket contractual liability, personal injury and advertising liability with
minimum limits as follows:
a. $1,000,000 each occurrence:
b. $2,000,000 general aggregate;
C. $50,000 any one fire.
If any aggregate limit is reduced below $1,000,000 because of claims made or paid,
Contractor shall immediately obtain additional
of T insurance
Transportation to restored the the
ity showing regate compliance
and furnish to the Colorado Department
with this provision.
iv. Contractor shall provide Pollution Legal Liability Insurance withate. The
inimum
limits of liability of $1,0000,0000 Each Claim and $1,0000,000 Annual Aggregate.
Colorado Department of Transportation shall be named additional insured to the Pollution
Legal Liability policy. The Policy shall be written on a Claims Made form, with an extended
reporting period of at least two years following finalization of the above referenced License
Agreement.
V. Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance with muumuu h ry Liabili �Pol
This policy shall become primary (drop down) in the event the prim t7
icy
limits are impaired or exhausted. The policy
folall be written on anlowing owing form excess Occurrence
re shall in lade
and
shall be following form of the rasp on as an Additional Insured.
the Colorado Department of Transportation
vi. the Colorado Department of Transportation urance 11 hall be na Coverage as Additional
d by the
Insured shall
the Commercialrimarover anyilnsuranrlity ce or self-insuranpogram carried by the State
License shall be primary
of Colorado.
vii. The Insurance shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non -
renewal without at least 30 days prior notice to the Colorado Department of Transportation
and the City by certified mail to the address contained in this document.
viii. The insurance policies related to the License shall include clauses stating that
each carrier will waive all rights of recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against
CDOT. its agencies, institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
ix. All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be
issued by insurance companies satisfactory to the Colorado Department of Transportation
and the City.
B. Section 5.2 of the General Conditions shall be amended to include a
provision that to the extent authorized by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, save and hold
harmless the State, their employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages,
liability, and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees insured as a result of
any act or omission by the Contractor, or its employees, agents, subcontractors, or assignees
pursuant to the terms of this contract.
6. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set forth in the
General Conditions, unless modified by the Special Conditions, such amounts as required by
the Documents.
This Contract For Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein or in the Contract Documents, this Contract For Construction shall
be subject to the City of Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including
the approval requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shall not be binding upon
the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a
duly authorized official in his/her absence) following a resolution of the Council of the City
of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her
absence) to execute the same.
8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their agents, representatives, employees.
Successors, assigns, and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Contractor shall
have the right to assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or obligations hereunder without
the written consent of the other party.
9. 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 the Contractor or the City may assign this
Contract For Construction in accordance with the specific written consent, any rights to
claim damages or to bring suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or the
Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants,
agreements or conditions herein contained.
10. No waiver of default by either party of any terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be
performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver
e terms, covenants or conditions herein contl
of any subsequent default of any of thined, to
be perfortned, kept and observed by the other party.
11, The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was made in accordance with the laws
of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be kept exclusively in
the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
12. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Contract
for Construction, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's
fees.
13. This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted through the mutual efforts 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 this Contract For Construction.
14. The undersigned representative of the Contractor, as an inducement to the City to execute
this Contract For Construction, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of the
Contractor for the purposes of executing this Contract For Construction and that he/she has
full and complete authority to enter into this Contract For Construction for the terms and
conditions specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract for Construction
on the date first above written.
ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
City Engineering Department
ATTESTED BY:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
CONTRACTOR:
By:
Title: —Si
Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If a
partnership, the Contract shall be signed by a Principal and indicate title.
Certification and Supplemental Conditions to Contract for Services -
Conformance with 68-17.5.101, et seq.
Propose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 06-1343 that added a new
article 17.5 to Title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes entitled "Illegal Aliens — Public Contracts for Services." This
new law prohibits all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly employing
or contracting with an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor ttho
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The now law also requires that
all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. This Certification and
Supplemental Conditions has been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
Applicability. The certification and supplemental conditions set forth herein shall be required to be executed by all
persons having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen.
Definitions. The following terms are defined in the now law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any
contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208,
104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public haw 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the
United States Department of Homeland Security.
"Contractor" means a person having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen
"Public Contract for Services" means any type of agreement, regardless of what the agreement may be called,
between the City of Aspen and a Contractor for the procurement of services. it specifically means the contract or
agreement referenced below.
"Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the
delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq.:
By signing this document, Contractor certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien, and
(ii) Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Not Program in order to verify that it does not
employ illegal aliens.
The Public Contract for Services referenced below is hereby amended to include the following terns and conditions:
1. Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public
Contract for Services.
2. Contractor shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Contractor that the
subcontractor actor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under the Public Contract
for Services.
3. Contractor has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that
Contractor does not employ arty illegal aliens; and if Contractor has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot
Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Contractor shall forthwith apply to participate in the
Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public
Contest. Contractor shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify
same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Contractor is accepted or the public contract for services has been
completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic
Pilot Program is discontinued.
3. Contractorshall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre -employment screening of job
applicants while the. Public Contract for Services is being perfonued.
5. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for
Services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien. Contractor shall:
(i) Notityy such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Contractor has actual
knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and
(ii) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required
pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that
Contractor shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the
subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with
an illegal alien.
6. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of labor and Employment
made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is
undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
7. If Contractor violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties unposed by
Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract
for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen
arising out of Contractor's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
Public Contract for Services: r n r r u 3-- IZ.. llnaral- "e. XrnP ro✓e..rrwAl 5 a F� u
ri ...
f
•.. r•.: •s.L .y
JPW- saved: 5/6/2009-867-M:bity\cityattyhcontract\forms�re ication - hb-06-1343.doe
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
(To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation)
STATE OF C-0 i O . )
)SS'
COUNTY OF yj e 1 d )
On this ' �h day ofj a 20�_, before me appeared
Loa rlwx 6 0'f n r C / (A)II 17 'a /Z� r�{� to me personally known, who,
being by me first duly sworn, did say that s/he is of
S , T ryC and that the seal affixed to said
instrunt6t is the core rate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged
said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
otary Public
Ave. (
10 Address
My commission expires:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE
1, Bernie Buescher, as the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado, hereby certify that, according to the
records of this office,
JAG'S ENTERPRISES, INC.
is a Corporation formed or registered on 03/09/2001 under the law of Colorado, has complied with all
applicable requirements of this office, and is in good standing with this office. This entity has been
assigned entity identification number 20011050449.
This certificate reflects facts established or disclosed by documents delivered to this office on paper
through 05/06/2009 that have been posted, and by documents delivered to this office electronically
through 05/08/2009 @ 15:18:32.
I have affixed hereto the Great Seal of the State of Colorado and duly generated, executed, authenticated,
issued, delivered and communicated this official certificate at Denver, Colorado on 05/08/2009 @
15:18:32 pursuant to and in accordance with applicable law. This certificate is assigned Confirmation
Number 7364302.
TIJ2-v�- �C J Pr c e C �
Secretary of State of the State of Colorado
+rr+zz+rr+zr++r+rr+++rerrrzrr++zr++++rrrr++zzEud ofCertificate+r++rr++rr+r+rr++z+r++r+r+z+rrr+rr++zrrz++r+
Notice: A certificate issued electronically from theColorado SecreM fst te's Web site ftdly and inimediatelvvithid and effective. Hmvever.
as an option, the issuance and validity of a certfcede obtained eleetronfcally may be estabhsbed by visiting the Certificate Corfrmmton Page of
the Secretary of State's Web site, but,, w osst f c b`C' mlicafeSearcid'riteria.do entering the certijicate's confirmation mmtber
displayed on the certificate, and jollnving the instructions displayed. Conhrmunz th ssn one f a c rtif m• i Merely oofional and is not
necessary tthe valid andelfecrmeissuance ofa cm-fiftcate. For more information, visit our Web site, Ivir ""it s0,T ,vtmec m clicklinsness
Center andselect "Frequently Asked Questions. "
CGRr GS D Revised 0&2012004
Exhibit A
BID PROPOSAL FORM
Pko1ECtNo: 2009-032
GIDDATE. mag 11 2009
PROJECT': Castle Creek Underpass &Bugsy/Marolt Trail Improvements
PWPOSAL Sl1BN11TTED BY:
CO ACTOR
CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL
TO: The Governing Body of the City of Aspen, Colorado
The undersigned responsible bidder declares and stipulates that this proposal is made in good faith,
without collusion or connection with any other person or persons bidding for the same work, and
that it is made in pursuance of and subject to all the terms and conditions of the advertisement for
bid, the invitation to bid and request for bid, all the requirements of the bid documents including the
plans and specifications for this bid, all of which have been read and examined prior to signature.
The bidder agrees to keep this bid open for Sixty (60) Consecutive calendar days from the
date of bid opening.
The Contractor agrees that construction shall start immediately following a mandatory pre -
construction conference held by the Parks Department, which also constitutes the Notice to
Proceed. Submission of this proposal will be taken by the City of Aspen as a binding covenant that
the Contractor will finish construction within the time specified in the Special Conditions of this
contract document.
The City of Aspen reserves the right to make the award on the basis of the bid deemed most
favorable to the City, to waive any informalities or to reject any or all bids.
The City shall not pay the Contractor for defective work and/or for repairs or additional work
required for successful completion of the project. All work not specifically set forth as a pay item
in the bid form shall be considered a subsidiary obligation of the Contractor and all costs in
connection therewith shall be included in the prices bid for the various items of work. Prices shall
include all costs in connection with furnishing the proper and success completion of the work,
including furnishing all materials, equipment and tools, and performing all labor and supervision to
fully complete the work to the City's satisfaction.
Poor quality and workmanship shall not be paid for by the City. Such work product must be
removed immediately and replaced properly at no cost to the City.
All quantities stipulated in the bid form at unit prices are approximate and are to be used only as a
basis for estimating the probable cost of work and for the purpose of comparing the bids submitted
to the City. The basis of payment shall be the actual amount of materials furnished and work done.
The Contractor agrees to make no claims for damages, anticipated profit, or otherwise on account of
any differences between the amount of work actually performed and materials actually furnished
and the estimated amount of work.
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of work to be done on the basis of the
bid unit price and up to plus or minus Twenty Five (25) Percent of the total bid.
1 hereby acknowledge receipt of ADDENDUM(s) numbered I -through d--
ESTIMATED QUANTITYLIST
TTNTT
T[Yi'Ai,
RID ITE
QUANTITY
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
LS
1
$
&4 cod o
$
4000' o
REMOVAL OF ASPHALT MAT
SY
1433
$
1006
S
tLk) 330"
REMOVAL OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK
SY
43
$
ga"
$
1 a0L},o0
REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS
LS
I
$
%cAe°
$
a&oc°
REMOVAL OF FENCE
LF
245
$
(Q 50
$
1592. 66
REMOVAL OF PIPE
LF
20
$
3a,°"
$
V000
SUBSURFACE EXCAVATION (BACKFILL &
CY
40
$
COMPACTION)
EMBANKMENT MATERIAL (COMPLETE IN PLACE)
CY
170
$
POTHOLING
HR
8
$
I$0e&
$
I440°°
SHORING (BRIDGE)
LS
1
$
I ljooeo
$
%bJobo,
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE)
LS
1
$
1,000-°
$
43000°o
STRUCTURE BACKFI LL (BRIDGE)
LS
1
$
$
(�po&a
TOPSOIL (COMPLETE IN PLACE)
CY
165
$
30&0
$
-19 5o'
TEMPORARY BERMS
LF
50
$
m
ac�o°o
EROSION BALES (WEED FREE)
EACH
10
$
l5°°
$
l5c,
EROSION STABILIZED STRAW LOG (8INCH)
LF
965
$
320
$
jW9 CAP
CONCRETE WASH OUT STRUCTURE
EACH
1
$
tboop0
$
l000'
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
EACH
1
$
3000°°
SEDIMENT REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL
LS
1
$
35moo
$
A560°
RESET BRIDGE DRAINAGE
LS
1
$
150o°O
$
15oeo
RESET CRIBBING
LS
1
$
l o)'U&opD
$
103 %0°°
RESET TRASH CAN
EACH
1
$
400"
$
4odo'
RESET SIGN
EACH
2
$
a5d'°
$
560"
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (CLASS 6)
CY
163
$
t q G
$
I I) oaI& 4 5
CRUSHER FINES PATH (6-INCH)
SY
29
$
7141
$
lo&5 39
RIP RAP (6 INCH)(ANGULAR)
SF
100
$
I rl S 5
$
I'7 35 eo
BOULDER RETAINING WALL
CY
1
$
1 l0cf °
$
t t°opO
PEDESTRIAN RAILING (STEEL)
LF
179
$
. "3olo°&
$
54,999
CONCRETE CLASS D (BRIDGE)
CY
13
$
.510 p0
$
10Io3000
CONCRETE PRECAST DECK UNIT (20 FEET TO 25
EA
2
$
y�9a(ol
$
19�99 a
FEET)
CONCRETE PRECAST DECK UNIT (5 FEET TO 10
EA
1
$
(0300
$
10300'
FEET)
a +Ito
�ov yo
REIIVFORCING STEEL (EPDXY COATED)
LB
1840
$
$
g so'
12 INCH CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE
LF
25
$
3��
p
560
$
o0
$40
6 INCH CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE
LF
15
$
$
DRAINAGE BASIN
EA
1
$
5oV,
$
5apao
FENCE WOOD (36INCH)
LF
196
$
l�l 53
80
$
ag 4 i
80
FENCE WOOD (54INCH)
LF
51
$
1 `8
00
$
G6$
°O
40a 5
FENCE (PASTIC)
LF
875
$
3
P.
$
$
9
ao
40�lva
BITUMINOUSBIKEWAY (3INCH)
SY
1453
$
CONCRETE BIKEWAY (6 INCH)(COLORED)
SY
80
$
SO00
$
IDLIO0000
CONCRETE BIKEWAY (8INCH)(COLORED)
SY
70
$
giO00
$
(OO
LS
I
$
l(�l$OOoo
$
lhyitmop
LIGHTING
EA
1
$
lloo`
$
Iloo�
SANITARY FACILITY
L50ro
$
a5o 60
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING
LS
I
$
(ac))000oa $
1,0,0000,
MOBILIZATION
LS
1
$
N A
EPDXY PAVEMENT MARKING MATERIAL
GA
6
$
N A
$
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL
LS
1
$
gOopp
$
'goo,
TOTAL BID IN NUMBERS: 3(�y5
Total Bid in Words:
gee --�6 Ole t S
I acknowledge that in submitting this bid it is understood that the right to reject any and all bids has
been reserved by the owner.
Authorized Officer:,
Full name signature:
Company address:
Telephone number: ,10— 1,39' q�
Fax number:
Attested by:
Title: /Lee
Attachment B
CASTLE CREEK UNDERPASS & BUGSY/MAROLT TRAIL
Comprehensive Project Budget / Construction Cost Estimate Aspen Parks Department
18-May-09
WORK ITEM QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST
DESIGN
City Parks Project Management/Design 1
LS
13,455.40
13,455.40
coordination-2008
City Parks Project Management/Design 1
LS
4,058.00
4,058.00
coordination-2009
Consulting Engineer fees (to date 5/04/09) 1
LS
83,075.55
83,075.55
($97,500 contract)
Survey 1
LS
16,973.75
16,973.75
Ely Property Easement Appraisal 1
LS
2,500.00
2,500.00
Repgrographics 1
LS
10.49
10.49
Administration costs 1
LS
177.43
177.43
Project Advertising -public meetings, ITB 1
LS
1,454.39
1,454.39
Subtotal Design
121,705.01
SITE CONSTRUCTION - COA scope
Construction Information Signs 1
LS
1,000.00
1,000.00
Mobilization-San-O-Lets 1
LS
500.00
500.00
Equipment Lease allowance I
LS
7,000.00
7,000.00
Equipment Overhead: tools, repairs, etc. 1
LS
1,500.00
1,500.00
Erosion Control (stablized straw wattles) 200
LF
3.80
760.00
Construction (2009) - Dump Fees 1
LS
750.00
750.00
City Staff Payroll: Labor, Permanent Staff 1
LS
38,725.75
38,725.75
(5 week construction period)
Subtotal
50,235.75
SITE RESTORATION - COA scope
Irrigation Supplies 1
LS
5,000.00
5,000.00
Irrigation Electrical 1
LS
0.00
0.00
Seeding (Native: 11660 SF/0.27 AC) 1
LS
4,000.00
4,000.00
Native Area Mulching (0.27 AC) (supply) 1
LS
950.00
950.00
Native Area Mulching (straw supply) 1
LS
1,500.00
1,500.00
City Staff Restoration Labor 1
LS
19,905.45
19,905.45
(3 week restoration period)
Subtotal
31,355.45
Total City of Aspen Work Scope 203,296.21
TRAIL CONSTRUCTION -Bid by JAG'S ENTERPRISES., Inc.
Clearing an d Grubbing 1 LS 4,000.00 4,000.00
Removal of Asphalt Mat 1,433 SY 10.00 14,330.00
Removal of Concret Sidewalk 43 SY 28.00 1,204.00
Removal of Structures & Obstructions 1 LS 9,640.00 9,640.00
Removal of Fence
245
LF
6.50
1,592.50
Removal of Pipe
20
LF
32.00
640.00
Subsurface Excavation (backfill & compac
40
CY
6.00
240.00
Embankment Material (complete in place)
170
CY
8.00
1,360.00
Potholing
8
FIR
180.00
1,440.00
Shoring (bridge)
1
LS
16,000.00
16,000.00
Structure Excavation (bridge)
1
LS
6,000.00
6,000.00
Structure Backfill(bridge)
1
LS
6,000.00
6,000.00
Topsoil (complete in place)
165
CY
30.00
4,950.00
Temporary Berms
50
LF
500.00
25,000.00
Erosion Bales (weed free)
10
EA
15.00
150.00
Erosion Stabilized Straw Log (8 inch)
965
LF
3.80
3,667.00
Concrete Wash Out Structure
1
EA
1,000.00
1,000.00
Stabilized Construction Entrance
1
EA
2,000.00
2,000.00
Sediment Removal and Disposal
1
LS
2,500.00
2,500.00
Reset Bridge Drainage
1
LS
1,500.00
1,500.00
Reset Cribbing
1
LS
10,760.00
10,760.00
Reset Trash Can
1
EA
400.00
400.00
Reset Sign
2
EA
250.00
500.00
Aggregate Base Course (Class 6)
163
CY
67.65
11,026.95
Crusher Fines Path (6 inch)
29
SY
71.91
2,085.39
Rip Rap (6 inch) (angular)
100
SF
17.35
1,735.00
Boulder Retaining Wall
1
CY
1,100.00
1,100.00
Pedestrian Railing (steel)
179
LF
306.00
54,774.00
Concrete Class D (bridge)
13
CY
510.00
6,630.00
Concrete Precast Deck Unit
2
EA
9,996.00
19,992.00
(20 feet to 25 feet)
Concrete Precast Deck Unit
1
EA
6,300.00
6,300.00
(5 feet to 10 feet)
Reinforcing Steel (epoxy coated)
1,840
LB
2.76
5,078.40
12 inch Corrug. Steel Pipe
25
LF
34.00
850.00
6 inch Corrug. Plastic Pipe
15
LF
56.00
840.00
Drainage Basin
1
EA
506.00
506.00
Fence Wood (36 inch)
196
LF
14.53
2,847.88
Fence Wood (54 inch)
51
LF
18.80
958.80
Fence Plastic
875
LF
3.00
2,625.00
Bituminous Bikeway (3 inch)
1,453
SY
27.60
40,102.80
Concrete Bikeway (6 inch) (colored)
80
SY
80.00
6,400.00
Concrete Bikeway (8 inch) (colored)
70
SY
86.00
6,020.00
Lighting
1
LS
16,800.00
16,800.00
Sanitary Facility
1
EA
1,100.00
1,100.00
Construction Surveying
1
LS
2,500.00
2,500.00
Mobilization
1
LS
60,000.00
60,000.00
Construction Traffic Control
1
LS
800.00
800.00
Subtotal
365,945.72
Total JAG'S Enterprises, Inc Contract Work Scope 365,945.72
Grand Total Castle Creek Underpass & Bugsy/Marolt 569,241.93
Trail Construction Project
FUND
2008
584,000.00
Grand Total Castle Creek Project Development Budget 584,000.00
Contingency Budget 1 14,758.07
Attachment C
�� a,
.�
ji
I
it do
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR
CC: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION
JONATHAN GODES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF RECREATION
JON LARSON, MANAGER OF ICE FACILITIES
DATE: MAY 18, 2009
RE: JUNIOR HOCKEY ICE CREDIT
Summary:
Council will find attached an agreement between the City of Aspen and Aspen Junior Hockey for
the credit of $23,000 in ice time.
As staff presented and Council informally agreed to at a May 12th work session, $23,000 of ice
time will be credited to Junior Hockey over a 3 year period beginning in 2009.
As discussed with Council in the May 121h work session, the reason for the ice credit is due to
overcharges for contracted ice time that wasn't used. The City of Aspen is giving Aspen Junior
Hockey the benefit of the doubt that the contracted ice times were indeed cancelled and
therefore providing credit to this non-profit youth program.
Aspen Junior Hockey provides a valuable service to the Aspen Community and the youth of
Aspen. This credit assists AJH in keeping their fees reasonable to our youth and at the same
time dividing the credit over a 3 year period allows the Recreation Division to achieve
budgetary goals.
Financial Impacts:
The Recreation Division feels this direction assists Junior Hockey in meeting their financial goals
as well as the allowing the Recreation Division to meet budgetary goals by spreading the credits
over a 3 year period.
Recommended Action:
staff recommends the approval of the attached agreement crediting Aspen Junior Hockey with
$23,000 in ice time over the next 3 years.
Attachment:
Agreement between Aspen Junior Hockey and the City of Aspen
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND THE
ASPEN JUNIOR HOCKEY CLUB
THIS AGREEMENT entered into at Aspen, Colorado, this 26th day of May, 2009, by and
between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home -rule city
("hereinafter "City"), and ASPEN JUNIOR HOCKEY AND SKATING FOUNDATION, INC., a
Colorado non-profit corporation (hereinafter "Jr. Hockey").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, there has arisen a billing dispute between the City and Jr. Hockey; and
WHEREAS, the City and Jr. Hockey desire to resolve the billing dispute in an amicable
manner without either party acknowledging any error or negligence.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. The City shall credit Jr. Hockey with the amount of $23,000 for ice time over the
next three seasons. The amount of the credit shall be $7666.67 each year.
2. The parties hereto hereby agree that this agreement shall operate as a settlement
agreement and mutual release of all claims that they may have against each other and all causes
of action whatsoever, accrued or contingent, known or unknown, whether in equity or law,
pending or potential, that any party hereto has against the other that arises out of the past rental of
ice time or as a consequence of that certain Agreement between the parties for the use of the
City's ice facilities.
3. Binding Effect. All of the terms and conditions as contained in this Agreement
shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties.
4. Controlling Law. This Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of Colorado. Any action brought to enforce or interpret this Agreement
shall be brought in the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado. In the event of
litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement or matters arising therefrom, the
prevailing party shall be awarded its costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
Page 1
WHEREFORE, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed
this Agreement upon the dates as forth herein.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Steve Barwick, City Manager
TENANT:
Aspen Junior Hockey and Skating Foundation, Inc.
President
JPW- saved: 5/19/2009-387-G:\john\word\agr\jr-hockey-agr.2009.doc
Page 2
� a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director JW
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: First Reading of Ordinance #/4 Series of 2009, 210 W. Francis Street,
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation
DATE: May 26, 2009
SUMMARY: In July 2007, Aspen City Council adopted an emergency ordinance,
Ordinance #30, Series of 2007. The ordinance prohibited any exterior alterations, land
use applications, or building permits affecting all non-landmarked buildings constructed
at least 30 years ago, unless it was determined that no potential historic resource was
negatively affected. The purpose of the Ordinance was to protect Aspen's significant
architectural heritage; not only Victorians, but more modern structures as well.
Ordinance #30 was in place for 5 months, during which time Council held numerous
meetings to discuss the effect of the new regulations and potential amendments. In particular,
Council wished to see the applicability of the Ordinance narrowed down dramatically from
all properties over 30 years of age to a specific list researched by staff and found to
potentially qualify for landmark designation. In December 2007, Ordinance #48, Series of
2007 was adopted to replace Ordinance #30.
Ordinance #48 creates a formal list of potential historic resources in Aspen that may have
historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance.
Detrimental development or demolition actions affecting these properties will be limited
while the City undertakes an evaluation of the historic preservation program via the
Historic Preservation Task Force.
210 W. Francis is identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources as part of
Ordinance #48. Owners of a property listed on Ordinance #48 can still move forward
with proposed projects if they:
A. Submit the plans and seek staff determination that the work is exempt from delay
under Ordinance #48 (routine maintenance work for example); or
B. Submit plans and seek staff determination that the work, while not exempt from
Ordinance #48, can move forward by voluntarily complying with Staff or HPC
review (depending on the scope of work) of the project, or
C. Submit plans with the intention of triggering a 90 day delay period, during which
time City Staff and Council will negotiate for appropriate preservation of the
property. If the negotiation does not result in an agreement to landmark designate
the property, the building permits will be processed as requested.
In the fall of 2008, the owner of 210 W. Francis Street, Joan Tobin, submitted an
application for demolition permit and requested negotiation with Council. Mrs. Tobin
has been receptive to a discussion of potential landmark incentives, if the incentives
address her goals to preserve the property value for the long term. On September 24,
2008, HPC discussed this property and recommended by a vote of 6 to 0 that Council
pursue a cooperative landmark designation. Historic Preservation staff and the City
Attorney's office have been working with the applicant to prepare a proposal for Council
review, however the applicant's own plans have been amended and instead of pursuing
demolition, a remodel permit has been filed. The remodel still negatively affects the
architectural integrity of the property and is subject to the negotiation process.
The original 90 day negotiation period was to expire on October 27t', 2008. Council has
granted four extensions, which is permissible with the owner's agreement. The current
deadline is June 15`h, 2009. Staff appreciates the owner's effort to consider alternatives
to demolition or remodeling, however we believe that she is not prepared to identify
benefits that would be of value to her because larger redevelopment plans are far off in
the future. We believe that there are some benefits that could be attractive, but that the
discussion is premature. Staff recommends Council authorize the requested remodeling
permit, with an 10 year (instead of the normal 1 year) expiration date so that the rush to
act is put aside. If the owner wants to use the permit in the future, she will need to give
the City the option to negotiate again at that time.
APPLICANT: Joan Tobin, owner, represented by Kim Raymond, architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-005.
ADDRESS: 210 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 48, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado.
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE: The City cannot
designate properties listed on Ordinance 948, Series of 2007 without the owner's consent.
The criteria for designation are listed below and staff s analysis follows.
26.415.030.B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a
collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of
significance. The significance of properties will be evaluated according to the following
criteria. When designating an historic district, the majority of the contributing resources
in the district must meet the criteria described below:
1. A property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it is:
a. In whole or in part more than one hundred (100) years old, and
b. It possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design,
materials, workmanship and association, given its age; or
2. A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th
Century history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years
prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made, possesses
sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and
association and is related to one (1) or more of the following:
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local,
state, regional or national history,
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national
history is deemed important and the specific contribution is identified and
documented, or
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period or method of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is
deemed important.
STAFF FINDINGS: 210 W. Francis Street was built in 1965 for Charles and
Gwendolyn McHarry. It is a Pan Abode log kit house. Examples of Pan Abode homes
built in Aspen in the 1950' and 60's are shown on the next page.
Staff was able to determine that Charles McHarry has passed away and Gwendolyn is
quite elderly, but we located and contacted their daughter, who lives in Carmel. She
explained that her parents visited Aspen for many years before buying the lot on West
Francis. By that time her father was a semi -retired lawyer. They purchased the Pan
Abode kit from Jack Holst, the company's local representative and spent winters in town,
during which Charles McHarry taught skiing under Stein Eriksen.
Building permit records indicate that the house that exists today at 210 W. Francis was all
constructed in 1965, with some minor alterations and additions over the years. In 1968, a
rear porch was enclosed with glass. In 1982, the carport was converted to a playroom.
According to Assessor's records, in 1985 the windows were replaced, skylights were
added, the rear porch was more fully enclosed, the Pan Abode was painted, a bay window
was added, the fence was built, and a new fireplace was constructed.
3
As built drawings are attached to this packet, as is Staffs integrity assessment. We find
that the house merits 83 out of 100 points, which exceeds the threshold for designation.
The applicant mentions numerous concerns with energy efficiency of the current
building. The Pan Abode system does present challenges in terms of how best to insulate
the walls, however improvements, particularly to the roof and floor, are feasible as we
have seen on several projects in town.
4
POTENTIAL BENEFITS: While we believe that the owner is not ready to fully define
future development plans, Staff did prepare the following analysis of potential benefits
for the HPC discussion. It may be of interest to City Council to know what some options
might be.
The Pan Abode is 1,968 square feet of FAR, and the lot is allowed a maximum of 3,240
square feet. It would be difficult to expand the existing house above grade, since the
footprint occupies much of the lot and there are some large trees on the site. There could
perhaps be some flexibility to add on to the back of the building, which would likely
require setback variances and would impact the integrity of the 1965 structure.
A basement was apparently contemplated in 1992, but not built. This could be
constructed within the HPC guidelines.
Benefits that might be appropriate given the current status of the property include:
Impact Fee Exemption: If an addition, above or below grade, were constructed, Impact
Fees for new bedrooms would be waived.
Parks Dedication Fee: $4,429 per bedroom waived
TDMIAirQuality Fee: $498 per bedroom waived.
Variances: There is limited area for the building to be expanded above grade. HPC
could grant setback variances to create some flexibility, particularly in the rear corner of
the site. If the property is not designated, a hardship must be proven before any setback
variances can be granted. Waivers for on -site parking can also be granted.
Transferrable Development Rights (TDR): Designated landmark properties are eligible
to establish and sell TDR certificates in increments of 250 square feet of unbuilt floor
area from the designated property. These certificates are sold on the free market to non -
historic sites within the City, for as much as $1,000 per square foot (or $250,000 per
TDR) according to a recent sale. 210 W. Francis, if designated, could sell up to 5 TDR's.
FAR Bonus: Designated landmark properties are eligible for a 500 square foot floor area
bonus. The bonus cannot be sold as TDR's, but it could be applied towards any above or
below grade expansion, leaving the remaining unused development rights available as
TDR's.
Increased Density: A parcel of this size is allowed a single family house. If landmarked,
a duplex is permitted, as is a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Both of these incentives
would be hard to make use of given the large footprint of this one story house.
Other alternatives: During the negotiation process, Council has latitude to establish an
incentive package that moves beyond what is currently available. The Tobin family owns
the 6,000 square foot lot to the west of the subject site. Staff has suggested to the
property owner that there could be some consideration of moving the preservation
incentives that are difficult to achieve at 210 W. Francis (FAR bonus, increased density,
historic landmark lot split, etc.) to that parcel. Further discussion of the mechanism to do
that would be needed, however it might balance the limitations created by preserving the
E
Pan Abode intact. 212 W. Francis contains a modest home built in the mid-1950's. Staff
did not include that structure on Ordinance #48 because we did not feel that it was
directly associated with the architectural styles that have been primarily discussed as
potential historic resources. It appears to be a simple frame building.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance # , Series of
2009, on First Reading. As drafted, the Ordinance includes the following conditions:
1. Council hereby authorizes Permit #0031.2009.ARBU, for the remodeling of 210
W. Francis Street and Permit #0066.2008.ARBK, for the demolition of the house,
to be processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The
permits shall be available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective
date of this ordinance. Prior to issuance, the owner shall provide written
notification to the Community Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt
of the letter shall commence a new ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the
ninety day negotiation period the following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property
owner to discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and
other benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as
a Historic Landmark. The applicant will be asked to consider other
alternatives to acting on the remodel or demolition permits, and to identify
incentives that would deter the demolition.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation
Commission during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or
demolition, and the appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant
requests. HPC shall make a recommendation to City Council, whether the
applicant participates in the meeting or not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting
to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of
any incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly
with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development
Director or other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner
to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource.
The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session
pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the
City Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic
Landmark pursuant to the standards and limitation of the Municipal Code.
Council may grant incentives by adopting an Ordinance at a public hearing.
Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that are within their own
purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate
negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council's termination of the
negotiation, if the City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually
no
acceptable agreement, Permit #0031.2009.ARBU or Permit
#0066.2008.ARBK shall be issued.
2. Upon issuance, Permit #0031.2009.ARBU or Permit #0066.2008.ARBK shall be
valid for a period consistent with the Building Code in effect at the time of
issuance.
3. It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to
relocate the building in lieu of demolition.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. ` , Series of 2009, 210 W. Francis, Ordinance #48,
Series of 2007 Negotiation on First Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance # , Series of 2009
A.) Integrity Assessment
B.) Records
C.) Drawings of 210 W. Francis
7
ORDINANCE #—L4
(Series of 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
TERMINATING ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 NEGOTIATIONS FOR
LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 210 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK
48, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO WITH CONDITIONS
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-17-005
WHEREAS, Joan Tobin, represented by Kim Raymond, architect, has applied for a building
permit to remodel the house she owns located at 210 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 48,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Under the provisions of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007,
Joan Tobin subsequently consented to a ninety day review and negotiation of potential historic
significance of the subject house; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code states that "the Community
Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, during a public
meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of the Potential Historic
Resource. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting with the Historic
Preservation Commission;" and
WHEREAS, the property owner was notified of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting;
and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, performed an analysis of the building
and the impact of the proposed alterations to the potential historic significance of the building
and found that the criteria for landmark designation are met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 24, 2008, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application and approved a motion to recommend Council pursue
negotiations for landmark designation by a vote of 6-0.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that negotiation for landmark designation may be appropriate,
but are premature without any development plans or proposal from the applicant for incentives that
would deter demolition or alteration; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance to terminate negotiation with conditions
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
210 W. Francis Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 1 of 3
Section 1. Ordinance #48 Series of 2007 Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby grants the following:
Council hereby authorizes Permit #0031.2009.ARBU, for the remodeling of 210
W. Francis Street and Permit #0066.2008.ARBK, for the demolition of the house, to be
processed for issuance by the City of Aspen Building Department. The permits shall be
available for issuance for a period of 10 years from the effective date of this ordinance.
Prior to issuance, the owner shall provide written notification to the Community
Development Director, by certified mail. Receipt of the letter shall commence a new
ninety (90) day negotiation period. Within the ninety day negotiation period the
following shall occur:
a. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
The applicant will be asked to consider other alternatives to acting on the remodel or
demolition permits, and to identify incentives that would deter the demolition.
b. The applicant will be asked to meet with the Historic Preservation Commission
during a public meeting to discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the
appropriateness of any incentives that the applicant requests. HPC shall make a
recommendation to City Council, whether the applicant participates in the meeting or
not.
c. The applicant will be asked to meet with City Council during a public meeting to
discuss alternatives to remodeling or demolition, and the appropriateness of any
incentives that the applicant requests. City Council may negotiate directly with the
property owner or may choose to direct the Community Development Director or
other City staff as necessary to negotiate with the property owner to reach a mutually
acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City Council may
choose to provide this direction in Executive Session pursuant to State Statute. As
part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the
property be designated as a Historic Landmark pursuant to the standards and
limitation of the Municipal Code. Council may grant incentives by adopting an
Ordinance at a public hearing. Council may also direct HPC to grant incentives that
are within their own purview. City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to
terminate negotiations at any time. Upon the passage of 90 days, or any mutually
agreed upon extension thereof, or upon Council's termination of the negotiation, if the
City and the property owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement,
Permit #0031.2009.ARBU or Permit #0066.2008.ARBK shall be issued.
2. Upon issuance, Permit 40031.2009.ARBU or Permit 40066.2008.ARBK shall be valid
for a period consistent with the Building Code in effect at the time of issuance.
210 W. Francis Street
Ordinance 448 Negotiation Review
Page 2 of 3
It is expected that the owner will cooperate in good faith with any efforts to relocate the
building in lieu of demolition.
Section 2: Severability
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 3: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of June, 2009, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of May, 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 12009.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
210 W. Francis Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 3 of 3
INTEGRITYASSESSMENT- 210 W. Francis
Integrity is the ability of property to convey its significance.
• LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed
or the place where the historic event occurred.
5 - The structure is in its original location.
3 - The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains
the original alignment and proximity to the street.
0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original
site.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN MOVED.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property.
BUILDING FORM
10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still
intact.
6 - The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design
guidelines.
0 - Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form
of the structure is obscured.
STAFF RESPONSE: 10 POINTS. THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING IS
NOT ALTERED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. THE ONLY ADDITIONS
ARE MINOR EXTERIOR STORAGE CLOSETS.
ROOFFORM
10 -The original roof form is unaltered.
6 - Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the
current design guidelines.
0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form.
STAFF RESPONSE: 10 POINTS. THE ORIGINAL ROOF FORM IS
UNALTERED. SKYLIGHTS ARE A REVERSIBLE ALTERATION.
SCALE
5 - The original scale and proportions of the building are intact.
3 - The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is
intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines.
0 - The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or
alterations.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE SMALL SCALE OF THE HOUSE IS
UNALTERED.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10- The original door and window pattern are intact.
8- Some of the doors and windows are new but the original openings are
intact.
4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the
original opening sizes have been altered.
0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered.
STAFF RESPONSE: 4 POINTS. IT APPEARS THAT MOST OF THE
ORIGINAL WINDOW AND DOOR OPENINGS ARE INTACT, EXCEPT
FOR THE ENLARGED OPENINGS ON THE FRONT FACADE.
CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN
10- The form and features that define the Rustic style are intact. There is an
overall sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative
features are spare.
5- There are minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic
style.
0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the
Rustic style.
STAFF RESPONSE: 10 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED FEATURES INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 39
• SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
5- The physical surroundings are similar to that found when the structure was
originally constructed.
3-There are minor modifications to the physical surroundings.
0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the
building.
STAFF RESPONSE: 5 POINTS. THE SITE DOES HAVE SOME HEAVY
VEGETATION, HOWEVER EVEN THE 1965 BUILDING PERMIT
MENTIONS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES GRANTED TO WORK
AROUND EXISTING TREES.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5
• MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or
deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or
configuration to form a historic property.
EXTERIOR SURFACES
15- The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the
decorative trim materials are intact
10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have
been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines.
5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior
wall materials and the decorative trim materials.
0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced.
STAFF RESPONSE: 15 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED MATERIALS INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
DOORS AND WINDOWS
10-All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact.
5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the
new units would meet the design guidelines.
0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units
that would not meet design guidelines.
STAFF RESPONSE: 2 POINTS. ALL OF THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN
REPLACED, HOWEVER THE WINDOW UNITS WOULD APPEAR TO
MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) =17
• WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a
particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATIONIHAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR
IMITATION OF HAND -BUILT CHARACTER
15- The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available
materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass
produced.
10- There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or
handwork character.
5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its
stylistic category.
0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original
structure.
0- The detailing is gone.
STAFF RESPONSE: 15 POINTS. STAFF DOES NOT FIND THAT ANY
ALTERATIONS HAVE ADDED DETAILS INCONGRUENT WITH THE
RUSTIC STYLE OR PAN ABODE DESIGN.
FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME
5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are
intact
3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme
that define the Rustic style.
2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color
scheme that define the Rustic style
STAFF RESPONSE: 2 POINTS. THE PAN ABODE HAS BEEN PAINTED.
THIS IS A REVERSIBLE ALTERATION.
TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20)=17
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS=100
MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS
Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that
might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another
number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property.
TOTAL INTEGRITY SCORE FOR 210 W. FRANCIS= 83
23 000-00 Date Filed ..........MarOh 15 1�.5.._.......
BuildingFee E....../.......:�...................,,^ I '01,6L ................�..... .. .
f61 G� !� • i8 �sii.
Estimated Cost�3„r
VP
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CITY OF ASPEN, PIT%IN COUNTY, COLORADO
Permission is hereby requested to perform and do the work, repairs construction alteration or development described as follows:
Location by Street No. and Lot and Block No. W. Francis St lots P & 0 ffioek 48
Zoning Classification: Recirienti Al Sub Div.
Name and address of owner Ciharl9S P MCHArrV Bex� Menterev�lii� 439y'2
Name and address of contractor, or
Name and address of
Type Constructio + tr
Intended use and purpose Rasidenee
Number living unit cnw No. Rooms 7 No. of bath, 2
Height 11 1 I Width 40 I Length I Sq. Feet l81'7
Distance from lot lines N— 151 S— ZZI ; E—�,r�I ; W— 71 ; R.O.W.
Distance from finished grade to bottom of footing 24"
Size of footings $B x 20" Thickness and Type of Foundation Wall ffioek fiB
Size and Type of 1st story
Size and Type of 2nd story walls
Style and pitch of roof GaUe ZJP42
Joists, floor supports and rafters: (Give size, distance apart, and materials:)
First Floor 2x6 T&G
Second Floor
Floor supports 'hx0 a00 l/ V
Roof Material Built IIU Tar and Gravel
Additional particulars and remarks: (If above data is inapplicable, describe in detail here the work or construction contemplated.)
Draw plot plan on reverse side.
This application is made with the specific understanding that any Permit issued is ii"t, t to suspenion or revocation for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of
the Uniform Building Code, the Zoning regulation and all other condition E upon which said Kc t a isauesd; or for unauthorized deviation from the terms of the application or the
law, of Colorado.
Dated and signed this................. ...15._.... ......... ..day of ...... .... March ............. _.............. ..._............... 19..6.5...
....................................................................................................
( Applicant)
Capacity: ... .. .... _ . .... .. ........................ . _............. _...,.........................
(Agent, Owner, Contractor, etc.)
BUILDING PERMIT
The above and foregoing application for a Building Permit is hereby approved, subject to compliance with the following conditions:
ifwl ,0�NSTf.1Dcl�F SWC�E T EKIS /AItZ i � C.- ""rr
i
Dated -this.......... ............... ... day of.... ... 4.IQew.............................. '..lf�i.�....
....
/ '.,....l
Building Inspector.
BUILDING PERMIT REJECTED
The above and foregoing application or a rmi is ere y ems an rejected fo; the following reasons:
e,3 f,-�/,/�
job L
Dated this . .._ ..................day of /..9h�.. _.. ......,.. 19..�
Building Inspector.
Dn.w„i } Tln 77 e,
1L
7
Z
V3
01=„1:3�VOS 48bL4
Z99£-£96-£0£ '0-100 31VON09NN0 IZI X09
39WS N/ S-7V 7
r�-M- 'f yti O 4
J
IN3y 1
.n[7 no) A. 1 L. t ,i--
0
LLJ
a
o
_.
--
L L
�.
^
1LL1
z
N
O
.,w
RM
Cd
N3dS`d
11332LLS SIDNVdA
1S3M OTZ
9p4
C)
s�;
6,
m
J O
"
�p4°4�
S1J31IH)M GNOWAVd WIr
�� I
NOI 11OW30 3DN34ISD-d
NI901
Qa
z
—
SIR: i� gl
o r
i3835a4��.FS��i
w
a
g
•N M
�
v
2 CO
N A G
W
1~/ 1 w Z
=
9
U.0
Qom+
V V tO
ZQ
2'
6 N C
4 H
z
OC N O
Y O ry EO
U
Z '�
wjartml
a
1'
NLL
H Zp O
O
ZpOO OT
~ O�Gm
R' 2mc0
m N
wO
V I
mmn
'amvxi
wm
s�nLLN�
N rl 01 'N
Qomw �++
u i;�
xrc No
N��m
V
wtj
NLU
l7
l J
Q
W
O'
Z
t
pZ
oC
3
lJ
a
LA
W
o
LA
w~~
a
O
Q
F
e
E
tl
6
t!
B
E
i
S_saa
tb
^C i4
3�
�kg4tt.aa
td
n'u4
FiY
94 yi
��ll
Q
a6'y7. yE
$�
Y
y 3
tl
pp
4AV
�M4 E55SE
i�9y°�
p
Q
�y[
lyJ
eOH
6e
E §g
E'Y
K
4�
pyk��
C�5 y
�ga�e
9 H
V1 ��n en
W W�„
o ag'�
Z e§LL€e
J 3
z
W g „.
U. Aar
J
CD
0
0
N
co
to I
W03'S031M Z 60
®
II9I8 OJ H3dSY
L 3y�05'SWI;IdON 15tl3 Slfi
51�31IH3S ONOZ WIH
N3WSV L1332i1S SIDNVdA 1S9M OTZ
NOLLIIOK3G 3DN34IS321 NI801
r Z
W
3 G
¢$ N Z %
� w�
uj
o i o
� Q �- w I i,
- — --- Z r
W ce
g O I6ggS EIS
LL-1
m 3 OJ 00 Q ��@xv,�S� g �E
g a tagg@ ggg
<� t1ceIIYd�Yn3, i a3 i.
6
q
Cl
C
MO]5ll33110M Z�WINp�!y%I!wLLe
OLL66 ��WW �a++^^WW
coV
to
II9LB M'N
L 3 M 5NDIdOM 1 SM
S153ifH)aV 4NOWAVN WIN --
N3dSd L133b1S SIONVd=l 1S3M OTZ
NOLLI1OW34 3DN34ISAd NISOl
2
n
o
LU
�.,
o
Cv
r
.Z
�
_j
z
N
Z
ul
,
Q
no
>
aC
LU
w`
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
FROM: Sara Adams, Preservation Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 1 Jll�ln
DATE OF MEMO: May 12, 2009
MEETING DATE: May 18, 2009
RE: 627 Main Street, Establishment of One (1) Transferable
Development Right, Second Reading of Ordinance #12, Series
of 2009 (Parcel 2735-124-48-010).
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The applicant requests City Council approve the establishment of
one 250 square feet Transferable Development Right certificate (TDR).
627 West Main Street
BACKGROUND:
• Lot History: The subject property is a 3,000 square foot lot located within the Main
Street Historic District. 627 West Main Street is a designated Victorian era structure that
is still used as a residence.
• Previous actions:
o Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Approvals
o In 2008, HPC approved a 500 Floor Area Bonus for rehabilitation of the historic
resource and granted a development order for anew addition.' A permit is currently
pending for the addition.
' HPC Resolution 9, Series of 2008 (conceptual approval and FAR bonus) Exhibit B and HPC Resolution 16, Series
of 2008 (final approval) Exhibit C.
Page 1 of 4
o City Council Approvals
• In 2008, City Council approved the establishment of one 250 square foot TDR .2
The TDR has already been severed from the site.
DISCUSSION:
■ The purpose of a TDR is to encourage the preservation of Historic Landmarks within the
City of Aspen by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate
development right, undeveloped Floor Area to be developed on a different and non -
historic property within the City of Aspen. Each TDR comprises 250 square feet of Floor
Area. The TDR program enables standard market forces, and the demand for floor area
and increased unit sizes in specific zone districts, to accomplish a community goal of
preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. Funds that are gained
from the sale of TDRs may be invested back into the landmark.
• To date, 31 TDRs have been approved by City Council and 23 TDRs have actually been
severed from the property. 13 TDRs have been landed in Aspen, 11 of which were
landed in the Fox Crossing subdivision. 2 TDRs were landed in the Five Trees
subdivision. The City does not track TDR transactions, so we are unable to know how
many of the established TDRs have been sold. The City keeps a record of where the TDR
is severed from and where it is landed. The TDRs at Fox Crossing were used to enlarge
the allowable FAR of the new residences. The 2 TDRs landed in the Five Trees
Subdivision were used to add a 500 square foot addition to the existing residence at 850
Moore Drive.3
• The applicant requests approval from City Council to sever an additional 250 square feet
of unbuilt Floor Area from the property in the form of one (1) TDR certificate. As
mentioned previously, one TDR has already been established and severed from this
property. After the approved development order is acted upon, the resultant unbuilt FAR
after the severance of an additional TDR will be 0 square feet.
• The review criteria found in Exhibit A analyze the existing built development on the
property against the maximum allowable floor area to determine the amount of unbuilt
development that can be turned into TDRs. Development that already received approval
is also analyzed as part of the review process for establishing TDRs.4 The property must
be a local landmark, i.e. listed on Aspen's Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures, to
establish TDRs.
z City Council Ordinance 2, Series of 2008.
See Exhibit D for a spreadsheet tracking TDRs.
° See Exhibit A, criterion d.
Page 2 of 4
Floor Area Analysis for 627 West Main Street:
Total allowable floor area for 3,000 square
foot lot single family residence in MU zone
(2,400 — 250) = 2,150 square feet of
district (2,400 square feet) —
allowable floor area
severed TDR 250 square feet
Existing floor area at 627 West Main Street
1,916 square feet existing built floor area
Available unbuilt floor area
(2,150—1,916) = 234 square feet
unbuilt floor area
Approve the establishment of 1 TDR
(234 — 250) = (46) square feet
certificate at 250 square feet each
remaining unbuilt floor area on the site
after severing TDR5
Complete partial demolition of at least 16
(16 + 234) = 250 square feet of unbuilt
square feet to increase the amount of
floor area
unbuilt floor area
After demolition of at least 16 square feet,
(250 — 250) = 0 square feet of unbuilt floor
issue 1 TDR certificate worth 250 square
area on the site after severing a TDR
feet.
Currently the property is deficient 16 square feet to establish a second TDR. Prior to second
reading the applicant will obtain a demolition permit for the approved development order.
Council is asked to approve the establishment of a second TDR with the condition that it is not
severed until demolition of at least 16 square feet of the existing building is completed and
confirmed by the Building Department. A second TDR will not be severed by the City until the
existing property meets the required 250 square feet of unbuilt floor area through the demolition
of the non -historic addition.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: "In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds that the project meets the
applicable review criteria to Establish one Transferable Development Right and finds that TDRs
are a good tool for preserving a historic resource by reducing development pressure. Staff
recommends approval of the one TDR certificate."
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #12 Series of 2009 upon Second
Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
s Severance of the requested TDR will be permitted only after a demolition permit is issued by the building
department for the approved development order and at least 16 square feet is removed from the existing building.
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Review Criteria.
B — HPC Resolution 49, Series of 2008, granting Conceptual approval and FAR bonus for new
addition.
C — HPC Resolution 418, Series of 2008, granting Final approval for new addition.
D — TDR tracking spreadsheet
E - Application.
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 12
(SERIES OF 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING ONE (1)
250 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA HISTORIC TRANSERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICATE FOR THE SENDING SITE OF 627
WEST MAIN STREET,LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL NO. 2735-124-48-010.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Douglas Kelso 627 W. Main Street, Aspen, CO (hereinafter "the Applicant'),
represented by Steev Wilson of Form Phi, requesting the establishment of one (1)
Historic Transferable Development Right Certificate for the property located at 627 West
Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned MU (Mixed Use) and contains a single
family residence; and,
WHEREAS, 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of
Aspen, Colorado is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures; and,
WHEREAS, City Council Ordinance numbered 2, Series of 2008, established a
TDR for the subject property that was subsequently severed through the recordation of a
deed restriction on April 18, 2008.
WHEREAS, in order to establish a Historic Transferable Development Right
Certificate, the applicant shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Municipal
Code: Section 26.535.070 which is as follows:
26 535.070 Review Criteria for the Establishment of Historic Transferable
Development Right.
A Historic TDR Certificate for 250 square feet of Floor Area may be established by the
Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance,
finding all the following standards met:
a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a
single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter
26.710. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not
be eligible.
b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development
rights, for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two -
hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number
of Historic TDR Certificates requested.
Ordinance No. 12, Series 2009
627wmainstreet_ord finance. doc
Page 1 of 4
c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create
a nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action
shall not increase the specific nonconformity
d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual
built development, any approved development order the allowable
development right prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential
of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar
potential development incentives
e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining
legally connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates,
shall be considered null and void.
f The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the
property (the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the
allowance for a single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and
fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic
TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate an
absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the
allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending
Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area incentives and/or
exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use Code, as
may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be
acceptable to the City Attorney.
g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all
relevant requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable
number of Historic TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and
that property owner shall execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening
the available development right of the subject property together with the
appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office.
h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide
building plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be
required for the confirmation of built Floor Area.
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards,
the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the
proposed establishment of a second Historic Transferable Development Rights on the
subject property; and,
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2009 the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 12,
Series 2009, on First Reading by a 5 -0 vote, approving with conditions the establishment of
one (1) Historic Transferable Development Right Certificates for the property located at
627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and'fownsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, upon second reading of this Ordinance, the applicant has received a
building permit for demolition of the non -historic addition; and,
Ordinance No. 12, Series 2009
627wmai nstreet_ordinance. doc
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 26", 2009, the Aspen
City Council approved Ordinance No. 12, Series 2009, by a vote, approving with
conditions the establishment of a second Historic Transferable Development Right
Certificate for the property located at 627 West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the proposal
under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed
and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has
taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the request to establish one (1) Historic
Transferable Development Right meets the intent of the Aspen Historic Preservation
Program and is consistent with 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
The City Council finds that the application meets all required standards and eligibility as
stated in Section 26.535.030 and Section 26.535.070, and applicant's submission is
complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for approval; and
Section 2
The City Council does hereby establish a second Historic Transferable Development
Rights of 250 square feet of Floor Area each to the sending site located at 627 West Main
Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following
conditions:
1. Issuance of the second Historic TDR Certificate subject to the completion of
approved demolition to reduce the existingfloor area to comply with Land
Use Code Sections 26.535.070(b) and 26.535.070(d.)
2. Upon satisfaction of all requirements, the city and the applicant shall establish
a date on which the respective Historic TDR Certificates shall be validated
and issued by the City and a deed restriction on the property shall be accepted
by the City and filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
3. On the mutually agreed upon date, the Mayor of the City of Aspen shall
execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR Certificates to the
property owner and the property owner shall execute and deliver a deed
restriction lessening the available development right of the Sending Site (627
West Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen) by an
additional 250 square feet together with the appropriate fee for recording the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not 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
Ordinance No. 12, Series 2009
627wmai nstreet_ord in ance. d oc
Page 3 of 4
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 will be held on the 26`h day of May, 2009, in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
Section 7:
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 11's day of May, 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2009.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Ordinance No. 12, Series 2009
627 wma i n street_ord in ance. doc
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit A
Section 26.535.070 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HISTORIC TRANSFERABLE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT.
A Historic TDR Certificate may be established by the Mayor of the City of Aspen if the City
Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met:
a) The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-
family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710.
Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Staff Finding:
The proposed 3,000 square foot sending site is located within the Mixed Use (MU) zone district,
which allows residential single-family use. The sending site is a designated Historic Landmark,
listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures that is used as a single
family residence.
b) It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights,
for either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two -hundred and
fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR
Certificates requested.
Staff Finding:
The subject property has a total allowable FAR of 2,400 square feet for a 3,000 square foot
single family residential property in the MU zone district. One TDR (250 square feet) has
already been severed from the property, which leaves an allowable FAR of 2,150 square feet. A
total of 234 square feet of floor area remains unbuilt on the site, which is 16 square feet under the
amount needed for a 250 square feet TDR certificate. The applicant has agreed to obtain a
building permit for demolition of the non -historic addition, as part of the approved development
order, prior to second reading of the ordinance. The applicant must act on the demolition permit
and reduce the existing floor at least 16 square feet area prior to severance of a Historic TDR
Certificate. A remainder of 0 square feet of unbuilt floor area on the property after the
completion of the approved development order.
c) It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
Staff Finding:
The establishment of one TDR will not increase or create a non -conformity.
d) The analysis of unbuilt development right shall not only include the actual built
development, any approved development order the allowable development right
prescribed by zoning, and shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain
Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or similar potential development incentives.
Exhibit A
627westmainExhibitA.doc
Page 1 of 3
Staff Finding: This is a two part analysis: 1) actual built development, i.e. the existing
condition of the property and 2) analysis of approved development
Analysis of actual built development:
The existing single family residence includes 1,916 square feet of floor area out of an allowable
floor area of 2,150 square feet. The unbuilt floor area existing on the site is 234 square feet. The
applicant requests to sever one TDR worth 250 square feet. The actual built development does
not meet the threshold (by 16 square feet) to allow for the establishment of a TDR; however, the
applicant is currently awaiting the issuance of a demolition permit to commence work on the
approved development. The applicant agrees to have the demolition pen -nit in hand before
second reading of this Ordinance. Demolition of at least 16 square feet must be completed prior
to the issuance of the TDR certificate at which time the analysis of actual built development will
comply with this standard.
Analysis of approved development:
HPC granted approval for a new addition and the 500 square feet floor area bonus for historic
resources. A building permit for the project is pending. The total floor area approved for the
new addition is 2,400 square feet. Including the 500 square feet floor area bonus, the total
allowable floor area on the parcel is 2,650 square feet (2,150 + 500 bonus = 2,650), which leaves
250 square feet of unbuilt floor area. The request to sever one more TDR will leave 0 square feet
of unbuilt floor area on the property.
e) Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally
connected to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be
considered null and void
Staff Finding: The property will not include any development order to develop Floor Area
beyond that remaining legally connected to the property after the establishment of one additional
TDR certificate.
f The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property
(the Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of
Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The
deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a
square footage reduction from the allowable Floor Area, as may be amended from
time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for certain Floor Area
incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall
be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Staff Finding:
The applicant clearly states an understanding of this standard (f) in the application.
g) A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic
Exhibit A
627westmainExhibitA. doe
Page 2 of 3
TDR Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall
execute and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of
the subject property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Staff Finding:
The application states that the requirements of section (g) are understood by the applicant.
h) It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building
plans and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the
confirmation of built Floor Area.
Staff Finding:
The application demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements of section (h).
Exhibit A
627westmainExhibitA.doc
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT B
HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND AN FAR BONUS FOR
627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B, BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO;
RESOLUTION NO.9, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010
WHEREAS, the applicant, Doug Kelso, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested
approval for Major Development (Conceptual) and an FAR bonus in order to make an addition to
his residence at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application,
a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section
26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC
may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of an FAR bonus, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.110.0 of
the Municipal Code, that:
a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; and
b. The historic building is the key element of the property and the
addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the visual integrity of the historic building
and/or
c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; and/or
d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's
form, materials or openings; and/or
e, The construction materials are of the highest quality; and/or
f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; and/or
g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or
h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated May 14, 2008, performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standards and the "City of Asnen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project; an RECEPTION#: 550629, 0612612008 at
09:25:29 AM,
1 OF 2. R $11.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
EXHIBIT B
HPC CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on May 14, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standards and "City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Major Development
(Conceptual) and a 500 square foot FAR bonus for the property located at 627 W. Main Street,
Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as proposed.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION on the 14th day of May, 2008.
Approved as to Form:
Jim True, Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVA ION COMMISSION
Michael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
J",c 1z"L,��
Klathi Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT C
HPC FINAL APPROVAL
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
APPROVING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR 627 W. MAIN STREET, LOT B,
BLOCK 25, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO;
RESOLUTION NO.16, SERIES OF 2008
PARCEL ID: 2737-07-330-010
WHEREAS, the applicant, Doug Kelso, represented by Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, has requested
approval for Major Development (Final) in order to make an addition to his residence at 627 W.
Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted
to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review;" and
WHEREAS, for Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff
analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance
with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2
and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve,
disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information
necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated July 9, 2008, performed an analysis of the
application based on the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines, and recommended HPC approve the project; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 9, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found that it was consistent with the review standards and "City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and granted approval by a vote of 4 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC grants Major Development (Final) for
the property located at 627 W. Main Street, Lot B, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. HPC granted a 500 square foot FAR bonus as part of the Conceptual review of the
project.
2. Staff will review and approve test patches of the brick restoration to ensure proper
preservation of the masonry.
3. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of
exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the
fixtures.
4. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved
drawings shall be provided for review and aonroval by staff and monitor when the
information is available. RECEPTIONM 663881, 10/30/2008 at
09:18:41 AM,
1 OF 3, R $16.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION
Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO
EXHIBIT C
HPC FINAL APPROVAL
5. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being
reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board.
6. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the
building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction.
7. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC
resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to
HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of
approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer
prior to applying for the building permit.
8. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development
plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise
exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be
recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development
order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the
development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits).
Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development plan shall not result in
the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice
shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years,
pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 604 West Main Street
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with
this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required
under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the
Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
APPROVED BY THE
Approved as to Form:
AimTr--ue, Assistant City Attorney
EXHIBIT C
HPC FINAL APPROVAL
on the 9th day of July, 2008.
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
i
Michael Hoffman, Chair
ATTEST:
Kathy Stric and, Chief Deputy Clerk
W
d8
d
8
8
8
S
8$
V
C
N
s
L
m`
x
x
S
S
S
o
m
a
c
y
y
S
a
a
a
N
N
W
43
N
S
SJy
J
Jp
J
S
a
€wom
e
m
N
N
m
w
m
E
y-
E
f
ff
pp
U
mq
3
9y
9y
9
9
9
y
0
0
0
u
a
E
E
E
E
E
S
u
cei
a
s
m
U
U
U
U
LL
CC
c��
LL
O
3
3
z
z
3
i
3
3
3
3
i
3
i
i
i
3
3
3
3
3
3
i
3
HIS
iE F
28�
e
e
m
m
i.
m
m
w
r
Q
EXHIBIT D
2 of
APPROVED TDRs
number of
TDRs
Property approved
Ordinance # Year
Fox Crossing Lot 5
Fox Crossing Meadow
2
50 2004
5
50
50
2004
2004
Fox Crossing Lot 6
4
100 East Bleeker
2
31
2006
403 West Hallam
2
32
2006
208 East Hallam
5
42
2007
627 Main Street
1
2
2008
827 Dean Street
4
6
2008
612 West Main Street
6
12
2008
total number of approved TDRs
31
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION p, , - 2039
APPLICANT:
Name: Douglas Kelso � �' , ,
Location: 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611, Block 25 Lot B, city and townsite of Aspen
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273512448010
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Forum Phi
Address: 103 Devon Court Basalt, CO 81611
Phone #: (970 279-4157
PROJECT:
Name: Kelso Residence
Address: 627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611
Phone #: (970) 925-3349
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply)
❑
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt.
❑
GMQS Allotment
❑
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
❑
GMQS Exemption
❑
Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
❑
ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condom iniumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
®
Other: Historic TDRs
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
Text/Map Amendment
ExiSTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals etc.)
Existing building is an 191(� square foot single family residence
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
We are requesting 1 Historic TDRs
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $
® Pre -Application Conference Summary
® Attachment#1, Signed Fee Agreement
® Response to Attachment 43, Dimensional Requirements Form
® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
ATTACHMENT
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project:
Kelso Residence
Applicant:
Douglas Kelso
Location:
627 W. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611
Zone District:
MU
Lot Size:
3000 Square feet
Lot Area:
3000 Square feet
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: 0 Proposed: O
Number of residential
units: Existing: 1 Proposed: 1
Number of bedrooms: Existing 3 Proposed: _ 3
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 1916.5 SF Allowable: 2150SF Proposed.• 1.546.5 SF
Principal bldg. height: Existing:_N/C Allowable:_25feet Proposed- N/C_
Access. bldg. height:
Existing.
none
Allowable:_none
Proposed.
none_
On -Site parking:
Existing:_N/C
____Required.-_____
___Proposed:_N/C
% Site coverage:
Existing:
Required:
N/A__ _ ---Proposed.__
% Open Space:
Existing. --Required.
_N/A
Proposed:
Front Setback:
Existing_N/C
Required.10
feet
Proposed:_N/C
Rear Setback:
Existing_N/C
Required:
5 feetProposed:_N/C
Combined F/R:
Existing:
N/C
Required:
Proposed:_N/C
Side Setback:
Existing:_N/C
Required:5feet
Proposed:_N/C
Side Setback:
Existing:_N/C
Required:5,feet
Proposed._N/C
Combined Sides:
Existing:
N/C
Required:
Proposed:
N/C
Distance Between
Existing:
_N/A__
Required:_IOfeetProposed:_N/C_
Buildings
Existing non -conformities or encroachments: House currently lies in a setback
The following is a written response to the criteria for establishing a Historic Transferable
Development Right. The criteria are show in 26.535.070 A-H. The written response
requirement is show in 26.535.090 A6. The property referenced is 627 W. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611 owned by Douglas Kelso.
A: The Sending Site is a Historic Landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710. Properties on which such
development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
Response: The sending site is zoned Mixed Use (MU) and pursuant to the land use code
26.710.180 B12 a single family residence is a permitted use. Per the City of Aspen zoning
map the property lies within the main street historic district and this is a Historic Landmark.
B: It is demonstrated that the Sending Site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two -hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of Floor Area multiplied by the number of Historic TDR Certificates requested.
Response: Per the Mixed use zoning regulations specifically 26.710.180 D1 IA "For
properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum cumulative FAR shall be
1:1". The lot size of the lot in question is 3000 square feet, thus the FAR is 2400 square feet.
There exists a TDR affecting the site leaving 2150 in FAR. Since the FAR after the partial
demolition of the non historic portion of this project will be 1,546.5 square feet per the
included existing and demo drawings there exists 250 square feet of unbuilt FAR.
C: It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR Certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the
specific nonconformity.
Response: Since the property is presently in compliance with FAR regulations and also will
be in compliance with present regulations minus 250 square feet, there is no noncomformity
created by this request.
D: The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning, and
shall not include the potential of the Sending Site to gain Floor Area bonuses, exemptions, or
similar potential development incentives.
Response: The floor area analysis presented in item B of this response only considers the
Mixed Use zoning. Thus the property will comply without any bonuses exemptions or other
incentives.
E: Any development order to develop Floor Area, beyond that remaining legally connected to
the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and void.
Response: This is hereby agreed by the owner.
F: The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the development of the property (the
Sending Site) to an allowable Floor Area not exceeding the allowance for a single-family or
duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area multiplied by
the number of Historic TDR Certificates established. The deed restriction shall not stipulate
an absolute Floor Area, but shall stipulate a square footage reduction from the allowable
Floor Area, as may be amended from time to time. The Sending Site shall remain eligible for
certain Floor Area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City of Aspen
Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall
be acceptable to the City Attorney.
Response: This is hereby agreed by the owner.
G: A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of Historic TDR
Certificates to the Sending Site property owner and that property owner shall execute and
deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject property
together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Response: Such a real estate closing can be scheduled at the City's convenience and such title
will be delivered to the Pitkin County Clerk at that time.
H: It shall be the responsibility of the Sending Site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the Sending Site to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built Floor Area.
Response: This clause is agreed upon and appropriate drawings and analyses have been
included with this response.
Ill
Iy I040111 1174W1
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director A(0
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #13, Series of 2009, Historic Landmark
Designation, Historic Landmark Lot Split, and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007
Negotiation
DATE: May 26, 2009
SUMMARY: 219 S. Third Street
is a modem home constructed in
1965. It is identified on Ordinance
#48, Series of 2007 as a "potential
historic resource."
Owners of property on Ordinance
#48 have a few options if they wish
to proceed with work. They can
request staff or HPC approval for
their immediate plans without
actually agreeing to designation,
they can volunteer for designation
based on a package of incentives
negotiated with City Council, or
they can pass on designation and
accept a 90 day delay period for the processing of a permit to alter or demolish the building.
owners of 219 S. Third Street are willing to negotiate for designation.
The
This Council meeting is Second Reading of an Ordinance to establish incentives, if any, that
Council will commit to the property owner to achieve voluntary designation. The City is not able
to designate any properties listed on Ordinance #48 without the owner's consent. The owner of
219 S. Third Street plans to preserve the existing 1,500 square foot home, and to make an 1,100
square foot addition at the rear corner. The western half of the lot is to be subdivided into a new
lot that will contain an approximately 2,400 square foot home to be designed in the future. To
facilitate the proposed project, the applicant requests Council approval for Historic Designation,
Historic Landmark Lot Split, setback variances, an FAR bonus, a Residential Design Standards
variance, waiver of Affordable Housing Mitigation and extended vested rights. The incentives
1
being requested of Council are not within HPC's purview. The proposed project does not
increase development rights beyond what could be achieved through existing code processes.
Council negotiation would however assure the applicant the entitlements and configuration they
are seeking.
HPC discussed this property, and the owners' redevelopment goals, on January 28", March, l It',
and May 13"', 2009. The board agreed that examples of the Modern Chalet style of architecture,
particularly this example, are worthy of preservation. HPC members expressed concern that
negotiated benefits could overload the site in a manner that defeats the value of designation.
During the course of the HPC meetings, the property owner decreased the proposed floor area,
density, and bedrooms on the site. At their last meeting, HPC continued the application to May
27d' for design restudy, but indicated that they are in favor of Historic Landmark Designation and
the Historic Landmark Lot Split. They have preliminarily stated that they have concerns with the
FAR bonus being requested of Council and do not support the waiver of affordable housing
mitigation or extended vested rights. They feel that the design for the new house on Lot 2 can be
worked out through their standard review process. As part of the addition to the Modern Chalet,
the board is being asked to grant variances that are within their traditional purview, specifically a
500 square foot FAR bonus, setback variances, and Residential Design Standards variances.
Based on HPC feedback on May 13a, there is some support for the FAR bonus, but they have
asked the applicant to study ways to minimize setback reductions on the lot that contains the
historic home.
Legend N
Subject Parcel
Roads `J`] E
City Boundary
0 20 40 so 120 160 C
APPLICANT: YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005.
ADDRESS: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado.
ZONING: R-15, Moderate Density Residential.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
26.415.030.B. Criteria To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
significance of 20'h century properties like 219 S. Third Street is evaluated according to the
following criteria:
A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20th Century
history, was constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in
which the application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one (1) or more of
the following:
a. An event, pattern or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional
or national history,
b. People whose specific contribution to local, state, regional or national history is deemed
important and the specific contribution is identified and documented, or
c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method
of construction or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer,
craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important.
Staff Findina: 219 S. Third Street was built in 1965 as a vacation home for the family of Tom
Cleary. It remained in the same ownership for over 40 years. The house was designed by Eric
Friis, an architect from the area of the Cleary's residence in northern Wisconsin. Staff has been
unable to find information about Eric Friis, and is continuing to try to find additional building
history from relatives of the original owner. Regardless, staff finds that this house represents the
character of typical vacation homes being built here in the 50's and 60's. Staff has termed
houses like 219 S. Third "Modern Chalets." Buildings like "this one combined classic Chalet
architectural features, such as low pitched roofs, deep overhangs, balconies, simple form, and
orientation towards the mountain with modern aesthetics such as much more glazing on the
primary facade (typically carrying all the way up to the roof). Decoration was minimal, but still
focused on the eaves, fascias, and balconies. To a degree, this style made the characteristics of
modernism more sympathetic to the mountain environment and Aspen's architectural context.
ki
Examples of classic Chalet buildings in Aspen include:
Examples of Modern Chalets in Aspen include:
t
"'<4.
:tP
.44
4
Staff finds that 219 S. Third meets designation criteria "C." It is part of a collection of buildings
that uniquely illustrates cultural and design influences that significantly changed the built
environment of Aspen. In many ways, it conveys Aspen's maturation from a resort that
attempted to copy the European models, to one that was developing its own identify as an
American skiing destination.
The neighborhood surrounding this property is a microcosm of the architectural influences that
have dominated Aspen's history. To the north is perhaps the oldest residence in town, a circa
1885 log cabin. 1930's tourist cabins occupy the nearby L'Auberge property. Along Hopkins
Avenue are The Boomerang Lodge and several 1960's era apartment structures. To the east,
Chalets, Wrightian structures, and Victorians are common.
As part of landmark designation review, staff typically completes an integrity score sheet to
determine the amount of original features and material that exists. We are unable to do so for
this property because the Modern Chalet style is one that has become recognized as potentially
significant during the course of the Ordinance #30 and #48 discussions. At this point no context
papers or scoring forms have been adopted for use, although a draft statement is attached as
"Exhibit A." This house appears to be unaltered from the original design, both on the exterior
and interior. We did not locate building permits for any significant work on the exterior of the
structure, therefore we feel that the building has a high degree of integrity and authenticity. Staff
supports landmark designation for this structure finding that the review criteria are met.
HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
In order to complete a Historic Landmark Lot Split, the Municipal Code states that the
application shall meet the following requirements of Aspen Land Use Code: Section
26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section 26.415.120(A). In preparing this
review, staff has discovered that recent amendments to the code have rendered the latter two code
citations inaccurate. Section 26.470.070(C) previously provided for Growth Management
exemption of a new home on a Historic Landmark Lot Split parcel. The exemption is now found
at Section 26.470.060(2). Section 26.415.120(A) refers to appeals of HPC decisions. The
correct code citation is 26.415.110(A), which is procedures for review of Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The relevant code sections are addressed below.
During the HPC reviews, a neighboring property owner raised concerns about whether the
subject site is impacted by natural hazards due to its location at the toe of Shadow Mountain.
Staff asked the applicant to provide a professionally prepared analysis of this question. A letter
from Yeh Associates is attached as "Exhibit B." This letter was recently updated and stamped by
the Engineer in response to a request from the City's Engineering Department.
In addition, the neighbor raised concerns about adding another residential unit on what is a dead
end alley. The alley currently serves the neighbor's home, a log cabin, and the Modern Chalet at
5
219 S. Third. Staff consulted with the Streets Department. The comment from Jerry Nye,
Streets Director is:
"We are required to remove the snow from the right of way no matter how many
driveways take off of the alley. This particular alley at 219 S. 3`d Street isn't that different
from some other alleys we have in town. We have to drive into the alley frontwards with
our loader and go to the very end of it and back drag the snow back toward the entrance.
(The process continues as) we push the snow out to the street and stack it in a pile on the
corner of the alley and street that is our snow storage area. When the snow pile becomes
too large that it interferes with the street traffic or becomes a site problem for vehicles
leaving the alley, we haul it away to our snow dump site. This extra driveway at this
location will not change how we have to do this alley already. We do not allow home
owners to plow their snow from their driveways into the public alley ways, they must
keep all their snow from their property on their site."
For Council's information, it appears that the undeveloped portion of this alley has never
been vacated, and could be opened in the future if that was desired.
Ed Van Walraven, Aspen Fire Department, is not concerned with providing service, particularly
because the existing dead end alley is only half the length of the block. Fire is likely to require
sprinklers for the new house on the Historic Landmark Lot Split as a precautionary measure, but
would not ask for a truck turnaround or other mitigation.
26.480.030(A)(2), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, LOT SPLIT
The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single-family dwelling on a
lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes
and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision
regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not
apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures; and
Staff Finding: The property is part of the original Aspen townsite, not located in a subdivision
approved by the City or the County.
b) No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the
requirements of the underlying zone district. Any lot for which development is
proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.070(B);
and
0
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to create two lots. Both conform to the lot size
requirements (minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet) and lot area per dwelling unit requirements
(minimum area of 3,000 square feet per unit) for Historic Landmark Properties in the R-15 Zone
District.
With regard to affordable housing mitigation, Section 26.470.070(B), the Growth Management
section has been revised and the correct standards are found at Section 26.470.060(2)(a) of the
Municipal Code. New homes on vacant lots formed through a Historic Landmark Lot Split are
required to provide affordable housing mitigation. The applicant has asked for a waiver as part of
the negotiation process, discussed later in the memo.
c) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a
subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split"
exemption pursuant to Section 26.470.040(C)(1)(a): and
Staff Finding: The land has not received a subdivision exemption or lot split exemption.
d) A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and conforms to the
requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision
may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of
applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation
pursuant to Chapter 26.470.
Staff Finding: The subdivision plat shall be a condition of approval. It must be reviewed by the
Community Development Department for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land
use action.
e) Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in
the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following
approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of
the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause.
Staff Finding: The subdivision exemption agreement shall be a condition of approval.
n In the case where an existing single-family dwelling occupies a site which is
eligible for a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a
lot split.
Staff Finding: No demolition is proposed.
g) Maximum potential buildout for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not
exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single-family
home.
7
Staff Finding: A single family home is the end result on each lot. The applicant intends to keep
the duplex use in the existing house until, at the latest, the addition is constructed. The applicant
has committed that once the duplex use is forsaken, it will not be re-established. This is a
proposed condition of approval.
26.480.030(A)(4), SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT
a.) The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size
and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF or O Zone District.
Staff Finding: The subject parcel is 9,942 square feet and is located in the R-15 Zone District.
b.) The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and
the Zone District where the property is located The total FAR for each lot shall be
noted on the subdivision exemption plat.
Staff Finding: FAR is based on lot size, in this case after areas of steep slopes created by an
existing berm at the rear of the site are deducted. The lot size for purpose of determining FAR is
7,472 square feet, which equals a base allowable FAR of 4,042 square feet for a landmarked site.
The applicant proposes to add 993 square feet of bonus FAR to that, in the form of 500 square
feet from HPC and 493 square feet from Council. The FAR for each unit will be noted on the
plat.
c.) The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying
Zone District The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415.120.B.I.a, band care
only permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR
bonus will be applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
Staff Finding: The development meets the dimensional requirements of the zone district except
for setbacks and FAR. Variance requests are detailed below.
Section 26.470.060(2). Administrative Applications for Growth Manaeement. New houses
on a landmark lot split property are exempt from Growth Management competition, but are
deducted from the overall residential development ceiling levels. To receive an exemption,
affordable housing mitigation is to be provided. The applicant is requesting a waiver.
26.415.110(A), Benefits. This section describes the review process for Historic Landmark Lot
Splits. The process is being properly followed. Both HPC and Council will hold noticed public
hearings, with Council making their final determination based on a recommendation from HPC.
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 NEGOTIATION
Numerous aspects of the project are existing options for landmark properties, for instance the
Historic Landmark Lot Split and the FAR bonus and variances being considered by HPC.
0
Following is a list of the incentives that the applicant is asking directly of Council through the
latitude for negotiation provided in Ordinance #48. The applicant clearly understands that this is
a negotiation that requires give and take. They are still in the Conceptual process with HPC, and
the offer to designate relies on receiving approvals for the addition to the Modern Chalet. The
applicant has expressed that two items being requested only of Council are "dealbreakers" for
them in terms of the voluntary designation being offered. Those items are the 493 square foot
FAR bonus, and the front yard setback variance for the proposed new house.
As stated earlier, this is the first applicant to participate in a negotiation for landmark
designation. There have been four public meetings to date that have involved lengthy
discussions of the project. The applicant has continued to refine and reduce the FAR, density,
and variance requests to respond to the specific feedback that has been provided. Since first
reading, the applicant has decided to drop all requests for design review approval or exemption
by Council. The applicant has developed a relationship with HPC and appropriate architectural
solutions can be worked out.
Council is asked to grant:
1. Approval of a 493 square foot FAR bonus, allowing the new house on Lot 2 to be
approximately 2,400 square feet of FAR in size.
Staff Finding: Background on the allowable FAR is needed in order to address this item. The
duplex at 219 S. Third is currently considered non -conforming because the parcel isn't large
enough for two units (it is 9,942 square feet, instead of the minimum lot size of 15,000 square
feet.) The duplex is legal because the original building permit issued for the property clearly
indicated this use, however the undersized lot is penalized by restricting development to the
maximum FAR allowed for a single family house (3,652 square feet, after deducting some lot
area for steep slopes.) There are other development choices that could add FAR to a site like this
one. The applicant has described the maximum build out (in a non -landmark scenario) as a
single family or duplex, plus a voluntary carriage house, which is exempt from FAR up to 1200
square feet, and earns a 600 square foot FAR bonus.
Landmarked properties have different minimum lot sizes, so with the proposed designation, the
house can be designed to duplex FAR, which at 4,042 square feet is 390 square feet more than a
non -landmark scenario is allowed.
Within the framework of the negotiation for voluntary designation, the property owner intends to
ask for floor area bonuses to achieve their desired program. The bonuses are the 500 square feet
that HPC often considers for exemplary projects, and an additional grant of 493 square feet from
City Council. Of the total 5,035 square feet of FAR requested, approximately 2,400 square feet
is to be allocated to a new house on a lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split, and no
more than 2,625 square feet will be allocated to the historic house, to accommodate the existing
9]
approximately 1,500 square foot home and an 1,100 square foot addition to it. The applicant is
working with HPC to make the most appropriately scaled addition, and if that area is reduced in
the process, they would like to allocate more FAR towards the new unit on Lot 2.
The allocation of a limited amount of FAR for an addition to the resource, and transfer of all
remaining buildable area to a detached structure is very consistent with the intention of the
Historic Landmark Lot Split. In general, staff finds the size and placement of the proposed
addition to the Modern Chalet to be sympathetic, and successful in preserving the primary
facades of the building with little direct alteration to them. Staff supports the 493 square foot
bonus that is requested of Council. As described above, a property owner can receive FAR
bonuses on this site through the Carriage House program. The owner is requesting the bonus
without a required deed restriction.
A chart that compares the FAR that is allowed on the site without designation, with designation,
and with the requested negotiated benefits is attached as "Exhibit C." In addition, at First
Reading Council asked for a better understanding of the scale of the neighborhood. A map
illustrating the surrounding conditions is attached as "Exhibit D."
2. Approval of a north (front) yard setback variance of 16'6" and an east (interior) setback
variance of 5' for the new house on Lot 2.
Staff finding: HPC does not have the authority to grant setback variances on the new parcel
created through the lot split, however variances such as these could be requested of the Board of
Adjustment. Instead, the applicant requests Council approval as part of the negotiation. The
applicant is attempting to establish a building envelope for the new building. Please note that
staff has identified the alley as the front yard on this property because of the placement of the
Modern Chalet. Vehicles and people enter the property from the alley, into carports and
doorways closely related to that corridor. We refer to the south yard as the rear of the site, Third
Street and the western portion of the site as sideyards. This determination would likely be
different if the house was torn down for redevelopment. Standards would likely require the new
home to face Third Street.
With regard to the vacant lot, the applicant asks for a 16'6" front yard setback variance (staff
finds this particularly appropriate in order to be consistent with the placement of the Modern
Chalet) and a 5' east sideyard setback variance. The east sideyard variance allows more
flexibility in the footprint of the new house, and is "internalized" on the site; not directly
affecting an adjacent property owner. Staff recommends Council support the variance requests
for the vacant lot.
3. Exemption of the new house on Lot 2 from meeting the Residential Design Standards
requirement to create a detached, "Secondary Mass."
10
Staff finding: The applicant asks that Council waive compliance with the "Secondary Mass"
requirement of the Residential Design Standards for the new lot. This request could be granted
by HPC during their Conceptual review of the new home, but Council is being asked to assure
the waiver as part of the negotiation.
The Residential Design Standard requires all new homes to place at least 10% of their mass in a
detached structure. Staff can support waiver in this case because of the constrained building
envelope and the fact that the property does not relate to the streets and alleys in the traditional
manner (i.e. the primary building fronts on the alley and there is no rear access to the lot.) HPC
also expressed some flexibility during their last meeting, however they seemed to conclude that it
would be best handled when a specific building design is proposed and evaluated by them.
4. Exemption from affordable housing mitigation for the new house on Lot 2.
Staff Finding: At 2,400 square feet, the new home would be required to provide an on -site
Accessory Dwelling Unit, or to pay a cash -in -lieu fee of $171,888 (2,400 sq. ft. x $71.62/sq.ft.).
Staff sees this waiver request as a policy matter for Council. The property owner could receive a
waiver of affordable housing requirements within the existing benefits program if the new house
and existing house were condominiumized instead of separated through a Historic Landmark Lot
Split. There are other affordable housing exemptions currently provided for landmarks, for
instance waiver of affordable housing for the first 4 employees generated by new net leasable
space in a designated commercial structure.
5. 10 year vesting for all approvals granted.
Staff Finding: Once a land use approval is granted, it never expires, however it can become
subject to new laws after a certain period of time. "Vested Rights" is the time period when the
approval is protected from most changes that may be adopted (approvals are never protected
from amendments to the Building Code, and some other life/safety issues.) The City is required
to provide a 3 year vesting period. The applicant's request for 10 year vesting is a policy matter
for Council.
RECOMMENDATION: This applicant is the first property owner subject to Ordinance #48,
Series of 2007 who has volunteered to designate subject to the negotiation process. Staff
appreciates their effort to enter into a process that is new for the City.
Staff recommends Council discuss, then continue Ordinance #13, Series of 2009 to June 8`h,
2009. As stated, the applicant's offer to designate relies on some approvals that are still being
considered by HPC on May 27 h. The negotiation process requires discussion, compromise, and
revision. Staff recommends that Council indicate, as much as possible, their position, which will
be reported to HPC. Ideally, on June 8`h, the decisions of both boards will be ready to be ratified
11
by final adoption of this Ordinance. If instead, Council and the applicant are ready to agree to a
negotiation at this meeting, Ordinance #13, Series of 2009 is attached, including the following:
1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, as represented on the proposed site plan
dated and attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit B. The allowable FAR is no more
than 2,625 square feet for a single family house on Lot 1 and approximately 2,400 square
feet for a single family house on Lot 2, assuming that a 500 square foot FAR bonus is
approved by HPC. If the HPC FAR bonus is not granted, the applicant shall have the
choice as to how the distribution is amended.
2. Approval of a 493 square feet FAR increase, available through the Carriage House
program, but without the requirement to create a deed restricted affordable housing unit.
3. Approval of a 16'6" north (front) yard setback variance and a 5' east side yard setback
variance on Lot 2.
4. Waiver of the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the Residential Design Standards for Lot
2.
5. Waiver of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee for a new house of 2,400 square feet on
Lot 2.
6. 10 year vesting of the Council and HPC approvals granted for the proposed project.
7. As a condition of approval, the applicant has committed that once the duplex use is
forsaken, it will not be re-established.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to continue Ordinance #13, Series of 2009, Historic Landmark Designation, Historic
Landmark Lot Split, and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation to June 8t', 2009."
ALTERNATIVE: If the City and the owner of 219 S. Third Street are ultimately unable to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement that results in landmark designation of the property, staff
recommends that the applicant's land use review fees be waived. A good faith effort is being
made to volunteer designation and negotiate with HPC and Council. Should that fail, a fee
waiver is appropriate. Review fees to date are approximately $8,000.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance #_, Series of 2009
A. Draft historic context statement for Modern Chalets
B. Letter from Yeh Associates regarding natural hazards, dated May 6, 2009
C. FAR comparisons
D. Neighborhood development characteristics
E. Application
12
ORDINANCE #13
(Series of 2009)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION, HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT,
AN FAR BONUS, SETBACK VARIANCES, A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
VARIANCE, WAIVER OF CASH IN LIEU PAYMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MITIGATION, AND 10 YEARS VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 219 S. THIRD STREET,
PORTIONS OF LOTS O-S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-65-005
WHEREAS, the applicant, YLP West, LLC, represented by Suzanne Foster, has requested
negotiation for landmark designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 for the
proposed alterations to the property located at 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block
39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (legal description attached as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the property is included on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, as a
potential historic resource; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025(E) of the Municipal Code states that, curing the negotiation
period set forth in the Code, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the
Historic Preservation Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building
permit and the nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission;" and
WHEREAS, the property owners were notified of the Historic Preservation Commission
meeting; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated March 11, 2009, performed an
analysis of the building and the impact of the proposed alterations to the potential historic
significance of the building and found that the criteria for landmark designation are met; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on March 11, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application and approved a recommendation that City Council negotiate for
designation by a vote of 5-0; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable
development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the
goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
219 S. Third Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Historic Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 219 S. Third Street, portions of
Lots O-S, Block 39, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2: Subdivision Exemption
Pursuant to Sections 26.480.030(A)(2) and (4), Section 26.470.070(C), and Section
26.415.110(A) of the Municipal Code, and subject to those conditions of approval as specified
herein, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the subdivision exemption:
1. The applicant's submission is complete and sufficient to afford review and evaluation for
approval; and
2. The subdivision exemption is consistent with the purposes of subdivision as outlined in
Section 26.480 of the Municipal Code, which purposes include: assist in the orderly and
efficient development of the City; ensure the proper distribution of development;
encourage the well -planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of
a subdivision; improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for
surveys and plats; coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public
facilities; safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer
protection for the purchaser; acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces
and parks, provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of
important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees
or indigenous vegetation, bluff, hillsides, or similar geologic features, or edges of rivers
and other bodies of water, and, promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen.
Section 3: Subdivision Plat
Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to applying for a Building Permit,
the applicant shall record a Subdivision Plat. The Subdivision Plat shall comply with current
requirements of the City Community Development Department. At a minimum, the subdivision
plat shall:
1. Meet the requirements of Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
2. Depict any easements and signature blocks for utility mains not administered by the City of
Aspen.
3. Contain a plat note stating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor
will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the
provisions of the Land Use Code in effect at the time of application.
219 S. Third Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 2 of 5
4. Depict the approved setbacks and allowable FAR assigned to each lot.
Section 4: Subdivision Agreement and Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
Aspen City Council hereby grants the following Land Use entitlements, conditioned upon the
voluntary landmark designation of 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. Within 180 days after final approval by City Council and prior to
applying for Building Permit, the applicant shall record a Subdivision Agreement binding this
property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed
in Section 26.445.070, in addition to listing the following:
1. Approval of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, as represented on the proposed site plan
dated and attached to the Ordinance as Exhibit B. The allowable FAR is no more
than 2,625 square feet for a single family house on Lot 1 and approximately 2,400 square
feet for a single family house on Lot 2, assuming that a 500 square foot FAR bonus is
approved by HPC. If the HPC FAR bonus is not granted, the applicant shall have the
choice as to how the distribution is amended.
2. Approval of a 493 square feet FAR increase, available through the Carriage House
program, but without the requirement to create a deed restricted affordable housing unit.
3. Approval of a 16'6" north (front) yard setback variance and a 5' east side yard setback
variance on Lot 2.
4. Waiver of the "Secondary Mass" requirement of the Residential Design Standards for Lot
2.
5. Waiver of the affordable housing cash -in -lieu fee for a new house of 2,400 square feet on
Lot 2.
6. 10 year vesting of the Council and HPC approvals granted for the proposed project.
7. As a condition of approval, the applicant has committed that once the duplex use is
forsaken, it will not be re-established.
Section 6: Severability
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 7: Existing Litigation
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 8: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site -specific development plan vested
for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the
forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to
219 S. Third Street
Ordinance 448 Negotiation Review
Page 3 of 5
properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180
days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section
26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site -specific development
plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain
a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice
advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a
vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and
the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of ten (10) years, pursuant to the Land Use
Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 219 S. Third Street, portions of Lots O-S, Block 39, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of
Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the
period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date
of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section
26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado
Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 9: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 26`h day of May, 2009, in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public
notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the I 1 th day of May, 2009.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
219 S. Third Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 4 of 5
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2009.
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Exhibit A:
Legal Description of 219 S. Third Street. Lots O, P, Q, R and S, Block 39, City and Townsite of
Aspen, excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P and Q that lies south of the northerly
boundary of a right of way described as a 17 foot strip of land being 8.5 feet on each side of a
centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as
described and show in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at Page 628.
219 S. Third Street
Ordinance #48 Negotiation Review
Page 5 of 5
ASPEN'S 20'h CENTURY ARCHITECTURE:
MODERN CHALET STYLE BUILDINGS
The Modern Chalet style in Aspen describes buildings constructed in the 1950's to early
1970's that combined the influences of Chalet architecture with the modernist approach
employed by trained local architects, typically within the offices of Fritz Benedict, Herbert
Bayer, Rob Roy, and their associates. The low pitched roof, deep overhangs, balconies, simple
form, orientation towards the mountain and other aspects of the Chalets were re -visited with
much more glazing on the primary fagade, typically carrying all the way up to the roof.
Decoration was minimal, but still focused on the eaves, fascias, and balconies. To a degree,
this style made the characteristics of modernism more sympathetic to the mountain
environment and Aspen's architectural context.
CHALET PRECEDENTS
i, r
�• n `rT
r
M
1711
jw
646
Jq
1 i
Am
Y.
INYeh and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
May 6, 2009
Ms. Suzanne Foster
7 S. Main Street
Yardley, PA 19067
Project 28-211A
Revision #1
Subject: Geological Hazards Evaluation, Cleary Property, 219 S. Third Street, Aspen,
Colorado.
Dear Ms. Foster:
This letter presents the results of Yeh and Associates geological hazards evaluation for the
subject property. This evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of the geological hazards
which may affect development of the property. This evaluation consisted of field reconnaissance
and review of existing literature. Although the site is located within the City of Aspen, our
investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable
Slopes and Section 7-20-50 Geologic Hazards, Sections (a) through (i) of the Pitkin County
Development Standards. This evaluation does not include environmental assessment.
INVESTIGATION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Our investigation consisted of a site visit and review of five map sets:
• "Geologic Map of the Aspen quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado' prepared by Bruce
Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971
• "Geologic Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys", 1974 by F. M. Fox and
Associates, Inc.
• "Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential Geologic Hazards in the Aspen Quadrangle,
Pitkin County, Colorado' prepared by Bruce Bryant, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972
• "Environmental and Geologic Constraints Map of the Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys",
by F. M. Fox and Associates, Inc. 1974
• "Pitkin County Colorado, Lower Roaring Fork Valley, Potential Geologic Hazards" 1974
by Colorado State University
SITE CONDITIONS
We conducted a site visit to the property on April 21, 2009. The study area included the
northeast -facing slope on the northwestern most extremity of Aspen Mountain (Ajax) that is also
known as Shadow Mountain. Two parcels are included in this study. The parcels are located
within the City of Aspen and are bounded on the north by an alley and on the east by 3`d Street.
There is an existing house on the northeast part of the parcel. An old railroad bed, bike trail,
existing earth berm and heavily treed area lay to the south of the parcels. We understand that the
planned development will occur to the north side of the old railroad grade.
5700 East Evans Avenue, Denver, CO 80222, (303) 781.9590, Fax (303) 781-9583
170 Mel Ray Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, (970) 384-1500, Fax (970) 384-1501
670 Turner Drive, Suite D, Durango, CO 81303, (970) 382-9590, Fax (970) 382-9583
28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South 3 d Street, Aspen, Colorado
The topography above the site is relatively steep, mountainous terrain. The elevation of the
slope above the study area ranges from about 7900 to 8900 feet.
The slope above the site consists of exposed bedrock cliffs with local slope gradients greater than
150% interrupted by talus slopes which have developed due to rocks dislodging from the
bedrock cliffs and depositing at the base of the cliffs. This part of the slope is heavily vegetated
with conifers as well as low forest undergrowth and grasses. The outcropping bedrock areas
consist of very hard, dolomitic sandstone, shale and quartzite bedrock with some shallow rocky
talus covered bedrock.
Most of the slope, except for the outcropping bedrock, consists of soft, shallow colluvial soil
deposits with cobble and boulder sized dolomitic sandstone clasts partially to completely buried
in the soil matrix. The bedrock is estimated to have several feet of soil cover and will likely
possess rockfall characteristics more like rocky soil than bedrock. This portion of the slope is
moderately to heavily vegetated with conifers and light forest undergrowth. The conifers are
typically 20 to 30 feet in height and have trunk diameters of 6 to 18 inches.
Mine access and activities above the parcel have resulted in a slope that is softer, flatter and more
irregular than the natural slope higher up the mountain. The bike path which runs along the base
of the hill to the south of the parcels creates a flat area that is approximately 30 to 50 feet wide.
28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South Yd Street, Aspen, Colorado
There is also a five-foot high, man-made earth berm located to the south of the proposed
development.
The outcropping dolomitic sandstone units show evidence of potential future rockfall. The
frequency of rockfall from the cliffs is moderate, with multiple rockfall events greater than one
half cubic yard occurring annually. Although a potential source area exists, we believe that any
rockfall originating from this area will stop on the slope above the pedestrian trail and will not
impact the subject parcels.
28-211A Cleary Property, 219 South 3"Street, Aspen, Colorado
RESULTS
Section 7-20-20 Steep and Potentially Unstable Slopes
The parcels are relatively flat except for the slope formed by the old railroad grade which is well
vegetated and stable in its current configuration. The site is not impacted by steep and potentially
unstable slopes.
Section 7-20-50 (c) Rockfall
There is a potential source of rockfall several hundred feet above the site which does not affect
the proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site. The remnants of
past mining have created an area, which will stop any rockfall that originates from the northeast
facing slope of Shadow Mountain. The slope configuration resulting from the historic mining
activity as well as the existing earth berm will protect the site and the proposed development
from rockfall hazards.
Section 7-20-50 (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard
There is a potential for small, infrequent debris flow and debris flood events to originate from
Shadow Mountain during intense precipitation events. These small events will not affect the
proposed development due to the characteristics of the slope above the site where the remnants
of past mining have created an area which is less steep in addition to the protection provided by
the flat area and berm near the existing bike path. Future debris events will not affect the
proposed development.
Section 7-20-50 (e) Talus Slopes
One of the maps that we reviewed showed the parcel at the boundary of Quaternary talus deposit.
Our site visit indicated that the actual boundary was several hundred feet to the south of the
mapped boundary and that the site is not impacted by talus slopes.
Section 7-20-50 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (a), (h), (i)
This site is not impacted by Section 7-20-50 (a) Avalanche; (b) Landslide Hazard; (c) Rockfall
Hazards; (d) Alluvial Fan Hazard; (e) Talus Slopes; (f) Mancos Shale; (g) Faults; (h) Expansive
Soil and Rock; (i) Ground Subsidence.
SUMMARY
Our research and evaluation indicates that the proposed development at this site is not impacted
by potential geological hazards and is suitable for the proposed development.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geological practices in this
area for use by the client for preliminary planning purposes. If geological hazard mitigation is
included in the site -specific development plan, Yeh and Associates, Inc. should review the
28-21 lA Cleary Property, 219 South Yd Street, Aspen, Colorado
proposed design and construction procedure. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the observations made in the field.
The findings and recommendations given in this report are site -specific, and are only valid for
the subject site.
INC.
A. PihrV.G., (WY #PG-3353)
1a1 Scientist
Reviewed by:
r
Ric card D. Johnson, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Eneir
35Y,§2.
o
o
oo
p
O
00
y
U
�
cda
x
U
N
o
o
o
ro
U
N
b0
N
o
ou
o
a
on
d
o
' 0
y
b
w
O
uN
N
O.
Cq
°
N
+
N
0,
cG
<d
w
Z
u
o
>
°
>
sa
oN�
.Y
oC4
V
4
C
cq
y3
,y
@)
=
ti
tw
w
o
❑
b
�
d
N
w
d
°
th
-�
C
„
b
O
'O
U
CD
ai
b
O
N
p
ti
N
O
.�
N
.O
O
C/]
•ci �
O
:3
O
7
kn
M
N
❑
m
X
�
U
t
U
O
pq
N
C
b
C43
C
O
Ln
O
U
N
U
C
bq
cox
O
'to
.CS
o
❑
O
Qr.
v
H
to
N
3
rq
to
rq
>p
er
cl
N
U
d
w
3
aki
z
re
O.
w
�
y
>
Legend
Address
Lot Size
Use
Heated Area
1) 431 W Hopkins
12,000 sq ft
SF
4,124 sq ft
2) 413 W Hopkins
7,500
SF
5,227 sq ft
3) 205 Third Street
7,500
SF/ADU
1,471 sq ft
4) 333 W Hopkins
3,000
SF
3,087 sq ft
5) 218 Third Street
3,000
SF
under construction
6) 325 W Hopkins
6,000
SF
1,691 sq ft
7) 315 W Hopkins
7,500
SF
4,998 sq ft
8) 303 W Hopkins
7,500
SF
4,559 sq ft
9) 334 Hyman
9,000
Lodge
12,306 sq ft
10) 334 Hyman
6,000
4 Units
4,440 sq ft
11) 312 W Hyman
6,000
SF
1,536 sq ft
12) 300 W Hyman
6,000
9 units
3,718 sq ft
13) 315 W Hyman
1,102
SF
921 sq ft
14) 301 W Hyman
3,600
4-8 units
2,240 sq ft
15) 432 W Hopkins
12,000
Duplex
4,211 sq ft
16) 400 W Hopkins
15,000
7 units
10,154 sq ft
17) 500 W Hopkins
27,000
Lodge
45,000 sq ft proposed
18) 334 W Hopkins
6,000
SF
2,948 sq ft
19) 324 W Hopkins
9,000
4 Units
6,600 sq ft
20) 308 W Hopkins
6,000
2 Units
1,284 sq ft
21) 300 W Hopkins
6,000
SF
5,002 sq ft
219 S Third Street *
Existing with addition
6,005
SF
3500 sq ft
Proposed New Lot
3,985
SF
TBD
N
W+E
S
Key
-SF=
Single Family House
- 1 st Number is the lot size
- 2nd Number is the heated
area (sq ft)
-All numbers taken from the
Assesors Data
0 40 80 160 240 320
Feet
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use
PROJECT: THE CITY OF ASPEN
Name: P LJesI' t t t_C_
Location: t q S ' 3. S
151 OcK "9`1 T-on+ &4 L rs O N o kS K
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and
Parcel ID # (REOUIRED) n1-1 3 5 - 1 a Ll - (n S- 0 0 S
APPLICANT:
2}5
in of property)
Name: `i L P 1AJe5t- LtrG
Address: % 4
1900
i
Phone #: af5 -yk3— (oloo Fax#:o115 - 93-- GSS`i
E-mail:
hUzunnz L
REPRESENTATIVE'
Name: S u g a r r-e. T=) s tr._
Address: S m a h 51� F U �d1 Pa I S O to -7
Phone#: 9.t315- 3- 190-7 Fax#: all 493 -(o55J
E-mail:
uur+;nna CV
+40"S -V (� a..Ii 2 18f5 • C6W�
TYPE OF APPLICATION: lease check all that apply):
Historic Designation
❑
R2location
(temporary, on
❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect
❑
or
off -site)
0 Certificate of Appropriateness
❑
D
molition (total
❑ -Minor Historic Development
demolition)
® -Major Historic Development
H.storic
Split
Landmark Lot
® -Conceptual Historic Development
❑ -Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of
I T)u01Rk
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildinvs- uses- modifications_ etc.)
141s'+oIi,
ce' 5 e
1,f
rc P zS'd aJC,I�a' 6 �-ey rypolj
SItI'e
_Trlam,�
h eme
ek�
pen Historic Preservation
Land Use Application Requireme s, Updated: May 29, 2007
9e.�H
i
E E 3� • a i
e { 0 0 { r• -=
A
a F$
e•
°F
a;
9=
E�
k $a�
G a
0 p`
g a�f r
� n
a r
e
ge \\\
rnybr
auiR tRa ♦ eE}
ko •racer �q'.a
se � 3i€e
c�
a c 0 'egg { iB.� a ae t� g •� .d a{i { !'�� t• 0. � 0 c e
6 AV
° 0=Ri ;S� i t tgl ti F�B:-dc.. aieCFF are ; :
it '
0i i i 0F;
5 aa3��0§ i i {aslRpp
5e•:= � � aim qE6 {�{ � € � a0 ice ! G; e
Fa03: { 93i9 ♦ 'pre a
0 e d
$j�
-1,
Owner's Policy of Title Insurance Schedule A
Issued by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
LandAmerica
Lawyers Title
Lawyers Tithe Insurance Corporation is a member of the LantlAmenca family of bile insurance underwriters
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
5600 Cox Road
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060
File No PCT22148L6 Policy No C29-Z102631
Address Reference 219 S 3RD ST ASPEN, CO 81611
Amount of Insurance $4,050,000 00 Premium $ 6,911.00
Date of Policy December 2, 2009 @ 10 11 AM
1 Name of Insured YLP WEST, LLC
2 The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is IN FEE SIMPLE
3 Title is vested in YLP WEST, LLC
4 The Land referred to in this policy is situated in the County of PITKIN, State of Colorado and is described as follows
LOTS O, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 39, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
Excepting therefrom that portion of Lots O, P and Q that lies south of the northerly boundary of a right of way described as
a 17 foot strip of land being 8 5 feet an each side of a centerline of the Colorado Midland Railway right of way and
southerly 25 feet of Lot R and S as described and shown in deed and map recorded February 27, 1950 in Book 175 at
Page 628
Countersigned
Authorized officer or agent
ALTA Owner's Policy
Schedule A (Rev 5/06)
Form 1190-134L
S 14'50'49'W— 47.00
r--
/
yO
/ I l
0
I 1 1.060 F.F.
p
930 S.F.
i
I
I h/
I
Z
w
ZI
1
----------------------�
/�'0" / PROPOSED LOT 2
V
o
m o
_______-
/
3,985 sJ.
(PROPOISED F.A.R.= 2,400 sq.ft)
=
m
It1H
p 1
a
1
1
/ i
p
W
p
ZIP
q
°
F
pcl
I 1
8' 6"
I
(garage)
J/
I b/ ,'
/
I
C
I
/
Z I / _= _ PROPOSED PROPERTY DNE (TYP.)
50
I Zf
¢
I
a
I
I OW T14
�
I
g �Q7 PROPOSED ADD OW
l o
/
~
_____
GRP T
=
Q
F________
I
P0.0POSFD
6
4'fv
1
1
NS
0
1
I
1 I
I Paoros[0 �� BUSTING BUILDING
c PATS 6Eat FOOTPRINT
n
/
l I
I
I
1
0l
mYr.1
uRPORT
(
1
Z PROPOSED LOT 1
6,005 sq.ft.
1 (PROPOSED FAR, 2,625 sq.fL)
I
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)
1
I
I
I
--
N 14' SO' 49" E 75.00'
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
SOUTH THIRD STREET
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION/ BUILDING ENVELOPES A-1
FOSTER SCALE: 1 n0" = r-0"
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE: 04-1 5-09
Written description of proposal:
Proposed for 219 S. Third Street
1. Complete the historic lot split dividing the property into two separate parcels.
2. Create small addition to existing duplex as per floor plan and elevations included in
this packet.
3. Create setback variances for new lot that create an approved building envelop for its
future develpment
PIoIOn
Applicant
Project
Location:
Zone
District
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
A1'I'ACHMRNT 3 - Dimensional Requirements IIbrm
(Item #10 m) the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
O5 1 E
�l9 �- �KiQ STRz�T (EX1Sr r[r D QLek�
(For the purposes of calculating Floor A) ea, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within
the high water mark, easements, and steep slopcs. Pleasc refer to the definition of Lot
Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable Existing:_ Proposed:_ 0
Number of residential units: Exi.sting� Proposed: I
Number of bedrooms: Existing. LI Proposed: 3
Proposed % of demolition: O
DIMLNSIONS: (write n/a where no requirement ei�istS in the zone di,ITleI
Flom Area:
Existing: t5 3I ,allowable
� L 2 5�
Proposed
`I
a (v 2 S'
He_q h t
Principal Bldg.:
Existing: Allowable
2 5
PI oposer/:
Accessory Bldg.:
Ex)mng: A(lnwable.
N�9
Proposed:
1'
On -Site parking:
Bxistirng: a Re uued
ti
'�o Site COvCI'agC:
Emsfutg: 0 9ry ] RC U!'ed:
q
/" //t
1),Oposed_'
°/a Open Space.
Existing : �I) tie Required:
Proposed:
Front Setback:
Existing: � io ' Re uired:
9
2 S t
Proposed:
'i wa.ls�
Rear Setback:
lxisting� � Regteired:
!v
Yrnpased:
0
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicatc�A/
8xisting: _ l3 t t Required
S `
pi-oposed:14
iG �
Side Setback:
Existing t'
Required
O
Proposed:
y t l
Side Sethack:
Existing,_ a % Required:
_�� �
Proposed:
i
3
Combined Sides
g-_ 3 (J d Reguirec%:
Z.c� �
Pi-oposed:
1 oZ �
Distance between
Existing�_Z:P Roquired
��
Proposed
D
huildin g s
1 xiSting non -conformities or encroachments and note tv,tl'd4-, $-Op 5r-
if encroachment licenses have been issued:
3'�nes
Variations requested (identify the enact variances needed)
F ror 4 A�ic/ FS i9 etc ad�i 'act
IDa (ie-s
Aspcn Historic Presmvation
Land Use Application Reyuircmen�s; Updaicd: May 29, 2007
Piojcc[
Applicant
Project
Location
Zone
District.
Lai Size
Lc)l A("
AIT'ACHMHNT 3 - Dimensional Regrurements Form Item #10 cm the submittal requirements kep. Notnecessat y for all projcciS
F DSiF -9-
IA
StY-\(,,Le
T:- A LL.f
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Arca, Lot Area may he �ccluced for a�cas wi the high water n1a,k, easements, and s[ecp,elopcs. Please Hefei to Oic defmmcd of Loi
thin
icin
Ai in the Municipal Codc )
Commercial ne[ leasable:
Cz(stirr ; O p, oposed C)
_ Numberolresidcnlial units E.xistbig O Proposed 1
Number of bedrooms Ll"lSti77 —
roposed
PiOposcd % of demolition
DIMI?NSIONS: ("JAE n/s where no
rcquircnicu[ exists in the zone d
ici)
Float Aiea
Lxi,rlin�
n
Alloevable-
_ _
M oposed
t 0o,
He,chl
Principal Bicig.
Ezistin 8
911ow¢b1e
z 5
Propcscc
6
Acccssoi y Bld,,
Lsrshrr b
_ Allrnvablc
N�f�
P/oposed
Oo-Site parking
rais[ia b
� ,Required:
Prnpnsed
z
%Sitccovc,agc
Ecisiln,
cur:
ed
�/�
Proposed___
'YO Open Spaec_
E.rr tin S'
� Required:
���-
Prpposed:
Fion! Sctbacic
Existing
tcquoed
2
Proposed
eo
Rcar Sctbnck
Cxistin g
Requn ed
l v
Proposed:
/Q �
Combined Front/Rca�
Indicate N S E V+
hr0])OSC'[l'
v
Side Setback
Eg
tGx�vin
7equired:
(O
Pror�osed:
S
Side Sctbacic:
W Tzisttng:
Re rcired.
R
��
J roposed:
_
l O
Combined Sides
Fxi.ctin 8-
iequved
ID `
Proposed
l S�
Dis[ancc hclwecn
Ezistin g N i� Requi� ecC
/.
Proposed
l 7
buildings
g
Lx�shng non -conformities Or encroachments and note if encToachmeni licenses have been Issued
Variations requested (identify the enact variances needed)
v:;diqY')ceS Fv,,+
i
Aspcn t-IiSIOnC Prc Cciv,iimn
r "d Use Appticanon RGcluiicmenis_ Updaicd. May 29L 2007
1. 219 S. P Street Development Project.
History
219 S. 3rd Street has been unanimously voted as being a potential historic resource
within the identified historic context of the Modern Chalet by the members of HPC on its
January 28, 2009 meeting.
With this HPC endorsement, it is our intention to voluntarily designate the existing
duplex historic under Ordinance #48.
In our original application package we had the following requests, which, after taking
into consideration the comments and concerns of the HPC members have been revised:
• Original density —1 duplex with 8 bedrooms and 1 single family with 3
bedrooms. Revised density — I single family (Modern Chalet) with 3 bedrooms, 1
single family (new construction) with 3 bedrooms, a change from 12 bedrooms to
6 bedrooms.
• Original building height for chalet addition 25'. Revised height —21'
• Original variances request for new single family — Front, Rear and both side
yards. Revised variance request for new family — Front yard 8'6" to line up with
set back of existing chalet, eastern side yard variance of 5' (required — 10"). � Deleted: 8
• Original FAR bonus requested — 500 SF as allowed by HPC plus an additional
1904 SF economic incentive as allowed by HPC divided as follows: 3888 SF for
chalet, 2548 SF for new single family. Revised FAR bonus request— 500 SF
FAR bonus as allowed by HPC plus an additional 493 SF economic incentive as
allowed by HPC divided as follows: 2625 FAR for chalet and 2400 SF for the
new single family. These FAR amounts are consistent with or less than similar
sized lots in the immediate area.
In addition, since the mecums un Match 11 2008v have slut ehnyated out request to
landscapc the_pubbc nghl of way along 5, 1 Null Sueet and to .i.tec no exemption ftgtp
HPC review for the new etngle fatuity.
In return, we are asking HPC and the City of Aspen Counsel to approve the following
project for 219 S. 3`d Street
1. Approve the Ordinance #48 historic lot split.
2. Approve 2400 SF of FAR for a single family residence on the new lot including the
granting of the variances for side and front setbacks that are needed, and exempt this
property's requirement for a detached building due to the unique shape of the site.
3. Approve the 2625 SF of FAR, footprint and basic design for the expansion of the
duplex including the setback variances that will be needed.
4. Award the 500. SF allowable bonus for maintaining appropriate HPC historic guideline
for the duplex and award an additional 493 SF bonus as economic incentive.
5. Exemption from the Growth Management Quota System (employee housing) and a
waiver of Park Dedication fees for both the duplex addition and the Single family
development as outlined in your draft DTD 11/10/08.
7. Approval of the new North elevation of the existing duplex (faces ally) which includes
a new window configuration, full light wells for the submerged level and new windows
for the submerged level.
8. Approval to leave the existing duplex as the multi family dwelling, or to convert it to a
single family residence at any time in the future with no change in the available FAR and
bonus.
9. Approval for a change of roofing material and color change for roofing material.
10. Approval to change the chimney materials.
11. Approval to change the color of the building and trim.
12, Approval to change windows with like design as found necessary due to poor
condition and/or poor economy.
,l_,, 10 year vesting for all approvals granted.
]=� Approval to remove the existing porch and rebuild with materials appropriate to the
modern chalet style.
-I Deleted: uA
Deleted: 12. Approval to landscape an
provide screening on the public right of
way along 3" Street up to 3 from the
road 1
13_ The new single family lot does not
face a public street and instead will face
an alley. There are different requirement
for buildings that face alleys versus
regular pedestrian and vehicular
thoroughfares. Therefore, we would like
the single family home to be exempt fro.
HPC review.9
Deleted: 14
Deleted: 15
&GOOSED A DITION
O EXIST.
CARPORT I
(UPPER
OPOSED
TIO
LL11 O
PROPOSED XIST. I
LOWER PECK J.d.
PATIO
mast r edroo m master bath
Ll
EXIST.
' CARPORT
PROPOSED LOT 1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN A-2
FOSTER SCALE 3/32' = 1'-0'
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATC 03-01-09
1
PROPOSED ADDITION
PROPOSED
LOWER
PATIO
0 3
a o
mi
bed oom
3
PROPOSED LOT 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A-3
FOSTER SCALE: 3/32 = V-0
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE:03-01-09
1II�!®I�I'I
U9191i
!1
il_.!�-�i�ll''1''l1111'111I
1'111
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4
FOSTER SCALE :3132 = i'-C
219 S.3 RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611 DATE: 03-01-09
Mar 02 09 06:41p Traina Petty 1215) 369-0721 p.2
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
------_---J I-----------L---J
PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-5
FOSTER
219 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 81611
SCALE: 3/33' - 1'-C
DATF,03-DI-09
Mar 02 09 06:41p Traina Petta (215) 369-0721 p.1
- - - - ---
PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION
PROPOSED LOT 1 BASIC ELEVATIONS A-4
FOSTER SCALE 3�32 - r-0
210 S.3RD STREET, ASPEN CO 8161 1 DATr, 07-Ol-OD
KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HERBERT S. KLEIN
bsk@kcelaw.net
LANCE R. COTE, PC-
Ire&celaw.net
JOSEPH E, EDWARDS, III, PC
jee@kcz1aw.net
COREY T. ZURBUCH
ctz@kcelaw.net
EBEN P. CLARK
epc@kcelaw.net
MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI
mbkcakcelaw.net
DAVID C. UHLIG
dcu@kcelaw.net
• else admitted in CafSomia
May 20, 2009
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: Ord. 48 Negotiation — 219 S. Third St.
Dear Honorable Council Members,
201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE, 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE: (970) 925-8700
FACSIN=: (970) 925-3977
w .kcelmmet
I represent Paul and Angela Young, neighbors of the property at 219 S. Third St. At the first
reading on this matter on May 11,1 provided some oral comments which Councilman Skadron
requested that I provide in writing. The purpose of this letter is to comply with his request.
This has been an unusual process. The negotiation set up by Ordinance 48 has no guidelines or
stated limitations.
The typical score sheets and criteria used to evaluate whether or not designation is appropriate
are not available.
Staff has been an advocate for historic preservation and so has the HPC. That is fine, but when
the typical criteria are not available, there is a strong sense that this process has no boundaries
and that reliance on the existing land use code is out the window.
The land use code is the mainstay of protection for our community's values. Its restrictions and
benefits are the result of hard fought political battles. These standards for development should
not be cast aside unless there is a clear and overwhelming public benefit and lawful processes are
followed.
In this application, valuable development rights are being sought in exchange for voluntarily
designating as an historic structure, an existing house built in 1965. Numerous exemptions,
variances and floor area bonuses are requested by the applicant. We believe they have a value of
to the developer of a couple of million dollars.
Between the absence of specific designation criteria and the open ended nature of the negotiation
process, my clients have been experiencing a very high level of anxiety because the whole
process so far has seemed very arbitrary.
Members of the City Council
May 20, 2009
Page 2 of 3
For example, at the January 28 HPC hearing, another modern chalet, with very similar
characteristics was found by the HPC not to be worthy of proceeding through the negotiation
process — in other words, they did not find it worthy of protection.
The current application was the next matter on the HPC agenda and the HPC found that it was
worthy of protection. Since it was so similar to the previous house, it appeared to us that this was
not for any particular reason relating to its features, but because the applicant here seeks a
voluntary designation and the other applicant did not want its property designated. There should
not be two different standards — but this is what happens when there are no criteria.
The absence of standards extends beyond HPC and into your Ord. 48 negotiation process. For
example, the applicant's request for an additional 493 sq. ft. in floor area as an "economic
incentive" is not allowed by the land use code or applicable law. While the Council has
flexibility to grant waivers of fees and other monetary charges, which are real economic
incentives, additional floor area that is not provided for in the code is a defacto rezoning which
would by pass the required processes for a rezoning.
The staff s rationalization for it support of this additional floor area is that additional floor area
is allowed for a deed restricted affordable housing carriage house, and here the applicant is
seeking this footage "but without the deed restriction" (see page 9 of the staff memo). You have
to wonder about this one and it may help you to appreciate the anxiety generated in the
neighborhood by this request.
You should also be aware that the applicant originally proposed to transfer 1900 feet of floor
area off of a nearby out -parcel that she probably does not own. Once we debunked that situation,
the applicant took that off the table. So if you hear that the applicant has greatly reduced the
amount of square footage she originally asked for — well she was not entitled to that anyway.
And if you hear that the City could get a quit claim deed to the out -parcel if things go well for
the Applicant, please don't take the bait. I will give you a quit claim for it if you want one.
This applicant has also raised the anxiety level by threatening to build the maximum amount of
square footage as possible if the Applicant does not get what she wants out of this process. Her
alternative is to build the maximum free market square footage available plus a 1200 sq ft
carriage house (a for sale AH unit) and obtain a floor area bonus for that.
While this may represent more floor area, at least the community is getting a for sale AH unit.
And if that is the outcome, that is fine with us. My client's feeling is that if they are going to
have their views blocked and their dead end alley further congested, at least there will be some
tangible community benefits.
And when you see in staff s memo the statement that the proposed project does not increase
development rights beyond what could be achieved through the existing code processes (pg 2
staff memo), keep in mind that this statement seems directed to floor area and density, but is not
taking into account that the landmark proposal generates nothing but free market square footage
Members of the City Council
May 20, 2009
Page 3 of 3
and the non -historic alternative generates a significant amount of AH square footage. It is no
wonder that the applicant is choosing the Ord. 48 process. There is more money to be made
there.
And when you hear about the Applicant's non -historic alternative, please keep in mind that with
it the city gets meaningful affordable housing. However, in her historic proposal, there is no
affordable housing and she seeks a waiver of the $172,000 housing mitigation fee for the house
to be built on the lot split parcel.
So there are real trade offs. If you feel that this property is worthy of designation, we will get
almost the same amount of square footage, but no affordable housing.
Although HPC was an advocate for landmark designation, they were not an advocate for it at any
cost. It is important to emphasize HPC's discomfort with proposed incentives — as stated in the
HPC resolution.: "WE URGE CITY COUNCIL NOT TO OVER BURDEN THE
HISTORIC RESOURCE AND RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. HPC IS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PACKAGE OF
INCENTIVES PROPOSED.
Due to the lack of clear processes, the lack of typical designation criteria, zealous advocacy by
staff and several changes to the original proposal, the process to date with the HPC has been
somewhat kaf ka-esc. We are happy to have arrived at City Council - the trade offs are worth
protecting the structure. We hope and expect that you will restore confidence in the process by
being very circumspect in doling out benefits and the detrimental impacts that result from them.
Please ask yourselves what sacrifices should the neighbors and the public at large be expected to
endure when additional development is allowed to protect an historic building.
If you feel this is a marginal property, then please do not agree to its landmark designation. if
you feel it is worthy of designation, then please be careful and frugal with the benefits you
bestow.
Very truly yours,
KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC
By: NI a ' 4 .� , ilto
Herbert S. Klein 0
May 26, 2009
TO: City Council & City Clerk
Please enter this petition into record. Approximately 5 other petition pages w/
signatures were previously entered into record at HPC meetings on January 28,
2009 and March 11, 2009. These petitions in total should be part of City Council
record.
i : � -�--• : > 1965
219 S. Third Street Petition
I OPPOSE HISTORIC LOT SPLIT THAT WOULD ALLOW:
-Violation of STANDARD DENSITY (increase from 4 BEDROOMS TO 12 BEDROOMS)
and create 2ND NON -CONFORMING LOT
-MAX OUT LOTS thru SET BACK VARIANCES on ALL SIDES
-Maintain NON -CONFORMING DUPLEX on undersize lot
-INSUFFICIENT vehicle parking
-NO building plan REVIEW
-EXEMPT from GROWTH MANAGEMENT Quota System
-MULTIPLE WAIVERS of required CITY FEES
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Address !��
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
F0 $,y 360
Address
`ill S4w.)i, TI 11J Sr.A5'en AspM Q►L113oZ'i
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Address
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
0
4
Address _ q 3 a W, PuLkl'n5 ✓Lt
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Address 3/ 2 W.
A-Sp-�-'v/ !'vcoti9Da
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
IlII n
Address
May 22, 2009
TO: ASPEN CITY COUNCIL and HPC
I/We oppose historic designation and lot split at 219 South Third St. We do not
believe the existing duplex is worthy of designation and that it does not justify the
incentives/bonuses requested by applicant. The incentives and bonuses as
proposed would overcrowd the site, overwhelm the existing structure and
negatively impact the neighborhood.
Thank you,
N
Address
May 26, 2009
To: CITY COUNCIL & HPC
My name is Angela Young and I live at 413 W. Hopkins Ave with my husband Paul
and our two children; we have been full time residents for the last 5 years and our
son and daughter attend Aspen Public Schools. We, like so many of our neighbors,
work hard for the privilege to live here.
Like other Aspenites, I respect and enjoy the beauty and rich history of our town
and certainly, we must be guardians of both. But since the first HPC meeting on
January 28th, regarding this particular applicant and her proposed development, I
have become increasingly skeptical that the current historic preservation process
has become nothing more than a tool for real estate developers to use the system to
flip speculative homes and market newly created lot split properties. If this
proposed development is allowed to go forward, our neighbors and neighborhood
will inevitably suffer the lasting and permanent effects, such as increased mass and
density, overcrowding, parking issues, no affordable housing, negative aesthetic
impacts, and overburdening of city services and resources. Right now, we have two
separate, abandoned development projects behind chain link fences within a half
block of our home.
As a developer, Mrs. Foster's application does not functionally work within our
neighborhood. The project is too big and too much for the area, it creates
overcrowding and leaves no open space. Simply put, this project not only has
immediate negative impacts on the neighbors but most importantly, it will forever
adversely change the true nature and character of our neighborhood. There is
OVERWHELMING neighborhood opposition to this project.
The true historic value of this designation has been broached at the two previous
HPC meetings and I think it is fair to say that it is not necessarily a stellar example
when held to the closest scrutiny; indeed, Mrs. Foster, the owner, has characterized
it as a "flophouse" ---owner's opinion included, does it truly merit all the incentives,
bonuses and waivers the applicant is requesting in exchange for designation? It
increasingly seems the City and neighbors are being held hostage for a marginal
historic designation that will become an unwieldy albatross tied to the
neighborhood's neck for future generations! Is this the kind of historic preservation
bargaining legacy we want to implement?
Respectfully,
An ge oY ung `?r2
March 7, 2009
Dear HPC Members/ Aspen City Council:
While I am not inclined to get involved with City Government and Its workings, I feel
compelled to weigh in on 219 S Third St and the proposed historical lot split i am
very familiar with this property and 1 think it is ludicrous to grant a lot split, even if
you Feel that the duplex is worthy of designation, which In my opinion, it is not I
question the logic of what seems to be considered an `automatic incentive" in the
form of an 'automatic lot split in this town. Anyone familiar with this property
knows the unusual, irregularshape of the lot and a cursory glance leaves one with
the question, 'Where is this extra lot7` As a devoted Midland Trail hiker, I am
terribly upset with the increased density and mass burdens in terms of
encroachment this will put upon the tin".
While I have always honored the worthwhile work of organization, �•-'
feel you are in jeopardy of -backs hard-earned A
thistype of senseless 'give -backs' continue.
Respectfully,
-
Sally Matidn DDS
119 S Spring St
Aspen, CO 81611
Attu: Sara March 10, 2009
Adams
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Re: 219 S. Third Street, Aspen, CO petition
Scheduled: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dear Historic Preservation Commission members:
As you review the Third Street development application, please consider all possible negative
ramifications it will have on an important Aspen mining era landmark. The historic 1880's`Midland
railroad right-of-way is a success story of converting "rails to trails." Together with the Rio
Grande railroad right-of-way on the north side of Aspen, it is the southern half in Fritz
Benedict's "necklace trail system encircling Aspen," envisioned and advocated by him. His vision,
along with All Bioomquit's and others, helped Aspen lay the foundation for this trail "necklace"
around the perimeter of town.
Any new historic designation should not compromise or degrade the quality of this vital
pedestrian/bike/ and cross country trail linkage to and from town.
Although neither time nor resources allow us to contact the over 1,000 members of "Friends of
Shadow Mountain" on this individual issue; one of the three key tenants we guard is "preservation
of the integrity of the Midland Trail." Any new development, including this one, should not
diminish the community investment and on -going efforts to expand the trail and open space
experience on Shadow Mountain.'
Allowing any greater density, reducing set back requirements or allowing building heights above
two stories will have an irreversible adverse impact.
Sincerely,
FRIENDS of SHADOW MOUNTAIN
Board members
Carole Bloomquist
Martha Madsen
Donna Fisher
Michael Behrendt
Fonda Paterson
TO: Aspect Historic Preservation Commission — Meeting - 11 march 2009
Re: 219 So. Third Sheet, Ordnance # 48 Negotiation
Exhibit: color photos of the alley between 219 So Third St and 211 So Third St.
Subject: the alley between 219 and 211 South Third St.
From: David E Bentley - 38 year resident of 211 So. Third St who lives on that alley
Messieurs:
In the attached photos, I have lived in the tiny house across the alley from # 219
since November 1971. Note the skylight on the roof of the tiny house.
The ridge towering over this neighborhood is called Shadow Mtn for a good
reason. The sun doesn't come thru my skylight from early November until the end of
February. This is truly the shadiest part of Aspect. The snow comes harder and stays
much longer.
While the Street Department does plow the alley, the plowed and packed portion
of the roadway never goes to the edges.
Dozens of time over the last 38 years, I have seen residents park close to the
duplex to allow traffic to go past to the second west carport of 219, and in the last decade
to Paul Young's house. One side of their vehicle will sink into the unpacked straw,
requiring great time and exasperation to get the vehicle back into the center of the alley.
No matter who lives in #219 or in the proposed 2"d house to the west, the
residents will always have more cars than the 2 carport parking space designed into the
footprint of the existing building # 1 (219) or building # 2 (proposed). Currently, the
renters at 219 have between them at least 5 cars.
The St Moritz Lodge across Third St has only a small proportion of parking
spaces compared to the total number of rooms. When the St Moritz is even half full, the
entire part of Third St abutting 219 South Third is taken up by the vehicles of tourists and
construction crews. This guarantees that some of the residents of 219 have to park
alongside the house because the two carports only take two vehicles. At present, the
renters of 219 have between them, four can. The proposed 2nd building will make it
much worse since it has no direct access to either Td St or W Hopkins.
This is a DEAD-END alley.
The photographs are my argument against the proposed lot split.
Sincerely, David E Bentley (davidebentlev(alcomcsst.net (Fax: 925-4443)
PO Box 3024
Aspen CO 81612-3024
LIST OF NEIGHBORS WITHIN 300 ` WHO ARE OPPOSED TO 219 S. THIRD ST.
HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND LOT SPLIT
1. David Bentley-207 S. Third St.
2. Paul and Angela Young-413 W. Hopkins Ave.
3. John and Kathleen Callahan-205 S. Third St.
4. Jennifer Sherwin-205 S. Third St.
5. Dan and Tita McCarty-333 W. Hopkins Ave.
6. Steve and Cheryl Goldberg-430 W. Hopkins Ave.
7. Dan Verner-432 W. Hopkins Ave.
8. John Staton-431 W. Hopkins Ave.
9. Jordy Gerberg-312 W. Hyman Ave.
10. Michael Berhendt-334 W. Hyman Ave.
11. James K. Jackson -312 W. Hyman Ave.
12. Paul Young IV -413 W. Hopkins Ave
KING & SPAI.DING
May 26, 2009
Aspen City Council
City Council Chambers
City Hall
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 219 S. Third Street
Ordinance #48
Series of 2007
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I. MY NAME IS JOHN STATON.
King & Spalding LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3521
www.kslaw.com
John C. Staten
Retired Partner
Direct Dial: (404) 572-4985
Direct Fax: (404) 572-5134
jstaton@kslaw.com
I am opposed to the potential historic designation for 219 S. Third Street.
Since 1993, I have owned a home at 431 W. Hopkins at the comer of Fourth Street, next
door to Mr. and Mrs. Paul Young.
II. THE PROPERTY AT 219 S. THIRD STREET IS NOT HISTORIC.
(a) The March 11, 2009 Memorandum prepared by Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic
Preservation Officer, contains six examples of "Classic Chalet buildings" in
Aspen. The May 26, 2009 Memorandum prepared by Ms. Guthrie and filed with
Mayor Ireland and City Council now includes twelve examples of the "Modern
Chalet Style" in support of the staffs definition. It should be noted that at least
seven of the cited examples were not included in the original March 11, 2009
Memorandum.
(b) A casual review of the six (now twelve) examples and a comparison to the
property in question, clearly shows 219 S. Third Street is not worthy of a historic
designation.
Aspen City Council
May 26, 2009
Page 2
III. ASSUMING YOU FIND IT IS HISTORIC, THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING BUILDING WILL DESTROY ANY HISTORIC VALUE THAT THE
BUILDING HAD.
(a) If a building is designated historic, then it stands to reason its look as a "classic
chalet building" must be maintained after the designation. To allow the proposed
addition would eliminate its "classic chalet' look and therefore nullify its historic
designation.
(b) Any external modification should result in losing the historic designation.
IV. THE PROPOSED VARIANCES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORIC
DESIGNATION.
(i) The building is not of such historic significance that it would support all of the
variances that have been requested.
(ii) The variances, if granted, would permit construction or remodeling of two
buildings that otherwise would not be permitted without the requested variances.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John C. Staton, Jr.
John C. Staton, Jr.
JCS/ds
Thanks,
Angela Young
From: junee.kirk@comcast.net
TO: turtlemom02@hotmaii.com
Subject: Fw: Historic Preservaton 3rd& Hopkins
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:14:04 -0600
----- Original Message -----
From: skadron@comcast.net
To: Junee Kirk < mailto:ju nee. kirk@comcast. net>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Historic Preservaton 3rd& Hopkins
Junee-
I should tell you that I'm meeting with Sara in HP
Tuesday morning to discuss these issues. Specifically, I
asked to see what development impact TDRs are having,
specifically on density and character. Were going over
plans and visiting actual landing sites.
Thanks again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Junee Kirk" <junee.kirk@comcast.net>
To: "Steve Skadron" <skadron@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:38:21 PM GMT -07:00
US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Fw: Historic Preservaton 3rd& Hopkins
Dear Coucilman Steve:
As a member of the historic task force I urge the council
to deny the application at 312 S. Third, for voluntary
history designation under Ordinance #48. We have not
yet decided on the specific criteria for preservation or
even if this type of style is worthy of designation.
To give a developer all these incentives to preserve a
style of house, which has little, or no merit, in the
historical context to Aspen's history or preservation,
would be a mistake
It is common knowledge that the majority of the task
force does NOT agree in designating "modern chalets'
and have voted in committee to preserve only the most
exemplary, if this style were even deemed consideration
for preserving. The Weinerstube, a well known
structure, because it was a former post office in the 60'
and 70's, which has since become a well known
restaurant over the decades, would be an exemplary
example of this "modern chalet" style. However, this has
not even been considered for preservation by HPC staff.
The majority of the task force, in criteria committee, has
voted against preserving this architectural style. Council
should take notice that when we cannot even preserve
the Victorian mining cottages in the West End historic
neighborhood, why are we preserving this!
Why is this coming to council now? Is this because staff
is anxious to valid an ordinance #30 & 48 before it could
be turned down by the entire task force?
Historic Preservation should NOT be used as a TOOL
for increasing FAR !
The developer/owner on this site presently has a duplex
the size of 1533 sq. ft. Under the existing land use codes
they can build a duplex 3652 sq. ft. They are asking for a
lot split to expand their FAR to 5,025 sq. ft. (under the
guise of historical designation.)
With all these incentives: lot splits, additional FAR,
variance for set back requirement, request to build lot line
to lot line that negatively impacts the neighborhood and
neighbors, both in density and architecturally, this
application serves NO COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
IT is not only a poor example of this chalet style, but is
not providing employee housing on site, and is only
taking advantage of every incentive staff has provided to
preserve a very un-noteworthy structure.
The inappropriate incentives staff has provided are: lot
split, 500 additional square footage for this house being
"exemplary", 390 sq. for a separate building on the
property, and 493 sq ft for an economic incentive bonus;
variance for a 16 ft set back so a new structure can be
built lot line to lot line, a waiver of cash -in lieu of
affordable housing and 10 years vesting rights for future
development.
If this is such an exemplary, style then the owner/develop
should preserve it as it is with NO incentives. Let the
owner/developer provide the necessary affordable
housing, but there should be no cash -in- lieu. Let the
owner/developer preserve it under the existing land use
codes with no incentives and build affordable housing on
a cabin.
HOW WE GOT HERE:
When the Chalet styles came up for a vote for
preservation in the Committee for Criteria, only the best
of Chalets were deemed important for preservation.
Under consideration were how well they related to the ski
era of the well-known ski lodges at the foot of Lift One A
where Aspen's Skiing history developed.
When the "modern chalet " or Wrightian style, came up
for discussion as a style to preserve, only the most
exemplary was deemed necessary to be preserved.
Criteria for this are continually being discussed and have
not yet been voted on by the entire task force.
To many of us, it is an important notion that for
preservation of any style, mining cabin or other, it should
either fit in with Aspen's history and neighborhoods or it
should be exemplary by being a well known structure and
with much frequentation, like the Sandy House or The
Weinerstube.
312 S. Third is not an exceptional style or house. As
having been "cherry picked like many other of these
houses, off the beaten path, its style is commonplace to
most cities and adds little to any historical aspect to
Aspen.
Aspen has been renowned as a Mining town, full of small
mining cabins and Iconic Mining buildings for past 100
years. The mining cabins were surrounded by much open
space. Throughout the decades Aspen's land use codes
have striven to protect the open space while it
encouraged appropriate development in height mass and
scale, to preserve and protect Aspen's "character".
Many feel "the chalet", and "modern chalet" are not
representative of Aspen's character and history, and that
it is Victorian mining town that we should be
concentrating on first and foremost. There might be a
better argument for "chalet style' in the Lift 1A
neighborhood where skiing took place in Aspen post
World War II or the buildings of the Institute which gave
Aspen's historical prominence in the arts sciences and
music culture. These are distinctive periods in our
history which can be identified with a particular
architectural style. Not "modern chalet." When there is a
collection of these styles, the entire neighborhood or a
district should be preserved. We are not doing this.
We should be preserving our character, as a Victorian
mining town, not inventing styles of architecture which
are commonplace and seen everywhere, and which are
not unique to the Aspen Character. What is preserved in
Arizona, should not be preserved in Aspen. Besides,
entire neighborhoods of moderns" are being preserved
in Arizona. This is their character, not Aspen's character
or any part of our history.
HPC staff is not even preserving our historic
neighborhoods or even Iconic buildings! The best
examples of this is the Armory, our own Town Hall, which
is experiencing an inappropriate oversized, out of scale
new fire station which protrudes onto the sidewalk with a
52 ft, wall blocking most of the view of our iconic Town
Hall from the street.
Therefore, if we are NOT even SAVING our existing
historic districts, this ordinance 48 and this particular
application for this style, with all its incentives, surely
SHOULD NOT be put to the test! Truly it puts our historic
designation program to shame.
The majority of the citizens want preservation and many
on the task force see preservation as important, but not
in this way or this manner.
I urge you not to make a mockery of our preservation
program by approving this application, until the entire
task force can vote on these issues and present its
majority and minority views. Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
Junee Kirk
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail@. See
how. <http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?
ocid=TXT TAGLM_WL_H M_Tutorial QuickAdd 1_052009>
Vezzi E51-7,40
S6- yl<. DzS
Preservation Guidelines," an application for building permit shall be issued. Work undertaken
in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assuming that the
repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent practicable, shall be exempt from
this Section.
E. Ninety -Day Negotiation Period. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, re-
development, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource
shall be accepted by the Community Development Department. Only complete Land Use applications, as
determined by the Community Development Director, shall be accepted. A letter from the property owner
indicating an understanding of this ninety -day negotiation period shall accompany the building permit or land
use application Upon acceptance, the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not
be issued, for a period of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regarding the preservation of the Re-
source. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted
by a majority of the Council.
Within the ninety -day negotiation period, the following shall occur:
1. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property maybe eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the
nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided no-
tice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission.
3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding
the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the
staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the effects of the
building permit upon the Resource. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting with the City Council.
O 4. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the
Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property
owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preservation of the Resource. The City
Council may choose to provide this direction in Executive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part
of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council shall require that the property be designated as
a Historic Landmark, pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of
Historic Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may choose to
require the affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by the property owner.
5. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property
owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected building permits
shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building codes. Affected
land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance
with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, at its sole
discretion, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time and allow the permit or land use
application to be reviewed.
increase. (Ord. No. 56-2000, §§ 1, 7 [part], 10; Ord. No. 25-2001, §§ 1, 5 [part]; Ord. No. 1-2002, § 20
[part]; Ord. No. 54-2003, § 6; Ord. No. 48-2004, § 1; Ord. No. 50-2005, § 1)
% Sec. 26.710.050. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) Zone District is to provide areas
for long-term residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses
customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15) Zone District typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and subdivisions
on the periphery of the City. Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in
the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) Zone District.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15) Zone District.
1. Detached residential dwelling.
2. Duplex.
3. Two detached residential dwellings.
4. Home occupations.
5. Accessory buildings and uses.
6. Accessory dwelling units and carriage houses meeting the provisions of Chapter 26.520.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425:
1. Arts, cultural and civic uses.
2. Academic uses.
J. Agricultural uses.
4. Recreational uses.
5. Group home.
6. Child care center.
7. For historic landmark properties: bed and breakfast and boardinghouse.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted
and conditional uses in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) Zone District.
1. Minimum lot size: fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For lots created by Subsection
26.480.030.A.4, Historic landmark lot split: three thousand (3,000) square feet.
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit:
a. Detached residential dwelling: fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For historic
landmark properties: three thousand (3,000) square feet.
b. Duplex: seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet. For historic landmark
properties: three thousand (3,000) square feet.
c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement.
3. Minimum lot width: seventy-five (75) feet. For lots created by Subsection 26.480.030.A.4,
Historic landmark lot split: thirty (30) feet.
4. Minimum front yard setback:
a. Residential dwellings: twenty-five (25) feet.
b. Accessory buildings and all other buildings: thirty (30) feet.
5. Minimum side yard setback: ten (10) feet.
6. Minimum rear yard setback:
a. Principal buildings: ten (10) feet
b. Accessory buildings: five (5) feet.
7. Maximum height (feet): twenty-five (25) feet.
8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot: ten (10) feet.
9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Lot Size
Allowable Floor Area for
Allowable Floor Area for Two
(Square Feet)
Single -Family Residence*
Detached Dwellings or One Duplex*
0-3,000
80 square feet of floor area for each 100
90 square feet of floor area for each 100
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
2,400 square feet of floor area
2,700 square feet of floor area
3,000-9,000
2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28
2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 square
square feet of floor area for each additional
feet of floor area for each additional 100
100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
of 4,080 square feet of floor area
4,500 square feet of floor area.
9,000-15,000
4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square
4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square
feet of floor area for each additional 100
feet of floor area for each additional 100
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
4,500 square feet of floor area
4,920 square feet of floor area
15,000-50,000
4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square
4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square
feet of floor area for each additional 100
feet of floor area for each additional 100
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of
6,600 square feet of floor area
7,020 square feet of floor area
50,000+
6,600 square feet of floor area, plus 2 square
7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 square
feet of floor area for each additional 100
feet of floor area for each additional 100
square feet in lot area
square feet in lot area
* Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (I) lot shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one (q duplex.
Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on a lot less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) detached residential dwelling.
would result in undue and unnecessary hardship. Variances shall only be granted in accordance with the terms
of this Chapter.
Sec.26.314.020. Authority.
3 The Board of Adjustment, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter
shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove a development application for variances to the terms of
this Title. If the application for a variance is part of a consolidated application process authorized by the
Community Development Director pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B.1, the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission may review the application for a variance using the
standards and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
Sec. 26.314.030. Authorized variances.
Variances may only be granted from the following requirements of this Title 26:
A. Dimensional requirements.
B. Permitted uses, but only to allow for the temporary off -site location or storage of materials,
structures or equipment pursuant to building construction or construction staging.
Sec. 26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances.
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate
decision -making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this Title;
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the parcel, building or structure; and
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive
the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an
applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions
apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or
structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district
and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by
the Aspen Area Community Plan and the terms of this Title to other parcels, buildings or
structures, in the same zone district.
B. In order to authorize a variance from the permitted uses of Title 26, the appropriate decision -
making body shall make a finding that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. Notice by publication, mailing and posting of the proposed variance has been provided to
surrounding property owners in accordance with Subparagraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a.—c.
1. The present Zone District classification and existing land uses of the real property
proposed to be amended.
2. The area of the property proposed to be amended, stated in square feet or acres or a major
fraction thereof.
3. An accurate survey map of the real property proposed for amendment.
Sec. 26310.040. Standards of review.
01 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.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses,
considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
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.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character
in the City.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
1. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it
is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Sec. 26.310.050. Temporary suspension of building permits — pending ordinance.
A. Whenever the Planning and Zoning Commission adopts a resolution recommending to the City
Council an amendment to the text of this Title or the Official Zone District Map or the City Council pursuant
to Subsection 26.310.030.13 passes a proposed ordinance on first reading, whichever shall occur first, the
proposed ordinance shall be considered a pending ordinance. Unless the Planning and Zoning Commission
resolution or the proposed ordinance passed by City Council on first reading states that the proposed ordinance
shall not be considered a pending ordinance, no building permit shall be issued by the chief building official
which would be prohibited by the proposed amendment for a period of six (6) months.
B. Following a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for an
amendment to the text of this Title or the Official Zone District Map, the City Council may by motion or
resolution declare that the proposed ordinance shall not be considered a pending ordinance and any permit
applied for which otherwise conforms to this Title shall be issued by the chief building official.
obn (Z)
4. Historic L dmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of
5 Historic Landmark S es and Structures for the development of one (1) new single-family dwelling.
The Historic Landm k lot split shall meet the requirements of Subsections 26.480.030A.2 and 4,
Subsection 26.470 and Subsection 26.415.1.2A.A of this Code and the following standards:
D
a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size
and be located in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, RMF or O Zone District.
b. The total FAR for both residences shall be established by the size of the parcel and
the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on
the subdivision exemption plat.
In the Office Zone District, the following shall apply to the calculation of maximum
floor area for lots created through the historic landmark lot split. Note that the total FAR
shall not be stated on the subdivision exemption plat because the floor area will be
affected by the use established on the property:
If all buildings on what was the fathering parcel remain wholly residential in use, the
maximum floor area will be as stated in the R-6 Zone District.
If any portion of a building on a lot created by the historic landmark lot split is in
commercial/office use, then the allowed floor area for that lot shall be the floor area
allowed for all uses other than residential in the Zone District. If the adjacent parcel
created by the lot split remains wholly in residential use, then the floor area on that parcel
shall be limited to the maximum allowed on a lot of its size for residential use according
to the R-6 standards.
If there is commercial/office use on both newly created lots, the maximum floor area
for all uses other than residential in the Zone District will be applied.
%JD
c. The proposed development meets all, dimensional raga' ments of the underlying
Zone District. The variances provided in Paragraphs 26.415. B.La, b and c are
permitted on the parcels that will contains an historic structure. The FAR bonus will be
applied to the maximum FAR allowed on the original parcel.
5. Exempt timesharing. The creation of time -span estates that comply with the requirements
for exempt timesharing, pursuant to Section 26.590.030 of the Code. This subdivision exemption
shall not be used to create any new lots or dwelling units. (Ord. No. 55-2000, §11; Ord. No. 1-
2002, §11, 2002; Ord. No. 9-2002, §9; Ord. No. 21-2002, §7; Ord. No. 34-2003, §1)
Sec. 26.480.040. Procedures for review.
A development application for a subdivision approval or exemption shall be reviewed pursuant to the
procedures and standards in this Chapter and the common development review procedures set forth at Chapter
26.304.
A. Lot line adjustment and exempt timesharing. After an application for a lot line adjustment or
exempt timesharing has been determined complete by the Community Development Director, the
Director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application.
B. Exempt subdivisions.
1. Steps required: One — a public hearing before City Council.
s2fla- 4-1 6110
2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two-step process
including a public hearing before the HPC and the City Council. Notice for these hearings includes
publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Subsection 26304.060.E3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
I Staff will review the submittal material and prepare a report with relevant information and
a recommendation to continue, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove and the reason for
the recommendation.
4. The HPC may approve a resolution, recommending that City Council approve, approve
with conditions or disapprove the application.
5. The City Council may, by ordinance, approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
application.
B. Variances. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to
create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than
what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d. Less open space than required for the on -site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b. Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
C. Parking. Parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties on sites unable to
contain the number of on -site parking spaces required by the underlying zoning. Commercial
designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment -in -lieu fees for parking reductions.
The parking reduction and waiver of payment -in -lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by
the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or
architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a
historic district.
D. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties.
These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710.
E. Floor area bonus.
JZ(,,4(0.02-0
A. Determination of applicability. Applicability shall be determined at the time of building permit
submittal. The applicant may request a preapplication conference to determine as to whether the proposed
project is exempt from the requirements of this Chapter.
B. Determination of consistency. Consistency with the residential design standards shall be
determined at the time of building permit review. The applicant may request a preapplication conference to
determine consistency with the requirements of this Chapter.
C. Appeal of adverse determination. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the
residential design standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance as set forth
below.
D. Variances.
1. Administrative variances. The applicant may seek an administrative variance for not more
than three (3) of the individual requirements. An applicant who desires a variance from the residential
design standards shall demonstrate, and the Community Development Director shall find that the
variances, if granted, would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the director may consider the relationship of the proposed development
with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the director
feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of faimess related to unusual site -specific constrain.
The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning Commission an annual
report of approved administrative variances.
2. Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this
Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the
Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An
applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the
variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An
applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the
deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would:
a. Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the content in which
the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context
as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed
development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as
the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or
b. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific constraints.
(Ord. No. 52-2003, § 5; Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
Sec. 26.410.030. Administrative checklist.
The Director of Community Development shall create a checklist for use by applicants and Community
Development staff in identifying the approvals and reviews necessary for issuance of a development order for
an application that is consistent with the residential design standards. (Ord. No. 20-2005, § 1)
f2.0. ZI70.060
landmark and which contains an historic resource shall be approved by the Community Development
Director. This review applies to the rehabilitation of existing structures, reconstruction after demolition
of existing structures and the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No
affordable housing mitigation shall be required, provided that all necessary approvals are obtained,
pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, and provided that the parcel contains an historic resource.
Development of single-family or duplex structures on an historic landmark property that does not
contain an historic resource (for example, a new house on a vacant lot which was subdivided from an
historic landmark property) shall be subject to the provisions of Paragraph 26.470.060.2, Single-family
and duplex dwelling units.
Q 2. Single-famil and duplex dwelling units. The following types of development of single-family
(� or duplex structures L!Sbhw require the provision of affordable housing in one (1) of the methods
described in Subparagraph c:
a. The development of a new single-family, multiple detached residential units when
permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling on a vacant lot in one (1) of the following
conditions:
1) A vacant lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.C.
2) A vacant lot created by an historic lot split, pursuant to Paragraph 26.480.030A.4,
when the subject lot does not itself contain an historic resource.
3) A vacant lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November
14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Subsection 26.480.020.E, Aspen Townsite lots.
These new residential units shall be deducted from the development ceiling levels established
pursuant to Section 26.470.030, but shall not be deducted from the respective annual development
allotments for residential development.
b. The replacement after demolition of an existing single-family, multiple detached
residential units when permitted in the zone district or a duplex dwelling, regardless of when the lot
was subdivided or legally described. These redeveloped units shall not require a growth
management allocation and shall not be deducted from the respective annual development
allotments or development ceiling levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030.
c. Affordable housing requirements for the types of single-family and duplex development
described above shall be as follows:
Single-family. In order to qualify for a single-family approval, the applicant shall have five (5)
options:
1) Providing an above -grade, detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a carriage
house pursuant to Chapter 26.520, Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses;
2) Providing an accessory dwelling unit, or a carriage house, authorized-throughspecial
review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520;
3) Providing an off -site affordable housing unit within the Aspen In£tll Area accepted
by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed -restricted in accordance with the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended;
E. Official record. The Community Development Director shall maintain an official record of all
interpretations in the Community Development Department, which shall be available for public inspection
during normal business hours. Once an interpretation is rendered, public notice describing the interpretation
shall be published in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City.
Such notice shall be provided within fifteen (15) days of the interpretation being rendered and shall be
substantially in the following form:
"A code interpretation to Section 26.xx.xx of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, requested by xx,
was rendered on xx/xx/xx and is available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department."
F. Appeal. Any person who has made a request for interpretation may appeal the interpretation of the
Community Development Director to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth at
Chapter 26.316. (Ord. No. 12, 2007, § 13)
Chapter 26.308
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS
Sec. 26.308.010. Vested property rights.
A. Rights conferred. A development order constitutes a site specific development plan and subject to
a vested property right. A vested property right is subject to expiration (See Subsection 26.304.070.D),
revocation (See Subsection 26.304.070.E) and all rights of referendum and judicial review. A vested property
right shall preclude any zoning or land use action by the City or by an initiated measure which would alter,
impair, prevent, diminish or otherwise delay the development or use of the property as set forth in the
development order, except as set forth in Section 24-68-105, C.R.S., as amended.
B. Exemption from expiration of vested rights.
1. The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing and
posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c]) approve an exemption of the expiration of
vested rights in accordance with this Section. Only subdivisions composed of detached residential or
duplex units shall be eligible for the exemption from the expiration provisions of Subsection
26.304.070.1). To obtain an exemption, an application for exemption shall be submitted at any time
prior to the third ('/3) anniversary of the effective date of the development order which shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of City Council that:
a. Those conditions applied to a project at the time of final approval that were to have been
met as of the date of application for exemption have been complied with; and
b. Any public or private improvements that were required to be installed by the applicant
prior to construction of any dwelling unit have been installed.
2. An exemption from the expiration of vested rights shall have no time limit.
C. Extension or reinstatement of vested rights. The City Council may, by resolution at a public
hearing noticed by publication, mailing and posting (See Subparagraphs 26.304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c])
approve an extension or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance
with this Section.
1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Counci shall
consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of
application for extension or reinstatement;
b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other
permits, including a building permit and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the
project;
c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the City as a result of the
project approval such as impact fees or land dedications;
d. The needs of the City and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the
extension or reinstatement request.
2. An extension or reinstatement may be in the form of a written agreement duly authorized and
executed by the applicant and the City. Reasonable conditions may be imposed by the City Council
including, but not limited to, compliance with any amendments to this Title adopted subsequent to the
effective date of the development order and associated vested rights.
3. If the request is for reinstatement of a revoked development order, the City Council shall
determine the financial impacts of the investigation and may require the applicant to pay the reasonable
costs of investigation, enforcement and reporting by City staff.
D. Expiration of vested rights. Pursuant to Section 26.304.070 a vested property right is initiated on
the effective date of a development order for a site specific development plan and expires on the day after the
third ('/J) anniversary of said effective date. After expiration, a development order remains valid, excluding
any allotments granted pursuant to Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, but shall be subject to any changes
in the Land Use Code that have been adopted since the development's original approval. The period of vested
rights may be extended or the development exempted from expiration pursuant to this Section.
E. Revocation. The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication,
mailing to the applicant and posting (See Subparagraphs 26304.060[E][3][a][b] and [c]) revoke a
development order and associated vested rights upon a finding that:
1. The terms and conditions of the development order have not been met; or
2. The development order is void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050. (Ord. No. 5-2000,
§8; Ord. No. 27-2002, §§3-5)
Chapter 26.310
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE AND OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
Sec.26.310.010. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a means for amending the text of this Title and the Official
Zone District map. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships or confer special privileges or rights on
any person.
Sec.26.310.020. Procedure for amendment.
A. General. An application for amendments to the Land Use Code or the Official Zone District Map
may be initiated by the persons and decision -making bodies identified in Section 26.304.040 below and shall
be processed in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304.
FAX COVER
DATE: 5-20-09
TO: Amy Guthrie
FAX: 920-5439
RE: 219 South Third — Presentation boards
ATTACHMENTS
Note: As requested, here are copies of the exhibits I presented or referred to at CC on
5/11/09 and HPC on 5/13/09.
V-1: Rating Sheet — Historical Significance - 219 South Third
V-2: Comparison Rating work sheet w/621 & 626 West Francis
V-3: Photo —219 South Third - South Elevation (Street)
V-4: Photo — 626 West Francis - South Elevation (Street)
V-5: Photo — 621 West Francis - South Elevation (Alley)
V-6: Site Plan (original from Application) — added are R15 setbacks, Lot 1: existing
footprint (white) and proposed addition footprint in dark grey, open areas in light
grey; Lot 2: building envelope without requested variances in white, setback/yard
areas shown light grey
V-7: Site Plan (original from Application) — added are R15 setbacks shown in grey
shading, corresponding building envelope (white), areas of requested variances
shown in dark grey
V-8: Incentives worksheet — Valuation (draft, subject to verification)
V-9: Vicinity map (from review packet)
V-10: Enlargement of portion of site survey (from Application)
V-11: Photo of Proposed Lot 2; Spring 2009
V-12: Pho#of Alley; Spring 2009
V-13: Photo of Alley with parking and snow, Winter 2009
V-14: Photo of Alley with City's snow removal tractor; Winter 2009
Historic Significance Rating Sheet - Character and Merit - Historical Value
Eligibility Considerations - Uniquely illustrates significant design influences
Property: 219 South Third St - Aspen
exemplary, outstanding 0.9
high standard, definitive 0.75
Max
medium standard 0.5
219 s Third
Points
Scoring
low standard, ubiquitous 0.25
non-existent, insignificant 0
Location 5
3
Primary facade not oriented toward street
Main access is alley
Not in grouping
Design
Building Form 10
8
Primary gable not oriented toward street
Integrated garage not typical representation
Roof Form 10
8
Lacks cantilevered beams, not post & beam
Medium depth overhangs
Scale 5
2
?
Doors & Windows 10
8
Exterior Balconies 5
2
Altered, crude rails, wing walls, post no cant.
Other Character defining features 5
0
None, Duplex, carport, wing wails, walk out
Setting 5
1
Primary facade not oriented toward street
Main access alley, minimum site relationship
1
Oriented towards mountain
Materials
Exterior Surfaces 15
5
Commonplace, generic, readily available
Stucco base, wood siding
Doors & Windows 10
3
Commonplace, generic, readily available
North facing "front" windows undistinguished
Workmanship
Detailing and Ornamentation 15
5
Crude, minimal or non existent
Finishes & Colors 5
2
Crude, minimal or non existent
Lacks decoration, crude construction
Association- i o
TOTAL 100 (75 necessary for landmark)
NOTES: r
Category as a whole:43-83; Low relative ranking; 63 is median rank; 219: 44-52; hold up in peer review
Marginal at best, certainly not unique or significant, end of period (1930-1960); late cycle
Derivative from Arizona, California; Not designed for site; Commonplace in Snowmass Village & many other
Banal, generic building, does not have the necessary distinguishing qualities or caliber for landmarking
Easy to recreate, windows and materials currently readily available
There are better examples that would be rated higher, can't be valued for what it lacks
Not a clear category, no pedigree; transitional; (see classic chalet context paper - last paragraph)
ae
Historic Significance Rating Sheet - Character and merit
Property: 219 South Third St, Aspen
Max
Points
621
626
219
Location
5
4
5
3
Design
Building Form
10
5
9
7
Roof Form
10
6
10
8
Scale
5
2
3
3
Doors & Windows
10
6
10
8
Exterior Balconies
5
4
5
2
Other Character defining features
5
0
Setting
5
4
5
2
SCALE
exemplary, outstanding
0.9
high standard, definitive
0.75
medium standard
0.5
low standard, ubiquitous
015
non-existent, insignificant
0
>, Materials
Exterior Surfaces
15
3
8
5
Doors & Windows
10
2
8
3
Workmanship
Detailing and Omamentation
15
5
10
5
Finishes & Colors
5
2
3
2
Association
0 None
Vintage
TOTAL
100
43
76
48 (75 necessary for landmark)
vl
42;
vt
:...n
'; }
z!
71
yLiiplM
n
...: k''�arx���tY;
�.
EO ' Y
.�. �. :...t =':
�'��'�
� -_ M
+��t - - a ! -��
�lf�' - 1 .J ���
�ta'2 ��{I
'
'�9�f'�
_ �.
��
ryf'
�..
�.
a
�
... � c� -
- - ' _
r e
''
$p
V
_�.. ,�
s
MPP-02-2009 17:20 From:215 493 6559 Pase:419
Incentives Worksheet - Valuation
PROPERTY: 219 SOUTH THIRD STREET
Requested Incentives *Assume:250sfFAR TDR=$250,000
VALUE*
1 Increase FAR from single family
to duplex:
390 sf FAR $1000/sf* $ 390,000
2 FAR Increase from HPC
500 sf FAR $1000/sf $ 5009000
3 Waiver of Affordable Housing Mitigation $ 171,888
4 Waiver of park dedication fees $ 8,858
5 FAR Increase form City Council
493 sf FAR $1000/sf* $ 493,000
SUB -TOTAL
6 Density Increase, Lot Split & Variances
Assume - minimum 1 $ 5001000 +
TOTAL
A •
r"
CD
n
CD
i2
4
r
—
�
J7
-.c
-A
: Al
r l �_ h
s
AW
77 (1
` kjli "
f.
r�
1 ^mom