Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20110110
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 10, 2011 5:00 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances 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) Resolution #1, 2011 — Posting of Public Meetings b) Resolution #2, 2011 — Water Service Agreement — Buttermilk c) Resolution #3, 2011 — Contract Bobcat Toolcat Utility Vehicle d) Resolution #4, 2011 — Memorandum of Understanding — Kid's First and Early Childhood Network e) Resolution #5, 2011- Extending Ordinance #48 Negotiation Given Institute f) Resolution #7, 2011 — Contract Core Switch for County Data Center g) Board Appointments h) Minutes — December 6, 2010 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #1, 2011 — Given Institute Negotiation for Landmark Designation P.H. 1/24 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #32, 2010 — Amending Smoking Ordinance b) Resolution #6, 2011 — Rollover of Growth Management Allotments c) Ordinance #25, 2010 — Historic Designation — Cortina Lodge d) Ordinance #27, 2010 — Code Amendment — Calculations and Measurements e) Ordinance #28, 2010 — Revised Historic Preservation Aspen Modern f) 500 West Hopkins Boomerang Appeal of P &Z Resolution IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting January 24, 2011 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk - taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes. Demonstrate and invite a rtivm IIe}cninn COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: January 3, 2011 RE: Annual Meeting of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority SUMMARY: The articles of incorporation of the Aspen Public Facilities Authority state that the annual meeting shall be held on the second Monday in January. BACKGROUND: The Aspen Public Facilities Authority is a "non -profit corporation and an instrumentality of the City of Aspen for certain limited purposes ". The Board of Directors of the Authority is the members of the City Council, the City Finance Director and the City Clerk. The officers at the last annual meeting were: President Mick Ireland Vice President Derek Johnson Secretary Kathryn Koch Asst. Secretary Steve Skadron Treasurer Don Taylor The By -Laws state the President shall be the Mayor of the City of Aspen. The Vice President and Assistant Secretary shall be members of the City Council and shall hold office so long as he or she remains a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen. The Treasurer shall be the Finance Director of the City of Aspen. The Bylaws of the Authority requise'that an annual meeting be held on the second Monday of January at 5:00 p.m. at the regular meeting place of the corporation. The Bylaws state the following order of business for regular meetings: 1. Roll call 2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting (minutes of January 10, 2010 attached) 3. Bill and Communications 4. Report of President 5. Unfinished business 6. New business 7. Adjournment The Authority was formed to assist in financing the construction of the Parking Facility. The Authority initially leased the ground for the parking facility from the City, owned the facility and leased the ground and facility back to the City. All of the Authority's interest in the Parking Facility leases and subleases related to the Parking Facility has been assigned to a trustee. In 1995 the Authority passed two resolutions; one allowed the refinancing of the parking garage bonds, and one entered into a similar lease arrangement for Cozy Point. The Ground lease requires that the Authority "maintain its corporation existence, .. will not dissolve or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets and will not consolidate with or merge into another corporation..." during the term of the ground lease. In 2007, the Aspen Public Facilities Authority authorized the certificates of participation for the purchase of the Isis theatre. In 2009, the bonds for the parking garage were paid off. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 11, 2010 ANNUAL PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING Kathryn Koch called the annual public facilities meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with members Taylor, Ireland, Torre, Johnson and Romero present. Ms. Koch explained the by -laws require an annual meeting the second Tuesday of January. The only business before the board is approval of the 2009 minutes and election of a Vice President to replace Jack Johnson. Romero moved to approve the minutes of January 12, 2009; seconded by Taylor. All in favor, motion carried. Ireland moved to nominate Derek Johnson as treasurer of the Public Facilities; seconded by Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Taylor reported the bonds for the parking garage were paid off in 2009. The remaining item is certificate of participation for the Isis theatre. Ms. Koch moved to adjourn at 5:06 p.m.; seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Ireland called the meeting the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. with Councilmembers Skadron, Romero, Johnson, and Torre present. PROCLAMATION — Radon Awareness Month Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed January 2010 as radon awareness month and encouraged all citizens to test their homes. Jannette Whitcomb, environmental health department, stated their department received a grant for 500 radon test kits which are available to citizens of Aspen in their offices free of charge. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. David Guthrie and Jackie Kasabach, Aspen Hall of Fame, invited all city Council to attend the annual banquet January 23 at 6 p.m. at the Hotel Jerome. Dwight Sheliman, Carl and Katie Bergman are being inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENT 1. Mayor Ireland welcomed everyone back after a month off and said he hoped all had a great holiday season. 2. Councilman Torre reported he attended the Ruedi Water and Power Authority meeting last week where they met with the Bureau of Reclamation. Councilman Torre 2 vi a... MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: January 3, 2011 RE: Resolution Designating the Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings Pursuant to 1991 legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section 24- 6- 402(2)(c) (attached), City Council is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty -four hours in advance thereof. Posting notices as the designated place will also suffice for municipal boards and commissions. Attached is Resolution #1, Series of 2011, which identifies the glass case in the first floor lobby of City Hall as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Approval of the consent calendar will adopt this resolution. Attach Resolution #I, 2011 C.R.S. 24- 6- 402(2)(c) RESOLUTION #1 Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24 -6 -401, et. seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty -four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24- 6- 402(1)(a) to include "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy - making, rule - making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision - making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of local public body ". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 A public notice of each meeting held by the City Council of the City of Aspen and each meeting of any other board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy- making, rule - making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen, shall be posted by the City Clerk at least twenty -four hours prior to the holding of the meeting in the enclosed glass case in the lobby of City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado. Section 2 The City Clerk shall notify each board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy - making, rule - making, or formally constituted body of the City of Aspen of the contents of this resolution and the other general requirements of the Colorado Open Meeting Law, C.R.S., Section 24 -6 -401 et. seq. Dated: , 2011 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 January 10, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michie's Legal Resources Page 1 of 11 24 -6 -402. Meetings - open to public - definitions. (1) For the purposes of this section: (a) "Local public body" means any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy - making, rule- making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision - making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body. (b) "Meeting" means any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication. (c) "Political subdivision of the state" includes, but is not limited to, any county, city, city and county, town, home rule city, home rule county, home rule city and county, school district, special district, local improvement district, special improvement district, or service district. (d) "State public body" means any board, committee, commission, or other advisory, policy - making, rule - making, decision - making, or formally constituted body of any state agency, state authority, governing board of a state institution of higher education including the regents of the university of Colorado, a nonprofit corporation incorporated pursuant to section 23-5-12] (2), C.R.S., or the general assembly, and any public or private entity to which the state, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision - making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the state public body. (2) (a) All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times. (b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times. (c) Any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. In addition to any other means of full and timely notice, a local public body shall be deemed to have given full and timely notice if the notice of the meeting is posted in a designated public place within the boundaries of the local public body no less than twenty -four hours prior to the holding of the meeting. The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible. (d) (I) Minutes of any meeting of a state public body shall be taken and promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session authorized under subsection (3) of this section is held shall reflect the topic of the discussion at the executive session. (II) Minutes of any meeting of a local public body at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or could occur shall be taken and promptly http:// www .michie.com/colorado /Ipext.dll /cocode /1 / 3bdef/ 3bea2 /3c96a/3caa3 /3cab2 ?fn =do... 1/3/2011 Vi b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Hornbacher, Deputy Director of Utilities and Renewable Energy THRU: Phil Overeynder, Utilities& Environmental Initiatives Director THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 5, 2011 MEETING DATE: January 10, 2011 RE: Approval of Bulk Water Service Agreement to furnish water to Buttermilk Metropolitan District REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Pitkin County has requested the City to furnish treated water to Buttermilk Metropolitan District ( "District ") on a bulk basis, whereby the City will deliver treated water to a Master Meter. The District's distribution system will be connected to the Master Meter, and the District will continue to provide direct service to its customers, and to operate and maintain its water distribution system. The County has made this request in connection with the proposed extension of the airport runway and the findings of a Federal Environmental Assessment regarding the potential adverse effects of the runway extension on existing wells that supply 77 residential properties within the Buttermilk Metropolitan District, and two extraterritorial properties, one of which is the Airport Operations Center. The District's service area includes the following subdivisions and areas: West Buttermilk, Pitkin County West Buttermilk General Improvement District, part of Eagle Pines, the West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts 1 - 5, Owl Creek Ranch PUD, East Owl Creek PUD, Buttermilk Ski Area, the Airport Ranch property, and portions of the airport lands. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1994, City Council offered to extend water service to West Buttermilk under a proposed water service agreement. The proposed agreement was in the City's standard form, and contained a number of provisions required by the City's code and policies regarding extraterritorial water service. West Buttermilk did not pursue this water service agreement at that time. In addition, the County discussed its proposal to extend the airport runway, and the need to replace the Buttermilk Metropolitan District wells with Council at a meeting on March 22, 2010. At that time, Council supported the County's request, and directed staff to move forward with a bulk water sale agreement. Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND: The residents of West Buttermilk, together with the other subdivisions described above, instead formed Buttermilk Metropolitan District in 2000, developed an independent water supply and distribution system, and obtained court- approved water rights and an augmentation plan. The District's decreed water supply is a well field. The wells that serve the District's customers were constructed at the east end of the airport runway. The County is planning an extension of the runway utilizing a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The runway extension will extend over the area where the wells and pump house are currently located. As part of the environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required by the FAA, Pitkin County identified a potential adverse effect on the District's wells and water supply. NEPA also requires Pitkin County to propose mitigation measures. The County considered alternative means of protecting the District's water supply, and determined that relocation of the wells is not a feasible alternative because of the particular hydro- geologic conditions in the area. Pitkin County therefore asks the City to provide treated water to the District's customers in the amount necessary to make up what the District is losing from its existing wells. The water distribution system and wells used to supply the District may not have been constructed in accordance with City standards. In addition, numerous private wells and some surface irrigation rights are being used within the District. These have the potential to create cross contamination with the District's distribution system. These two considerations effectively eliminated the option of dissolving the District, and consolidating the Aspen and District water distribution systems, with Aspen becoming the direct water service provider. Therefore, Pitkin County has requested that the City provide -sell• treated water on a bulk sale basis to the District with a single point of connection that has engineered protections for the Aspen water system, considering the potential for cross contamination. The City does not typically provide treated water on a bulk sale basis. However, the airport runway extension is a unique project of considerable benefit to the City and the County. The County's consultant, Jviation Inc., as well as County staff and District staff, have worked with the City water department to develop appropriate connection fees and water rates for a bulk water sale agreement. A proposed Bulk Water Sale Agreement has been prepared by the City staff, with input from the County and District, for consideration by Council, as well as the BOCC and District Board. A copy of the proposed Bulk Water Sale Agreement is provided with this memorandum. Because no new extraterritorial water main extension is required, staff understands that this Agreement can be approved by resolution. The County has advised that finalizing this Agreement is time - critical. Certain FAA approvals are required in January, or construction cannot be in the 2011 construction season. DISCUSSION: This is a unique circumstance. The County's airport runway extension project is expected to benefit the entire Aspen — Pitkin County region, but it will unavoidably damage the District's well field. Pursuant to the proposed Bulk Water Sale Agreement, the City will recover tap fees, well system development fees, and payments in lieu of water rights, so other Page 2 of 4 City customers will not be subsidizing the District's water service. These payments will be made by the County from its FAA grant. In addition, the Agreement requires the District to convey a number of its water rights to the City, and to pay the bulk water sale rates established in the Agreement. The overall amount of water to be provided is limited to an average flow rate, peak day flow rate, and annual volumetric delivery designed to meet the District's current needs. Water use for growth or changes of use within the District must stay within the delivery parameters, or the District will need to seek an amendment to this Agreement. The City is not obligated to provide any additional service, except on an emergency basis. The City typically does not allow use of individual wells or raw water irrigation systems not controlled by the City. The risk of cross - contamination from such untreated water sources is great, and, furthermore, such additional water supplies can adversely affect the City's own water rights. In this case, however, the City will be providing water on a bulk sale basis. The connection at the Master Meter between the City's water distribution system and the District's system is being designed to greatly minimize the likelihood of a cross - connection or backflow from the District's distribution system to the City's system. The exempt wells are not to be used for any indoor purposes, and cross - connection checks will be performed regularly. The surface water rights used for irrigation in the Owl Creek subdivisions are apparently controlled by the homeowner associations, and have been used for irrigation in those subdivisions. Cross connection checks by the District will be performed with regard to these water rights too. Since the City's water rights are not diverted from Owl Creek, the water department is less concerned about the potentially injurious effect of these water rights. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Aspen's extraterritorial water extension policies require any system extension to generate a net economic benefit to the City. Staff believes that the County's agreement to pay tap fees, well system development fees, and payments in lieu of water rights (offset by the value of the water rights conveyed to the City by the District), in the amounts set forth in Exhibit B to the proposed Bulk Water Sale Agreement, together with the water rates set forth in Exhibit B, will allow the City to re- capture an appropriate portion of its existing investments in raw water supply, treatment, storage, distribution systems and other infrastructure that will enable the City to provide this water supply to the District. Additionally, all costs associated with the connection to the City water distribution system and installation of a master water meter are to be reimbursed to the City through this Agreement. The City will not be required to extend its water mains or distribution system outside of City limits in order to provide this service. CURRENT ISSUES: While the City Staff and the District have been able to resolve a number of contractual issues, there is one remaining and unresolved issue which would arise only in the event that the contract with the District is terminated. The contractual question is the disposition of any tap fees, well development fees, and payment in lieu of water rights paid per the contract in the event the contract is terminated as the outcome of the dispute resolution process. Staff has added language that in this event, the dispute resolution process would also determine the equitable distribution of these fees. The District is reviewing this proposal. Page 3 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A detailed environmental analysis of the impacts of the runway extension project is available from Pitkin County. This analysis includes discussion of water supply impacts and alternative means of mitigating adverse impacts on area water supplies. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution No. 2, authorizing the Bulk Water Sale Agreement in the form provided with this memorandum. C ITY MANAGER COMMENTS: c% 4wt JL -e-s C sy&2 r `fiis A_a ea+� � �, e.4 -. Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION # 2 (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE BUTTERMILK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING THE BULK WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District regarding the Bulk Water Service Agreement, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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 January 10, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 BULK SALE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT This Bulk Sale Water Service Agreement (the "Agreement ") is made this _ day of , 2010 by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation and home rule city ( "Aspen" or the "City "), and the Buttermilk Metropolitan District, a Colorado special district and political subdivision of the State of Colorado organized and operating pursuant to C.R.S. 32 -1 -101 et seq. (the "District "). Explanatory Statement The District is a Colorado special district, organized and operated to provide certain services to customers within its boundaries. The District provides treated water service for domestic and limited irrigation purposes to 77 residential properties within its boundaries and two extraterritorial customers, the Airport Operations Center and the "Stapleton Property" both of which are located outside its boundaries (the "two extraterritorial properties ") but within its service area. A legal description of the lands within the District boundaries and the two extraterritorial properties is attached as Exhibit A, and a map showing the District's boundaries and the two extraterritorial properties is attached as Exhibit C. The boundaries of the District and location of its water customers are outside of Aspen's corporate limits. Currently, the District provides water to its customers from wells, pursuant to water rights and a decreed augmentation plan described in Case Nos. 01CW028 and 00CW305, decreed by the Water Court, Water Division No. 5. As described herein, some of the District's customers also use water from private water rights and exempt wells for outdoor lawn and garden irrigation. The District maintains storage for approximately 400,000 gallons of treated water. Pitkin County (the "County "), a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, owns and operates the Aspen - Pitkin County Airport (the "Airport") at which the County is in the process of extending its Runway 15/33 and Taxiway A, a project that the District believes will eliminate or materially impair the District's use of its wells and decreed well field. The County and the District have requested that Aspen deliver and sell the District treated water on a bulk sale basis for sale and delivery by the District to its customers. Through its water utility, Aspen owns and operates water rights and water collection, treatment and distribution facilities for its in -City and extraterritorial customers. Aspen does not typically provide water service on a master - meter/bulk sale basis. However, in order to facilitate approvals of the Airport runway extension project, Aspen is willing to enter into this Agreement to sell the District a defined quantity of treated water each year, subject to certain terms and conditions, as set forth in this Agreement. Section 25.12.020(b) of Aspen's Municipal Code (the "Code ") requires that the provision of water service outside of the Aspen corporate limits shall be undertaken only pursuant to an agreement with the City, in accordance with the Aspen water main extension policy and consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (the "Community Plan") and City Council resolutions relating to water policy and existing operating procedures. That Code provision also mandates that Aspen shall not be obligated to City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 extend its water service outside the City's corporate limits and may do so only upon a determination that no conflict exists between the best interests of the City (as expressed in the Community Plan, and as otherwise determined by the Aspen City Council) and the prospective water use. The City may impose such contractual, water rights dedication and bond requirements as it deems necessary to protect the City's interests. The City and the District have negotiated initial rates and terms which, after review and analysis, the City has determined to be sufficient to recover its costs and utility investment charges associated with the extraterritorial service requested by the District, make an appropriate profit, comply with the mandates of the Code and the City's water policies, and assure that the District remains solely responsible for infrastructure that it owns and operates within the District Water Distribution System, as well as any additional infrastructure that will be owned by the District, as provided in this Agreement, all of which infrastructure is necessary for delivery of Aspen's water to the District's customers, in compliance with rules applicable to Aspen's own water service customers. The City and the District currently are parties to certain water court proceedings in which they have taken adverse positions. Because the City does not wish to provide water to the District at the same time as it continues to litigate with the District over water rights and related issues, as part of its consideration for this Agreement, the District will withdraw its opposition to Aspen's pending water court cases, including Case Nos. 05CW299, 05CW300, and 06CW54, and, for the Term of this Agreement, the District will not oppose future actions filed by Aspen with respect to water rights and related issues. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Explanatory Statement, which is incorporated in this Agreement, and of the parties' mutual undertakings and covenants, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. 1.1 "Code" shall mean the Aspen Municipal Code. 1.2 "Claims" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 12. 1.3 "Community Plan" shall mean the Aspen Area Community Plan, as now existing and as subsequently amended or replaced. 1.4 "Contract Commitment" shall mean the amount of treated water that Aspen is required to furnish to the District, set forth in Section 2.1 and Exhibit B, pursuant to the provisions and subject to the limitations of this Agreement. 1.5 "Delivery Point" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1. 1.6 "District Service Area" for purposes of this Agreement shall mean the legal boundaries of the District as described in Exhibit A (and set forth in its service plan 2 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 recorded with the Pitkin County Recorder on September 28, 2000 at reception number 447434), together with the two extraterritorial properties as defined herein. The District Service Area may be amended only upon agreement of the parties. Additionally, the District Service Area will include the two extraterritorial properties, provided, however, that the two extraterritorial properties will continue to receive water service from the District only for the current uses, or other uses consistent with the development approvals for such properties as of the date of this Agreement. If either of the two extraterritorial properties is redeveloped, subdivided or otherwise altered, which increases the water demand for that property, the District and the City shall jointly review for approval. 1.7 "Furnish ", when used with regard to the Contract Commitment, shall mean to acquire, divert, treat to required standard, deliver and furnish water, and includes all of the intermediate steps necessary to provide water at the agreed -upon delivery point. "Furnish" does not include any obligation on the City to construct any storage, pumping, transmission, distribution or any other facilities within the District Service Area or otherwise required for the District to provide water to its customers. 1.8 "Event of Impossibility" shall mean any circumstance, not voluntarily created or caused by the City, nor reasonably foreseeable and preventable by the City, that prevents the City from Furnishing some or all of the Contract Commitment, including drought, failure of infrastructure, loss of water rights, inadequate runoff, poor quality, judicial determinations and orders, inability of the City to fulfill the requirements of its own in -City water customers, and inability to meet its goals and policies regarding protection of instream flows subject to the terms of Section 3.9. An Event of Impossibility shall include the determination by the City in its sole discretion that Furnishing some or all of the Purchased Water provided for in the Contract Commitment will imperil the health, safety or welfare of the City's water customers or will be inconsistent with the City's goals and policies regarding protection of instream flows. 1.9 "Master Meter" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1. 1.10 "Purchased Water" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. 1.11 "OWTS" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.7. 1.12 "Service Commencement Date" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1. 1.13 "Standards" shall mean all engineering, water quality, facility and all other standards and specifications applicable to or governing the provision of water by Aspen to its customers, including those promulgated by the City or contained in applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations. 1.14 "Term" shall mean the period of time from the Service Commencement Date until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 8. 3 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 1.15 "Two extraterritorial properties" shall mean the property known as the Stapleton Lot E (Pitkin County Assessor Parcel No 264334300004) and the Airport Operations Center located at 1001 Owl Creek Road, Snowmass Village, CO with their currently- existing water uses and any uses that may be added pursuant to development approvals for said properties. If either of the two extraterritorial properties is redeveloped, subdivided, or otherwise altered which increases the water demand for that property, the District and the City shall jointly review for approval. 1.16 "Water Court Actions" shall mean all actions pending in any court with respect to water rights owned or controlled by Aspen, or affecting Aspen's water rights or water supplies as of the Service Commencement Date, in which Aspen and the District are adverse parties and all future such actions initiated by Aspen or in which Aspen is a party. 1.17 "Water Management Plan" shall mean the comprehensive water management plan for the City as initially prepared and adopted in 1980, as amended and updated. 1.18 "Water Distribution System" shall refer to the water mains, pipelines, pump stations, tanks, and related appurtenances and infrastructure for distribution of treated water by the District to its customers, beginning at the RP Valve as shown on Exhibit D, located in the area shown on the map attached as Exhibit C. 1.19 "Water Rates" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. 1.20 "Water Supply" shall include, but not be limited to, the City's existing water supplies, future water supply projects and existing and after- acquired water rights. 2. Sale and Purchase of Bulk Water; Tap Fees, System Development Fees, Water Rights Dedication. 2.1 Beginning on the Service Commencement Date, the City shall sell and the District shall purchase, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the following amounts of treated water (the "Contract Commitment ") per calendar year, at the following rates of delivery set forth below. Average annual delivery rate: 67 gallons per minute (gpm) Maximum annual delivery: 35.3 million gallons (108 acre -feet) Peak day demand: 155 gpm The City agrees, that if required by the District, it will furnish the minimum day demand of the District subject to the average annual delivery rate requirement. The water furnished pursuant to the Contract Commitment per calendar year is herein referred to as the 4 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 "Purchased Water." For purposes of this Agreement, the Service Commencement Date shall mean that date upon all the following conditions have occurred: a. The City has been paid in full for all tap fees and well development fees set forth in Section 2.7 and the payment in lieu of water rights as set forth in Exhibit B; b. The District has fulfilled its obligations under Section 2.8; c. The District shall have withdrawn and dismissed all statements of opposition to the City's pending water court applications filed by the District in the Water Court Actions, as specified in Section 10; d. The City has completed, and has been reimbursed for all costs of the construction and other measures necessary to connect its water delivery system to the District's Water Distribution System and, prior to commencement of service under this Agreement, the City has conducted all tests it deems necessary to assure that it can Furnish Purchased Water under this Agreement; e. The District has conducted a leak survey of its Water Distribution System, acceptable to the City, and provided written certification that no significant leaks are present; f. The District has provided an assignment and deeds acceptable to the Aspen City Attorney, effective upon the Service Commencement Date, of its water rights as set forth in Section 2.8 and the attachment to Exhibit B; and g. The District has certified to the City that it has discontinued the use of all wells owned by it or in which it possesses an interest or right to use ( "District Wells "), and has plugged and abandoned the District Wells as required by the Colorado State Engineer, and disconnected any exempt individual wells in the District Service Area from the Water Distribution System as set forth in Section 4(a); provided, however, that the City shall assure that its Furnishing of the Purchased Water occurs simultaneously with the District's termination of its own water sources and conveyance of certain water rights as herein provided so that no material interruption occurs in the District's ability to provide treated water to its customers. 2.2 Except as set forth in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, the City shall not be required to Furnish Purchased Water in any amount in excess of the Contract Commitment. In the event that the District requests Purchased Water in excess of the Contract Commitment, the City may, but has no obligation to, Furnish such water on such terms and at such rates as it determines in its sole discretion. 2.3 The District shall pay for the Purchased Water at the rates (the "Water Rates ") set forth in Exhibit B. At such times during the Term as the City shall increase or decrease the rates it charges for water provided to its residential users, or change the basis or methodology for calculation of such residential rates, any resulting rate 5 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 increases or decrease shall be applied to the District's Water Rates. The District's Water Rates shall automatically increase or decrease by the same percentage increase or decrease charged by the City to its in -City residential customers in Aspen Zone 1, and such new Water Rates will be effective at the same time that any rate increase or change in rate calculation is effective as to Aspen' s in -City residential customers. The District shall receive notice of proposed rate changes in the manner that public notice of rate changes and rate reviews is provided for in the Code. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 2.3, water rate adjustments made by the City for particular Billing Areas (as defined in the Code) that do not include the District to reflect unique circumstances of that Billing Area will not trigger a rate adjustment of the District's Water Rates. 2.4 If the City's records from the Master Meter reflect that the Purchased Water Furnished to the District at the Delivery Point exceeds the average annual delivery rate of 67 gpm, or exceeds peak day deliveries of 155 gpm, or exceeds the total annual Contract Conunitment of 108 acre -feet per calendar year, in any two calendar years (which need not be successive) during the Term, the District immediately shall investigate, determine and eliminate the cause(s) of such over - delivery as follows: within 30 days of commencing such investigation, the District shall provide the City with a written description of the investigation, resultant findings, and steps taken to eliminate the over - delivery, or, if such investigation, findings and remedy for over - delivery have not been completed within such 30 day - period, the District will provide a status report, and estimated date for completion of such remedial measures, and expeditiously complete its investigation and implementation of those measures. Upon completion, the District shall provide a final report setting forth the method and findings of its investigation and steps taken to eliminate over - delivery. The final report shall be provided to the City Utilities Department within 30 days of its completion. 2.5 Water furnished to the District for the following purposes shall not be included in the above - described delivery obligation limits: 2.5.1 Following advance approval of and coordination with the City, water Furnished for the purpose of annual maintenance, including main flushing and fire hydrant testing; and 2.5.2 Water Furnished to the District in response to a water system failure (other than failure due to lack of routine maintenance, repair and replacement) or firefighting effort. The District must submit in writing to the City within 30 days of an event described in Section 2.5.1 or 2.5.2 a report documenting, to the City's reasonable satisfaction, the details of the event including a calculation of the amount of water Furnished in response to the event. If such report is not prepared or submitted to the City within said 30 -day period, or if said report is not reasonably satisfactory to the City, the water Furnished in response to the event will be included in the above - described delivery obligation limits. 6 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 Notwithstanding exclusion of any water from the delivery obligation limits of this section, the District shall be charged, and shall pay for all such water Furnished, including any additional charges as set forth in the following paragraph. The District shall pay an additional charge for any calendar year in which water delivery at the Master Meter exceeds by 5% or more the average annual delivery rate of 67 gpm, peak day deliveries in excess of 155 gpm, or the maximum annual Contract Commitment of 108 acre-feet, calculated as follows: All water delivered in excess of the average annual delivery rate, peak day delivery rate and/or the maximum annual delivery volume shall be charged at two times the prevailing Water Rates based on the highest block rate then in effect. 2.6 If, subsequent to the circumstances and proceedings set forth in Section 2.4, the City's records reflect delivery to the District at the Master Meter at average annual rates in excess of 67 gpm, peak day deliveries in excess of 155 gpm, or delivery of more than the Contract Commitment of 108 acre -feet per calendar year, during a third calendar year, the District will be deemed to have breached this Agreement, and the parties will employ the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 9. 2.7 Each month during the Term, the City shall transmit to the District an invoice for the Purchased Water Furnished to the District and for other charges incurred by the City and chargeable to the District pursuant to this Agreement during the prior month, including additional charges as set forth in Section 2.5. The District shall pay each invoice within thirty (30) days after the date of the invoice. The District shall submit in writing to the City any billing dispute prior to the invoice due date. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days of the District's notice of dispute, the dispute resolution process described in Section 9 shall be employed to resolve the dispute. During this process, the District shall keep all other payments current. The District may not offset payments for Purchased Water Furnished against any other claimed breach by the City. 2.8 In addition to the Water Rates set forth in this Section 2, prior to the start of construction and testing as described in Section 2.1(d), the City shall be paid in full for all tap fees, well system development fees calculated on the basis of the District's utilization of the City's water system capacity (including water rights and infrastructure), and payments in lieu of water rights, all as shown on Exhibit B. The City will not be required to Furnish any water to the Delivery Point until it has received payment of all tap fees, system development fees, and payments in lieu of water rights as set forth on Exhibit B. 2.9 As a condition of providing extraterritorial water service, the District shall convey to the City those water rights described on the "Water Rights List" that is a part of Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2.10 Any payment obligation of the District under this Agreement not paid timely shall be subject to an interest charge of 12 % per annum on all overdue amounts. 3. Furnishing, Use, and Terms of Purchased Water. 7 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 3.1 The Purchased Water shall be Furnished to the District at the delivery point set forth on Exhibit D (the "Delivery Point ") and shown on the map attached as Exhibit C. Purchased Water Furnished by the City shall be measured by a master water meter (the "Master Meter ") of a type and size determined by the City. The City shall consult with the District about the type and size of meter required, but the City shall have final authority to determine the appropriate type and size of the Master Meter. The Delivery Point, Master Meter, facilities and other infrastructure and related locations pertinent to the City's Furnishing and the District's receipt of Purchased Water are shown on the design drawing attached Exhibit D. Prior to Furnishing any water pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall be reimbursed for all costs of purchasing and installing the Master Meter, including the costs of any required electrical connection or upgrades to the City's existing electrical system in the area if needed to provide the required electrical connection for the Master Meter. The Master Meter shall at all times remain the property of the City and shall be maintained by the City at its cost. The parties acknowledge that the District may install, at its own cost, its own meter at a location on the District's Water Distribution System, beyond the Delivery Point. However, the Master Meter shall be the only location at which Purchased Water Furnished by the City is measured for purposes of this Agreement. The City may verify the accuracy of the Master Meter at any time, either on its own initiative or at the reasonable request of the District. The results of any test of the Master Meter shall be made available to the District. If the District has requested the test of the Master Meter, and the test results indicate that the accuracy of the Master Meter tests within 2% of the results of the most recent independent test, the District shall bear the full cost of the test. The City shall bear the cost of the test if the City has undertaken the test on its own initiative, or if the District has requested the test, and the test results indicate that the accuracy of the Master Meter is not within 2% of the results of the most recent independent test. No adjustment will be made to any previous invoices unless the Mater Meter is found to be in error by more than 5 %. 3.2 The Purchased Water shall comply with all State of Colorado and federal drinking water standards, acts, regulations and mandates. Except as provided in paragraph 2.1 above, the City makes no other promise or guarantee of quality or quantity of Purchased Water, for any purpose, including fire suppression, or of pressure at the Master Meter, and no such promise or guarantee may be implied from anything contained in this Agreement. Purchased Water shall be provided to the Water Distribution System at the Delivery Point in the amounts and at the rates set forth in Section 2.1 of this Agreement. 13 The District shall be solely responsible for the operation, maintenance, upkeep and repair of the Water Distribution System. The District shall install, inspect, and maintain such back flow and cross - connection prevention devices as the City deems appropriate to ensure protection of the City water supplies. At all times during the Term, all new infrastructure construction or replacement of all or any part of the Water Distribution System shall comply with the Standards. 8 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 3.4 All Purchased Water shall be sold by the District and used by the District's customers only for in -house residential uses in up 77 residential properties within the District, as currently platted and zoned, and for in- building uses at the two extraterritorial properties, including the Stapleton Property and the Airport Operations Center (which includes administrative offices, training facilities, storage of snow removal and airport equipment, storage of fire fighting equipment, a fueling facility, and three employee residential units) as defined herein and for total treated water irrigation within the District Service Area of no more than 18.94 acres of individual lawns and gardens, common landscaping, and open space. Water may also be used by the District for emergency fire and safety uses. Purchased Water may be sold and used only within the District Service Area. 3.4.1 The parties acknowledge that the District Service Area contains 77 platted residential properties, as well as the two extraterritorial properties described in Section 1.6. The City shall provide treated water service pursuant to this Agreement to existing District customers for the existing uses described in this Section 3.4. In particular, the City shall not be obligated to provide additional water supplies in excess of the delivery obligations set forth in Section 2.1 in order to serve any rezoning, re- platting, lot -split or resubdivision within the District Service Area, including any such rezoning, re- platting, lot -split or resubdivison of the two extraterritorial properties served by the District. 3.4.2 Each District customer having a legally- permitted individual exempt well may continue to use that well for outdoor irrigation (if and to the extent authorized by the customer' s well permit), subject to the provisions of this Agreement regarding prevention of cross - connection, backflow or cross - contamination. In addition, the parties recognize that the Owl Creek Ranch Homeowners Association and the East Owl Creek Ranch Homeowners Association, and perhaps others served by the District, own and control certain water rights which are decreed for irrigation and will continue to be used for irrigation, so long as said water rights are legally available in priority for such irrigation. Except for continued outdoor irrigation use of such individual exempt wells and the irrigation rights described in the foregoing sentence, the District will not authorize or permit any raw water irrigation within the District Service Area, or acquire, appropriate, develop or change any water rights for such purpose without the City's prior written approval. 3.4.3 The District recognizes that the City has not reserved capacity for any water supplies or uses in amounts other than those set forth in this Agreement, and that the City makes no representation or agreement that it can or will amend this Agreement in order to provide additional water supplies in amounts exceeding the average annual delivery rate, peak day delivery rate, or maximum annual delivery rate specified in this Agreement. 3.5 At all times during the Term, the District shall comply with applicable provisions of the Code (including but not limited to the provisions of Code Chapters 8.36, 8.40 and Chapter 25) and Water Management Plan and shall require water conservation by its customers in the same manner as is required by the City from time to time for its municipal customers in the City limits, including installation and use of water - saving appliances, water conservation practices, and restriction or curtailment in times of 9 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 shortage. The District shall also require restriction or curtailment of outdoor irrigation by individual exempt wells within the District in times of shortage in the same manner, and for the same duration, as the City imposes curtailment or restrictions on outdoor irrigation upon its municipal customers in the City limits. 3.6 All Purchased Water Furnished by the City under this Agreement is furnished on a contractual basis only for the use of the District and its customers within the District Service Area for the indoor residential domestic uses and irrigation of lawns and gardens, and existing commercial use by the Airport Operations Center, as provided in Section 3.4 above. Neither the District nor its customers shall have the right to make a succession of uses of such water; and upon completion of the primary use, all dominion over the Purchased Water shall revert completely to the City. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, all property rights to the Purchased Water are reserved in and to the City. Subject to the provisions of Section 7, the District is not obligated to create any particular volume, timing, or point of return of return flow after such use. 3.7 Subject to the provisions of Section 7 regarding the effect of a judicial or administrative determination that the District's use of the City's water supplies is improper because of the location of the return flows, the District shall assure that wastewater from indoor water use within the District is and continues to be treated through onsite wastewater treatment systems ( "OWTS ") and that all OWTS within the District shall comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations, including the County's OWTS inspection and installation requirements. Nothing herein shall prevent the District from, in the future, negotiating for the delivery and service of wastewater by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 3.8 The parties to this Agreement recognize that the City' s water supply is dependent upon natural water resources that are variable in quantity of supply from year to year. The City shall not be liable for failure to accurately anticipate availability of its water supply in any given year or for an actual failure of the City's water supply due to drought, inadequate runoff or other occurrences beyond the reasonable control of the City, and the City shall be under no obligation to undertake any actions, including legal action, to increase, augment or otherwise obtain additional water supply. 3.9 Upon an Event of Impossibility, the City shall be relieved from its obligation to Furnish the Contract Commitment, and the District shall have no claims, rights, causes of action or similar rights against the City for a failure to Furnish the Contract Commitment. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Impossibility caused by a shortage or failure of water availability in the City, water use by District customers will be restricted or curtailed in the manner determined by the City; provided, however, that any such restriction or curtailment on residential use and residential lawn watering, and in- building uses at the Airport Operations Center, including restrictions or curtailment imposed by the City in order to fulfill its policy of protecting decreed instream flows, shall be applied uniformly to residential users both inside and outside the City, it being the intent hereof that the District users will be treated the same as in -City users.. 10 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 3.10 The District shall not commingle or allow any Purchased Water to be commingled with water from any other source, and the District's wells will not be used to provide any part of the District's treated or untreated water supply. 3.11 During the Term, in obtaining and using Purchased Water and otherwise fulfilling the requirements of this Agreement, the District shall be bound by and shall comply with all City water resolutions, policies, rules and regulations, and with the applicable Code provisions pertaining to use of treated and untreated water within the City and with all rules, regulations, standards and interpretations promulgated thereunder provided such legislative and administrative requirements do not frustrate or impair the right of the District under this Agreement. 4. Disconnection, Plugging and Abandonment of District Wells; Assurance Against Connection of Individual Exempt Wells, Connection of District Wells to City Water System and Cross - Contamination; and Limitation on Individual Wells. 4.1 Prior to the Service Commencement Date, the District shall discontinue the use of all wells owned by it or in which it possesses an interest or right to use, shall plug and abandon the District Wells as required by the Colorado State Engineer, and disconnect all exempt individual wells in the District from the Water Distribution System. 4.2 During the Term, the District shall 4.2.1 take all actions necessary to disconnect, plug and abandon the District Wells and to assure there can be no connection of any District Wells or other water supplies to the District's Water Distribution System, and take all actions necessary to prevent cross - contamination with the Purchased Water; 4.2.2 assure that individual exempt wells are not used for indoor purposes, and that cross - connections and back flow between any such individual exempt wells and the District's Water Distribution System are scrupulously avoided; 4.2.3 assure that individual exempt wells within the District Service Area are not used for in -house domestic purposes; 4.2.4 conduct annual inspections to assure that individual exempt wells remain disconnected from, and are not cross - connected to the Water Distribution System and provide to the City, on or before September 15 of each year during the Term, written certification of such assurance; 4.2.5 not permit construction of any new individual exempt well within the District Service Area, except for parcels which have applied for or received permits as of the date of this agreement; 11 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 4.2.6 implement and enforce rules and regulations for installation and inspection of backflow prevention devices and cross - connection prevention; and 4.2.7 in the event that any cross - connection, backflow, or cross - contamination occurs to the District's Water Distribution System from any exempt well or other source within the District, the District shall immediately notify the City and shall immediately, at the District's sole cost, commence any required disinfection of the District's Water Distribution System, and shall remedy such cross - connection, backflow, or cross - contamination. The District shall also be responsible for all cost of disinfecting the City's water distribution system, should such disinfection be required as a result of any cross - connection, backflow, or cross - contamination with the District's Water Distribution System, and for all related costs, such as labor costs, penalties, or any other indirect costs incurred by the City as a result of such cross - connection, backflow, or cross - contamination with the District's Water Distribution System. The District shall be liable for, and indemnify the City from and against all Claims relating to or arising from a violation of this Section 4. 5. District Water Operations. 5.1 The District shall continue to be responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of its Water Distribution System. The District warrants and represents that it has authority to use, connect, disconnect, modify, renew, extend, enlarge, replace, convey, abandon or otherwise dispose of the pipes and other facilities, including fire hydrants, used for providing water service to users within the District Service Area. All additions to the Water Distribution System installed or replaced to serve exclusively within the District Service Area shall be the property of the District. 5.2 The District shall maintain its Water Distribution System and related facilities in good repair at all times and shall make such replacements (in compliance with the Standards) as may be necessary to keep the Water Distribution System and related facilities in proper operating condition at all times. 5.3 The District agrees that it will, at all times, operate the Water Distribution System so as not to interfere with service to others dependent upon the City for a supply of water. 5.4 The District shall pay or reimburse the City for any damage to or increased operational costs of the City's facilities or water supplies related to any operation of the District Water Distribution System, at any time during or after the Term, (including but not limited to cost of any pressure relief valve station that the City may deem necessary), or any damage to the City's facilities or water supplies resulting from cross - connection, cross - contamination, or backflow from the District's Water Distribution System, or resulting from the District's disconnection of its facilities from the Master Meter and the City's water system upon termination of this Agreement. Any payments required by the District pursuant to this section shall be made within 30 days of the invoice date. Any dispute 12 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 regarding such payments shall be resolved using the dispute resolution process described in Section 9. During this process, the District shall keep all other payments current. 5.5 All future design, installation, replacement, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the District's Water Distribution System shall comply with the Standards, and shall be designed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado, who shall certify to the City that such infrastructure complies with the Standards. The City shall be entitled to inspect the District's plans and installations at the City's expense. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall have no liability or responsibility arising out of or in connection with any aspect of the design, installation, operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of the District's Water Distribution System. 5.6 The District specifically acknowledges and agrees that, notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 3.3 and 5.5, this Agreement gives the District, and the District's water users, residents and customers, no right to receive water or water service of any sort from the City other than the water service provided for in this Agreement. Should the District, its water users, residents, and customers at any time wish to contract for direct retail extraterritorial water service from the City, the City' s extraterritorial water service applications and procedures must be complied with, the required fees must be paid, the District's Water Distribution System and related infrastructure, and individual water service lines, must meet all of the Standards, and the City shall have no obligation to provide such extraterritorial water service unless and until an Extraterritorial Water Service Agreement is approved by City Council ordinance. 5.7 So long as this Agreement remains in effect, the District shall not expand the District Service Area or provide new extraterritorial water service without the City's prior written approval. Nothing herein shall prevent the District from including within its boundaries any of the two extraterritorial properties. The District shall not at any time expand the District Service Area into any area within the City or any contract service area of the City. The District shall not utilize or provide any untreated water service or supplies within the District Service Area without the City's prior written approval, which may be granted or withheld in the City's sole discretion. 6. Records. The District shall maintain and, upon request by the City, provide the City with access to, all records relating to the operations of its Water Distribution System and otherwise relating to the use of the Purchased Water and to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 7. Determinations Regarding Use of City Water Rights, Improper Return Flow or Exempt Well Use. The parties understand and believe that this Agreement is lawful and that the City's water rights can properly be used to supply water to the District hereunder. However, upon any judicial or administrative determination that the use by the District of the Purchased Water is not within the scope of the City's water rights, or that the use by the District of the Purchased Water is improper because of the location of return flows from OWTS within the District Service Area, the District shall either elect and take all actions and expend all funds* necessary to eliminate such unlawful use of City water rights, or such 13 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 improper location of return flows, including, if appropriate, connection to and inclusion within Aspen Consolidated —Sanitation District or the District shall terminate this Agreement. Upon any judicial or administrative determination that the use of any one or more exempt wells within the District's boundaries is unlawful, violates any well permit, or is otherwise improper, the District shall, consistent with the extent of its authorized powers, require the owner of the exempt well to immediately terminate use of the exempt well, and, if required by such judicial or administrative authority, to abandon such exempt well in the manner required by the Colorado State Engineer. 8. Termination. This Agreement shall only be terminated for the reasons set forth below, and the Term of this Agreement shall continue until such termination. 8.1 Following one hundred eighty (180) days written termination notice by the District; 8.2 Dissolution of the District pursuant to C.R.S. §32 -1 -701 et seq.; 8.3 A final order of a court of competent jurisdiction making any material benefit or obligation under this Agreement illegal or depriving either party of any material consideration under this Agreement, including an adverse determination regarding use of the City's water rights or location of return flows as set forth in Section 7, and the parties' failure, after good faith negotiations to amend this Agreement to cure any such illegality or mitigate the damage of such order; 8.4 Mutual agreement of the parties; or 8.5 Termination following conclusion of the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 9, if termination is a result of that process. In this event, the dispute resolution process shall also determine the equitable distribution to either party of the tap fees, well system development fees, and the payment in lieu of water rights as provided for in this agreement. 8.6 THIS AGREEMENT WILL TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY IF ALL REQUIRED APPROVALS FOR EXTENSION OF AIRPORT RUNWAY 15/33 ARE NOT OBTAINED ON OR BEFORE THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT WILL ALSO TERMINATE AUTOMATICALLY, IF NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH APPROVALS, THE COUNTY DOES NOT RECEIVE THE FUNDING, OR OTHERWISE FAILS OR REFUSES TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF THE EXTENSION OF AIRPORT RUNWAY 15/33 AND TAXIWAY A ON OR BEFORE FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. 8.7 . 14 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 Termination of this Agreement shall not terminate any obligation of either party including and not limited to the parties' respective indemnification obligations under Section 12, that has accrued at the time of termination or that expressly survives such termination. 9. Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall first attempt to resolve all disputes arising in connection with or relating to this Agreement by mediation in the manner set forth in this Section. The parties commit to resolving disputes in good faith, with a minimum of expense and in the most expeditious manner. The party alleging a dispute shall notify the other party of the nature of such dispute and shall submit the dispute to mediation before a mediator approved by both parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, mediation shall be conducted under the aegis of the American Arbitration Association, which shall select a mediator. Mediation shall be commenced within 15 days of notice, and completed within 45 days of notice of the dispute, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Use of the mediation process shall be a prerequisite to any litigation to enforce any provision of this Agreement. If the dispute is not resolved by mediation, the parties shall have available to them all remedies at law or equity, including injunctive relief and specific performance. 10. Withdrawal of Opposition to Water Court Actions; Future Non - Opposition. As soon as practicable upon execution of this Agreement, at its sole cost, the District shall withdraw and dismiss all statements of opposition to the City' s pending water court applications filed by the District in the Water Court Actions, and shall not thereafter seek to participate in such cases. Each party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees in connection with such withdrawal. The District's obligations under the preceding sentence will survive termination of this Agreement. During the Tenn, the District shall not oppose, directly or indirectly, any action filed or position taken by Aspen in any Water Court Action or administrative proceeding regarding the City's water rights or supplies. A breach of this Section 10 shall constitute a material breach by the District under Section 8. 11. No Conversion to Public Utility Status. Nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall act to constitute Aspen as a regulated public utility or any similar entity compelled to provide water or any other service to the District or any other person or entity. The District shall not, directly or indirectly, petition or encourage the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to acquire jurisdiction over any water rate set by Aspen. In the event that Aspen is determined to be a regulated public utility by virtue of the terms of this Agreement, without any notice or election, this Agreement shall immediately terminate. 12. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, each party shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, obligations, costs (including court costs and reasonable attorney fees) arising from the transactions required or contemplated by this Agreement (collectively, "Claims ") of third parties. The party seeking indemnification (the "Indemnitee ") under this Section 12 shall promptly notify the other party (the "Indemnitor") of any Claim and offer the Indemnitor, at its sole cost, control over the response to and litigation and settlement of the Claim. Notwithstanding the 15 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 provisions of this Section 12, no party shall be entitled to indemnification for any Claim that is the result of such party's own negligence, intentional tort or breach of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to create any rights in third parties, or to abrogate or diminish any protections and limitations afforded to any party by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. ' 24 -10 -101 et seq. as amended, or other law. 13. Assignment of Agreement. This Agreement may not be assigned by any party without the other party's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment in violation of this section shall be void. 14. Notices. All communications required or permitted to be given, served, or delivered by or to either party or any intended recipient under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either delivered by hand, sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, or prepaid certified or registered mail (airmail in the case of all international communications), return receipt requested, to the party or intended recipient at its address stated below, or sent by facsimile machine to the party or intended recipient at its facsimile number stated below or to such other address or facsimile number as either party may from time to time have notified the other party as being its address or facsimile number for purposes of this Agreement. Such communications shall be deemed to have been given, served, or delivered: (i) if delivered by hand, upon delivery; (ii) if delivered by overnight courier, on the next business day following the date of delivery to the courier; (iii) if sent by mail, four days after the date of mailing; or (iv) if sent by facsimile machine, upon successful transmission. The addresses and facsimile numbers of the parties are as follows: To City: Utilities Director, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fax No. 970- 920 -5117: With a copy to: City Attorney, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Fax No. 970 - 920 -5119 16 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 To District: Buttermilk Metropolitan District c/o Gary L. Beach 711 East Valley Road, Suite 103 Basalt, CO 81621 Fax No. 970 - 273 -3105 With a copy to: Matthew Dalton, Grimshaw & Harring, P.C. 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800 Denver, CO 80203 15. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any litigation pursuant to this Agreement shall be Pitkin County, Colorado. 16. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. 17. Severability; Legal Construction. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of the Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in the Agreement. Each party acknowledges that it and its attomeys have reviewed this Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any exhibits or amendments hereto. 18. Prior Agreements Superseded. This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties to the Agreement and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties concerning the matters set forth in this Agreement. No express or implied covenant not specifically set forth shall be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. The parties expressly aver that no representations other than those specifically set forth in this Agreement have been relied upon by either party to induce it to enter into this Agreement. 19. Counterparts. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto. Each such executed copy shall have the full force and effect of an original executed instrument. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which when taken together shall constitute the entire agreement of the parties. 20. Attorney Fees and Costs. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Agreement may be enforced in law or in equity, by decrees of specific performance or damages, or such other legal and equitable relief as may be available. The prevailing party in any litigation arising under this Agreement shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 17 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 21. No Third -Party Beneficiaries. The agreements contained herein are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and no other person or entity shall be a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. 22. Further Assurances. The parties will each reasonably cooperate with each other, at no cost or liability to the cooperating party, in the execution of any additional documentation and taking of actions reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement. 23. Waiver. No exercise or waiver, in whole or in part, of any right or remedy provided for in this Agreement will operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy, except as otherwise provide herein. No delay on the part of any party in the exercise of any right or remedy will operate as a waiver thereof. 24. Effective Upon Approval of Ordinance and Other Actions. This Agreement shall be effective and binding upon the City only upon completion of all actions required for such agreements by the Code, including passage of an ordinance implementing the terms of the Agreement. 25. Authorization. Each party represents to the other that all actions required to make this Agreement binding upon such party have been taken, and that the signatories are duly authorized by the respective party to execute this Agreement. Each party shall take all further actions necessary to make this Agreement the binding and enforceable undertaking of such party. 26. Appropriation. All financial obligations of the parties under and pursuant to this Agreement are subject to prior appropriations of monies expressly made by the parties for the purposes of this Agreement; provided that failure to appropriate and timely pay the monies required of either party shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement subject to dispute resolution and termination of this Agreement. 27. No Personal Liability. No elected official, director, officer agent or employee of either party shall be charged personally or held contractually liable by or to the other party under any term or provision of this Agreement or because of any breach thereof or because of its or their execution, approval or attempted execution of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date first set forth above. THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO A Municipal Corporation and Home Rule City By Mayor Attest: 18 City of Aspen 01 -06 -11 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aspen City Attorney BUTTERMILK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT By President of the Board Attest: District Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney, Buttermilk Metropolitan District 19 City of Aspen 01 -04 -11 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of District Boundaries [ATTACHED] i1IIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION BUTTERMILK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO The Buttermilk Metropolitan District includes the West Buttermilk Subdivision, The West - Buttermilk Pfister Tracts, the Eagles Pines Subdivision, the East Owl Creek P.U.D., and the Owl Creek Ranch P.U.D., all in Pitkin County Colorado. The District is further described as residential and open space lands within the above named - subdivisions and planned unit developments including those lands in; the SW% of the SW'h of Section 34; the SE1/4 and S1/2 of the S W `/ of Section 33; the 51 of the SE% of Section 32, all in Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M.; and the NE'/ and the E1/2 of the NW' /, of Section 5; the N%z and the SE' /4 of Section 4; the SW %4 of Section 3; the SW'/. of the NW'% of Section 3; the SE1/2 of the SE1/4 of the NW %4 of Section 3; the SW 14 of the SE% and portions of the SE' of the SE1/4 of the SE'G of Section 3; the E%z of the NE' /. of Section 9, the NE1/4 of the SE'/. of Section 9; the NW'/, of the S W %4 of Section 10, the W1/2 of the NW' /. of Section 10, the NE' /4 of the NW %4 of Section 10 and the NW 14 of the NE'/. of Section 10, all in Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County, Colorado more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the witness corner to the Southeast corner of section 33 bears S05 °25'35 "E 1316.80 feet; thence S84 °27'00 "E 124.49 feet; thence East 1207.35 feet; thence S89 °59'57 "E 135.74 feet to the Northeast Corner of East Owl Creek P.U.D.; thence South 1296.22 feet; thence 589°53 171.29 feet; thence South 1080.33 feet; thence S85 °39'17 "W 588.25 feet; thence NO3 °24'26 "W 296.40 feet; thence N06 °42'40 "W 301.36 feet; thence N00 °06'48 "W 288.15 feet; thence N29 °46'08 "W 294.86 feet; thence N64 °47'56 "W 77.03 feet; thence S61 °26'34 "W 332.15 feet; thence S60 °32'49 "W 153.21 feet; thence S00 °06'00 "E 1211.59 feet to the Northwest comer of West Buttermilk; thence N89 °27'12 "E 218.42 feet; thence N89 °33 27 "E 142.49 feet; thence N89 °53'00 "E 348.83 feet; thence N89 °16'49 "E 23.09 feet; Exhibit A (con'd) thence S89 °42'00 "E 244.60 feet; thence N89 °31'53 "E 346.25 feet to the Northeast corner of West Buttermilk; thence S45 °03 47 "E 1862.79 feet; thence S00 °27'37 "W 685.36 feet; thence S01 °44'08 "E 393.14 feet; thence N88 °29'27 "E 50.46 feet; thence N89 °54'27 "E 244.00 feet; thence N88° 10'27 "E 298.14 feet; thence S89 °41'36 "E 108.64 feet; thence 171.35 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 2552.64 feet, the chord of which curve bears S31 °23'23 "E 171.32 feet; thence S29 °28'00 "E 124.12 feet thence 1 17.49 feet along the arc of a curve to the to the right having a radius of 534.99 feet , the chord of which bears S23 °10'49 "E 117.25'; thence S16 °53 "E 40.30 feet; thence 51.38 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 386.66 feet, the chord of which bears S20 °41'25 "E 51.34 feet; thence 164.46 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 437.54 feet, thence S48 °38'00 "E 78.81 feet; thence S48 °33'28 "E 469.95 feet; thence 210.37 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 147.65 feet, the chord of which bears S89 °29'00 "E 193.02 feet; thence N49 °44'00'E 888.16 feet; thence 60.40 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 5780.00 feet, the chord of which bears S36 °27'49 "E 60.40 feet; thence S49 °43'12 "W 885.20 feet; thence S40 °36'29 "W 116.92 feet; thence S44 °31'12 "W 904.53 feet; thence S20 °17'12 "W 178.04 feet; thence S00 °55'27 "W 161.51 feet to a point on the east line of Eagle Pines Subdivision; thence S49 °50'05 "W 246.52 feet; thence S09 °44'01 "E 337.04 feet thence S38 °28'56 "W 63.53 feet; thence S60 °58'20 "E 0.12 feet; thence 154.31' along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 89.38 feet, the chord of which bears S11 °30'52 "E 135.84 feet; thence S37 °56'37 "W 63.17 feet; thence 99.65 feet along the are of a curve to the right having a radius of 1402.50 feet, the chord of which bears S35 °56'29 "W 99.63 feet; thence 533 ° 52'21 "W 88.61 feet; thence 80.13 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 482.40 feet, the chord of which bears S28 °30'51 "W 80.01 feet; thence S23 °09'40 "E 225.43 feet; 2 Exhibit A (con'd) thence 103.35 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 161.72 feet, the chord of which bears S41 °27'52 "W 101.60 feet; thence N30 °1313 "W 60.00 feet; thence S68 °27'47 "W 565.78 feet; thence S44 °29'35 "W 230.52 feet; thence S31 °19'43 "W 226.33 feet; thence North 168.35 feet; thence S89 °34'36 "W 975.86 feet; thence S00 °31'51 "W 683.77 feet; thence S00 °26' 17 "W 1322.22 feet to the Southeast Comer of West Buttermilk Fister Tracts; thence S89 °40'41 "W 1327.82 feet; thence S00 °04'45 "W 85.04 feet; thence S89 ° 1548 "W 1339.23 feet to the Southwest Corner of West Buttermilk Fister 'Tracts; thence N00 °11'10 "E 1365.43 feet; thence N00 °11'51 "E 2775.54 feet; thence S88 °51'42 "W 1261.02 feet; thence S88 °53'12 "W 54.76 feet to the Southwest Comer of East Owl Creek P.U.D.; thence N09 °02'26 "E 118.80 feet; thence N11 °36'32 "W 476.78 feet; thence N36 °19'47 "W 165.88 feet; thence N56°10'10"E 123.73 feet; thence N1 1°13'24"E 106.34 feet; thence N31 °19'44 "E 217.56 feet; thence N09 °16'08 "E 96.27 feet; thence N01 °00'33 "W 457.02 feet; thence N08° 14'01 "W 137.95 feet; thence N00 °57' 16 "E 131.95 feet; thence N06 °28 "E 385.91 feet; thence N13 °34'30 "E 452.32 feet; thence 209.04 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 247.91 feet; thence N 89 °56'32 "W 5636.00 feet; thence 267.03 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 224.98 feet; thence S22 °03'14 "W 164.02 feet; thence 282.24 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 143.96 feet; thence N45 °37'0L "W 41.94 feet; thence 405.17 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 355.56 feet; thence S69 °05'35 "W 29.09 feet; thence 220.91 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 193.27 feet; thence N45 °25'00 "W 25.61 feet to the Southwest corner of Owl Creek Ranch; thence North 1670.37 feet; • thence East 219.63 feet; Exhibit A (con'd) thence N00 °03'41 "E 1043.54 feet; 66 thence N89 °29'19 "E 1322.59 feet; thence N00 °49'49 "W 1329.74 feet; thence N89 °38'12 "E 2450.86 feet; thence North 396.87 feet; thence East 2725.80 feet; thence North 1320.00 feet; thence S84 °27'00 "E 2819.98 feet; thence S00 °15'05 "E 1326.20 feet to the point of beginning. Together with and including a perpetual non - exclusive right to the Buttermilk West Road Excluding the following: The Owl Creek Road Construction License as shown on Book 19 Page 45 Pitkin County Records; A tract of land located in Section 4 and Section 5 in Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point from which the Northwest corner of said Section 4 bears N04 °33'50 "W 1926.52 feet; thence S00 °03'35 "W 596.74 feet; thence N89 °31'49 "W 385.96 feet; thence S89 °58'36 "W 344.71 feet; thence N00 °03'35 "E 600.86 feet; thence S89 °26'25 "E 730.68 feet to the point of beginning; A tract of land located in Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., more fully described as follows: Be at a point whence the witness comer to the Southwest corner of said section 34 bears S55 °32'11 "W 1483.25 feet; thence West 164.46 feet; thence N00° 18'00 "W 11.17 feet; thence N09 °29'00 "E 19.68 feet; thence N39 °33'00 "E 19.77 feet; thence N14 °03'00 "E 42.30 feet; N36 °29'00 "E 18.50 feet; thence N17 °59'00 "W 29.47 feet; thence N13 °21'00 "W 22.09 feet; thence East 142.18 feet; thence S00 °13'00 "W 151.25 feet to the point of beginning; A tract of land located in Section 34, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the witness corner to the Southwest comer of said section 34 bears S62 °16'00 "W 559.08 feet; thence S32 °32'00 "E 151.35 feet; thence N50 °44'00 "E 74.85 feet; thence N50 °41'00 "E 93.66 feet; thence N50 °38'00 "E 100.86 feet; thence N35 °46'00 "E 128.82 feet; thence N17 °34'00 "W 298.98 feet; thence S27 °17'00 "W 246.47 feet; thence S30 °20'00 "W 71.86 feet; thence 4 • IXHIIBIT A (cot' d) S44 °05'00 "W 192.53 feet; thence S32 °32'00 "E 15.70 feet to the point of beginning; A tract of land located in Section 4, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. more fully described as: Beginning at a point whence the Southeast corner of said Section 4 bears S49 °20'00 "E 1293.18 feet; thence N09 °05'00 "E 600.00 feet; thence N80 °55'00 "W 363.00 feet; thence S09 °05'00 "W 600.00 feet; thence S80 °55'00"E 363.00 feet to the point of beginning. 5 City of Aspen 01 -04 -11 EXHIBIT B Water Rates, Tap Fees, Well System Development Fees, Water Rights Dedication and Payment Water Rates The initial water rates to be paid by the District for water deliveries pursuant to the Agreement are calculated as set forth on the table shown below. These rates are subject to increase as provided in the Agreement. Monthly Block Rates Charge (Per thousand gallons) First 3,000 thousand gallons $2.50 Over 3,000 thousand gallons $5.89 In addition, the District shall pay an additional charge for any calendar year in which water delivery at the Master Meter exceeds by 5% or more the average annual delivery rate of 67 gpm, peak day deliveries in excess of 155 gpm, or the maximum annual Contract Commitment of 108 acre-feet, calculated as follows: All water delivered in excess of the average annual delivery rate, peak day delivery rate and/or the maximum annual delivery volume shall be charged at two times the prevailing Water Rates (based on the highest block rate then in effect.) Tap Fees (Utility Investment Charges) Tap fees (utility investment charges) to be paid prior to the commencement of water service under this agreement are $1,701,859.00, and were calculated and documented in the utility investment charge calculations in the report of Red Oak Consultants dated September 8, 2010. Well System Development Fees The City calculated that in order to comply with Resolution 94 -5, it would be required to allocate the cost of development of its well system among 1000 ECUs of new extraterritorial development that would not otherwise have an adequate water supply from the City's then- existing water rights and supplies. The City has imposed a well system development charge of $400.00 per ECU on new extraterritorial customers. The Bulk Water Service Agreement does not allocate water on the basis of ECUs. Therefore, the well system development charge to be paid prior to the commencement of water service were calculated as follows: Average annual water use for 1,000 ECUs that initially generated the need for Well System Development Fees equals 0.24 gpm/ECU or an average rate of 240 gpm for 1,000 ECUs. The District's average rate is 67 gpm, or 0.28% of the average rate for 1,000 ECUs. City of Aspen 01 -04 -11 EXHIBIT B (con'd) The District's well system development charge is computed as 28% of $492,493 (current replacement cost of the well system) or $137,898. Water Rights Dedication or Payment in Lieu Thereof The City has calculated its charge for water rights at a value of $2000 per acre -foot of water used each year. At this rate, the water rights payment for the District equals $216,000. The District will convey to the City the water rights listed on the attached listing ( "Water Rights List ") and the City, upon the District's demonstration title to the water rights satisfactory to the City, will offset against the $216,000 the sum of $70,000 for the water rights listed on said attached listing. ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT `B" The Buttermilk Metropolitan District will convey, assign and transfer all of its interest in and to the following water resources: A. 0.148 c.f.s. of 3.0 c.f.s., absolute, decreed to the Willow Creek Ditch, Priority No. 129, in CA132, District Court, Garfield County on May 11, 1889, with an appropriation date of July 1, 1885; B. 0.258 c.f.s. of 3.0 c.f.s., absolute, decreed to the Willow Creek Ditch, Priority No. 174, in CA132, District Court, Garfield County on May 11, 1889, with an appropriation date of May 1, 1887; and C. 2.58 c.f.s. of 30.0 c.f.s., absolute, decreed to the Willow Creek Ditch, Priority No. 209, decreed conditional in CA491, District Court, Garfield County on June 23, 1892 and absolute in Case No. W -122, District Court, Water Division No. 5 on June 22, 1971, with an appropriation date of April 15, 1891; D. 4.65 c.f.s. of 51.56 c.f.s., absolute, decreed to the Herrick Ditch, Priority No. 683 in Case No. CA4613, District Court, Garfield County on June 20, 1958, with an appropriation date of August 1, 1951; E. 0.3 c.f.s. of 6.0 c.f.s., absolute, decreed to the Stapleton Brothers Ditch, Priority No. 777, in CA5884, District Court, Garfield County on November 5, 1971, with an appropriation date of September 22, 1960; F. Basalt Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract No. 409; G. The BMD Well Field No. 1 as decreed in Case No. 01CW028, Water Division No. 5, Colorado; and H. All benefits and burdens of every nature or kind decreed in that certain Plan for Augmentation and Change of Water Right decreed in Case No. 00CW305, Water Division No. 5, Colorado. City of Aspen 01 -04 -11 EXHIBIT C Map of District Boundaries, Water Distribution System, Delivery Point [ATTACHED] • Ts ! . — J , LL 0 t 'T t _ • . r h.. F{ _ + L, ti _ . cn u U 5 ice w O � '. I • ,[ /• 4� L� w /� N Z fir' - r'� ' c / / _ x l % ry . ` ii N. V . U7 a) 0 a ] O O - a E C 2 O X m W o 0 N _ N _ O a ca • m o o a a o 0 t S Y Y ti i i r ro .- \ / / m m � .i.%. l - City of Aspen 01 -04 -11 EXHIBIT D Design Drawings Showing Master Meter and Point of Delivery [ATTACHED] Z ?1— 0 u_ X 2 . 1 W WZ N wwa U. Om ■ .0,1 J1-AL r.1 p L � � s 1 i lls G m o 9 iL' t o p cd .0- Y d I N 11==.111111 ilk 1114111111.00119.141.1.10.11100"9 O. = gl ,. re w o _ _ r , 40 : =3. .: • A.- -.S' ,. — • c li - i ,- w $4 Lii ei I tir ti ji _ A g J . 6 E /� a 0 N Ltd E w ,.:41 pmawsampra is 11 Im ;i § t' 1a 1 a 1411 N eat ■ � / I § '■ Z _,),,,,, //: cihl .. • .: r j ___,....4,_ eft • % 2 ® ♦ 0 . \ \I , 0. r ��, '� '•-litAtimitt - - ,, J ; . \ ) Nss' f ri . '''. / A ir 1 I 4 ril ......., . 1114, I - -...., 8 P 1 i 5 6 a i I 1 1 I 1 "" 1 53 w .mgr - ..a m w wA a -n-e- »\..wow ...vsmvam.- mop- snm�snn +Nrn� q1c- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tom Rubel THRU: Stephen Ellsperman THRU: Jeff Woods DATE OF MEMO: January 3, 2011 MEETING DATE: January 10, 2011 Reto RE: Contract Approval # Toolcat Utility Vehicle SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the contract to purchase One Toolcat Utility Vehicle BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of Sole Source through Bobcat of The Rockies. DISCUSSION: These Toolcat Utility Vehicles are part of the fleet replacement for the Parks Department. The fleet of skidsteers /snow removal vehicles that are operated by the Parks Department are solely made up of all Bobcat equipment. We feel that it is in the city's best interest to remain with Bobcat so that all of the implements will be interchangeable from one machine to another and that all of the operators and mechanics are all familiar with the operations and maintenance of the Bobcat. Bobcat of The Rockies is the sole distributor in the western region with quality support, parts, and supplies for Bobcat machinery. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This purchase is allocated within the Parks Fleet Budget. RECOMMENDATION: The 2011 Asset Management Plan contains the approved budget for this purchase. ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # 3 of 2011, on the Consent Calendar of Monday, January 10, 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Notes: RESOLUTION # 3 (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND BOB CAT OF THE ROCKIES SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING TOOLCAT UTILITY VEHICLE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Bob Cat of the Rockies regarding Toolcat Utility Vehicle for the city of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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, January 10, 2011 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 • lbe (fit elm 84Tltnefyffifoe SUPPLY PROCUREMENT City of Aspen Project No.: 2011 - 001. AGREEMENT made as of 10 day of January, in the year 2011. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Parks Department 130 South Galena Street Total: $37,137.00 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Vendor: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid Bobcat of the Rockies until it has been approved by the City c/o Mark Buchanan Council of the City of Aspen. 3184 Hall Avenue City Council Approval: Grand Junction, CO 81504 Phone: 970 - 434 -0647 Date: Resolution No.: Summary Description of Items to be Purchased: 5600 Turbo Toolcat Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased. The City and Vendor agree as set forth below. 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum set forth hereinabove. 2. Delivery. (FOB 585 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, Colorado 81611.) [Delivery Address] 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Manufacturer's warranty applies. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attorney' s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. (B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non - Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectionalor sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13 -98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: ATI EST: B City Manager City Clerk VENDOR: Bobcat of the Rockies, Grand Junction �... / By: C 7 74 442t/C 77 7- i111.7<Z Title EXHIBIT A OK Bobc at. Product Quotation Quotadon Names: 688802031 Date: 2010-12-28 13:3608 Ship to Bobcat Dealer BIN To Aspen, City of Bobcat of the Roddes,Grand Aspen, City of Atin: Tom Rubel JunctIon,C0 Attn: Tom Rubel 130 S Galena 3184 HALL AVENUE 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81811 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81504 - Aspen, CO 81811 Phone: (970) 429 -2031 8038 Phone: (970) 429 -2031 Fax: (970) 920-5128 Phone: (970) 434-0647 - Fax: (970) 920 -5128 Fax: (970) 434 -9373 Contact Mark Buchanan Phone: (970) 434-0647 Fax: (970) 434-9373 Cellular: (970) 985-6260 E Mall: malab@bobcatoftherockiea.com Desaipdao Part No Qty Price Ea. Total 5600 Turbo Toolcat M1001 1 838,065.00 338,06500 FINCtory tomlled Deluxe Road Package Mtoot- rOIC•I 1 81,672.00 81.672.00 Backup Alton Side Minors Torn Signals Horn Rashest . Lower Engine Guard Tail lights Rear Work lights Brake tights Headlights Rau View Mirror Cab Enclosure with HeuedArConditioning M1001402 1 33,985.00 83,985.00 High Flow Aux Hydraulics M1Omatm.m 1 31,178.00 $1,178.00 Heavy Duty Battay MI0014407CO2 1 871.00 371.00 Attachment Control Kit M1001 -RO&O02 1 8166.00 3166.00 Total of items Quoted _ $45,137.00 Trade Toolcat with 2800 hours ($8,000,00) Sales total before Taxes and Trades $37,137.00 Taxes: No Tax Added $0.00 Quote Total - US dollars $37,137.00 Notes: MEMORANDUM T(): Aspen City Council and Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Kids First Advisory Board and Shirley Ritter THRU: Ashley Ernemann and Barry Crook SUBJECT: City of Aspen — Kids First final Memorandum of Understanding for the Early Childhood Network (formerly known as Kids First Glenwood Springs office) DATE: January 3, 2011 SUMMARY: The purpose of this memo is to provide background to Aspen City Council for the Resolution # _ regarding the Early Childhood Network. BACKGROUND: In 2003 the City of Aspen, using the Kids First department, entered into an agreement with the Aspen Community Foundation to provide services from Aspen to Parachute with funding from the foundation. These services included referral services to families in Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties; consolidating what had been collaborative, but duplicative service provided by two separate agencies. Also provided through this new initiative was childcare program and quality improvement support from Aspen to Parachute. This initiative and funding ended July 1, 2008. Since that time Kids First Advisory Board and staff have held multiple planning meetings to make decisions about the continuation of services, staff and physical office space beyond Pitkin County. • Throughout the five years Kids First has been able to attract additional funding through Qualistar Early Learning, Garfield County, Eagle County and the Town of Basalt to supplement and/or replace the funding from the Aspen Community Foundation. We have in fact been able to increase this funding substantially in that time. • Additionally Kids First staff wrote a grants resulting in new funding from the Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation, the Tony Grampsas Youth Services (TGYS), Daniels Fund, and the Anschutz Family Fund for the services provided through the Kids First Glenwood Springs office. • The office space in Glenwood Springs is small, but stable and affordable given the existing budget and staff requirements. • The need for Kids First services beyond Pitkin County has grown as the population and birth rate continue to increase, especially in Garfield County. • The services provided by the staff in the Glenwood Springs office have met the identified existing need in a measurable way. • Of the several possibilities explored, forming a new 501(c)3 non - profit provided the most strengths and fewest weaknesses. DISCUSSION: This transition was outlined in a memo to council in September 2008, with a three -year window to accomplish the successful transition of the Kids First Glenwood Springs office to some form of separate organization; we have worked steadily to provide the funding, the structure, the governing board and the staffmg for this transition to be successful. This is simply the last step of this transition; paying out the fund balance and establishing a MOU to continue to work in partnership to serve families in our communities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: All funding that is referred to in the resolution is outside funding that has supported operations and services through the Kids First Glenwood Springs office. This fund balance will be paid now to-the new organization, the Early Childhood Network, to continue that work. All staff and associated operating costs have also been shifted to the new organization. RECOMMENDATION: Council approval of resolution # I to establish a MOU between the City of Aspen (Kids First), and the Early Childhood Network, including payment of the fund balance to Early Childhood Network. Attachment 1— Aspen Community Foundation Five year report Attachment 2 — Resolution # _ Attachment 3 — Memorandum of Understanding between The City of Aspen (Kids First) and the Early Childhood Network. Attachment 4 — Fund balance report for 151.24 (Glenwood Springs office) • / August 1, 2008 Kids First Harty Childhood f 4,ducat In Shirley Ritter, Director Aspen : f -I CHI Nancy Nichols Cecelia Martin Eva Jankovsky Brianne Evans To enhance the qua and i ncrease the affordability of early childhood Glenwood Springs : education programs in order to ensure school readiness among children of Joni Goodwin Rebecca Romeyn preschool age from Aspen to Parachute. Goal One: Expand and enhance early childhood resource and . referral services, parent education, and community outreach. ii ,4 N o ' . ' at , How has the initiative increased cess available early care and has provided coaching and re- the availability and accessibility education programs suiting sources to 8 programs starting their needs. Notably, 620 of up. Programs who have used our _ of preschools through the refer- these referrals were through resources to start up: Holy ral process? ` k „ phone calls and 689 of these Cross, Aspen Mountain Tots, Funding through the ECEI has referrals were through internet Basalt Campus Kids, Kids Plex, - = allowed for referral services to searches, in which families log Grace Bible, Kids Promise, Early i f 40 4 r `' meet a growing need in the in and access program informa- Learners Center Preschool, and communities that Kids First serves by supplementing fund- tion through a database that Carbondale Campus Kids. - . ., N.. Kids First maintains. The 689 Kids First Advisory Board ing received from Qualistar, accessing information via the x , member during "Read to Me" Garfield and Eagle Counties. In Internet performed a total of Day 2007 addition to information on how 1,471 searches. The technol- to contact licensed early child- ogy for Internet searches was hood education (ECE) providers, not in place prior to the initia -, families contacting Kids First tive. As reflected in the national are provided with resources trend, phone referrals have >i , f = .,M+r" --:: describing what quality looks gone down, as Internet like, how to find a program that searches have gone up. As with is a good fit for their child, and phone referrals, Kids First fol- Children at Blue Lake Preschool ways to get involved in their lows up with each family who child's program. In essence, participates in an Internet Programs that have increased 'Kids First service worked great. parents are given tools to ac- referral. capacity as a result of the Infant Within a day of our previous cess available options and to In 2008, the number of families Toddler class received from Kids provider &g she was retiring, we make choices that suit their seeking information on how to First include: Blue Lake Pre - families' needs. were visiting two centers that we access available ECE options school and 14 new family home both liked." In tracking referral trends, prior continues to climb. In the first child care spaces. to and during the initiative a half of 2008, Kids First has rise in the number of parents already fielded 701 referrals. How has parent education and 'Finding the right fit was up to me, accessing information about Of these referrals, 334 were parent involvement in their chil- the information we received from finding childcare in Garfield, phone referrals and 367 were dren's learning increased? Kids First was very helpful" Eagle and Pitkin counties internet referrals. Of the 367 Kids First in collaboration with through Kids First is evident. accessing information via the Garfield County Department of For example, prior to the initia- internet, 939 searches were Human Services (DHS) and the '7fyou need quality childcare tive, from 2000 -2001, Kids performed. Rural Resort Region Early Child - information, call Kids First and First fielded 877 referrals. In Contact information helping hood Council (RRRECC) have talk with the referral specialist. 2001-2002, 704 referrals were parents to reach Kids First for a offered OUNCE; an infant / tod- provided to families seeking You'll be glad you did!" early childhood care and educa- free childcare referral is adver- dler observational assessment tion opportunities for their chil tiled in all RFTA buses from tool that enables parents and dren (Note: These dates reflect Parachute to Aspen, on grocery caregivers to recognize the sig- - parent survey comments carts in Aspen, El Jebel and nificance of their children's be- CORRA/Qualistar's July -June Carbondale, and on card racks haviors and respond in ways I fiscal year). through the immigration initia- that will encourage further Where as, in the 2007 calendar tive. All are in English and Span- growth. Since 2004, 537 of the year 1,309 families received ish. OUNCE tools have been used referrals regarding how to ac- Kids First, through the initiative Goal One continued_, Page 2 Early Childhood Education Initiative Goal One: Expand and enhance early childhood resource and , ___ -,... a referral services, parent education, and community outreach. ' %. with English speaking children Kids First Site Coach has taught to require new developments to and families and 629 of the the Infant Toddler Expanding include space, land or funding OUNCE tools have been used Quality Classes ten times in the i 1 , with Spanish speaking children past 5 years in Glenwood for childcare. They are also 4 and families. Springs, Rifle and Parachute. planning to revise the town's n_ Since 2005 Kids First has part- Every class includes parents as land use code to include im well as childcare providers. pact fees for childcare. nered with Garfield County DHS p Our School children in their and the Roaring Fork Associa- Kids First has been instrumental Kids First staff has worked with playground tion for the Education of Young in working with Jayne Poss to the childcare community from Children (RFAEYC) to provide implement the Raising a Reader Aspen to Parachute to avert four Kindergarten transition program in Garfield and Pitkin over 6 program closures. We Kids First Glenwood Springs staff meetings each year from Aspen County childcare programs. Cur - Goth hold Mastery degrees in ear �' p g have located resources or l y to Parachute. The forums are rently this reaches 1,500 chil- helped them make community childhood education, are director designed to create dialog be- dren and their parents. qualified certified as raters in tween Kindergarten teachers, connections to find new space, environmental rating scales, and parents and childcare p rovid- Partnering with the Family Visitor funding or even staff. g ers. They were conducted in Programs, Kids First presented together resent over 43 ears o t hree "Bright Be innin ' Kids First developed and built g rep .Y .f English and Spanish. The fo- g g g' work experience in the ECE profession! rums are held on different shops. These workshops trained community displays at the nights in Rifle, Glenwood childcare teachers to educate Glenwood Springs Community Springs, Carbondale and Aspen the parents in their programs on Center and at Alpine Bank in with an average of 55 people in the resources that Colorado Glenwood Springs. each location. Bright Beginnings offers to help their children succeed. Kids First staff also participates M "Quality Childcare Matters" in the Garfield County Human booklets provided by Qualistar How has the initiative increased Service Council to open new and Kids First are given to community outreach? doors for families looking for t ,. families with new babies 4 through the Family Visitor Pro- Kids First has made community childcare, and new resources grams. Since 2005, over 676 connections that have resulted for family needs that we cannot j - booklets were distributed in in continued interaction and meet. • 9 "' Spanish and 480 in English. collaboration. These include: Simply having a physical pres- Early Learning Center Kids First participates in the CMC, Valley View Hospital, Fam- ence in Glenwood Springs has Valley View Hospital Safety Fair, ily Visitor Programs, Youth Zone, allowed us to make and which attracts over 1,200 peo- Garfield County, Eagle g County, strengthen community connec- I have been a childcare providerfor ple, as well as the Aspen Com- School District ECE councils, tions in Garfield County, with 15years. I have seen many 1 munity Picnic and Saturday Roaring Fork Association for the childcare programs, employers, wonderful changes in my field f Market. Many parents through- Education of Young Children, and families. during that time. More programs out the day received printed Garfield County Association for materials, and talked with Kids Family Childcare, Total Merchant How has the down - valley Kids are licensed and more teachers are First staff about seeking quality Services, Alpine Banks, and First office supported the goals better qualified thanks mostly to childcare. EnCana Gas Company. of the initiative? Kids First. I am in the process of Each year Kids First staff Kids First was instrumental in Based on all the summary in- earning my director qualification speaks to an average of 20 formation we have teenage moms in the Yampah forming the Childcare Coalition provided in I and plan to work on my BA in early childhood education, and it Teen parent program about in Basalt. This group includes a this report, It is clear that our finding quality childcare as they Town Council member, the Town work has supported the goals would not have been possible get ready to leave Yampah and Manager, employers, childcare of the initiative and more. The without help from the grants and search for childcare on their providers and parents. For two reason Kids First was originally 1 staff at Kids First. Kids First has own. years this group has received chosen to partner with the As- been an incredible asset in our Kids First has made four pres- funding from the Town of Basalt pen Community Foundation in area, and their continued entations to "Women in Transi- to recruit new providers, expand the ECEI was because our mis- tion" - a group of about 20 services, improve quality, and sion and goals were already so contribution is greatly needed and women in the CMC workforce retain staff. The budget for 2008 closely aligned. The goals of appreciated program about finding quality more than doubled the amount the initiative continue to be the - Childcare teacher letter to the childcare: What to ask, look for, in 2007. Because of this suc- goals of Kids First. editor, Glenwood Springs Post ; and know about childcare. cess the Town Council is working August 1, 2008 Page 3 Goal Two: Support childcare providers in delivering quality early childhood education programs. How has the initiative improved the quality of non - profit may have never taken a college school quality through better preschool programs through class report that taking a class programming and improved improved staff retention and from someone they already equipment and materials? through staff development have a relationship with is a 950 = annual hours Before the initiative no child- opportunities and increased huge incentive and makes them coaching; care programs had received a salaries? feel more comfortable. Provid- Qualistar rating in our area. ing coaching as well as teaching 216 = annual hours For the past three years Kids throu h Kids First has in- teaching; Because of the partnership with First with the Rural Resort Re- g g' Aspen Community Foundation, gion Early Childhood Council creased overall learning for the Rural Resort Region Early childcare teachers. 555 = annual hours Childhood Council, and Qualis- has distributed professional doing ECE program tar, Kids First has been able to development scholarships to an Kids First staff distributes CMC help fund assessments in 19 average of 40 ECE teachers. and other College ECE courses assessments. childcare programs in the last The Basalt Childcare Coalition information to all licensed pro- five years, some for their third viders each semester along and fourth year. has funded teacher incentives with available scholarship re- of $29,000 for programs in the sources. The Environment Rating Scales, mid - valley area that reward an introductory part of the Qual- retention and increase wages. Each year Kids First collabo- istar rating, has been used to rates to sponsor an in- service assess 83 classrooms in this Kids First staff is paid through for ECE staff. It is offered on two time. the Rural Resort Region Early days, features nationally recog- Over $33,500 has been Childhood Council to coordinate nized speakers, and attracts . .'- '/ -w In N 0, brought to the initiative through professional development, dis- , g g nearly 300 teachers each year., the Rural Resort Region Early tribute that information, and Childhood Council to be distrib- help find funding for ECE teach- How has the initiative increased r uted to rated programs for ma- ers to take classes and improve staff certification and licensing, '; - ►-k A-- ..g...... terials and equipment that were their skills. as well as quality ratings for the deemed necessary for program valley's preschool? quality improvement. Grants for Because of the ECEI, Kids First quality improvement materials has been able to attract addi- Kids First, in partnership with the Rural Resort Region Early were also funded by the Aspen tional outside funds so that all Community Foundation, the City ECE staff from Aspen to Para- Childhood 72 Council has distrib- al of Aspen, Garfield County, the uted $49,572 professional p y chute have access to T.EC.H. development dollars to 202 Kids First was T.E.A.C.H. Town of Basalt, the Boettcher scholarships. T.E.A.C.H. is ad- licensed child care providers recently awarded the Foundation, and the Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation. ministered across the state by since 2005. These dollars have `Quality Assurance" Qualistar but often runs short of been used for early childhood Through the use of these as- state funding. By providing local college courses, trainings, work- distinction from the sessment tools and the funding funds we can begin to ensure shops, and conferences. National Association provided for program improve- that local teachers can get We see a cumulative effect with for Resource and ments we have been able to measure the improvement in scholarships to become director so many organizations involved Referral Agencies. quality over time. All but one of qualified or earn an AA degree. with program ratings, funding, the Qualistar rated programs and overall quality improvement have maintained or increased 150 childcare providers and /or activities. There is an increased their star rating With mentor- parents have taken the "Infant awareness driving demand for ing, the classrooms that have and Toddler Expanding Quality" more higher education. Be- had an environment rating have class. This class has seen in- cause of the initiative, Kids First increased in quality an average creasing interest, going from has seen much more demand of over 14 %. Since 2003, it has two to four classes offered each for T.E.A C.H. scholarships that been reported by our local li- year. Attendance has nearly reward people who complete censing agent that the childcare doubled in the last 5 years. their educational goals with bonuses that reward retention programs that have had an Qualistar ratings, Kids First and increase wages. Environment Rating have had grant requirements, and ECEI an average 50% decrease in Because of childcare program mentoring have all contributed licensing violations. to this increase in teachers p turnover we do not track individ- How has the initiative increased seeking training. People who ual career paths. Goal Two continued_,, Page 4 Early Childhood Education Initiative Goal Two: Support childcare providers in delivering quality early childhood education programs. How has Kids First mentoring The training and education sec- Parachute obtained chairs ' supported by the initiative im- tion of the Qualistar rating is (through Kids First) from a pro - pacted the quality of the valley used to help determine profes- gram in Aspen when that pro- preschools? sional development needs. Kids gram purchased new chairs that ._.,��.. First Site Coach is able to identify were more size appropriate for Q 'f �,, Kids First mentoring through the this and teach or coordinate the children they served. An- • ./ initiative is strongly connected trainings to meet these needs. other example was a parent call - ' 1 . t s 1 - - with the Environment Rating ing us wanting to donate an out - • Scales (ERS) assessments and The Kids First ECEI Site Coach door play structure (valued at has also had influence as Co- the Q ualistar ratin g The Kids $3,000 to a childcare ro ram. Crystal Day Care - Sabrina Ferguson President of the RFAEYC. Atten- ) p g Redstone. In three years Increased her First Site Coach often uses the If a program is closing or chang- quality from a 1 - startoa 4 - star ERS to establish a baseline, with dance at the childcare associa ing out equipment, Kids First is Quallstarrating! a quality improvement plan tion meetings has increased from often called and can find a match based on that information. The as few as 3 people before the for the available equipment. ERS is also used to determine initiative, to an average of 30 -35 readiness for a Qualistar rating it in attendance currently. This was Teacher turnover has an impact I decided to convert from being is i n fact one of five components an intentional role to become on program sustainability; it afamily home provider to of the Qualistar rating. The five better connected to ECE teachers costs a child care program in running apreschool. I realized components include: learning in a different setting. These many ways, not the least of that no, cost for all the new environment, family partner- meetings include many diverse which is financially. The cost of ships, training and education, topics, speakers and discus- each turnover costs more than materials I needed came to o lions. It is also an adult to child ratios and group pportunity to most programs realize. Turnover $10,000. I called Kids First size, and accreditation. It is a 0-4 distribute professional develop- also affects parent satisfaction and the next deg Igot a call star system. The detailed quality ment information, answer ques- and security with a program; back that they had some things improvement plan that is part of lions and share resources such many will look for another pro forme. They met me on a the rating is a critical tool for as the on -line training calendar gram possibly causing a shortfall ro to make improve- maintained by Kids First, that in enrollment and revenue. Saturday and helped load it programs g rams anyone can access. Professional all into truck. This one act ments and having a coach that Kids First has been able to help "� thoroughly understands the com- associations create opportunities retain teachers in the field by saved me ever12,500. I feel so ponents greatly increases the for increased learning, leadership development, and support strong blessed to live in this volt Providing resources for profes i mprovements ma sional development for ECE staff. with such kind and generous relationships that empower pe Higher levels of education are people. Qualistar reports are also avail- ple to strive for higher quality in associated with teacher retention able to parents as they search for early childhood programs. and increased - Preschool Director childcare, giving them an objet ease wages which, in live tool to help make this impor- How has the initiative increased turn, reduces the cost of teacher tant decision. This in turn pro- the sustainability of the valley's turnover. Without adequate train - vides another incentive for pro- preschools? ing, caregivers may find that meeting the daily challenges too grams to improve their quality. Sustainability can be defined in difficult and frustrating. Colorado Preschool Program several ways, funding and quail- Hands on support is also needed (CPP) requires an annual assess- fled staff come to mind. at times to reduce director and ment to determine if each CPP Increasingly funders are req uiring teacher stress /turnover. On one 14 .. classroom meets the standards i ll; . .__, a Qualistar rating for a childcare occasion Kids First staff helped require All s districts have program to qualify for a grant. clean up a ceiling cave -in due to • partnered with the Kids First site Kids First provides readiness and an upstairs toilet leak in order for q` coach to use the ERS or Qualistar coaching support for these rat- a program to be back in action rating as this measurement ent tool. ings. We also assist with grant the following day. On another This is followed up by coaching writing and often funders consult occasion, Kids First supported a Kids First Site Coach sessions that address any issues Kids First to help determine the director after a teacher called in the quality improvement plan. making a health and safety This has been an alignment of status of applicants. asking for some relief for the training fun! resources that has positively Kids First is instrumental in help- director. Kids First staff was able impacted every school district ing to go and fill in for a few hours so im P ry g programs obtain resources in that director could have some preschool from Aspen to Para- various ways. For example, last chute. year a program starting up in much needed time away. We are so proud to have achieved a 10/ 10 score for family partnerships on our latest Qualistar rating. Parents expressed how pleased they are with a solid family partnership and wish to continue this relationship. There is no doubt that the immense support of Kids First contributed to this success. - Childcare Provider, thank you letter to Kids First Advisory Board August 1, 2008 Page Goal Three: Make early childhood education accessible more days to more children by increasing financial aid? As a result of the initiative, are childcare programs from Aspen Preschool Program (CPP), serving more childcare and preschool to Parachute, including: classes on those committees and helping resources available in under- in Rifle and Parachute; in- service to increase spaces. In the Aspen served communities? Please trainings; and Kindergarten Tran- School District, CPP spaces have d R., escribe the results of this sition meetings in 4 locations increased from 15 spaces in effort. across the area using an inter- 2002 -2003 school year to 35 preter. These services have had a spaces for the 2008 -2009 school Yes, because of the initiative and substantial impact in under- year; the Roaring Fork School Kids First having a Glenwood Aspen School District Preschool — Springs office our staff has been served communities and popula- District had 51 spaces in the The Cottage able to forge partnerships with tions even though they are not 2002 -2003 school year and has strictly tuition assistance. Be- 142 spaces for the 2008 -2009 Garfield and Eagle Counties, the cause of this, providers and fami- year Kids First also distributes Rural Resort Region Early Child lies have a central place to ac- Childcare Assistance Program hood Council, and others. This cess information about childcare (CCAP) information and makes has allowed everyone to coordi- and community resources well referrals to the department of nate funding, to offer grants that I is ust lain smart to support the programs in different beyond that scope. human services. > p invest in children. The As- but connected ways. For exam- How many more children were Childcare affordability continues ple, professional development able to attend preschool for more to be an issue for families. There pen Community Foundation funding from the council is ad- days as a result of tuition assis- are more funding choices now is to be commended for hav- ministered by Kids First staff, tance? than 5 years ago, but it is still ing the insight to fund Kids grants for expansion or quality very limited. To meet this need, a First in our community. improvement come from Garfield Initially, Kids First administered dedicated sustainable funding g What we need now is the or Eagle County, and quality im the funding for preschool tuition source is needed to realistically assistance. In 2004 -2005 there public's support to continue provement coaching is done by generate enough money to serve were 7 children receiving assis- their vision. We need com- Kids First staff. Another example families with equity. is the role Kids First has in the tance in this way. In 2005 -2006 missioners, and the commu childcare home licensing proc that number increased to 12. At How has the initiative contributed nib/ to open their eyes to the ess. People often contact Kids the same time some programs to the accessibility of preschool importance of early childhood began receiving grant funding programs by underserved and at- First to inquire about becoming a from the Aspen Community Foun- risk children? education and to suppo�r a family home provider. We send better way. We are not a dation for tuition assistance out the licensing packet of infor- Accessibility includes tuition as ecial interest we are within each program. In 2005 sp g motion. The licensing specialist sistance for families, but it also Blue Lake Preschool and Chil- th future. provides the pre - licensing train- includes CPP referrals and place - - ing required by the state. The dren's Mini College reported 13 ment, it includes training and K Ware children receiving tuition assis- new provider may get start-up classes for teachers so programs funding from Kids First, the Town tance in that manner. In the first can stay open, and it includes of Basalt, Garfield or Eagle two school years of the initiative, g Kids First reported 23 children quality improvement so that pro - County, and then receives coach- who received 1816 days of pre- grams understand how to be ing again from Kids First staff. school. During the summer of more inclusive of families and Another important service Kids 2006 the Aspen Community strive for best practice. First provides is referral informa- Foundation decided to support The initiative funding for Kids - tion in any one of 150 languages. preschool tuition assistance only First, has provided another open Through the use of a phone through grants to providers. From door for families to find out about - --tom, , based translation service we can that point the Aspen Community quality care for their children; to © i �. give parents information about Foundation, rather than Kids receive information and re- la E l ` � El 7 childcare in their first language. First, kept records of this infor- sources; and someone to advo- I Finally, as a result of the initia mation. cate on their behalf for needed five, Kids First staff has provided Kids First staff has worked services when necessary. Ids Firstdlsplayln Glenwood Springs Community Center quality improvement and profes- closely with all four school dis- sional development resources to tricts to support the Colorado Page 6 Early Childhood Education Initiative Fiscal analysis of how Kids First used Aspen Community Foundation grant money. Beginning in July 2003, the Aspen Com- Qualistar, based on increased referrals 2003 - $70,595, 6 month period munity Foundation began a 5 year part- from our office continued to increase; nership with Kids First (a department of $27,442 in 2005. Our funding from 0 •Aspen Community the City of Aspen). Through this partner- Eagle County also increased to $4,750, Foundation ship, the Aspen Community Foundation and $11,000 was administered through funded $120,000 a year to support Kids First from the Rural Resort Region O 00RRA /Qualistar Kids First operations in an additional Early Childhood Council for professional office located in Glenwood Springs. This development. funding specifically supported the goals Beginning in 2006, one of our original identified in this report, with 2.5 FTE staff people to do the work. Additional staff members left for another position ECEI funding of $130,000 was used to in a preschool. This position was the increase financial aid to families and community resource development per grants to non - profit childcare programs. son. To this point in time she had been 2004 - $152,459 developing strong relationships with the The Kids First office was, and still is, ECE community in Garfield County, with • Aspen Community located at 40123rd Street, Suite 207 other non - profits, and with employers. Foundation in Glenwood Springs. Her efforts to build collaborations con- • Garfield County tinues to support Kids First; however, ❑Eagle County From the inception, Kids First was able these first attempts to increase funding �' to use Aspen Community Foundation and childcare capacity did not result in 0 CORRA/Qualistar funding as leverage to contract with other agencies to support the mission new funding or spaces during this time. and goals. In 2003 (six month period) Kids First still feels that these first con - we received $10,595 from the Colorado nections are essential, but that Garfield County, overall, is not a conducive cli- Office of Resource and Referral Agen mate to mount a tax initiative. Other Gies (CORRA). In 2005 this agency counties across the state and in our became Qualistar Early Learning. 2005 - $164,192 resort region have been working on the i Each year all revenue was spent for the same end goal. Notably, the tax initia- • Aspen Community purpose intended. Because many of our tive in Routt County and Steamboat Foundation other contracts have a fiscal year of Jul Springs failed by a large margin; • Garfield County Y Y g Y n; Sum- g g 1 to June 30, there often appears to be mit County passed a small property tax ❑ Eagle County savings carried forward; however this is by a very slim margin; followed by the ® COBRA /Qualistar a function of cash flow rather than re- defeat of an early childhood property taining excess funds. tax in Eagle County. At that time, it was ® RRRECC In 2004 in addition to the funding from recommended that together with the Aspen Community Foundation we re- the Aspen Community Foundation, Kids group and evaluate what would work First received $21,188 from CORRA, best for the initiative. The position was $8,271 from Garfield County DHS, and not re- filled, and the funding to Kids Il $3,000 from Eagle County DHS. First was reduced to reflect that. 2006 - $197,457 For the second full year of the initiative, In 2006, Kids First received $96,820 • 2005, Kids First continued to receive from the As • Aspen Community Aspen Community Foundation, funding from other sources. Garfield Foundation County experienced an unanticipated $42,309 from Qualistar, $10,816 from "'Garfield County p p Garfield County, $17,512 from Eagle short fall in their childcare assistance County, and $30,000 from the Rural ❑ Eagle County program that resulted in only being able Resort Region Early Childhood Council. to fund Kids First for $1,000 this year. ® CORRA/Qualistar Again most of this was pass through Thankfully this was only a one time funding to benefit childcare programs in © RRRECC occurrence. The funding formula from the Aspen to Parachute area. August 1, 2008 Page 7 In 2007 Kids First lost the second for 1.4 FTE staff positions. Kids First staff person, our referral specialist. Advisory Board and staff began 2007 - $1 84,764 This position is critical to our program strategic planning for the future of and to the families looking for child- the Glenwood Springs Kids First •Aspen Conmunity care. It took several months to find office. Kids First entered into a six Foundation a Garfield County the right person for this job, but we month contract with JVA consulting are extremely pleased with the out- to give us a start with grant writing. ❑ Eagle County come and feel stronger in this area The success in this short window of than ever. During this time all other time would dictate our options after u CORRA /Qualistar Kids First staff were doing referrals, the initiative. - ®Tow n of Basalt keeping data up to date, reporting to + ti This brings us to 2008. Kids First `t <s funders, and most incredible of all, ® RRRECC working on the quality assurance received $36,820 from the Aspen recognition through the National Community Foundation (for the first Association of Childcare Resource 6 months), $48,363 from Qualistar, and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). $28,554 from Garfield County, 2008 Budget - $224,983 Also this year Kids First started work- $26,880 from Eagle County, $5,000 ing with the Town of Basalt to ad- from the Town of Basalt, $35,903 • Aspen Community dress their critical need for childcare from the Rural Resort Region Early Foundation capacity. The Childcare Coalition was Childhood Council, $7,284 in reim- • Foundation County formed from a diverse group of con bursements and other contributions. E ❑ Eagle County citizens. Our funding was The great news is that for the remain- g y reduced during this period for a total ing months in 2008 and into 2009 p CORRA/Qualistar paid to Kids First from the Aspen Kids First has been awarded Community Foundation of $65,736. $14,000 from the Temple Hoyne ® Tow n of Basalt Other contributions for 2007 were Buell Foundation, $10,000 from the i $35,138 from Qualistar, $12,185 Daniels Fund, $7,500 from the An- 13 RRRECC Schutz Foundation, and most recently _•, from Garfield County, $17,512 from ❑ Other Contributions $39,040 annual contract (for three Eagle County, $48,193 from the RRRECC, and $6,000 from the Town years) through the Tony Grampsas q • THB of Basalt. Over these two years, Youth Services (TGYS) Colorado 5 2006 and 2007, we reduced the Department of Public Health and ■Anschutz Foundation referralspecialist position to 4 days a Environment! We continue to re- p p search and seek grant funds to main- O Daniels Fund week and used funding for the qual- ity improvement site coach from the tain and hopefully grow the Kids First ❑ TGYS City of Aspen (for services in Pitkin Glenwood Springs programs and County) for two days a week. This services to families. meant the initiative was now paying Total Funding 2003 -2008 $250,000 Kids First Glenwood $200,000 Springs office staff has * --- _. 14 .,.,._ averaged less than 17% ltV $150,000 Y V turnover in 5years! $1 00,000 -- r ` , II $50,000 Kids First Glenwood $- Springs office currently 2003 (6 months) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Budget receives funding from 11 • Aspen Community Foundation • Garfield County different agencies and ❑ Eagle County 13 Qualistar n Rural Resort Region Early Childhood Council D Tow n of Basalt ❑ Other ❑ Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation ■ Anschutz D Daniels ❑ TGYS 1 Sustainability: Please provide the most up to date local efforts on the down valley Kids First tax • ® initiative: Kids First continues to actively support communities that are positioned to pursue sustainable funding. Kids First has been instrumental in helping organize citizen 0 groups to address ECE issues, with measurable results. One of the lessons learned is that when communities are not ready, no amount of effort will produce positive Kids Flrst results; however when communities are affected personally and are ready to take action, our ability to help them succeed is dramatically increased. Please provide the most up to date state and local efforts to obtain state and local 215 N. Garmisch, #1 funding. Aspen, CO 81611 There are considerable new efforts including ECE Councils with new funding across 401 23rd Street, #207 the state, most recently new ECE social /emotional health funding from the Colo- Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 rado Trust; increased licensing requirements for safety, quality and professional development driven by quality improvement ratings; local coalitions such as the Aspen Phone: 970 - 920 -5363 Basalt group making changes in their communities; more foundations showing Referral Line: 970 -928 -7111 more interested in early childhood; and last but not least the Governor's office and Aspen Fax: 970 -920 -5407 legislation that has made substantial changes, notably the childcare contribution E-mail: kids_first@cLaspen.co.us state tax credit renewal, increased CPP funding, and increased CCAP rates for low income families! Every child deserves a great start! Please present any other information that would help us assess our investment in early childhood education. Your investment in early childhood education has allowed Kids First to give early WWW.aspenpitkin.com /kidsfirst childhood professionals the tools to be strong advocates for early childhood educa- tion, and strengthened support for children and families. Additionally, the ECEI has broadened the circle of advocates for early childhood issues from the few in this profession to employers, parents, grandparents, elected officials, and the media. The ECEI created a heightened awareness in people and places that had not previously been connected. Kids First transitions to the Future "The cool thing is that a coalition of concerned citizens, health care officials, Kids First has successfully accom- exists in Garfield County. Addi- local businesses, Kids First staff, local plished the original goals from tionally, the high cost of living childcare providers, and town officials 2003 and more! We have high contributes to high staff turn -over hopes and greater determination in ECE programs. With demand came up with the proposal and pitched it than ever for future collaboration for childcare increasing dramati- to the Town Council. It was approved by and success! cally, it is essential that building everybody." capacity goes hand in hand with Kids First plans to continue coo l- Kids with other continue c supporting programs and improv- - Gary Tennenbaum, Basalt Town Council ing organizations to meet the grow- quality. Kids First intends make this to be haands nds on to help ing needs of those who are under- served. Our work is certainly cut happen. out for us. For example, Garfield Kids First Advisory Board and County is one of the fastest grow- entire staff would like to express -. ing counties in Colorado. There is our deepest thanks and apprecia- ; an expected population increase. from 44,300 in 2000 to 148,000 tion to the Aspen Community in 2030; yet, the high cost of liv- Foundation Board, staff, and ECEI h ''f ing, coupled with a shortage of donors for their investment in the childcare and early childhood Early Childhood Education Initia- ,. >, • education options, creates the tive. Your support has been in- r- . u E _ - potential for leaving children unat- valuable to the many children and j tended or in substandard condi- their families in our community. ° " «. ;t' tions. The quality of available fi childcare is variable; only one four-star Qualistar-rated provider Dreamingof myfuture... RESOLUTION NO. f Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK REGARDING THE SEPERATION OF RESERVE FUNDS AND CHILDCARE INFORMATION AND EDUCATION SERVICES TO FAMILIES, CHILDCARE PROGRAMS, AND COMMUNIIIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, The City of Aspen — Kids First has completed the separation and successful re- organization of the Glenwood Springs office, now a newly formed 501(c)3 organization named The Early Childhood Network (hereinafter "ECN "); WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Aspen, and ECN to outline core services and associated costs for these services; WHEREAS, all reserve funds in account 151.24.24300 are from outside contract and grant sources for the sole purpose of quality improvement and referral work done by staff in the Glenwood Springs office, now the Early Childhood Network; the remaining fund balance has been requested in full, to be paid to the Early Childhood Network; NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One - The City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Aspen and Early Childhood Network to allow for approval of the MOU and all terms therein, including full payment of the estimated remaining fund balance, and that an appropriation be included in the next ordinance amending the 2011 budget reflecting Council authorization for this payment. Section Two - A copy of the Early Childhood Network's final unaudited income statement, including the estimated ending fund balance is annexed hereto and incorporated herein. Section Three - The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said memorandum of understanding on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of ,2011 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 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made between THE CRY OF ASPEN Kids First - City of Aspen, and the Early Childhood Network. KIDS FIRST Childcare Resource Center The Parties will use this MOU to outline the scope of services and relationships. Therefore in consideration of the Parties rights and obligations described below, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Term. The term of this MOU will be from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. The MOU, however, will be AT -WILL. This means either Party may terminate this MOU at anytime and for any reason or for no reason by giving the other Party at least ten (10) working days prior notice. 2. Program Services. Kids First will be a collaborative partner with the Early Childhood Network. Kids First will provide services and collaborative efforts that are within the scope of services provided through the department, dependent upon availability of funding. 3. Fiscal Management /Transfer of Assets. Upon Council approval of this MOU, the City shall within 30 days transfer the estimated amount of cash assets remaining in the Early Childhood Network fund to the Early Childhood Network 501c3 nonprofit. A final reconciling payment, if needed, shall be made by the City or ECN within 30 days of the City's receipt of its 2010 financial audit. Any agreement to provide services between Kids First and the Early Childhood Network or its sub - contractors will be based upon the authorized scope of services described herein and will require written invoices specific to the services provided, which shall be payable on a "Net 30" days basis.. 4. Qualifications. On the effective date of this MOU, and during the term of this MOU, the Kids First staff will be fully qualified and will have all approvals, registrations, and certifications needed to perform the services under this MOU and subsequent invoices stating specific services. 5. Assignment of Rights or Obligations Neither party may assign that party's rights or obligations under this Agreement without the other party's written agreement. • • Kids First Childcare Resource Center Core service areas Core Services for Families: /3 Kids First will serve walk -in consumers with childcare information, consumer education, quality indicators, and all information as outlined by Qualistar and NACRRA Quality Assurance standards. Kids First will transfer all phone calls and other requests for childcare referrals to Early Childhood Network. /b Kids First will provide back -up childcare referrals for up to 120 hours per year; dates to be agreed upon in advance, in order to provide seamless services to families in the service delivery area. Kids First will also provide up to 40 hours of data base maintenance and training when needed. In Pitkin County Kids First will provide: Kids First Mission: Promote 4 Families with information on funding to help with the availability of quality, childcare expenses including Kids First financial aid, affordable early childhood Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, CPP, and refer care & education; Provide eligible families to the appropriate agencies. access to childcare 4 Licensing applications, grant applications, and other information and resources. vital information given to potential childcare providers seeking licensure. Kids First Goals: Recruitment of new child care providers, encouraging 1. Increase the quality of them to meet market demands and trends as needs early childhood education and care. arise. 2. Maintain affordability of Core Services for Child Care Programs: prog and provide g information regarding the true cost of IS Kids First will provide quality improvement and childcare. professional development information, technical 3. Increase and maintain assistance, and support for existing and potential the availability of providers. childcare programs. /! Kids First will maintain the Pitkin County provider 4. Increase public education database updated at least every 6 months. Addition of and awareness about the new providers, changes from active to inactive status, importance of early and other updates will be added as they occur. It is Support the recruitment expected that this will take 50 to 60 hours per year. 5. Support the nf utm ex P P Y and retention of /ry Provide staffing (as funding allows) for coaching and qualified early childhood consultation to improve quality in childcare programs. education teachers. /io Provide staffing (as funding allows) for availability to substitute to maintain ratios and provide leave time for staff in early childhood classrooms. /Jy A bi- monthly regional newsletter that will be distributed to all licensed childcare providers, human services providers, funders, school administration, and government officials. /1 A website updated regularly with information about and links to local training opportunities, available subsidies, quality indicators, becoming a licensed child care provider and other early childhood care and education issues. Kids First will provide a link to the Early Childhood Network website. /L Provide local trainings and educational opportunities for providers as necessary. 4 Provide T.E.A.C.H. information and professional development funding to the extent allowed by the budget. 4 Support to the RFAEYC Association through attendance of meetings, technical assistance and collaboration of activities. Core Services for Employers: Kids First will inform and counsel Pitkin County employers about the importance of quality early childhood care and education and assist in identifying work and family policies and benefits. at Kids First staff will meet with representatives of local businesses, government, service organizations and other groups to increase awareness of the value and importance of early childhood education to the community. Core Services for Community: Kids First will assess and recruit child care resources in response to identified supply and demand imbalances that exist in Pitkin County and child care services being requested by consumers. Kids First will provide (as funding allows): lb Flyers, posters, brochures, and newspaper ads developed and distributed as necessary to advertise the services of Kids First as well as upcoming classes and trainings for families 4 Public awareness concerning early childhood care and education and related family issues (such as Month of the Young Child and Provider Appreciation Day) in collaboration with the child care associations and other agencies. 4 In collaboration with other agencies and the Early Childhood Network, assistance to elected community officials in developing policy relating to early childhood care and education. • • Early Childhood Network Core Service Areas Vision: A world class Core Services for Families: Early Childhood Network will childcare system where provide childcare referrals to families throughout the service families have financial delivery area with childcare information, consumer and educational support education, quality indicators, and all information as outlined and options in selecting by Qualistar and NACRRA Quality Assurance standards for no quality and affordable childcare. charge. Mission: Enhance Early Childhood Network will provide: capacity, quality and A' Families with information on funding to help with accessibility of childcare. childcare expenses including Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, CPP, and refer eligible families to the appropriate agencies. 11. Licensing applications, mini -grant applications, and other vital information provided to potential providers seeking licensure. Early Childhood Network staff will be available for one -on -one technical assistance in filling out applications and referral to training and resources necessary to complete licensure. 4 Recruitment of new child care providers, encouraging them to meet market demands and trends as needs arise. Core Services for Child Care Programs: 4 Early Childhood Network will provide quality improvement and professional development information, technical assistance, and support for existing and potential providers. /1 Early Childhood Network will maintain the NACCRRAware database updated at least every 6 months. Addition of new providers, changes from active to inactive status, and other updates will be added as they occur. 4 Provide staffing (as funding allows) for coaching and consultation to improve quality in childcare programs. 4 Early Childhood Network will contribute to the Kids First bi- monthly regional newsletter that will be distributed to all licensed childcare providers, human services providers, funders, school administration, and government officials. 4 Early Childhood Network will develop and maintain a website with a link to the Kids First website. 4 Provide local trainings and educational opportunities for providers as necessary. 4 Provide T.E.A.C.H. information and professional development funding to the extent allowed by the budget. 4 Support to the GCFCCH ft RFAEYC Association through attendance of meetings, technical assistance and collaboration of activities. Core Services for Community: Early Childhood Network will assess and recruit child care resources in response to identified supply and demand imbalances that exist in the service delivery area and child care services being requested by consumers. Early Childhood Network will provide (as funding allows): A Flyers, posters, brochures, and newspaper ads developed and distributed as necessary to advertise the services of Early Childhood Network as well as upcoming classes and trainings for families 4 Public awareness concerning early childhood care and education and related family issues (such as Month of the Young Child and Provider Appreciation Day) in collaboration with the child care associations and other agencies. A In collaboration with other agencies and the Early Childhood Network, assistance to elected community officials in developing policy relating to early childhood care and education. EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK PROVIDING SERVICES TO KIDS FIRST Funding Source Activity Detail Cost COA Ounce trainings - Training and coaching ((2 *2 *50) *4) *(10 *50)= total 4 classrooms, 2 $1,300 check -ins 2 hours each, 10 hours training RRRECC EQ $0 ERS Time spent answering $50 *32= $1,600 Kids First staff questions about scales, lining up certification, In- service planning We do - collaboratively $0 with Garfield County COA, minimal Quality improvement Leiry, Sabrina, Rhoda, $1,600 total Temple Hoyne activities in licensed Karyn = 32 hours each, 2 programs paid by Buell homes in Pitkin pre -test, read out and Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation - coaching Foundation - RRRECC RRREDC, one paid for by RRREDC SSUF grant, one paid for by COA $400 each COA $600 + 12 PAS training in Pitkin Joni's time to be there, ((6 *50) *4) +1020 = hours time- we coordinate $2,220 Temple Hoyne 2 +2 workshops 3 hours (RRREDC= $1,620) Buell each, 1 program COA = $600 Foundation assessment (RRRECC) $600 +$1,020 TOTAL $3,900 KIDS FIRST PROVIDING SERVICES TO EARLY CHILDHOOD NETWORK Funding Activity Detail Cost Source Early Financial reporting on 11 -2010 to 7 -2011, time spent 8 "2`50 =$800 Childhood TGYS grant on reporting, depositing and Total+ $800 Network requesting checks through COA to Early Childhood Network. Early Financial reporting on 11 -2010 to 7 -2011, time spent 1 *8 *50 =$400 Childhood Qualistar grant on reporting, depositing and 4 *2 *50 =$400 Network requesting checks through COA Total $800 Quarterly reporting, my to Early Childhood Network. portion Quarterly reporting time spent on the match report, compiling and sending in to Qualistar on deadline. Early Technical assistance as Time spent on training, 26"50= $1,300 Childhood needed to support the new technical assistance, phone Network organization, transition, calls, emails, and in- person provide historical context consultation to all ECN staff. as needed, 11 -2010 to 7- Estimate includes 1 hours a 2011 week for 26 weeks in 2011 Early Referral coverage for up to 20 hours *50 = $1,000 Childhood two weeks (Not FTE) per Network year to allow days off or out of the office for the ECN referral specialist. TOTAL $3,900 These costs are estimates and only for the purpose of setting a maximum amount to be considered. The expectation is that both organizations will consider this a break -even proposition with no money being received or expended. Early Childhood Network By: Date: Jonathan Godes, Director Kids First, a Department of the City of Aspen By: Date: Shirley Ritter, Director By: Date: Steve Barwick, City Manager 151 - EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUND Audited Audited Audited Audited Audited Audited Audited Forecast 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Beginning Fund Balance 50 $29,366 $32,595 $18,991 $87,740 $137,520 5248,722 5406,373 Revenues 24 567,063 5146,984 $152,787 $257,757 5150,985 5228,143 $230,261 $153,530 26 50 50 $0 50 5149,762 5205,871 5316,531 $456,724 Interest (Pro Rata) 5164 $86 (515) $2,197 $8,563 $19,954 513,570 $6,391 Total Revenues $ 67,227 $147,070 $152,772 $259,954 $309,310 $453,968 $560,362 $616,645 Expenditures 24 537,861 5143,840 $166,376 $191,205 5137,524 $126,510 5154,920 5154,452 26 50 50 50 50 5122,006 $216,257 $247,790 5450,640 Total Expenditures $37,861 $143,840 $166,376 $191,205 $259,530 $342,766 $402,710 $605,092 Net Income 24 $29,366 $3,230 ($13,604) $68,749 $20,311 $120,589 $86,197 $3,871 Net Income 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,469 ($9,388) $71,455 $7,682 Change to Fund Balance $29,366 $3,230 ($13,604) $68,749 $49,780 $111,202 $157,652 $11,553 24 Balance $29,366 $32,596 $18,992 $87,741 $108,052 $228,642 $314,839 $318,710 d - 26 Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,469 $20,080 $91,535 $99,218 'Ending Fund Balance $29,366 $32,596 $18,991 $87,740 $137,520 $248,722 $406,373 $417,926 % Interest to 26 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 5% 20% 25% MEMORANDUM t TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Hendon, Community Development Director31��/����1�I1I��,�,��,�,JJJJJ � FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, Ordinance #48 negotiation DATE: January 10, 201 SUMMARY: On November 8, 2010, City Council, with the consent of the University of Colorado, extended the Ordinance #48 negotiation period for the preservation of The Given Institute to January 11, 2011. The negotiation process is on- going, with review hearings scheduled before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. CU has agreed to an additional extension to February 15, 2011. A resolution approving the extension is attached. Exhibits: Resolution #5, Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007, NEGOTIATION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THE GIVEN INSTITUTE, 100 E. FRANCIS STREET Resolution No5, Series of 2011 WHEREAS, the property at The Given Institute, 100 E. Francis Street, is subject to Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance identifies potential historic resources and creates a review process for any proposed alterations. The Ordinance also establishes a framework for City Council to negotiate with the property owner to secure voluntary historic designation; and WHEREAS, The Regents of the University of Colorado, owners of The Given Institute, have communicated their intention to demolish the buildings located at 100 E. Francis Street, which property is legally described as: All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the N W 1 /4S W 1 /4 of Section 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1/4SE1/4 of Section 12, T.10 S., R. 85 W. all in the 6` P.M.; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garmisch Street, from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54' 19" E a distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03' 19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet; thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES 18' 15 "E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13, Series of 1997, City of Aspen); thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18,56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'08 "E a distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet; thence S15 DEGREES 15'22 "W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land described at said Reception #499350; thence S06 DEGREES 18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of 108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21"E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23 DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Francis Street extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09' 11 "W along the north line of Block 64, City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, The University of Colorado asserts that as a state entity, it is not legally bound by City of Aspen ordinances; and WHEREAS, The University of Colorado has indicated that it is voluntarily participating in a ninety day negotiation process established by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, relative to potential historic resources identified in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025 (e) of the Municipal Code, which codifies Ordinance #48, 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 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 City Council; and WHEREAS, negotiation discussions are on -going and currently scheduled before the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that an extension is necessary to execute a draft Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Colorado, or to explore other preservation solutions. The University of Colorado has agreed to an extension until February 15, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The negotiation period established by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, as it affects the property at The Given Institute, 100 E. Francis Street, is hereby extended to February 15, 2011. APPROVED by the City Council by a vote of tO _ at its regular meeting on January 10, 2011. Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney Attest: Mayor: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor V I aF MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Sobieralski, IT Network Coordinator THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Jim Considine, IT Director DATE OF MEMO: January 4, 2011 MEETING DATE: July 10, 2011 RE: Spending Approval — Core Switch for County Data Center REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Information Technology (IT) Department, a joint City/County department, requests approval to spend previously approved budget in the amount of $43,320.40 (shared 50/50 with Pitkin County) for the purchase of a Cisco core network switch for the new County data center located behind the Jail. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Aspen City Council and Pitkin County BOCC approved 2011 budget for capital replacement and upgrade of networking equipment. BACKGROUND: Pitkin County has recently completed construction on a new data center facility. This facility will replace the County Courthouse as a core switching location for the City/County network. It is designed to house a large number of data servers, communication devices, and fiber optic connections. A core switch, compatible with modern data center networking requirements, needs to be installed in order for City and County employees to access programs and data. The City of Aspen & Pitkin County network has two primary locations that route all requests for data such as E -mail, Internet, and Eden, to users within the network. These are at City Hall and the County Courthouse. The infrastructure at the Courthouse data room has always been poorly equipped to handle the power and cooling needs of a modern and expanding network. Because of these problems and the IT Server VirtualizationProject — Memo to City Council, revised 07/07/2010, by Fred Dick 2 continual growth of servers and networking equipment, the County decided to build a facility dedicated to information technology needs. The core switching equipment that is currently in the Courthouse is over 10 years old and does not have the capability to handle the volume of server traffic that will be moved into the data center. Also, to maintain data routing integrity the core switch that is needed there must match the core switch that was recently upgraded in City Hall as part of the server virtualization project. BENEFITS: The new core switch will provide the following benefits to the network: 1. Network Switching and Routing Redundancy - The new data center switch will be fully redundant to the newly installed core switch in City Hall. If one switch fails, the other switch will take over data routing and switching to the rest of the network locations, 2. Improved Disaster Recovery Capabilities — Key networked applications, located in the City Hall data center will be automatically replicated to the new County data center. In case of a failure at City Hall, these important programs can be quickly activated at the County location. This new switch will give IT the capability to expand Disaster Recovery service, 3. Improved Efficiency — The new generation of Cisco core switches allow full bandwidth utilization to every connected device. This allows devices to function at their maximum capability. This gives IT the ability to enable future technologies with improved server virtualization, storage area networking, and network system management. DISCUSSION: IT issued a Request for Quote in December 2010 requesting a vendor to supply the network with a Cisco 4500 series core switch. The successful vendor was ISC Corporation based locally in Englewood, CO. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Pitkin County and City of Aspen are contributing 50/50 to this project's total cost. The funding for this project was approved in the 2011 IT Capital budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Although the new core switch is much more energy efficient than the old one, initially we expect to consume slightly more resources than at present. This increase is due to the fact that we still need to maintain network switching at the courthouse for those users who work at the Courthouse, County Jail and Library. This will initially be done by keeping the current core switch in place. But as the network switching upgrade project moves forward later this year, that core switch is expected to be replaced with smaller and more energy efficient access switches. IT Server Virtualization_Project — Memo to City Council, revised 07/07/2010, by Fred Dick 3 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Move the current Courthouse core switch to the new data center. The current switch is outdated and not capable of processing data at full bandwidth speeds. Because of this users would have reduced capability for access to data and services. There would also be an immediate need to purchase and install access switching in the Courthouse to replace the core switch. 2. Do nothing. Doing nothing would relegate the data center to a location dependent on simple access switches, with no routing or server failover in the event of service loss at City Hall. In short, both of these alternatives would adversely affect IT's continued ability to provide reliable, timely and cost effective network services to our customers. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve spending of existing budget in the amount of $43,320.40. PROPOSED MOTION: 1 move to approve IT's expenditure of existing and approved budget in the amount of $43,320.40 for a data center core switch." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: - -end of file- - IT Server_VirtualizationProject — Memo to City Council, revised 07/07/2010, by Fred Dick RESOLUTION # (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ISC CORPORATION SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING LAN /CORE SWITCH AND EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CON'I'RACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and ISC Corporation regarding LAN /Core Switch and equipment for the city of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: 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, January 3, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk The City of oen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT City of Aspen Project No.: 2010 - 084. AGREEMENT made as of 10 day of January, in the year 2011. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o IT Department 130 South Galena Street Total: $43,320.40 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Vendor: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid ISC until it has been approved by the City c/o Jeff Horning Council of the City of Aspen. 8680 Concorde Center Drive City Council Approval: Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: 970 - 945 -5990 Date: Resolution No.: Summary Description of Items to be Purchased: LAN /Core Switch and equipment. Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased. The City and Vendor agree as set forth below. 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum set forth hereinabove. 2. Delivery. (FOB 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen ,Colorado 81611) [Delivery Address] 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Manufacturer's warranty applies. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. (B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non - Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13 -98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he /she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he /she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: ATTEST: By: City Manager City Clerk VENDOR: ISC .� By: .1 C / t j40VIniYI A A C. o tA„ " ExG ve, Title Exhibit A SKU DESCRIPTION Qty COST WS- C4510RE- S7 +96V+ 4510R +E Chassis, Two WS- X4748- R145V +E, Sup7 -E 1 $16,500.00 WS- X45-SUP7 -E Catalyst 4500 E- Series Supervisor, 848Gbps 1 $0 WS- X45- SUP7 -F/2 Catalyst 4500 E- Series Supervisor, 848Gbps 1 $9,997.50 PWR- C45- 4200ACV Catalyst 4500 4200W AC dual input Power Supply (Data + PoE) 1 $1,497.50 PWR- C45- 4200ACV /2 Catalyst 4500 4200W AC dual Input Power Supply (Data + PoE) 1 $1,497.50 CAB- US620P- C19-US NEMA 6 -20 to IEC-C19 13ft US 4 $0 WS- X4748- RHSV+E Catalyst 4500E 48-Port PoE 802.3at 10/100/1000(R145) 2 $0 SFP- 10G -LR 10GBASE -LR SFP Module . 1 $1,997.50 GLC -1.11-SM GE SFP, LC connector LX/LN transceiver 2 $995.00 04500E -IPB Paper IP Base License 1 $0 FR45- ISSU - POE -UC Cat4500 ISSU PoE promo. 8cense needs dual sup+48PoEports 1 $0 S45U -31 -01X0 CAT4500e SUP7e Universal Image 1 $0 CON- SNTE- 4510RES7 SMARTNET 8X5X4 4510R +E Chassis, Two WS- X4748- R145V +E 1 $3,335,40 alia WS- X4606 -X2 -E Cisco Catalyst 4500E Series, 6 -port 10 Gigabit Ethernet (X2) 1 $7,500 Shipping Fee Total 1 I $43.32040 VII a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance # ' , Series of 2011, 100 E. Francis Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance #48 Negotiation DATE: January 10, 2011 MEETING PURPOSE: The purpose of the meeting is to hear First Reading of an ordinance addressing a proposed redevelopment of The Given Institute. The property is located at 100 E. Francis Street, and is owned by the University of Colorado and administered by its School of Medicine. A contract is in place to sell the 2 ''A acre site to a private developer who intends to create three residential lots and to offer the City a lease /purchase option to buy a fourth parcel which would contain The Given Institute main building. The Given Institute is listed on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, an ordinance that identified potential historic resources of the post World War II /early ski history era. This ordinance requires a discussion of preservation options before a significant property can be altered or demolished. The City, CU, and the contract buyer hope to cooperatively identify a plan that will maintain the Given as a community asset, while allowing development that will offset the costs of this complicated undertaking. The project will be reviewed at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission on January 4th and is expected to be continued to January 12 Due to the timing of these meetings, the proposed ordinance will be provided to Council on January 10 A joint meeting was planned because of the need to solicit timely community feedback, and also because of the benefit of the two boards sharing information and points of view on the proposal. Public hearings at City Council are anticipated for January 24 and February 14` The negotiation process established through Ordinance #48 allows Council flexibility in offering a package of preservation incentives deemed appropriate in order to achieve voluntary historic landmark designations. HPC and P &Z will act as recommending bodies to provide Council with guidance on the development plan, and the value of the opportunity for preservation and a public purchase of The Given Institute. The boards' comments will form the basis of staff's recommendation to Council. The development plans are not expected to return to either board, except for alterations to the exterior of The Given Institute property, which will be reviewed by HPC should they be proposed in the future. 1 L BACKGROUND: Founding of the Institute grew out of a conference on Advances in Molecular Biology sponsored by University of Colorado and held in the Aspen Middle School gymnasium starting in 1964. Dr. Donald West King, Chairman of the Department of Pathology at the University of Colorado Medical School, spearheaded the program. He envisioned the need for a meeting place where leading scientists could exchange information, at times a significant logistical challenge in the pre - internet age. Aspen provided a location more central than similar contemporary conferences held on the East and West coasts. In addition, the opportunity to combine research with the natural and cultural amenities available in Aspen was appealing, as the community already had a well - established reputation as a summer retreat and intellectually stimulating environment for academics. The conference quickly outgrew the space available at the Middle School. Dr. King negotiated with the Irene Heinz Given (daughter of food giant H. J. Heinz) and John LaPorte Given Foundation to secure a $500,000 donation for construction of a new building, to be named in their honor. Over its history, the New York based foundation donated tens of millions of dollars to Harvard University and other prominent medical schools. 4 In 1970, Elizabeth Paepcke, local cultural matriarch ti ` and widow of Walter Paepcke, sold the University k - .'' i of Colorado 2 '/a acres of property, comprising a 1, portion of her garden, at half its value to facilitate ;. r' construction of The Given Institute. Two years , before, she had donated twenty -two adjacent acres t/ behind her home for the development of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. E nA � ---- , �' 111,, " e i 1.141s, August The Given Institute was dedicated on Au gu 3 1972. Speakers included 6 Nobel Prize winners, the 4 • ti head of the National Institute of Medicine and • presidents of three health organizations. Since 1972, The Given Institute has operated as a "think tank" for the exploration of advances in bio- medical Elizabeth Paepcke at the groundbreaking for science relating to human health and well being, the Given Institute, watched by Mayor Eve attracting thousands of participants to its important Homeyer and Dr. King. presentations. The Given has involved the Aspen offering public lectures, inviting cutting-edge exerts on subjects ranging from community by offe g p g experts J tY Y bio - terrorism to sports medicine and has also hosted youth summits on substance abuse, brown bag lunches on health topics for local senior citizens, and free dental and optical screenings. The University of Colorado made numerous upgrades to The Given Institute property over the years, including converting the main building from a summer facility to year round usability. Within the last decade, CU began fundraising to expand and improve the space. However, as 2 • • state funding for the School of Medicine has been dramatically reduced, it was announced in December 2009 that the property would be sold. The Given Institute, like the surrounding West End, is zoned R -6, Medium Density Residential. Unlike the donation of the ACES property and the Aspen Historical Society, Elizabeth Paepcke's sale to the University of Colorado had no restrictions on future use, and a limited period of time when she retained the right to review any proposed construction. This covenant expired in the 1990s. CU asserts that it is exempt from local land use regulations. However, the University applied for a demolition permit in June 2010 and began participating in a discussion of preservation concerns with HPC and Council. During these discussions, the City nominated the property to the National Register of Historic Places and the Historic Preservation Commission endorsed a nomination to Colorado's Most Endangered Historic Places. In September 2010, Council introduced First Reading of Emergency Ordinance to rezone property to Academic. The City subsequently communicated with two potential buyers, one of whom has placed the property under contract for $15 million dollars, expecting to close in approximately late February or March. A summary of a proposal to negotiate for preservation of The Given Institute in conjunction with new development on the north and east boundaries of the site was presented at the November 8, 2010 City Council meeting. At the University of Colorado's request, the demolition permit for The Given Institute has been issued with conditions, but cannot be used unless negotiation fails. City Council has withdrawn the rezoning ordinance. The negotiation includes a one year time frame within which the City or a non - profit may purchase a 21,764 square foot lot containing the main Given Institute building. If this purchase is not completed, the building must be preserved, but will be converted to a single family home or duplex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff appreciates the applicant's willingness to consider preservation, rather than demolition of this important community building. This property has tremendous historical and natural value and is a snapshot of Aspen's history from pre - settlement to the mining era to the modern day. We find the criteria are clearly met for Historic Landmark Designation. We are concerned that other priorities for the property are not being achieved by the current plan, but could be if revisions are possible. We recommend a • restudy of the site plan to achieve pre of at least the most significant heritage trees on the site, and others as feasible. We recommend that the applicant look at the possibility of using the currently unbuilt section of Garmisch Street to approach the new homes, rather than building new roads around The Given, which destroy trees, the Elizabeth Paepcke Memorial Garden, and any usable outdoor space for the Institute structure. While City Council did welcome this application as an alternative to the planned demolition of The Given Institute in October 2010, critical information about the size and location of trees on the site was not provided at that time and has affected staffs current analysis of the project. In the end, the compromises made in the effort to preserve the Given Institute for the benefit of the community need to be embraced as worthwhile. The November presentation to Council indicated that the proposed new houses would conform with underlying zoning, however FAR and setback variances have been proposed. Staff does not support any variances that increase the property's development rights beyond what others could achieve, specifically exemption from the Hallam Lake ESA height limits, and the award of floor area bonuses, unless these exceptions more clearly contribute to sensitive site design. Other important aspects of the proposal include proposed fee waivers and the specific terms of the lease /purchase agreement. Staff recommends Council approve the attached ordinance on First Reading. . - . . ' A • ■ K.... . • .--- . ,. i. . . . . J ., • . r 1 . 1 . ..... _ 1 0 - • • -,. T" -: -iL■ 111.1.111111M--- I 1 111111: .... . . .,.p -:-...,; - ' . • .',/.,,,,-,, .srdr7=' ,, '- -- . - . - - • . , x -, . - ,. ...,,,,. .- ....? ..•._:.kw ,,, , - -. ..1._.' --,-.- . , 1-• ..t...k.v . - . kt . .. A... , .......--- _ _''' . • - ..t?".",..ler.) . . :` . •. ... sii - • X , .. , -... . . .. •V: ' -'- - ''-'' '.. ' "-.. .' ,q-. - - , . -r•li.-' \I - • . - fi' ' '..- "• -' IN . - . , • -• \I \\‘ ' t . '' • 1 . 0 . . '. ' ' C S :n \ ' ' ' ---• ';, - .--- . . - ., .. ., .... . — :., P ...- II . iiiiiiiiiiii . :...: - ',I , ..:' ., t .1.kg. - • - -- —_ . ... .. s i . 714 ... - - ..., — _.........- . ....- ...... ......• ••••••• A... ....0 _,..1. ....... : '''''' .6001.'' a . 1 • vi' ' . ,..- # 4 . • P 41! .. ,..., . , _ _ .100 ..,. . .. . . , . • ,... • ., ,..,.„...,,„,,,,:„..„.“:: - :,„....;..,,,..,.....,,,,, ,. ,...,.. ,., ,.. .,-.. , - -.- . ,;,,, ,. , ., ,,, .,, .. 4 ' ' ' . ' ' ' . '.:' ,,: '' ' ':# A '''N' :'''''''. ''' . • ' • '''' ' • . -1Nrimill r_itt. .-0 le11 , a. .. . . - . -• __.011.00,.... - 44. II „11 O . • . ,. , APPLICANT: The University of Colorado Board of Regents, owners of The Given Institute, have authorized the contract purchaser, SC Acquisitions, LLC, to submit this application. Representatives are J. Bart Johnson, Attorney; Haas Land Planning; Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer Engineers /Surveyors; and Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design. PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -19 -851. ADDRESS: 100 E. Francis Street. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land known as the Given Parcel being described at Reception #499350 together with a parcel being described at Reception #405579 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, all being in the City of Aspen being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the N W 1 /4S W 1 /4 of Section 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1 /4SE1 /4 of Section 12, T.10 S., R. 85 W. all in the 6th P.M.; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garmisch Street, from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54'19" E a distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03' 19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet; thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES 18' 15 "E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13, Series of 1997, City of Aspen); thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18.56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'08 "E a distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet; thence S15 DEGREES 15'22 "W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land described at said Reception 14499350; thence S06 DEGREES 18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of 108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21 "E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23 DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Francis Street extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09'11"W along the north line of Block 64, City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest corner of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ZONING: R -6, Medium Density Residential. 5 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` century properties like The Given Institute 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 Finding: Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke t ' came to Aspen in 1945. It was their vision and ,�i energy that transformed the town into an international destination and retreat to nurture the "mind, body and spirit." Initiatives the Paepcke's spurred included the Aspen Institute, * r ?. Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Music Festival, and International Design Conference. Elizabeth Paepcke carried on this legacy after her 4 husband's death in 1960, donating land and funds for the benefit of non -profit organizations < including ACES (1968), the Aspen Historical Society (1969) an The Given Institute (1972). n Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke were also patrons of modern art and architecture. As a stipulation in 4. the gift - purchase of the land for the Given •� Institute, Elizabeth Paepcke retained the right to fr . ', select the architect. She chose Harry Weese, an n $ internationally known architect, part-time ' --- resident of Aspen, and friend of the Paepcke's from their hometown of Chicago. Born in Evanston, Illinois in 1915, Harry Mahr Weese died in 1998. In his formation as an Elizabeth Paepcke and Harry Weese architect, he attended the Massachusetts Institute outside The Given Institute. 6 of Technology (M.I.T.), studying under Alvar Aalto and creating friendships with fellow students Eero Saarinen and I. M. Pei. Weese also briefly attended Yale for a time. He ultimately graduated from M.I.T. in 1938, then studied for a year with renowned architect Eliel Saarinen, Eero's father, at the Cranbrook Academy in Michigan. The New York Times said: "the effect of Cranbrook and its graduates and faculty on the physical environment of this country has been profound...Cranbrook, surely more than any other institution, has a right to think of itself as synonymous with contemporary American design." Eero Saarinen became one of the most recognized architects of the twentieth century, designing the St. Louis Arch (1947), Aspen's first music tent (1949), and the TWA terminal in New York (1962). As his own career took off, Saarinen regularly referred work to Weese. Before and after serving in World War II, in 1940 and 1946 -7, Weese worked for the one of the largest and well -known architectural firms, Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM). SOM are sometimes credited with having invented the "glass box" skyscraper. Reputedly skeptic of the "less is more" edict of Mies van der Rohe that heavily influenced SOM and the Chicago school in general, Weese opened his own firm, Harry Weese and Associates, in 1947. While classically trained in the tenets of modernism, Weese was philosophically fundamentally unlike the Bauhaus masters. Architectural historian Claude Massu has attributed this position to Weese's early travel study in Scandinavia in 1937 and his personal friendship with the Saarinens. Self - described as eclectic, Weese's prolific work in broad - ranging typologies including churches, educational facilities, single - family and multi -unit residences, and prisons, reflects a humanistic approach incorporating natural materials, particularly wood. As directly contrasted to Mies van der Rohe, Massu characterized Weese as an architect who sought unique solutions to every design program explicitly based on site, precedent (whether historical or in terms of context), and intended function. Early in his career Weese was invited, at the suggestion of Eliel Saarinen, to design a building in the town of Columbus, Indiana. After World War II, a manufacturing company in Columbus, Cummins Engine, recognizing the business value of creating livable communities, began to offer to pay architectural fees for local property owners who would engage firms identified on a specific list, which included the most significant modernists of the time. As a result, much of downtown Columbus, Indiana is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of its incredible collection of over sixty modern buildings designed by EliO1 and Eero Saarinen, I. M. Pei, Robert Venturi, Richard Meier, and others. While most architects were invited to design just one building, Harry Weese designed at least eighteen, including the First Baptist Church (1965), which achieved the high honor of National Historic Landmark Designation and is widely considered one of the most iconic buildings in town. The design of the First Baptist Church is related to that of the Given Institute due to a similar use of wood elements in the interiors. Weese was a prolific architect, particularly revered in the Midwest. Harry Weese designed the U.S. Embasy in Accra, Ghana in 1958 and became one of an elite group of architects selected to work for the U.S. State Department. He was inducted, at a relatively young age, into the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects in 1961. Weese's most recognized project is 7 the system -wide network of station designs for the 100- mile long Metro subway in Washington, D.C., heralded by the New York Times as: "among the greatest public works of this century." Shortly after completing the Metro project and the 1970 Time -Life skyscraper in Chicago, Harry Weese designed the Given Institute, built in 1972. A longtime visitor to Aspen, Weese first came to town with his wife in 1947. He purchased a Victorian home, still owned by the Weese family, at 118 N. First Street in 1969. In the Aspen vicinity, Weese designed at least three other homes (outside of City limits). In addition to his own design work, Weese was recognized for his dedication to historic preservation in Chicago. Weese received a Presidential Award in 1967 for his personal donation of time to restore the landmark Adler and Sullivan- designed 1889 Auditorium Building in Chicago. In a July 23, 1973 Time article, Weese said: "Fine old buildings give our cities character and continuity. They give us a sense of stability." He further ruminated: "It might sound a bit chauvinistic —but maybe someone will save one of our buildings some day." The full roster of those involved in construction of the Given Institute includes: Harry Weese & Associates (architect); Bill Lipsey (supervising architect); William Bauhs, project manager; Philip Prince, job captain; The Engineers Collaborative, structural engineers; James Burke & Assoc., mechanical and electrical; HWA, interior designer; and H.E. Anderson, Inc., contractor. The Given Institute is a 12,000 sq. ft. building comprised of a series of geometric volumes constructed out of concrete masonry units with raked joints, painted white, with a flat roof and no ornamentation. The neutral color scheme allows the form of the building to predominate, and it fits within a perfect square, 90' x 90,' with circles, squares and triangles that are deliberately interweaved, cut out of and pushed beyond the boundary of the square. Harry Weese carefully located rectangular (horizontally oriented) and circular windows that frame the outdoors as viewed from the interior. The interior is three levels: a basement /garden level, ground level and second level. The geometric volumes that Weese created are clearly evident and repeated with subtle details, for example a curved railing on the second floor runs parallel to the cylindrical seminar room to reiterate the shape. The geometry of the design appears to have been of equal importance to the overall program. Some of the interior roomis are triangular, for instance, an intentional result of the plan form. The University reportedly requested a simple design that would harmonize with other buildings on the grounds and relate well to the site. Program components included a laboratory, a library, and several smaller conference areas, along with office facilities, a printing/reproduction area, storage space, restrooms, and a kitchen. Other specifications were a seminar space configured to promote free interchange between speakers and audience and interior spaces that were warm, relaxed, and comfortable and conducive to informal, spontaneous discussion. Weese had extensive experience in the design of theaters. The seminar space is organized as a "theater in the round," and could be used for demonstrations and experiments core to the sharing of knowledge at this research facility. 8 Also on the property are two Victorian era structures, which may or may not be original to the site, neither of which are proposed to be preserved by the applicant. Northeast of the main building is a 475- square -foot circa -1890 residential structure with a gable roof, clapboard siding, and double -hung windows. It was remodeled to be a caretaker's residence when The Given Institute was constructed. In 1999 it became the office of the Aspen Global Change Institute. A second clapboard- sided, shed - roofed circa - late - nineteenth - century building also exists on site just north of the AGCI building. No information at all is available regarding this secondary outbuilding, which did not appear on Weese's site plan for the complex. In addition to existing structures, the landscape on The Given property has cultural and natural resource value. Weese located the Given Institute building to take advantage of views and preserve natural site features. Mature trees are abundant, and they provide significant contributions to the community forest. Some of the trees are estimated to be as old as 130 years of age, are part of the riparian forest adjacent to Hallam Lake and established themselves during the earliest part of the town's history. Some are believed to have been planted by D.R.C. Brown, Aspen pioneer and predecessor to the Paepcke ownership of the property. Some of the trees were planted by Elizabeth Paepcke, who is reported to have continually tended the trees during construction of The Given Institute. The trees are a mix of some of the largest and most significant Colorado blue spruce trees in Aspen, a single white fir which is believed may be the largest in the Roaring Fork Valley, aspen trees, cottonwoods, and numerous shrubs and shade trees. According to supervising architect Bill Lipsey, an employee of Weese who moved permanently to Aspen after construction of this project, the trees surrounding the Given Institute building were "not to be touched." On the north side of the building, Weese included a limited sheltered patio area, leading out to open lawn area for functions and receptions. No dedicated landscape architect was engaged, but the architect, Harry Weese, = , was himself particularly attuned to the 41/ building's interaction with the landscape. A ` March 1973 Architectural Forum article recounted: ° tr He [Weese] describes the site as " ` "almost a botanic garden." Little !"; :.- + :' - wonder. There are firs and spruces, * �,►� *- p • • some 50 to 60 feet high. Only one tree was removed during construction of the Institute, and a deep bow was made to the cottonwood on the west (photo at right). The building embraces this � garden and looks north to a pond which is part of an ecological preserve. On the • south and east, the building extends in • i d.r ..�'•�� � ' L 's*. #fix � r ,'. �r».. � �'X' . to the landscape by way of fences (not yet complete). One wall will extend diagonally from the southwest corner; the other from the northeast corner towards a creek. This will make the building a gateway to the garden." There are two observation decks on the site which overlook Hallam Lake. The decks are thought to have originally been foundations for buildings that the Paepcke's intended to build. They do not meet current requirements to setback all development at least 15 feet from the bluff above ACES, but have been allowed to be maintained as pre- existing construction. Staff finds that all three designation criteria are met by The Given Institute. Criterion 2.a is met because of the property's relationship to "The Aspen Idea," which, through places like The Given Institute, has had an impact far beyond this town. Criterion 2.b. is met through the property's direct connection to Elizabeth Paepcke, a historically significant individual in Aspen's history. Criterion 2.c. is met as The Given Institute is an outstanding and relatively unaltered example of the work of Harry Weese. Harry Weese's work continues to inspire study, as evidenced by recent coverage in ChicagoMagazine, Reconstructing Harry Weese, (Robert Sharoof) July 2010, and a new book entitled The Architecture of Harry Weese (Robert Bruegmann and Kathleen Murphy Skolnik) released in September 2010. Reports of the possible demolition of The Given Institute have been authored this past fall by Architectural Record, The Huffington Post, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, DOCOMOMO US (Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighborhoods of the Modern Movement), and other local, state and national media outlets. A Facebook group interested in preservation of the property was formed in June 2010. In addition to determining whether the designation criteria are met, Council must assess the physical integrity of the building to determine if alterations since construction have affected significance. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. Based on the architect scale model, building permit files, and contemporary publication of sections, elevations, and site plan, the exterior of the Given Institute main building and the site landscape remain largely unaltered since 1972. The design, location, feeling, association, and setting of the complex remain intact and reflect the original conception for the Given Institute complex. Alterations to the interior are limited to updates to bathrooms, water fountains, and the entrance to the seminar room through the addition of a ramp to meet accessibility standards and conversion of a laboratory into a conference room. These minimal alterations all date to 1993. In 1996, some glazing was replaced in -kind using the same configuration and similar material and type. Periodic changes have also been made to interior wall color, carpets, and select light fixtures. The noteworthy alteration to the landscape that has occurred since construction is a memorial garden dedicated after Elizabeth Paepcke's death in 1994. Coinciding with the Given Institute's 25 anniversary in 1997, there was an installation of a garden of native plants and Mrs. Paepcke's favorites as a way to honor her donation of the land and contribution to the Aspen community. It is set along the west and north sides of the building. 10 ORDINANCE #48 NEGOTATION Review of the redevelopment proposal for this site falls within the negotiation process created by Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This ordinance empowered City Council to work with the owners of potential historic resources from the postwar era to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for voluntary landmark designation. The applicant has summarized the requested development approvals as follows: 1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees. 2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots; 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat) and approval for each of the three (3) new free - market lots as a TDR Receiver Site; 4. Platting of building envelopes that thereafter supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR), for each of the three (3) new lots. Any subsequent development within these building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR; 5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines and submittal requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of Code Section 26.470.120; 6. Exemption from the Residential Design Review Standards of Chapter 26.410; 7. Exemption from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements; 8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights. LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT The application does not include a specific proposed lease and purchase option agreement, but this is expected to be submitted for Council review prior to Second Reading. The agreement will finalize the costs of acquisition of the Given lot, along with any restrictions or covenants expected to affect the use of the property. The application indicates a one year lease /purchase period at a price of $3.75 million for Lot 1. This figure may increase if the City wishes to recoup some of the fee waivers that are included in the negotiation request. If the City or a non - profit do not complete the purchase within a year, the Given Institute building must still be landmarked, but may be converted to a single family home. It is substantially over the size typically allowed for a single family home on Lot 1, or which would even be allowed on the existing 2 ''A acre site. FEE WAIVERS The applicant is requesting fee waivers for the initial build out of the lots. The waivers include fees related to affordable housing, school land, stormwater (aka engineering system development fees), water tap, transportation demand management/air quality fees, parks development fees and tree mitigation. The waivers will only apply if the City, or an assigned non - profit, purchases the Given lot. If the Given building is converted to residential use, all fees except for tree mitigation would be paid by the developer. 11 It may be unlikely that City Council will forgive all of the fees requested since there are actual community impacts that need to be addressed. Council may choose to pass the fees on through the sale price of The Given Institute, may deny waiver of some or all of the fees, or may pay some or all of the fees through the general fund. The School Land fee is due to the School District and must be paid in full by the City or the applicant. Environmental Health, Housing and the Parks Department, in particular have object to the possibility of a waiver in their referral comments (attached.) The fee waivers are perhaps the most valuable and definable incentives being requested. They total nearly $2 million to the extent that they can be estimated in advance of specific development plans. The fee calculations estimated by staff are as follows. Affordable housing: 5,750 square feet FAR per new home x 3 x $73.74 (standard mitigation fee)= $1,272,015. The application mentions the possibility of ADUs being constructed for one or more of the homes in the future. Once the cash -in -lieu option is paid, there is no refund. School Land: This calculation requires a value for each square foot of the land be established. The City has not received an appraisal, therefore we assume $15,000,000 (purchase price of property)- $58,000 (assessed value of improvements)= $14,942,000/99,143 square feet (lot size)= $150.71 The fee is calculated by multiplying 896 (standard square feet of land needed per student as determined by the Aspen School District) x 0.452 (number of students generated, assuming at least four bedrooms per house) x $150.71 (value of land) x 0.33 (the requirement is to mitigate for 1/3 of impact)= $20,141.99 x 3 homes= $60,426 Stormwater system development fee: $2.88 per square foot x 16,748 (half of the requested FAR, which is assumed to equal the footprint of the new houses+ 8,123 which is the existing impervious area associated with The Given) = $48,234 Even if the impact fee is waived, the applicant is expected to provide appropriate water quality mitigation on site to avoid negative impacts on the environment. Water tap: $3,585 per ECU (standard water tap for Given service area) x 4 (estimated ECUs generated by a 5 -6,000 square foot free market home) x 3 homes= $43,020 This is the tap fee only and does not include the actual connection to the water main or parts and labor. TDM/Air quality: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $498 (standard fee) = $5,976 Park dedication: 4 bedrooms per house x 3 houses x $4,429 (standard fee)= $53,148 12 Tree mitigation: 51 trees proposed to be removed to facilitate roads and building envelopes= $527,166 SUBDIVISION The applicant proposes subdivision into four parcels. One will contain The Given Institute and the other three will be for single family homes or duplexes. The Given Institute sits on a 2 ''A acre irregularly- shaped site that is a flat plateau before sloping abruptly to the north towards the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve. The lot is abutted by private property to the west, a bike trail and the Red Brick Arts Center to the south, and nature preserve to the east and north. A substantial portion of the lot was once Francis Streets, Garmish Street (formerly Center Street) and Puppy Smith Street (formerly Smuggler Avenue.) Francis and Garmisch were deeded by the City. The portion of Puppy Smith included in The Given Institute parcel was vacated by the City. Vehicular access to the property is from a narrow curb cut at Garmisch Street, which opens up into a gravel parking area that accommodates service and delivery uses. For reference, construction of a single family home or duplex on this parcel would be allowed by right and would not necessarily require land use review. The application proposes three homes, plus the Given Institute as either a non - profit facility or single family home. Council must make a finding on the following review criteria. Chapter 26.480, SUBDIVISION Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: The AACP is a statement of a wide variety of community goals, some of which would support the proposed project, while others would seem to be inadequately addressed. Staff finds that the opportunity to prevent the demolition of the Given Institute and preserve its value as a community facility is underscored by language found in the chapters related to Economic Sustainability, Arts, Culture and Education, Transportation and Historic Preservation. This is a centrally located, pedestrian friendly facility that has brought many visitors to town for the past 38 years, and offered residents access to very high caliber programs. Demolition of the building would do nothing to achieve an "Arts, Culture and Education" goal to "Make educational, cultural and artistic experiences more accessible for all valley residents," for instance. Once lost, a facility like the Given Institute would be extremely hard to replicate in Aspen. The project is arguably in conflict with "Parks, Open Space and the Environment" goals such as "Protect and enhance the natural environment," particularly due to proposed tree removals. It 13 must be recognized that this is private property and not in fact a park. While a vote for public purchase was considered, it has not been pursued. The goal of this review is to balance the many legitimate goals of the property owner and the public. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding: The property is surrounded by a mix of private residences and other public /quasi- public sites. The neighborhood is located near to enough to the core of town to have supported a variety of arts organizations, childcare, recreation and non - profit facilities for many years. Staff finds that the proposed land use is appropriate. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision will not diminish the opportunity for adjacent properties to be developed consistent with current zoning and should not create unanticipated impacts since some degree of public and residential use of the site has occurred since 1972. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed subdivision does request some exceptions from typical requirements, however this is allowed at Land Use Code section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding: The parcel does include steep slopes and environmentally sensitive areas. The subdivision plan, and the future development of individual homes on this site will be required to be engineered to address all natural hazards. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the property as proposed is not appropriate. The roadways "strangle" The Given Institute, affecting its viability for a non- 14 profit and requiring the removal of important trees. The pedestrian access to the site is potentially confusing and not inviting. Staff requests the applicant examine use of the 24' wide strip of unimproved Garmisch Street right -of -way that runs along the west boundary of the site for vehicular access to the residential lots. Using Garmisch may minimize tree issues and provide outdoor programming space for an end user of the Given. Staff is unsure if the Garmisch right -of -way is adequate considering turning radii and required clearances for emergency service vehicles. Staff asks the applicant to explore this potential with the City Engineer. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding: This criterion refers to the Engineering Department's standards for design of utilities, roads, etc. The application is expected to meet these requirements without exception. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: The application requests that the applicant not be required to pay affordable housing fees. Council may or may not waive the cash -in -lieu requirement. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding: The School Land Dedication standards require payment of a fee to the School District. Council is asked to pay the fee through a source other than collecting it from the applicant. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing 15 Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, § 2) Staff Finding: The applicant has asked to be granted the growth management allotments through the Ordinance #48 negotiation process. FAR BONUS The proposal includes a request for an FAR bonus for each new residence, as well as The Given Institute property, should it convert to residential use. Below is an estimate of the allowable floor area for each proposed lot, and the proposed bonus. The applicant's goal is to achieve an FAR of 5,500 square feet for each new house, retaining the right to land a 250 square foot TDR for each residence, which is an opportunity available to all R -6 properties. The Given Institute building is very substantially over the size that would be allowed for a single family house. The application requests a bonus for a garage if it converts to residential use. Lot 1 Lot size: 21,764.18 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 21,764 Allowable FAR: single family. 4,358; duplex 4,778 Proposed FAR: The existing FAR of approximately 12,000 square feet if the building remains a non - profit. An FAR bonus of 750 square feet for a garage if it converts to residential use. Bonus: None for non - profit use. 8,392 square feet for residential use Lot 2 Lot size: 23,502.11 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 17,831 Allowable FAR: single family 4,162; duplex 4,582 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,338 square feet Lot 3 Lot size: 31,804.53 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 18,106 Allowable FAR: single family 4,175; duplex 4,595 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,325 square feet Lot 4 Lot size: 22,087.22 Effective lot area after slope reductions: 16,793 Allowable FAR: single family 4,109; duplex 4,530 16 Proposed FAR: 5,500 plus option for TDR Bonus: 1,391 square feet The FAR bonuses for the new house total approximately 4,050 square feet. Staff cannot support the bonuses, which were not included in the initial discussion with Council, unless reduced or combined with significant tree preservation, additional protection for the Hallam Lake bluff, or similar measures. The plan does not ensure that The Given Institute will be preserved for non- profit use and staff is sensitive to the possibility of excessive bonuses for the project without enough community value. Staff would be in favor of the possibility of Council creating TDRs that could be sold by the owner to help them address the costs of this attempt to save The Given Institute building. Please note that the FAR calculations above reference the lot sizes provided on the site plan, rather than those stated in the application. The site plan was revised slightly after submission to address Building Department concerns with preserving adequate space for egress around The Given Institute. BUILDING ENVELOPES AND ESA REVIEW A specific plan for new construction on the site has not been prepared, however the applicant wishes to establish building envelopes where all construction activity will be confined, as part of the Ordinance #48 review. The proposed building envelopes meet the standard front and rear yard setback requirements, but do not provide as much combined sideyard setback as required by the zone district. The area of each proposed building envelope is larger than what could be filled by the new construction, even if it were all one story. Staff understands that an envelope is beneficial to the applicant because it allows flexibility in the placement of the structure relative to existing trees and top of slope concerns, however the application does not clearly indicate an intent to preserve trees or fully meet the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. In addition, the Parks Department has identified very significant trees sit within the proposed envelopes on Lots 2 and 3. Parks will not support removal of these trees, which are of such significant size and age that they refer to them as heritage trees. Staff recommends that the building envelopes be redesigned using the heritage trees that have been mapped as an underlying concern. Staff believes the applicant should analyze the potential site planning issues and determine if reasonable development is possible with this constraint. It is understood that the City may need to provide some leeway on removal of other trees. Clear proposals must be made as to the location of any paving and landscaping outside of the proposed envelopes. As stated above, staff recommends that other alternatives to bring driveway access onto the site be studied. This will affect the design of building envelopes. Staff has conveyed to the applicant that a non - profit might wish to purchase Lot 4 to retain some open space in association with The Given Institute building. However, it appears that Lot 4 is one of the most developable areas due to existing trees. Staff recommends Council and the applicant discuss acquisition of the western area of Lot 2, which is nearly unbuildable, in order to create some compensation for the land and to possibly preserve some public access to the bluff. 17 . Typically, development in the Hallam Lake Environmentally \ 0 Sensitive Area (ESA) requires that all \ development be held \ C back at least 15 feet from the top of slope, and the s development is subject to — a progressive height limit or layback so that the maximum height limit of \. I t sT 25 feet cannot be ♦ �SMn~ achieved until the point nt which is 25 feet setback d Given Pro perty from the top of slope. The applicant is asking to be exempt from the Q progressive height limit. ` They also wish to be 63 exempt from the typical F -, , - ST P &Z review to confirm Z w FRANCIS ST that the ESA standards �� a 71 , 4 re met. This discussion ' would usually include �, B U LLEY [Id 0 review of landscape and o 0 lighting plans, screening n e }{ALLAN sT of construction with native vegetation, and w HALLAM ST 140 protection of the slope. Z Q° n 4 D ti 0 „ ,.. 1 U oALLEY �J As part of the ° u I 4 Cl negotiation, staff could � j a � } r � ! support te ESA review r �t-� 4 being administrative, but not exempt from the requirements. Staff is most concerned that the visual impacts on Hallam Lake be addressed on Lot #3. Development on this parcel has the potential to "loom" over ACES. Staff recommends the setback from the top -of -bluff be increased for this parcel. The eastern setback on this Lot and Lot #4 should also be increased. The proposed 15 setback from the top -of -bluff on Lot #2 does not need to be changed. Development on all lots should be in compliance with the height restrictions of the Hallam Lake review criteria, with no exception. Staff believes that flexibility on non -bluff setbacks and tree removal mitigation policies should be provided to offset this request. While preparing this memo, Planning Staff met with representative of ACES. They have indicated that they do not support the plan as proposed. Because protection of the nature 18 preserve at ACES was the reason that the Hallam Lake ESA was created, staff is summarizing our understanding of their concerns, for the review boards' information. ACES is concerned about respecting the process and criteria of the Hallam Lake Bluff review. ACES feels the hearing process provides a foundation of healthy dialogue for development within this sensitive area. They also believe the eastern portion of the bluff is subject to the review standards and staff is researching this issue. ACES does not feel this property should be exempted from the height limit restrictions along the top of slope. There are important specimen trees on the site, as indentified by the Parks Department, that ACES concurs should not be removed or harmed. In addition, the site holds a significant amount of vegetation as well as other important landscape elements such as the Paepcke gardens along the west side of the Given building. ACES feels these gardens are an important historic element of the property and should not be removed as proposed. There is a trail along the eastern edge of the property that is regularly used by the community to access ACES. There is a public interest in seeing this connection maintained. Staff believes that some offsetting value could be provided by City Council in exchange for easements for existing trails through the property. ACES representatives pointed out the opportunity to redesign the site plan to better achieve mutual interests. There are a number of successful projects that have been designed around conservation and preservation principles. This site may lend itself to such an approach where the important aspects of the site inform and direct the appropriate areas for development. GMOS Any development in excess of one single family home or duplex on this site requires Growth Management allotments to be awarded by City Council. Normally there are two opportunities per year to submit an application to compete for the limited number of allotments allowed annually. There are adequate allotments still available for 2010 and staff can support forgoing the standard review process for this project as an incentive for preservation. No other requests for the remaining 2010 residential units have been received. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The application requests exemption from all of the Residential Design Standards. The fact that the proposed new houses will be accessed from a private road means that several standards would be considered not applicable in any event. The houses would be required to divide into a primary and secondary mass, and to locate fences and garages in a specific manner. Arguably the code has already acknowledged the limited necessity of design review for lots that are located off the public way. Staff, P &Z and HPC have the ability to grant variances when necessary. In the interest of negotiating a preservation solution, staff does not believe that exempting the houses entirely from Residential Design Standards would be detrimental when compared other priorities stated in this memo. 19 VESTED RIGHTS 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. REFERRAL SUMMARY Referral comments from numerous departments or agencies are attached. Most contain standard requirements for information that must be reviewed and approved at, or in advance of a building permit. A summary of the referrals follows. • Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District requires that the development meet their standard requirements in terms of location of sewer and other utility lines, fees, etc. • Building Department requires a 10 foot clearance be preserved along the east side of the Given to allow egress from the existing exits to a right of way, and to allow for openings (doors and windows) in the east wall of The Given if desired. • Engineering requires more information in the form of a drainage plan, which can't be developed without specific buildings proposed. Regardless of requested fee waivers, an acceptable drainage plan will be required. They will require landscape plan to be submitted with building permit and will require a sidewalk, proper design of proposed roads, mitigation for potential landslide and mud flows, and a Construction Management Plan. • Canary suggests that the project address new daily trips that would be generated by homes and The Given Institute. • Environmental Health has similar comments to the Canary Initiative. • Fire Department will require approved fire sprinkler systems in all residences regardless of size. Emergency vehicle access shall be approved by the Fire Marshall's Office. • Housing requires payment of mitigation or construction of ADUs. If ADUs are ever built on the property, they would not object to using the deed restriction language typically for County caretaker dwelling units, which is apparently a preference of the applicant. • Parks Department recommends that the site plan be redesigned. They have identified the most important heritage trees on the site that are top priorities for preservation. Parks believes that mitigation fees should apply to trees that are removed, as an incentive to work around them. They recommend that the Hallam Lake ESA process be honored and ask that a hydrologic study be completed to ensure that new development doesn't negatively impact the ACES site. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance #_, Series of 2011, on First Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 20 - • Exhibits: A. Integrity Score B. Referral Comments Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Building Department Engineering Department Canary Initiative Environmental Health Department APCHA Parks Department C. Site Plan by Parks Department, indicating trees that must be preserved D. Application 21 Exhibit A INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- MODERNIST Integrity is the ability of a 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. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) — 5 points. The structure is in its original location. • 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. Response: 10 — The original plan form is unchanged based on original Weese sketches and f oor plans. ROOF FORM 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. Response: 10 — The original fat roof is unaltered. 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. Response: 5 — The original scale and proportions are intact. Exhibit A SOLIDNOID PATTERN 10 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact. 6 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. 0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered. Response: 10 — the original pattern of glazing and materials is intact. CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES 10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment are intact. 6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. 0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. Response: 10 — the character - defining features, including cottonwood trees that dictated the location of building and influenced Weese's design remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 points. • 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 but the changes conform to the design guidelines. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 points. The physical environment is largely unchanged from the date of construction. • 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 combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. 10 -There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines. Exhibit A 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing. 0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced. Response: 15 points — the original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window 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. Response: 8 — Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23 points. • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. COMPOSITION 15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. 10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would meet the design guidelines 0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would not meet the design guidelines Response: 15. The building is void of decoration and is clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. 3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. • Exhibit A 0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. Response: 3 — The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white the building is painted off-white and the window trim is green instead of the original black TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 18 points. Grand Total = 96 points 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. DRC: 12-15-10 ACSD Requirements- Given Institute Service is contingent upon compliance vrith the District's rules. regulations. and specifications. which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation. perimeter. patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On -site utility plans require approval by ACSD. The district will not approve serving this project with a shared service line for the proposed three lots in this application. Main sanitary sewer lines that will be proposed in subsequent applications to serve this new development will require a line extension request and collection system agreement. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. Easements for proposed main sanitary sewer lines as well as access easements. dedicated to the district, will be required. The old service lines (2) must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements, before any and all soil stabilization measures are attempted and prior to ACSD releasing any and all permits. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. A separate sanitary sewer service line to a district main line is required for each building. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD total connection fees oust be paid prior to the issuance of a demo /infrastructure or foundation permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. The City of Aspen Development Review Committee Building Department Review Comments 12/23/10 The Given Institute at 100 East Francis, 12/2/10 site plan We have done a preliminary review for compliance on this project to the policies and codes as currently adopted and amended per Title 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. http: / /www.aspenpitkin.com /Departments /Comm un ity- Development /Building/ http: / /www.aspe npitkin.com /Porta is /O /docs /City /clerk /municode /coaspent08.pdf The comments are intended to provide the applicant with corrections or concerns that may require further development or be re drawn to show compliance. We are available to schedule a meeting to discuss these items at your earliest convenience. Please either email me at denism @ci.aspen.co.us or call at 970 - 429 -2761. 1) The plan is very preliminary with no buildings proposed at this time. 2) The proposed property line on the east side of the Institute building is recommended to be a minimum 10 feet in width located with adequate space to permit egress to a ROW from the exits to the north and allow for openings existing and perhaps proposed in the future. 3) We recommend that language be added to the approval to address the construction activity to that may occur outside the designated building envelopes. 4) The plan for Fire department access will need to provide a method to turn fire apparatus around per the Fire code. 5) The Demolition permits are issued, and demolition is authorized, subject to the specific conditions listed below: 1. All Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2009, negotiations have been completed or terminated; 2. The information requested of the Given Institute relating to asbestos mitigation and other matters relating to their demolition permit shall be submitted and approved by the Aspen Community development Department; and, 3. Demolition shall proceed only in accordance with all existing rules and regulations of the City of Aspen for demolition. Date: December 22, 2010 Project: Given Institute City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive. but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Review Standards: Stream Margin Review / Hallam Lake Bluff Review: 26.435.040 C(4): Increased on site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry in to the river or onto its banks. 26.435.060 C(4): Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. The proposed plan will not increased flows off the site, however the plan does not show the manner in which r will be discharged off the site. The plan as shown will have a negative impact on the slope around Hallam Lake and to the water quality. These impacts include increased frequency of discharge off the site and increased volumes of discharge off the site. Both of which will negatively impact Hallam Lake. To mitigate these impacts, the applicant must complete a drainage plan and report in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan. Additionally the applicant must demonstrate that the manner in which runoff is discharged off the site will not negatively impact Hallam Lake. The applicant must also demonstrate that the volume, frequency of runoff events will not be greater than existing conditions. Recommend that the Drainage Plan that meets the above requirements be approved prior to final plat or building permit submittal whichever comes first. 26.435.040 C(8): There is no development ....within 15 feet from top of slope. The top of slope that shall he used for this site includes the surveyed top of slope which is shown on is defined as shown on Sheet 2 of the civil plans. 26.435.060 A: According to the Hallam Lake Bluff review the east side of the development is subject to the 15 foot setback from top of slope. 26.435.060 C(4): A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than 50% of the development as viewed from the rear slope. The applicant has not complied with this requirement 6.580.020 Subdivisions: Sidewalk: Sidewalk will be required on the frontage of the property. The sidewalk requirements can be found in Chapter 21.20 of the Municipal code. Street: The current configuration of the additional driveways at a curve in the road will negatively impact the traveling public. The street curve in this location shall bear a logical relationship to the topography and shall have a minimum center radius of 100ft. The final plan for the street must be completed prior to Council approval. Survey: The survey must show the adjacent properties including the ROW to the west of the property. Easements: The applicant must show all utility easements Miscellaneous Environmental Hazards: As shown the plan may impact the steep slopes surrounding the site in a manner which could result in landslides and or mud flows. The applicant must submit a plan which will mitigate all environmental hazards. Construction Management — A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging /encroachments, truck traffic, noise. dust, and erosion /sediment pollution. System Development Fee —The system development fee is $2.88 per square foot of impervious area. The fee is assessed against the total impervious area of the development, not simply the increased impervious area. MEMORANDUM • To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Department From: Lauren McDonell, Environmental Initiatives Program Manager Date: December 23, 2010 Re: Given Institute Subdivision Application DRC Continents The City of Aspen's Canary Initiative has reviewed the referenced land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following continents. These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. According to the city code, subdivision applications must demonstrate that they are consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). The AACP includes provisions for furthering the Canary Initiative emissions reduction goals of 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. In 2007 City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan, which outlines a strategy to achieve these emissions reduction goals. Below are comments based on the areas of these documents that pertain to this project. GHG Emissions from Transportation It is the policy of the AACP to "Require all ... activities that generate demand for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in proportion to trips generated." The AACP also indicates that traffic volumes should not be allowed to grow. While parking will be limited at the Institute and bike trails are easily accessible, the project proposal suggests that there will be at least an additional 30 daily trips from the site. The project could meet the requirement by promoting the use of electric vehicles either by providing actual vehicles or plug -in stations, providing a carshare option, participating in a bikeshare program, or promoting the use of low - carbon transportation in other ways. Building Energy Use Energy efficiency and potential renewable energy opportunities will also need to be considered for the new construction. The Canary Action Plan calls for the following with regards to Building Energy Efficiency: 1) Require all new construction to be 50% more energy - efficient than the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code by 2009. MEMORANDUM To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Department From: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Department Date: December 22, 2010 Re: Given Institute Subdivision Application The City of Aspen's Environmental Health Department has reviewed the referenced and use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. According to the city code, subdivision applications must demonstrate that they are consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which includes reducing congestion and air pollution and promoting transit use. One of the proposed measures, having limited or no on -site parking for the Given, is a good example of a measure that is consistent with that plan. A requirement will need to be that the operator of the non - profit facilities have marketing and outreach to its customers encouraging them to use transit to get to the facility, providing maps, etc. This measure is also consistent with the AACP provision that "the amount of land devoted to parking should decline ". It is the policy of the AACP to "Require all ... activities that generate demand for travel to mitigate traffic impacts through support of alternative transportation modes in proportion to trips generated ". It also indicates that traffic volumes should not be allowed to grow. Traffic volumes will grow as a result of this project. Impact fees should still be collected since this project will generate additional PM -to pollution and these fees are crucial to the Environmental Health Department's ability to provide necessary air pollution monitoring. Using trip generation standards developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Fifth Edition, the three new lots, which may contain duplex units, would generate 57 trips /day, from not just residents, but deliveries, services, visitors, etc. If the non -profit space is not increased, it may not generate additional trips, but depending on the actual uses, there could be additional trip generation from it as well. Each vehicle trip generates PM -lo pollution as well as pollutants that contribute to ozone formation and greenhouse gases. These code requirements could be met by a variety of possible strategies, including limiting parking in the three new lots, use of electric and carshare vehicles, providing mass transit services to the site, using offsets and efficiency improvements to reduce greenhouse gas and PM -lo emissions, participation in the bike share program, and other measures. We would be happy to work to help determine the most effective mitigation measures. The applicant should pay special attention to the city lighting regulations given the location of the property, provision of adequate inside and outside bear -proof recycling facilities, and asbestos testing prior to any remodeling of the existing buildings. IilEM ®RAND UM TO: Amy Guthrie. Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: December 16, 2010 RE: The Given Institute Historic Landmark Designation Parcel ID No. 2735 - 124 -19 -851 The applicant is seeking wavers and incentives to preserve The Given Institute and redevelop the surrounding parcel with a residential subdivision containing up to three additional single - family homes or duplexes. The Given Institute (hereinafter "Institute ") is located at 100 East Francis Street and was originally owned by the Paepcke's. Mrs. Paepcke sold the Institute to the University of Colorado for half of its value (the rest was a gift to the University). The University of Colorado is under contract to a private buyer who is willing to work with the City of Aspen to retain the Institute with the ability to subdivide the parcel and construct up to four free - market residential single - family homes or duplexes. The City of Aspen will be able to retain the option to purchase the Institute or work with a non- profit to purchase the Institute. The application states that if the City or non -profit purchase the Institute, the employee- housing mitigation fee will be included in the price. If this scenario does not move forward, the owner will be required to mitigate for employee housing. APCHA would not support any other option that would not provide the required amount of mitigation for employee housing as stated in the Land Use Code, from either the non - profits or the development of the free - market residential lots. The applicant is requesting the ability to construct accessory dwelling units (ADU's) in conjunction with the free - market residences. The applicant is requesting language taken from Pitkin County's caretaker dwelling unit deed restriction to be utilized. The use of a non - mandatory occupancy ADU and a County CDU the same type of unit to APCHA; therefore, APCHA does not see a problem in utilizing the CDU language for the ADU's that would be built pursuant to Options I and 2 for a single- family home as stated in Section 26.470.060(2)(c) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code or Options 2 and 3 for duplex units as stated in Section 26.470.060(2)(c). Memorandum Date: December 21, 2010 To: Amy Guthrie, Community Development Planner From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: The Given Institute, Historic Landmark, DRC review Parks Department Approval Comments: Overall The lot configuration, as outlined in the application, does little to protect the arboricultural resources on this property, including tree removals requested for access and parking. Staff believes that a subdivision layout that is more sensitive of significant natural resources is warranted. The current layout also significantly impacts the following areas: 1) Tree Mitigation Waiver The Parks Department does not support the request to waive tree mitigation fees. The property is comprised of a dozen or more Heritage Trees (trees that have age classes greater than 150 years and range in size from 30" or greater) that will need to be removed if the proposed plan is approved. Once removed, these community assets cannot be replaced by any means, not even monetarily. However, if City Council approves a subdivision on this parcel, including the removal of any trees, Parks Department Staff will recommend that these trees be mitigated per the Municipal Code. Staff believes that waiving mitigation fees removes the City's ability to protect and save any significant trees. Although the applicant states "every attempt to save a tree will be made" there won't be any enforcement or authority to make this happen once the mitigation is waived. Mitigation Fees are an important tool that helps to incentivize developers to build around or use specialized construction techniques to protect significant trees on individual parcels in an effort to maintain significant trees within our community forest. 2) Hallam Lake Bluff ESA The Parks Department does not support the applicant's request to allow the proposed building envelopes to supersede applicable setbacks and requirements within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. Development into the Hallam Lake Bluff that is not congruent with the current restrictive codes will have significant visual and water quality impacts on Hallam Lake Bluff. Staff believes these restrictions should be adhered to in the strictest manner. The Hallam area and neighborhood is developed around the importance of protection for the lake itself and for the historical and natural values of the area. Deviation from these restrictions will impact this area and take away from the community values supported in the AACP as well as the values that attract tourist to town and specifically to this site. 3) Impacts to Natural Resources The Parks Department is concerned for the overall hydrology of the site if developed as proposed. Parks is concerned for two reasons. First, the property is adjacent to three of the most notable trees in Colorado. All of these trees are below the top of slope of Lot 3 and 4 located on the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Property. The trees consist of the single largest Narrowleaf Cottonwood Tree in Colorado which is noted and honored by the Colorado State Forest Service, as well as the sixth and seventh largest Narrowleaf Cottonwood Trees. Second, development of the Given Institute, in its current configuration including sub grade levels (basements), could impact the underground hydrology and have a potentially negative effect and long term detrimental effect to these trees. A hydrologic study of these areas is recommended in order to understand the development's effect on these trees, as well as the effect on Hallam Lake Hydrology. Staff is concerned that these impacts cannot be mitigated and will have a long -term negative effect on the historical nature of the site and its natural environment. Parks Department Approval Requirements: An approved tree removal permit will be required before any demolition, development or access infrastructure work takes place. Please contact the City Forester at 429 -2026. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or planted on site. Per City Code 13.20. Parks will approve a final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on the landscape estimates. Each lot will be reviewed individually and mitigation will be addressed on a lot per lot basis. The applicant has requested to waive the mitigation fees for 46 trees. The mitigation estimate for these 46 trees is valued around $527,166.19. Staff also notes that all four lots, as proposed, have significant heritage trees which Parks Staff will not permit for removal and in addition require low impact development around the trees. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees on site. This fence must be inspected by the City Forester or his before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Per City Code 13.20. i_u 1 ...1 \%...,.) opej0I03 , uedSV 1 i U) 0- i H .3 001 o i A g z sioNliklA i 15 IIIIIM ' 8 133 - i N3A1° i § 1.- A 1111 ,.i 311111-1-SN' I )- z al rai : '8 p 1. 133tiv..a iwi,=-. !1' „. , .. , .. ,_. . _ . ........ , cL 0 D 0 Z 1 al g z m -2 i wc-9 E l' E Z . i-Z) (N.1 p B ri', w — II 1 53 cn oRE ._ 1 2 0 V 0 17 ii it Z 11 I , w I I ,:':, ' • • C7 (9 , I ; U'l I ; I U , n ''-„,- -, .,,<<„,., 0,,A<, , 0 .4.,:.y..,•,..- ,..,- , .< A., - , -, 0,41., N ,. .,,, 1* r'' ' , 1.,-. , *,, ' ' ' -ilq - ,: 4,.. ''''''' ,,, e<-` ' <<- .,, , \ -- -- - - _ , ,,, \ , _ ,., , ,...<,', it ) - `7 , - ' - , , , 0 \ --\\ ' ( 0 i 14 3 04 1 1 s , • ,,.. . ,1,,, I 1. _,, _ .. - ,, _,.././ \ 1 / , 1 , A ,. ''''i k;• : ,,, . ' ' , , , , fb'' - 0 \ / \ I I / ' s 6 ' ' '' , lz. ' \ `'\ 1 • , z'. . ' .z. '''l / ..,' 1 ^ / , , , -, • < , ., - • -4. ..,_, _ _._ -,_, _ -_- -- 1. / lil i, ' 4 I I • / .; - ' '.. ''' / / ---- I ' IIIIL.,— ' 1 7 '/ ----- 4 - 11 ----- \\) f ' .f„. ' • 1'4 ,, ' s' - ...... . , , • ,1. 4fk, ' ' , / l , N.---------e.-.'//)_ , I / '11 - , ,, , - - / / ('''--- I ' 41AM: II' ...,„1111.11 L. ...,.. r / • ) , / 1 , , ( 7 ., , I / , / I .-- --/------ -,-- - t , , / I 1 1 i• 414,,b.,,,,„''' ', , • I i , , / 4 , / / ----- ___) ',, i , / 4 ' n ftife. tt , i - 1 , . i 0 1 ■ ....... / / - - I --...., ........„..........a.....„. ,.. - - _ - --_. , t ,, ' - ' , , - • . , < , , ' 1.,,, .,. .,,,. ''' ''. , „ zt•- ' , ,..,,,,. , ' v,-1,,,.«1*"."1 4,i7z: ' - - , z ,.. ' ME2r. — z,'- -A4,,i,.. ,, , , . ,,.: ,i,..‘ ,r ,..., , . ....,,,, - .. J ' ' „, , v -- ..,.., <',,, „ 'R.=' '1101: '1 ,.: .... , st'e• ' :t im •:, ,"S, „lig. ',',_ , 4 ,. HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 - ASPEN, CO 81611 - (970) 925 -7819 - MHAAS @SOPRIS.NET TO: Historic Preservation Tar ". Amy Guthrie Date: December 2, 2010 Commission (HPC) & City Council Subject: The Given Institute, Aspen, Landmark Designation, Subdivision, and Ordinance 48 Negotiation Introduction & Existing Conditions: This application volunteers Landmark Designation for the Given Institute and assurances to its preservation in exchange for Subdivision approval and the granting of incentives available through Ordinance 48 negotiation. The applicant's proposal attempts to not only preserve the Given building, but also to maintain its use as a non - profit facility. The significance of these goals cannot be overstated as the current owner of the property (CU) could legally demolish the building today and the City has made several attempts to avert this. The Given Institute is located at 100 East Francis Street in Aspen's West End neighborhood. The property is in the R -6 Zone District and the Vicinity Map below shows the property's general location relative to the surrounding area. 7i3 • rn ' p 14 a . Ft , Yom. � . — � ' . �' tt ,. : ... r - .t '` it t L � {fi _ 3dl• • t ■� I . „I._ '4i4,,,fr::::'7.4.;, ' 33 ...-7.. sz.:-.• —,.,,,, , _ J' 1' :111 elf ' T �' ✓A - jt t • r 14 ` F { , i `a . bills t L i ~ tii ,.. WI, 4 'r } ta; t Vicinity Map -100 East Francis Street, Aspen 1 The property, which was originally Elizabeth Paepcke's garden, was a "gift" (sold for half of its value) from Mrs. Paepcke to the University of Colorado. The Given Institute building was designed in 1972 by Harry Weese, a distinguished modernist architect from Chicago. Weese, a part-time Aspen resident, was known for designing a number of significant projects throughout the United States, including the Washington, D. C., Metro system. Section 26.415.025 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (the "Code ") identifies a List of Potential Historic Resources (the "List") the purpose of which is, "to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structures, or objects...that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of development or demolition of these potential resources ..." The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007 constitute the "List," which includes the Given Institute, Ordinance 48 and its associated list were adopted to address the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. Owners of properties on the List, including the Given Institute, cannot undertake any alterations, and neither building permits nor land use applications for alterations, demolition, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community Development Department except as permitted in Code Section 26.415.025(E). Said section provides for a negotiation period for properties on the "List." The applicant understands that this period has been extended and remains ongoing for so long as CU allows the negotiations to continue. Ordinance 48 states that within the negotiation period, "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 [emphasis added] that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark" Furthermore, the Ordinance allows for the City Council to negotiate directly with the property owner or 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. An owner who consents to designation of a listed property may concurrently submit any proposed development plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415. As mentioned above, Ordinance 48 envisions a "mutually acceptable agreement" and "other benefits" when a property owner is pursuing Landmark status for its 2 listed property. In exchange for the voluntary historic preservation of the Given Institute, the benefits sought by the applicant include the following: 1. Lease and Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees; 2. Subdivision into a total of four (4) lots; 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each lot (to be specified on the Final Subdivision Plat) and approval for each of the three (3) new free - market lots as a TDR Receiver Site; 4. Platting of building envelopes that thereafter supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR), for each of the three (3) new lots. Any subsequent development within these building envelopes will not be subject to HLBR; 5. Growth Management approval for up to four (4) Free - Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 GMQS Development Allotments, with exemptions from the date deadlines and submittal requirements of Code Section 26.470.110, and from the scoring criteria of Code Section 26.470.120; 6. Exemption from the Residential Design Review Standards of Chapter 26.410; 7. Exemption from the City's Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements; 8. Ten (10) years of vested property rights. Some of the above - requested incentives are already provided in Section 26.420.020(5) of the Code as available development "benefits" that may be granted to landmark designated properties. Others are purely specific to this particular application and negotiation process. Each of the requested incentives is described in detail following the Landmark Designation discussion. Designation of Historic Properties The designation of properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures (the Inventory) is governed by Section 26.415.030 of the Code. In order to be eligible for designation, an individual building, site, structure, or object, or a collection of buildings, sites, structures, or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. Section 26.415.030(B)(2) states that, A property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20` Century, 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, 3 setting design, materials, workmanship and association and is related to one 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 or 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, craftsmen or design philosophy that is deemed important. The City of Aspen's historic preservation program includes official context papers about the Post WWII architectural styles that have influenced the City, including Modernism. The original context paper describes Modernism as a style of architecture that began in the 20th century as a result of a clear philosophical shift in design practices and attitudes, and incredible changes in building technology. The following information on Harry Weese was found in the draft of the City's most recent context paper. The distinguished Chicago modernist Harry Weese (FAIR, 1915 -1998) of Harry Weese and Associates designed the Given Institute for Pathobiology for the University of Colorado in 1972 on 100 E. Francis Street (located in Elizabeth Paepcke's garden, with supervision by Aspen's William Lipsey). The concrete block building has been described as "one of Aspen's finest modernist works [which] gives a playful rigor to a simple circle with angular extensions." Weese was educated at Yale (1936 - 1937), MIT. (B. Arch, 1938) and the Cranbrook Institute of Art (1938 -1939) with Eliel and Eero Saarinen before working at Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, and establishing his own firm in 1947. Renowned for a number of significant projects throughout the United States and the design of the Washington D. C. Metro System (1976), Weese had a home in the West End for many years and also designed vacation houses at Vail and Snowmass. The City's Historic Preservation Program indudes Integrity Assessments in order to score a property's ability to convey its historic significance. A total of 100 points is the most a Modernist property can score in the categories of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. A score of 75 points is the minimum threshold needed for landmark designation. The Given Institute has been scored by Aspen's Historic Preservation Planner, Amy Guthrie, and the Integrity Assessment is attached to this application as 4 Exhibit 6. The property received a near perfect score of 96 for the following reasons: • The structure is in its original location (5 points out of 5); • The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation (the original sketches and floor plans) is still intact (10 points out of 10); • The original flat roof is unaltered (10 points out of 10); • The original scale and proportions of the building are intact (5 points out of 5); • The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact (10 points out of 10); • The character defining features, including Cottonwood trees that dictated the location of the building and influenced the design remain (10 points out of 10); • The physical surroundings are largely unchanged from the date of construction (5 points out of 5); • The original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact (15 points out of 15); • Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain (8 points of out 10); • The building is void of decoration and clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing (15 points out of 15); and • The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white, the building is painted off -white and the window trim is green instead of the original black (3 points out of 5). In June of 2010, the City of Aspen nominated the Given Institute to the National Register of Historic Places. In that application, Amy Guthrie stated that, Based on the architect scale model, building permit files, and contemporary publication of sections, elevations, and site plan, the exterior of the Given Institute main building and the site landscape remain largely unaltered since 1972. The design, location, feeling, association, and setting of the complex remain intact. Materials and workmanship embody modernist tenets: monochromatic white color scheme; concrete masonry units and ribbon glazing; minimized functional detailing; and standardized pre fabricated materials. The Given Institute design conveys an inter- relationship of interior and exterior spaces and the feeling of simple, yet successfully deliberate geometries. Overall, the integrity of the buildings and landscape are high and reflect the architect's original conception for the Given Institute complex. 5 Additionally, as part of the National Register application, the Given Institute was considered to be significant and eligible for nomination in the areas of Education and Architecture. The application states, With regard to significance in the area of Education, the founding of the Given Institute (originally known as the Given Institute of Pathobiology) codified an Aspen legacy of hosting regular national and international conferences of leaders in the medical science and research fields. The Given Institute facility facilitates dialogue among scientists that contributes to tangible advances in the medical field. Past conferences have included topics as diverse as: carcinogenesis; pediatric infectious diseases; epidemiology; immunology; and environmental pathology. For example, the New York Academy of Sciences and Aspen Brain Forum Foundation conference scheduled for September 2010 is entitled "Building Better Brains." The University of Colorado, the Given Institute's owner, describes the conferences as state -of -the -art, with a dedicated purpose to `provide a forum for tomorrow's health advances." With regard to significance in the area of Architecture, Harry Weese, a prominent modernist American architect, designed the complex, which remains an outstanding and largely unaltered example of his educational facility work Active early in Columbus, Indiana, Weese emerged as a major figure in Chicago architecture and planning. His career has been the subject of critical scholarly analysis in publications including Chicago Magazine as well as dedicated monographs including Reconstructing Harry Weese, The Architecture of Harry Weese, anticipated for release in September 2010, and Chicago: de la modernito en architecture 1950 -1985. Harry Weese passed away in 1998, since which time his First Baptist Church in Columbus, Indiana (1965) achieved National Historic Landmark designation in 2000. The subject building's integrity assessment achieves a near - perfect score of 96, it was constructed more than thirty (30) years ago, and it is significant in the field of education. The building also embodies the aesthetic achievements of Harry Weese, an internationally known architect who contributed to Modern Era Aspen architecture. As such this structure satisfies each and every facet of the standards for landmark designation, where only one of three standards need be satisfied before a building can be so designated. This property is clearly more than worthy of being designated a Historic Landmark, and the City has already expressed a strong desire to have this building landmarked. 6 Ordinance 48 Negotiation 1. Lease & Purchase Option Agreement Provisions, including but not limited to reimbursement of affordable housing and impact fees The applicant is offering the City a one -year lease on the Given Building /Lot 1. The base rent will be $1 per year, but the lease will otherwise be on a triple net basis, meaning that the City will pay all costs associated with ownership and operation of the building and its lot, including taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance. The City will not be required to keep the building open during the lease period, but will be required to pay for maintaining the surrounding landscaping and the building as needed to prevent deterioration of the structure and unsightly conditions. No alterations to the building will be permitted during the lease term. It is the applicant's expectation that use of the building will be minimal during the lease term and that the City will be using this time period to find one or more non -profit users to purchase the building. Also, during the one -year lease period, the City will indemnify the applicant for any liabilities arising from the use or operation of the building. The City may terminate the lease at any time, but the one -year purchase option (described below) would terminate simultaneously. During the one -year lease period, the City will have the option to purchase the Given Building /Lot 1 for non - profit use. The option would begin when the applicant closes on its purchase of the property from CU. This closing assumes the successful conclusion of this Ordinance 48 negotiation. The City may exercise its option at any time during the one -year lease period but must also close on the property within the one -year time frame. If the City exercises its purchase option, the base price will be $3,750,000 (adjusted by the rate of inflation until the option is exercised), plus an additional amount sufficient to reimburse the applicant for the fees that it will have paid or will be required to pay for the three free - market lots, including all fees associated with affordable housing mitigation, school land dedication in -lieu fees, stormwater management fees, water tap fees, transportation demand management /air quality fees, engineering system development fees, air quality fees and parks development fees. If the purchase option is not exercised, all applicable fees will be paid by the applicant without reimbursement. The City will have the right to assign its purchase option to a non - profit (or consortium of non - profits) that will use the building for non -profit purposes. if either the City or an assignee exercises the purchase option, the Given Building will be restricted by covenant to non -profit uses that would not unreasonably 7 disturb or interfere with the use and enjoyment of the surrounding free- market residences. The use restrictions will include limitations on outdoor functions, outdoor lighting, hours of operation, noise levels and traffic. Specifically, rooftop activities will not be permitted and parking for the Given Building will need to be off -site in the lot behind the Red Brick Building. Additionally, service access for deliveries, trash pickup, etc. will be permitted, but the City and the applicant will need to further study how vehicular circulation and access will work to ensure that operations at the Given Building will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of the free- market lots. Actual terms of the restrictions will be negotiated as an exhibit to the lease and, if the purchase option is exercised, will continue to run with the land. The historic designation of the building and Lot 1 will remain in effect after a sale to the City or assignee and will not be terminable without the consent of the surrounding Given Subdivision lot owners. Finally, if the purchase option is not exercised, the applicant will have the right to convert the Given building into a single family or duplex residence. The necessary remodeling for conversion of the Given building to residential use would include, without limitation, the introduction of new windows and doors (including garage doors). The proposed remodeling will be reviewed only by the HPC as a consolidated Conceptual /Final Major Development Review that is not subject to City Council appeal or call -up. 2. Subdivision The applicant intends to subdivide the subject 2.276 acre parcel into four separate lots. Lot 1 will be landmark designated, contain the historic structure, and have a lot size of approximately 21,685 square feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be 23,502 square feet, 31,805 square feet, and 22,166 square feet, respectively, and all will be left vacant for future residential development. On the north side of the Given building there will be two Lots (Lots 2 and 3) that back up to the bluff overlooking Hallam Lake and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES); these two lots are affected by the City's mapped Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area. Lot 4 will be created to the east of the Given building, between the building and the ACES property. A conceptual plan of the proposed subdivision is attached to this application. Only Lot 1 will be landmark designated, and as such, the additional lots will not be subject to HPC Review in the future. While the Subdivision approval is requested as part of the Ordinance 48 negotiation, the proposal is demonstrated below to meet the subdivision review criteria of the Code. The standards and requirements for the subdivision of 8 property, pursuant to Section 26.480.050 of the Code, are satisfied as provided below: A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Given Subdivision is entirely consistent with the AACP. One of the most important aspects of the AACP is historic preservation, especially of Post World War II architecture. This proposal seeks to landmark the Given building, a resource that the City and its citizens have already identified as important to preserve. Furthermore, the applicant's proposal attempts to not only preserve the building, but to also maintain its use as a non - profit facility, which is another important goal of the AACP. In fact, the current owner of the property (CU) could legally demolish the Given building today and the City has made several attempts to avert this. One of the policies enumerated in the City's draft of the 2010 AACP states that the City wants to, Ensure that the Historic Preservation Benefits Package encourages owners of landmark property to preserve structures to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood. The proposed subdivision seeks to preserve an important resource to the highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the neighborhood by only adding three additional lots that will not be seen from the street. Not only could the existing structure be razed, but the R -6 zoning dictates that the property could potentially be subdivided into sixteen conforming lots that could accommodate many more homes than currently proposed. Another policy goal of the 2010 Draft AACP states that the public sector should set an example as a responsible steward of preservation and adaptive re -use of historic buildings. The applicant is offering the City a purchase option of the Given building, and authorizing the City to assign its purchase option to another non -profit or consortium of non - profits. With regard to Growth Management, the City allows up to 18 new free - market residential development rights to be awarded per year as a means of maintaining a less than 2% growth rate. Nowhere near eighteen new units were applied for or approved during the 2010 growth management year. As such, the proposed 9 3-4 units from the 2010 annual allotment pool remain not only unused and available but also well within the stated AACF goal of a less than 2% annual growth rate. Finally, the City states that it would also like to maintain the legacy of the "Aspen Idea" (simply stated as the integration of Mind, Body and Spirit) by enhancing and preserving non -profit and quasi -public facilities and spaces. The applicant is giving the City the opportunity to prevent the conversion of a non- profit facility to private use while ensuring that, regardless of use, a valuable historic resource will be preserved. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The property is located in Aspen's West End neighborhood which is primarily comprised of single - family residences. In fact, the three new lots will be on much larger parcels than most homes in the West End. The property could arguably be subdivided into many more than 3 new parcels. Furthermore, the Given building is part of the neighborhood's existing character and is proposed to be saved. The new lots have little -to-no visibility from the street while the historic resource will continue to contribute to the streetscape. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The future development of surrounding areas will not be adversely affected in any way by the proposed subdivision. The surrounding area is largely built out. Existing services, facilities and utilities are more than adequate to serve three new residences, and the cost of any needed upgrades will be borne by the applicant. See the Engineering Report from SGM attached hereto as Exhibit 7. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. The proposed subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Code as demonstrated throughout this application, and as allowed through Ordinance 48 negotiation. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard 10 or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. The land encompassing the proposed subdivision is entirely suitable for development. There are no natural hazards or other conditions that will be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Adequate setbacks from the top of slope above Hallam Lake are assured by the proposed building envelopes. Further, the proposed building envelopes avoid all steep slopes that are present on the property. 2. Spatial pattern efficient The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. The proposed subdivision has been designed to avoid creation of spatial patterns that might cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. See the report from SGM attached to this application as Exhibit 7. The applicant is proposing to subdivide this approximately 2.276 acre parcel as follows: Lot 1= 21,684.98sf Lot 2 = 23,502.11sf Lot 3 = 31,804.53sf Lot 4 = 22,166.42sf These figures represent the proposed Lot Sizes. The effective Lot Areas of each parcel for the purpose of determining allowable density and FAR are discussed later in this application. Nevertheless, a specific allowable FAR for each lot will be approved as part of this review and that figure will be clearly stated on the Final Plat as well as in the Subdivision Agreement. As part of the Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is establishing building envelopes for each of the three (3) new lots, and these envelopes will supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with Hallam Lake Bluff Review (HLBR). All development on each of these lots will thereafter be confined to the area within its building envelope. The building envelopes are further discussed below. With approval of the proposed subdivision, the property will contain one lot that has been designated a historic landmark, and three new, non - historic lots. The 11 GMQS provisions applicable to Lot 1 will differ from the other three, newly- created lots. Section 26.470.060(1) of the Code provides the Growth Management requirements for single - family and duplex development on historic Landmark properties and states that, The development of one (1) or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land designated as an historic 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. The resulting Lot 1 will contain the historic resource and, therefore, even if the purchase option discussed above is not consummated by the City and the historic resource is then converted to a residence, no affordable housing mitigation is required. However, as further stated in the above -cited Code section, Development of a single-family or duplex structure 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. Said Section 26.470.060(2)(c) of the Code gives the following six (6) affordable housing mitigation options for development of a single - family residence, and these will apply to Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the Given Subdivision: 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 through special review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26520; 3) Providing an off -site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infall Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; 4) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or 12 5) Recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed 6) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Section 26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase of square footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended (Ord No. 6 — 2010, §3) The same above - referenced section of the Code gives the following seven (7) affordable housing options for approval of a duplex: 1) Providing one (1) free - market dwelling unit and one (1) deed - restricted resident- occupied (RO) dwelling unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; 2) Providing either two (2) above - grade, detached accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of each), or one (1) above - grade, detached ADU or carriage house with a minimum floor area of six hundred (600) net livable square feet, pursuant to Chapter 26.520; 3) Providing either two (2) accessory dwelling units or carriage houses (or one [1] of each) or one (1) ADU or carriage house with a minimum of six hundred (600) net livable square feet authorized through special review to be attached and/or partially or fully subgrade, pursuant to Chapter 26.520; 4) Providing an off -site affordable housing unit within the Aspen Infill Area accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and deed - restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; 5) Providing two (2) deed - restricted resident - occupied (RO) dwelling units; or 6) Paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. 7) Providing a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Section 26.540.060 Authority of the Certificate, commensurate with the net increase of square footage, according to Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended (Ord. No. 6— 2010, §3) Although development on the three new lots resulting from the proposed subdivision would not technically fall under Section 26.470.060(2)(c) of the Code, the applicant is willing, as part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, to abide by these affordable housing requirements. However, if any ADUs are built pursuant to options 1 and 2 for a single - family home or options 2 and 3 for a duplex, the applicable guidelines for these units will be the standard Pitkin County CDU (caretaker dwelling unit) deed restriction provisions enumerated in Section 4 -30 -50 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (not the City's ADU deed restrictions). Said section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code states that, The applicant shall by deed restriction or other permanent commitment running with the land guarantee that the caretaker dwelling unit: 13 1) Shall not be required to be rented; 2) Shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed or separated from the original parcel regardless of the ultimate form of ownership of the caretaker unit; 3) Shall be limited to occupancy by (t) not more than two (2) adults, and related children, who qualms as (and have been found by the Housing ice to be) employees of the community under such guidelines as may from time to time be established, or (tt) members of the owner's immediate family, even though they may not qualify as employees of the community; 4) Shall be rented for terms not less than six (6) months if rented If cash-in-lieu is paid, however, and the City agrees to exercise its option to purchase the Given building, these fees will be reimbursed to the applicant as part of the purchase price, as discussed above. At the present time the applicant is not proposing to develop the lots. 3. Approval of Increased FAR for each of the three (3) new free - market lots and approval for each as a TDR Receiver/Landing Site. While the original parcel in the current case has a Lot Size of approximately 2.276 acres, certain reductions must be taken into account in order to calculate the effective Lot Area for determining allowable Floor Area and density. There are several former street rights -of -way on the property, however, two of these were deeded (not vacated) in 1913 and again in 1937 to the then- owners of the property. Therefore, the approximately 33,500 square feet attributed to those former rights -of -way are not deducted from the total Lot Area. The Puppy Smith Street vacation of approximately 903 square feet does, on the other hand, need to be deducted from the Lot Area for both FAR and density purposes. As such, the 2.276 acre property has a Lot Area of approximately 74,105sf (1.7 acres) for purposes of determining allowable Floor Area and 98,255sf (2.256 acres) for density purposes. The Lot Area calculations for the subject parcel are as follows: Lot Size = 99,158sf Land below High Water Line (HWL) = Osf (N /A) Land within 0- 19.99% slope = 74,2994 Land within 20- 29.99% slope = 1,418sf (50% = 709sf) Land with 2.30% slope = 23,441sf R.O.W. Vacations /Easements = 903sf 14 Lot Area for Density 99,158sf (Lot Size) - 903sf (Puppy Smith Street Vacation) 98,255sf Lot Area for FAR: 99,158sf (Lot Size) - 23,441sf (230% slope area) 75,717sf - 709sf (th of 20- 29.99% slope area) 75,008sf - 903sf (Puppy Smith Street vacation) 74,105sf With regard to density, a property in the R -6 Zone District requires 4,500 square feet of Lot Area per detached single - family dwelling unit, and a total of 9,000 square feet of Lot Area for a duplex or two detached single - family residences on one lot. Accordingly, assuming standard 6,000sf R -6 Lots, the subject property (even if the landmark designation is not taken into account), maintains adequate Lot Area (98,255sf) to accommodate over 16 detached single- family residences, or 10 duplexes (with 9,000sf Iots). Furthermore, at the allowed FAR of 3,240sf per 6,000sf lot in the R -6 zone, these 16 lots could hold up to 51,840 total square feet of Floor Area. Clearly, the applicant is proposing far less density than permitted by the zone district (16 -20 units) and, as explained below, far less Floor Area than could be permitted. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in the following manner: • Lot 1 (the fathering parcel) retains 21,685 square feet of effective Lot Area for the purpose of determining allowable FAR; • Lot 2 will have 17,831 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (23,502sf - 5,672sf); • Lot 3 will have 18,106 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (31,805sf - 13,699sf); and • Lot 4 will have 16,872 square feet of effective Lot Area for FAR calculations (22,166sf - 5,294sf). After the subdivision, Lot 1 (which will contain the historic resource) would be allowed 4,354 square feet of Floor Area for a single - family home; however, the existing structure contains a good deal more area than this and its allowable FAR will be established as "the amount existing, plus (if converted to residential use) up to 750 square feet for the addition of a garage." Lot 2 would be allowed approximately 15 4,162sf of Floor Area, while Lots 3 and 4 would be allowed 4,175 and 4,114 square feet of Floor Area, respectively, for a single- family home on each lot. See the floor area chart for the R -6 zone district in Section 26.710.040(D)(11) of the Code. However, when Iooking at the density allowed by the zone district, 16 single - family homes, and the allowable Floor Area on a standard 6,000sf lot, it is clear that almost 5Z000 square feet of floor area (3,240sf x 16 = 51,840) could be permitted on this site. As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is asking for 5,500sf of allowable Floor Area per lot (for Lots 2, 3 and 4), plus 250sf of additional floor area permitted per lot with the extinguishment of a TDR, for a total of 5,750sf of allowable FAR per lot. This equates to a potential total of 17,250sf of new Floor Area on the entire parcel, which is approximately one -third (33%) of the square footage that could be developed on the property. Moreover, each of the potential three TDR landed represents 250sf of Floor Area that will never be developed on a different historically designated property. A note explaining these allocations will be included in the Subdivision Agreement and on the Subdivision Plat (the Plat) prior to recordation. 4. Establishment of Building Envelopes The applicant is seeking to have building envelopes established for each of the three (3) new lots. These envelopes will supersede and replace otherwise applicable setback requirements, including those associated with HLBR. Section 26.415.110 of the Code enumerates some of the benefits available to historic properties. Subsection B thereof states that dimensional variations are allowed on projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property than would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. Ordinance 48 allows for negotiated benefits beyond those which may be provided in the Code. Although the HPC is empowered to grant variances for designated properties to allow, in relevant part, (a) development in the side, rear and front setbacks; (b) development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; and (c) up to five (5) percent additional site coverage, these limitations are inapplicable. Instead, they merely offer some guidance in the case of an Ordinance 48 negotiation. Since traditional variances are not adequate to ensure all development rights contemplated herein, the applicant is delineating building envelopes to be approved and platted for each of the three (3) new lots created by the subdivision and these envelopes will thereafter replace the need for any further HLBR or setback 16 requirements. Although subsequent development of Lots 2 and 3 would normally be subject to HLBR, the proposed building envelopes ensure consistency with the spirit of the Hallam Lake Bluff regulations inasmuch as they are delineated to ensure a fifteen foot (15') setback from the top of slope. Also, the flexibility provided by the building envelopes approach, as opposed to prescribed setbacks, will allow greater creativity in design to better enable sensitivity to the historic resource. 5. Growth Management Approval Free- Market Residential Allotments from the 2010 CMOS Development Allotments, with Exemptions As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation the applicant is seeking up to four (4) of the 2010 Growth Management Development Allotments: one for each new single - family lot and, if the City does not exercise its option to purchase Lot 1 (the lot with the Given Building), then this Ordinance 48 negotiation will have pre - approved one additional allotment for the building's conversion to residential use. For these allotments to be awarded, the negotiation must include an exemption from the submittal requirements and submittal dates of February 15th or August 15th established in Section 26.470.110(c) of the Code for applications that require Major Planning and Zoning Commission review, as well as an exemption from the Scoring Criteria enumerated in Section 26.470.120 of the Code. Instead, all required allotments will be granted as part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation. As mentioned above, the proposed development will remain subject to the affordable housing requirements of Section 26.470.060(2) of the Code for the three new lots (Lots 2-4). Lot 1, however, will not be required to provide affordable housing if the structure is converted to residential use as it will remain a landmark designated historic resource. As mentioned earlier in this application, if the City does exercise its option to purchase Lot 1, the applicant will be reimbursed for the cost of any affordable housing mitigation payments made for the three new lots as part of the purchase price of Lot 1. 6. Exemption from Residential Design Standards and Review This application requests exemption for all resulting lots from the Residential Design Standards of Chapter 26.410 of the Code. The purpose of the design standards is stated in the Code as follows: To preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The 17 standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of the owner, contribute to the streetscape. Neighborhood character is largely established by the relationship between front facades of buildings and the streets they face. By orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintaining a certain consistency in front setback patterns, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment Since any development on the three new lots will not be visible from the street, the purpose of the Residential Design Standards will be met even if these lots are not subject to said standards. Furthermore, since these lots will not have street frontage, pursuant to Code Section 26.410.010(8)(4), said lots are already exempt from Subsection 26.410.040(A)(1), Building Orientation, and Subsection 26.410.040(D), Building Elements, in their entirety. Subsection 26.410.040(A)(2) would also be inapplicable as each lot is more than 15,000 square feet in size. The only design standards that would be applicable to the proposed lots relate to fences, building form and parking, garages and carports. Given the very limited potential applicability of the design standards and the fact that any future development on these lots will not be visible from the street, the stated purpose of the standards would not be promoted by their application. Therefore, development of the proposed lots should not be subject to any of the Residential Design Standards. 7. Exemption from the Tree Removal Mitigation Requirements The City of Aspen requires property owners to replace any trees that are removed from their property with the same value in on- or off -site tree plantings, cash -in -lieu, or a combination of the two. While the applicant intends to preserve as many trees as practicable, in order to create the access driveway and eventually develop homes within the building envelopes, several trees will need to be removed from the property. As part of this Ordinance 48 negotiation, the applicant is seeking an exemption from the tree mitigation requirements. 8. Vested Property Rights In light of the state of current economic times and the fact that Ordinance 48 is likely to be repealed and replaced with new, as of yet undetermined regulations in the coming years, the applicant seeks 10 years of vested property rights associated with the site specific development plan approved pursuant to this application so as to ensure an adequate degree of reliability on such approvals into the future. This time period is also necessary as the applicant will have three lots to develop, as well as the possibility of a significant remodel effort needed to create a fourth residence by 18 converting the existing structure. The standard three years of vested property rights is simply inadequate to undertake such an effort and responsibility in light of the community benefit of landmark designation that will immediately be realized by the City and will never expire. 10 years of vested property rights in exchange is only reasonable. Summary It is the applicant's desire to see the Given Building preserved as a historic landmark As incentives and in exchange for this preservation effort, the applicant seeks benefits that are enumerated in the Code as appropriate for designated landmarks. As stated in Code Section 26.420.010(A), Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by owners of historic properties is [sic] an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Ordinance 48 was adopted to address, through negotiation of incentives for designation, the negative impacts that the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general well being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique architectural character, livability, and attractiveness as a destination. The applicant maintains a right it would rather not exercise under Ordinance 48 to reject City Council's proposed incentive package and, in doing so, have the subject property removed from the Ordinance 48 list of potential historic resources. It is felt that the requested incentives are fully appropriate and warranted in exchange for providing a substantial community benefit and valuable community asset by landmark designating a building whose integrity assessment achieves a near perfect score of 96, is significant in the field of education, and embodies the aesthetic achievements of Harry Weese, an internationally known architect who contributed to Modem Era Aspen architecture. The City has already demonstrated its strong desire to see this building granted landmark status. As such, it is earnestly hoped that the requested incentives will be agreed to and the subject property (Lot 1) will be added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 19 Exhibits: 1. Land Use Application & Dimensional Requirements Forms 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Pre - application Conference Summary 4. Authorization Letters 5. Integrity Assessment Scoring 6. Quit- claim Deed Conveying portions of Garmisch and Center Streets to the property 7. Engineering Report from Schmueser Gordon Meyer (SGM) 8. Mailing Addresses of Record for Property Owners' within a 300' Radius 9. Fee Agreement Attachments: • Existing Conditions Survey (3 Sheets) • Proposed Conceptual Site Plan 20 EXHIBIT I 1 ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: �? /- / Name: P 15 a 6 1 Gwen // 1 . - 1 ^ 11 sh `4ul e / Location: 100 zd 7fan' i S eI 4574 Co 7/6// (Indicate street address lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) ri 7 Pj --. 2' - ! 9 _54r/ APPLICANT: n / Name: SC AC (.t�7' /t� `i1 -Hons L-C- No J. Earl /phn i4ttl Address: q 1-1)1 ,tt / r /a ;4 S 1 ti � l y � 21D, 4s pe l j 1 t/ ' q 1tY i/ Phone #: l 17 O } t y V — Vth2. REPRESENTATIVE: Haas 1 Name: Has Land P / 6 Address: dQ�O IV. /`7 / /LS �SU: ' / Aczp4 ( l) k-)1// Phone #: ( 170 - 7 rq6 -- i TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Text/Map Amendment ❑ Special Review R] Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiutnbation) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ❑ Commercial Design Review ❑ Lot Split ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ❑ Residential Design Variance ❑ Lot Line Adjustment X. Other: G1a 'rhia, Do I Roar') t vt ❑ Conditional Use Ord. '48 q11afic, EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) `? p 1D ve me n-t j PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) appl i cafi or1 and s 1 pion Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: s9 1W) 2 ® Pre - Application Conference Summary • Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements - Including Written Responses to Review Standards ❑ 3 -D Model for large project Ali plans that are larger than 8.5' X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D modeL Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D modeL ATTACHMENT3 -The REQUIREMENTS FORM Project Irle Gm?) - th517 Applicant: ,t f?cgqLit .si1 LC_G Location: o Et / • • • - 0 - Zone District: R- 6 Lot Size: 2.," 6 pr tiS Lot Area: • ; 255 -F R a a I / 14 (for the purposes of calculating Floor r: Lot Area may be reduced for : - 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: N/ A Proposed: nJ /Q Number of residential units: Existing. n Proposed: 3. n C Number of bedrooms: Existing: AIM Proposed: T13 D Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0 DIMENSIONS: See 5UbYl1 I - -P4 R.e I ( o - 11 On YV\c&l46 r I Gk (S • Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non - conformities or encroachments: N0.4e, Variations requested: < )O ap (dA nip) EXHIBIT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: 100 EAST FRANCIS STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: October 07, 2010 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 06 -17 -06 $15,000,000.00 Proposed Insured: SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY "ALTA" Loan Policy 06 -17 -06 $11,000,000.00 Proposed Insured: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, ITS SUCCESSORS AND /OR ASSIGNS 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED PAGE(S) FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION Our Order No: Q62003675 -4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land known as the Given Parcel being described at Reception #499350 together with a parcel being described at Reception #405579 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. all being in the City of Aspen being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 63, part of Francis Street and part of Center Street as shown on the City and Townsite of Aspen Map; a portion of the NW1 /4SW 1/4 of Section 7, T. 10 S., R. 84 W. and a portion of the NE1 /4SE1/4 of Section 12, T.10 5., R. 85 W. all in the 6th P.M.; Beginning at a point on the north line of said Francis Street and 24.00 feet easterly of the west line of said Center Street also known as Garmisch Street, from which the East 114 corner of said Section 7 bears N08 DEGREES 54'19"E a distance of 926.25 feet, with all bearings being relative to N14 DEGREES 50'49"E along the centerline of Garmisch Street; thence N14 DEGREES 50'49 "E a distance of 121.59 feet; thence N33 DEGREES 03'19 "E a distance of 42.21 feet; thence N07 DEGREES 19'05 "E a distance of 112.35 feet; thence S70 DEGREES 18'15"E a distance of 239.94 to the southwest corner of the vacated parcel described at Reception #405579 (Ordinance #13, Series of 1997, City of Aspen); thence along the boundary of said vacated parcel the following four (4) courses NO2 DEGREES 00'00 "W a distance 18.56 feet; thence S72 DEGREES 18'OS "E a distance of 44.16 feet; thence S79 DEGREES 11'00 "E a distance of 7.90 feet; thence S15 DEGREES 15'22"W a distance of 20.06 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land described at said Reception #499350; thence SO6 DEGREES 18'51 "W a distance of 103.11 feet; thence S18 DEGREES 12'00 "W a distance of 108.73 feet; thence S09 DEGREES 25'21"E a distance of 52.10 feet; thence S23 DEGREES 21'00 "E a distance of 83.49 feet to southerly line of Franck Street extended easterly; Thence N75 DEGREES 09'11 "W along the north line of Block 64, City and Townsite of Aspen, a distance of 288.99 feet to the northwest comer of said Block 64; thence N30 DEGREES 59'37 "W a distance of 107.34 feet to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the accomd of the grantors or mortgagors of the fill consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured most be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: 1. FULLY EXECUTED CONTRACT. 2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS 01? THE TOWN OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 3. A FULL COPY OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. SAID AGREEMENT MUST DISCLOSE WHO MAY CONVEY, ACQUIRE, ENCUMBER, LEASE OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FOR SAID ENTITY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENTATION. 4. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS A LLC. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS 01? THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING. OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: SAID STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 5. CERTIFIED COPY 01? RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO (AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS) AND RECITING THAT THE BOARD HAS BFFN DULY AUTHORIZED 114 THE PREMISES BY THE CORPORATION. SAID RESOLUTION MUST BE PROPERLY CERTIFIED BY AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION. SAID RESOLUTION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY BUT NEED NOT BE RECORDED. 6. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -I (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Couduued: NAME OF THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AS A CORPORATION. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30 -172, CRS. NOTE: SAID STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 7. WARRANTY DEED FROM THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 01? COLORADO TO SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. 8. DEED OF TRUST FROM SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE 01? THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO TO SECURE THE SUM OF $11,000,000.00. NOTE: ITEMS 1 -3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT 01 A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE LOAN POLICY WILL BE DELETED. UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS ON THE OWNER'S POLICY WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: ITEM NO. 4 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS LS DELETED AS TO ANY LIENS OR FUTURE LIENS RESULTING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST 01? THE REGENTS 01 THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF SC ACQUISITIONS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED 11 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION(S) AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF 2009 TAXES, ITEM 6 WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2010 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 Continued: STANDARD EXCEPTION 7A AND 7B ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: ITEMS 1-4 OF STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED FROM THE MORTGAGEE'S TITLE POLICY UPON RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT. ALTA COMMITMENT • Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The policy or polities to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. My facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that maybe asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, viohdion, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, Hens, encumbrances, adverse rlaims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 8. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT OF RECORD. 9. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT OF RECORD. 10. PROVIDED THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR, OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS, AND PROVIDED FURTHER GRANT HEREBY MADE IS HELD AND DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2386 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, AS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED MARCH 24, 1885 IN BOOK 11 AT PAGE 162. 11. RESERVATIONS AS CONTAINED IN DEEDS FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED MAY 18, 1887 IN BOOK 49 AT PAGE 285, RECORDED JANUARY 3, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q62003675 -4 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 245, RECORDED JANUARY 31, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 330, RECORDED MAY 11, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 434 AND RECORDED JULY 16, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 462. 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF ORDER AND DECREE RECORDED FEBRUARY 09, 1951 IN BOOK 175 AT PAGE 472. 13. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES. 14. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, INTERESTS OR CLAIMS WHICH MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACT SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY DATED OCTOBER 19, 2010 PREPARED BY SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, JOB # 2010 - 364.001: STAIRS AND GRAVEL PATH ALONG EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. POSSESSORY INTERESTS THAT MAY BE CLAIMED DUE TO THE LOCATION OF FENCELINES ALONG THE WESTERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES OF PROPERTY. • EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER Amy Guthrie DATE 11.30.10 PROJECT: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Haas Land Planning, representing the contract buyer TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and Ordinance #48 negotiation for preservation incentives, including ESA exemptions, GMQS exemptions, Residential Design Standards Variances and Fee Waivers DESCRIPTION: The property is among those listed as "Potential Historic Resources," provided with a level of protection under Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. The . City received a building permit application in June 2010 which proposed demolition of the structures at The Given Institute. A mandatory 90 negotiation process was triggered to discuss alternatives with the property owner, The University of Colorado. A buyer has placed the property under contract and is willing to discuss preservation options with the City. The proposal involves subdividing the property into four lots, one of which will contain The 1972 Given Institute building. The City of Aspen would be offered one year to elect to purchase the lot containing The Given, which the City may then transfer to a non - profit. If historic preservation benefits are awarded, either the City, a non -profit, or the applicant will be required to complete landmark designation of The Given. No specific development is proposed at this time, but the applicant will request establishment of development rights, building envelopes, etc. that ensure the future size and location of residential units. The process will begin with a joint meeting of HPC and P &Z. HPC previously reviewed and commented on the property's qualifications for landmark designation, on July 14th. HPC and P &Z will discuss the specific benefits being requested by the buyer, and will provide recommendations to City Council. City Council will consider an ordinance awarding the requested land use approvals and benefits. If designation is completed, HPC will have purview over any future changes to the landmarked property. Land Use Code Section(s) that may be applicable: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.415.025 Negotiation process 26.420 Historic Preservation Benefits 26.435 Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas 26.470 Growth Management 26.480 Subdivision 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District • Review by: Staff for complete application Referral agencies for technical considerations Historic Preservation Commission Planning and Zoning Commission Council Public Hearing: Yes at a joint HPC/P &Z meeting and Council. Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional stafftime required is billed at $245 per hour) Referral Fees: None. Total Deposit: $2,940 Total Number of Application Copies: HPC: 12 Copies P&Z: 12 Copies Council: 12 Copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre- application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Existing and proposed site plan, landscaping plan, and parking plan. 10. Existing and proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 11. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man -made site features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used. 14. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)- preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. • EXHIBIT 1 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The Given Institute (100 East Francis Street) (PID# 2735 - 124 -19 -851) Request for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation To whom it may concern: As applicant for the Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision, Ordinance 48 Negotiation and associated approvals on the Given Institute property (100 East Francis Street, Aspen), SC Acquisitions, LLC (c /o J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative) hereby authorizes Haas Land PIanning, LLC (HLP), Schmueser, Gordon, and Meyer Engineers /Surveyors (SGM) and Rowland and Broughton Architecture and Urban Design (R +B) to act as designated and authorized representatives for the preparation, submittal and processing of the application requesting the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications that may be associated therewith. HLP, SGM and R &B are also authorized to represent SC Acquisitions, LLC in meetings with City staff, the Historic Planning Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC. Yours truly, SC Acquisitions, LLC By J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative (00003161 / 1 ) November 30, 2010 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: The Given Institute (100 East Francis Street) (PID# 2735 - 124-19 -851) Request for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation To whom it may concern: The Regents of the University of Colorado is the owner of the Given Institute property located at 100 East Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado (the "Given Property "). The Given Property is under contract to be sold to SC Acquisitions, LLC. Please be advised that SC Acquisitions, LLC acting through Haas Land Planning, LLC is authorized to submit and process one or more applications for Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision, Ordinance 48 Negotiation and associated approvals for the Given Property. However, no approvals for the Given Property may be recorded or become binding on the Given Property until SC Acquisitions, LLC completes its purchase of the Given Property. Office of University Counsel By: Name: Steve Zweck- Bronner, Esq. (A0003907 / I ) • EXHIBIT 5 INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- MODERNIST Integrity is the ability of a 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. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) — 5 points. The structure is in its original location. • 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. Response: 10 — The original plan form is unchanged based on original Weese sketches and floor plans. ROOF FORM 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. Response: 10 — The original flat roof is unaltered. 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. Response: 5 — The original scale and proportions are intact. SOLID/VOID PATTERN 10 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is intact. 6 - The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials has been altered but in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. 0- The original pattern of glazing and exterior materials is altered. Response: 10 — the original pattern of glazing and materials is intact. CHARACTER - DEFINING FEATURES 10 — The horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment are intact. 6 - There are minor alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. 0 - There have been major alterations to the horizontal or geometric form, minimalist detailing and features that relate the building to its environment. Response: 10 — the character - defining features, including cottonwood trees that dictated the location of building and influenced Weese's design remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 45 points. • 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 but the changes conform to the design guidelines. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic character of the building. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 points. The physical environment is largely unchanged from the date of construction. • 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 combination of exterior wall materials and glazing are intact. 10 -There have been minor alterations to the original exterior wall materials and glazing made in a manner that conform to the design guidelines. 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and glazing. 0- All exterior wall materials and glazing has been replaced. Response: 15 points — the original combination of concrete masonry units and glazing is intact. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10- All or most of the original door and window 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. Response: 8 — Some of the glazing was replaced in 1993, but the window composites remain. TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 23 points. • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. COMPOSITION 15 -The structural composition that distinguishes the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. Detailing is reduced to composition of elements instead of decorative effects. No decorative elements are used. Design is focused on rationality, reduction, and composition. It is meant to separate itself from style and sentimentality. Materials are generally manufactured and standardized. The "hand" is removed from the visual outcome of construction. Surfaces are smooth with minimal or no detail at window jambs, grade, and at the roof edge. 10 -There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would meet the design guidelines 0 - There have been some alterations to the structural composition that would not meet the design guidelines Response: 15. The building is void of decoration and is clearly follows Modernist tenets. All exterior surfaces are CMU blocks or glazing. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5 - The neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism is intact. 3 - There have been minor alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. 0- There have been significant alterations to the neutral or monochromatic color scheme and finishes that define the stylistic category of Modernism. Response: 3 — The color scheme has been altered: instead of pure white the building is painted off-white and the window trim is green instead of the original black TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) =18 points. Grand Total = 96 points 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. #88896 QUIT CLAIM DEED. EXHIBIT THIS D32D made this lath day of August in the•year of our Lord one thousand hundred thirteen, between the City of Aspen; a muniorpal corporation,.of the Co Pitkin and State of Rotondo, of the first part and Grace Howard..Potter and Mary Potter of tie County of Pitkin and State Of Colorado, parties of the aeoond'part, WIS8IS8ffi, That the said party o; the first Fart, for and in consideration o sum of One Hundred Dollars ('100.,00) to the said party of the first part in hand the sail parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has remised, released, sold, conveyed and Quit - claimed, and by these presents does remise, release, sell, convey and guitolalm unto the said parties of the second part, there heirs and assignee forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which l the said party of the first part has in and to the following described real estate of Colorado it- wit : - tha ya t g eertain i t tr ra ct of de of se at in North ' Center Street on the North line of Frannie Street 24 feet easterly from the West line of Center Street and running thence Easterly alonythe North line of Frannie Street 26 feet to a point on the center line of oenter Street, Thence Northerly along the oenter line of Center street 120 Peet to a point. . Thenoe Westerly on a line parallel to Francis Street 86 feet to a point. Thence Southerly on a;li.ne parallel to the center line of Center Street • 120 feet • to the place of beginning, containing 0.072 acres. Also that certain treat of land described as follows: Beginning at a point in Borth Center Street on the North • line of Francis Street 24 feet easterly from the•West line of, Center Street and running ' thence Southeasterly 106.77 feet to the Southeast corner of.Center and Francis Streets; . thence Easterly along the South line of Francis Street about 34E feet'to intersect line 4 -5 of Aspen Tovmsite: Thence North 43- 0 32" West,along line 4 -5 of ispen Tmmsite to a point at the intersection with the No line of Fraors Street; thence Westerly along tae Dorth'line of Francis Street about 06 feet to the plane of beginning, Containing 0.558 acres more or less. Saving and excepting from the operation of this deed all that portion of the above described premises included witULd an extension of what is own as Aspen Street, in the City of Aaien of Pitkin. and State of Colorado, north rly therefrom to the Roaring Fork.River; said excepted premises now being riled as a public thorougafave 'or highway from the Northern line of the Aspen Townsite to or near the said Roaring Fork River. This deed is made iu purauanoe with an order and resolutions of tne city Council of the said City of Aspen, .duly passed and adopted. TO RAVE AaD f0 HOLD Tr SARA, Together with all and singular the appartenanoes and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, ' ir title and interest and claim whatsoever, of the said party of the first part, either in . law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of tne said parties of the second part, their heirs and assigns, forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said Oity of Aspen, party of the first part, has hereunto set • its name end corporate Beal by the hands of F. D. Willoughby, its Mayor, attested by Alton Bean, its City Clerk,.the`day and year first above written. �'; :.. i;; r n d THE CITY OF ASPER. r Fred D. Willoughby ATTEST: .. Mayor. • Alton Beek City Clerk. STATE OF COLORADO • ' County of Pitkin )ss I, M. Id. Relhardt, County Clerk in and for said County, in the state aforesaid do heresy certify that Fred b. Willoughby and Alton Beck, resneotevely Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, personally known to he as. the persons whose names that s they r signed,, sealed annexed delivered the said appeared me this ofawritinerasn, and fr v"� and as the free and volintay act of the said City of Aspen, ±or and nd R erein set fort F Tdedsr my hand apd notarial Beal, this 16th day of January, A. D. 1937 y �' ulseron expires 191 .' • Q� • M. M. Neiharflt a. or reoo • t. s • . yy� o • February A. D. 196'7 at 11:05 A. M. k. M. u Neihard Recorder 58897 Form 348 QUIT -Cala D flD THIS DEED, Made this, 28th day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand. nine '.uadred and thirty eeven:�betweeu Grabe Howard Potter of the City, County and State of New owk and Mary Lanese ,totter of the Couhty of San Fraholsoo and State of California. of the . fret part, and Merle Louise Fatter of the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, of the -aeon& part, . WITHESSETS, That the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the of one dollar and other valuable considerations to the said parties of the first part ••dbandnpaid. by t s a i depar t y of the second part, the receipt whereof i6 hereby confessed • ' •resents do remise, release, sell' a oonveyed and QUIT -s and by these , cone .art, her heirs and assigns, forever, all the and i , tit e, interest, tee staid. pa party nd. des secwhd •eng id pat ies of the first par have in and ttothetfollowing&esoioedirealdestate situate, ins in the County of Pitkin and State of Qolorado to -wit: A. pertain traot of •Y Francis Street • 24 easterly fr lineoof Center running ttnoe .- sterly along the North line of Francs Street 26 feet to a point on the center line • =nter Street, thence Northerly along the center line of Center Street 1E0 feet to a point; w enoe Westerly an alline parallel to Frannie Street 86 feet to a pdimt; thence Southerly • • •a a line parallel to the oenter.line of Frannie Street 120 feet to the place of beginning, r ' 'ontaining 0.072 sores. Aleb that certain tract of land described as follows: Beginning t a point in Borth Center Street on the North line of Francis Street E from • he West sine of Center Street and running thence . So.77 et to the Southeast . • _F` pee Streets; thence Easterly line of Franois Street corner a erse tie 4 -5 o Aspen Townsite; thgnoe North 43° 03' 32" West, along line 4=5 P 4 v to a point at the inter§eetlon with the North line of Frannie Street; thence West -n . .. ;f a ly along the North line of Francis Street about 306 feet to the piece of beginning, .y ontaining 0.558 acres more or ,leas. •remiss egincluded withhin of what s this known Aspen n in f tnee a City v of d Asp enn, oaaty of Pitkin and State of Colorado, hortherly therefrom to the'Roaring Fork River; add'excepted. premises now being used as a public thooughfare or hiMewav from the wnrio,°..„ . e . line of the Aspen Townsite to or near the said Roaring Fork River. The streets, blocks and Tote named above relate to the City and Townsite of, tupen, County of Pitkin, ,State of Colorado. , TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SANE, Together with all and singular the appurtenances C and privileges thereunto belonging or in anywise thereunto appertst "s nv, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the said parties of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit-and behoof bf the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns, forever. IH WITNESS WHEREOF, The said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Presence 'of Grace_eward ,Rotten peal Margaret Dean/as. to Lary Ionise Potter . " peal) . • • SPAT2 u8 I, Margaret Deane, Notary Public in and for said County, a the State • aforesaid, do hereby certify that Graoe.Howard Potter personally known 6o me to be the person'-whosq name is sabecribed to the foregoing Deed, appeared before de this day in . person, aanndd acknowledged that She signed, sealed and delivered the' said instrument of writingles free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set forth. • • :,t,1 27.1s: enter my hand and Seal, this 9th day of February, • • 147 Commission expires • 3 19 Margaret Doane' : ' • • Not• dg Public, State of f lloriees at Niles. for record this 19th day of February A. D. 193, at 11:06 A. M. Y. M. neihardt #58898 . THIS DEED, made this 4th' day of December 1936, between Grace Howard Potter, of the City, County and State of New York, and Mary Ionise Potter, of the County of San . Francisco and State of.California, parties of the first part, and Narie Loniee Potter, ' of the Co my of Pitkin and State of Colorado, perty'of the Second part: . - WITNESSETH, that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration • of the sem of One Dollar($1.00), lawful money of the United Stetas of America, and d other valuable Considerations, •to the said parties of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and-oy thes °resents to grant, bargain, sell, : • convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever, all the following desari*ed lot or paroelof land., situate, lying and being in the County • pf Pitkin and State of peLaredo, to -wit: Lot 0 in Block 63 jaomatines known as Lot IS in said Block 63-) and so assessed in ' • the County Treasure ;?s Office in said Pitkan County, State of Colorado, in the City L of Aspen, County of Pitkin and. State of Glared°. ALS0 all thq,rigk{t, title and interest of the parties of the first part in and to • the lot of parcel of land now in possession of the parties of toe first part and formerly oomprising s part • o f i,Fr a nois Street adjacent to Center Street and to Bald Lots A, B, C and D in B1iq$ 63„ which lot'or pares' is bownded ce. the i0RTH by the soutnerly • line of said tote A S, Mend tend oy Center Street; on the RASt by the .prolongation Of the masterly 11�e ,of ,Quid ,Lot D; on the SOUTH cy a line parallel or nearly so with C he • former southerly gide, el_: Francis Street and Distant Twelve (12} feet, more or less, From said southerly Aide of Francis Street; and on the WEST by Center Street and Francis . Street. TOOKB1ER with • all and singular the hereditaments end appurtenances thereunto belong- • ing, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and . remainders, rents, issues and 9.11.tp. $l:flrep [ a@y g r t •tl� terest, claim ehd demand whatsoever of, `3d"'db" $' as ed prSt6asbl6"'9'Er�ed- itaments and appnrtendnoes.^ TQ HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the ap- purtenances, unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hinds and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: Grape Howard Potter • (Seal) Maria Kennedy Tod • Mary Louise Potter. (Seal) Helen Campbell • State of Connecticut. County of Fairfield - I Harry C. Frost in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do .. hereby certify that GRACE HOWARD POTTER and dARY LODISD POTT3R,'who are personally known to me to be the persons whose names are suoeoribed to the apnea Deed, appeared before me : this day in person, and acknowledged that they signed, sealedd� and delivered the said • inat nt of writing as their free and voluntary act, for the uses and purposes therein set fe Given vnded my hand and sea]., r3e%14.,.: this 4th day of December, A. D. 1936 . Ha Ord yet . - y�r • Oo661ssioa a ire: Fab 1 959 o err P¢ blic Fi led' for t 19t y if'S February A. D. 1937 at 31:f A. M. Y. Y. Neihardt Reo o.ffiev ans4.4641 5.5 • • l!o...dy'/nil a .a . )162t 6) /7 f y /99 J: g .: - . 7 . • EXHIBIT 1 7 ENGINEERING REPORT FROM SGM PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER EXHIBIT 100 W FRANCIS LLC 111 WEST FRANCIS LLC I 8 601 E HYMAN AVE 28 ROCK RIDGE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06831 AMATO JOSEPH A ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASPEN VALENTINE LLC PO BOX 503 STUDIES C/0 GERSCHEL & CO HIGHLAND MILLS, NY 10930 100 PUPPY SMITH ST 600 MADISON AVE SUITE #1601 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10022 BRADY WILLIAM JB III CITY OF ASPEN ERWIN GREGORY D 14671 FIELDSTONE DR ATTN FINANCE DEPT 11248 JOHN GALT BLVD SARATOGA, CA 95070 130 S GALENA ST OMAHA, NE 68137 ASPEN, CO 81611 FABRY PAUL A FAMILLIE ALPENHAUS LLC GORMAN PATRICIA B 1127 BOURBON ST 1509 N PROSPECT AVE 1426 ROSE GLEN RD , NEW ORLEANS, LA 70116 -2709 MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 GLADWYNE, PA 19035 HENRY FREDERICK B TRUST JOHNSON RICHARD & MONTAE IMBT KRUMM DONALD PAUL REV TRUST 100 W HALLAM ST 6820 BRADBURY PO BOX 874 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEWIS JONATHAN D REV TRUST LEWIS TOBY D TRUST NICHOLSON JOHN J 414 N FIRST ST C/0 KRABACHER & SANDERS C/0 EDWARD WHITE & CO LLP ASPEN, CO 81611 18930 S WOODLAND RD 21700 OXNARD ST STE 400 CLEVELAND, OH 44122 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 NOLAN WILLIAM C JR RANDALL ELLEN SEGUIN WILLIAM L & MARILYN 202 WEST 19TH 25 BRIAR HOLLOW LN PO BOX 4274 EL DORADO, AR 71730 HOUSTON, TX 77027 ASPEN, CO 81612 SUTTON KERMIT S & JENNY W US POSTAL SERVICE WATERS DANIEL E 715 TENTH ST SOUTH WESTERN REGION BCSTOCK VICTORIA C NAPLES, FL 34102 SAN BRUNO, CA 94099 422 NORTH ST GREENWICH, CT 06830 WINTON CHARLES B & BARBARA M ADLER LOU REV TRUST 2949 AVALON AVE C/O EDWARD WHITE & CO LLP BERKLEY, CA 94705 21700 OXNARD ST #400 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 EXHIBIT 9 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A¢reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and SC Acauisitions, LLC c/o J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Historic Landmark Desinnatlon, Subdivision and Ordinance 48 Negotiation, (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application, 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2,940 which is for twelve (12) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: Chris Bendon SC Acquisitions, LLC Community Development Director by J. Bart Johnson, Authorized Representative (00D03162/ 1 } 0�. .,.`n I 1 - q = .. :,2, " " $ ° ^ ° m my o u e � g a tai = 1,1 e � €` � ^I u� e g a ( f � . .4 g s E • "4 aralEe,��o, yC �^ P ^ ' b° fl � � M e u£ e2 ^pe p \L) (i\ M 2Po o °Ug a " =C)` m; u N m ° E " e e ¢� "' € g « L ilt t ig er" ° o g aiE €,^e� ^fie u o J C `U 24%4-) m £ m u $ „ ° L� e m €EE n ¢ e ▪ n ° ° ∎ ° It a %,,`' E p c ¢ ^= o Y e S° $ °' O 4) .;,,,,g Y � �Y "g� o e£ . 00 ° £ m. -OCe° a • °' E £ o vpu0 °u o ..° e f e fl >. C ° o" u ° ° °° N 1. ° € o g ° ;t Sp` • O \ °¢z Y V. °Oa: a a o `c `Eeaa L.- „,aaa nk ca , E . -: a " $ c € Pg $Ea o e t"�y c eos o o ` o E ▪ € & c am° !. .. . c Y a ` uuo E , u Y .� � pe< ` " a w ae� ^ o ` g 8s E e ^ nB i " . � q $pp 8 o � ' Y � . m: - € " ?e e £p° m \ °�crv.= - �..:o` " 4 m A 4 ° €£e° ue "o2u Ea £ °O b - o ° " §e'-_ -EE s o' v= 1s!til ° o , n k n g o LoQa E . -)E a. ee ` 8E `Oe " =° a rse' € °P : " 3 ° x Y SS ° " g <d '[t> t g�gry " €'`e <o E ; a` "e n a > e ` € p E ° Y a g O se �Em Yam " e"` io ,E "° e, y c ¢ %.%..% g 'g e € cb =¢o m?,E t uoae 1V� Yi `'^¢ "Lm ` a • _ aI E c --,-,..t, d 2 L1 zs �£ 1, ¢ : F c ` m b d o„ ° urOE k p 4 £p° c ` 8 "P "En S b m ° : c ' E S Y,. " = E c n m E °EE c E N ^s t ` ° °3 e '^ ° N £ F° 'Sm ° i t r m Y °8c eq t °Z c¢ " • < °°E ') s_ S o b 2k"m; y " K ` E ``HI�w E Zi P E s : : b € d g a s a b 1 ?' 1 ' g ne z ry 'ly ¢ \ @ £g " eu°SS„aE¢ ` -me n .U `k E b= 6 B1 pF -E liteatz°Ligt °u°�gC£ pit ,041019,- £ -. 41 cu (1) v 'FS � ^w °" Pi g ." w` E llEse : w58h8da €g °�F_c E y g z ° o ° n e ° 't1 i �1 gem � 8 " , � o f e Lao E ��E ° � ,5 C ° 3 80 8 , `48 3 p. hex ` °a 4 Q em "h `o ° E $ e v - m t°°¢m -E�rvm e ° P E eE ig £ °oo 5 E SE °,E "> - -O Sn 0 ¢ Rem ° m `too €^ E.o. ^t" c ! a �e ,,iaL ° S^Lg , E¢ Y S d¢ €:°oa ° 3 ' - '[m Eg erg ` =g o € ° ° - 'g1$ il "YpEF @ eE5 € rttot% Ei>c= "° ¢ i iri: 8 " � P b B � F < ,....4 to ri° ° �• “C “,° -¢ €. ar=" E to Ce b e %E % i - .Ygg.". �-E°` pF . ° m teo�..E2 Yu E F o=u ° c°e "S €i � c�i6eo c'^?e *�`tm `o YbgB i ° = eq " 4 E �o a ,e �F' 8c $ F � �: p (�\ e &m °^ ° i ,m°E ' . E E 3 ° €c m Na O . T • . ! EKES` ) W o ° ° °u ^ � * v -0 EE z „ , e $ ; Eo £ , . : ”, , „ , , a°,c ,, ,. °pEon ° n, -. o °Eg mmEa `owX ` S' £ Y 8 E D s` "og � .. m (y c b3 m ° yb $,ei8ei, 1.h$,£ ^a . " ;fo „ g vg 9 g c c ^ mq o oe B .. gP N£`me Y � E b e C' r b v n y h oSImr ^ ¢°'Y €T n”' e "n Y E ° , ` n o ECS ° E`°¢ °' F E E E ° ° ° u�E a� o P it O” E .F, I m ® ou 3.¢m;,,, M.bm,e " " 2° 1 I I IbY¢¢ PmP'e Y " -- Y8 Y3 °,¢ °¢a Eb` hY, - £F ts : i nm H a " nlJ i `m N c' 1 1� oPw h O N ¢ 11 W p .� .� F f g U a d em o n E s s - a m Lu a Iv b (n In E n E Y " s e = a < p4. / � > ` l J ` s 2 -� RF a5 z E £ VI P. a -.€ 2" j1O9 ✓� £ mh.N . tc ft N aecti� 's. s as E 090 a a&®O©4XQ* Fcx 1pO®® 9 Q / 2 'I III a ; ° a . t a" aa sre'12'oo'w � h 50 6'18`51 W \-` yr , a w /03.11 � 1R N i �q d ,9 � ( / 1W 0. m ctl •z1 Av h v - _ � N...= nos Pot _ on f ea, a 4 , o ( v • , w 1 *C \ 0 � 1 � 11 // jJ +� .. 0 ^ 4 P \ . 41 V I l 1 ,� / ,+° 1 5 y ; ° ti �1 1 1111 i� 1 1 / "� �°' �r 59 C 11 � I I ' I I 1 � / / t a � . , I II i u{Y 9, et o \V a ° fdA1• " 4 i y ___ y B'IOl l 1 * 11 1 �Im111111V \\ " :� 1 �1,' ,= AA? �0 1 ° v N i • n W -01 1 / y _-. ass 't - W I D LO N pl w / ' 1111111 11 1 � I / g p V I!, y 'I'' CO 9 0 r` IA I � � m m^ 111 I w 1 11 I II 11 h { $$rE / - II q V II ui _ PI . -, o %I 1�. b 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 I ti / a N 0 O I � 1 � / / � ) ,° 0� 11� [ O ?.� y o C o8< No) I p / * . °` lab �h h tl .1� wN O 11 I I I� ic 1 i6 . ° .2 �0 lan (um b o 1F yl Z au I 1 !11 8 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 111 1 ` . � / _° 3 »" ` --. �°OOm u o _ g x ^ I ^11I j 1 1 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 1L _, , e I 1111 1 1 111 11 9- o li ° ; � e� rn — ° " 1 1/ /� 0 / � .� _ b "Al) ' It zze : a IF 6 _ ° , rm 2sC 'e Gar et ° •,r= - v tre O 1 S a I 1 \ m " o i IIII I 0 o t VA . m " _ Ei`�.m f�. ti _ Y ° - w d - r n a a� 5' -4.84,-.0.---....... v I I � w p5 E g 19 m'° N _ -- °, �` N O .\ o f €ma 4U a 'aa a t mu 54 9'E _ e v e ' Vat Cp e ";s La q co I SS Lt.,C,") 411 _,---61 I--- 1 ,.F 11 fir - I NNW' Ei ; filial rrvH "44rr 9199 +a Io e•..o•+Iwe *1509 9599 .a 5o oa.. -=s ao.._flS.m°laww.a,•ew: ra°..no,mw , r O ilzs C 0 3 g O R y O O o m N W ° - Y v`'o 0 0 b. C^ dory '0.c om ' < L k O ^ to \ \ \ \ 5 v �J V o o h \� o . c a z 1 D g { z�� ' \ " e3,h \ ov a T � Q ∎♦ \ ` ' a\ , 4-C ry Cb iry; _ 41 1 W ♦♦ \ v \ o o v 4 ~^ V z ^ '-\41 ,� � _I \ • °• \ o Q-.:`,-,! t �� J W W "V L i U - I •� Q +t., J 0.� LI \) ° q 1 B 8 3 ^I ,LlI tlm''o a iri •r.. 5 - O 9 � Y R U p 5a rf ! 41-11 6 w V9 1�0 1 II 0 so 9' 2 70 0 5 518'12 00"W �l , �, 1087Y 4 505 "W a ° 40 3.11 e ae9 . A °� ee �,1 ' / - pde l- W cu cor 41, d � al LI CI) c q O (�� u U •� V.1 1 m V Inrierti ' 11�I / l f II � I I , I ` Ii I 'III/ I, I' m I • -V m „, ' I ''I t3/4-411 1�' �f / T. i i z, ° ' 1 11 111111 11 i w( n t a 1 ,l I \A \ 3:' �I q ' III r o� N li Il i) mcnN I m ° °° a m �r< w o��� m m iiiiii ii i J � itl �� 0pt 0 0 �'L*iln'Liii Iii Oyu °'�nrn � 'iII IU i �I�$I C a s O = � �° k -1 W" i ii i li 0 Wt a.- r 1 1 I o l __ w ,o n, SW I v "' ' Il I I .I I' �I it III 1 , -. I m K I, VIII 1 1 / V ' �` u5-55 _ i ii I 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 � / _ X0 -- " \ / 1 I 1 �� �� G BrWJ5c h z I � 1 $ tree' 0 5 _ 1j11j a . I E ,� 3 r g- ('fig r N 40 SR � Fr E° m °m.. RV� but ? i n S u . 2 i es� � 61N b S w F 6 @ h O 11 I $8 12 FN _. ---- 6 E En -- o� NO 7 b o • _ ai E °H of - —il e € l - of \ RR,- ¢2 .ti !WV! 5i�9 E_ < U ' i ^ V S N— Noq; F' e C ¢1 e!s ie zq � � esgz °EE€ V Si£.ii4Y I � PF�e g4 1111111111112 yl �Ee�F F O Okla +w• �iir aia[ ro is vu rvrnf 00s0n 0<00 w <0 rw -v&es W0- nee^.�^*0W.PlI i<s0# u tm rotlo0xl ro r r • C't l'IoNli L. r co q O q p N b h v O F J 03 6 03 (� \ 4 0 F l� •N1 Or q 43 43 W CZ p2 N N N N M "r N N ' 0 O p p O p O Q Q Z Q Q Q Q Q p Q O w. .M rCI o o` a o L o o •E o C 15, b N b U O ' O ` V "�'rb" Nh N " r+l '1 y N N O N ( v� ° �� � � p ^ O b � ° 1 5 ° O e o ''(121) Q Qw ^� Q ^b e;°Nn pp ' p j $ d $ Td !\ m00° m °N h fg al N 4 d Q l Q b b b b � W ° W ° °p W°° Wb �~ '� o m m O °o RI m° o C `ti g0 p,00 b�0 p,00 'H �N c '-' � �N� C O O ® w0 mp mpww gipww mpww '^Y �^ O m000 mb00 m000 m000 \ L . ) , O y G °N"1 0RA t ° Nh � ° Hh V ij Z N.I �� v amino 0 vOa• 0 0 E11111 0 001.• J J J :L N4 m p II III III, , ! L i Q ' ti 'S1 - 1 4111111 * „A% 1 401 4 1 5 p9 52 �0 j � e '41..- .4141111111i I. N. 108 � � ApP $p6 . j8 '51 "w \ ..... d �p 1 1. J q tJ /� �F ,---- - ,-- "...- I I 4. II' 11° -."111111 N h44 , r __,,..... _,J._.. 1 I ,.,,.., , ,,_., , 1 ° O t ,....., ,.., I I ' __I- 4 \ 1 1 1 1 Lt V 1 CO . '.1 . 7 _,..--. - , f --,-- .-- -41,1 , I : t,c) . ___...,„ Itillibb- r r 3N 7� q �y ':1.. A ly'�dp ad Li ddd '" I' I \ ` f '41 F ' . , E" c -J f ! f t� `I' W -01 ea o , 20_7E - - c L yr pIn N I i � I u. II - - - t - - -- o L , • HI( I / ...g tn n •� rn 111 C ‘r r / J r� 3 d p 7 3 •y!3 n I 'If i M U O ,, \\„.,..,, � � / V • e,..: 'I i ' mss ti. c4 �?0 0 . _,..-/ ( 4 w . . o li III u) %11440.4014,411 4111 I '..I ` , xc0 Z VI j1 �1 'e ` �'y'jr Gar m 1s � h Z ; I� et °, '\ 1 \ \)... \\.... ::::::---- - f h9 Street a „ \ \\ 134 Y! o `1N 0 V\ �• ;, \� 112. i __ s� £ LL E ^ £,IK�__. - ,65'! 6b,0 rn N0719715'6 , [ q Q E ` 1 ca 14 EOlt. kr) L4 iF o ,!i 'M P1 0)d/O.,. 0/07 0W 10 PAN . P 0 l1%d ....'0.1 0101 �0 10 '7 :p. ...V- pn...760)S,6+7I07 b3 I..10 o7 TM ll + W N gg V m J N • O$ 8 y5yY a,4 E 1 W ww w pW g al F 0E-1 aUJ fy 1111 1 .... W ffiam 1 D Li g Q a i�. m Cn vJ halo! lI i ' z z i 1 LL ¢ 333 Q zO Z t g Ws P o � 7 K 1 , O ° 4 , Z W R < ° U W 1 ,� A p a 1-- . oo 1 a � S Ill Lo • ° I s Z w ifi 26 ,, ° J • L tl , 1 9 a i ima w i c 1 1 i LL I 0 '- ?Hz • ° a u� y$ 1 „0 tl -e 8a Fyoi 2 i w'n �' ° ci •.\ �u� 24 u' w� w • N 2 Z �E W F Z K , 11/` IJ , l i i J e/p- i // it _ _ / — / ` . r /� / r _ ' . / / " .:.::.': .1 . -:. : . - _ _ 7 • ./ .. ---- ---:-::__„_'''''-s'.•:z z -7- - ...:::: :::: ......__ 4 .. ;;;: .: . \.. „ --:-: / ii/ ¢ %ice - -- - l J � / i / // / / /. /� ��� �3doia�N ` _ 71.. —f J i - ' �� r / 11/1///7///15//////////7 l / / / / // / l i�� � '/ / - - -- ?/ I 3d°13AN3`JNIOl1f16 � /i / , . --- is ______ ..-.... , .... tv v, '''1711/ //� o/ 4 /• /�� // / / / ,: a ;6 / el s � j � � � ° u : 4 1 \ -0, 4.,', /!/ / / /M if,, , 1,i/p1„.. , ii I : gi \ 1- 0D /Y 4 -` ._... ■ I'! I / / //l + 'l + ' +'/ rl Ill; i/, . ' 6A ° i % \' O f 1 / g9 I— 0 ` . f g 4 � 1 i ` Iiid +( + ' I ;s.° r / ` o � 0 N e ”` ` c '''' ./1 / WW I '1 fl'' + !+'ll pr, rw. wQi J N a d a` , Qt r'ca 1 11 11 1i 1 it I l // ! �N3o 0 , • ,_ / 4 . , z„) I 1; I 1 ! 1! �.. • I!� N oun 011 11�� 11' // ////,////////: ,3 a, ii. / / �/ / ii j l 1 1 � ! 1 l / 1 11 i / iiiiimo,,,, • . , //j l //� � �� , `` l beoby ` / ' /' , lpl/ I/ ;r /r / / // / �� w . ■ s. ' i% ' / „., / +/! /�/ I / - 1. /3"O13,w �'),P ( � ! > 1.11 I_ j � w z/ �'' ;I l l,:: / ////011 1 r; /, / / a > °� / j r l LL (7 w / / � 1 ! ' i % il ili l'l � � Y / y ./ -- � co ,.. , z 0 4 I r 7 / 2 G °\ r ~ l I %.9.,,,,,z., I tl t I / ' I/ HP* I /// 0 '` l' ( — (NI p .,,,,,,,,,,.... ' :: — ,,, ,-- 1 ..; I /�i /i l / /,/ f I � l \ / J N \ 0 0 n 1 O X1 I I! +1 I11I � � �'� -- J N \ \ W v a 1 1 , ',, /r �,; 'lJ' „ , � 7 - 'u / rar\ 1 V.. ,\ / Q 1 11 1 ' l z ww�° - ' t � • / : - ,Ii l ��il � } I i t ' 'j' i i'i 1 ',' , o I .. \ l � ' N o ' F W' / f I ' I 1 �in • 1 � \ / � j i. , -,..9, \ 5 ,,, 1/ r �... / w EL , ,., .. W ' ‘ 4 ` 1 ' 1 ' 4 , ,oz, i e; 5 ./._____/ „„..... �,�, s.............._ arobs �' sue/ / �\ \ ...._.. i r. G 1 � I \ w se 1 ! '\:: / �SSI/y 1 1 1 r r i 1 w I I 1 8 d 1 4 1 w 1 I , ii iii 1 cm.,,,,,,,,,,_, l;�'6l 0 z-,, til! U II, � � 0 N _ m 0 Z 4 i .Q N Q V m HZ "' v— lb 11i + i U o — g_ -6 e.- h 6 ° w u i w ° r w } i t e 9 m 1 3-E E $ gi d 0 o a a o a y OW In mime O,p -;71 U .p 6 O O 1 _ 1 ¢ w m O t m O t Y m e- w w I a Y Y Z F v << �j R = j m0 O K O w O° O o o b 0. FF-N9 :40 A s). ¢ a a , 5 u a 0 z a w U' w z a _, IL w N I 6 NNU 2 a i U I y W 11 6 iLL1 5j g \> _ T — 7 _ \ b / � ` . , � _' ///;,,,- „7",- _______,---;_ '....' . ,,07 ./. / , ..r f 1 / ----- , „... .„, a - - . :: : ,.. 4: -- ;: ,.. ..„--- ;: _____ -:-..--, --. -----, .-,____-- is ,_____________ 1___ _, ______---______--, - '+'■.:-,., )2 , / ,/,./..=--ls'-z:::____"--\\--/-z:--_-17.-----7-:--4--: ' „-' / / // / / ; , J/ �� �� /mil / L 1 , w 1 r \ -l.y ` ° 9 ' /40 - * � �' g ) ® b � 1 o I � \ i� 3 .. 380, , 1 / NUJ � , `�� "' i / s � " — 1:9a!)6 1 � � ,° o � i �® � ° � - -�- -� 1 ,l� 1 a; ®a� 2 -L1 ,4 7 1 1 / I t tF �Q I 1 m� h ill L3 m � y ` '/] � d3' O/ � / / r iii,fi / / ! ti ZW ` t aO 1 ml 0 `. . , , r� / / I 1 ` �� 3m � I 11, r 1 ., ,� � � .A., - . -fit' r � `� 1 4 Z' / / ,,,,, /, . I r ' - lir ail 4 _ /1/ ii \ // IF – i' `` ,2 \ V am I / ti /® � 0 / , 1 1 - I. ' > i g 14 , r , _-`* 4 i2 . / SS / 8 � � /1 _ I \ t 1 / C� (r) 2 t Y h ,r S . z a _ b �wrr z 1/ ,�;, - F �' ( /.h1:: o S — 1 � H- - V \ 1 uull ` �! ' ; ` / d , y ° �/ � j/ A ` ~` \ ~ two l 1 I 1 4) i i . 0 1 i , - W —>.1 P: o / \ \N'"I id A 1 ' \-- I ° wz , _ ,411*? . 5s r� '6 P 1 b + 3 oa� o Mm \ ;" I N I I o+' I N° w 1 pat il I 1 �+ O 1 1 1 1 1 < 1394/is HJsfrim,'J / 1 1 2 1 1 / 1 id I / 1 1 i I I y I 1 , 1 / I I / 1 I I r'.w VI ' 43 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: CJ Oliver, Sr. Environmental Health Specialist THRU: Lee Cassin, Public Health Agency Director DATE OF MEMO: December 30, 2010 MEETING DATE: January 10, 2011 RE: Proposed amendments to City Smoking Ordinance (13.16) REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is the second reading of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen smoking ordinance (13.16). The ordinance passed on first reading on December 6, 2010. Council is being asked to approve amendments to the current smoking ordinance that would allow for the City to designate selected areas of city owned outdoor property as non- smoking areas. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen currently has a Smoking Ordinance which addresses smoking in indoor areas and does not allow for smoking in common areas of indoor facilities owned by the City. The current ordinance does not address smoking on outdoor City owned property. Smoking in some of these outdoor areas has become an issue from both a health and nuisance standpoint and these proposed changes look to grant the City authority to rectify those issues. These proposed changes are supported by The Aspen School District, the Aspen Police Department, and the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department. DISCUSSION: These proposed amendments are being brought to council to allow the City to designate outdoor areas which are owned by the City as non - smoking areas. The need for these changes has come about as a result of smoking in certain areas which has created an uninviting and unhealthy atmosphere for residents and visitors. Specifically, the bridge which connects the school campus with the Aspen Recreation Center as well as the area around the recreation fields at the Aspen Recreation Center are currently being used as smoking areas, frequently by students. This situation creates an unhealthy environment for the students who use the bridge to access the ARC as well as residents and visitors using the facilities. The proposed changes to the current smoking ordinance would allow the City to designate these and other areas as non smoking areas. The current ordinance grants the authority to make these designations to the City Manager. We anticipate the City Manager will designate that authority to the appropriate Facilities Manager in collaboration with the Public Health Agency Director. The current smoking ordinance only addresses smoking in indoor areas. The proposed amendments would grant the City authority to Page 1 of 2 designate outdoor property as non smoking areas as well. The proposed changes do not convert all outdoor city property to non smoking; designations will be made on an individual basis. FINANCIAL /BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed amendments would not have a financial impact on the City. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the proposed amendments are passed they will help to provide cleaner and safer air to those enjoying our outdoor facilities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed amendments to the Smoking Ordinance to allow the City to designate certain outdoor areas of City owned property as non - smoking areas. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to not accept the proposed changes and continue to allow smoking on all outdoor areas of City owned property. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # 32 Series of 2010 allowing the city to designate certain outdoor areas of city property as nonsmoking areas." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #32 Series 2010. Proposed revised language for the Smoking Ordinance. Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. _32_ (Series of 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.16 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES. WHEREAS, Chapter 13.16 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES sets forth the areas within the City of Aspen where smoking is prohibited; and WHEREAS, since the last amendment of this provision of the Code in 1996, addi- tional concerns have arisen regarding smoking on certain outdoor areas of City property; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Police Department, Aspen Environmental Health Depart- ment, and the Aspen School District have recommended that Council extend the smoking prohibition to certain, posted areas of City owned property; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. T etet being removed leeks-like-this, • Text being added is bold and underline. Text bein¢ added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The City Council hereby amends Section 13.16.030. Definitions., by the following addition: (d) Public place means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including, but not limited to: Banks, education facilities, health fa- cilities, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail stores, retail ser- vice establishments and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a public place. Public place shall also include outdoor City owned property as set forth in Section 13.16.040 below. The City Council hereby amends Section 13.16.040. Smoking prohibited., by the addi- tion of subparagraph (h) to read as follows: fh) Outdoor areas of City owned property. It shall be unlawful to smoke on any area of City owned property which has been designated a non smoking area. Such areas shall be clearly marked with appropriate no smoking signage. 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. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately. Section 5. Notice A public hearing on the ordinance was held on , in the Aspen City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena St., 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 day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney VHIb MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner..,3t? 1 THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Growth Management Allotment Carry - Forward Review – Public Hearing Resolution No. (p , Series of 2011 - DATE: January 10, 2011 SUMMARY: The purpose of this public hearing is a review of the "unused" growth allotments from 2010 and a decision on the amount to "carry- forward" to the 2011 growth management year. Each year, a certain amount of growth is allotted for development projects. The available allotment is a combination of the standard annual allotment and the carry- forward allotment. Carry- forward Available development _ annual + allotment from prior allotments allotment Year The City's Land Use Code specifies the annual allotments in various land use categories as follows: Development Type Annual Allotment Residential — Free- Market 18 units Commercial 33,300 net leasable square feet Residential — Affordable Housing No annual limit Lodging 112 pillows Essential public facility No annual limit Growth allotments granted in 2010 are summarized in Exhibit A. According to the Land Use Code, "the City Council shall determine the amount of unused and unclaimed allotments, for each type of development, and may assign the unused allotment to become part of the available development allotment for future projects. There is no limit, other than that implemented by the City Council, on the amount of potential growth that may be carried forward to the next year." City Council may carry- forward up to 8 free- market residential allotments, 1,644 square feet of commercial space, and 20 lodging pillows, which went unclaimed in 2010. 1 The Land Use Code provides criteria for this carry - forward review. The City Council may carry forward any portion of the previous year's unused allotment, including all or none. "The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward: 1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period. 3. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 4. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Considering these criteria, staff recommends that none of the potential growth be carried forward. A more detailed analysis of these review criteria can be found in Exhibit 13. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011. carrying - forward none of the unused 2010 growth management allot ents. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No.4 , Series of 201 1. ALTERNATE MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. (.0 , Series of 2011, with the following amendments ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution No.b_, Series 2011 Exhibit A — Summary of 2010 growth management allotments Exhibit 13 — Carry Forward Review Criteria 2 RESOLUTION NO. l� (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING THE "CARRY - FORWARD" GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR 2011. WHEREAS, pursuant to City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.470.030.D and 26.470.040F', the City Council shall review, during a public hearing, the prior year's growth summary, consider a recommendation from the Community Development Director, consider comments from the general public and shall, via adoption of a resolution, establish the number of unused and unclaimed allotments to be carried forward and added to the annual allotment; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said sections and considering the following criteria, the Community Development Director has provided a recommendation to carry - forward none of the unused growth management allotments from 2010: I . The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The community's growth rate over the preceding five -year period. 3. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. 4. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 10, 2011 the City Council considered the recommendation by the Community Development Director, comments from the general public at a public hearing, and the above criteria and approved Resolution No. , Series of 2011, by a to ( _J vote; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the decision to carry forward none of the unused growth allotments from 2010 meets or exceeds all applicable standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution 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, COLORADO: That the City Council carries forward none of the unused growth management allotments from 2010 to be available in 2011. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this 10' day of January, 2011. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 2 a a a a a a a a a a) a) a) m a) a) m a) 0 a) 0) o) o) o) O' m O O O O O > > > C > c c c C u1 "D 2 a a s o.n.o. a a a C c c C W - a a 0. a a a a 0. a) a a) a) m a) N u; o < < < < < < < < d < a a a a O 0) c u) m 7 m c -a c _ Cn V w r- 0 X m Ci C ^ U p N O (7 U — 2 O c @ a a. O 3 7 3 7 g c N N N N > N >.N E E a Q 000010°6 Cate j - 0 o E m a a a a O a O 0 o O O O — a N c R ( a U U U U U U j c E 2 a w a o) 3 0 Q p E m an d p c c C.0 m Q E E _ o O L N .c • a) E N T O r o O O o O O O o o Lo O C - ' ' p } a) r O c O r r 0 r O r r r d d a) _ E U O (y O O N O N 0 0 0 0 C C C C .:a .7 C O C . N N N N N N N p) 0) 0) ` O V-. t0 r el a O M O <D t0 tp r N N M N m a) E -o M r r r r 'N E 03 a) 0 y y 0 - o o 'C a 'C .. r *. co E m S 0 C ce a'Cr ct o re o o O c c c c a� m N E L p x '— as m c : . ch o m U d O u) 0 m - c m n a a y O 3 0 C c m a m co O ur O C N 'CO- as < 0 S Q Q Q * 'a 0 0 O 0 N 0 N r- 0 0 O O < N 7 .O C :. Z Z Z o o o n z = a m C y L() N N m C d § O) CD d a ' L j w T Ch f/) F. U 5 V) N N W - ? .0 N C O U li a = N E . — m o O d co C (0 a) m 0 a) a) O L a) t u) O H . @ L m = w W oO . C a c Z Z Z 0 a0 r O O O O O CO O 1� Z p O) )n N L O _ Q ' C N o a) m w u) 0 _0 Y c w m (1) a) h 3 ° E CO 3 N N 0 0 C O 'O 0 r O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O co O" O O 0 d c > U O= r r O > co ..E. J 0) al v L a) a C CO Cll - ° c cco E co — O o w - Q a) c a) m C a) o o m} m 0 is c _ E E E .L d m 0 O O a x = a) L I O y w .G 0 0 0 O O O N d' E 3 N E 0 Q E ct) as co M O co O N O O O O a - 0 0 0 O 4 N O CD C a) CO 0) CO co 0 3 CO ti O m )` RS U v E > �� ° o C O 2 u) L N E E E C f° n C -C CO Q — m m m° 6 n L .N (7 m cu U E ` i-� C m m 7 ,..a?, O 0 N C d CO C y 0 2' N N a) a) a E O r 0 0 r r 0 0 N 0 0 CO "Cr O 0 W N 0) a CO O 'a, O m c r E 0 o v CO LL CU a) > CU L 0 L 0 H U) H r m T a O _ _ x 4-. r ° T } � 2 0 0 o -° a o c = a E E c u) a) ° E Q c ¢ c co a) a) E m m a) a) E 0 N� E m C G) U ; � Y 0 c, CO o m o m = 0 o a) - M mm 0 a) 0 o. = fQ o C "' .� .- 2 O C L 2 o U 2 - U C —) a) > Q u) 0 C a CU m Q a6 Q C o = > w 1 co E C ) Q t n C O 0 c c m a) C IT) N a) _ ? N = c c Q LlJ m U O fn a . >. w L L 0 > r (D W a a) L.L 0 J Q • CO U -5 N a E 0) 0 w 0 co M co o Q co cc H 2 CD vc� 0 m .. Z 0 Exhibit B: Growth Management Carry - Forward Review 26.470.030.F, Accounting Procedure: "The City Council shall consider the following criteria in determining the allotments to be carried forward:" 1. The goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: One of the main goals in the 2000 AACP was to control growth at a 2% rate. The current Growth Management System does this for new free - market, commercial, and lodging development through the use of allotments. Most of the available allotments for 2010 went unclaimed. While this means the City of Aspen is within the 2% permitted growth rate for 2010, rolling the allotments over could result in a higher growth rate in the future if those allotments are used. 2. The community's growth rate over the preceding five-year period. Staff Response: The growth rate has been fairly consistent over the past few years, and has almost always used all the available allotments. City Council has not chosen to roll over the leftover allotments in the past few years. 3. The ability of the community to absorb the growth that could result from a proposed development utilizing accumulated allotments, including issues of scale, infrastructure capacity, construction impacts and community character. Staff Response: This is a review criterion in growth management when a development proposal is brought forward. Based on current data, staff believes there is enough physical infrastructure to accommodate new development. 4. The expected impact from approved developments that have obtained allotments, but that have not yet been built. Staff Response: There are a number of projects that have requested growth management approvals, but do not yet have final approval from P &Z and /or City Council. These include the boomerang change in use, and the Given Institute. In addition, there are a number of projects that have received growth management allotments and City Council approval but are still in construction or have not started. These include Jerome Professional Building, Stage 3, Hannah- Dustin (commercial portion), Phase 2 of the Hospital, 301 W Hyman affordable housing, and the Crandall Building. Vitt MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director n I FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer, RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #25, Series of 2010, 220 and 230 E. Main Street, The Cortina Lodge, Historic Landmark Designation DATE: January 10, 2011 (continued from December 6, 2010) SUMMARY: The Cortina Lodge is in the same ownership as the Hotel Jerome, who uses the property for employee housing. In 2007, The Hotel Jerome proposed an expansion which required a PUD amendment. Plans presented at that time included an upgrade to The Cortina property essentially gutting the inside of the buildings and reconfiguring the living units into a dormitory format. Council approved the PUD amendment, but one of the conditions of approval was that before the Hotel Jerome could act on plans for remodeling the primary hotel site they had to submit an application for voluntary designation of The Cortina. This is the reason that a landmark designation is being presented to Council. The Cortina remodel is under construction. There is a noteworthy amount of demolition and reconstruction involved in the project, primarily to correct structural deficiencies and deterioration from many years of overdue maintenance. HPC reviewed the landmark application on October 13, 2010 and found the designation criteria to be met by a vote of 5 to 0. Minutes are attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC appreciate the applicant's willingness to voluntarily designate this building. We find the criteria for Historic Designation are met. APPLICANT: Jerome Ventures, LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -707. ADDRESS: 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: MU, Mixed Use with Lodge Preservation Overlay. 1 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 The Cortina Lodge 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 Finding: The City of Aspen building permit files contain limited information about the original construction date for the buildings on the subject property. They are believed to have been constructed in the 1950s, initially as two one story cabins built of machine cut logs. Staff sent a photograph of the log profile to the Pan Abode company, who stated that neither the American or Canadian factories supplied these logs. The correct manufacturer is unknown. In the mid 1960s, Lou Wille, then owner of the property which was called Aspen Court, received a building permit for an expansion, designed by local modernist Rob Roy. Much of Rob Roy's work in Aspen reflected chalet style influences, which he appears to have brought to this lodge building as well. Work completed at that time included an addition at the front of the eastern building, and a second floor on the eastern building. No other alterations, aside from basic maintenance, are known to have occurred. The Hotel Jerome acquired the property in the 1980s, which by then had been renamed The Cortina, and began using it to house their employees. City Council is to determine whether or not the property meets the designation criteria. Staff and HPC find that Criteria A and C are met. Though the site has been converted to year round housing, it represents one of the few remaining examples of the small lodges that characterized Aspen's early ski years. It was designed as a motor court, like the Swiss Chalets (L'Auberge) on Main Street, and Waterman Cabins on the S- Curves, which have been demolished. The building is constructed of machine cut logs and the City has recently completed an updated historic context paper which demonstrates how common and significant this type of construction 2 was in the 1950s, when both building materials and contractors were in short supply here. The log construction was also important to the imagery of Aspen as a rustic mountain retreat. The 1960s remodel of the building reflects Chalet influences that were important to town as well. The renaming of the building after the Cortina ski area in Italy, which hosted the 1956 Winter Olympics, may illustrate Aspen's postwar eagerness to compete with the more established European ski resorts and appeal to tourists. The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff's score sheet is attached as Exhibit A. The property is challenging to score because it reflects two architectural influences, and the building is currently under construction for a remodel that alters some features. Over the years this property has really suffered from deferred maintenance, however it is very intact in terms of the appearance of the building during its original period of construction. Some replacement of materials is critical to bring the building up to current standards. In general staff finds the changes that are underway replicate, or are very close to historic conditions. The most significant alteration, where points have been deducted, is the reconfiguration and replacement of windows and doors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council approve Historic Landmark Designation for The Cortina Lodge. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2010, on Second Reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Exhibits: Ordinance #25, Series of 2010 A. Integrity Scoring Sheet B. HPC minutes, October 13, 2010 C. Application 3 ORDINANCE #25 (Series of 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 AND 230 E. MAIN STREET, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 73, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737 - 073 -20 -707 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jerome Ventures, LLC, represented by Poss Architecture and Planning, applied for landmark designation for the property located at 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to HPC dated October 13, 2010, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on October 13, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, the staff memo and public comments, and found the application consistent with the review standards and recommended approval to City Council by a vote of 5 to 0; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: 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 220 and 230 E. Main Street, Lots P and Q, Block 73, City and Townsite of Aspen. 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 was held on the 10th day of January, 2011, 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 25th day of October, 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC Integrity is the ability of a 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 SCORE:5 TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 5) = 5 • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the, form, plan, space, structure, and style of a properly. 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 SCORE: 10 ROOF FORM 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 SCORE: 10 (The roof is being rebuilt to address structural conditions.) 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 SCORE: 5 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 SCORE: 0 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 SCORE: 8 (The property is a combination of rustic style features and chalet style features.) TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 45) = 33 • 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 SCORE: 5 (The Cortina is still surrounded by most of the structures that would have been in existence when it was built, except for the gas station to the east. The dense, tourist accommodation /commercial district that surrounds the property today is its historic context.) 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 SCORE: 10 (Some materials are being replaced to match where repair is needed.) 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 SCORE: 3 (Most of the window and door units are being replaced, but would meet the design guidelines.) TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 25) = 13 • 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 ORNAMENTATION/IIAND -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 SCORE: 15 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 SCORE: 5 TOTAL POINTS (maximum of 20) = 20 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. STAFF SCORE: 76 points ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2010 Jamie said the loss of public space in the building is the issue. Greg said the public space was for the view not the common space. Nora said she voted for it the first time because of the view and now the view is lost. 220 E. Main, Cortina Lodge Landmark Designation Public notice exhibit I Amy explained that the Cortina Lodge has been owned by the Hotel Jerome since the 80's for their employee housing. When the Hotel Jerome came in asking for an expansion and upgrades to the main building one condition approved by city council was that the Cortina Lodge would submit for historic designation. The property is under construction for a much needed remodel. There is deferred maintenance that has occurred over the years. The building was built in 1950 as two side by side one story machine cut log buildings. It is a kit log building similar to a pan -a -bode building. The lodge operated as that size and is set up in a motor court configuration where you can pull up to the door. In 1965 the Wiley family owned the property and they hired Rob Roy who is a modernist and a second floor was added to the one building and an extension to the front. Other than that the building has not been changed. It was renamed in the 50's and possibly coincided with the Cortina, Italy hosting the winter Olympics and the concept was that the town of Aspen was trying to establish itself and wanted to be on the map. The designation criteria are met and we spent some time on the integrity scoring. One of the buildings is missing its roof and a good part of a wall toward the back. Everything that is being done is meant to replicate the original condition. The massing reads as it has for 40 years. A lot of the features down to the light fixtures are original. Staff recommends designation. Julie Maple with Poss architects: The applicant is happy to get this moving forward. Jason said at the site insulating the roof was discussed. Will that occur on the inside and the eaves remain thin? Julie said there will be a 2 x 6 frame and the eaves will not be as thin as the original ones. It will be a truss system. The ceiling will have a slight pitch with insulation. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2010 Ann asked how you can get an integrity scoring when there is nothing left. Julie said the entire building on the 230 building was listing and turning to the side and Jason and Amy came out to discuss and resolved taking the walls out as we were changing a lot of the windows to meet the floor plan criteria. Amy said HPC could come to the conclusion that the building is gone but staff said what is happening is a replication of the wall sections that will match the original and the replication of the walls was absolutely necessary. The building is in authentic condition and it is in a significant remodel right now but the material and evidence of its appearance is all there. Nora pointed out that this is an example of a motor court and the only example of a chalet motor court left. Jason said the Gretchen Greenwood project on Hopkins was pretty much pulled apart. They took what it was and made it look very similar. We took the monitor first on this project and the building was unsafe and wasn't built properly. Julie said expediting was done because the employees have been moved out of the building and we are trying to get them back in under a very short construction period. Amy pointed out that HPC reviewed the remodel that is under way but we didn't apply designation standards because it was not designated. The applicant isn't asking for any bonuses or setbacks. Chairperson, Sarah Broughton opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public portion of the agenda item was closed. Amy said all the applicant was required to do was apply for designation. They could be opposed to it. Jamie said she is all for designations. The more designations we have the better. Ann said if this is landmarked to protect it as it is being reconstructed to what was there originally it is a good thing to do. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2010 Jason said the single story building is almost perfect. It is getting interior changes but the exterior is the same. Anytime we get a voluntary designation I am in support of it. Nora said she is delighted with the voluntary landmark. MOTION: Jason moved to approve the landmark designation for the property at 220 -230 East Main second by Jamie. All in favor, motion carried 5 -0. Work session — We -cycle proposal and Aspen modern ordinance and scoring proposal — no minutes MOTION: Jamie moved to adjourn; second by Jason. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. � /✓ &Lie( n J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 6 JOSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING August 2, 2010 Sara Adams Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO, 81611 Re: Cortina Lodge Landmark Designation Dear Sara: Please consider this letter an application for Landmark Designation for the Cortina Lodge per the requirements for properties listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures ", City of Aspen Community Development Department Historic Preservation Application Package. Attached to this letter are the following items: owner authorization letter, owner title insurance, land use application sheet (attachment 2), 8 1 /2 X 11 vicinity maps, written description (below), Architectural Inventory Form #5PT.1008 and signed fee agreement form. Also attached are 11 x 17 drawings from the original HPC conceptual submission which include a cover sheet with a photo of existing buildings from across Main St., exterior detail photos, window and door photos, main level floor plans (current & proposed), upper level floor plans (current & proposed), exterior elevations (current & proposed), building sections (existing) and the site improvement survey Project Location: The project is located at 220 & 230 East Main Street in Aspen, in between East Main and East Meeker Streets, and in between North Mill and North Monarch Streets. The legal description of the property is City and Town site of Aspen, Block 73, Lots P and Q. The parcel ID number is 2737 -073.20.707. Property Description: The Cortina Lodge dates from the mid 20` Century, although it's year of construction is unknown. Ir is comprised of two long, narrow buildings, oriented perpendicular to Main Street. Both were likely one -story log kit buildings originally (although this could not be confirmed.) The easterly one probably had a second story added sometime pre -1985 in a Mountain Chalet type style, as evidenced by the stucco exterior, prominent balcony with cut -out balustrade, and shallow roof with wide eaves. Each building has a different type of machine -cut log, and neither type is made by Pan Abode, according to that manufacturer. Both buildings have a fieldstone wainscot on the Main Street side in an irregular rubble pattern, which also forms the chimney prominent on the East side of the two-story building. In between the buildings is a paved "auto court ", with parking along both buildings, and an access lane in between, which connects to the alley. 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 (t) 970/925 -4755 (f) 970/920 -2950 WWW.BILLPOSS.COIY JOSS ARCHITECTURE +PLANNING Two Story (East -side) Building: This building abuts the gas station building for over half its length, and has a concrete block wall all along the East Side. From the point of adjoining the gas station on the Main Street side, it is wood sided - plywood board & batten. This block wall may have been added as a firewall, and is only visible as a block wall from the alley behind the gas station. A feature of this building on the Main Street facade is a decorative concrete block and brick grille, about 4' wide. This masonry grille extends from the stone wainscot to the plate line of the second story. What was originally a window in the laundry room on the lower floor in front has been in- filled 2/3 by a louver and 1/3 by log. The front door has been removed. One Story (West -side) Building: This building is much less prominent from Main Street, due to the large spruce tree in front. A bay window was added to the front facade of this building at an unknown time. The total existing building size is approximately 4,533 square feet, as defined by the Aspen Land Use Code, and will remain the same under the proposed renovation as described below. Please also refer to attached Architectural Inventory Form #5PT.1008 for properties historic significance. Renovation/ Interior Redevelopment: Permit application for redevelopment of the lodge interiors from five studio units to four studio units with kitchenettes at one story building 220 & the reconfiguration of ten studio units to four two bedroom dormitory units with common kitchen and laundry facilities in the two story building 230 per the 2007 Hotel Jerome PUD agreement, HPC Resolution No. 6, series 6 of 2006, Ordinance No. 42 (series 2006) & Insubstantial amendment to 2007 Hotel Jerome PUD agreement approved 07/02/2010 have been submitted to Community Development. Assigned permit numbers are 0053.2010.ARBK for 220 E. Main Street and 0054.2010.ARBK for 230 E. Main Street. Release of the permit is anticipated with submission of this application in regards to my 08/06/10 e -mail requesting HPC exceptions for code requirements that are contrary to the historic landmark objectives to maintain the exterior character of the existing buildings. If you have any questions about the information contained within this application, please do not hesitate to call. We are anxious to resolve the items on my 08/06/10 e -mail and receive our building permit in an effort to complete construction in December for the Jerome employees. Sincerely, Bill Poss and Associates Architecture and Planning, P.0 , By: Julie -' aple cipal City of Aspen Historic Preservation August 10, 2010 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO, 81611 Re: Landmark Designation Application for the Cortina Lodge To Whom It May Concern, The above referenced project is located on the property as described below: Street Address: 220 & 230 East Main Street Legal Address: Lots P & Q, Block 73 City of Aspen Parcel ID No. 2737 - 073 -20 -707 The applicant and owner of record for this project is Jerome Ventures LLC., whose contact information is as follows: Donald Wilson, Manager DRW Trading Group 540 West Madison Chicago, IL 60661 (312)542 -1030 The following firm is authorized to act on behalf of the applicant with respect to application for Landmark Designation: Poss Architecture + Planning 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 - 925 -4755 Si erely, i onald Wilson, Manager DRW Trading Group Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation OWNER'S POLICY SCHEDULE A 12/08/2009 10:07:56 plc PK File No.: 454- H0261384- 036 -MEd PolicyNo.: 1(0261384OTP Amount of Insurance: $38,000,000.00 Date of Policy: December 10, 2009 at 2:12 PM 1. Name of Insured: Jerome Ventures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: ' Jerome Ventures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof • • Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 1 File Not 454-H0261384- 036 -MEJ 1 Policy No: 1102613840171 SCHEDULE A (Continued) • Exhibit A • PARCEL A: LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 73, • CITY AND TOWNS1TE OF ASPEN • PARCEL B: • - A parcel of land situated in the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, being all of Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H; 1, 0, P , Q, R, S, and the East 20.00 feet of Lot N, all in Block 79, together with the East 170.00 feet of the Alley in said Block 79, Vacated by Ordinance No. I (Series of 1951) of the City of Aspen, Colorado, according to the Hotel Jerome Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision Exemption Plat filed June 12, 1991 at Reception No. 331521, in Plat Book 26 at Page 52, also described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of said Block 79 (An aluminum disk marked "16129 McBride "); ' thence N 75 °09' 11" W 170.78 feet along the Northerly line of Bast Main Street to the Southwest Corner of the East 20.00 feet of Lot N; thence N 14 °50'49" E 100.00 feet along the West line of the East 20.00 feet of Lot N; thence 5 75°09'11" E 0.78 feet along the South line of the Alley in said Block 79 to the West side of the Vacated portion of the Alley in said Block 79; thence N 14 °50'49 "E 20.39 feet along the West side of the Vacated portion of the Alley in said Block 79; thence N 75°09'11" W 101.40 feet along the North line of the Alley in said Block 79; thence N 14 °50'49" E 100.00 feet along the East line of North Monarch Street to the Northwest Comer of said - Block 79; • thence S 75°09'11" B 271.40 feet along the South line of East Bleeker Street to the Northeast Comer of said Block 79; thence S 14 °50'49" W 119.39 feet along the West line of North Mill Street thence S 75 °09'11" E 0.50 feet; thence S 14 °50'49" W 100.70 feet; thence N 75°09'11" W 0.50 feet • thence S 14 °50'49" W 0.30 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL C: r A non - exclusive easement for purposes of maintaining two existing window wells, a portico and a stairwell to the basement of the Hotel Jerome as set forth in an encroachment agreement recorded March 5, 1992 in Book 671 at Page 33' (Affects Parcel B) and a non - exclusive easement for purposed of a drive ramp and snowmelt to parking garage as set forth in an encroachment agreement recorded October 20, 2005 as Reception No. 516494 (Affects Parcel A). • • • • ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application PROJECT: _.__.._ ...... Name: 604774/9 40,00- Location: Z Zo 0 730 / 67 ZL 73 / Za (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2797_ APPLICANT: Name: —J ' / a,t/Wa, -S i.e.- C / tWJ' MAW/4 47 Address: C4 W /#D/5o4/ /.f9G5TO /L l0 of 0 / Phone #:(9 /2)0 '(z —/0 30 Fax #: E -mail: REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Pass ,4.7G///r -1- P/ //t/ / iS Address: 60 /fft7/ ST7'i tr 45q4 Co id(°// Phone #: 6970)170C-4 75 Fax #C f 7 6)920 -2759 E -mail: J/y/etfie6ilCye-' • 6W TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Historic Designation ❑ Relocation (temporary, on ❑ Certificate of No Negative Effect ❑ or off -site) ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Demolition (total demolition) ❑ -Minor Historic Development Historic Landmark Lot Split ❑ -Major Historic Development ❑ ❑ - Conceptual Historic Development ❑ -Final Historic Development - Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) aG a ' G: / Th 5 T D o Lil' ,& / = V 02 g /Tf/- /1 S7up/o Ce-id/T S S rO /.+l 4 i a/, OYEe -'' /, ,ice 4&7P- —re arlE PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, c e et tc ) .) et/. L 1 /Z/ o/Z-S' Lei a n ti 4',C-t 2/ 5r4 / / a ' 5n4a /as 7/40 cratiy TO ¢ 77,00 a /L Oo../ ao2/14 ,rS W' /Tt/ ecNHad girefi likuldame -/ rn /L /TIES Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 General Information Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that may be involved. YES NO ❑ Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions, new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration? ❑ Does the work you are planning include interior work; including remodeling, rehabilitation, or restoration? ❑ X Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time? ❑ X In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits? ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed on the National Register are eligible. Owner - occupied residential properties are not.) ❑ ❑ If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for Historical Preservation? Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use: ❑ Rehabilitation Loan Fund ❑ Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances ❑ Increased Density ❑ Historic Landmark Lot Split l%Waiver of Park Dedication Fees ❑ Conditional Uses ❑ Exemption from Growth Management Quota System ❑ Tax Credits Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 • 220 E. Main rw , „atir-::;y1 St. It a ii7 � ��(l L4� �`l i,. ! J -tek-re,:g i. _ ,..___A.,„ pri,,,,,...,, .„ji„, ,,■_4,,,,,‘ 1 ...Ja.„/ ir at, A itz."4 :7 ..... 41 (C. ,....11811.1e 1 /0 4. 7. 4;11" t — 4: ifi 7 riii -.,..._-_ J -ar �nr G - � >n, ,....4. j l s 44 1\1 al , .., ......, , -_____A , ___,,,:. Aelkiri .... ,,, sij r,_," hotte,i7 e .. --,----,..„1 it i - t / i - .------..:_• ..._ _____,..„, . Cf 4 “ , .././, ,/ firrtir-----" I -I' l ....) ;pi 1 ....................... iir. II, II,/ tr-,11---,:„..:771 ( "'" 44- ±-- -....H 4. 1 2/ ..-- 7 " st1/41% """mia..,, ft timr 4.-- tip, .-: ' - j N „...AvY TrYf� .L� tea-_..t\ '+armnw -ra.. ------wain ---- Tc _._ __ _ . ._.. _ ��/ ~�� . p ti p _ 1 . . 1 1.� .o \ \ 1N / r � "A --‘ i c",\ 1 \ ‘n* :%`z%Gi.: -t- \ 1 -c‘ illizoti. p \o ff\ \ �`\ W it A p . I�� - - N . - N- <,\ v4 - s \ o �``_ �� i -t r___. ,ii \ -.AL - 1, c __ n m t \gle2_, GOLF COURSE 0 °0 � � w o � ... i ” - D� �'. 1\ • - 11 / l �� \fin. I� i f 4 it ... i. -V:: t, ' - .,-;--",\, ; , l / 1--r \ ' •-t4-41filg.' b aSzrcti A c %I\ � ; � 4, a \\ -1-----.-- ? 9 ( „ A) la • , \ 3 1 _ ��." �� rt4) r- 1 �� 1111 r,i � ' � it ` ` \ • arm ,f�i* - :,1 L -"A ( ok \._,i)Tri4--. ye ,i, \ . ' t % - — H '-:W . . , A Q �� Ir s ir -- ♦ A ISN / / � �J� f � �� ..11 , — a:m On Knt, .1111 All Survey Sites are ` : Y re induded within the City Aspen limits, See Sketch map for identification of specific location and building ontext Aspen pen Quadrangle Colorado- Pitkin County 1960, Photo Revised 1987 - Scale: 1:24 - �„ 7.5 Minute Survey GN / 1 / Sz I - r SCALE 1 :24000 1.09• 213 MILS "-�-� �� D 00 X0 "—� 1 MILE 70 NLLG 10 0 0 ,_, F-. 1000 7000 3000 4000 6000 1000 FEET 1 5 1 XILONETER rM GRID AND 1997 MAGNETIC NORTH CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET , DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 OAHP1403 Official eligibility determination Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY — Determined Eligible- NR _ Determined Not Eligible- NR Determined Eligible - SR Architectural Inventory Form — Dotemmned Not Eligible -SR (page 1 of 4) _ Need Data Contributes to eligible NR District Noncontributing to eligible NR District 1. IDENTIFICATION 1. Resource number: 5PT.1008 2. Temporary resource number: 220.EMA 3. County: Pitkin 4. City: Aspen 5. Historic building name: 6. Current building name: The Cortina Lodge • 7. Building address: 220 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 2 30 e. Mkt 8. Owner name and � / address: i Ltol Je, ..o A' tat a Lr < Jezagt °Ad/ its az / _IZL» 7f PJA4 4'I2 -u] 3 r n rent /"// 016 C1 W. 'v /Sp/ G 0 /t II. Geographic Information 9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West SE 'A of NW '7C of SW '7a of • SW '7a of Section 7 ( 10. UTM reference Zone 1 3 ; 3 4' 2 7 9 0 mE 4 3 3 9 3 7 5 mN 11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle Year: 1960, Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section. 12. Lot(s): P & Q Block: 73 Addition: Year of Addition: 13. Boundary Description and Justification: Site Is comprised of Lots P & Q: Block 73 of the City and Townsite of Aspen. Assessors office Record Number: 2737- 073 -20 -707 This description was chosen as the most specific and customary description of the site. III. Architectural Description 14. Building plan (footprint, shape): Rectangular 15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width 16. Number of stories: Two Story and One Story 17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two): Stucco and Stone 18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one): Gable Roof 19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one): Wood Shingle Roof 20. Special features (enter all that apply): Resource Number: 5PT.1008 Temporary Resource Number: 220.EMA Architectural Inventory Form (page 2 of 2) 21. General architectural description: This lodge is composed of two structures. A two story structure of mixed construction, with the gable end facing south, running the length of the site: and a single story front gable structure, also running the length of the site, constructed of machined fogs. The two story structure is composed of a number of materials, creating an asymmetrical facade. The right side has a stone vertical element on the corner, running through the eave line and forming a chimney on the east side, the stone also runs around the base of the structure on the east and west sides as well as the south facade. Machine cut logs are stacked on the stone base up to the balcony level. A panel of open work decorative concrete block units infills the wall adiacent to the stone element. A second level balcony unit runs the length of the west side, serving a number of units, and wraps the south side to the line of the concrete decorative units. The balcony has the typical positive /negative decorative railing. The walls above the balcony are stucco. A horizontally proportioned sliding window is centered on the wall on the upper level with a similar window centered on the main level below. A door Is located on the main level on the west side of the south facade. A number of repetitive sets of windows and doors serve units on both levels. The root has a large overhang_and is supported by brackets and an extension of the ridge beam. The low pitched gable runs back to the north with a step about halfway along to a slightly lower roof level. The other structure is a machined log, single story gable structure runs north /south on the site with a series of rooms, and similar openings to the two story structure across an alley. 22. Architectural style /building type: Late 19'" and Early 20 Century American Movements: Rustic 23. Landscaping or special setting features: An alley, off Main Street, bisects the buildings and creates a parking area. 24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: none IV. Architectural History 25. Date of Construction: Estimate Actual 1950 Source of information: Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Department Files 26. Architect: Unknown Source of information: 27. Builder /Contractor: Unknown Source of information: 28. Original owner: Unknown Source of Information: 29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): No record of alterations is available. although the variety of materials and styles indicates alterations over the years, pre 1985. 30. Original location X Moved _ Date of move(s): Resource Number: 5PT.1008 Temporary Resource Number: 220.EMA Architectural Inventory Form (page 3 of 3) V. Historical Associations 31. Original use(s): Domestic; Hotel 32. Intermediate use(s): • 33. Current use(s): Domestic; Hotel 34. Site type(s): Main Street mixed multi - family and commercial 35. Historical background: This structure is part of the broad pattern of development that occurred during the mid 20th century In particular those modest structures that were built to serve the strowina tourist industry. in the form of the small lodge. 36. Sources of Information: • - . ' Ar i : r : I 8, - • • WWII • r • 1 1 1 rv- • Historic Sites and Structures. VI. Significance 37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation: Designating authority: 38. Applicable National Register Criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant In our past; X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual) Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria 39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture 40. Period of significance: Mid 1900's Early Skiina Development 41. Level of significance: National State — Local X 42. Statement of significance: This structure is significant for its position in the period of Aspen's development that was more modest than the general pattern of development seen during the Mining Era. These structures are indicative of the type of development that grew out of the burgeoning tourist industry. Small lodges were an Important resource for the growing skier base, and reinforced the development of the ski industry. The building's style is reminiscent of both the Chalet style, which was popular with early skiers, and the Rustic Style was a natural extension of local homemade structures. ( Resource Number: 5PT.1008 Temporary Resource Number: 220.EMA I Architectural Inventory Form (' (page 4 of 4) 43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Structure has some apparent alterations and is In moderate condition. Scale, form, and a variety of characteristic details are intact. VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment • 44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data 45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes X No — Discuss: Located in a locally designated district If there Is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing _ . Noncontributing X 46. If the building is In existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _ Noncontributing VIII. Recording Information 47. Photograph numbers: R15: F8, 9 Negatives filed at: Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Dept. 48. Report title: City of Aspen Update of Survey of Historic Sites and Structures. 2000 49. Date(s): 6/29/2000 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield 51. Organization: Reid Architects 52. Address: 412 North Mill Street, PO Box 1303, Aspen CO 81612 53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225 NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and photographs. Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866 -3395 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ASPEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE POLICY The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 52 (Series of 2007), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff review is required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours. Applicants may accrue and be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. When the case planner determines that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. The current complete fee schedule for land use applications can be accessed on the City of Aspen website at www.aspenpitkin.com on the Community Development page under Planning Services, or you can retrieve a copy from the Community Development Department Administrator on the third floor of city hall. Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A. -ement for Pa ••en ofCi •fAs•en 1- velo•mentA.•li__tionF —s CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 2 €,C (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for /4:57-27ie / ZA7/ D,gnX OF57*(49 (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ U% 00 which is for _ hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. QTY OF ASPEN APPLICF By: By: //G 'J - 4'( Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: 8/ Z / 3 Billing Address and Telephone Number. Reed ifilente (3 /y) M f h 9 / 5 , 4 4 7 a / t w o / L . 6 4 4 / C` z-- 7 Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: May 29, 2007 11 ,.. , i . i . 4,,:,,,,•,..,.,,, . . 1 , ,,, 7..„..., .•••.„?..„,..•••:••• )1. i ,..1 ,,,,,.&_•, ._._ • -._ , ,• , • „., 1, . 1 : , 1 - — , , •, ..• . 1 %.•• ....-• ,i; • li 71 . , 4, - • ' \, L4 '.,,, • . • ,.'' ,'t. . • .. ,. i 1 -!-- ' • ...g - . r/ A r. -. 0 ' • --.,*. • • 'I - : II.: ' : . ''.' • 1 - 4.... 'I '-,• ..- ' . ' ' 1 -1. . ; i 1 1 I l ...,'''''' '. '''.. ' ' .4. ''' ,. p CO ;- ••• • r.l ;A'''••411: ' • fP • ; 4 F , 01 . •• .......z. ir. ' .- • . I -'4' :',. .-../ ,... - - . , ,i r . ,[..1‘) , k • c0 p . II ,i,1 I' - , .,..,... . -.• _ , 1 " r 4'.4 , = ..N E• • .•';•- ' . • _ . V) ,,...- . _...1 ' . i '. 'V ' .. ,-..,... i _J (3 • • 1 ' ' . < ' 1 • I '' • '. \ 4.1.. . i. ,• _•....; . ,,, 1 i 1--- ' • Y LIJ . -- • , - .•• - - ' -4 4, - 04 4 jeLi". ' • C.) "" ' ..4 . •• , '; ,. • j 7,..: oti44444!'"I'V'''' 1' '''''' L-4 - • -." ,.1 , • . .-...... • • - .-- .- ...:- i'._-.1 •(4:.+.: - .,.1.-.1 . _ • _!... :.',':!... .... „ C_)• , • - ‘.."5 " rf , .,., 3•1: . ' • - . •.... 4 ; . . ,. . ,..",•;:',..•:- . 7 '..,t.....,:‘' - •* .t,•.•• 4, • ' ..: ••;• -. 7 • Ittl •' • • 1 CI- , • 4 ‹.. .. ' ' :11 i ' . _,, .17.0 , • . • ..i •••:-•,, .. ' t • = • ! ; • • . , - • t - . ! , 4 , ar* * • 1 , • . 1 7 •-•-• •-,..; f• :,• . : , , • , • . • ' . -. ' 1 • , .• 1 I I i. :1•• - ':-' - • I - • I : I • ' • • • - '''';-• :• . . ! • 1 I. .,: • ••-Lzoi , • • ■ • .. . 4••,,..:, ,, ..,,.,..: n.; • -. •'0••;•• r ' - '. :- : 7 * • t, - ' • - F . ' •-•- • • . '`, .-, • - . 1 , !i - , , :ir :. . ••• e . .,.. - 1. - •"., i ; . • • • " . 4 ' . 4 1 Iii • ' . i ' - - •••-• •t• • O- •,. ''' 4•• !;' Px• • , . • ' . • . ,I• lii . • '• .- ' 4 ‘.4., 7 . 1 4`•..• • i f .`:- .44 ,•fJ Ei...•••=a. :-. .,.. . 1-4: • ...., . • .-.., -7.,,i 1 • AP sib. • ..I . . ..k . ..... 1 , ..,, • 1 'I I -:, . . ' ■ . • • .. : • --,,- = ,1. • , • ...: ..,,,.. • , . .-;i r , .. , • . .. . , • i - " - - ',1 7. _:.• 1 • . .,,... ..r - • i • :, , .,,.e.„. - • t 1 awAR , liellit• !II , • .;:i;••.i.:{ • , ip , , . r,• • , . , , . , • . ••. • y • - Al , 4, .,,,, , i y j ... , 1 . i .' ,`, ..-,;,,,, .,b .r•Ir, .;.'. - ''$-.i.414',- !. .,4 11 '' ' '.. -,,',... -1' i_ _ ...: r, . '' - 4 A':''. •• -- ••■••• '',7, • - ..,... , ..ki•-,L ,.r_ "....t . .. • :.' 4./.' . ::.? ' ;',.. ..•1 r ) _A. . / , ., • - • .Z.V. --- • .. .1 11": , [ !'i . • I -rrr ....-'-•;.'f.„ v...,. ••• A., .. 4 . CI) . ',...4.;''.'-',;:.:,:::-.'4,:•::,7.'' I', i';■-z?.'.:: r .1, I ' .1 '0" '.. . • ■ ; ----. — IC • ' • t)4) :::,'" Lt I 1 .' "-, ".., ,; - , "- - ee , • ' 7i.f.'4..)All!i.' • A i .. , , • 4i., , „..., ,,.. .„, - ,i'..cs,..i...I P?h• V ' "."- '('-,.. ' '- il m0 - 0 ,.......v..,...J.r,.,:.:., tu ,.., ,IV,, ., , ,7 . ... . .. • i, . , r• .•.'• ,A..d•-•!."3. 9 4 ,°.. • ' ...- ' ',. • P"'" /1 4 •• ' \ . - • 'r c i.' , ..4.. r •,. .,.;.,'..r,f,r '. .: EA, ', I P.,0 ''r ^I:• •. '-'. ' ..1 \ I .! A' 4a.r . 1 . 1 .• ' 4—, '''' : t . •■• ' ' " 4.,. i1 + :1 ' '' ''.i '.. ;17 ;1 ..L. :'.. ..... ' . 4 :. ,''..' i ; ,,,,i , ... r . s-' ..'. ": 7 ' I ( ' ism ‘ .. ,.4‘:__.._:,...._, _, . ,,.._:z ,....._, .. , , ', - ''' - , . ,,,,..,,,,•-•,-;•:„...„... ''-', • . - ' „• ..;' r , .1 -1-- ', , .t.'' ', - ... ' : ... '''' :' r:' , .......!,-,.',.' ' • r: t .'t - II' ■'''' ! - . - .1 . . . . -•• • -, .. , .....f • • .;,••••• ...., , :-, - % -1. . . . ; • -J• ,.: : :„...-- , , . . • ...-...--• - ,-......,....: .. ....-..--.- ! r . 7 .,";'' '' 4 . '• - '■ *,, •' • ' ' • . ' • -:a .......; - -,...., = -73 :..' '' . i'• -. ,',.. - • '/ . . 1 - • ••. 11 • . , 1 • m. 4=0 \ • n ; k '4 - • ' : • Viii A'41. A ,'i .•'.,•• •• /...•:, . 4; • , • • • • ' " •• • _ .. 411.44. 1 • • ll■ ; 4 •. :- •• " ! . , .4:k..;: -- -•-•::::-'.--:••....•.:,••.:-' -, ,t.:• .; - - . " ._,..,. ., , , --,•;:-,...-„,..,,,,,,,,.•,.::,..,-„- --.: - :•:•••• --.• .: " ---\:,---.. -:: J ; -: , ...-i ' • . •?" . 1 • , ..: ti.:*:;2;.:;-',2 ... •,.. - 'r . , ER. ...I ...., . 4. , • . . ■ n -. lit, . , Cia 4: '.,..:...',,.";.:*, ••';,";:,.:' - ' 4 1 . 1, 4.1, ''....' . •',' ; , ,.:;.' • , . . . ,..• • ■ I , ,-: .1 • . ,7P 1.• • , .111: . . ''' ?.1 ..-.. . tt.) '''' . .'.. re...14,,, '', .., ; ',.■. ',',.. • ' . .• . . i i . _. .. '''• 1 ' ,I.' ,I.." — r. .?.-:-:--,-' . - • , . -1 .••-- i . i • ... . _, • , ,, „....,, .. Ai . . - r.:' 1 ...: ("..;*"'• ::1'.. '.•=•-• ....0Y . ill ''' 110 : - _ .,-7 .. -1 • 7 II 1 --.- ....ii .: . ...r:'-'' • ^, ■ " ''' '-,- ' . i . ,.. , .- • • ,,s P "- ! , • ' 74 • , • , ' 4: 1 ; ' : I ; " "..- - " • :• ' . ' . . •1/4, -• • • • ' ' ' . . ' ) • -.' --• • . . . - 11.• ,-,•:•''.•-' '; . . . • ;. %.• .,:; " -- , • 4 , L - - P tr` • ••• ' ' ' :- ; •-.- • • •• • `4.r`., .. • - P . 4i111, , 4 . •-. • N . ' ■ • • • . . , . r ,..... ,.,. . . . . :„..........., ,,,, ......,.,....• • :.• ... ._„.. .. , .„,.... ok.•, ' - ; .. •iiir . l . , L'iii... - • -... .!,,,, - ..7 .. - . ,.., . . - . . .. • . - .-T ''. , • • . . . • ......d. ..".., • 11,..ix '. •P ...,. . , ... , . . • . , . - 1% • • - • , ... , . • ., ...4 i 1. , ,,' ... 2:' •,;..../ ...: .. ; • . '' 'P' I -r.,• . .... . • ....:,-.• J .',.... z,,,f„ : 1. •• , • i•• i • -, • • . . •• .... - r • ;'. i:-...b. -I 1 • • -. - .. . -.r. 1 , ! ri. ., , ,,.. • .. , .. , .,.. • i " . . . ,.... Is ''''' • 7- . • 1 .! - .. 1 . . .. • i .. -... • , ,... ' • . 1. r . r . . .. , .._ ..,, . ..-1 _ „ . :;:,ir'',, .• ' , • , , I . . ,4;.. • , , 1 ' ' ... 6 . 4, • ,, • , C.. • " • " '•• .' ,r • . .. ,I ./..' •.'. .' .441 ,i 1. r . . : „ •.• • . .• .... ., • "; " e , . ••:- • : t .., • . .. -... . _ • .. • , . .. . i ..• •. r'...? , ... ..... t, i oi. ' ''-' 1 . . ''s ' .: •-• • I At ' l' • • ... i .... -•-, ....,,A A ,.- _,... ... .4 .-.. 1 _. '• .‘ , . .... . .,. , - , ._. 1 i ' 1 41 . . .„_,.. . , .... , .... .1 . . . , ■ . . '..: ' a .... • ' I , * . r (.., - .'• ' '1 ...... . - -. - -e• - • • 1 I 'I -.;": - -'• '.''■• , • : • :, '. :{4:L.,....,,...7,,i'iLl•' i 1 ...,--_,, •-••,:,4.- -. 1 7 :: . , ' : ..; • , -,. , :,- . ....... . ... „ , :, , . ,.. . .;,.- • , i . .. , . „ .. . _ . ., . ..-.. 4- p ..... 4•,,..4,.*:t i..,... r r ..... .. •. • , . 1.--JIP • ' . 1, . --.1.-11. • . . . ..,.. . .. -. t - • .. .. _ •• , . . . . . .. . : i . ... .•,' . •• - _. • 77 . . , •T .- Z.' • 409 - L"• Ce') '•'•',2 f=1- CD 13 r, . � - 4rfr t� 1 y ,,t Ft +t� u 4 a ,l ' rti, t j Q co Z a jj �t t �ltl f�* t 4> ;7 1 _ � "O til Cam' + n w t t 7 l 1 C J O w �j .�• I I IL— I �C1, ' ? "Y � ? ' ; „ 1 „*„. . i J f, ., I A 2 ,, • t I. m .ly(+ �: ` 1� . - �7 b � h y� ;,. yy �� ..l; .�J � }} _ p ' H �.�t _ c m ix � � . — '—_,_ r , O �13 a .v s t1" ,. , ' 1 t .. O 0 m el Ca cn p � 7 O E i., i - ail ■ I �i + O t . j:: r_ f ._. C/) ' ..,., 14 Q I 1 I I� i= Z / i r - O • 1. - W ` f, [ 4 1 , I . 1 •7I� J o jl �l� . b Q Q U _ t t- l l off J� 1 ps � t" r JI�YI \ J A 11 1 � W �.z U �-" 1 V1 1 Z n f nr7 h 1 i n J U _ _ 4 `. wO 0 44 rsc ,.: .Y A i ,p I , 1 r. ' . 0 ' 1. C7 Z Z J ; O IIL m F >- / n II CC • . •A O X4 ' 1 It Y b ry 4 ,1 4 10 S 4 2 1 (n J O f V 1 t : q r1;I n y Z r,. m 1 i r J a , ., " .,,. , o 0 Z 4 4e • \ I. +' ...- - . - 7 Z jAgairi _- o >_ Q 0 m m ir I' cni— d: 5 o,' o I • . 1-- • ` { ° .{ . r o 1 1 -...1 2 1 I t41',44-,1\- . L._ , ,,,,, C , i ' ,..;igt, 1 -,` , ' i, :'It 0 I, tl k i EE J i P t•.1 ■ *lal� l 1 , ' + t Pf j ' y� F f(1 ' -t •° rJ re F m cn .J' 0,1, � H Z U O rtf O m k ^ • L o X* . r;:r . ' Lu ...-- : Cr IJJ r i I O i� i O 11, I F . O ti O .. co, `, - p -- d • W C • C3 cud z Q v CV = CO ' rn 8 3 H N H. =O-N C Z N O dN N - ° -m N rc�� m ¢p VS m w G m z a J j \ • .9.9fi = a W rs ■ Ie W ill e I KM I6 1 0 J0 W II ° d J o i_ II -- . 111 - -- r— cc W W IP D W V 1 I V 1 z to 0 1 0 a `c Pi } gO s °¢ G • s !eK LW gi<: CO P - ; es L 8 EL' °sW qh o w O k i3' a� w- a 8 -8 W _ . 0 J Q Z D O ; F a a N W a U } Z Z o-w Q a 0 N. NO 0 nu\o\v u\\ \v\ \ pm\ V\ m\ w NV, v \\\vv\\mmo\\vp \oo�\\\v\o\o\ \\o\\ \\\gym\ \\v \\\ m��:� \ \\w`\ u\ mv lo\ vm\ m\ v\\ mm\\ov\\\vuv \uoo\o\o\\y\\9\\vuu \, .._`. N.; 0 a .. -_ - -I���m �1- _ ��wgry, r - _ , fir: m r Lo_ j �-1 _ K i • I S 01 I Q cm N i ., . I * CI 1 R- 11 la 1 ! "" 1 , J O II 11 11 Z II II II 52 L- - --, . q § u 11 u g 11 a 1 I == tT I-r II 1 - 4 ii O I ry. �� I' '1 �� TC r�ip� h /� L � - II VIII O (n Iii II / it II II / II II II Al II J i = -.— �IIi ;IIIIII10IIIII F Cn 4 - 4 X W S • O • • Eo ' 8 ? . F c S m g n 8 a h 0 n S 4! cG '' 1g a aES •hd as ss • as e ',. i :En a- as ate. O EV v9 �.�I J 0 p N oa "_ tClie I. I. �+ ® . a oLL ® ���� rl � N J I F L ! N N N N I L l i I I I 1 — � - 1 - I' J N N I r` _� W -, • 0 . W co CO O6 a Os 0 1 CL g • • _c) 0 of Z Q J I r ��.� r -II E r ' " i ` N II_^ I l n 1 11 z II II 11 I I 11 1 II CO _ - , .rrj r = i �"� r � ll \ i =l �r .. mrrp T - � LL r 1 a F_r l• r t J O = _ .... a_ a .II` s 1 1W1 s � I; ' II Y A! a i i s y ` I; I D' a �; r - .., Oc n Z ;y W e O O E d W 6 w CI N O w No iii Z 0 . Q N Z cc= O oLL • . y J o fro W . 0_ d z °x r u Z I- LL a ,0_ Z • — wa� a ya,� Q — cia N m 0 lil 0 1 96 CO N -- I L ' - - -_ - _ Z i ilI ' 1 - -- I1 a�I i. I I ILA ■I .i , .. o f W cc Z �= r MI I I * an — av o w 2 : w F= LL U N - - -E ___3 - -- m W 1.1 10 ME E _ _ _ - , I• . ma 1 Ir s a . ate. 1 i , ii � Ir s am I. a u u u u 11 u G I : r71 u Dr li WO 44dV,, IEEgg Mt' egg M .cg s aw g g 'ia Wig e£ • • z 0 ct ct Ln w a J o -as <r -- I s 1 D --1 II r 3 4I � r ° 1 1 � i �� -SCI Y � Ii 31 O LJ I I rL— Ij�,,jl�/ L f Z M o °C III °` - - # r-,_-_. iz � � „,,,, I i° 1 - 0- 1 I I d l� I 1 In — ; t D = Ir i I O o s 1 1 II m P p'- \ 11 , z I� O O • I F ! II L 1 \ 1 \ II \'. o I J • Z 4 u u u u as as G k I— tD X i W oW O 01 . . ,„,.. • . c.,_ .„.„ ,„. Lt., " H H -- 10. axy'oyusueld -eunno OOBISASamxei0\aalaaouay a2poi euryo3 DThsA onti7 laaioi g 1ad > —2:111—( W z CD •• • r• .• r• .• n • �• •• •• v w . • n O 0 In,��! °'�1Y �•.�i�Jil O o_ ;w1:.w� .wo_� r �� • ¢ d vl o -7 ?jel w IIIIllj '' Q Illllllllr; � I■ ��ll�llll:'t! "' �llllllll ;: Z ¢ w Illllllull11 � I� =` Ito �, o w "=' 111111111 .•: =o IIIIIIII�_ }: �' � CL e J I:SE.•Ea•• »iii li:.: P :'r1 H lipoil E la ..-e� 110:10. : : : :: ®1: . :a.i :I :EEEEI I.w« .;..,• ° - = �±`a t eE S w E EE l EP III `s! 1;1.‘ I r WAN _. �S'.wl �E}�2ae!_ IV Fl I e 1 *HHF U 1•� I +EE'E =:: ��.�i m e- -_ 4 1 eg g Z .•: p \•q EEI 11.4.0 k V : l a ex ; 0 rE[I : . : 1 E:: 1 S 1 p n E =Pp � 0 . = i 10:111 : , 1 :: p kit: ° p'el o:: �e Ali EEE ca . „„ 111 w_a+l I .':7 a °pee • e I PE I ° EI - I ! , ! 1 • 1•I EI•EOe ..« . i �I a e �C= l 11 49 ^ e �1 UM r _ , I _I . e c p : E[ E I �� I iiiiiiill �� :::::::1 - =r II J I i il llllll llll en 1 I i p E 0 E IIIII I e ;, 1 [ :; C w-.I a• ec�ee °� I[ : p r+e.:.41 I� 111 1E1 Iw IdMil° w” e� ° E IEEE I ° I[EBE I _ k E ° ,e _ I:P I �i i ,r•.�1 :: •1 IE — • W ;c 1 111 i • C r„G IIIIIIII • 3 1 P I 'u+ a I I; 2 oh E "' 1A :::I 1 e =_ r 111111 1: [1111 " = � -- " ar l it. g e°� e.l P PIE J �• . : CEI 0 , e = . I II : x- a rl�a ri" fi rpm Ip c .4 E 1,1• II� 1 P[IPI ICI » , 4 i1 i.•.i E• *I 1 I�„- I 1: •.��'� 1pi°'EP'11 I CI w I tI ,i lll ra e jIj -p= :E: 1 x. • :IE' 1 r+ x IIIIIII ••1 .� T l ■C I r; 1 j � I III I �..4_'� 1:1111:10 l±-: r::::;:-r.:E;:P_:; f I 1 II r - EIEI ....--- .- r+i•+wr i • E 1 +i 11PPEIE11 a 1.1: =- � I lli lle l� 1 I I RS ii 1 1 11 IIIIIIII IIHHI 1114111 " n nnnnmm • ? Pq:II 111111 111 C lll • c �PIIIII�n ='EI P 1 +- u :un • 1 g " = a H 1 - it a e . 1 ",....... I eIIPE i�= I P Pa : —_ ��_ e=A 1 ?IIP - 1��1��1111111�1) A t ill E 9 i ex • : I° PII III - « mum 'q:; E P :=a 1 El • =Eae ° I ° P II ° III "= II P'' "�P� ICI" ' m n mm 31= ap . mt. •I 9I I II �'aPli 1 ~ate I� � II m r E � e l a II III _ P' q:l�l _ =e III gI11 III � — „ ., p11111 a I�IIi 11 111111111 I€ I 5:1 0: il p - ; r ' l I ,1 : a' n ' I Z pe -eve• I e l O 11 P• NM I _ : a, j O =:e, I z 1=Ees � I • 'gP 1p »_ « IIIIIIIII 01 • a ' I a : : o I 1= di P : :�7 1 �!-� 111111111111111 p• 3 :l + -+ 1 x ®� ° 1— 1 :: G-) IgCI w. ME P P• I I I 1 W I- �2G�Q' j Gel a =I W :.E E I .; P 7n IN J 3E2e r'= e el W E e 9 1 J iii 111111111111111 :I P :, » • W cE°.S ° w IE W R Pi : : o 1 . .-+a 111111111111111 1_- IN" w e = : fi e� I 11:9,1„,., .EE :4:i �illll olllll �i � � S i x = W o cu E V 111 _ 1 __ =e „� .. •�_ _� � _ € P 1 ' . Ow c e'�! z e ll _ N � PII'l li iil 1 : a 11:1 =" I ' oimiiiiiiii - N P; ' 0 � I ,�, N E i ��-•.[ -1 " 11 ! c = I I F e = cE: �e I_ _I w €: ° I ll 1 :: f 1 O e I F ° E� a e I O v : PI 1111 tF- P � 7 P� � [I���lilllil 1i �i�'e X e E a ", " _ I :P a N I �w W @ :_ °p = w e °2C C r I i : 1 7 0 i f Fee °= p° � a •'1C C Eu191I1 � 111 I PE P .° 'i l eep2 O a tis PI EO . w-a# P I �+ o -_ 3e 29i-r'c 1 O 1 °••'ICI 111 `!=" 111111 €.• . _« ;e 2� ,I,�III E�s� ,111 o P i P � ; : 11 41 ° II 1,111 " �. ....... • 1 I Ia: li !,»_ I . P IiI e — — ....r•,.''. 1:1 l- - , ulu I ii �Iliiilliiilli :: I r r r, r• LI. I hog! v�l " = " E 1 I� µ H 1, ii w ; 1 c P w� ' del• z Z Q Q = = U U O O z Z Z _ •1 E•Ilhlllll Ili ¢ .., LL' »_� 111111uui:::l1 w s w _" � lilll w I #i I ti;i ' Il 1 z 111 Z O �,y11, U Z ` ,o � 1 I rl,tl Z J I,II P .LI!r =I ial� Ant X p w @ N W S s ._ • n ° N • , Un: N cn 0 zo 111 ' 0 ! V / T 1' J = 0 M1' Q — it • v g tl 0 m _ /7 1 z c~n Y - I •', y Z r ' k 1 Q � (/) 6+ p ! ,. , Q , . .., ....„,„,.• .; ,,I.pf. . .., .... .--,- c_.) .. 0 4.0.,:,,,i, , . .L.',. 1.— 1 '' 't \ \ \ ' -i i _ If ,, I Ili 1 � ; ' o i YI N ir f { ,i1,,,! trill �, I g , I . . M� k ~ _ 1 ,2 I Y c7 I `, Z Z ;1+ !! 0.�* r. I I I t . ► ' ° o m , t o >IX 0 I w .:1i t I / t 4\ Z >" ,V • • M, , r � z I S R_ : I / /.' � �I.r' ■ _ r ° ¢ � I ' I yr t,., �i 0 l O + l zii. ! I » 'i i 1 OJ O ! x 7': •, L.L. < X U I , ti Z w =1.: • - h I ... c n- r 0 w s + r J O y Z Z 1 '-'4 Q OJ 4 � i 0 p ? - p ( II m i 55 O 1 F' \ ,I f.l ›- I !r i • i l l ,f` l f 1 t � O �O I 0 h, r " 4f l .'� ,' i' Z I I 1 • r ,. ! . �° ' 411. d.�-. _ . /I s. - _ O 1 .' .� - _ Yg �. ' s. ^IJY 1. ' gip. 3 p .. sx I� Y .. °°C4-. �Z , a. + b O Q I O i 1 • il ' Ilri.. --, Z Z p -IL - . . ( - 9 I \ , �S - . ‘r.-.' _.1 _-_ _ i_ . _______ H d ti a it it got-Lla a . o g csY P. ., r 7 s v lit F » 3 ' : ' E < W a Bog E= I - ° m °- a" 3l i3 Egg : a o se xae 8 ='e "x ` r ": 8 eg FR s x4 `-la 0 < - . - mmz a := �g - a l i • • oo on 4§ La. o‘frr x 12 1 % u: exa b a 1 4qs IT L � ' � � x.a . . os.r 4 " to o r U " as., .xgq %Az S 0 7 Al b.. oos woo„„ 2 dt or Z `— ` \ ` �.. \`I�o W Cii ■ o 2 . a Y Al? c " W t� _, ,.. ® 71.0 8 a s _ _ <E a "a 41 10 -4 1 � / o F. ` ._ .. .. . •/ h 8 '�.. S W " 1 e S 0 / / . SR g ' , -,tr r i .. • �� a ri L w 3g u 1s � i s i tar i -� , . s � bag ' s+F il hi -I 2 � - 4 9+ , . .. , bt 41 .4k ATP till 1 • .. . .Op ,- cA t. da . s ..tive iG n x vu i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE: January 10, 2011 RE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010. Land Use Code Amendments • Calculations and Measurements • Definitions SUMMARY: Staff is proposing a wholesale rewrite of the City's Calculations and Measurements section of the Land Use Code. This section describes how development is reviewed for compliance with dimensional limitations such as floor area, height, setbacks and the like. This rewrite is intended to clean-up the areas where staff has had to interpret the language by providing clearer wording, example calculations, and graphics. Staff has done some outreach with local architects in preparation of this ordinance. Feedback has been positive concerning the additional clarity, examples, and graphics. There is strong support from architects regarding measuring floor area to the exterior face of a building's framing, rather than to the exterior of finish materials. This will simplify the City's code and will parallel the County's code. Staff has amended the provision for slope reduction — changing it back to the current policy. P &Z had recommended a significant change and there was pushback from local architects and planners. Council asked staff to examine this provision more closely and the intent behind the proposed change. The current policy reduces development rights for the presence of steep slopes and caps the potential loss of Floor Area at a 25% reduction. This has been the policy for at least 20 years and seems to work well, so staff is recommending a continuation of the current policy. Staff amended the provision regarding the use of space above a linking element. The City's residential design standards require a "secondary mass" or a portion of a property's floor area be developed in an outbuilding such as a garage. The second building can be connected to the main building through the use of a one -story "linking element." In the past, no use of the space above the linking element was allowed without a variance (which could be approved by staff). The amendment allows for limited use, such as a deck, but does not allow for the space to be covered or walled -in affecting the appearance of a second story. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of these amendments by a 4 -1 vote. Their minutes are attached. Staff is recommending approval. APPLICANT: City of Aspen REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Existing code text Exhibit B — Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. ORDINANCE NO. 27 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE: 26.575.020 — CALCULATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS WHEREAS, the Community Development Director of the City of Aspen initiated an application proposing amendments to the Land Use Code, pursuant to Chapter 26.210; and, WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.575.020 of the Land Use Code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Director recommended approval of amendments to the above listed Sections as further described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendments described herein on June 1, 2010, and June 15, 2010, took and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Director and recommended, by a four to one (4 -1) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 1 Section 1: Section 26.575.020, Calculations and Measurements, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, which section authorizes, defines, describes, and depicts how various measurements and calculations regarding development are to be accomplished, shall read as follows: 26.575.020. Calculations and Measurements. A. Purpose. ,This section sets forth methods for measuring floor area height, setbacks, Deleted: The purpose of this Section is and other dimensional aspects of development and describes certain allowances, t a set frelasupplementulate to methods jor calculating which relng requirements and other prescriptions for a range of structural components, such as and measuring certain enumerated porches, balconies, garages, chimneys, mechanical equipment, projections into setback terms as used this Title. The s definitions of the terms are set forth at etc. The definitions of the terms are set forth at Section 26.104.100 — Definitions. Sect 26.1o4.!oIi1 B. Limitations. The prescribed allowances and limitations, such as height, setbacks etc., of distinct structural components shall not be aggregated or combined in a manner that supersedes the dimensional limitations of an individual structural component. For example, if a deck is permitted to be developed within five feet of a property boundary and a garage must be a minimum of ten feet from the same property boundary, a garage with a deck on top of it may not be developed any closer than ten feet from the property boundary or otherwise produce an aggregated structural component that extends beyond the setback limit of a garage. Non - conforming aspects of a property or structure are limited to the specific physical nature of the non - conformity. For example, a one -story structure which extends into the setback may not be developed with a second -story addition unless the second story complies with the required setback. Specific non - conforming aspects of a property cannot be converted or exchanged in a manner that creates or extends a different specific non - conforming aspect of a property. For example, a property that exceeds the allowable floor area and contains deck area that exceeds the amount which may be exempted from floor area cannot convert deck space into additional interior space. C. Measuring Net Lot Area. A property's development rights are derived from Net Lot Area. This is a number that accounts for the presence of steep slopes, easements, areas under water, and similar features of a property. The method for calculating a parcel's Net Lot Area is as follows: Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 2 Table 26.575.020 -1 I Percent of parcel to Percent of parcel to be included in Net be included in Net Lot Area to Lot Area to determine allowable determine Floor Area allowable Density Areas of a parcel with 0% to 20% slope. Notes ! 00% 100% 2, 3. Areas of a parcel with more than 20% and up Forproperties in the to 30% slope. Notes 2, 3. R -I 5B Zone: 100% 100% For all other properties: 50 %. Areas of a parcel with more than 30% slope. For properties in the Notes 2.3. R -15B Zone: 100% 100% For all other properties: 0 %. Areas below the high water line of a river or , 0 0 natural body of water. Note 1. j 0!0 0/0 Areas dedicated to the City or County for open 100% 100% �i space or a public trail. Areas within an existing, dedicated, reserved for dedication, proposed for dedication by the application, or vacated public vehicular right- 0% 0% of -way, public vehicular easement, or vehicular emergency access easement. Areas within an existing, dedicated, reserved for dedication, or proposed for dedication by 0% 0% the application private vehicular right -of -way or vehicular easement. Note 4. Areas within a vacated private vehicular right - of -way or vehicular easement, when any_ affected parcel has no other established 0% 0% physical and legal means of accessing a public way. Note 4. Areas within a vacated private vehicular right - of -way or vehicular easement, when all affected parcels have established alternate 100% 100% physical and legal means of accessing a public way. Note 4. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 3 1 Areas of a property subject to above ground or below ground surface easements such as 100% 100% utilities or an irrigation ditch that do not coincide with vehicular easements. Notes for Table 26.575.020 - 1: 1. Lot Area shall not be reduced due to the presence of man -made water courses or features such as ditches or ponds. 2. In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre - development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre - development topography. 3. The total reduction in Floor Area attributable to a property's slopes shall not exceed 25 %. 4. Areas of a property within a shared driveway easement, when both properties sharing the easement abut a public right -of -way, shall not be excluded from Lot Area. This enables adjacent property owners to combine two driveways into one without reducing development rights. When one of the properties relies on access through another parcel, the area of the access easement shall be deducted from Lot Area as provided in the table above. I � -- I 1 I ar Figure 1: Shared Driveway Easement 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 4 1 R. Measuring Floor A.,,,ea. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and -- - - -{ Deleted: A allowable floor area, the following applies: -{ Deleted: a 1. General. In measuring ,a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio - -- Deleted: floor area and allowable floor area, there shall be included a ll areas within the surrounding - - - - -- Deleted: that exterior walls pfIhe building or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior -- Deleted: floor walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face �'•.' -- Deed; (measured from their exterior of structural block, exterior face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the surface) nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, Deleted: a I exterior- mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior pay; veneer and all exterior veneer treatments. 4Also, see setbacks.) - treatments shall be included. /a OUTSIDE INSIDE 1 7 -....-Ns \ s\ Window Exterior Face' II Property of Framing /4 C 4___, Line tt Window Sill �; < i Woo Ven eer ti _ ,_ . Framing II Stone Veneer — �� tt Setback measured to— Floor Area Measured to Face of Framing edge of veneer Figure 26.575.020 – 1: Measuring to Face of Framing 2. Vertical circulation. When calculating vertical circulation, pie circulation _ - - - -{ Deleted: areas with stairs element shall be counted as follows: --- Deleted: , each floor -to -floor staircase is counted only once. a. For stairs and elevators, the area of the feature shall be projected down and counted on the lower of the two levels connected by the element and not counted as Floor Area on the top -most floor. b. When a stairway or elevator connects multiple levels, the area of the feature shall be counted on all levels as if it were a solid floor except that the area of the feature shall not be counted as Floor Area on the top -most level. c. Mechanical and overrun areas above the top -most stop of an elevator shall not be counted as Floor Area. Areas below the lowest stop of an elevator shall not be counted as Floor Area. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 5 3. Attic Space. Unfinished and uninhabitable space between the ceiling joists and roof rafters of a structure which is either inaccessible or accessible only as a matter of necessity is exempt from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio and allowable Floor Area. If the space is conveniently accessible and is either habitable or can be made habitable it shall be counted in the calculation of Floor Area Ratio and allowable Floor Area. Examples: a. An area created above a "hung" or "false" ceiling is exempt. b. An area accessible only through an exterior access panel or crawl space is exempt.. c. An area accessible only through an interior pull -down access ladder is exempt. d. A sleeping loft accessible via a stairway or a ladder is counted. e. An unfinished space which has convenient access is counted. If any portion of the attic level of a structure is to be counted, then the entire level shall be included in the calculation of Floor Area Ratio and allowable Floor Area regardless of other practical limitations to routine use. Areas of an attic level with thirty (30) vertical inches or less between the finished floor level and the finished ceiling shall be exempt, regardless of how that space is accessed or used. / N N, /,NNNN, Area of floor \\ that does ti not count \� Deleted: Figure 26.575.020 — 2: Thirty inch height exemption Deleted: b Deleted: porches, 4. Decks, 13 1conies, I.,pggias, Gazebos, ,Exterior Sjairways, and non-Street-facing - Deleted: 1 porches. The calculation of the floor Vea of a building or a portion thereof shall Deleted: not include decks, balconies, exterior stairways, non Street - facing porches, :'•; Deleted: s gazebos and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than Deleted: f fifteen percent (15%) of the maximum allowable floor area or the rop e__ __and the use and density proposed. ' Deleted. a Deleted: of { Deleted: building Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 6 If the area of these features exceeds fifteen percent (15 %) of the property's maximum allowable Floor Area (for that use and density proposed) only the areas in excess of the fifteen percent (15 %) shall be attributed towards the allowable Floor Area for the property. The area of these features shall be the maximum footprint of the feature including railings, fixed seating, fixed planter boxes, overhangs, and similar structural components of the feature. Unenclosed areas beneath Decks, Balconies, and exterior stairways shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations unless that area is used as a carport. (See provisions for garages and Carports, Subsection # #.) Enclosed and unconditioned areas beneath Porches, Gazebos, and Decks or Balconies when those elements have a finished floor level within thirty (30) inches of the surrounding finished grade shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations regardless of how that area is ' Delebeci: (the excess of the fifteen used. , , percent [ l5 %] shall he included). 5. Front Porches. Porches on Street - facing facade(s) of a structure developed within thirty (30) inches of the finished ground level ,shall not be counted towards ,allowable { Deleted: and landscaped terraces Floor Area. Otherwise, these elements shall be attributed to Floor Area as a Deck. { Delete[: FAR ( Deleted: [graphic]11 Area of porch not exempt - r e ! Exempt area of porch 6. Patios and Landscape Terraces. Patios and Landscape Terraces developed at finished grade shall not be counted towards allowable Floor Area. These features may be covered by roof overhangs or similar architectural projections of up to thirty (30) inches and remain exempt from Floor Area calculations. 7. Garages and carport For all multi - family and mixed -use buildings or parcels -- - Deleted: and storage areas containing residential units, 250 square feet of the garage or carport area shall be Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 7 excluded from the calculation of floor area per residence on the parcel. All garage and { Deleted: all carport area in excess of 250 square feet per residence shall be attributed towards i :( Deleted: except Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio with no exclusion. Garage and carport areas for 17 Deleted: for the purpose of calculating properties containing no residential units shall be attributed towards Floor Area and floor area ratio and allowable floor area f or Floor Area Ratio with no exclusion. , Deleted: a lot whose principal use is In the R -15B Zone District, garage and carport areas shall be excluded from the ; residential tii r , calculation of Floor Area up to a maximum exemption of five- hundred - square -foot •`"' ; ; areas shall b Deleted garages, exclud carports e and storage d total for the parcel. Formatted: Font: Bold J I; zone districts ether than the R -15B Zone District, ,properties containing solely a ;'. Formatted: Tabs: 0.25 ", Left + Not Single - Family, two single- family residences, or a Duplex, /he garage and carport area ,/, at 0.5" shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area as follows; Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Tabs: 0.25 ", Left + Not at 0.5" ' ' . - F o r m a t t e d : Indent: First line: 0 ", Table 26.575.020 -2 ," Tabs: 0.25 ", Left + Not at 0.5" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ", Size of Garage or Carport Area excluded per primary dwelling unit (not Tabs: 0.25 ", Left + Not at 0.5" including Accessory Dwelling Units or Carriage (... ril Houses) ( Formatted: Font: Italic il Deleted: up to a maximum area of two First 0 to 250 square feet 100% of the area 'r : hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit; all garage, carport and Next 251 to 500 square feet 50% of the area i storage areas between two hundred fifty a: I (250) and five hundred (500) square feet S I shall count fifty percent (50 %) towards Areas above 500 square feet No area excluded. 1 allowable floor area; all garage, carport _ / and storage areas in excess of five I hundred (500) square feet per dwelling unit shall be included as part of the residential floor area calculation. For any For any property abutting an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the 1 dwelling unit which can be accessed from property, the garage or carport area shall only be excluded from floor area alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, tl �2 calculations as described above if the garage or carport is accessed from said alley or i Deleted: In the R -lB Zone Dist road. If an alley or private road does exist and is not utilized for garage or carport i - --- "' 3 access, the garage or carport area shall be attributed towards Floor Area calculations ; ;', { Deleted: To determine the portion of with no exclusion. If an alley or private road does not abut the property, the garage or / ,/,:',/,/ (Deleted. subgrade areas that art( r41 carport area shall be excluded from floor area calculations as described above., { Deleted: a. For any story that if ... r51 ;',( Deleted: surface A. Subgrade areas. , ubgrade or partially subSrade levels of a structure ,are included ,1' ( Deed: are that is in the calculation of Floor Area based on the portion of the level exposed above 1/./ { Deleted: most restrictive grade. Deleted: the grades The percentage of the gross area of a partially subgrade level to be counted as Floor wi' ; Deleted: shall be the total percef .,, I61 Area shall be the surface area of the ,exterior walls gxposed above the ,lower, of,Ilatural J' , Deleted: ¶ ( . 7 and finished grade divided by the total exterior wall area of that level. ,Subgrade ;' Deleted: fifteen stories with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall be excluded from floor area , Deleted? percent (15/0 % ) o the ea ,,, 181 calculations. , Deleted: (whichever is lower), v Deleted: fifteen Example: If a the walls of a 2,000 square foot level are forty percent (40%),,/4:;/,,,t Deleted: percent (15 %) of the Er( .., f91 exposed above the lower of natural or finished grade hen forty percent (40 %) f'1,/,.{ Deleted: will be of that level, 800 squar fe et_is,counted as Floor Area. (•..-- -- { Deleted: included Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 8 T Window Well Exposed — 17 Percentage of exterior wall that's exposed - _. equals the amount of subgrade area that will Area Below more restrictive grade — I count towards floor area calculation Figure 26.575.020 - 5: Determining the amount of a subgrade floor to be counted as Floor Area For the purposes of this section, the exterior wall area to be measured shall be the interior wall area projected outward and shall not include exterior wall areas adjacent to foundation or floors of the structure. I Floor Structure Area of wall to be used for subgrade calculation Foundation and Floor Structure Foundation Footer Lt Figure 26.575.020 - 4: Measuring the Area of a Subgradc Wall When considering multi -level subgrade spaces, adjacent interior spaces shall be considered on the same story if the vertical separation between the ceilings of the spaces is less than 50% of the distance between the floor and ceiling of either space. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 9 Deleted: <sp><sp> i i I A B r_______♦ = C Stairs C Space A and B are on the same level, while Space A and C are on different levels. Figure 26.575.020 — 6: Determining different building levels When a partially subgrade space also contains a vaulted ceiling within a pitched roof the wall area shall include the area within the gable of the roof. L Deleted: <sp> , Area counts • towards wall calculation 1 I • • Figure 2: Pitched roof with subgrade calculation For garages that are part of a subgrade area, the garage exemption is taken from the total gross below -grade area prior to calculating the subgrade exemption. For 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 10 example, a 2,000 square foot story containing a 350 square foot garage which is 40% above grade, the calculation shall be as follows: Garage exemption — the first 250 square feet is exempt and the next 100 square feet counts 50% or 50 square feet = 300 square feet of the garage which is exempt. Subgrade exemption — 2,000 gross square feet minus 300 square feet of exempt garage space = 1,700 gross square feet multiplied by 40% = 680 square feet of that level which counts towards allowable Floor Area. 9. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. An accessory dwelling unit or carriage house shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a parcel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating floor area as defined in this Section. 10. Permanently Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. One hundred percent (100 %) of the area of an Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House which is detached from the primary residence and deed - restricted as a "for sale" affordable housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, shall be excluded from the calculation of floor area, up to a maximum exemption of one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet per parcel. In addition, the allowable floor area of a parcel containing such a permanently affordable Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House ,Shall be increased in an -- Deleted: a single - family or duplex equal to percent (50%) of the floor area of the e ccesso Dwelling Unit residence and a or car h affordable amount a q 4 fifty p ( ! rr ' ry � "for sale" ADU or carriage house located or Carriage House, up to a maximum bonus of six hundred (600) square feet per on the same parcel which has been parcel. transferred to a qualified purchaser in 1� accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as 11. Sheds, Storage Areas, and similar Accessory Structures. Sheds, storage areas, amended, shall be eligible for an greenhouses, and similar uninhabitable accessory structures are exempt from floor ,r affordable housing floor area bonus area limitations up to a maximum exemption of thirty-two (32) square feet per ` ! : or less than residence. Accessory structures thirty -six inches or less in height, as measured from ( D&.ted: associated ADU finished grade, shall be exempt from Floor Area calculations (also see setback limitations). Accessory structures larger than thirty -two square feet per primary residence and more than thirty-six inches in height shall be included in their entirety in the calculation of Floor Area. Properties which do not contain residential units are not eligible for this Floor Area exemption. 12. Historic Sheds and Outbuildings. The Community Development Director may provide a parcel containing an uninhabitable and limited function historic shed, outbuilding, or similar historic artifact with a Floor Area exemption to accommodate the preservation of the historic resource. The shed or outbuilding must be considered a contributing historic resource of the property. Functional outbuildings, such as garages, art studios, home offices, and the like shall not be eligible for an exemption. The Director may consult the Historic Preservation Commission prior to making a determination. The Director may require the property's potential to receive Floor Area bonuses be reduced to account for the structure. The exemption shall be by Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 11 4 4 issuance of a recordable administrative determination and shall be revocable if the artifact is removed from the property. 13. Wildlife- Resistant Trash and Recycling Enclosures. Wildlife - resistant trash and recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts are exempt from floor area requirements of the zone district regulations if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary to enclose the trash receptacles in bojh height. and footprint, is an unconditioned space not located inside other structures on the property, and serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other purposes unrelated to protecting wildlife. Wildlife- resistant dumpster enclosures located in commercial, mixed -use, or lodging zone districts are not exempt from floor area requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for Utility/Trash /Recycle areas. Enclosures shall be located adjacent to the alley if an alley borders the property and shall not be located in a public right -of -way. Unless otherwise approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, enclosures shall not abut or be attached to an historic structure. Enclosures may abut other non - historic structures. 4. Allocation of Non -Unit Space in a mixed -use building. In order to determine the -- Deleted: 8.. Linked Pavilion. My total floor area of individual uses in a mixed -use building, the total floor area for non- element linking the principal structure to an accessory structure shall not be unit space, which is common to all uses on the property, shall be allocated on a included in the calculation of floor area, proportionate basis of the use categories outlined in the subject zone district's FAR Provided that the linking structure is no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet schedule. The building's gross floor area, minus all non -unit space, shall be divided wide and ten (10) feet long. Areas of proportionately amongst the individual use categories in a building. These numbers linking structures in excess of ten (10) feet in length shall be counted in floor shall then be calculated as a percent of the gross floor area number that does not areal include the non -unit space. A proportionate share of the non -unit floor area shall then 9 be allocated towards each use category. This provision shall apply to all zone districts permitting mixed -use buildings. For instance, if a building was comprised of the following square footages: 2,000 sq. ft. commercial floor area + 4,000 sq. ft. free - market residential floor area + 2,000 sq. ft. affordable housing floor area + 1,000 sq. ft. nonunit floor area = 9,000 sq. ft. total floor area Then the total unit floor area in the building would be eight thousand (8,000) square feet floor area. Using the allocation of nonunit space standard, the uses account for the following percentages of the total unit floor area: commercial floor area = 25% free - market residential floor area = 50% affordable housing floor area = 25% Therefore, the one thousand (1,000) square feet of non_unit space is allocated to the different uses as follows: Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 12 commercial floor area = 25% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 250 sq. ft. free - market residential floor area = 50% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 500 sq. ft. affordable housing floor area = 25% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 250 sq. ft. When non -unit space is used exclusively by one use, the space shall be attributed to the floor area for that use. For example, if a lobby and elevator serve the free - market residential uses on the property, exclusively, then the area associated with the lobby and elevator shall be assigned to the floor area for free - market residential uses. 15. Permanently installed interior airlock spaces are exempt from the calculation of Floor Area Ratio and allowable Floor Area up to a maximum exemption of 100 square feet per building. This exemption only applies to buildings containing non - residential uses and does not apply to single - family, duplex, or multi- family buildings. E. Measuring Setbacks. 1. General. Required setbacks shall be unoccupied and unobstructed within an area extending horizontally from the parcel boundary to the setback line and vertically above and below grade, excepting allowed projections as described below. Required setbacks shall be measured perpendicular from all points of the parcel boundary to the outmost exterior of a structure, including all exterior veneer such as brick, stone or other exterior treatments, but excluding allowed projections as further described in subsection E.5, below. Window Exterior Face of Framing O Window Sill� / Wood Veneer r r Framing Stone Veneer 1 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 13 -daMbib Aim di& drift 2. Determining Front. Rear, and Side Yards. The front yard setback shall be measured from the front lot line. The Front Lot Line shall be the parcel boundary closest to or 1 dividing a lot from a Street or street right -of -way. All parcels have a front lot line. There shall not be more than one front lot line. The rear yard setback shall be measured from the rear lot line. The Rear Lot Line shall be the parcel boundary opposite the front lot line. All parcels have a rear lot line. A parcel shall have only one rear lot line. Side yard setbacks shall be measured from the side lot lines. Side lot lines shall be those 41 parcel boundaries other than a front or rear lot line. All parcels will have at least one side lot line and may have multiple side lot lines. For corner parcels, the front lot line shall be the parcel boundary along the Street with the longest block length and the remaining boundary shall be a side lot line. T/ 27Q Street Block Length I Front Yard 100' • 1 --- Side ci Yard ev - f v 1 L Corner Lot 1 �1 I Figure 3: Determining Setbacks For corner parcels where the parcel boundary follows a curving Street, the midpoint of the curve shall be used to differentiate the front lot line and the side lot line. In this case, the boundary segment with the shortest Street frontage shall be the front lot line. 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 14 f Side Yard l j / Street Front Yard 1 — -- Figure 4: Corner lot with curved street For reverse curve Tots, the curved portion of the lot line shall be considered the front lot line and the two opposing parcel boundaries shall be consid gyred side lot lines. Street - - — - —i — Front , �v� A \` I V,.. 1 i Side Yard Yard ;t , 4 - Street Side Yard Figure 5: Reverse curve lot For all double frontage lots with Streets on opposite sides of the parcel, except for those parcels abutting Main Street, the front lot line shall be the parcel boundary with the greatest length of Street frontage and the opposing lot boundary shall be the rear lot line. 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 15 1 / Parcel boundary with greatest length L Street Front Yard LOT , Street Rear Yard Figure 6: Double frontage lot For double frontage lots with equal length street frontages, the front lot line shall mirror the front lot lines of the adjoining lots to the extent practical. For double frontage lots abutting Main Street, the front lot line shall be the lot line adjoining Main Street. The Community Development Director shall resolve any discrepancies or situations where the foregoing text does not provide definitive clarity by issuance of a recordable administrative determination. 3. Determining required setbacks adjacent to streets or rights -of -way. When a property does not extend into an adjacent public or private right -of -way or street easement, the required setback shall be measured from the lot line. When a property extends into an adjacent public or private right -of -way or street easement, the required setback for that portion of the lot shall be measured from the edge of the right -of -way or street easement closest to the proposed structure. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 16 1 • � _ i I 10' setback // on flag lot. 10' setback i. from right - r of - way Figure 7: Required setback from a.ight -of -way or street easement { Deleted: private road or 1.) 4. Combined Setbacks. Where zoning provisions require a combined yard setback (either front -rear or side - side), the narrowest point on each yard shall be the basis for measuring the combined setback. A combined yard requirement may not be met by staggering the required yard setbacks. For example, if a jot requires a combined side -yard setback of 30', with a minimum - . - -- { Deleted: of 10' on either side, figure 6 shows compliance with the requirement — one side yard is 10', the other is 20', and each side yard setback is consistent from front to rear. Given the same example, Figure 7 meets the individual 10' setback requirements, but the combined setback is staggered and is not consistent from front to rear. This example does not meet the combined setback requirement. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 17 I � I r L • _ -L. 1 • Figure 6: Compliance with combined setbacks r Deleted: y p p p> l J � r 1 r _I I I L� L� I I i L _ _ r :__ _I Figure 7: ,Does not comply,witb combined setbacks tFormatted: Font: Bold Deleted: Non- compliance Formatted: Font: Bold S. Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Setback areas shall be unobstructed above and Deleted: <5p> below ground except for the following allowed projections: - a. Above or below ground utilities, below -grade heating or cooling conduit or infrastructure such as a ground- source heat pump system, below -grade dry wells or other at -grade or below -grade drainage infrastructure. b. Trees and vegetation. t . -- f Formatted: Bullets and Numbering c. Artwork, sculpture, seasonal displays. d. Flagpoles, mailboxes, address markers 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 18 e. Foundation footers, soil nails or below -grade tiebacks, and similar improvements necessary for the structural integrity of a building or other structures. f. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate exterior mounted utility junctions, meters, cable boxes, vent flues, standpipes, and similar apparatus and including any protective structure as may be required by the utility provider. g. Building eaves, bay windows, window sills, and similar architectural proiections up to eighteen (18) inches. h. Balconies not utilized as an exterior passageway may extend the lesser of one - third ('/3) of the way between the required setback and the property line or four (4) feet. In no case shall the projection be allowed closer than five (5) feet to a property line. This projection is allowed for balconies only and does not permit projections of other improvements, such as garages or carports. i. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells and exterior basement stairwells as required by adopted Building or Fire Codes as long as these features are entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade(s) closest to any Street(s). If any portion of the feature projects into the setback, the entire feature may be* { Formatted: Indent Left: 0.75" no larger than the minimum required. Features required for adjacent subgrade interior spaces may be combined as long as the combined feature represents the minimum projection into the setback. There is no vertical depth limitation for these features. This exemption does not apply to Areaways. This exemption does not apply to light wells and exterior basement stairwells which are not required by adopted Building or Fire Codes. • j. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate an exterior -mount fire* { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering escape to an existing building, as may be required by adopted Building or Fire Codes. k. Uncovered porches, landscape terraces, slabs, patios, walks, landscape walls, earthen berms, retaining walls, steps and similar structures, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches vert ically above o r below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. (Also see Chapter 26.410 — Residential Design Standards for limits on the location of berms.) Improvements may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below grade simultaneously, for up to a sixty (60) inch total. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. (See Figure 7). 1. Drainage swales, stormwater retention areas, bio retention areas, rain collection systems, and similar stormwater retention, filtration or infiltration Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 19 devices or facilities are permitted in setbacks as long as the finished grade of the top of the improvement does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade. Stormwater improvements or portions thereof may be buried and exceed thirty (30) inches below grade as long as the finished grade above the facility does not exceed thirty (30) inches vertically above or below the surrounding finished grade. m. Hot tubs, spas, pools, water features, and permanently affixed outdoor grills, furniture, seating areas, and similar permanent structures are prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These elements may be placed within non - street facing yards but shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade simultaneously. Improvements may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. n. Heating and air conditioning equipment and similar mechanical equipment are prohibited in all yards facing a Street. Mechanical equipment may be placed within non - street facing yards but shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features may be up to thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade simultaneously. The Planning and Zoning Commission may consider exceptions to this requirement pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.430 — Special Review. o. The height and placement of energy efficiency or renewable energy production systems and equipment which are located adjacent to or independent of a building shall be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.430 — Special Review. These systems are discouraged in all yards facing a Street. For energy production systems and equipment located on top of a structure, see sub - section F.4. p. Fences and hedges less than forty -two (42) inches in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. Fences and hedges up to six (6) feet in height, as measured from finished grade, are permitted only in areas entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the Street. This restriction applies on all Street- facing facades of a parcel. (Also see Section 26.575.050 — Supplementary Regulations for limitations on fence materials.) Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 20 �_ - - -- { Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" 1 spa Th 30" �� 4�i • •.y1 � 30" �•d• • I I 1••11O••11 •••1jr Area below grade ��iO �� 1' � jp 9� 1 ip ' O i j • . � �i � �•� J� g 11 I• � • •� 1 �• �:y � ♦ ♦ x' ' 11 ♦ ,Figure _30" Calculation ., _ - Deleted: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" 7.2" fence _ - { Deleted: 6 heigh 42 " fence \ height Front `I' , i ,� facade line of house ,Figure H Deleted: Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" q. Driveways not exceeding twenty -four (24) inches above or below natural* { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering grade within any setback of a yard facing a Street. Within all other required setbacks, finished grade of a driveway shall not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade. r. Parking may occur in required setbacks if within an established driveway or parking area and the curb cut or vehicular access is from an alleyway, if an alleyway abuts the property, or has otherwise been approved by the City. s. Non - permanent features which are not affixed to the ground such as movable patio furniture, outdoor seating or a picnic table, barbeque grills, children's 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 21 play equipment, and similar non - permanent features which are not affixed to the ground. This exemption shall not allow storage sheds or containers. t. Wildlife - resistant Trash and Recycling enclosures located in residential zone districts shall be prohibited in all yards facing a Street. These facilities may be placed within non - street facing yards if the enclosure is the minimum reasonably necessary in both height and footprint, is an unconditioned space not integrated with other structures on the property, and serves no other purpose such as storage, garage space, or other purposes unrelated to protecting wildlife. Wildlife - resistant trash and recycling enclosures located in commercial, mixed -use, or lodging zone districts are not exempt from setback requirements and shall comply with zone district requirements for Utility /Trash/Recycle areas. Temporary intermittent placement of trash and recycling containers in or Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75 ", First line: o ", Tabs: 0.75 ", Left + along yards facing a Street is allowed. For example, on "trash day." Not at 0.5" Enclosures shall be located adjacent to the alley where an alley borders the property and shall not be located in a public right -of -way. Unless otherwise approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, enclosures shall not abut or be attached to a historic structure. Enclosures may abut other non - historic structures. F. Measuring Building Heights. 1. For properties in the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C 1), Commercial* { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Lodge (CL), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Service Commercial Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be the maximum distance between the ground and the highest point of the roof top, roof ridge, parapet, or top -most portion of the structure. See subsection 3, below, for measurement method. • - { Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" J 2. For properties in all other Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be• - -- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering J measured according to the pitch of the roof as follows. See subsection 3, below, for measurement method. a. Flat roofs or roofs with a pitch of less than 3:12. The height of a building* { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering with a roof pitch of less that 3:12 shall be measured from the ground to the top -most portion of the structure. 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 22 Roof P itch Parapet 3:12 or less wall Height Height of r Building __A Figure 8: Measuring height for flat roofs or roofs with Tess than 3:12 pitch b. Roofs with a pitch from 3:12 to 7 :12. The height of a building with a roof. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering pitch from 3:12 to 7:12 shall be measured from the ground to the point of the roof vertically halfway between the eave point and the ridge. There shall be no limit on the height of the ridge. Midpoint between eave pt. and ridge Ridge Eave Point Height Figure 9: Measuring height for roofs with pitch from 3:12 to 7:12 c. Roofs with a pitch greater than 7 :12. The height of a building with a roof* { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering pitch greater than 7:12 shall be measured from the ground to the point of the roof vertically one -third ( of the distance up from the eave point to the ridge. There shall be no limit on the height of the ridge. 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 23 1 /3 point between eave pt. and Ridge -I Ridge Eave Point Height Figure 10: \lcasuring height for roof with pitch greater than 7 :12 d. For roofs with multiple pitches within one vertical plane, the height of the roof.- - -{ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering shall be measured by drawing a line within a vertical section between the ridge and the Eave Point(s) and then applying the methodology for the resulting pitch of said line(s) as described above. e. For barrel -vault roofs, height shall be measured by drawing a line within a vertical section between the top -most point of the roof and the Eave Point(s) and then applying the methodology for the resulting pitch of said line(s) as described above. f. For "shed" roofs with a single - pitch, the methodology for measuring shall be the same as described above according to the slope of the roof and by using the highest point of the roof as the ridge. g. Dormers shall be excluded from the calculation of height if the footprint of the dormer is 50% or Tess of the roof plane on which the dormer is located and the ridge of the dormer is not higher than the ridge of the roof on which it is located. If there are multiple dormers on one roof plane, the aggregate footprint shall be used. Otherwise, dormers shall be included in the measurement of height according to the methods described above. • Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" 3. Height Measurement Method. In measuring a building for the compliance with { Formatted: Bullets and Numbering height restrictions, the measurement shall be the maximum distance measured 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 24 vertically from the ground to the specified point of the building located above that point, as further described below: a. Measuring height along the perimeter of the building. At each location -- Formatted: Bullets and Numbering where the exterior perimeter of a building meets the ground, the measurement shall be taken from the lower of natural or finished grade. Building permit plans must depict both natural and finished grades. b. Measuring height within the footprint of the building. For the purposes of measuring height within the footprint of a building, areas of the building within 15 horizontal feet of the building's perimeter shall be measured using the perimeter measurement, as described above. In all other areas, the natural grade of the site shall be projected up to the allowable height and the height of the structure shall be measured using this projected topography. In instances where the natural grade of a property has been affected by prior development activity, the Community Development Director may accept an estimation of pre - development topography prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer. The Director may require additional historical documentation, technical studies, reports, or other information to verify a pre- development topography. If necessary, the Community Development Director may require an applicant document natural grade, finished grade, grade being used within the footprint of the building, and other relevant height limitation information that may need to be documented prior to construction. c. Measuring to the roof — The high point of the measurement shall be taken from the surface of a structure's roof inclusive of the first layer of exterior sheathing or weatherproofing membrane but excluding exterior surface treatments such as shakes, shingles, or other veneer treatments or ornamentation. When measuring roofs to a point between the ridge and the eave point, the eave point shall be the point where the plane of a roof intersects the plane of the exterior wall. The roof and wall planes shall be of the nominal structure, excluding all exterior treatments. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 25 Eave Point ........." i '0 1111.°171.1.1.6°V ' i Exterior Sheathing 1 Deleted: li <# >Flat roofs or roofs with a slope of Figure 11: Eave Point and Exterior Sheathing of a Roof. less than 3:12. The height of the building shall be the maximum distance measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top or ridge of a flat, mansard or other roof with a slope of less than 3:1211 4. Allowed Exceptions to Height Limitations <sp><sp><sp <# >Roofs with a slope from 3:12 to 7:12. a. ,Chimneys, flues, pnd similar venting apparatus. aimne flues, vents, and For roofs with a slope from 3:12 to 7:12, f similar venting apparatus ,may extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height shall be measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is height of the building at the point the device connect ;_,Fbr roofs with a pitch lower, to the mean height between the of 8:12 or greater, these elements may not extend ,above the highest ridge of i gd g g gambrel or other anrid similar e ofaa pitched able, roo f. the structure by more than required by adopted building codes or as ;: The ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or �'' ' ov otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official to accommodate safe !i fi t; :, $;; , five ot ( p itc feet hed abroof ove s the hal l maximnot extend um heiger ht venting. To qualify for this exception, the footprint of these features must be limit.¶ the minimum reasonably necessary for its function the features must be is '''' "p f ... f101 ,. combined to the greatest extent practical. Appurtenances such as hoods, '•'''� Meted' d . ) caps, shields, coverings, spark arrestors, and similar functional devices or '''' Deleted: antennas • P g P iy ornamental do -dads shall be contained within the limitations of this height i' r;,• \;; Deleted: other exception. , , ';,C Deleted: appurtenances j b. Communications Equipment. Antennas, satellite dishes, and similar `; : ' , ( Deleted` Antennas, communications equipment and devices shall comply with the limitations of 'E ,.,,1C Deleted: e ) Section 26.575.130 — Wireless Telecommunication Services Facilities and ?'.' D al etedt or ) Equipment. ,',,,;t Deleted: structures ) A Deleted: shall not j c. Elevator and Stair Enclosures. On structures other than a single- family or q Deleted: over ) duplex residential building or an accessory building, elevator overrun Deleted: specified maximum height enclosures and stair enclosures may extend up to five (5) feet above the limit, except specified maximum height limit. C Deleted: f ) C Deleted: more than two (2) feet ) Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 26 Elevator and stair enclosures may extend up to ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit if set back from any Street facing facade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet and the footprint of the elevators or stair enclosures are minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. For single- family and duplex residential buildings and for accessory buildings, elevator and stair enclosures are not allowed a height exception. 4 d. Rooftop Railings. On any structure other than a single - family or duplex residential building, rooftop railings and similar safety devices permitting rooftop access may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the railing connects. To qualify for this exception, the railing must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. El For single- family and duplex residential buildings, rooftop railings shall not be allowed a height exception. e. Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems,,and - -- f Deleted: Water towers, solar panels similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building jnay extend ,up to jive (5) feet above height of the building at the --{ Deleted: shall not point the equipment is attached. Mechanical equipment shall be combined '`-,;;; - Deleted: over and co- located to the greatest extent practicable. , { Deleted: f. Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and Equipment. Deleted' the specified maximum height Energy efficiency systems or renewable energy production systems and equipment including solar panels, wind turbines, or similar systems and the system's associated equipment which is located on top of a building may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. On any structure other than a single- family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing facade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet and the footprint of the equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review. The height and placement of energy efficiency or production systems which are not located on top of a building (located independent of a building) shall be established by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the procedures and criteria of Chapter 26.430 — Special Review. (Also see setback requirements for these systems at sub - section E.S.) g. Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections on Arts, Cultural and Civic buildingsanay extend over the height limit as may be approved --{ Deleted: . pursuant to Commercial Design Review. - Deleted: as well as Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 27 Deleted: f 3 h. Fjag_poles extend over the specified maximum height limit. Deleted: i. Exceptions for buildings on slopes. For properties with a slope that declines from the front lot line, the maximum height of a building's front (street - facing) facade may extend horizontally for the first thirty (30) feet of the building's depth. i. Exceptions for light wells. Exceptions for light wells and basement stairwells. A light well or basement stairwell, limited to that area required to meet adopted Building or Fire Codes, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade(s) plosest to any S)reetal, _ ; „- -( Deleted: facade and enclosed on all sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level {: Deleted: which is (e.g. not a walk -out style light well) shall not be counted towards maximum •• f Deleted: the permissible height. ''( Deleted: s k. Exceptions for Areaways. An Areaway no more than one hundred (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade(s) closest to any Street(s), not projecting into any required setback, and enclosed on all sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level (e.g. not a walk -out) shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height. Deleted: C . Lot area. Except in the R -15B Zone District, when calculating floor area ratio, lot areas shall include Measuring? Site coverage. Site coverage is typically expressed as a percentage. only areas with a slope of less than g iy P twenty percent (20%). In addition, half When calculating site coverage of a structure or building, the exterior walls of the ! (.50) of lot areas with a slope of twenty to m percent (20 -30 %) may be counted structure or building at ground level should be used. When measuring to the exterior towards floor area ratio; areas with slopes walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of 1 of greater than thirty percent (30 %) shall structural block, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, be excluded. The total reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction for a given vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior- mounted insulation systems, and site shall not exceed twenty-five percent excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, 1 (5^io).¶ A lso excluded from total lot area for the shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. Porches, roofs or purpose of floor area calculations in all balcony overhangs, cantilevered building elements and similar features extending directly zone districts is that area beneath the high water line of a body of water and that over grade shall be excluded from maximum allowable site coverage calculations. area within a vacated right -of -way or within an existing or proposed dedicated a Measurement of Remolition. The City Zoning Officer shall determine if a building nghtof -way or surface easement. Lot area shall include any lands dedicated to is intended to be or has been, demolished by applying the following process of j the City or County for the public trail calculation: t system, any open irrigation ditch or any A lands subject to an above ground or below ground surface easement such as At the request of the Zoning Officer, the applicant shall prepare and submit a diagram ';; 1 utilities that do not coincide with road showing the following: easements. When calculating density, lot area shall have the same exclusions and inclusions as for calculating floor area 1. The surface area of all existing (prior to commencing development) exterior wall ratio except for exclusion of areas of assemblies above finished grade and all existing roof assemblies. Not counted in ; greater than twenty percent (20%) slope. the existing exterior surface area calculations shall be all existing fenestration ''',, Deleted: v (doors, windows, skylights, etc.). ; 'f Deleted: E Deleted: a l Deleted: , 3 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 28 2. The exterior surface area, as described above, to be removed. Wall area or roof Deleted: 26.575.040. Yards!" area being removed to accommodate new or relocated fenestration shall be A . Projections into required yards. Yards shall be unobstructed from the counted as exterior surface area being removed. i ground to the sky except for the following allowed projections:1 3. The diagram shall depict each exterior wall and roof segment as a flat plane with i 1.. Building eaves — Eighteen (18) an area tabulation. inches;¶ 2.. Architectural projections — Eighteen (18)inches1 Exterior wall assembly and roof assembly shall constitute the exterior surface of that 3.. Balconies not utilized as an exterior passageway may extend the lesser of one- element in addition to the necessary subsurface components for its structural integrity, third 06) of the way between the required including such items as studs, joists, rafters etc. If a portion of a wall or roof structural setback and the property line or four (4) capacity is to be removed, the associated exterior surface area shall be diagrammed as feel P tY 4.. Fire escapes required by the being removed. If a portion of a wall or roof involuntarily collapses, regardless of the International Building Code — Four (4) ers intent, portion shall be calculated as removed. Recalculation may be 5 developer's Uncovered � P Y 5. Uncovered porches, slabs, patios, necessary during the process of development and the Zoning Officer may require updated walks, retaining walls, steps and similar ro ect progresses. structures, which do not exceed thirty calculations as a P j P gr (30) inches above or below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more Replacement of fenestration shall not be calculated as wall area to be removed. New, restrictive, shall be permitted to project into the yard without restriction. relocated or expanded fenestration shall be counted as wall area to be removed. Projections may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be required Only exterior surface area above finished grade shall be used in the determination of by the Chief Building Official for demolition. Sub-grade elements and interior wall elements, while PO Y necessary tentiall necess window e s, hedges, Q 6.. Fences, he berms and walls less for a building's integrity, shall not be counted in the computation of exterior surface area. than six (6) feet in height, as measured from natural grade, are permitted in all According to the prepared diagram and area tabulation, the surface area of all portions of q yard s (See g P P � P Supplementary Reg ulations — Section the exterior to be removed shall be divided by the surface area of all portions of the 26.575.050, Fences.).Q exterior of the existing structure and expressed as a percentage. The Zoning Officer shall 7. t Driveways. Driveway access shall not exceed a depth or height greater than use this percentage to determine if the building is to be or has been demolished according ) twenty-four (24) inches above or below to the definition in Section 26.104.100, Demolition. If portions of the building grade within i n required ll hr front yard � setback. Within all other required involuntarily collapse, regardless of the developer's intent, that portion shall be calculated setbacks, driveway access shall not as removed. exceed a depth or height greater than thirty (30) inches above or below grade. Parking is only permitted within required It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural setbacks if it is in an approved driveway capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly 8 . other area approved for . Exterior ri P g P g P P Y 8.. Exterior merchandizing. Exterior understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain may result in an merchandizing in nonresidential zone involuntary collapse of those portions and a requirement to recalculate the extent of districts shall be prohibited in all required yaarrd d set etbacks.¶ demolition. Landowner's intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the 9.. Mechanical equipment. Mechanical demolition. Additional requirements or restrictions of this equipment shall be prohibited in all front calculation of actual physical q yard setbacks. On corner lots, Title may result upon actual demolition. mechanical equipment may not be placed in the setback of any yard facing a street.¶ 10. Trash containers. Wildlife - resistant refuse containers and Dumpster Measurement 0f Net Leasable Commercial Space. The calculation of Net enclosures that meet the requirements of Chapter 12.08 of this Code (Wildlife Leasable Space shall include all interior space of a building measured from interior wall Protection) shall be allowed in the to interior wall, including interior partitions and inclusive of all areas which can be leased setbacks. Permanent placement of trash containers shall be prohibited in all front to an individual tenant including offices, hallways, meeting rooms, display areas, yard setbacks. On corner lots, permanent showrooms, kitchens, dining rooms, coat rooms, bathrooms, storage, storage rooms, placement of trash containers shall not be permitted in the setback of any yard walk -in refrigerators or freezers, changing rooms, waiting rooms and similar space which facing a street.¶ may be leased to a tenant. The calculation of Net Leasable Space shall exclude Fommon B. Required yards adjacent to ,l ... rill area of a building not intended or designed to be leased to an individual tenant such as --{ Deleted: , exclusive of any Fommon bathrooms, common stairways, common circulation corridors, common -' Deleted: including, but not necessarily limited to, areas dedicated to Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 29 mechanical areas, ,common storage areas or similar common spaces not intended or -- Deleted: and designed to be leased to an individual tenant. , - Deleted: provided, however, that these areas are used solely by tenants on the Permanently installed interior airlock spaces are exempt from the calculation of net Stte. leasable space up to a maximum exemption of 100 square feet. Seasonal airlocks installed on the exterior of a building shall be considered Net Leasable Area and shall be subject to all requirements of the Land Use Code, including employee mitigation, prorated according to the portion of the year in which it is installed. Unless specifically exempted through other provisions of this Title, outdoor displays outdoor vending, and similar commercial activities located outside (not within a building) shall also be included in the calculation of Net Leasable Space. The calculation of such area shall be the maximum footprint of the display or vendina apparatus. For vending carts or similar commercial activities requiring an attendant, the calculation shall also include a reasonable amount of space for the attendant. Vending machines shall not be considered net leasable commercial space. J. Measurement of Net Livable Area. The calculation of Net Livable Area shall include all interior space measured from interior wall to interior wall, including interior partitions and inclusive of, but not limited to, entryways or lobbies dedicated to only one unit, ,finished or unfinished basements which are or can be made habitable and „stomp _ - - -• Deieteat habitable areas, closets and laundry areas accessible from the interior of a unit. Net livable Area Deleted ,riff- r shall not include ,,common circulation areas, common lobbies, common stairwells, -- Deleted: ; but excluding common elevator corridors, or similar common spaces not intended or designed to be occupied by an individual tenant. Net Livable Area shall not include uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, stairs, unconditioned Storage accessible only from the -- { Deleted: exterior exterior „garages „,carports, patios, decks,porches or similar spaces. Deleted: stairwells. Deleted: (attached or unattached), ) K. Exceptions for Energy Efficiency. The Community Development Director may t Deli: and approve exceptions to the dimensional restrictions of this Section to accommodate the addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment in or on existing buildings when no other practical solution exists. The Community Development Director must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable way to implement energy production or efficiency exists. The Director may require notice be provided to adjacent landowners. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable administrative decision. L. Exceptions for Building Code Compliance. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the dimensional restrictions of this Section to accommodate improvements required to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes in or on existing buildings when no other practical solution exists. The Community Development Director must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable way to implement code compliance 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 30 exists. The Director may require notice be provided to adjacent landowners. Approval shall be in the form of a recordable administrative decision. M Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding this Calculations and Measurements Section may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Chapter 26.316. Section 2: Section 26.575.040 — Yards which section describes the allowances and limitations on development within required yards (aka setbacks) shall be amended to read as follows: 26.575.040 — Reserved Section 3: Section 26.410.040.B.1 — Secondary Mass — which section describes the design requirements for residential structures, shall be amended as follows: 1. Secondary mass. All new single - family and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent (10 %) of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked ``' IMP to it by a subordinate Linking element. This ^ Deleted: connecting standard shall only apply to parcels within the .117 i Aspen infill area pursuant to Subsection 26.410.010.B.2. Accessory buildings such as garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for the secondary mass. A subordinate linking element for the purposes of linking a primary and secondary mass shall be at least ten (10) feet in length, pot more than ten (10) feet -. - - -{ Deleted: defined as an element in width, and with a plate height of not more than nine (9) feet. Accessible .. - - -{ Deleted: ten (10) feet in length outdoor space over the linking element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a linking element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety 4 and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. Deleted: Linked pavilions six (6) feet in width and ten (10) feet in length shall be exempt from Subsection 26.575.020.A.81 Section 4: 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 31 4 4 1 Chapter 26.710 — Zone Districts — which Chapter defines and describes use and dimensional allowances and limitations of development according to zone district designations, shall be amended by using the term Gross Lot Area to describe minimum required parcel sizes and the term Net Lot Area for all other dimensional allowances. The affected Sections within the Chapter are: 26.710.040.D. 26.710.050.D. 26.710.060.D. 26.710.070.D 26.710.080.D 26.710.090.D 26.710.100.D 26.710.110.D 26.710.120.D 26.710.130.D 26.710.140.D 26.710.150.D 26.710.160.D 26.710.170.D 26.710.180.D 26.710.190.D 26.710.200.D 26.710.220.D These Sections shall be amended as provide in the following example: 26.710.050.D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate - Density Residential (R- 15) Zone District. I 1. Minimum ,Gross Lot Area Jsquare feet): fifteen thousand (15,000). For lots { Deleted: lot siie created by Section 26.480.030.A.4, Historic landmark lot split: three thousand (3,000). 2. Minimum jslet Lot Area per dwelling unit (square feet): { Deleted: lot area 3 a. Detached residential dwelling: 15,000. For historic landmark properties: 3,000. b. Duplex: 7,500. For historic landmark properties: 3,000. c. Bed and breakfast, boardinghouse: No requirement. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): Seventy-five (75). For lots created by Section 26.480.030.A.4, Historic landmark lot split: Thirty (30). 4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): a. Residential dwellings: twenty-five (25). b. Accessory buildings and all other buildings: thirty (30). 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): Ten (10). 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): a. Principal buildings: 10 b. Accessory buildings: 5 7. Maximum height (feet): Twenty-five (25). 8. Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): Ten (10). 9. Percent of open space required for building site: No requirement. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 32 • Net Lot __ Allowable Floor Area for Allowable Floor Area for Two ---f Deleted: Lot Size ) Area Single - Family Residence* Detached Dwellings or One Duple (Square Feet) 0 -3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 90 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in jslet Lot Area, up 100 square feet in Net Lot Are up to__ - --{ Deleted: lot area to a maximum of 2,400 square feet a maximum of 2,700 square feet of { Deleted: lot area of floor area floor area 3,000 -9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 2,700 square feet of floor area, plus 30 28 square feet of floor area for each square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Area, up to a maximum of 4,080 Areal up to a maximum of 4,500 { Deleted: lot area square feet of floor area square feet of floor area. { Deleted: lot area ) 9,000— 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 7 15,000 7 square feet of floor area for each square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Are; up to a maximum of 4,500 Areal up to a maximum of 4,920 Deleted: lot area ) square feet of floor area square feet of floor area Deleted: lot al Cd 15,000— 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 4,920 square feet of floor area, plus 6 50,000 6 square feet of floor area for each square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Are; up to a maximum of 6,600 Areal up to a maximum of 7,020 -- Deleted: lot area square feet of floor area square feet of floor area - Deleted: lot area 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area, plus 7,020 square feet of floor area, plus 3 2 square feet of floor area for each square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Area -.- { Deleted: lot area ) -{ Deleted: lot area ) Section 5: { Deleted: or which are designed ) Section 26.104.100 – Definitions, which section describes the meaning of terms used in ; {Deleted' ' the Land Use Code, shall be amended by replacing the following three terms and Deleted' , exclusive of any area includin but not necessarily limited to, II definitions, as follows: areas dedicated to bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas and storage areas provided, however, that Net leasable commercial and office space. Those areas within a commercial t hese areas are used solely by tenants on or office building which are ,permitted to be leased to a tenant and occupied for I c/ the site_ commercial or office purposes, (Also see Section 26.575.020 – Calculations and r ,{ Deleted: IT Measurements.) Deleted: available i 0 '''' ' Deleted: measured from interior wall to ,let livable area. The areas ,within a building designed to be used for r interior wall, including interior partitions habitation and human activity. (Also see Section 26.575.020 – Calculations and and s of, but limited to, �' l habitabl baseme nts an d interior storage Measurements.) , areas, closets and laundry areas: but excluding uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (attached or unattached), patios, decks and porches. 1 Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 33 I Net Lot area. The total horizontal area contained within the lot lines of a lot or other parcel of land less those areas of the property affected by certain physical or legal conditions. (Also see ,Section 26.575.020, Calculations and - -- { Deleted: Supplementary Regulations — ) Measurements). Landscape terrace. An outdoor uncovered, at -grade space which may be paved or planted. Linked pavilion. An enclosed walkway connecting a primary structure to an Deleted: (See supplementary accessory structure. Regulations — Paragraph 26.575.020(A)(8), Linked pavilion). Porch. An uninsulated, unheated area under a roof, enclosed on at least one side by an exterior wall of apuilding and open on at least two sides to the outdoors, - { Deleted: living space with or without screens. Section 6: Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, which section describes the meaning of terms used in the Land Use Code, shall be amended by including the following term and definition: Gross Lot area. The total horizontal area contained within the lot lines of a lot or other parcel of land. Patio. An outdoor uncovered, at -grade space which may bepaved or unpaved. (A "covered patio" connected to a living space or building is considered a Porch. A "covered patio" not connected to any other building is considered a Gazebo. A "sunken patio" is considered an Areaway. 1 Gazebo. An uninsulated, unheated area under a roof, not connected to any other building and open on all sides to the outdoors, with or without screens. Areaway. An outdoor uncovered space developed below the grade of the surrounding ground which may provide exterior access from a basement or lower level of a building and which may incorporate or be independent of required egress. Light well. An outdoor uncovered space developed below the grade of the surrounding ground which provides egress from a basement or lower level of a building as required by adopted building or fire codes. Dormer. A small gable or shed roof projecting above the slope of the primary roof of a building. A dormer usually covers a vertical window. Section 7: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 34 Section 8: 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 9: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: Public hearings on the Ordinance were held on the 8 day of November, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. and on the lom day of January, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 11: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following fmal adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25 day of October, 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 27, Series 2010 Page 35 Chapter 26.575 ak MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS Sections: 26.575.010 General. 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements. 26.575.030 Public Amenity • 26.575.040 Yards. 26.575.045 Junk Yard and Service Yards. 26.575.050 Fences. 26.575.060 Utility /trash service areas. 26.575.070 Use square footage limitations. 26.575.080 Child care center. 26.575.090 Home occupations. 26.575.100 Landscape maintenance. 26.575.110 Building envelopes. 26.575.120 Satellite dish antennas. 26.575.130 Wireless Telecommunication Services Facilities and Equipment 26.575.140 Accessory uses and accessory structures. 26.575.150 Outdoor Lighting. 26.575.160 Dormitory. 26.575.170 Fuel storage tanks 26.575.180 Restaurant. 26.575.190 Farmers' market. 26.575.200 . Group - Homes. 26.575.210 Lodge Occupancy Auditing 26.575.010 General. Regulations specified in other sections of this Title shall be subject to the following supplemental regulations. 26.575.020 Calculations and measurements. The purpose of this Section is to set forth supplemental regulations which relate to methods for cal- culating and measuring certain enumerated terms as used in this Title. The definitions of the terms are set forth at Section 26.104.100. A. Floor area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 59 1. General. In measuring floor area for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and al- lowable floor area, there shall be included that floor area within the surrounding exterior walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a building, or portion thereof. When meas- uring from exterior walls, the veneer and all exterior treatments shall be included. When calculating areas with stairs, each floor -to -floor staircase is counted only once. 2. Decks, Balconies, Porches, Loggias and Stairways. The calculation of the floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall not include decks, balconies, exterior stairways, gaze- bos, and similar features, unless the area of these features is greater than fifteen (15) percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building (the excess of the 15% shall be in- cluded). Porches and landscape terraces shall not be counted towards FAR. 3. Garages, Carports and Storage Areas. In all zone districts except the R -15 -B zone district, for the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose prin- cipal use is residential, garages, carports, and storage areas shall be excluded up to a maxi- mum area of two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit; all garage, carport, and storage areas between two hundred fifty (250) and five hundred (500) square feet shall count fifty (50) percent towards allowable floor area; all garage, carport and storage areas in ex- cess of five hundred (500) square feet per dwelling unit shall be included as part of the resi- dential floor area calculation. For any dwelling unit which can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage shall only be ex- cluded from floor area calculations up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit if it is located on said alley or road; all garage, carport and storage areas between two hundred fifty (250) and five hundred (500) square feet shall count fifty (50) percent towards allowable floor area. For the purposes of determining the exclusion, if any, applicable to ga- rages, carports, and storage areas, the area of all structures on a parcel shall be aggregated. For garages that are part of a basement, the garage exemption is taken from the total below grade area before the sub -grade calculation takes place. In the R -1B zone district, garage, carport, and storage areas shall be limited to a five hundred (500) square foot exemption 4. Subgrade areas. To determine the portion of subgrade areas that are to be included in calcu- lating floor area, the following shall apply: a. For any story that is partially above and partially below natural or finished grade, which- ever is lower, the total percentage of exterior surface wall area that is exposed above the most restrictive of the grades shall be the total percentage of the gross square footage of the subject story included in the floor area calculation. Subgrade stories with no exposed exterior surface wall area shall be excluded from floor area calculations. (Example: If fifteen (15) percent of the exterior surface wall area has been exposed above natural or finished grade (whichever is lower), then fifteen (15) percent of the gross square footage of the subject story will be included as floor area.) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 60 b. For any dwelling unit that can be accessed from an alley or private road entering at the rear or side of the dwelling unit, the garage or carport shall only be eligible for the exclusions described in sub - section a if it is located along said alley or road. aKor a 4 c. In the R -15B zone district only, garages, carports, and storage areas shall be ex- cluded from residential floor area calculations up to a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet per dwelling unit. 5. (Repealed by Ord. No. 56 -2000, § 8) 6. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House shall be calculated and attributed to the allowable floor area for a par- cel with the same inclusions and exclusions for calculating Floor Area as defined in this Section, unless eligible for an exemption as described below: Detached and permanently affordable ADU or Carriage House Floor Area Exemption. One Hundred (100) percent of the Floor Area of an ADU or Carriage House which is detached from the primary residence and deed restricted as a "For Sale" affordable housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser in accordance with the As- pen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, shall be excluded from the calculation of Floor Area, up to a maximum exemption of 1,200 square feet per parcel. 7. Affordable Housing Bonus. The Floor Area of a parcel containing a single - family or duplex residence and a permanently affordable "For Sale" ADU or Carriage House located on the same parcel which has been transferred to a qualified purchaser in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended, shall be eligible for an Affordable Housing Floor Area bonus equal to or lesser than fifty (50) percent of the Floor Area of the associated ADU or Carriage House up to a maximum bonus of six - hundred (600) square feet per parcel. 8. Linked Pavilion. Any element linking the principal structure to an accessory structure shall not be included in the calculation of floor area provided that the linking structure is no more than one (1) story tall, six (6) feet wide and ten (10) feet long. Areas of linking structures in excess of ten feet in length shall be counted in floor area. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 61 9. Allocation of Non -Unit Space in a mixed -use building. In order to determine the total floor area of individual uses in a mixed -use building, the total floor area for non - unit space shall be allocated on a proportionate basis of the use categories outlined in the subject zone district's FAR schedule. The building's gross floor area, minus all non -unit space shall be divided amongst the individual use categories in a building. These numbers shall then be calculated as a percent of the gross floor area number that does not include the non -unit space. A proportionate share of the non -unit floor area shall then be allocated towards each use category. This provision shall apply to all zone districts permitting mixed -use buildings. For instance, if a building was comprised of the following square footages: 2,000 sq. ft. commercial floor area + 4,000 sq. ft. free - market residential floor area + 2,000 sq. ft. affordable housing floor area + 1,000 so. ft. of non -unit floor area = 9,000 sq. ft. total floor area Then, the total unit floor area in the building would be 8,000 sq. ft. floor area. Using the Allocation of Non -Unit Space standard, the uses account for the following per- centages of the total unit floor area: commercial floor area = 25% free - market residential floor area = 50% affordable housing floor area = 25% Therefore, the 1,000 sq. ft. of non -unit space is allocated to the different uses as follows: commercial floor area = 25% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 250 sq. ft. free - market residential floor area = 50% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 500 sq. ft. affordable housing floor area = 25% x 1,000 sq. ft. = 250 sq. ft. (Ord. No. 12 -2007) B. Building Heights. 1. Methods of Measurement for Varying Types of Roofs. In the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial Lodge (CL), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Service /Commercial/Industrial (SCI) Zone Districts, the height of the building shall be the maximum distance measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top, ridge, or parapet of the structure. For structures in all other zone districts, the height shall be measured as follows: City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 62 a. Flat Roofs or Roofs With a Slope of Less Than 3:12. The height of the building shall be the maximum distance measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the top or ridge of a flat, mansard, or other roof with a slope of less than 3:12. b. Roofs With a Slope From 3:12 to 7:12. For roofs with a slope from 3:12 to 7:12, height shall be measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the mean height between the eave point and ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel or other similar pitched roof. The ridge of a gable, hip, gambrel, or other pitched roof shall not extend over five feet above the maximum height limit. c. Roofs With a Slope of 8:12 or Greater. For roofs with a slope of 8:12 or greater, height shall be measured vertically from the natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to a point one -third (1/3) of the distance up from the eave point to the ridge. There shall be no limit on the height of the ridge. Chimneys and other appurtenances may extend up to a maximum of two (2) feet above the ridge. d. Chimneys, Antennas and Other Appurtenances. Antennas, chimneys, flues, vents or similar structures shall not extend over ten (10) feet above the specified maximum height limit, except for roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or greater, these elements may not extend more than two (2) feet above the ridge. Water towers, solar panels, and me- chanical equipment shall not extend over five (5) feet above the specified maximum height limit. Church spires, bell towers and like architectural projections, as well as flag poles, may extend over the specified maximum height limit. 2. Exceptions for Buildings on Slopes. The maximum height of a building's front (street fac- ing) facade may extend for the first thirty (30) feet of the building's depth. 3. Exceptions for Areaways, Lightwells and Basement Stairwells. An areaway, lightwell or basement stairwell of less than one hundred (100) square feet, entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street, and enclosed on all four sides to within eighteen (18) inches of the first floor level shall not be counted towards maximum permissible height. C. Lot Area. Except in the R15 -B zone district, when calculating floor area ratio, lot areas shall include only areas with a slope of less than 20 %. In addition, half (.50) of lot areas with a slope of 20 -30% may be counted towards floor area ratio; areas with slopes of greater than 30% shall be ex- cluded. The total reduction in FAR attributable to slope reduction for a given site shall not exceed 25 %. Also excluded from total lot area for the purpose of floor area calculations in all zone districts is that area beneath the high water line of a body of water and that area within a vacated right -of -way, or within an existing or proposed dedicated right -of -way or surface easement. Lot area shall include any lands dedicated to the City of Aspen or Pitkin County for the public trail system, any open irri- gation ditch, or any lands subject to an above ground or below ground surface easement such as City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 63 utilities that do not coincide with road easements. When calculating density, lot area shall have the same exclusions and inclusions as for calculating floor area ratio except for exclusion of areas of greater than 20% slope. D. Site Coverage. Site coverage is typically expressed as a percentage. When calculating site cov- erage of a structure or building, the exterior walls of the structure or building at ground level should be used. Porches, roofs, or balcony overhangs, cantilevered building elements and similar features extending directly over grade shall be excluded from maximum allowable site coverage calcula- tions. E. Measurement of Demolition. The City Zoning Officer shall determine if a building is in- tended to be, or has been, demolished by applying the following process of calculation: At the request of the Zoning Officer, the applicant shall prepare and submit a diagram showing the following: 1. The surface area of all existing (prior to commencing development) exterior wall assemblies above finished grade and all existing roof assemblies. Not counted in the existing exterior surface area calculations shall be all existing fenestration (doors, windows, skylights, etc.) 2. The exterior surface area, as described above, to be removed. Wall area or roof area being removed to accommodate new or relocated fenestration shall be counted as exterior surface area being removed. 3. The diagram shall depict each exterior wall and roof segment as a flat plane with an area tabulation. Exterior wall assembly and roof assembly shall constitute the exterior surface of that element in ad- dition to the necessary subsurface components for its structural integrity, including such items as studs, joists, rafters, etc. If a portion of a wall or roof structural capacity is to be removed, the asso- ciated exterior surface area shall be diagrammed as being removed. If a portion of a wall or roof involuntarily collapses, regardless of the developer's intent, that portion shall be calculated as re- moved. Recalculation may be necessary during the process of development and the Zoning Officer may require updated calculations as a project progresses. Replacement of fenestration shall not be calculated as wall area to be removed. New, relocated or expanded fenestration shall be counted as wall area to be removed. Only exterior surface area above finished grade shall be used in the determination of demolition. Sub -grade elements and interior wall elements, while potentially necessary for a building's integ- rity, shall not be counted in the computation of exterior surface area. According to the prepared diagram and area tabulation, the surface area of all portions of the exte- rior to be removed shall be divided by the surface area of all portions of the exterior of the existing structure and expressed as a percentage. The Zoning Officer shall use this percentage to determine if the building is to be or has been demolished according to the definition of Demolition, Section City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 64 26.104.100. If portions of the building involuntarily collapse, regardless of the developer's intent, that portion shall be calculated as removed. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain may result in an involuntary collapse of those portions and a require- ment to recalculate the extent of demolition. Landowner's intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition. Additional requirements or restrictions of 1.... this Title may result upon actual demolition. (Ord. No. 44 -1999, § 7; Ord. No. 55 -2000, § 14; Ord. No. 56 -2000, §§ 5, 6, 8; Ord. No. 25 -2001, §§ 6, 7; Ord. No. 46 -2001, § 4; Ord. No. 55, 2003 §4) 26.575.030 P c Amenity A. rpose. The City of Aspen seeks a vital, • asant downtown Public environment. Public enity contributes to an attractive commer ..• and lodging district by creating public places • settings conducive to an exciting pedest ' . shopping and entertainment atmosphere. P • • amen- ity can take the form of physical o ..erational improvements to public rights -o -•ay or private property within these districts. ' .. is Amenity provided on the subject develo • ent site is referred to as On -Site Public Ameni this section. B. Applicabili . d Requirement. The requirements of this . -ction shall apply to the devel- opment of all co ercial, lodging, and mixed -use developme• within the CC, C1, MU, NC, SCI, L, CL, LP . . LO Zone Districts This area represents As s primary pedestrian- oriented down- town, a i ell as important mixed -use, service, and 1od: • g neighborhoods. T -nty -five (25) percent of each parcel wi '- the applicable area shall be provided . : •ublic enity. For redevelopment of parcels o • 'ch less than this twenty -five (25) p- -nt currently exists, the existing (prior to redevelop • t) percentage shall be the effective r - • •irement provided no less than ten (10) percent is re. ' -d. A reduction in the required public -. enity may be allowed as provided in Section 26.575 ' 1 D., Reduction of Requirement. E - pt from these provisions shall be development co Ong entirely of residential uses. Als. -xempt from these provisions shall be the redevelo p . - nt of parcels where no on -site Public . .- -nity currently exists, provided the redevelopment is ' ited to replacing the building in its s. - dimensions as measured by footpri height, and • .r area. C. 'rovision of Public Amenity. The Pl. • • g and Zoning Commission or His c Preserva- tio • ommission, pursuant to the review p . edures and criteria of Section 26. — Commercial - sign Review, shall determine the a.. opriate method or combination of ods for providing this required amenity. One or mo :. the following methods may be use uch that the standard is reached. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 65 the storage, display, and merchandising of goods and services; provided, however, that the pro- hibition of this subsection shall not apply when such use is in conjunction with permitted com- mercial activity on an abutting right -of -way or is otherwise permitted by the City. For outdoor food vending in the Commercial Core District, also see Section 26.470.040(B)(3), Administra- tive Growth Management Review. 10. Commercial Restaurant Use. The provisions above notwithstanding, required Public amen- ity space may be used for commercial restaurant use if adequate pedestrian and emergency ve- hicle access is maintained. 11. Design Guideline Compliance. The design of the public amenity shall meet the parameters of the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guide- lines. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, § 15; Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 16, 2002; Ord. No. 23 -2004, §3; Ord. No. 5, 2005, §2; Ord. No.13 -2007) 3E 26.575.040 Yards. A. Projections Into Required Yards. Yards shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky ex- cept for the following allowed projections: 1. Building eaves -- Eighteen (18) inches; 2. Architectural projections -- Eighteen (18) inches; 3. Balconies not utilized as an exterior passageway, may extend the lesser of one -third of the V way between the required setback and the property line or four (4) feet. 4. Fire escapes required by the International Building Code - -Four (4) feet; 5. Uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks, retaining walls, steps and similar structures, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be permitted to project into the yard without restriction. Projections may exceed thirty (30) inches below grade if determined to be required by the chief building official for window egress. 6. Fences, hedges, berms and walls less than six (6) feet in height, as measured from natural grade, are permitted in all required yard setbacks. (See, Supplementary Regulations - Sec - tion 26.575.050, Fences.). 7. Driveways Driveway access shall not exceed a depth or height greater than twenty -four (24) inches above or below grade within the required front yard setback. Within all other re- quired setbacks, driveway access shall not exceed a depth or height greater than thirty (30) inches above or below grade. Parking is only permitted within required setbacks if it is in an approved driveway or other area approved for parking. City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 69 8. Exterior merchandizing. Exterior merchandizing in non - residential zone districts shall be prohibited in all required yard set backs. 9. Mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be prohibited in all front yard set- backs. On corner lots, mechanical equipment may not be placed in the setback of any yard fac- ing a Street. 10. Trash containers. Wildlife resistant refuse containers and dumpster enclosures that meet the requirements of Section 12.08 of the Municipal Code (Wildlife Protection) shall be allowed in the setbacks. Permanent placement of trash containers shall be prohibited in all front yard setbacks. On comer lots, permanent placement of trash containers shall not be permitted in the setback of any yard facing a Street. The following supplemental regulations shall apply to all yards. B. Required Yards Adjacent to Private Streets or Rights - of - way. Where there is no public dedica- tion and the lot line extends into the right -of -way, the required yard setback shall equal the minimum distance specified under the zone district regulations along the closest boundary of the right -of -way to the proposed structure. When a property's lot line does not extend into the right -of -way, the required yard setback shall equal the minimum distance specified under zone district regulations from the lot line. Please refer to Figure 575.1, Required Setback from a Pri- vate Road or Right -of -Way. El pi _ _ _._ _ _ _ City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 70 Figure 575.1 Required Setback from a Private Road or Right -of -Way C. Corner Lots. On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street shall be two- thirds (2/3) of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner. D. Transitional Yards. Where two (2) lots which share a common side lot line are in different zone districts, the lot in the more intensive zone district shall observe the required yard setback dis- , tance as established for the less intensive use zone district. E. Non Aligned Lots. For any lot in the R -6 zone district in excess of nine thousand (9,000) square feet which is not aligned along the traditional Aspen Townsite lot lines, the building inspec- tor shall measure the side yards from the two (2) shortest sides of the lot which are opposite from each other and the front and rear yards from the two (2) longest sides of the lot which are opposite from each other. 26.575.045 Junk Y and Service Yards. Junk yards (se coition, Section 25.104.100) shall be -ened from the view of oth= lots, struc- tures, us d rights -of -way. Service yards (See de tion, Section 26.104.100) -.1 be fenced so as n o be visible from the street, and suc nces shall be a minim • (6) feet high from e. All fences shall be of sound cons • on and shall have not ms than ten (10) percent open area. 26.575.050 Fences. Fences shall be pe . fitted in every zone district ovided that no fence shall e • ed six (6) feet above natural • . • e or as otherwise regulated • • the Residential Design Stan' .• s or the Commer- cial Desi_ : andards (see Chapters 26.4: and 26.412). Fences visible ..m the public right -of- way sh. .e constructed of wood, sto , wrought iron or masonry. O, omer lots, no fence, retain- ing . 1, or similar object shall b -rected or maintained which • cts the traffic vision, nor on er lots shall any fence, r- : ming wall, or similar obstru • • n be erected or maintained w exceeds a height of forty-•- so (42) inches, measured fro .. eet grade, within thirty (30) from the paved or unpaved •adway. Plans showing propos =. construction, material, locatio d height shall be presented • the building inspector before - .uilding permit for a fence i ed. Addition- ally, foliage sh. be placed and maintained so at it will not obstruct vehi visibility at inter- sections. (0 No. 55 -2000, § 16; Ord. No. -2007) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 500, Page 71 1. City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 01, 2010 ;.- , ' r MOTION: m DeFrancia moved to a. ove Resolution #12, 2010 a.. eying C with co ttions, 8040 Greenline Re and Residential Design St- .ards for saiese, B • ing Orientation and Buil• o Lines; seconded by Jasmin- ygre. Roll call ote• Tygre, yes; Weiss, ,.; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes • :.eck, yes; Erspam - yes; Gibbs, no. A...ved 5 -2. PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Code Amendments. Chris Bendon stated this was the section that describes how you measure all the heights, FARs, and setbacks regarding development. Cliff Weiss said a lot of this discusses what they have been discussing in the Aspen Area Community Plan but he was concerned with the process. Weiss said that they need to prevent there from ever being 15,000 square feet of sub -grade space. Weiss said there are some things that overlap and some things he had concerns about were improving the code now from changing it less than 6 months from now. Bendon said this section of the code hasn't been touched in 15 or more years in any substantive way. Bendon said the when Council and BOCC adopt the AACP one of the first things they are going to have to do go through a massive work program; some will be very simple and others with be extensive and require a consultant and a lot of staff time. Bendon said they were trying to clean up the existing language without getting overly deep into changing the substance and coming up with new things. Bendon said the Calculations and Measurements Section included floor areas and setbacks. There were provisions for what is allowed in setbacks; projections into setbacks and how you measure heights. What is the net leasable and staff would like to be closer to the industry. Bendon asked the Commission for direction and guidance. Stan Gibbs asked what Chris thought were the most significant. Bendon replied that Limitations from time to time someone will want to exchange one non - conforming thing for another. Bendon said that Measuring Lot Area and Slope was now a paragraph that tries in text to describe what is easier described in a table that count towards the lot area for lot area purposes and density purposes. Bendon said they reduced for slopes once you get over 20% slopes except in the R -15B neighborhood. Slopes over 30% will be taken from the floor area. Bendon said that lot area is what you use to decide the floor area. 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 01, 2010 Bendon said that this was about putting more language into the code. Bendon said that code says that you measure to the exterior of this surface material of the building and the revised code says to measure to the sheathing and the building permit plans are clear but it can add bulk in some buildings that add bricks or stone to the sheathing. Bendon said there was a lot of room for interpretation so they might want to look at it. Bendon said there was an exemption for porches and there have been some requests to do some exemptions on second level decks. Bendon said that garages and carports were a graduated exemption up to 500 square feet. Weiss asked the motive of that paragraph for any dwelling unit. Bendon replied that in 1997 when the city adopted Residential Design; the city reduced the exemptions and made them only available if you used an alley if you have an alley but you only get that 500 square foot exemption for the garage if you have an alley. Weiss voiced concern for the heights of garages in some areas and the vaulted areas become living areas. Weiss asked if there was anything to address that in the code now. Bendon answered that it probably goes to the discussion about attic space; it has sort of same function other than needing to get up there. Weiss asked if attic space was the same as over a garage. Bendon replied yes. Bendon said that in zone district R15B had the exemption for garages and the exemption does not apply for multi - family commercial mixed use in lodging buildings. Bendon said that ADU count against the total square footage unless they are deed - restricted and sold through the housing authority and then they do not count whatsoever and you get an affordable housing bonus and half of that square footage comes back to you as an additional FAR bonus. Weiss asked for distinction between a permanent shed and temporary shed. Myrin asked if the Wildlife- resistant Dumpster Enclosure could be attached to the house. Bendon replied no because there may be other things in that part of the structure; it needs to be an isolated area. Bendon said that he would clean up that language. Bendon said that for mixed use buildings you get an overall aggregate FAR for the building and then there are individual FARs for each use. Bendon noted this gives an example of the common space and there is a calculation for common space. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 01, 2010 Bendon said that setbacks are found through all the definitions; first you have to figure out the front, side and rear lot lines and that tells you where the yards are and there's something for non - aligned R6 lots, which never works. Weiss asked if there was an appeal process. Bendon replied there was a process at the end of the document for appeal process. Gibbs asked about lots located on corners and asked how the front of the lot was determined. Bendon replied it would be the house lining up with the front yards of the other houses along that same block. Bendon said there was a section on how to measure setbacks on private streets and when the street moves along and the lot line down the center doesn't really translate to the easement of the street so you use the boundaries of the street and you measure from there. Bendon said there is this piece on combined yards and that in R6 each side yard has to be 5 feet and there has to be a combined of 15 so your house has to be consistent. Weiss said for anything to project (second floor decks) into a setback should not be allowed because that gets pretty close to the next building. Weiss said that hedges can grow and block your view; he discussed berms and vegetation blocking views from streets. Bendon responded it allows 42 inches in areas that are the front facade facing the street. Alexander said so if there are 2 streets you have to go 30 feet back from each intersection. Bendon said that engineering did the sight triangle and he would make sure the language was the same. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7.:15pm; Bert Myrin seconded, all in favor, Approved. Weiss said that solar panels could take advantage of this setback for front yards. Bendon said there was a new provision of rooftop railings and they should not exceed 5 feet and at least 50% transparent. Erspamer asked if the rooftop mechanical equipment had to be setback. Bendon replied that in commercial design review they do a reference. Bendon said they wanted to put a provision in the code for net leasable space and net livable area (common circulation areas). Bendon said under net leasable he wanted to put an exemption for interior air lock spaces; those go away. Net livable was all that you live in. There were 2 exemptions that can be provided at the 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 01, 2010 community development level; energy efficiency and the same for building code compliance. Bendon asked the commission to think about these. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the Code Amendment to June 15 seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, Approved. Mourned at 7:25pm _ Ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 City Planning & ning Meeting — Minutes — Ju e 15, 2010 about the FAR bu . u do say how the developable I • as calculated. Myri • aid that adding th- entence in about what the code •s and that it may cha Bendon s.'. e didn't mind taking that Per S- tion 26.710.080 out . • . would defer ts itch about the addition of the 1 -. guage. Haas replied if ou take that out yo on't need to add anything else i • , it is what it is. Tygre . _ eed. Myrin stated .t it was important because we ere relying on so much 'tried and it might come back. Haas responded • t he would not stand he and consider to not having a vested right bu ' was okay to take the othe s art. MOTION: Ber yrin moved to approve reso tion #013, series of 20 f, Stream Margin Revir for 69 Shady Lane with the - mination of the first s- • ion; seconded LJErspamer. Roll call: Ty: 'e, yes; Speck, yes; M n, yes; Weiss, yes; E'.pamer, yes; Gibbs, yes. App'.ved 6 -0. Withdrawn MOTION: LJ pamer moved to rem. e the Fishing Easement from Resolution #013 -10; • - conded by Brian Spe Discussion of mot' below: Myrin wante• something in the Resoluti•.- that said the FAR calcu . ions will be at the time • the building permit. Be • . on said the floor area this parcel shall be pur• • ant to the zoning for this .. cel and accord' g to the land use code e ctive at the time of the s ission of the b . ing permit. Myrin said - - would like to make that - otion. Amending MOTION: Bert Myrin moved tha e floor area for this parcel sha be pursuant to the oning for this parcel an.. ccording to the land use code effective at the e of the submission o e building permit; seconded b asmine Tygre. Appr- ed 5 -1 (LJagainst). 44 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Miscellaneous Code Amendments Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the Code Amendments. Chris Bendon stated this was a continued hearing on the section that describes how you measure all the heights, FARs, and setbacks regarding development. Bendon went through the Resolution that was changed from the last time in green and the table that they were proposing for net lot area; this takes out for slopes, areas under high water line and all of the things just talked about in the last application. Bendon said that the concern that Cliff brought up regarding note #2, which sets a basement on a property that can be reduced because of slope reduction. Bendon provided a couple of options that he reviewed with Jim True and the commission 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 15, 2010 agreed on Option B "There shall be no reduction in Floor Area attributable to steep slopes except that the total slope reduction shall not result in a property having less than one - thousand square feet of floor area." Bendon said Option B is probably more adaptable. Jasmine Tygre said that Option B provides more flexibility and if the lot was very steep it would give more control over that. Bendon said the next was measuring floor area and measuring to the exterior sheathing, vapor barrier or weather proofing excluding any exterior veneer. So the measurement is to the weather membrane not the exterior rocks. Bendon said that attic space shouldn't count if it is a traditional attic space and should count if it is going to be used like any other room in the building or can be used like any other room in the building. "Unfinished and uninhabitable space between the ceiling joists and roof rafters which is either inaccessible as only a matter of necessity is exempt from floor area calculations." Bendon said the sheds, storage units, and similar accessory structures count against floor area if they are more than thirty inches in height. Weiss said he has a Rubbermaid storage shed that he keeps his rakes, snow shovels and yard equipment and it was 6 feet high, about 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep; and this would count against his FAR. LJ Erspamer asked what were they trying to discourage and we want to enclose our trash. Erspamer said that you can't even have a shed and he doesn't have a garage. Gibbs suggested any shed under 50 square feet is exempt and more than that counts 100 %. Erspamer wanted 100 square feet. Weiss said that he was okay with 50 and was curious why LJ wanted 100. Tygre and Weiss said that wasn't a shed it was a room. Bendon said that he wouldn't go beyond 50 square feet. Tygre said 4 feet by 8 feet. Bendon said the Wildlife Dumpster Enclosures in residential zone districts are exempt from floor area. Gibbs said this was a particular use and had to be wildlife resistant. Bendon said that projections into setback couldn't be closer than 5 feet from the next building. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm, seconded by LJ Erspamer. Approved 5 -1 (Jasmine, no) 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 15, 2010 Bendon said that energy systems were not appropriate in the front yard; if you can't physically put it anywhere other than the front yard it ends up on top of your building. Myrin said that he has solar panels on his roof that are on the north and east sides so they don't face the street and function until noon and didn't have to go through HPC. Bendon said the question here was did you want to prohibit by definition in the front yard. Bendon said the next one was on page 12 of the resolution with the question why do we regulate ridge height and we need know what the problem is first before we attempt to fix it. Erspamer said that he was concerned where the measurement was taken from; he asked if Chris was comfortable from measuring from the ground at each point of the building. Erspamer voiced concern when the buildings were torn down and all the soil was scraped and come back and nobody knows where the original measurements were located so they need a variance because this is what they have now. Bendon stated they measure from the lower of natural or finished grade. Erspamer asked on a variable grade lot how do you take the average. Bendon said that probably takes some discussion between the zoning officer and the developer. Erspamer stated that you have to measure before they demolish. Bendon replied yes, they wouldn't be grading because they need a development permit to do that. Bendon said the next was elevator and stair enclosures to exceed the height limit by a certain amount only if they are setback so he suggested not to extend more than 10 feet above the maximum specified height limit; if setback from the street facing facade of the building a minimum of 15 feet. The footprint of the stair or elevator enclosure must be a minimum reasonably necessary for its function. Myrin asked if on top of that elevator was there still another 5 feet for mechanical; does that set a new height for all of that stuff. Bendon responded no, you can't take all of these things and stack them together and do something that you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do. Weiss asked how peaked roofs work with this. Bendon replied that if the elevator has a sloped roof you would measure that point and go down. Weiss said it was a chimney. Bendon answered say the height limit is 25 feet so you have a provision for measuring steep sloped roofs; the height of the elevator enclosure could go to 35, you are measuring to the top part of that elevator enclosure. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend the meeting until 7:30, Cliff Weiss seconded, Approved 5 -1 (Jasmine , no). 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — June 15, 2010 Brian Speck excused himself at 7:15pm. Bendon said on page 15 of the resolution is Site Coverage. Bendon stated the last one was on page 16 of the resolution Exceptions for Building Code Compliance. Bendon said the applicant needs to know what the building is all about before you begin construction so they don't end up going to Council to get a Code Amendment to deal with their particular situation. Bendon said this resolution still needs all the graphics that support and explain all the changes. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the Code Amendment, Resolution #014 -10; seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll Call: Myrin, yes; Erspamer, no; Tygre, yes; Weiss, yes, Gibbs, yes. Approved 4 -1. Acfou ed a m ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 v n ld C D al-- Januar 10, 2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Colleen Collins and Art Burrows 516/518 Spruce St. RE: Ordinance 27/ Property Value Impacts We are asking City Council to look carefully at Ordinance 27 as it has potential negative impact to our and possibly others' values and rights to develop. There may be several or many( ?) owners who face significant hardship and devaluation without knowledge, input or consent to these code changes /enforcements. Please consider what is helpful, positive 'house cleaning' in the Ordinance/ process for staff and architects and what may not be, especially with regard to owners with rights. Are there parts of the Ordinance that could be creating unintended negative consequences both to owner rights and the community's vision. How many owners with unique (not uniform) parcels i.e. slope and /or access challenges are there? Input from home /property owners, (not only architects and staff) who could be substantially impacted by these changes would be helpful. We own two parcels in Aspen proper located on Spruce St just off Park Circle. The smaller parcel (Parcel B) was part of a mining claim, added to the backside of Parcel A (uniform Williams addition Tots 5 & 6 — w/ duplex rights) in the 1960's. Parcel B became land locked when Centennial was built in the early 1980's. While we have two separate parcels with separate development rights, we have been moving through various plans to gain access without disrupting Parcel A. Presently, we have settled on coming through Parcel A to access Parcel B. In proposed Ordinance 27, regarding driveways, it states if we run a driveway /access easement through Parcel A to get access to Parcel B we will lose the square footage of the driveway length/width from the entire front lot square footage of Parcel A. In this case, the proposed driveway, approximately 1500 sq ft. will be deducted out of our total 7500 sq ft.area, of Parcel A (lots 5 and 6) making it ineligible for a duplex right. (7500 sq ft. equals a duplex right in this neighborhood). We 've always had a duplex right on Parcel A and a single family development right on Parcel B. To have the duplex right reduced to a single family is a loss in value and rather than two smaller homes being built on the front property, (for two families) one large home may be built, which does not support the community goal of smaller scale, more housing in town. The front parcel is compromised by virtue of granting access to the back. Cars crossing over the front lot to get to the back is impact enough. We ask you change this part of Ordinance 27. It seems unfair to penalize a landowner granting an easement through their property by taking away square footage, which limits value and choices. We hope that if passed you will grant us a variance or vested right with regard to this issue so we can have it recorded and move ahead knowing our parcels are protected. Thank you for this consideration. Sincerely, Colleen Collins and Art Burrows 516/518 Spruce St. (970- 618 -3653) ccollinsburrows@comcast.net 1 „ - : ) : . , . 1 ,-- ,. -;-- ?2 ', rsi " II , .. � • � , , - - ‘\ o • 300020 1 , 1 t3113e 1 Al t Ii ■ Mall • 1 411002 27! 1 34r0102 yMl \ Willi' "-------ip N11111 - -- 1 , 1 .- im_ "Al ..\;, , 30003_____ ,' � ; 1 i I ii IMII W - /11104 I t Spruce Ps Townhomes - PAFtlC CAR _ Ta nhomes , pandS r r 31!002 31!001 I ' r r s. 1 ' 401701 �1► / `, 40, 1 SmU' ® 401+1 , ' „ „// i 71:- ,...,, . ..., ' >‘ • j (.,_,, ' ' v i ::;::; 4 . ' ,E# -:''' ;!. .:::,:.:.,:::- : o , / , , I , I < /�/� y J / � 4ls2 13 �- /;'.103 4lRf lot , US 7., . lz �/ `; 1` t , � 4 �y i , / / 49017 -` l^ / 4 ' NY212 ` - ''4'1031$ 01111 1 \ °(�\ 4' / • ' ! .. , ` _ J I ,,...../ 0216 . ?' ' j \ 4103 . /\: %J 430106 ,"�.., l 49Y113 \ / 4: ` �' �/ 4!8324 ` 1 x%470 /` ( ..c. , r 1 1 4l011�7 Iv ens'' A. , (. 4 Y 4!O z 7 119` 00917 U ' • = N \ 1 / • .� - `: ""- \ 1:` , ' 1 / / ' 2� ` � 4702!9' 470712' • ■ . 490117 ■" 460 14 J 4!0727 `� \` - ,y091 \\ /' )' // 47a / ~ \ \ 490116 � • . ��\ 470121 �_ /` �':;a.: - • g I I ' I, ! 9° � ! a I! °iii a IS v y r t�r � � 9 °eie � R !r1 1 2 1 d 1 i 1 i • I x i C . 3 I i3 C !a 9k ig � ° n eI l ,- •� aP 1� .. S 6 e� QogB +! 9� 5 ? c . E � 1 ti Q o R•iS+•1 R i �C p l ` 91 ! :al in POMP s° : 1 1 1 °O H! a ` I 1 1 1 7 %i 1 .11 iI I 333P Qea XN11 I ° I e! EF�ise . �!¢II !d s! €� 11 ir1 1 9 E 9 1 1 E I 6 1 c E f 11211:1 Q !ii 1 c� N sg3 19 r r CL. AS 111 aaOR[ F — �� e t r < I� — !! I — ` p 1 + 11 i r.� o d' 1� 2 I % '. I li �2 2Ii % g W oo rto S, �_ !�i Om m m O �Id i 1 ! ! ea' III a bl I v en Hi A I 11 J ' ( a I J o chi u 2 I � e�! lai F !°!; E �1 3 � Pi Ie e O Y d i ii . .wa w°a°mr le !�� •� ! 3 F I !le a rJ S !I� !' Y'! 'A m Zo� law.mr G — — r in, r W� ^O i \ I !t % J w y iI9 . a9 d I s 4 1 1 1 1 a o rca r 0 9� 0 U SZ °� ` I s 1 ! �� !I .a g o 1 , � M t ° c� S W 4 i N a k ° i ' I 1 fi O Z� F n a i ° 1 ° < o .. 0 i 1 5 t Z % d K Illlllllrr < I F g € s % a ° it 9 4 .I ! I I 9 r °! C :,' p e 1� !II R sg� ,N! � i • ,, ► I q i i l l i h i .t33zus 33l121ds ° I 1 1 �: �� tt ,� 10„ - a 1 G !% a N, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director JJfi FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #28, Series of 2010, Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation, Continued from December 6, 2010 DATE: January 10, 2011 APPLICANT: SUMMARY: The City of Aspen City Council adopted Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, three years ago. The purpose of the ordinance was to identify postwar era properties in Aspen that may be considered "potential historic resources" and to create a system to encourage their preservation. Ordinance #48 was intended to be replaced or improved upon. Council appointed the Historic Preservation Task Force to examine 'f alternatives and make policy recommendations. Their work was completed in October 2009. Council directed staff to bring forward code amendments proposing a long term approach for postwar �++► '� preservation by the end of 2010. This is the fourth public hearing on the ordinance. ASPEN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments. The effective date of the ordinance is 30 days after approval, H I S T O R IC however staff recommends that no designation applications be accepted until March 1 This will allow time for the Historic PR ESE R VAT I 0 N Preservation Commission to finalize scoring sheets and a matrix used to evaluate the significance and integrity of properties. These tools will require Council endorsement, which is scheduled for February 28 This ordinance was continued on December 6 so that Council could review the staff proposal on three topics; 1) the certificate to be used for removal from the AspenModern map, 2) amended language related to designation of City owned properties, and 3) options for tracking the value of TDRs. The form is attached as Exhibit B. The amended language, and a handful of non- substantive clean -ups, are highlighted in the ordinance in yellow. Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation Second Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 1 - of 3 Following is a summary of the ordinance changes based on the December 6 Council discussion. 10 Year Assurance The Task Force and interested citizens have stressed the importance of finalizing a system that works for the community and provides assurance and predictability around the permanence of the new program. Council cannot bind future elected officials from changing any laws; therefore, staff inserted a "Whereas" statement in the ordinance that asks future Councils to honor this commitment and not alter the program for at least 10 years. In addition, the City Attorney's office has drafted the certificate which will be issued to any property owner wishing to be removed from the AspenModern map. It will be signed by the property owner, Community Development Director, and the Mayor and communicates the City's intent to leave the proposed ordinance in place for a reliable period of time. Designation of City Owned Properties: Based on Council's November 22 comments, Ordinance #48 properties which are owned by the City of Aspen will be depicted on the AspenModern map. Staff has amended the language, found at Section 6 of the ordinance, to be clear that the City Manager's office will initiate designation applications in 2011, including the input and recommendation of tenants or City Departments responsible for the affected properties. HPC will make a recommendation to Council, and Council will determine whether or not the designation criteria are met. The properties are the Yellow Brick, Red Brick, and Mountain Rescue cabin. The Pedestrian Malls were removed from this list at the request of the City Manager. Staff also suggests the Hildur Anderson property be considered. It was excluded in 2007 because of its location on the east bank of the Roaring Fork, which was the geographical limit of the list at the time. Tracking the Value of 77)I2s Council has expressed interest in the suggestion that the City track the sale of TDRs, in order to document their value. Staff has inserted new language at Section 26.535.070.1 modeled on the Pitkin County Land Use Code, requiring grantors of TDRs to report the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate to Community Development in a timely manner. REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ORDINANCE ADOPTION: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. Land Use Code Amendment's, Historic Preservation Second Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 2 - of 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the attached ordinance. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2010, on Second Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Exhibit A - Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B - Certificate of Removal from AspenModem Map Land Use Code Amendments, Historic Preservation Second Reading, Ordinance #28, Series of 2010 Page - 3 - of 3 Exhibit A Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The amendment is not in conflict with other areas of the Municipal Code. Aspen adopted historic preservation regulations almost 40 years ago and the identification and preservation of postwar era properties has been on -going for over 20 years. The proposed amendments are revisions to an existing voluntary system that requires detrimental alterations to potential historic resources to be temporary delayed while the City and property owner discuss alternatives. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The AACP specifically addresses historic preservation and the importance of protecting "all buildings and sites of historic significance," representing not only the Victorian era, but Aspen's ski history and mid - century renaissance as well. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: Aspen has never had a minimum age requirement for designation. The opportunity for postwar era properties to be designated, at least voluntarily, has been in place for years, therefore staff does not perceive the code amendments as having any new, unanticipated impact on the community. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: n/a. 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. Staff Response: n/a. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: A well used quote within the preservation field is that "The greenest building is the one that already exists." Staff believes that impacts on the natural environment are generally reduced by historic preservation efforts. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: nla. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Response: Staff believes the extensive public process on this topic has been as comprehensive as possible. Staff is proposing amendments to the Land Use Code that are intended to reflect a broad range of input. While the proposed amendments may not please all parties, staff believes they represent the many opinions and creative ideas that have been generated during a difficult period that has been termed by some as "purgatory," and are a responsible way to conclude the debate. 5,..",„(40,4- Certificate of Removal from Aspen Modern Map Date of Issuance: Property Owner(s): Address of Property: - Aspen, Colorado 81611 Legal Description of Property: THIS CERTIFICATE is issued to the above referenced property Owner(s) by the City of Aspen as evidenced by the signature of the undersigned Mayor of the City of Aspen, on the date first set forth above, by the authority of, and pursuant to, Section 26.415.025(C)(4) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. The Subject Property is hereby removed from the AspenModern Map at the request of the Owner(s). Except upon the written request and consent of the Owner(s) of the Subject Property at the time of the request, the Subject Property shall not be eligible for historic designation in the City of Aspen for a period of ten (10) years from the Date of Issuance of this Certificate. This Certificate shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. This Certificate is issued by the City of Aspen acting in its proprietary capacity. Owner's Acknowledgement: Owner(s) hereby acknowledges that application has been made to the City of Aspen Community Development Department pursuant to Section 26.415.025(C)(4) of the City of Aspen Municipal to be removed from the AspenModern Map. Owner(s) hereby acknowledge that it waives certain preservation benefits set forth in Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal Code that may apply to properties that are designated as historic properties. Owners(s): (Signature) (Print Name) Community Development Director: Mayor, City of Aspen: (Signature) (Signature) Ordinance #28 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.415, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT, SECTION 26.420, BENEFITS FOR PROPERTIES LISTED ON THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES AND SECTION 26.535, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, at the direction of City Council, prepared amendments to Chapters 26.415, 26.420, and 26.535 of the Aspen Municipal code, pertaining to historic preservation; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments address the preservation of postwar era properties in Aspen, particularly regulations which have been in place since the adoption of an emergency ordinance, Ordinance #48, since December 2007. The amendments are intended to replace and supercede Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 in its entirety; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been brought forward after the conclusion of a Historic Preservation Task Force of citizens who worked to propose process improvements for 19 months; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Director recommended approval of amendments to the above listed Sections as further described herein; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented i to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on October 13, 2010 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended that City Council adopt amendments to the Municipal Code after consideration of the following comments: 1) the AspenModern Map should include all eligible properties within the City limits, 2) some incentives should be offered to AspenModern properties even without designation, and 3) any negotiated benefits should be required to meet high standards in terms of both preservation and green building; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapters and Sections on October 19, 2010, took and considered public testimony and the recommendations of the Community Development Director and Historic Preservation Commission and recommended, by a 4 to 1 vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code after consideration of the following comments: 1) Section 26.415.025, Identification of Historic Properties should be revised to clarify the regulations that affect AspenModern properties which are proposed for landmark designation vs. AspenModern properties which are listed on the AspenModern Map but not proposed for landmark designation, 2) Council should consider establishing a separate review board that will conduct the negotiation process. As proposed, there are a lot of steps and participants involved. Council could take the role of ratifying the recommendation of this new review board, 3) Council should consider whether there is a way to ensure equity in the negotiated benefits that are awarded to comparable properties, 4) The Planning and Zoning Commission heard public comment from the properties which comprise The Aspen Meadows and understands that these owners may wish to amend their SPA to address historic preservation rather than be included in AspenModern, 5) Council should consider the proposed language of Section 26.415.025, Penalities for work done on AspenModern properties without approvals. The penalties apply to any unapproved "alteration," which may be too broad a term, and 6) Council should consider allowing the owners of properties that are not addressed in context papers to volunteer for designation review. This would allow for voluntary designation of buildings from any period, even new construction; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, by the passage of this Ordinance the City Council intend that no further amendments to the process for identifying and preserving any properties related to Aspen's 20` Century development be undertaken by any City Council before January 1, 2021. It is this Council's intent to provide a period of assurance and predictability that the community can rely on. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, which section describes the process and criteria through which the city designates properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Chapter 26.415 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Sections: 26.415.010 Purpose and intent 26.415.020 Definitions 26.415.025 Identification of historic properties 26.415.030 Designation of historic properties 26.415.040 Recordation of designation 26.415.050 Rescinding designation 26.415.060 Effect of designation 26.415.070 Development involving designated historic properties 26.415.080 Demolition of designated properties 26.415.090 Relocation of designated historic properties 26.415.100 Demolition by neglect 26.415.110 Benefits 26.415.120 Appeals, Council notice and call up 26.415.130 Variances by other City review bodies 26.415.140 Penalties 26.415.010. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Under the authority provided by the Home Rule Charter of the City and Section 29- 20- 104(c), C.R.S., to regulate land use and preserve areas of historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, this Chapter sets forth the procedures to: A. Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City; B. Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen's unique heritage; C. Ensure the preservation of Aspen's character as an historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center; D. Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community; and E. Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures. F. Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction or access to historic building interiors. The City does not intend by the historic preservation program to preserve every old building, but 3 instead to draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This should be accomplished by ensuring that demolition of buildings and structures important to that heritage are carefully weighed with other alternatives. Alterations to historically significant buildings and new construction in historic areas shall respect the character of each such setting, not by imitating surrounding structures, but by being compatible with them as defined in historic preservation guidelines. 26.415.020. Definitions. The following definitions are specific to the terms as used in this Chapter and in the field of historic preservation: Alteration. A change to an existing building, structure or feature that modifies its original appearance or construction. Certificate of appropriateness. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work on a designated historic property is compatible with its historic and architectural character and, therefore, the work may be completed as specified in the certificate and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work specified in the certificate. Certificate of demolition approval. An official form issued by the City authorizing the issuance of a demolition permit for a designated historic property or for a building or structure located in a designated historic district. Certificate of economic hardship. An official form issued by the City, in connection with a certificate of demolition approval, that allows the demolition of a designated historic property as the owner has demonstrated that maintaining it will impose an economic hardship. Certificate of no negative effect. An official form issued by the City stating that the proposed work will have no detrimental effect on the character - defining features of a designated property and, therefore, the work may proceed as specified in the certificate without obtaining further approvals under this Chapter and the City may issue any permits needed to do the work in the specified certificate. Contributing resource. A building, site, structure or object that adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities or archaeological values for which a property or district is considered significant. Designated property. A property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Historic District A collection, concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, sites or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Historic context paper. Research papers that define Aspen's architectural and cultural patterns in the context of local and national history. Historic context papers are used to guide staff, the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council in determining the historic significance of structures and properties in the City of Aspen. 4 Integrity. The ability of a property to convey its significance relative to the aspects of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association. Monitoring committee. A subcommittee appointed by the Historic Preservation Commission of up to two (2) Commission members and the Historic Preservation Officer to provide oversight in the implementation of rehabilitation. Noncontributing resource. A building, structure, site or object that does not add to the historic architectural qualities or historic associations for which a property or district is significant because it was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance; or due to alterations, additions, disturbances or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity. Object. A term used to distinguish buildings and structures from those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or small in scale and simply constructed. It may be by nature or design movable, but it is associated with a specific setting and environment. Rehabilitation. Making a building or structure sound and usable without attempting to restore it to a particular period appearance, while retaining the character - defining features. Relocation. Moving a building or structure from its original, historically significant or existing location to another location. Repair. To restore to a sound or good state after decay, dilapidation or partial destruction. Restore. The repair or recreation of the original architectural elements or features of an historic property so that it resembles an appearance it had at some previous point in time. Significance. The documented importance of a property for its contribution to or representation of broad patterns of national, regional or local history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and culture. Site. The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Structure. A term used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made for purposes other than creating human shelter. (Ord. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.025 Identification of historic properties A. Surveys, Maps and Historic Context Papers. The Community Development Director shall conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or investigations as deemed necessary or advisable to adequately inform City Council and the Historic Preservation Commission of those properties located within the City which represent Aspen's 19 and 20` century history. The Community Development Director shall memorialize the results of surveys, studies and investigations in a series of historic inventory forms, maps and historic context papers. Said inventory forms, maps, and context papers shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable 5 times. New inventory forms, maps and historic context papers shall not be adopted by City Council except for every tenth year, starting in January 2011. These resources shall be referenced by the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council when reviewing applications for designation. B. Aspen Victorian Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 19 century history shall be called Aspen Victorian. The City of Aspen has comprehensively identified examples of Victorian era properties in Aspen since the 1970s. All such properties have been designated by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Such properties are subject to the terms of this Chapter. Additional 19 century properties may be identified and designated in the future if they are determined to meet the criteria of Section 26.415.030.B.1. C. AspenModern Properties. Properties associated with Aspen's 20 century history shall be called AspenModern. Properties identified on the AspenModern Map shall be eligible for certain preservation benefits without being designated by City Council and may be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond those identified at Section 26.415.110, as follows. Property owners are encouraged to meet proactively with the historic preservation commission before undertaking development plans to receive preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits. 1. Ninety -Day Negotiation Period. In the case that the owner of a property on the AspenModern Map submits a land use application which includes voluntary landmark designation, a negotiation period of up to 90 days shall be initiated. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day negotiation period shall accompany the land use application. The ninety -day negotiation period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted by the Council, or longer if mutually acceptable to both the Council and the property owner. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing any land use application or building permit affecting the subject property during the ninety -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's Historic Preservation Program and benefits that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark. b. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the property's conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property 6 owner, HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20` century historic resources, referencing the scoring sheets and matrix adopted by City Council. c. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding the proposed land use application or building permit, the nature of the property, and the staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of its historic significance and the effects of the application or building permit. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting. d. 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 designation of the property. 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 may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another Board or Commission, including variations. Council shall consider the appropriateness of benefits in light of whether the property is identified as a "good, better, or best" example of Aspen's 20` century history and shall also seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process. The monetary value of benefits being requested shall be defined, to the extent possible. Council shall seek compatibility with the neighborhood surrounding the subject property. When benefits are awarded as part of the negotiation, 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 land use application or building permit that initiated the negotiation to be withdrawn by the property owner if said application or permit would have negatively affected the historic significance of the property. Once a property identified on the AspenModem Map is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, additional negotiation under this section is not allowed. e. 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 land use applications shall be issued a Development Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The City Council, or the property owner, may choose to terminate negotiations at any time. 7 2. Voluntary review/Processing Advantages. Owners of properties included on the AspenModem Map who voluntarily comply with the provisions of this Chapter may proceed with approved work without making application for designation. The Community Development Director shall consider waiver or reduction of permit fees for the subject work. If this is not achievable within the City budget, the Community Development Director shall ensure that the land use application and building permit review proceed ahead of all other applications except those associated with affordable housing and Essential Public Facilities. 3. Transferable Development Rights. Properties which are included on the AspenModem Map shall be eligible to create and sell transferable development rights according to the provisions of Chapter 26.535 of this Code, even if they are not designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. 4. Removal from AspenModern Map. Owners of properties included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be removed from the AspenModern Map. If the property owner indicates in writing that they have no interest in designation or negotiation, the property shall be removed from the AspenModern Map and the Community Development Director shall issue the owner a certificate documenting the removal from the map. Except upon the written request and consent of the owner(s) of the subject property at the time of the request, the subject property shall not be eligible for historic designation in the City of Aspen for a period of ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this certificate. The certificate shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 5. Addition to AspenModern Map. Owners of properties not included on the AspenModern Map may apply to the Community Development Director to be added to the map by submitting a written request. The Community Development Director shall determine if the property is eligible, based on the designation criteria. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to an official list, that is known as the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures which is maintained by the City, is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. Designation provides a means of deciding and communicating, in advance of specific issues or conflicts, what properties are in the public interest to protect. A. Establishment of the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures. The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures has been established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects located in Aspen that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. The location of properties listed on the inventory shall be indicated on maps on file in the Community Development Department. B. Aspen Victorian 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of Aspen Victorian, an individual building, site, structure or 8 object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to the criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district shall meet the criteria described below: a. The property or district is deemed significant for its antiquity, in that it contains structures which can be documented as built during the 19 century, and b. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. Property owners, the Community Development Director, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) or the City Council may file an application for designation of an Aspen Victorian building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1., 2., 3. and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and /or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. C.AspcnModern 1. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below. When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district must meet at least two of the criteria a -d, and criterion e described below: a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper; b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and documented in an adopted context paper; c. The property represents 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 and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an 9 adopted context paper; d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion. 2. Application. Only the property owner(s) may file an application for designation of an AspenModern building, district, site, structure or object on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The application for the designation of a property or collection of properties shall include the following: a. The applicable information required in subsections 26.304.030.B.1., 2., 3., and 4. b. Site or historic district boundary map. c. Property or district description, including narrative text, photographs and /or other graphic materials that document its physical characteristics. d. Written description of how the property meets the criteria for designation. e. Written description of historic preservation benefits which the property owner requests be awarded at the time of designation and relationship to Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent of the historic preservation program. D. Review, public hearings and notice. 1. An application for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be transmitted to the Community Development Director to determine if the application is complete. For applications filed with sufficient information, a report will be prepared by City staff for transmittal to the HPC with the relevant information on the proposed historic property or district with a recommendation to approve or disapprove and the reasons for the recommendation. 2. A date for a public hearing on a complete application will be scheduled before the HPC. Notice of the hearing shall be provided according to the provisions of Subsections 26.304.060.E.3.a., b. and c., except when the Community Development Director:, HPC or City Council is the applicant. When the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council is the applicant, notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the property owner(s) within three hundred (300) feet of the property and posted on the subject property for at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing. Notice to the property owner shall be by registered mail. In the event that there is no evidence that the property owner received actual notice, the HPC may specify that additional measures be taken. 10 3. The HPC shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The HPC may recommend approval, disapproval or continuance of the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Their recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council. 4. Upon receipt of the decision, report and recommendations of the HPC, the City Council shall schedule a hearing on the application in accordance with the notice requirements for adopting an ordinance. The City Council shall evaluate the application to determine if the property or district meets the criteria for designation. At the public hearing, the property owner, parties of interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to provide information about the property or district's eligibility for designation. The City Council may approve, disapprove or continue the application to request additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 5. If an application is denied, the Community Development Director, HPC or City Council may not file a reapplication for designation of the same property or district on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for five (5) years from the date of the City Council disapproval. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §1) 26.415.040. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an ordinance by City Council designating a property on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of the ordinance including a legal description of the property. The location of properties designated by ordinance also shall be indicated on the official maps of the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]) 26.415.050. Rescinding designation. A. Application and review. An application for the removal of a property from the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall follow the same submission requirements and review procedures as for designation described in this Chapter except that with respect to Subsection 26.415.030.C.4 an explanation shall be provided describing why the property no longer meets the criteria for designation. The HPC and City Council shall determine if sufficient evidence exists that the property no longer meets the criteria for designation and, if so, shall remove the property from the inventory. A parcel created through an historic Landmark lot split cannot be de- listed unless there is a finding that the resource which originally caused the site to be landmarked meets the criteria for removal from the historic inventory. B. Reapplication. If a request for rescinding designation is denied, an application cannot be filed again for a period of two (2) years from the date of the denial by the City Council. The time limitation of this Subsection may be waived by a majority vote of the City Council when such action is deemed necessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the City. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, §1) 11 26.415.060. Effect of designation. A. Approvals required. Any development involving properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual building or located in an historic district, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. 13. Design guidelines. 1. The HPC has adopted design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, in accordance with the procedures for notice and public hearings set forth in Section 26.304.06(E)(3) Paragraph (a). These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and /or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and /or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes in exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts. The guidelines will be periodically reviewed by the HPC and amended at a public hearing, as needed. 2. The "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines," as amended, which are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work. C. Special consideration. 1. To preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties, the HPC or City Council may approve variations from the dimensional requirements set forth in the Land Use Code and may make recommendations to the Chief Building Official who has the authority to grant certain exceptions from the International Building Code (UBC) through the provisions of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). These modifications may not change the applicable safety and permit requirements and must also follow the procedures provided for modifications set forth in the IEBC. 2. Designated historic properties are eligible for and have priority to participate in City programs related to financial, developmental or technical assistance that will serve to preserve, maintain or enhance their historic and architectural character. 3. All City authorities, including City Council, are authorized to grant economic and developmental benefits to designated historic properties or grant these benefits conditional upon the subsequent designation of the property. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 43, 2004, § 2) 12 26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property. 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. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. A. Exempt development. 1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work. 2. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility. B. Certificate of no negative effect. 1. An application for a certificate of no negative effect may be made to the Community Development Director for approval of work that has no adverse effect on the physical appearance or character - defining features of a designated property. An application for a certificate of no effect may be approved by the Community Development Director with no further review if it meets the requirements set forth in the following Subsection 26.415.070.B.2: 2. The Community Development Director shall issue a development order based upon a certificate of no negative effect within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a complete application if: a. It is determined that the activity is an eligible work item and meets the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and b. Any modifications to the proposed work requested by the Community Development Director are agreed to by the owner /applicant and c. The proposed work will not diminish, eliminate or adversely affect the significant historic and/or architectural character of the subject property or Historic District in which it is located. 3. An application for a certificate of no negative effect shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Elevations or drawings of the proposed work. c. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. 13 d. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards. 4. The following work shall be considered for a Certificate of No Negative Effect: a. Replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure. b. Replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance. c. Installation of awnings or similar attachments provided no significant feature is damaged, removed or obscured by the installation. d. Fencing that has no adverse effect on the historic or architectural character of the property. e. Mechanical equipment or accessory features that have no impact on the character - defining features of the building or structure. f. Signs which have no effect on the character - defining features of the historic property. g. Alterations to noncontributing buildings within historic districts that have no adverse effect on its historic or architectural character. h. Alterations to no more than two (2) elements of nonprimary facades of a designated building. i. Installation of site improvements, such as walkways, patios, pools or hot tubs, or similar significant features. 5. The development order and associated certificate of no negative effect shall expire and become null and void after three (3) years from the date of issuance by the Community Development Director unless a building permit is issued within that time. 6. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect is not appropriate, the owner may apply for a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes: a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or 14 b. Alterations to a building facade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect or d. Alterations that are made to nonhistoric portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07.D. 2. An application for minor development shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. b. Scaled elevations and /or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features within its vicinity. c. An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. d. Photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of proposed work. e. Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. 3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows: a. The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b. 15 b. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. c. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. d. The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. D. Certificate of appropriateness for major development. 1. The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for major development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a major development. A major development includes one or more of the following activities: a. The construction of a new structure within a historic district; and/or b. Alterations to more than three (3) elements of a building facade including its windows, doors, roof planes or materials, exterior wall material, dormers, porches, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim; and /or c. The expansion of a building increasing the floor area by more than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet; and/or d. Any new development that has not been determined to be minor development. 2. The procedures for the review of major development projects include a two -step process requiring approval by the HPC of a conceptual development plan and then a final development plan. If a major development project involves additional City Land Use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B. 3. Conceptual development plan review. a. An application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 16 (2) A site plan and survey showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics. (3) Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations. (4) Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs. (5) Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property or historic district including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. (6) Verification that the proposal complies with Chapter 26.410, Residential design standards or a written request for a variance from any standard that is not being met. b. The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. c. The effect of approval of a conceptual development plan is as follows: (1) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval of a major development project or permission to proceed with the development. Such authorization shall only constitute authorization to proceed with the preparation of an application for a final development plan. (2) Approval of a conceptual development plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as 17 depicted in the conceptual plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the final development plan unless agreed to by the applicant. If the applicant chooses to makes substantial amendments to the conceptual design after it has been approved, a new conceptual development plan hearing shall be required. (3) Unless otherwise specified in the resolution granting conceptual development plan approval, a development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the conceptual development plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a conceptual development plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 4. Final development plan review. a. An application for a final development plan shall include: (1) The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. (2) Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and /or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale. (3) An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs. (4) A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan. b. The procedures for the review of final development plans for major development projects are as follows: (1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c. (2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence 18 presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. (3) 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. If the application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the Community Development Director shall issue a development order. (4) A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.130 and no permit will be issued for construction of the project until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. (5) Before an application for a building permit can be submitted, a final set of plans reflecting any or all required changes by the HPC or City Council must be on file with the City. Any conditions of approval or outstanding issues which must be addressed in the field or at a later time shall be noted on the plans. E. Amendments, insubstantial and substantial. There are two processes for amending plans approved pursuant to a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness. All requests for amendments, insubstantial or substantial, must be in writing and accompanied by drawing(s) and elevations as specified below. 1. Insubstantial amendments. a. Insubstantial amendments are minor modifications to HPC approved plans that: (1) Address circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process or (2) Are necessary for conformance with building safety or accessibility codes and do not materially change the approved plans or (3) Approve specific building materials, finishes, design of ornamental trim and other such detail not provided in the HPC approved plans or (4) Change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature but maintains the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans. b. The Community Development Director may authorize insubstantial amendments to approved plans. c. Monitoring committees established by the HPC, composed of up to two (2) members of the Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer or assign, may also authorize insubstantial amendments. 19 d. Decisions of the Community Development Director or monitoring committee are binding. The Community Development Director or monitoring committee may determine that the proposed changes qualify as a substantial amendment and remand the matter to the HPC. e. Disapproval of a request for an insubstantial amendment may be appealed to the HPC to be considered in accordance with the procedures for substantial amendments. f. Approval of insubstantial amendments of plans will be reported to the HPC at their regularly scheduled meetings. 2. Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: (1) A revised site plan. (2) Revised scaled elevations and drawings. (3) Representations of building materials and finishes. (4) Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. 43, 2004, § 3) 20 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. A. Procedures for considering requests for demolition of designated properties. 1. An application for a demolition permit for designated properties will be filed with or referred to the Community Development Director by the Chief 'Building Official. The applicant will be provided a written response within fourteen (14) days of the request for a demolition permit describing the submittal materials needed for consideration. 2. An application for demolition approval shall include: a. The general application information requested in Section 26.304.030 and written documentation that the Chief Building Official has determined the building an imminent hazard or b. Narrative text, graphic illustrations or other exhibits that provide evidence that the building, structure or object is of no historic or architectural value or importance. 3. When complete application materials are on file, a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice for the hearing will include publication, mailing and posting pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. The staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a staff report that analyzes the request relative to the criteria for approval. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located and 21 b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to consider the demolition request. 6. If the HPC approves the demolition request then a resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no demolition permit will be issued until the thirty (30) day "call up" period by City Council has expired. 7. If the demolition request is denied because it does not meet the aforementioned standards, the applicant may request demolition approval based upon a finding of "economic hardship," as set forth below. 8. Before a demolition permit will be issued, a certificate of appropriateness for the redevelopment or reuse plan, as provided for in Subsection 26.415.070.D, must be approved. When a demolition permit must be issued because the building, structure or object is an imminent hazard or because of the issuance of a certificate of economic hardship, the permit may be received prior to the approval of an acceptable reuse plan. B. Procedures for obtaining a certificate of economic hardship. 1. Purpose: It is the policy of the City to respect private property rights. The City recognizes, therefore, that there may be some circumstances in which the operation of this Chapter could create an undue economic hardship. This provision is created to provide property owners with a means of demonstrating that such a hardship may exist and that they should be allowed to demolish a designated historic property because of that hardship. It is the intent of this provision to insure that no private property is taken without just compensation. 2. Standard of review: The standard of review for a determination of economic hardship will be whether refusing to allow the property owner to demolish the property would result in a violation of the prohibitions of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions against taking of private property for public use without just compensation as those prohibitions are interpreted by the courts of Colorado and the United States. In applying the standards, the economic benefits of financial, developmental and technical assistance from the City and the utilization of any federal and state rehabilitation tax credit programs may be considered. 3. Application: a. Upon receiving a request for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall provide a written response within fourteen (14) days as to the submittal materials required. 22 b. Within five (5) days after receipt of an application for a certificate of economic hardship, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the application is complete. If he or she determines that the application is not complete, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiencies. The Director shall take no further steps to process the application until the deficiencies have been remedied. c. The application fee shall be set to defray all costs of the review process, including the fees of an independent hearing officer. 4. Administrative process: a. When the application is complete, the Community Development Director will refer the application to the Historic Preservation Officer and the City Attorney for review. The Historic Preservation Officer and City Attorney shall jointly prepare a report setting forth the City's response. b. In the event the City response concludes that the application does not demonstrate a case of economic hardship, the application will be set for a public hearing before a hearing officer. c. The hearing officer will be contracted by the City to conduct an impartial quasi - judicial hearing on the question of economic hardship. The Officer shall have sufficient legal and technical experience to conduct a fair hearing in accordance with appropriate standards of due process. The application, all support materials and the City's report shall be provided to the hearing officer in advance of the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant will be provided with an opportunity to present his application and may be represented by counsel. The City position will be presented by the City Attorney. 5. Appeal: An applicant may appeal the decision of the hearing officer to District Court pursuant to Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, §7 [part]; Ord. No. 30, 2007, §4) 26.415.090. Relocation of designated properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. A. Application. An application for relocation shall include: 1. The general application information required in Section 26.304.030. 2. A written description and /or graphic illustrations of the building, structure or object proposed for relocation. 23 3. A written explanation of the type of relocation requested (temporary, on -site or off -site) and justification for the need for relocation. 4. A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 5. A conceptual plan for the receiving site providing preliminary information on the property boundaries, existing improvements and site characteristics and the associated planned improvements. 6. If the applicant does not own the receiving site, proof from the site's property owner of the willingness to accept the relocated building, structure or object. 7. Evidence that the applicant has or is seeking the necessary approvals to place the building on the identified receiving site. If the site is outside of the city limits, verification that the building will be preserved on its new site through a formal action of the other jurisdiction or a preservation easement. 8. Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate. 9. Supplementary materials to provide an understanding of the larger context for the relocated property and its impact on adjacent properties, the neighborhood or streetscape. B. Procedures for the review of relocation request. 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for relocation approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. 2. Notice for the review of the relocation request shall include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 3. If the relocation request is part of a major development project, the Community Development Director may consolidate or modify the review process accordingly pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B. 4. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the standards for relocation approval set forth below, the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine if the standards for relocation have been met. 5. The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 24 6. A resolution of the HPC action will be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 and no relocation will occur until after the thirty (30) day "call up" period of the City Council has expired. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. D. Procedures for considering request for relocation of properties under consideration for designation. While it is the intent of this Chapter to preserve properties of demonstrated significance, it is also recognized that all buildings and areas of importance to the general welfare, prosperity and civic pride of its citizenry cannot be identified, evaluated, documented and designated at one time. However, it is important to protect properties which potentially qualify for designation against needless loss until review and hearings can be completed. 1. No relocation will be permitted for properties under consideration for designation to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures unless relocation approval is issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council. 2. All properties under consideration for designation and, therefore, subject to the temporary stay of relocation will be identified on a list maintained by the Chief Building Official. Property owners will be notified by registered mail that their property is under consideration for designation and have an opportunity to review all materials compiled at that time to verify accuracy. 25 3. These procedures shall apply to any building located within an area under preliminary application for designation from the time the application is filed until the time action is taken on the application by the City Council. 4. If a public hearing to consider the application for designation is not held by the City Council within six (6) months of the initiation of the stay, the stay will expire. An additional six -month stay period may be approved by City Council in the form of a resolution, at a public hearing, with a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [per]) 26.415.100. Demolition by neglect. It is the intent of this Chapter to address the range of circumstances that affect the preservation of the community's significant historic and architectural resources. It is further recognized that many historic buildings and structures are lost because of deterioration from lack of maintenance. Whether this occurs unintentionally or through deliberate decisions, the result is the same: the loss of community assets. Consequently, it is declared that the exterior features of any designated building or structure shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects. The designated structures shall receive reasonable care, maintenance and upkeep appropriate for their preservation, protection, perpetuation and use. A. Standards for reasonable care and upkeep. 1. The owner or such other person who may have legal possession, custody and control thereof of a designated property shall, upon written request by the City, repair the following exterior features if they are found to be deteriorating or if their condition is contributing to deterioration such that it is likely to compromise the building's structural integrity or as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition to life, health or other property. These features include, but are not limited to: a. Deterioration of exterior walls, foundations or other vertical supports that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. b. Deterioration of flooring or floor supports or other horizontal members that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. c. Deterioration of external chimneys that cause leaning, sagging, splitting, listing or buckling. d. Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars. e. Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations, including broken windows or doors. f. Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall and roof coverings, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering. g. Rotting, holes and other forms of decay. 26 h. Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door frames, cornices, entablatures, wall facings ornamental trim and other architectural details that cause delamination, instability, loss of shape and form or crumbling. B. Enforcement procedures. 1. The HPC may file a petition listing specific defects, in accordance with Subsection 26.415.110.A, with the Chief Building Official, requesting that the official act under the following procedures to require the correction of the defects or repairs to designated properties. 2. Whenever a petition is filed, the Chief Building Official shall attempt to make direct personal contact with the owner or other such persons having legal possession or custody and/or his representative. If personal contact cannot reasonably be accomplished, then written notification of the specific defects purported by the HPC and a request to inspect the property within ten (10) days will be mailed to the owner and other such persons having legal possession, custody and control and will be posted at a conspicuous location appropriate to the identified defects. In the written notification the Chief Building Official shall document the nature of the specific defects and the corrective action ordered. 3. After receiving agreement from the owner, his representatives or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property for an inspection, the Chief Building Official and the HPC Officer shall within ten (10) working days conduct an investigation and prepare a written report determining whether the property requires work to address conditions set, forth in Subsection 26.415.100.A.1. 4. If the property is found to contain conditions needing correction, the owner, his representative or other such persons having legal possession, custody and control of the property will be served within fourteen (14) days with a complaint identifying the property deficiencies and providing notice that a hearing will be held before a Hearing Officer of the City within forty -five (45) days. The purpose of the hearing is to: a. Receive evidence concerning the charge of deterioration and b. Develop a plan and schedule for making the needed repairs in a timely fashion, such that the building is stabilized and the deterioration is arrested and c. Ascertain whether the owner or other parties intend to make application for financial assistance from the City to correct the building defects. 5. Following such notice and hearing, the Hearing Officer will make a determination if there are any corrections required pursuant to Subsection 26.415.110.A.1 and shall state in writing the findings of fact in support of that determination. If it is determined that the building or structure is undergoing deterioration or if its condition is contributing to deterioration, the owner or other parties of interest will be served an order to repair those defective elements of the structure within a reasonable specified time frame. 6. If the owner fails to make the necessary repairs within the identified time frame, the City may undertake the work to correct the deficiencies that create any hazardous and unsafe 27 conditions to life, health and property. The expense of this work will be recorded as a lien on the property. C. AppeaL Within thirty (30) days, the owner may appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Board of Appeals and Examiners pursuant to the process established in Chapter 8.08 of this Municipal Code. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.110. Benefits. The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts. Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation . program. Historic resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are unlike any other in the country. Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in renovating and maintaining their property. Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both economically vital and cherished by many. All properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures may be eligible for the following benefits. A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The procedure for the review of a historic lot split application is a two stcp process including a public h wring beforc the HPC and the City Council. Noticc for these - - - _ ... • . • . -, • . - g and posting pursuant to Subsection 26.301.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. • ... - - • - - • •:- . ..... , ... • -- - - - .... ., . 28 with conditions or disapprove the application. nPplieation, B. Increased density. Two detached single - family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non - designated property. Refer to specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. C. 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 public amenity than required for the on -site relocation of commercial historic properties. 2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a fmding 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. D. 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 fmding 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. Refer to Chapter 26.515 for further information. E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710. 29 F. Floor area bonus. 1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic properties. To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that: a. The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines; 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; c. The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance; d. The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the historic building's form, materials or openings; e. The construction materials are of the highest quality; f. An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building; g. The project retains a historic outbuilding; and/or h. Notable historic site and landscape features are retained. 2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area. 3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection -26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split Review. No development application that includes a request for a floor area bonus may be submitted until after the applicant has met with the HPC in a work session to discuss how the proposal might meet the bonus considerations. 4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total. G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470 for further information. H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information. I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an amount up to twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a designated structure. To be 30 eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence of financial need. These one -time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer -of -title or by the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first. J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement" from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the site to show that future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a conservation easement. K. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or restore City -owned designated properties. L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code, owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs. M. Tax credit applications. Community Development staff shall assist property owners in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining certification. A twenty percent (20 %) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20 %) Federal Income Tax Credit which may be available for income producing properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. N. Community- initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be involved in public - privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects that demonstrate good historic preservation practices. 0. Building codes. The International Building Code (IBC) provides for flexibility in its application to historic structures. In addition to the IBC, the City has adopted the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) to assist owners in making repairs in a manner that minimizes intrusion into the historic structure. P. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other sources of funding. Q. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen. R. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City. 31 S. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage program to recognize designated historic districts. 26.415.120. Appeals, notice to City Council and call up. A. Appeal. Any action by the HPC in approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development order and an associated certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or a property owner within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 26.316. B. Notice to City Council. Following the adoption of a resolution approving, approving with conditions or disapproving a development application for a certificate of appropriateness for major development, demolition approval or relocation approval of a designated property, the HPC shall promptly notify the City Council of its action to allow the City Council an opportunity to avail itself of the call -up procedure set forth in Subsection 26.415.120.0 and D. C. Call -up. The City Council may order call up of any action taken by the HPC as described in Section 26.415.070 within thirty (30) days of the decision, action or determination. Consequently no associated permits can be issued during the thirty (30) day call -up period. D. City Council action on appeal or call -up. The City Council shall consider the application on the record established before the HPC. The City Council shall affirm the decision of the HPC unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the HPC has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The City Council shall take such action as is deemed necessary to remedy said situation, including, but not limited to: 1. Reversing the decision. 2. Altering the conditions of approval. 3. Remanding the application to the HPC for rehearing. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]; Ord. No. 52 -2003, § 10) 26.415.130. Variances by other City review bodies. If an application for a variance involving a designated property is before the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission, the HPC will be given the opportunity to make a written recommendation as to its approval. The Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission will not take action on said development application for a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314, without receiving the written recommendation from the HPC. (Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 7 [part]) 26.415.140. Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 will be subject to the general penalty provisions of this Title. 32 A. Additional penalties. Additional penalties for the violation of Sections 26.415.070 through 26.415.100 include: 1. Any person who constructs, alters, relocates, changes the appearance or demolishes a designated property in violation of any section may be required to restore the building, structure or setting to its appearance prior to the violation. 2. Following notice and public hearing, the HPC shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the subject property for a period of up to ten (10) years from the date of the violation. The City shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this penalty. The property owner shall be required to maintain the property during that period of time in conformance with the Standards for reasonable care and upkeep set forth in Subsection 26.415.100A. 3. Any variances or historic preservation benefits previously granted to the property may be subject to revocation. (Ord. No. 1 -2002, § 7 [part]) Section 2: Chapter 26.420, Benefits is hereby deleted in its entirety. The content of the Chapter has been imported into Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation Section 3: Chapter 26.535, Transferable Development Rights (TDR) is hereby amended to allow properties on the AspenModern Map to be sending sites for TDRs, even if they are not designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. The Chapter is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 26.535 TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) Sections: Sec. 26.535.010 Purpose Sec. 26.535.020 Terminology Sec. 26.535.030 Applicability and prohibitions Sec. 26.535.040 Authority Sec. 26.535.050 Procedure for establishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.060 Procedure for extinguishing an historic transferable development right certificate Sec. 26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.080 Review criteria for extinguishment of an historic transferable development right Sec. 26.535.090 Application materials Sec. 26.535.100 Appeals 26.535.010. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the preservation of historic landmarks, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and those 33 properties identified on the AspenModern Map, within the City by permitting those property owners to sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area to be developed on a different property within the City. The program enables standard market forces and the demand for residential floor area, to accomplish a community goal of preserving Aspen's heritage as reflected in its built environment. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.020. Terminology. Establishment of a TDR. The process of creating an historic TDR certificate in exchange for a property owner lessening the allowable development on an historic property (the sending site) through a permanent deed restriction. Extinguishment of a TDR. The process of increasing the allowable development on a property (the receiver site), as permitted in the Zone District, through the redemption of an historic TDR certificate. Historic transferable development right certificate (historic TDR certificate). An irrevocable assignable property right which allows a certain amount of development, which may be conveyed separate from the property in which it has historically been associated (the sending site) and which may be used to increase development rights on another property (the receiver site). TDR certificates shall require execution by the Mayor, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. Receiver site. A property on which developments rights are increased in exchange for the City extinguishing an historic TDR certificate held by the developer of the property. Receiver sites are also referred to as landing sites. Sending site. The designated historic landmark property, or property identified on the AspenModern Map, being preserved by reducing its allowable floor area in exchange for the City establishing and issuing an historic TDR certificate. (Ord. 54 -2003, § §4, 5) 26.535.030. Applicability and prohibitions. This chapter shall apply to properties eligible for issuance of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Sending Sites, and properties eligible for the extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate, known as Receiving Sites. City of Aspen Historic TDR Certificates may only be used within the city limits of the City of Aspen, as hereinafter indicated, or in unincorporated Pitkin County, if and as may be permitted by the Pitkin County land Use Code. Pitkin County TDRs are not eligible for extinguishment within the City of Aspen. Sending Sites shall include all properties within the City of Aspen designated as a Historic Landmark, those properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, and those properties identified on the AspenModern Map, in which the development 34 of a single - family or duplex home is a permitted use, according to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. Sending Sites may also be established through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. Sending sites shall remain eligible for all benefits, bonuses, etc. allowed properties designated a Historic Landmark after establishment of transferable development rights, pursuant to Chapter 26.415. Receiving Sites shall include all properties in the City of Aspen permitted additional development rights for extinguishment of a Historic TDR is Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. A property may also be designated as a Receiving Site through adoption of a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. The allowable development extinguishment of a Historic TDR Certificate varies depending upon the zone district of the Receiving Site and the use of the land. Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, describes the development allowance for each Historic TDR Certificate extinguished. A Historic TDR Certificate may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer of Title shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request the City re -issue the certificate acknowledging the new owner. Re- issuance shall not require re- adoption of an ordinance. The market for Historic TDR Certificates is unrestricted and the City shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a Historic TDR Certificate. The Community Development Director shall establish policies and procedures not inconsistent with this Chapter for the printing of certificates, their safe - keeping, distribution, recordation, control, and extinguishments. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.040. Authority. The City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Chapter 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, a land use application for the establishment of historic transferable development rights. The Mayor, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall validate and issue historic TDR certificates, pursuant to a validly adopted ordinance. The Community Development Director, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter and of Section 26.304, Common development review procedures, shall approve or disapprove a land use application for the extinguishment of historic transferable development rights. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 35 26.535.050. Procedure for establishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the issuance of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. Owner confirmation. An application for the issuance of a historic TDR certificate shall only be accepted by the City upon submission of a notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying understanding of the following concepts: A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. Application for issuance of historic TDR certificate. An applicant shall supply the necessary application materials, identified in Section 26.535.090, Application materials, along with applicable review fees. City review and approval of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR and shall forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall approve or disapprove the establishment of a historic TDR certificate by adoption of an ordinance, according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review criteria for establishment of a historic TDR. The manner of public notice shall be publication, pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.a. Scheduling of closing date. Upon satisfaction of all relevant 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 County Clerk and Recorder. Closing. On the mutually agreed upon closing date, the Mayor 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 36 sending site together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. (Ord. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.060. Procedure for extinguishing a historic transferable development right certificate. The following steps are necessary for the extinguishment of a City historic transferable development right certificate: Preapplication conference. Property owners interested in the City's historic TDR program are encouraged to meet with a member of the Community Development Department to clarify the process, benefits and limitations of the program. Applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Zoning Officer and review potential development plans to ensure the additional development right can be properly incorporated on the receiver site. Associated planning reviews. An applicant must gain all other necessary approvals for the proposed development, as established by this Title. Application for building permit. An applicant shall submit the necessary materials for a building permit, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. Confirmation of historic TDR certificate. The applicant shall submit the requisite historic TDR certificates, and the City shall confirm its or their, authenticity. City review of application. The Community Development Department shall review the application according to the review standards identified in Section 26.535.070, Review standards for extinguishment of a historic TDR. Extinguishment of historic TDR certificate. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development on a receiver site requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificate, the applicant shall assign the requisite historic TDR certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." The property shall permanently maintain the additional development benefit of the extinguished TDR according to the development allowance for a TDR pursuant to Section 26.710, Zone Districts. The property owner may, at their discretion, record a confirmation letter from the Community Development Director acknowledging the extinguishment of the TDR(s) for the receiver site. (Ord. No. 54 -2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.070. Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development right. A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met: A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map,_on which the development of a single - family or duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to 37 Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible. B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for either a single - family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested. C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not increase the specific nonconformity. 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives. 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 maximum 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. For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses, the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property use, shall be the floor area of a single - family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted) minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies 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 for a single - family or duplex residence, as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain floor area incentives and /or exemptions as may be authorized by the City 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 County Clerk and Recorder's office. 38 H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built floor area. I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of transferable development rights certificates must be reported by the grantor to the City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer. The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right certificate void. (Ord. 54- 2003, §§ 4, 5) 26.535.080. Review criteria for extinguishment of a historic transferable development right. Historic TDR certificates may be extinguished to accommodate additional development if the Community Development Director finds the following standards have been met: A. The receiving site is not restricted by a prescribed floor area limitation or the restricting document permits the extinguishment of historic TDR certificates for additional development rights. B. The receiving site and is eligible to receive an increase in development rights as specified in Chapter 26.710, Zoning Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the property. C. All other necessary approvals for the proposed development on the receiver site, as established by this Title, have been obtained. D. The applicant has submitted the requisite authentic historic TDR certificates for redemption. E. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials for a building permit on the receiver site, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit and the additional development can be accommodated on the receiver site in conformance with all other relevant requirements. F. Prior to and as a condition of, issuance of a building permit for a development requiring the extinguishment of a historic TDR certificates, the applicant shall assign and deliver the ii authentic certificates to the City whereupon the certificates shall be marked "extinguished." G. The Community Development Director shall issue a letter confirming the extinguishment of the TDR certificates and increasing the available development rights of the receiver site. The applicant may wish to record this document with the County Clerk and Recorder. The confirmation letter shall not stipulate an absolute total floor area, but shall stipulate a square footage increase from the allowable floor area, according to the Zone District and land use of the 39 receiver site at the time of building permit submission. The receiver site shall remain subject to amendments to the allowable floor area and eligible for certain floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the confirmation letter shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. H. The development allowed on the receiver site by extinguishment of historic TDR certificates shall be that allowed in Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts, according to the Zone District and the land use or as otherwise specified in a final PUD plan for the receiver site and shall not permit the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. (Ord. No. 54- 2003, § §4, 5; Ord. No. 16 -2008) 26.535.090. Application materials. A. The contents of a development application to establish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The general application information required in Common development review procedures, Chapter 26.304. 2. A notarized affidavit from the sending site property owner signifying acknowledgment of the following: a. A deed restriction will permanently encumber the sending site and restrict that property's development rights to below that allowed by right by zoning according to the number of historic TDR certificates established from that sending site. b. For each certificate of development right issued by the City for the particular sending site, that property shall be allowed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet less of floor area, as permitted according to the property's zoning, as amended. c. The sending site property owner shall have no authority over the manner in which the certificate of development right is used by subsequent owners of the historic TDR certificate. 3. A site improvement survey of the sending site depicting: a. Existing natural and man-made site features. b. All legal easements and restrictions. 4. Dimensioned, scaled drawings of the existing development on the sending site and a floor area analysis of all structures thereon. 5. A proposed deed restriction for the sending site. 6. Written response to each of the review criteria. 40 B. The contents of a development application to extinguish an historic TDR certificate shall be as follows: 1. The necessary application materials for a complete building permit submission, pursuant to Section 26.304.075, Building permit. 2. Written response to each of the review criteria. (Ord. No. 54 - 2003, §§4, 5) 26.535.100. Appeals An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 26.316, Appeals. An applicant aggrieved by a determination made by the City Council, pursuant to this Section, may appeal the decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. No. 54- 2003, §5) Section 4: Historic Context Papers City Council hereby adopts the following research papers, which shall be dated December 2010, for use in the application of designation criteria. • Aspen's Twentieth - Century Architecture: Modernism 1945 -1975 • Aspen's 20 Century Architecture: Chalet Style Buildings • Aspen's 20 Century Architecture: Rustic Style Buildings • Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context Section 5: AspenModern Map By the effective date of this ordinance, the Community Development Department shall prepare the AspenModern map, depicting the properties identified on Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 (except those that have been removed through the negotiation process.) Upon the effective date of this ordinance, property owners will have the opportunity at any time to ask to be removed from the map, or to be placed back on it. Owners of properties that represent the architectural styles addressed in the adopted historic context papers, but which were not included on Ordinance #48 because of location, property type, or other reason, may also request to be added or removed from the AspenModern map at any time. Section 6: City Owned Properties As a demonstration of commitment to preserving worthy examples of Aspen's 20 architectural history, the City Manager shall initiate designation review of the following City owned properties in 2011: 215 North Garmisch (The Yellow Brick), 110 E. Hallam (The Red Brick, 630 W. Main (Mountain Rescue) and 1101 E. Cooper (the Hildur Anderson property). The applications shall include the input and recommendation of tenants, stakeholders or City Departments responsible for the affected properties. 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. 41 Section 8: 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 9: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 10: Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance shall be February 9, 2011. However, no applications for voluntary landmark designation shall be accepted until March 1, 2011 so that scoring sheets can be finalized for use in the designation process. Section 11: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of November, 2010, 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 _ day of , 2010. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 42 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 1 1111. FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Directoe lJ�� RE: Appeal of passage of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: January 10, 2011 APPELLANTS: Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, through their attorney Jody Edwards SUMMARY: The Appellants are appealing the recent approval of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The resolution approves a number of land use reviews and recommends to City Council approval with conditions of certain land use reviews regarding the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Ave (the former Boomerang Lodge site). Specifically, the Appellants are appealing the determination made by the Commission concerning parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council uphold the resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. SUMMARY: Presently, the property owner of 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (site of the former Boomerang Lodge) is in the land use review and entitlement process requesting the site be approved for the development of affordable housing. On December 14 the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) approved Resolution No. 22 (series of 2010) which approved two growth management reviews: Change in Use and Affordable Housing, Certificate of Affordable Housing Credits and recommended approval of Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision, Map Amendment (rezoning) with conditions. The Appellants, neighbors of 500 W. Hopkins Ave., are appealing passage of the resolution by the P &Z. Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedure, of the Aspen Land Use Code sets forth the applicable standard of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearing on the appeal. 1 BACKGROUND: The basis of the appeal states that the off- street parking which is recommended for approval through the PUD criteria in the resolution was not approved based upon Special Review criteria (for off - street parking) and therefore the P &Z abused its discretion and acted in excess of its jurisdiction in approving the resolution. Essentially, the Appellant claims that the off - street parking should have been approved via the Special Review criteria. The adopted land use code permits off - street parking to be established in multiples ways, in the case of the subject property off - street parking can be via PUD review or Special Review. PUD permits the establishment of minimum off - street parking spaces and receives final approval by City Council while Special Review can be used "for establishing, varying, or waiving off - street parking requirements" and receives final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. When multiple development approvals are being sought simultaneously, they may be combined or modified to reduce duplication, provided "that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development applications is maintained, and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this title is achieved" (Section 26.304.060 (B)(1), Combined reviews). One cannot have two review bodies have final authority on the same aspect (in this case establishment of a parking requirement) of an application as it creates the potential for inconsistent determinations. As noted in the pre- application conference summary provided to the property owner of 500 W. Hopkins. (Exhibit B), the determination of the off - street parking requirement would not be a final decision by P &Z but City Council. Within the initial memo (Exhibit C) under Land Use Request and Review Procedure, discussion on the final decision making body with regard to parking was outlined under Special Review. "The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision- making body. However, the number of off - street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subject to Council review." To maintain a thorough and full review of the parking issue both Special Review standards and PUD standards were addressed by staff in the memo (Exhibit C). The resolution (Exhibit J) and record clearly established that the P &Z understood that it was making a recommendation to the City Council on the parking issues pursuant to the PUD standards. STANDARD OF REVIEW: Section 26.316.030(E), Standard of review, reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal [City Council] shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken [public hearing record of the P &Z]. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. 2 The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process ", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass 'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed from "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed from was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (C'olo. 2000). STAFF COMMENT: 1. Due Process — The Appellants have not specifically raised this issue in its Notice of Appeal. Nonetheless, staff notes that Appellants provided public comment in the form of written letters that were included as part of the public record during the public hearing process before the P &Z. Additionally, at both public hearings that were conducted the Appellants provided verbal public comment. Having the P &Z make a recommendation to City Council with regard to parking, rather than be a final decision maker, is permitted under the land use code and bears out the procedural direction that was outlined in both the pre - application conference summary and the original staff memo. Staff's recommendation to include the establishment of parking standards via the PUD was not arbitrary and provided substantive due process. 2. Discretion — With respect to abuse of discretion, it is within the Community Development Director's discretion to permit combined reviews in order to reduce duplication of the review process. As outlined in both the pre- application conference summary and the staff memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission, decision on the parking was to be approved via the PUD review rather than Special Review and finalized by City Council. Both review criteria were addressed by staff to provide "a thorough and full review of the application." The recommendation with regard to parking provided by the Commission as evidenced by the record cannot "only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. "" 3. Jurisdiction — The Appellants do not fully explain their position as to how the Planning and Zoning Commission acted in excess of their jurisdiction. The P &Z is authorized via the land use code to make recommendations with regard to PUD applications as City 3 Council is the final decision making body. A PUD may vary dimensional requirements, including off - street parking spaces and it is within the purview of the Commission to make a recommendation on the parking. The P &Z did just that. Such action was clearly within its authority. Appellants have pointed to no law that the P &Z either misconstrued or misapplied. With regard to all three considerations, the Appellants appear to be suggesting that the problem was created when the staff or the applicant allegedly changed direction by initially suggesting that the parking was going to be decided based on the Special Review criteria then making a final determination based on the PUD criteria. However, as noted above, it is clear that this matter was proceeding pursuant to PUD procedures. The matter was properly noticed and described. Appellant cannot point to how the final decision, which was to recommend to Council a particular position, denied the Appellants due process, abused discretion or exceeded jurisdiction. ACTIONS BY COUNCIL FOLLOWING APPEAL HEARING: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: Action by the decision - making body hearing the appeal. The decision- making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. RESOLUTION: Attached is one resolution affirming the action of the Planning Commission, finding that it did not abuse its discretion or acted in excess of its jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution was rendered appropriately and that the P &Z did not abuse its authority or exceed its jurisdiction. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Commission's resolution by adopting the proposed resolution affirming the passage of Resolution No. 22 (series of 2010). CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "1 move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, affirming the approval of resolution No.22 (Series of 2010) by the Planning and Zoning Commission." 4 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Notice of Appeal, dated December 21, 2010 Exhibit B — Excerpt of land use application for 500 W: Hopkins: Pre- application conference summary dated August 8, 2010 Exhibit C — Excerpts of staff memo dated November 2, 2010: • Page 2 - Land Use Request and Review Procedures • Pages 24 -26 - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings (for parking) • Pages 44 -45 — Special Review for Off - Street Parking Exhibit D — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, dated November 2, 2010 Exhibit E - Excerpts of staff memo dated December 14, 2010: • Pages 27 -30 - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings (for parking) • Pages 48 -49 — Special Review for Off - Street Parking Exhibit F — Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, dated Decemberl4, 2010 Exhibit G — Affidavit of notice for January 10, 2011 Appeal Exhibit H — Affidavit of notice for November 2, 2010 public hearing Exhibit I — Land Use Code chapter regarding Appeals Exhibit J - Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit K — Letter from representative, E. Michael Hoffman, of the owner of 500 W. Hopkins dated January 3, 2011 5 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING A RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a resolution granting certain entitlements and recommending City Council approve certain entitlements with conditions via Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) and specifically recommending establishment of dimensional requirements including off - street parking spaces through Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.316 — Appeals, neighboring property owners submitted a Notice of Appeal with regard to the approval of the resolution by the Commission, specifically, the determination by the Commission concerning parking through Planned Unit Development standards rather than Special Review standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the resolution of the Commission or modify or reverse the resolution upon finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority by the Commission in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Attorney Jody Edwards representing the appellants, the Community Development Director and has found that the Commission provided due process and neither exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its authority in approving the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) including their recommendation with regard to off - street parking through Planned Unit Development standards. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Page 1 of 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 tyivez-- A KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hsk @kcelaw.net 201 NORTH MILL STREET, STE. 203 LANCE R. COTE, PC* lrc @kcelaw.net ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, 1I1, PC jee @kcelaw.net TELEPHONE: (970) 925 -8700 COREY T. ZURBUCH ctz@kcelaw.net FACSIMILE: (970) 925 -3977 EBEN P. CLARK epc@kcelaw.net www.kcelaw.net MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI mbk @kcelaw.net DAVID C. UHLIG dcu @kcelaw.net •!T` ^ �r���� • also admitted in California DE C 21 2010 iA CITY OF H S PEN December 21, 2010 NI r DEVELOPMENT Chris Bendon City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., 3 Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Notice of Appeal concerning Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of Parking Variance/Waiver for the Boomerang Property Dear Chris: This letter constitutes a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Sections 26.316.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code. This office represents Steven and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, the owners of properties adjacent and near the Boomerang property and within 300 feet of the Boomerang property. On December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission ( "P &Z ") approved a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of a parking variance through the PUD process (the "Resolution "). The section of that Resolution addressing special review of a parking variance or waiver was deleted from the final Resolution by P &Z on staff's recolnrnendation. The Boomerang application dated September 17, 2010 seeks special review approval for a partial parking waiver — see Application at page 15. The public notice, the actual discussion at the prior P &Z hearing on November 2, 2010, and both the staff memorandum for the November 2, 2010 P &Z hearing and for the December 14, 2010 P &Z hearing all clearly state that the request for a parking waiver is to be determined pursuant to the criteria for special review pursuant to Code § 26.515.040.A. While the parking plan had been amended, the Application was not amended in regard to the request for special review approval prior to the hearing. Chris Bendon, Director City of Aspen Community Development Department December 21, 2010 Page 2 The Code standards of review for a special review waiver of a parking requirement and PUD approval of parking are different. Compare §26.515.040A and §26.445.050B.3. In a procedural slight of hand, the standards of review and applicable sections of the Code were changed at the December 14, 2010 hearing. City Staff announced at the hearing that instead of the special review criteria as discussed at the prior hearing and in all of the documentation associated with the file, the P &Z was to consider the parking waiver under the PUD provisions of the Code instead of the special review provisions of the Code. At the hearing, it was apparent that some members of the P &Z and public were confused and did not understand what was being considered. It was an abuse of discretion and in excess of the jurisdiction of the P &Z to approve the Resolution in the absence of procedural compliance with the City Code and upon standards that were not in compliance with the Special Review criteria. Enclosed is our appeal fee in the amount $735.00. If there is anything in addition to this Notice and Fee that is required in order to pursue this Appeal of these determinations or if you need additional information from me, please contact me. It is my understanding that the City will be responsible for publishing Notice of the Appeal hearing date. Sincerely, KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC B. Ate 4 Jo v, E. Edwards III cc: Steven & Cheryl Goldenberg Dan Verner John Staton \appeal p &z reso.doc CITY OF ASPEN PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Gagnon, 429 -2755 DATE: 8/18/10 PROJECT: 500 W. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield & Hecht OWNER: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North 4 Aspen 81611 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Growth Management, PUD Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Housing Credits DESCRIPTION: The Applicant would like to change the use of the Boomerang Lodge from lodge /free market residential to affordable housing; converting existing approvals for 47 lodge units, five (5) free market units and two (2) affordable housing units to approximately 60 deed - restricted affordable housing units; and seeking affordable housing credits. Applicant is also seeking Special Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements. Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 1 26.515.040 Special Review for partial parking waiver* 26.470.070(4) Growth Management for Affordable Housing 26.310.020(B) Amendment to Zone District Map; Rezoning from R- 6/LP/PUD to RMF/PUD 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit 26.480.040(C) Subdivision 1 26.445.100(B) Amendment to PUD* 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District (R -6) 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) 26.710.090 Residential Multi- Family (RMF) *Note: Parking review by P &Z to be combined with Amendment to PUD review, per Chris Bendon. Amount of off -street parking will not be subject to final action of P &Z, but will be a recommendation to Council for final action. Applicant must meet criteria for Special Review for partial parking waiver, as well as parking criteria for PUD. ....._ Review by: • Staff for completeness. • Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing for recommendation to Council on Amendment to PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision and Special Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements; final action on Growth Management for Affordable Housing, and establishing Affordable Housing Credits. • City Council public hearing for final action on Amendment to PUD, Special Review for Parking, Rezoning and Subdivision Public Hearing: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board, pursuant to 26.540.040(C) + 26.470.070(4)a; Planning and Zoning Commission; City Council Referral Agency Fees: Housing: $410.00, Parks: $410.00 and Engineering: $410.00 Total Planning Deposit Due: $2,940 for 12 hrs. of Community Development staff time (additional hours are billed at a rate of $245 per hour) Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Applications: 25 copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application, including materials required in Section 26.304.030(B) and 26.540.030. 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 7. An 8 '/" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. A site improvement survey performed by a licensed engineer. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used (not required). 12. Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed (not required). P2 ; vcr c , LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting a recommendation of approval of the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Amendment to the Zone District Map [Rezoning] — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Amendment to the PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the PUD. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. All of the above land use reviews are for P &Z to make findings and recommendations to City Council for final action. All the land use reviews below are for the P &Z to make the final decision. Regarding parking, the Council will still have this issue before them for discussion, as the number of off -street spaces must be specified in the proposed PUD. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Growth Management: Change in Use — An application for Growth Management: Change in Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(2), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. y Special Review for Off - Street Parking — An application for Special Review for Off -Street parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. However, the number of off -street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subiect to Council review. 2 P24 the property from West Hopkins. The landscape plan approved by the Parks Department as part of the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval would be carried forward, and would again be subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The remaining portion of the former Boomerang Lodge adjacent to 4` Street will remain as a designated historic landmark, with any future exterior changes subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. According to the land use code, a multi - family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 54 off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements fora Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100- foot -long right of way on 4th Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is P25 currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1.] In addition, the City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Staff acknowledges that the parking deficit would have some impact on the neighborhood, and is a matter for the P &Z to discuss under the Special Review for Parking process, pursuant to Section 26.515.040 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal is somewhat excessive compared to the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District, and should not use the PUD overlay for the purpose of exceeding that limit. The current proposal requests a 1.66:1 FAR, while staff believes the mass and scale would be more compatible with the neighborhood at the RMF Zone District limit of 1.5:1. This would reflect a reduction of 4,320 square feet, or 10 %, from the applicant's request. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. Staff Finding: The land use code requires one off - street parking space for every new unit. If the square footage of the proposal is reduced, as suggested by staff, it would comply with the land use code requirement for off - street parking. Also, the fact that the Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway; is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor; is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space; and is in close proximity to downtown means there are a P26 number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The project is 100% residential. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space and the downtown area means there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. 1 P44 Exhibit G Special Review for Off -Site Parking Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff finding: With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 54 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 12 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4` Street; • 8 parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins. The applicant can only achieve 54 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD showing an additional eight parallel parking spaces in the right of way on West Hopkins as dedicated exclusively to the project. At this time, staff can only count 31 spaces in the garage, as approved in 2006 — and has yet to receive confirmation from the applicant and Building Department that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 12 head -in spaces in a 100 - foot -long right of way on 4 11i Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) However, staff can't support the additional dedication of eight more spaces in the right of way on W. Hopkins for exclusive use of the housing project. It is the general policy of the Engineering Department and the Parking Department not to dedicate public right of way for the exclusive use of adjacent property owners. Future applicants could claim any range of community benefits to obtain exclusive use to a right of way, and there is currently no process by which to evaluate what uses should rise above others in the use of public right of way. From staff's perspective, there is a deficit of eight (8) to ten (10) off - street parking spaces for this project, depending on whether the garage space can accommodate two more spaces. While staff has concerns about this deficit, they are significantly alleviated by the P45 adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff finding: An on -site parking solution has been substantially met. Head -in parking on West Hopkins is not a good option for this site, as backing out presents road safety issues for the pedestrian bikeway. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of eight to ten parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, November 02, 2010 to order at 4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were John Worcester, City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Minutes The minutes of October 19` were postponed to the next meeting. Conflicts of Interest Mike Wampler stated he knew the applicant and his representative; we have not discussed this and it will not affect his judgment one way or another. Bert Myrin said that he didn't know if this was a conflict of interest but he and Jasmine reviewed this 2001. LJ Erspamer worked with Jody Edwards and Paul Taddune years ago but this will not affect his review of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) — PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge — PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan spoke about the public hearing process; she would present the application and P &Z members could ask questions of staff and the applicant presentation followed by questions from the commissioners; public comments and back to the commission. Phelan said that the project was being proposed to contain 54 Affordable Housing Units and receive affordable housing credits as a result of the proposal. There are a number of land use approval that are required to entitle this project as proposed. Some are decided by the Planning & Zoning Commission while others receive final approval by City Council. Phelan will discuss fist the history of the property and basically how did we get to this hearing; 2 an overview of the request; 3 how the P &Z can evaluate the request; 4 key issues identified by staff associated with the proposal before the commission and concluding with a staff recommendation. Phelan said that public notice was provided in mailing, posting and publication in the newspaper. Phelan said that in 2006 City Council approved the redevelopment and expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. It approved 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units on site. There were a total of 43 parking spaces associated with the approval; 31 underground, 12 surface parking spaces 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 partially in the right of way along Fourth Street. The floor area ratio was 1.66 to 1 and equates to 44,820 square feet of floor area for the lodge development and it was approved as a 4 story building with varying heights in the high 30s. Phelan said the current proposal to use the exact same shell that was approved for the lodge development with regard to height, mass and size and redevelop the interior with 54 affordable housing units; a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units. Currently the applicant is proposing 33 underground parking spaces and 21 surface parking spaces that use public right of way to some extent. The applicant requested an amendment to the PUD; essentially there were 2 ways to look at this project; the mass and scale have been thoroughly vetted by past commissions and the city council and is appropriate for the neighborhood as approved. Another way to consider this application was to consider it a new application and both are valid and evaluate the mass and scale and use of the proposed application on its merits. Phelan said there was a number of reviews going to city council which were the rezoning of this property; currently it is zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay and a PUD for the site specific approval of the 2006 plan. The applicant is asking to rezone the property to residential multi - family and maintain the PUD Overlay on it and change the use to Multi- Family Residential. A PUD Amendment is also needed to change the entitlements to a completely residential development proposed. Subdivision is needed because of the development of multiple dwelling units on the site. Phelan said that P &Z has final review authority over growth management review for the affordable housing; growth management review with regard to a change of use because this is changing from a lodge use to a residential use and that's a change of use in the land use code and special review, which gets memorialized in the PUD for the off street parking requirements that are going to be established in this Planned Unit Development. Currently the parking requirement is one space per dwelling unit; the applicant was looking for a variation on that. The final review under P &Z is issuance of certificates of affordable housing; this was a new program passed by Council that says if a private developer wants to convert a project to all affordable housing, it can be done. Phelan said the Aspen Area Community Plan excused a number of review criteria to find compliance both in rezoning and PUD review criteria. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is evaluated with this application; it's not the draft that is out there because it has not been adopted by any board. The 2000 AACP's goal is located in a chapter on more affordable housing within the urban growth boundary 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 and city limits, that the private sector should contribute to affordable housing and should be of high quality. Phelan said this application is asking that the variances that were granted to the Boomerang as a lodge be retained; keep the shell of the building and change the interior of it. Staff feels the dimensional variations granted to Boomerang as a Lodge should be weighed in light of the project being proposed as multi- residential and the multi -use fits within the character of the neighborhood but the height and floor area exceed those in the multi- family residential zone district. Staff is recommending the existing floor area associated with the lodge be reduced to the maximum permitted at 1.5 to 1 and would be 45,000 square feet and would take off approximately 10% of the size of the structure, essentially the 4m floor of the building. Staff does support the rezoning and change in use. Engineering has • asked for the traffic impact analysis. Staff would like to see floor plans for the livability of the units and to have the applicant work with the transportation department to strengthen the transportation demand management plan that they have provided. Staff recommends the application be remanded back to the applicant to make some adjustments and then come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mike Wampler asked if they go to the RMF Zoning you want them to adhere to the restrictions such as the 32 foot height and the 40,500 square foot. Phelan responded the floor area yes, the height taking off 10% would be the most natural place to take off part of the 4 floor. Bert Myrin asked if this would have been built as was approved and then the applicant was coming in to what's requested here, you would have an existing shell. Phelan said that this is hypothetical and we also have a site that has been partially demolished and the applicant is asking for the entitlements associated with a lodge to be converted to this affordable housing. John Worcester said you would be looking at the same approvals except you would have less flexibility because you would have a structure that was already there. LJ Erspamer asked what Jennifer meant by design and operational characteristics. Phelan replied as a PUD Amendment there were a number of review standards and some have to do with the design of the building and some of them have to do with height, mass and scale. Erspamer asked about the numbers for the traffic counts at peak season and peak time of day. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs asked what the downsizing or rezoning that occurred in the 1970s was. Phelan replied RMF. Steve Stunda, applicant, said that Michael Hoffman, attorney, was distributing the revised parking plan and former parking plan (Exhibit N 4 pages). Steve Stunda said that he was the managing partner and has lived in Aspen since 1969; he said that he was sensitive to Aspen. Stunda said his partnership bought the lodge from Charlie and Fonda Paterson in June of 05 and went under contract in January and met with city officials that this was a viable prospect to develop. The process took one year involving numerous meetings with neighbors as well with city staff and worked within the rules and regulations that applied, never sought any kinds of changes or variances to it and after a year with lots of negotiation the building was finally approved in the manner in which it is currently existing. Stunda said they paid a million dollars in design fees to get it to that extent; the entitlements last through October of 12, the height, size and bulk were agreed upon and that's why he thought this use change would be rather Performa. Stunda said he didn't want to upset anyone and sent out letters to all the neighbors; knocked on doors to say the building will be as it was negotiated to be except for changes to the inside, which you are not going to see anyway. Stunda said the reason he is before P &Z now is because Community Development thought it was too big for an administrative decision. Stunda voluntary dedicated the East Wing to the historic preservation group so that people could always see a piece of old Aspen and he feels very strongly about that and in the process of developing the construction permit drawings the western portion of the lodge was demolished in April 2007. Since 2007 so many lenders left the industry and there are 12 lenders left and not one of them is interested in financing this project; the condo lodge is most impacted by the lenders because they don't know how to treat that category. Stunda said he would certainly revisit reducing the floor area by 10 %; it will be reflected in building size and the number of units and required parking. Stunda said that with respect to parking with the adjusted building size they will meet the 1 space per unit standards and conform to what staff says with the multi - family. Stunda spoke to Steve Goldenberg and some of the Christiana people and they have their feelings and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning move this onto City Council with the conditions as recommended by staff. Michael Hoffman stated he was the attorney representing the applicant, Aspen FSP -AVR LLC. Hoffman asked that the existing approvals be maintained with an expressed condition with the final approval by City Council; this request has no impact on your recommendations. John Worcester said that legally there was 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 nothing wrong with conditioning approvals. Worcester said the applicant just wants to make sure that the original approvals don't go away. Hoffman said Exhibit A is the current proposed parking plan and shows 33 parking spaces with space #8 as handicapped. Exhibit B was the 2006 approved parking plan with 31 spaces. The reasons the new plan has 33 spaces because some of the mechanical for the building has been dissimilated to the units instead of a centralized system; so there are 45 spaces dedicated to the project. There were 4 more proposed dedicated pull in spaces on Hopkins bringing the number of parking spaces up to 49. Hoffman cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffman said that there was discretion as to how many parking spaces were required. Stunda said that they do want to provide 1 space per unit dedicated. Hoffman said they have submitted a transportation demand management plan for reducing the demand for parking; there was a covenant in the condominium declaration for this project that would limit the number of cars to 1 per unit. Hoffman said APCHA made that a condition of their endorsement of the project. Hoffman said they would make a $20,000.00 contribution to the cars to go program to be used as they deem appropriate. Hoffman said they intend to promote public transportation, this property is only 1/2 a block away from Main Street; they have a plan for bicycles with racks in the basement and intend to promote carpooling. Hoffman believed the Boomerang site represents a unique opportunity to the community for affordable housing; they are surprised and dismayed by the reaction of the neighbors to affordable housing use on this site. The building itself was approved by the city in 2006 and urged P &Z to vote to recommend this application because of the good it does for the community as a whole. LJ Erspamer asked if the mechanical was sub - grade. Stunda replied that it was. Erspamer asked if it was being moved to the rooftop now. Stunda responded the residential requirement was for the mechanical to be unit specific and that freed up the space in the lower level. Jasmine Tygre said the number of units was recommended by APCHA but the units are below the minimum size that's usually recommended because of the additional storage. Tygre asked if the applicant would be open to considering reducing the number of units and increasing the size of the units as part of an approval process. Stunda said that was a difficult question for him to respond to 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 just yes or no because the key driving component of this project as a private developer providing the housing is in the FTE equivalents and they are mandated by unit type. Bert Myrin asked how P &Z was supposed to make a decision tonight without knowing the unavailable numbers on units, traffic study and so on. Hoffman replied they ask P &Z to identify those things that you need and condition your recommendation of approval to Council of receipt of those. Stunda said they could give rough out lines. Myrin said that the 2000 AACP says that visitors demanding a variety of choices for accommodations including small lodges; how does converting this from a small lodge to something else fit with that direction. Stunda replied it doesn't, we tried for 3 years to get this thing going and did not succeed. Public Comments: I. Dick Carter stated that he owned unit A204 at Christina and they knew someday something would happen at the Boomerang. The Boomerang redevelopment was approved to go up 4 stories to provide more bed space for this town; the purpose was not to provide 4 stories of affordable housing. The single most important reason for objecting to this is the ordinance passed by the City to allow a major zoning variance in this residential community was to get more bed spaces, to get more tourists and spend more to increase the tax base for the city, affordable housing doesn't do that. Yes it does satisfy an important need. Carter thought that this project would have an adverse value of surrounding properties. 2. Jody Edwards said he represented Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Vernor and John State. Edwards said the applicant would have you believe that the 2010 AACP was not relevant and only the 2000 AACP was relevant. Edwards said a PUD was a negotiated with the city and there is no entitlement to any PUD and it was totally discretionary with the city whether or not it grants approval therefore P &Z is charged with determining whether or not the offered community benefits and resulting community impacts justify the variances being requested. Edwards said the 2010 AACP reflects the community's current thinking; 2000 AACP was at a different economy. There is no doubt affordable housing is a community benefit but you need to consider at what cost. The 2010 AACP states clearly on page2 that our resort economy is the only sustainable economy that we have and needs to be protected; the community cannot afford to lose its lodging inventory especially moderately priced lodging inventory. Edwards said the proposal in front of you is directly contrary to an unambiguous goal policy and action item in the 2010 AACP. Edwards referred to page 44 of the packet with 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 regard to parking with the 2 criteria to consider if an on street off street parking solution is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario; this is a perfectly flat lot and the developer can put the parking on the lot instead of on street by making the building smaller. Edwards asked P &Z to deny the application. 3. John Olson stated that he was a contractor in town. Olson said he looked at the project and it could be done with the change of the inside of this building. Olson said from a personal perspective this project was 10 times in the best interest of this city and way better than Burlingame in terms of per unit no matter how you look at it. 4. Rustin Gudin stated he was the chairman of APCHA and Mr. Stunda came before APCHA and took the recommendations to heart. Gudin said that reducing the size 10% was great that Steve was willing to do that but he was not; it has already gone through the process. Gudin said the people living there would be paying property taxes, shopping in town and adding to the economy, maybe not the same way the tourists would be but certainly adding to the economy. Gudin said there would probably be some headaches with the parking and APCHA suggested one car per unit. Gudin said the people actually living there as employees are going to care a lot more with what is actually going on as far as the traffic because it is their neighborhood as well. 5. Doug Allen said that there is a serious parking problem in the West end now and is supposed to be primarily low density residential; the parking problem is the biggest problem. Allen said that with the improvements to Main Street the parking was taken away. There are already 2 nice employee housing units one on 7 and Main and one behind this project. Allen said it needs to be what it was approved as or not built. 6. Ron Erickson stated that he serves on the APCHA Board and they approved this unanimously and the key is the unit size, the categories do reflect the highest need in the city; they are small units, studios, one bedroom and two bedrooms and nothing over category 4. Erickson said that he was a neighbor and lives behind them and is all in favor of this project and would build 60 units if he could and doesn't think that there is a parking problem. Erickson said for a housing project this is a terrific gift to the community. 7. Charles Cunniffe said it was a rare opportunity for this kind of housing being built in the core of town and this shouldn't be missed. Cunniffe said that a 10% reduction was not valid on this either and you have the art museum that was approved without protest and this project serves the community far more than that does and he has to protest. Cunniffee said this project should be embraced because it is what the community desperately needs. 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 8. Tom McCabe said he was director of the housing authority and made a comment about the Aspen Area Community Plan like the Bible it says many things and contradicts those things many pages later. McCabe said the rational for the urban growth boundary concept is the city agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in outlying areas and key parcels in the city. McCabe said this project presents a good opportunity when essentially nothing is happening and we have a good applicant that has talked to them about what makes a project better and work more for the tenants. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lived next door and was not against affordable housing if it fit in gently it would be fine and the Christiana was one of the densest buildings in the neighborhood but wasn't used very much so it doesn't create a lot of traffic. A nice amount of employee housing would be 34 units and then you could put parking on the property too and they could have 34 spaces in the garage and the units could be bigger and nicer for people to live in. Goldenberg was worried because after 3 years she is still looking at the hole where the Boomerang was torn down and not replaced with anything and there were buildings not completed all over town. 10.John Batey said he was the attorney for the Scott family and speaking personally he thought that this was just bad planning. Batey said the parking was a symptom of the increased density of this building; it is misleading that the outside shell is not changing because you are going from a property that is being used maybe 50% or 60% a year of maybe half of those would maybe be driving cars so it is a much more dense use of the neighborhood. Batey said the Jewish Center was around the corner and had no parking included in their development. Batey said that this project should not be approved or approved with much lower density. 11.Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney and was here on behalf of himself as an owner of 323 W Main St and on behalf of the Christiana Lodge that would be impacted by this project. Taddune said the Planning & Zoning Commission should rely on neutral principals not look at whether or not some developer tore down a building that is now in financial distress. The 2010 Community Plan recognizes that lodges should be preserved so here we have 54 units that are going to go out the window that are desperately needed in the community. 12.Steve Goldenberg said when the Boomerang wanted to expand when Charlie owned it we were against it and there was no underground parking in that plan. Goldenberg said after many meetings Charlie said that he was going to build the underground parking and we became supporters. Goldenberg said 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 that there were at least half the cars with a lodge. Goldenberg said he was interested in making sure that the place was livable. Goldenberg said it wasn't so much the FAR but the number of people; the standard should be 1 to I FAR. Goldenberg said this was a low density neighborhood. 13.Angela Young said she supports what Steve has said in opposition, this change of use request deserves a critical analysis and examination before you make the final consideration. 14.Rick Head said he was chairman of the board of adjustment and said he was fortunate enough to live in affordable housing for the last 16 years and if this doesn't get approved there's roughly 50 people that won't have the opportunity to have housing. Head hoped that P &Z would look favorably on this application. 15.Scott Stewart said he lived in the Scott Building and there were 5 units. Stewart agreed with reducing the density. Stewart said that he 1previpously ived in a very small unit in the Glory Hole and it was very uncomfortable. Stewart said that in the Scott Condo they have over 1400 square feet and it is very comfortable. Stewart said their area was definitely a family orientated area and they hope to maintain that. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the public hearing. Erspamer asked if there was a difference in height for a lodge as opposed to multi- family. Phelan said for the RMF Zone the height is 32 feet. Phelan said what was approved was 37 feet 6 inches as a lodge. Michael Hoffman said it was pretty clear that the neighbors were upset about the proposed density and staff has said that a l0% reduction will address those concerns. Hoffman asked that P &Z give serious consideration to the staff recommendation. Jasmine Tygre said that one of the concerns for P &Z generally was the importance of preservation of lodge units, particularly smaller less expensive lodge units. Tygre said there were some flaws in the lodge program that we have had for a long time and one of the problems with lodges in residential neighborhoods was that they were either non - conforming in terms of density, in terms of size and in terms of usage and there always have been problems trying to preserve them. Tygre said one of the thing that was the incentive was allowing larger dimensions and that hasn't worked and the neighbors said that a lodge would be lower density and that was the opposite of what we want. Tygre said they wanted hotbeds and a lot of traffic and a lot of density in our lodges and yet everybody knows that's not 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 happening in areas that are not really lodge areas. Tygre said this is a larger concern for P &Z which doesn't affect this project except for the fact that she never liked the dimensions of the lodge to begin with; she didn't think it was compatible with the neighborhood and she was please that the applicant was willing to do a 10% reduction in FAR. Tygre said that if you want to rezone this property to RMF use then use the RMF dimensions that means height as well as FAR; she thought that would be a good argument for saying that would be an appropriate use. Tygre said the dimensions for RMF should apply to this project and I think that the applicant has indicated his willingness to do this; that will solve some of the density problems and she would like to make a suggestion because she understands APCHA's willingness to accept smaller units for category 3 and 4 units they should be at least the minimum size. Tygre said people don't live in storage units; you need to have units that people will be able to live in comfortably. Tygre stated by reducing the density you will reduce the need for parking and reduce the concern of the neighborhood if we have a really nice affordable housing project. Tygre said they did not have to see detailed pictures but would like to see numbers if you created x number of units of the minimum size would that be workable and what would the overall number of units and parking spaces. Erspamer thanked everybody for being so civil; he was reluctant to vote on this tonight because he didn't want to vote on something that's going to be determined later. Erspamer voiced concern over the shuttle on demand because it would mean more trips; say if someone wants to go to the Aspen Club it would be 2 trips there and 2 trips back instead of 1. Erspamer said that the applicant has done a great job with this application especially compromising. Erspamer said that if this would come back within the dimensions that are required for that zone. Erspamer said he doesn't agree with looking at the 2010 AACP; our criteria concerns the 2000 AACP which says the housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community not just units. Erspamer disagreed that if you take away parking people won't drive cars; however it just doesn't work in reality; in his neighborhood they built a development and reduced the parking so everybody parks in front of their neighbors houses now and they never had a parking problem before. Erspamer said he was not in favor of dedicated public parking spaces to private projects even with employee housing. Erspamer suggested continuing this to the next meeting. Phelan said a week to have the applicant come back and for staff to write a memo on any changes would be difficult and the meeting could be December 10. Erspamer said that he agreed with what Jasmine said. Mike Wampler said that he lives in employee housing his entire time and he was a proponent of employee housing and he could support this proposal and keep an open mind to go 10% back. 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Bert Myrin said that we were not building new small lodges; he noted in the 2000 AACP it stated not converting lodges into non -lodge use. Myrin agreed with Jasmine on using the residential standards for height and FAR. Myrin said the outside should look like the neighborhood. Myrin wanted clarity on the shuttle and in perpetuity for the shuttle. Myrin said that he would like to see the livability of the units. Myrin said that he was not taking into account was the financing because it wasn't relevant nor was the property value of a neighbor; what is relevant was the livability of the units and the livability of the neighborhood. Myrin said tonight he could not support this. Stan Gibbs said rather than repeat all the things the commissioners said and Jasmine in particular stated how he sees this project. Gibbs said he had a hard time keeping the shell as it was defined for a lodge and basically assuming that if you fill it in with a different use it that it doesn't have different impacts on the neighborhood. Gibbs said he understood the constraints that Steve was under but this project needs a better refinement along the lines of a 10% cut back or as a housing development as opposed to a lodge it feels too large; he was not on P &Z when the project originally came up; at the time he would have probably voted against it because it seems very large even with all of the incentives of a lodge. Gibbs said that he was a firm proponent of affordable housing and was excited about the affordable housing credit program and there have been a couple other projects have come through and it's a huge benefit to the community. Gibbs said in its current configuration; he felt it was their responsibility as a board to know what they were voting on and would like to see it continued for a couple of weeks and get a better definition of the proposal. Gibbs said that they could integrate the comments made by both the public and the commissioners; so we get a real sense of what we are voting on. Gibbs said the zoning change makes sense in this neighborhood with other affordable housing and multi - family and residences but to support the size of this project with this use proposed. Wampler reminded the board that Jennifer said that P &Z had 4 items: growth management on rezoning; growth management review on change of use; special review for off - street parking and the issue of certificate of affordable housing; we need to get back on these 4 items. Gibbs responded that he heard what Mike was saying but they still have to make recommendations of the others. Gibbs said they could make recommendations that would reflect the consensus and send that off but Stan said that he would feel better with a better sense of what they were really recommending. 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Jasmine proposed a modified motion to start with the planning staff's recommendation with seeing a little more detail but didn't want the applicant to have to do a full detail of drawings but for the applicant to come back to P &Z with the adjustment of the floor area to 1.5 to 1 with reduction of height to that applicable in the RFM Zone without a full set of elevations but to reduce the density by increasing the size of the units and giving some idea of how that would look in rough sketches rather than full elevations. Tygre noted it was a big building and would have a big impact on the neighborhood and anybody who walks by but avoiding a full architectural rendering. Jennifer Phelan said there would be reduction in the height and massing with some reduction of square footage. Tygre said she didn't have to see the units on a floor plan but a chart would be a reasonable way for the applicant to proceed; she couldn't pass this onto Council and suggested this as a reasonable compromise. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to see a little more detail as stated above with rough sketches and a chart and reducing the height, mass and scale with a 1.5 to 1 floor area; the number of units reduced and increasing the size of the units and include the number of parking spaces and continue to December 14, 2010. Seconded by Bert Myrin with 4 in favor; 1 opposed (Wampler). Approved 4 -1. Discussion prior to the vote: LJ Erspamer requested the number of units. Jasmine Tygre said the size. Erspamer said also the parking spaces and height. Myrin said the Benedict Commons property is less surface area than this, yet is has 58 spaces below grade. Stunda replied that he couldn't do it because of the existing historic part dedicated to the historic preservation. Myrin was concerned with taking away public parking on street along West Hopkins. Stunda said he thought that parking would be the least of these issues. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes; Bert Myrin seconded. Approved. Continued discussion prior to the vote: Myrin stated that P &Z was not binding them to. Tygre responded that was not what the motion was what the motion said and she thought that there would be a difference of opinion about what's acceptable and what's not among the different members. Erspamer asked about the subsidy for the units in the building. Worcester answered that Mr. Stunda and the City have been discussing this for some time. Erspamer asked if he could go to the City Com Dev to ask what it 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 would take. Worcester said that they have had discussions and he doesn't know where they have gone. Gibbs said that he agreed with Jasmine's motion; a little more information, a little bit more refinement would be helpful to him. Gibbs said it would go a long way toward getting support from the neighborhood. Gibbs said that for example just show the historical designated parking that was associated with the Boomerang Lodge and that's the extent of the on street parking he could get behind that but he thought the most important thing was to feel that some of the impacts have been addressed and some reductions have been made and at least give a sense of the impact of the neighborhood. Stunda replied that he said that at the onset; he said he wanted to be recognized that he spent a lot of money to develop an approved building and it's just been dismissed on a hand. Gibbs said the point from P &Z's respect is the change in use is not transparent and not just a simple "we will put different things in it" and that is a big difference. Stunda said he heard that loud and clear. Myrin asked the when it comes back that there was some support from the neighborhood and it was not the largest most dense project. Adjourned at 7:15 1 (Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 L E P 27 is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposal is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "The public and private sectors should work together to ensure success in providing affordable housing." (Housing Goal C, pg 27) • "Encourage greater participation by the private sector in developing affordable housing." (Housing Goal E, pg 27) • "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged so as to protect our open and rural lands." (Housing Philosophy, pg 25 -26) • "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric." (Housing Philosophy, pg 26) • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21) • "Contain development with the creation of the Aspen Community Growth Boundary...to ensure development is contained and sprawl is minimized." (Managing Growth Goal D, pg 18) However, with regard to the AACP goal that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... ", staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal as amended for the Decemeber 12 hearing is more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed 1.5:1 FAR would be more in keeping with the FARs found in the Shadow Mountain neighborhood. While there are properties in this neighborhood with FARs ranging between .7:1 and 1.5:1, there are none larger than 1.5:1, and no structures with a fourth floor of any appreciable size. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area. The Shadow Mountain neighborhood includes a mix of affordable housing, lodging and multi - family residential uses. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the existing land uses in the area and will not result in any substantial change to the pattern of future development in the surrounding area. P28 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: There are no annual Growth Management allotments necessary for affordable housing units. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the amended mass and scale of the proposal be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District as currently proposed by the applicant. b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and Iandforms. Staff Finding: This property has no significant natural characteristics such as steep slopes, waterways. There is significant vegetation in the form of mature trees that screen the property from West Hopkins. The landscape plan approved by the Parks Department as part of the 2006 Boomerang Lodge approval would be carried forward, and would again be subject to review and approval by the Parks Department. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposal is appropriate with regard to transit and pedestrian circulation due to the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the close proximity to a major public transit corridor, its location within the townsite and proximity to downtown. The P29 remaining portion of the former Boomerang Lodge adjacent to 4th Street will remain as a designated historic landmark, with any future exterior changes subject to review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. According to the land use code, a multi- family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 46 off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4 Street via an encroachment license. The applicant can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD. From staff's perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." Section 26,515.040A1.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the mass and scale of the proposal compatible to the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing an allowable FAR that is established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District. 3. The appropriate number of off- street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. P30 - Staff Finding: According to the land use code, a multi - family residential project in the Infill Area must provide one parking off - street parking space per unit, or 46 off - street spaces for this proposal. Any fewer spaces would require a Special Review by the P &Z or could be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4th Street via an encroachment license. The applicant can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD. From staff's perspective, with the maintenance of the encroachment licenses, the applicant can meet the 1:1 requirement. The parking department noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." [Section 26.515.040A3] Additionally, the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." [Section 26.515.040A1.] provides a basis for permitting a requirement of only 33 spaces if the encroachment license is not maintained. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The project is 100% residential. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, is in proximity to a City Car Share parking space and the downtown area means there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Staff is suggesting a condition of approval requiring bicycle racks at- grade, accommodating at least 25 -30 bikes. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The proposal is within walking and bicycling distance of the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. P48 Exhibit G Special Review for Off -Site Parking Section 26.515.040 Special Review Standards A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on —c-on for -manse- with-the folloveing- criteria• 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. Staff finding: With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) and avoid a Special Review for Parking by providing: • 33 spaces in an underground garage; • 1 space on the alley; • 13 head -in spaces in the right of way on 4th Street; The applicant can achieve 47 parking spaces for this application if it can be shown that 33 spaces can be accommodated sub - grade, and if Council ultimately approves a PUD permitting the continued use of the encroachment licenses as dedicated exclusively to the project. The applicant has an encroachment license to use one space on the alley and 13 head -in spaces in a 100 - foot -long right of way on 4 Street. (The Engineering Department requires spaces to be eight -feet wide.) If the encroachment licenses is not maintained, the deficit of parking (13 spaces) From can be absorbed by the neighborhood on- street parking. Any concerns about a deficit are significantly alleviated by the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit and downtown, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers "proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area." 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. Staff finding: An on -site parking solution has been substantially met. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. P49 Staff finding: The City Parking Department agrees with Community Development staff that a deficit of parking spaces can be absorbed by on- street parking in the area, pursuant to Special Review for Parking, which considers the "availability of street parking." City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 W Hopkins Ave PUD Amendment (Boomerang) 2 brettailp Viet City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday, November 02, 2010 to order at 4:30pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance were John Worcester, City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Minutes The minutes of October 19 were postponed to the next meeting. Conflicts of Interest Mike Wampler stated he knew the applicant and his representative; we have not discussed this and it will not affect his judgment one way or another. Bert Myrin said that he didn't know if this was a conflict of interest but he and Jasmine reviewed this 2001. LJ Erspamer worked with Jody Edwards and Paul Taddune years ago but this will not affect his review of the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) — PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, Boomerang Lodge — PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan spoke about the public hearing process; she would present the application and P &Z members could ask questions of staff and the applicant presentation followed by questions from the commissioners; public comments and back to the commission. Phelan said that the project was being proposed to contain 54 Affordable Housing Units and receive affordable housing credits as a result of the proposal. There are a number of land use approval that are required to entitle this project as proposed. Some are decided by the Planning & Zoning Commission while others receive final approval by City Council. Phelan will discuss fist the history of the property and basically how did we get to this hearing; 2 an overview of the request; 3 how the P &Z can evaluate the request; 4 key issues identified by staff associated with the proposal before the commission and concluding with a staff recommendation. Phelan said that public notice was provided in mailing, posting and publication in the newspaper. Phelan said that in 2006 City Council approved the redevelopment and expansion of the Boomerang Lodge. It approved 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units on site. There were a total of 43 parking spaces associated with the approval; 31 underground, 12 surface parking spaces 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 partially in the right of way along Fourth Street. The floor area ratio was 1.66 to 1 and equates to 44,820 square feet of floor area for the lodge development and it was approved as a 4 story building with varying heights in the high 30s. Phelan said the current proposal to use the exact same shell that was approved for the lodge development with regard to height, mass and size and redevelop the interior with 54 affordable housing units; a mix of studio, one and two bedroom units. Currently the applicant is proposing 33 underground parking spaces and 21 surface parking spaces that use public right of way to some extent. The applicant requested an amendment to the PUD; essentially there were 2 ways to look at this project; the mass and scale have been thoroughly vetted by past commissions and the city council and is appropriate for the neighborhood as approved. Another way to consider this application was to consider it a new application and both are valid and evaluate the mass and scale and use of the proposed application on its merits. Phelan said there was a number of reviews going to city council which were the rezoning of this property; currently it is zoned R -6 with a Lodge Preservation Overlay and a PUD for the site specific approval of the 2006 plan. The applicant is asking to rezone the property to residential multi - family and maintain the PUD Overlay on it and change the use to Multi- Family Residential. A PUD Amendment is also needed to change the entitlements to a completely residential development proposed. Subdivision is needed because of the development of multiple dwelling units on the site. Phelan said that P &Z has final review authority over growth management review for the affordable housing; growth management review with regard to a change of use because this is changing from a lodge use to a residential use and that's a change of use in the land use code and special review, which gets memorialized in the PUD for the off street parking requirements that are going to be established in this Planned Unit Development. Currently the parking requirement is one space per dwelling unit; the applicant was looking for a variation on that. The final review under P &Z is issuance of certificates of affordable housing; this was a new program passed by Council that says if a private developer wants to convert a project to all affordable housing, it can be done. Phelan said the Aspen Area Community Plan excused a number of review criteria to find compliance both in rezoning and PUD review criteria. The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan is evaluated with this application; it's not the draft that is out there because it has not been adopted by any board. The 2000 AACP's goal is located in a chapter on more affordable housing within the urban growth boundary 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 and city limits, that the private sector should contribute to affordable housing and should be of high quality. Phelan said this application is asking that the variances that were granted to the Boomerang as a lodge be retained; keep the shell of the building and change the interior of it. Staff feels the dimensional variations granted to Boomerang as a Lodge should be weighed in light of the project being proposed as multi - residential and the multi -use fits within the character of the neighborhood but the height and floor area exceed those in the multi - family residential zone district. Staff is recommending the existing floor area associated with the lodge be reduced to the maximum permitted at 1.5 to 1 and would be 45,000 square feet and would take off approximately 10% of the size of the structure, essentially the 4 floor of the building. Staff does support the rezoning and change in use. Engineering has asked for the traffic impact analysis. Staff would like to see floor plans for the livability of the units and to have the applicant work with the transportation department to strengthen the transportation demand management plan that they have provided. Staff recommends the application be remanded back to the applicant to make some adjustments and then come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mike Wampler asked if they go to the RMF Zoning you want them to adhere to the restrictions such as the 32 foot height and the 40,500 square foot. Phelan responded the floor area yes, the height taking off 10% would be the most natural place to take off part of the 4 floor. Bert Myrin asked if this would have been built as was approved and then the applicant was coming in to what's requested here, you would have an existing shell. Phelan said that this is hypothetical and we also have a site that has been partially demolished and the applicant is asking for the entitlements associated with a lodge to be converted to this affordable housing. John Worcester said you would be looking at the same approvals except you would have less flexibility because you would have a structure that was already there. LJ Erspamer asked what Jennifer meant by design and operational characteristics. Phelan replied as a PUD Amendment there were a number of review standards and some have to do with the design of the building and some of them have to do with height, mass and scale. Erspamer asked about the numbers for the traffic counts at peak season and peak time of day. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Stan Gibbs asked what the downsizing or rezoning that occurred in the 1970s was. Phelan replied RMF. Steve Stunda, applicant, said that Michael Hoffman, attorney, was distributing the revised parking plan and former parking plan (Exhibit N 4 pages). Steve Stunda said that he was the managing partner and has lived in Aspen since 1969; he said that he was sensitive to Aspen. Stunda said his partnership bought the lodge from Charlie and Fonda Paterson in June of 05 and went under contract in January and met with city officials that this was a viable prospect to develop. The process took one year involving numerous meetings with neighbors as well with city staff and worked within the rules and regulations that applied, never sought any kinds of changes or variances to it and after a year with lots of negotiation the building was finally approved in the manner in which it is currently existing. Stunda said they paid a million dollars in design fees to get it to that extent; the entitlements last through October of 12, the height, size and bulk were agreed upon and that's why he thought this use change would be rather Performa. Stunda said he didn't want to upset anyone and sent out letters to all the neighbors; knocked on doors to say the building will be as it was negotiated to be except for changes to the inside, which you are not going to see anyway. Stunda said the reason he is before P &Z now is because Community Development thought it was too big for an administrative decision. Stunda voluntary dedicated the East Wing to the historic preservation group so that people could always see a piece of old Aspen and he feels very strongly about that and in the process of developing the construction permit drawings the western portion of the lodge was demolished in April 2007. Since 2007 so many lenders left the industry and there are 12 lenders left and not one of them is interested in financing this project; the condo lodge is most impacted by the lenders because they don't know how to treat that category. Stunda said he would certainly revisit reducing the floor area by 10 %; it will be reflected in building size and the number of units and required parking. Stunda said that with respect to parking with the adjusted building size they will meet the 1 space per unit standards and conform to what staff says with the multi - family. Stunda spoke to Steve Goldenberg and some of the Christiana people and they have their feelings and respectfully request that the Planning & Zoning move this onto City Council with the conditions as recommended by staff. Michael Hoffman stated he was the attorney representing the applicant, Aspen FSP -AVR LLC. Hoffman asked that the existing approvals be maintained with an expressed condition with the final approval by City Council; this request has no impact on your recommendations. John Worcester said that legally there was 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 nothing wrong with conditioning approvals. Worcester said the applicant just wants to make sure that the original approvals don't go away. Hoffman said Exhibit A is the current proposed parking plan and shows 33 parking spaces with space #8 as handicapped. Exhibit B was the 2006 approved parking plan with 31 spaces. The reasons the new plan has 33 spaces because some of the mechanical for the building has been dissimilated to the units instead of a centralized system; so there are 45 spaces dedicated to the project. There were 4 more proposed dedicated pull in spaces on Hopkins bringing the number of parking spaces up to 49. Hoffman cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffman said that there was discretion as to how many parking spaces were required. Stunda said that they do want to provide 1 space per unit dedicated. Hoffman said they have submitted a transportation demand management plan for reducing the demand for parking; there was a covenant in the condominium declaration for this project that would limit the number of cars to 1 per unit. Hoffman said APCHA made that a condition of their endorsement of the project. Hoffman said they would make a $20,000.00 contribution to the cars to go program to be used as they deem appropriate. Hoffman said they intend to promote public transportation, this property is only 1/2 a block away from Main Street; they have a plan for bicycles with racks in the basement and intend to promote carpooling. Hoffman believed the Boomerang site represents a unique opportunity to the community for affordable housing; they are surprised and dismayed by the reaction of the neighbors to affordable housing use on this site. The building itself was approved by the city in 2006 and urged P &Z to vote to recommend this application because of the good it does for the community as a whole. LJ Erspamer asked if the mechanical was sub - grade. Stunda replied that it was. Erspamer asked if it was being moved to the rooftop now. Stunda responded the residential requirement was for the mechanical to be unit specific and that freed up the space in the lower level. Jasmine Tygre said the number of units was recommended by APCHA but the units are below the minimum size that's usually recommended because of the additional storage. Tygre asked if the applicant would be open to considering reducing the number of units and increasing the size of the units as part of an approval process. Stunda said that was a difficult question for him to respond to 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 just yes or no because the key driving component of this project as a private developer providing the housing is in the FTE equivalents and they are mandated by unit type. Bert Myrin asked how P &Z was supposed to make a decision tonight without knowing the unavailable numbers on units, traffic study and so on. Hoffman replied they ask P &Z to identify those things that you need and condition your recommendation of approval to Council of receipt of those. Stunda said they could give rough out lines. Myrin said that the 2000 AACP says that visitors demanding a variety of choices for accommodations including small lodges; how does converting this from a small lodge to something else fit with that direction. Stunda replied it doesn't, we tried for 3 years to get this thing going and did not succeed. Public Comments: 1. Dick Carter stated that he owned unit A204 at Christina and they knew someday something would happen at the Boomerang. The Boomerang redevelopment was approved to go up 4 stories to provide more bed space for this town; the purpose was not to provide 4 stories of affordable housing. The single most important reason for objecting to this is the ordinance passed by the City to allow a major zoning variance in this residential community was to get more bed spaces, to get more tourists and spend more to increase the tax base for the city, affordable housing doesn't do that. Yes it does satisfy an important need. Carter thought that this project would have an adverse value of surrounding properties. 2. Jody Edwards said he represented Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Vernor and John State. Edwards said the applicant would have you believe that the 2010 AACP was not relevant and only the 2000 AACP was relevant. Edwards said a PUD was a negotiated with the city and there is no entitlement to any PUD and it was totally discretionary with the city whether or not it grants approval therefore P &Z is charged with determining whether or not the offered community benefits and resulting community impacts justify the variances being requested. Edwards said the 2010 AACP reflects the community's current thinking; 2000 AACP was at a different economy. There is no doubt affordable housing is a community benefit but you need to consider at what cost. The 2010 AACP states clearly on page2 that our resort economy is the only sustainable economy that we have and needs to be protected; the community cannot afford to lose its lodging inventory especially moderately priced lodging inventory. Edwards said the proposal in front of you is directly contrary to an unambiguous goal policy and action item in the 2010 AACP. Edwards referred to page 44 of the packet with 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 regard to parking with the 2' criteria to consider if an on street off street parking solution is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario; this is a perfectly flat lot and the developer can put the parking on the lot instead of on street by making the building smaller. Edwards asked P &Z to deny the application. 3. John Olson stated that he was a contractor in town. Olson said he looked at the project and it could be done with the change of the inside of this building. Olson said from a personal perspective this project was 10 times in the best interest of this city and way better than Burlingame in terms of per unit no matter how you look at it. 4. Rustin Gudin stated he was the chairman of APCHA and Mr. Stunda came before APCHA and took the recommendations to heart. Gudin said that reducing the size 10% was great that Steve was willing to do that but he was not; it has already gone through the process. Gudin said the people living there would be paying property taxes, shopping in town and adding to the economy, maybe not the same way the tourists would be but certainly adding to the economy. Gudin said there would probably be some headaches with the parking and APCHA suggested one car per unit. Gudin said the people actually living there as employees are going to care a lot more with what is actually going on as far as the traffic because it is their neighborhood as well. 5. Doug Allen said that there is a serious parking problem in the West end now and is supposed to be primarily low density residential; the parking problem is the biggest problem. Allen said that with the improvements to Main Street the parking was taken away. There are already 2 nice employee housing units one on 7th and Main and one behind this project. Allen said it needs to be what it was approved as or not built. 6. Ron Erickson stated that he serves on the APCHA Board and they approved this unanimously and the key is the unit size, the categories do reflect the highest need in the city; they are small units, studios, one bedroom and two bedrooms and nothing over category 4. Erickson said that he was a neighbor and lives behind them and is all in favor of this project and would build 60 units if he could and doesn't think that there is a parking problem. Erickson said for a housing project this is a terrific gift to the community. 7. Charles Cunniffe said it was a rare opportunity for this kind of housing being built in the core of town and this shouldn't be missed. Cunniffe said that a 10% reduction was not valid on this either and you have the art museum that was approved without protest and this project serves the community far more than that does and he has to protest. Cunniffee said this project should be embraced because it is what the community desperately needs. 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 8. Tom McCabe said he was director of the housing authority and made a comment about the Aspen Area Community Plan like the Bible it says many things and contradicts those things many pages later. McCabe said the rational for the urban growth boundary concept is the city agrees to accept greater density within the boundary in exchange for the preservation of important open spaces in outlying areas and key parcels in the city. McCabe said this project presents a good opportunity when essentially nothing is happening and we have a good applicant that has talked to them about what makes a project better and work more for the tenants. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she lived next door and was not against affordable housing if it fit in gently it would be fine and the Christiana was one of the densest buildings in the neighborhood but wasn't used very much so it doesn't create a lot of traffic. A nice amount of employee housing would be 34 units and then you could put parking on the property too and they could have 34 spaces in the garage and the units could be bigger and nicer for people to live in. Goldenberg was worried because after 3 years she is still looking at the hole where the Boomerang was torn down and not replaced with anything and there were buildings not completed all over town. 10.John Batey said he was the attorney for the Scott family and speaking personally he thought that this was just bad planning. Batey said the parking was a symptom of the increased density of this building; it is misleading that the outside shell is not changing because you are going from a property that is being used maybe 50% or 60% a year of maybe half of those would maybe be driving cars so it is a much more dense use of the neighborhood. Batey said the Jewish Center was around the corner and had no parking included in their development. Batey said that this project should not be approved or approved with much lower density. 11.Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney and was here on behalf of himself as an owner of 323 W Main St and on behalf of the Christiana Lodge that would be impacted by this project. Taddune said the Planning & Zoning Commission should rely on neutral principals not look at whether or not some developer tore down a building that is now in financial distress. The 2010 Community Plan recognizes that lodges should be preserved so here we have 54 units that are going to go out the window that are desperately needed in the community. 12.Steve Goldenberg said when the Boomerang wanted to expand when Charlie owned it we were against it and there was no underground parking in that plan. Goldenberg said after many meetings Charlie said that he was going to build the underground parking and we became supporters. Goldenberg said 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 that there were at least half the cars with a lodge. Goldenberg said he was interested in making sure that the place was livable. Goldenberg said it wasn't so much the FAR but the number of people; the standard should be 1 to 1 FAR. Goldenberg said this was a low density neighborhood. 13.Angela Young said she supports what Steve has said in opposition, this change of use request deserves a critical analysis and examination before you make the final consideration. 14.Rick Head said he was chairman of the board of adjustment and said he was fortunate enough to live in affordable housing for the last 16 years and if this doesn't get approved there's roughly 50 people that won't have the opportunity to have housing. Head hoped that P &Z would look favorably on this application. 15.Scott Stewart said he lived in the Scott Building and there were 5 units. Stewart agreed with reducing the density. Stewart said that he 1previpously ived in a very small unit in the Glory Hole and it was very uncomfortable. Stewart said that in the Scott Condo they have over 1400 square feet and it is very comfortable. Stewart said their area was definitely a family orientated area and they hope to maintain that. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the public hearing. Erspamer asked if there was a difference in height for a lodge as opposed to multi- family. Phelan said for the RMF Zone the height is 32 feet. Phelan said what was approved was 37 feet 6 inches as a lodge. Michael Hoffman said it was pretty clear that the neighbors were upset about the proposed density and staff has said that a 10% reduction will address those concerns. Hoffman asked that P &Z give serious consideration to the staff recommendation. Jasmine Tygre said that one of the concerns for P &Z generally was the importance of preservation of lodge units, particularly smaller less expensive lodge units. Tygre said there were some flaws in the lodge program that we have had for a long time and one of the problems with lodges in residential neighborhoods was that they were either non - conforming in terms of density, in terms of size and in terms of usage and there always have been problems trying to preserve them. Tygre said one of the thing that was the incentive was allowing larger dimensions and that hasn't worked and the neighbors said that a lodge would be lower density and that was the opposite of what we want. Tygre said they wanted hotbeds and a lot of traffic and a lot of density in our lodges and yet everybody knows that's not 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 happening in areas that are not really lodge areas. Tygre said this is a larger concern for P &Z which doesn't affect this project except for the fact that she never liked the dimensions of the lodge to begin with; she didn't think it was compatible with the neighborhood and she was please that the applicant was willing to do a 10% reduction in FAR. Tygre said that if you want to rezone this property to RMF use then use the RMF dimensions that means height as well as FAR; she thought that would be a good argument for saying that would be an appropriate use. Tygre said the dimensions for RMF should apply to this project and I think that the applicant has indicated his willingness to do this; that will solve some of the density problems and she would like to make a suggestion because she understands APCHA's willingness to accept smaller units for category 3 and 4 units they should be at least the minimum size. Tygre said people don't live in storage units; you need to have units that people will be able to live in comfortably. Tygre stated by reducing the density you will reduce the need for parking and reduce the concern of the neighborhood if we have a really nice affordable housing project. Tygre said they did not have to see detailed pictures but would like to see numbers if you created x number of units of the minimum size would that be workable and what would the overall number of units and parking spaces. Erspamer thanked everybody for being so civil; he was reluctant to vote on this tonight because he didn't want to vote on something that's going to be determined later. Erspamer voiced concern over the shuttle on demand because it would mean more trips; say if someone wants to go to the Aspen Club it would be 2 trips there and 2 trips back instead of 1. Erspamer said that the applicant has done a great job with this application especially compromising. Erspamer said that if this would come back within the dimensions that are required for that zone. Erspamer said he doesn't agree with looking at the 2010 AACP; our criteria concerns the 2000 AACP which says the housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community not just units. Erspamer disagreed that if you take away parking people won't drive cars; however it just doesn't work in reality; in his neighborhood they built a development and reduced the parking so everybody parks in front of their neighbors houses now and they never had a parking problem before. Erspamer said he was not in favor of dedicated public parking spaces to private projects even with employee housing. Erspamer suggested continuing this to the next meeting. Phelan said a week to have the applicant come back and for staff to write a memo on any changes would be difficult and the meeting could be December 14` Erspamer said that he agreed with what Jasmine said. Mike Wampler said that he lives in employee housing his entire time and he was a proponent of employee housing and he could support this proposal and keep an open mind to go 10% back. 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Bert Myrin said that we were not building new small lodges; he noted in the 2000 AACP it stated not converting lodges into non -lodge use. Myrin agreed with Jasmine on using the residential standards for height and FAR. Myrin said the outside should look like the neighborhood. Myrin wanted clarity on the shuttle and in perpetuity for the shuttle. Myrin said that he would like to see the livability of the units. Myrin said that he was not taking into account was the financing because it wasn't relevant nor was the property value of a neighbor; what is relevant was the livability of the units and the livability of the neighborhood. Myrin said tonight he could not support this. Stan Gibbs said rather than repeat all the things the commissioners said and Jasmine in particular stated how he sees this project. Gibbs said he had a hard time keeping the shell as it was defined for a lodge and basically assuming that if you fill it in with a different use it that it doesn't have different impacts on the neighborhood. Gibbs said he understood the constraints that Steve was under but this project needs a better refinement along the lines of a 10% cut back or as a housing development as opposed to a lodge it feels too large; he was not on P &Z when the project originally came up; at the time he would have probably voted against it because it seems very large even with all of the incentives of a lodge. Gibbs said that he was a firm proponent of affordable housing and was excited about the affordable housing credit program and there have been a couple other projects have come through and it's a huge benefit to the community. Gibbs said in its current configuration; he felt it was their responsibility as a board to know what they were voting on and would like to see it continued for a couple of weeks and get a better definition of the proposal. Gibbs said that they could integrate the comments made by both the public and the commissioners; so we get a real sense of what we are voting on. Gibbs said the zoning change makes sense in this neighborhood with other affordable housing and multi - family and residences but to support the size of this project with this use proposed. Wampler reminded the board that Jennifer said that P &Z had 4 items: growth management on rezoning; growth management review on change of use; special review for off - street parking and the issue of certificate of affordable housing; we need to get back on these 4 items. Gibbs responded that he heard what Mike was saying but they still have to make recommendations of the others. Gibbs said they could make recommendations that would reflect the consensus and send that off but Stan said that he would feel better with a better sense of what they were really recommending. 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 Jasmine proposed a modified motion to start with the planning staff's recommendation with seeing a little more detail but didn't want the applicant to have to do a full detail of drawings but for the applicant to come back to P &Z with the adjustment of the floor area to 1.5 to 1 with reduction of height to that applicable in the RFM Zone without a full set of elevations but to reduce the density by increasing the size of the units and giving some idea of how that would look in rough sketches rather than full elevations. Tygre noted it was a big building and would have a big impact on the neighborhood and anybody who walks by but avoiding a full architectural rendering. Jennifer Phelan said there would be reduction in the height and massing with some reduction of square footage. Tygre said she didn't have to see the units on a floor plan but a chart would be a reasonable way for the applicant to proceed; she couldn't pass this onto Council and suggested this as a reasonable compromise. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to see a little more detail as stated above with rough sketches and a chart and reducing the height, mass and scale with a 1.5 to 1 floor area; the number of units reduced and increasing the size of the units and include the number of parking spaces and continue to December 14, 2010. Seconded by Bert Myrin with 4 in favor; 1 opposed (Wampler). Approved 4 -1. Discussion prior to the vote: LJ Erspamer requested the number of units. Jasmine Tygre said the size. Erspamer said also the parking spaces and height. Myrin said the Benedict Commons property is less surface area than this, yet is has 58 spaces below grade. Stunda replied that he couldn't do it because of the existing historic part dedicated to the historic preservation. Myrin was concerned with taking away public parking on street along West Hopkins. Stunda said he thought that parking would be the least of these issues. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes; Bert Myrin seconded. Approved. Continued discussion prior to the vote: Myrin stated that P &Z was not binding them to. Tygre responded that was not what the motion was what the motion said and she thought that there would be a difference of opinion about what's acceptable and what's not among the different members. Erspamer asked about the subsidy for the units in the building. Worcester answered that Mr. Stunda and the City have been discussing this for some time. Erspamer asked if he could go to the City Com Dev to ask what it 13 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — November 02, 2010 would take. Worcester said that they have had discussions and he doesn't know where they have gone. Gibbs said that he agreed with Jasmine's motion; a little more information, a little bit more refinement would be helpful to him. Gibbs said it would go a long way toward getting support from the neighborhood. Gibbs said that for example just show the historical designated parking that was associated with the Boomerang Lodge and that's the extent of the on street parking he could get behind that but he thought the most important thing was to feel that some of the impacts have been addressed and some reductions have been made and at least give a sense of the impact of the neighborhood. Stunda replied that he said that at the onset; he said he wanted to be recognized that he spent a lot of money to develop an approved building and it's just been dismissed on a hand. Gibbs said the point from P &Z's respect is the change in use is not transparent and not just a simple "we will put different things in it" and that is a big difference. Stunda said he heard that loud and clear. Myrin asked the when it comes back that there was some support from the neighborhood and it was not the largest most dense project. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 West Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment 2 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the special P &Z meeting Tuesday, December 14, 2010 to order at 4:35pm in the Council Chambers Meeting Room. Jasmine Tygre and Bert Myrin were excused. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Jennifer Phelan said that Jessica Garrow asked for comments on the draft of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Phelan stated for all of the hard work and extra meetings on the Aspen Area Community Plan staff wanted to provide a one day ARC pass or 2 tickets of your choice to the upcoming film fest; please get back to Jessica if you are interested in either of those items. Emzy Vezy III, public, asked P &Z to help him brain -storm on an event for August of next year and was trying to think of possible sites that won't conflict in any way to pull off this carousal. Stan Gibbs said that it might be a good idea to run that by Council as well. Minutes MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the November 16 minutes, seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 W Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for 500 W Hopkins, the Boomerang PUD Amendment continued from November 2' Jennifer Phelan stated that she is the deputy planning director for the City of Aspen. Phelan provided an overview of how the public hearing process works; the typical public hearing starts with the staff presentation of the application and follows with a presentation by the applicant and the applicant's representative. Phelan said at that time the planning & zoning commission members can ask questions of either the applicant or staff. The chair will open up the hearing for public comment; then the commission will discuss and debate the application and finally make a decision on the item. Phelan said the review process in general was a two step review process, first heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 for a number of recommendations and approvals required and then be heard by City Council, which will be the second step. Phelan stated there will be additional public notice and public hearings before City Council as they are the final decision makers on a number of land use requests. Jennifer Phelan said there were a couple of clean up issues for the record re- number some of the exhibits in the packet; the first hearing we had an exhibit entered at the hearing as Exhibit N is really going to be Exhibit 0 (letters from the public); Exhibit 0 in the packet will be Exhibit P (transportation demand management plan); Exhibit R will now be Q (APCHA housing referral); Exhibit Q will be Exhibit R (the amended site plan) and will be entering additional comments from the public that were received after the packet went out as Exhibit S. Phelan said that Lynn Rumbaugh from our Transportation Department was here so if the commission has specific questions for her it would be great to ask her earlier in the hearing rather than later. Phelan said this was a continued public hearing and the requests before the planning & zoning commission was to amend the PUD approval that is associated with the Boomerang Lodge entitlements as well as additional land use reviews to redevelop the site with affordable housing. Phelan said the specific reviews before the commission are and amendment of the Planned Unit Development basically to amend the standards associated with the project including the parking; it's an amendment of the zone district map to rezone the property from R -6 LP PUD, which is medium density residential lodge preservation with a PUD overlay to Residential Multifamily PUD for the residential multi use of the property. Subdivision review for the multiple dwelling units and these 3 are recommendations the Planning & Zoning Commission makes to the final decision maker City Council. Phelan said that the Planning & Zoning Commission had final decision making on Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing; that the Affordable Housing Units meet the standards in the land use code. Growth Management Review for a change in use from a lodge that had a free market component and affordable housing component to completely multifamily residential in nature. Also a credit for a certificate for affordable housing; when a developer creates affordable housing that's not associated with mitigation therefore voluntary affordable housing they can receive credits for the employees housed and that is what the applicant is looking for with this application. Phelan said at the last public hearing the request was to use the approved shell of the building associated with the 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Boomerang Lodge, which included in that shell 47 lodge units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units and they wanted to re- develop the shell to 54 multifamily residential units that would be deed restricted as affordable housing. Phelan said that during the last public hearing P &Z recommended that the applicant reduce the mass and scale of the project and conform better with the multifamily residential zone district. Phelan said the amended proposal before the commission now shows the removal of the 4 floor, that was approved for the lodge use and so there is a reduction in the height of the project to 32 feet; there was a reduction in floor area of approximately 4500 square feet and a reduction in the number of dwelling units going down to 46 units rather than the 54 that was originally proposed. Illustrative elevations and layouts have been provided, which meet or exceed APCHA's standards for unit size also individual storage lockers are provided for every proposed unit in this current iteration in the basement of the project. The applicant is proposing 33 sub -grade parking spaces and 14 off site but on grade parking spaces along 4 Street and 1 in the alley and these are via an existing encroachment license that the applicant has for the sole use of those parking spaces. With the use of the encroachment license the parking meets the one to one ratio that's required. Phelan said overall there is a reduction in the mass and scale of the project, the height of the project now conforms better with the required parking standards, a reduction in the density of the property and staff recommends approval of the rezoning of the property to residential multifamily, the map amendment, recommendation of approval for the PUD Amendment to establish the dimensional standards for the project. The project is now a height of 32 feet, floor area of 1.5 to 1, total parking of 33 parking spaces in the underground parking garage and with the encroachment license allowing 14 at grad parking spaces within the right -of -way. Phelan included a table of surrounding buildings heights including the Christiana with a max at the gable of 34 feet, so this would be shorter than a project directly across the alley from it. Little Ajax was approved for 34 feet and is an affordable housing multifamily development across the street. As proposed staff recommended the reduction in mass and all of these features to create a building that is compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff also supports the proposed parking because the development is close to the commercial core, near a car to go station, trails and pedestrian corridor, so driving doesn't have to be one's primary mode of transportation. Staff recommends approval of the Growth Management Reviews for the Affordable Housing Credit and 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 recommendation for approval of the PUD Amendments, Subdivision and Rezoning. Phelan said she would like to strike Section 3 of the Resolution. LJ Erspamer asked if there were any parking spots designated for the car to go program. Lynn Rumbaugh replied not at that location; the applicant offered but Transportation did not have an extra car right now and there was a car about 5 blocks away. Rumbaugh said the applicant offered a car to go but the Transportation Department does not have the backing to maintain any more cars because the most expensive part is the maintenance, insurance and gas. Erspamer asked what triggers the need for a traffic study. Rumbaugh responded that he would have to ask the Engineering Department that question. Erspamer asked about the 20% reduction in size and there was criteria for the program with APCHA. Jennifer Phelan said that 25 units were below and 20 units were at or above the required minimum for APCHA. Phelan said APCHA has a standard in their guidelines that says the overall minimum square footage required for a unit maybe reduced up to 20% if the applicant shows a number of considerations that are met; livability of the unit; close to transit. Erspamer replied that he read the 6 and was aware of that. Erspamer asked if the mechanical was still the 7 feet on the roof. Phelan replied that Community Development goes with what the land use code allows and would be finalized in the PUD process. Charles Cunniffe, architect, said there was no mechanical on the roof. Stan Gibbs asked the 2006 approved height. Phelan replied that the height was 37'6" for the lodge. Michael Hoffman, attorney for the applicant, introduced Charles Cunniffee the project architect and Steve Stunda the representative for the applicant, FSP —ABR LLC. Steve Stunda stated it's clear from the last meeting Planning & Zoning with the neighbors wanted the height and mass to conform with the Residential Multifamily Zone District. Stunda said in addition the commission members were concerned about the livability of the units and reduced the height. Stunda said there is one parking space for every unit including a handicap space. Charles Cunniffe, architect, stated they removed a story and reduced the units from 54 to 46. 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Public Comments: 1. John Provine said he has developed in this neighborhood . but this project was too big. 2. Rusty Scott lived down the block from this project and said it was too big for the neighborhood. 3. Daniel Verner said that when there were events at the Jewish Community Center parking would very much be impacted. 4. Andrew Smith said that he lives in the Christiana and they have 28 units. 5. Esten Nadosis said that he lived 505 W Hopkins and it was a beautiful place but there was no parking. 6. John Olson encouraged comments; it has been recommended for approval by staff and the lodge is gone and these employee units were being done voluntarily. 7. Angela Young and she and her husband live at 413 West Hopkins and she had provided a letter; a great part of the year this is a pedestrian parkway and there is an oversaturation of parking and voiced concern for safety with the cars and pedestrians. 8. Donna Guerra said that she is usually on the side of the developer but owns 2 properties in this neighborhood and talked about the alley and the trash wasn't shown and the entrance from the parking garage into the alley wasn't shown. Guerra said it was one massive building that wasn't broken up and she also lives in Dallas and this will look like Dallas. 9. Cheryl Goldenberg said she lives at 430 West Hopkins and there is so much housing already and from the AACP meetings that she and her husband attended this is not modest in scale and harmonious; this was not modest in scale and doesn't fit into the neighborhood. 10. Steve Goldenberg utilized his map and disagreed with the staff conclusion that it fits in the neighborhood and is compatible. Goldenberg said there were 6 different buildings in the neighborhood that were broken up and that's the way it ought to be done. Goldenberg said by giving them the zoning change we are giving them a lot which is a big plus for the PUD and you are giving affordable housing subsidy with the affordable housing credits and the zoning; they should get one or the other but not both. Goldenberg said what will work here was a broken up building with 28 units and would eliminate the parking problem. 11. Jody Edwards, attorney for Cheryl and Steve Goldenberg; Cheryl, Steve and Dan have already spoken and John Statin who is not here. Edwards distributed a revocable encroachment license and he said his main point had to do with parking; what this has to do with is special review for a parking waiver with 3 criteria. Edwards said that the off street parking does not 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 satisfy the code and there was nothing to prevent the applicant from putting the parking on site. Edwards said this was a city block and parking was a problem in this neighborhood and also the size, the mass and the impacts. Edwards said that this was a temporary license subject to be terminated at any time. 12. Paul Taddune, attorney, said we should listen to the people that live in the neighborhood and are impacted by a project such as this and there were competing interests the stability of the neighborhood; lodge preservation, historic preservation, scale and mass and also the notion of employee housing. Taddune asked the applicant to look at the Little Ajax buildings and Christina to reduce the scale and mass. 13. John Batey stated he was a local attorney and endorsed the comments of the 2 attorney before him; he said from the last meeting the applicant was to come back and demonstrate that the project was compatible with the neighborhood. 14. Doug Allen said that he was also an attorney but was not representing anyone other than himself. Allen said Little Ajax was a wonderful neighborhood for the project and fits in perfectly but they have a parking problem. Allen said this neighborhood has a parking problem and the building mass and scale should be broken up. 15. Tammie Stewart said that she lived at 400 West Hopkins in a 5 unit building and there were 2 parking spaces for every unit. Stewart said parking is a problem and this project would put on pressure that was already there. 16. Ron Erickson said that he was in favor of the project and a member of the Housing Board and reviewed this application and found it had merit on the following basis. (1) a large number of small units that are critically needed; (2) in town location and (3) they are producing 46 units at no subsidy to the city. Erickson said that it was amazing that the neighbors fought Little Ajax (where Ron lives) for 7 years and the city stepped into help the project to be built. 17. Martin Mata said he is an architect working here for many years and attended the meeting as a curious on looker. Mata said that the packet in front of you is skimpy for the magnitude with asking for a change in use and rezoning; any new development needs to fit into the neighborhood; the context and historical development patterns. Mata submitted another photo of a building broken up. 18. Tom McCabe said he was the director of the housing authority and they look at criteria and an important one is livability and said that Mr. Stunda has done a very good job making the representations and that was why many of the minimum square footages have been attained. McCabe said housing 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 was very much in favor of the balconies and that balconies can be misused but your HOA Covenants can control that. McCabe said the underground storage was also a huge amenity. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan provided Exhibit S with additional letters from the public received after the deadline for the packet; Exhibit T photos; Exhibit U Jody Edwards encroachment license; Exhibit V Mata sketch. Phelan clarified that the Christina Lodge was approved with 10 off street parking spaces. Phelan emphasized that they were using the 2000 AACP. Phelan said that a PUD allows for the establishment of parking requirements and after conferring with the City Attorneys today; they noticed for both amendments of the PUD and Special Review for parking they would utilize the PUD for off - street parking. Phelan said that Council will decide this issue; P &Z will still be making a recommendation to City Council. Phelan recommended striking Section 3 of the Resolution and renumber subsequent sections of the resolution. Phelan discussed with Rumbaugh the availability capacity in the neighborhood was based on occupancy counts; actual parking counts that the Parking Department has done in the neighborhood and they pulled that from files associated with the Jewish Community Center. Stan Gibbs asked how long did the 2006 approval last with the vested rights. Steve Stunda replied the extension was good until October 2012. Stunda utilized Steve Goldenberg map and when he bought the property from Charlie Paterson he agreed to keep the trees along Hopkins so if you walked down the sidewalk it would mitigate the size of the building and dedicate the east wing in perpetuity as a reminder of old Aspen. Stunda said that he will be self supportive in respects to parking. Stunda said the footprint of the building has not deviated; it was this big when Charlie had it; the spaces on Fourth Street have always been dedicated to the lodge and its use. Michael Hoffman stated he saw this application as good competing for the community; the existing approval is an example of how valuable a lodge project was in 2006 reflected by the 2006 approval. Hoffman reiterated the height has been reduced substantially; they have removed an entire floor; the mass and scale has been reduced to 41,000 gross square feet. Hoffman said they have actually increased the parking. 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Charles Cunniffee said that parking was the issue here and they have reduced the size of the building and increased the number of parking spaces. Cunniffee said there would be more auto trips if it were a lodge because as affordable housing people will go to work and come home. Cunniffee said this has been a rehashing of the previous meeting; the smaller units with new technology have smaller hot water heaters and they will sit in a soffit above the bathroom and hallway so it doesn't take valuable floor space away. Jim DeFrancia said the comments about mass and scale do seem to be displaced because the point of comparison is to what is proposed to what is now approved. DeFrancia said that everything that he has heard what has been approved prior is greater in height, square foot and mass. DeFrancia said that parking was the other issue that was raised quite frequently and he is sympatric with that but the issue of parking is a broader issue; if there is parking congestion already so it is a municipal problem to be solved or a bigger problem to be solved and with the approval of a lodge with less parking and the Jewish Community Center he said that he didn't understand why the parking for this project was to bear the brunt of solving all the parking problems. DeFrancia said there was 1 space per unit; the units were relatively small and if we are going to get ourselves into a less auto incentive society then we should quit accommodating the cars. Cliff Weiss said that every project had to be a good neighbor; he realized that the code says 1 parking space per unit but what happens to all of the guests of these employees, where do they park. Weiss said he agreed with the neighbors about breaking up the building; can it be less impactful. Weiss said that technically he agreed with Jim there is an application approved before this one that is even larger than this. Weiss voiced concern for the pedestrian way that he uses 4 times a day except in the winter; he did not want to see that a corridor for cars. Weiss said if this project is going to be a good neighbor it needs more than the minimum amount of parking and he said that they were moving in the right direction and he realized underground parking is expensive. Weiss said that he was not ready with this as is; he felt there were more tweaks that need to be made to make it compatible with that neighborhood. Weiss said it was one thing to put a lodge there and expect it to be compatible, this is housing. Weiss stated in order to be compatible break it up. Michael Wampler said that they do want housing within the City limits; he said that parking is the way it is. Wampler said people are still waiting for ownership units; studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms are in dire need in this town. Wampler said that if this were a lodge to be built he thought it was too far from the town and tourists don't walk which means you would constantly having some kind of van use. 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 Wampler said people who do live in affordable housing do ride their bikes and they will take care of their units and they use other than cars to go up and down Hopkins. Wampler said that he was going to go with Cliff on this that the building could stand some improvement; it needs to at least look like it can be broken up. Wampler said that he would like to see that in a motion to work on the building. Wampler reminded everyone in the room that this wasn't the end of this project it was still going to City Council. LJ Erspamer voiced concerns for parking and asked if P &Z disregards the parking. Phelan replied that a PUD has standards for parking and what she was saying after discussing Special Review for the parking was to incorporate it into the dimensional standards of the PUD on page 29 & 30. Phelan said if the project gets entitled as Multifamily residential it will be developed by the applicant who cannot get any affordable credits until the Cos are issued and those units will be for sale units. Erspamer asked if we hold free - market to a higher standard than employee housing; in other words we should be a little more generous of this because it is employee housing. Phelan answered they are reviewed under the same standards that another project would be reviewed under. Erspamer asked how they judge compatibility with this project. Erspamer said that he liked the project, it wasn't bad, but the parking issue was big for him and where do the visitors park; those are the issues that hold him up right now. Erspamer said breaking up might help a little and addressing these parking issues were needed for him. Stan Gibbs tended to agree with Cliff on the impacts of a lodge compared to housing; he felt the impacts on the neighborhood would be greater with a lodge. Gibbs said that employee housing were residents and likely to take advantage of all the public transit that is available; one of the problems with guests is that they don't know that system. Gibbs said they have to differentiate between the lodge project that is already approved; we would have all rather that this application had been brand new and come to P &Z in a normal fashion without the baggage of the previous approval that we have to work into the equation. Gibbs said the encroachment was not the issue because it also exists for the lodge. Gibbs said the source of these affordable housing credits could have a huge impact on the size and scale of other projects in the city. Gibbs said this felt like a conceptual approval, at least in the last meeting we had and I still feel like the building is larger than it should be for this area but I know that the old building as you said big and the new lodge building is bigger in terms of total mass so again I have a problem with where to go with that piece of information. Gibbs said the density seems large to him and the zoning was R -6 underneath and we are taking R -6 to RMF; is that compatible with the neighborhood because that increases density; he was 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 struggling with that. Phelan said that there were non - conforming uses in the neighborhood at this point; there were a number of multifamily projects that were non - conforming because of the rezoning. Gibbs said he appreciated that the 4 floor was gone but he wished they could go around again; the mass of the building still troubles him but he is not unwilling given to what P &Z has said and the record in place let Council make this decision but recommend they think about it hard. Gibbs said he would have liked to have seen more changes in the building between what we saw last time even though you have made huge progress it doesn't feel like quite enough. Weiss asked in the 2006 Boomerang were the condos for sale or hotel rooms. Phelan replied the form of ownership was 47 condo and lodge units, 5 free- market residential multifamily units and 2 affordable housing units. Phelan said that a person with a fractional time share unit has a 30 day limit that they can stay in their unit; if they are living there permanently, it is illegal, if they exceed the amount of time the hotel is not operating under its obligations in the city and under its approvals. Weiss said the shorter the term the more impact it will have; if people would stay more than a week and had kitchens they have to shop and take their car and things of that nature. Stunda responded that they all had kitchens, they were all for sale and about 50% presold when the meltdown occurred; the least desirable category for financing was condominium lodge, no lender wants to touch that because of the use restriction 30, 90 days maximum it was going to be run as a lodge. DeFrancia said procedurally we are recommending to the City Council. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 seconded by Li Erspamer. All in favor, Approved. DeFrancia said P &Z was approving the Affordable Housing credits. Phelan replied for the Affordable Housing units they need the APCHA Standards and for the change in use from Lodge to Multifamily Residential; the others are recommendations they are only useful until they get their approval from City Council. Erspamer asked if they were going to break these up into each individual vote or are you going to make a motion to the whole. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved approval of Resolution #22, series 2010 approving certain growth management reviews, special review, the establishment of Affordable Housing credits and recommending approval of PUD Amendment, Subdivision and a Map Amendment with conditions delineated by staff and with an 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — December 14, 2010 additional condition that the applicant review and present to City Council alternative on architectural reduction of the mass. Seconded by Michael Wampler. Discussion prior to the vote: Phelan said if you are going that way she had some recommendations on how that could be inserted into the resolution. Phelan said that she recommended deleting Section 3, which was Special Review for Parking, which can be included in the PUD and create a new Section 1 which would have Jim's condition and renumber the existing Section 1 in the draft to Section 2 and existing Section 2 to 3 and the rest of the motion would stay as described. Phelan said the breaking up of the mass of the building to architectural modifications. Weiss said that he still had issues with the parking because it is a PUD and wanted Council to know that he felt the parking was somewhat inadequate; so it either has to be less units with the same amount of parking or more parking to handle that many units. Weiss said the neighborhood will be impacted by this project as it is; he didn't like changing a lodge to employee housing but he felt that it was the minimum in parking. DeFrancia said it meets code. Weiss said that he would like it to say that parking is inadequate within the application and needs to be increased and it is not necessarily a recommendation. DeFrancia suggested that all of the parking meets code but we recommend additional parking. Phelan said these will be put into Section 1. Jim DeFrancia amended his motion as described above; Michael Wampler seconded. Roll call: Weiss, yes; Erspamer, no because of page 25 of the AACP and inadequate study by the City (he was not against this project); Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes given the additions and the concern about massing is real, if this application went forward as it is today, he would recommend that Council not pass it but given that is known to Council. APPROVED 4 -1. LJ Erspamer was disappointed in the City's handling of parking and it was totally inadequate and this was a very ambiguous part of the code. Erspamer suggested the City P &Z address the Area Community Plan. Adjourned at 7:25 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 • • December 23, 2010 Mr. Jody Edwards '- Klein, Cote & Edwards, LLC 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203 • ASPEN /PrruN Aspen, CO 8161 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: APPEAL (regarding resolution approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission) • Dear Jody, - As required per Section 26.316.020 D., Notice Requirements, of the land use code notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 10, 2010, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 'City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal of an action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission (passage of a resolution with regard to parking requirements for 500 W. Hopkins) that you submitted. For further information, please feel free to contact me at 970.429.2759 or by email Jennifer .Phelanna,ci.aspen.co.us. A memo will' be emailed to you prior to the hearing. Regards, • Jenifer Phelan Deputy Director • 130 Sourx GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 - Primp 970.920.5090 • FAx 970.920.5439 Printed ea Recycled Paper g. m o x N t. n ° c C7 y O -I ... Y 9 K G m c m y o . <n u r ni z M Lrt P 1 E-. I!) ��/ N wise ° °4ozmo z Do7c3 = o wins Ca • 0 0∎•, = m 2.65-a m D .� m� = m 2 co ,�� m- o w d � t� w U - - f _ �∎ Cs) C = o a- W •� Q ro ''"' Rs F = 0 N N s N mp3 _ ..L N v�" -. f ' D m� = m m co g m -L as = w A 0 d N dr g x d w `2 W f n C a on■ Si M 5 = n ro .J �� C r a• @ 3 2 w 0 F s w m mH Q § m m N F S D m 3 N w a 0 - 9 (( ``�� m x A n - a a ID W m w ❑ ❑ i a a m [ R1.t ?k':y.�.k -J R -.l of O a a ti ZiYt: /On" 2 N m 3 m m D o n o i UNITf F a - F 3 n c m o 9, � -.3 m o m n S i ❑ m ❑❑ m ❑❑ A � w a O c--1 p m 2 n m QM 4 999 _ On0i r9 N t), $ N VA N .. o 0 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1Si (4)• Ann/ ..a , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: O @S• _ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) S& (name, please print) being or rep ✓ resenti g an Applicant to the City o f Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, retum receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 27 day ocP.r. Q/ D ,eat , by — %ND AND OFFICIAL SEAL A20 UNDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2010 zpin 2o�p pUg .. O THE CITY OF ASPEN f t CORY J. 1, LE: % t GARSKE y3"'. PUBLIC NOTICE N) 9, B, RE APPEAL AGENCIES rgard €RR Ex;res 05/09/2012 (regaMing resolution approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission) • - STAE OWNERS NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, January 10, 2011, to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an appeal of an action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission (passage of a resolution with regard to parking requirements for 500 W. Hopkins), submitted by Jody Edwards, on behalf of Steve & Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 203, Aspen CO 81611. For further information, contact Jennifer Phelan at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 • S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 970.429.5090, (or by email Jennifer .Phelanoci.aspen.co.us). s/Michael C. Ireland, Chair Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on December 26, 2010 r City of Aspen Account � Y c lE krh AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: W floptlins , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Mw. 2.4 , 20d 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) &onn&t Muh4 i twa- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: (Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in a) height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15 •:; r• .. to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day .:� , - �` j 200 , to and including the date and time of the public , - a of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notic- o ined from the Development Department, which contains th" • erib a d in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. L `.,= i t t 5) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand deliver m t class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property wi olii-M ilatr 0) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate .survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ) Signature The foreg. in "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this III day of U( -v , 20 00, by ltki {1 t•t W1 u {.i ) v1:�,� 4 • PURL NOnOE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 500 W'GT HOPKINS AVE., IENDMENT Tr A PLANNED UNIT. ENT t' ENDMENT ZO S DISTRICT A , I h I� � E WTH M NAG EM E DIEVIEW MAP, , My commission expires: i- t l ;OWTM MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR `� -' \\ Y VIEW FOR IN USE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT VIEW SE AFFORDABLE PARKING PUBLIC HOUSING, BPS- HEARING I \ \L REVIEW FOR PARKING PUBLIC HEARING w•• III is WAI / i 17ICE I5 HEREBY GIVEN that a public bearing '� t //�~E'�. A. � /(,/ T' I be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at a Notary Public eating 10 beg n at 6:30 p�m. before the Aspen / arm in Zoning ComHal S. Galena SL, / / des Meeting Room, CAy / ,pen CO. to review proposals submitted by As 1 / n FSP-ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunde 602 North urth SL Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to . ^ Planned Umt Develop v ent (PUD) Ame Growt t .'a^� • X the Zone District Ma Subdivision, Growth '� 4 `et V anagement Review for Change e Hoe, t .� et P l ppedal Review for p for tg tar l to Housing , Pe �� c n 5 O W. NO f the n erta \ \ \\ OF +�'� esownass0oW . M, , eU 0, 3 , 0 . 03 and ` /r .� V � _ 'only Bi Block described 01 I e Lots K, L en To n i' - • 1 • `• S AS .APPLICABLE: Block proposes of me City e of Aspen o t The m ant it y Reaet /al (R6) 1 properly odP ,,' , rA ' ' sN m / Density d a Unit ILodge Preservation Y LP) / Uni) / veto Planet ed pment ito Residential ent AU Fam 80t seeks I Plan ed e t e Boomerang od e deve o pm nt, ppr convert Auust TOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) in ;,a ,8 reeide°mar 'e ry dgea9 d a , ti e ^o1s: ' OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED units Into 56 units of afforble hoing only !AIL fhng e applicant proposes to mak mtario r changes m t-4 Moor plans, but proposes no changes to the er en- ,nar tma Betsoa9°getd.aCltybf ; ICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE Aspen Community Development Department, 130 5 Galena 5t.. Aspen, CO (910) 429-2755, (or by QUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 email at Ben .GapnP08'ci.a. pen.co.us ). Alt written correspondence related tote application should be sent to the above email o physical address sjStan Gibbs Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Ti me.s W /hly on Calabar 17 2010. [5672841) ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 2, 2010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: VI Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 16 day of October, 2010, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. © Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) !•:ys prior to e .. e the public hearing. A copy of the owners and go age / es so noti ed i atta ed hereto. G/ I.4.1111il a '. r# ad Hoffman The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 1st day of November, 2010. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ,o,/ c, /,a arigublic List of Attachments PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) it tY P � VA.. ' LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL LINDSAY 1 LOGAN My Commission Expires 10/1612013 / ' -: : „ ,„.... 1' \ :"''' ' :-.-• . „'''''. _ 0 ,,,,,,,,..„..„..,_ - ,,,,, 7 •e-,,-. , ',., .• „.,, ---- . - t L" PUBLIC NOTICE DA'ZE: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 TIME: 4:30 p.m. PLACE:Sister Cities Meeting Room, ; 4'. Aspen City hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado ' ,:i-4.4f -:t � K P URPOSE: Consid by tlne City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to rev proposals submitted by Aspen an ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth Street. Aspen CO A , 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (FUD), :° ,, Amendment to the Zone District Map, Subdivision, Growth I. Management Review for Change in Use, Growth Management ` '' . - , 41 , Review for Affordable Housing and Special Review for Parking for the property commonly known as .500 W. Hopkins Avenue, and W legally described as Lots K., L, M, N, 0, P, Q , Rand S. Block 31 of the City of Asp Townsite. The applicant proposes to: rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (Rs -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) /Planned Unit Development to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD); convert 1 the Boomerang Lodge development, approved in August 2006, from 47 condominiuinized lodge units, five free - market residential units .,. and two affordable housing units into 54 units of affordable housing only. The applicant proposes to make interior changes to floor I ` plans, but proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, as previously approved. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena Si., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2755, (or by email Ben.Gagnon@ci.aspen.co.us). , i 1 Abit 16 Exhibit 16 • List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of Boomerang Lodge 501 W HOPKINS LLC 501 WEST MAIN LLC 521 -523 W HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PO BOX 8769 532 E HOPKINS AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1818 521 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 604 WEST LLC 612 WEST LLC ALEXANDER JOAN P 604 W MAIN ST 604 W MAIN ST PO BOX 4818 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ALLEN DOUGLAS P ALPINE BANK ALPINE BANK ATTN ERIC GARDEY 403 LACET LN 600 E HOPKINS AV PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ASPEN MESA STORE LLC ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 CIO ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 PO BOX 8238 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC BARTON META PACKARD BERR LLC )E COOPER 4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A 611 W MAIN ST PEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN BRIDGE WILLIAM CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD 2075 SHERWOOD DR 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 605 W HOPKINS AVE #210 CAMBRIA, CA 93428 ENCINO, CA 91436 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARTER RICHARD P CHAKERES JOHN B TRUST CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 400 E 3RD AVE #804 3801 KENNETT PIKE C200 795 LAKEVIEW DR DENVER, CO 80202 GREENVILLE, DE 19807 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ATTN FINANCE DEPT 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 3670 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA CUMMINS RICHARD DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC 205 S MILL ST #112 1280 UTE AVE #10 610 S WEST END ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 • �e text] E TlICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY 1-1 FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 412 MARINER DR PO BOX 5082 730 E DURANT JUPITER, FL 33477 GILLETTE, WY 82717 -5082 ASPEN, CO 81611 GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J 610 S WEST END ST 110 W MAIN ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDMAN DIANNE L GORDON LETICIA H &I-1 PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 518 010 JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 555 E DURANT AVE WINTER PARK, FL 32789 -3725 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS HAYMAN JULES ALAN HY- MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 111C AABC O W HOPKINS POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 EN, CO 81611 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD IGLEHART JIM IGLEHART JIM OF ASPEN 610 W HALLAM ST 617 W MAIN ST 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSON STANFORD H JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM PO BOX 32102 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 TUCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 KELSO DOUGLAS P KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST KONIG DEBORAH 627 W MAIN ST PO BOX 518 HANSON KIM 605 W ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 ASPEN, , CO CO AVE #203 8 816 1611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LESTER JAMES LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 605 W HOPKINS #006 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10002 ASPEN, CO 81611 0 r oe text] Ca LLER DIANE T NECHADEIM REALTY LLC NELSON W TREVOR V #207 T & ROSE MARIE N 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 4950 ASPEN, CO INS SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 NIX ROBERT JR NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC NORTHWAY LLC PO BOX 3694 200 S ASPEN ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OHARROW SIOBHAN P PERRY EMILY V RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 PO BOX 11071 605 W MAIN ST #002 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 REVA LLC RODRIGUEZ JOANN ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH S PO BOX 1376 605 W MAIN ST #00A 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 KIMBERLY 1280 UTE AVE #7 18518 ST MORITZ DR 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA •'EN, CO 81611 TARZANA, CA 91356 SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC 0/0 FINSER CORP 0/0 JENNIFER SHERWIN 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 7321 N.W. 75TH STREET 1714 VISTA ST GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 MEDLEY, FL 33166 DURHAM, NC 27701 STARFORD PROPERTIES NV SLTM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G 0/0 KEON WILLIAM 106 S MILL ST #202 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST 7321 NW 75TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 MEDLEY, FL 33166 STASPEN LLP STUART DAN SUBOTKY JULIE E KING & SPALDING PO BOX 183 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE LOMA, CO 81524 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 TOMS CONDO LLC THROM DOUGLAS H TODD SHANE 0/0 BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2654 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 • ; text] •RA LINDA 50% INTEREST VOSS NATALIE S WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC ALL TERESA 50% INTEREST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 C/O BILL POSS 0095 LIGHT HILL RD 605 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 RN LYNN S TERRELL WENDT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST TERRELL SERENE -MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1607 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC 58416475 METAVANTE WAY 6448 E CRABTREE PL 12 GREENBRIAR LN SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 YUMA, AZ 85365 PAOLI, PA 19301 YLP WEST LLC YOUNG DONALD L YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST PO BOX 4444 8117 PRESTON RD SUITE 300 WEST YARDLEY, PA 19067 ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 • [Type text] DILLON RAY IV DUNSDON S MICHAELE EMERICK SHELLEY W PO BOX 10543 BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 2449 5TH ST ASPEN, CO 81612 617 W MAIN ST #D BOULDER, CO 80304 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 • • [Type text] LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 533E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 `. ASPEN, CO 81611 lb I [Type text] TUCKER LUCY LEA ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE PO BOX 1480 600 E HOPKINS #304 2577 NW 59TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 • .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 WEST HOPKINS AVE., AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR CHANGE IN USE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review proposals submitted by Aspen FSP -ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth St. Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Amendment to the Zone District Map, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for Change in Use, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing and Special Review for Parking for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, and legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and 5, Block 31 of the City of Aspen Townsite. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD). Applicant seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge development, approved in August 2006, from 47 condominiumized lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of affordable housing only. The applicant proposes to make interior changes to floor plans, but proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, as previously approved. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2755, (or by email at Ben.Gagnon@u,ci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. s /Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on October 17, 2010 City of Aspen Account Chapter 26.316 APPEALS Sections: 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. 26.316.020 Authority. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002) 26316.020 Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development application for development in an "H, ", Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in accordance with Section 26.470.060(D). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 35 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this title. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12 -2007; 2002) 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination. B. Effect of fling an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. C. Timing of appeal. The decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26.304.060(E)). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision - making body hearing the appeal. The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision - making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12 -2007, 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 300, Page 36 RESOLUTION NO. 22 (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANCE IN USE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB -ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop 54 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge units, 5 free - market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently zoned Medium- Density Residential (R -6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to reduce allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1:66:1 to 1.5:1, to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) standard of compatibility with the neighborhood; and, RECEPTION #: 576133, 12/22/2010 at Page 1 of 6 11:00:18 AM, P &Z. Resolution No. 22 (2010) 1 OF 6, R $36.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and remanded it back to the Applicant for further consideration and amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application by reducing the height, floor area, and unit count of the proposal; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 22, Series of 2010, by a 4 to 1 vote, with conditions: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the applicant and City Council the breaking up of the mass of the building by architectural modification. Also, with 33 off - street and 14 on- street, at grade parking spaces (via an encroachment license) the 1:1 parking requirement is met; however. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends additional parking be provided. Section 2: Growth Management Approval for Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, creating 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 3 and 4. There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units. The units shall be sold through the APCI IA lottery process and meet APCHA guidelines. Design of the units, parking on -site and storage will be finalized with the recordation of a KID Plat. Page 2 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) Unit T .e Number of Units Category 3 Category 4 studio 6 3 3 One bedroom 29 11 18 Two bedroom 11 8 3 Total 46 Section 3: Growth Management Approval for Change in Use Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Change in Use, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the review criteria of Section 26.470.050. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 83 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Unit Type Employee Housed Number of Units Certificates of AH studio 1.25 6 7.5 One bedroom 1.75 29 50.75 Two bedroom 2.25 11 24.75 Total 83 Section 5: Amendment to the Zone District Map Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposal to rezone the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. property from R -6 /LP /PUD to RMF /PUD meets the standards to Amend the Zone District Map, pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommends approval by the City Council. Section 6: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PtJD) and Subdivision, with conditions. Dimensional Rel. Minimum Lot Size 27.000 scL ft - Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 586 sq ft Maximum Allowable Densit _ 46 units Minimum Lot Width 270 feet Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" east* Page 3of6 P &L Resolution No. 22 (2010) Dimensional Req. 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 2 floor balcony projects 4'5" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between building N/A Minimum Open Space Not required_ Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 _ Minimum Off - Street Parking 46 33 -on -site and 13 within the 4 street r -o -w Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed/required Right -of- Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of sidewalk in the public right -of -way along West Hopkins Ave. 4` Street and 5` Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5' , and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4' and Hopkins Street. • Installation of two concrete alley ramps. The alley ramp on 5 Street will include an ADA sidewalk ramp. • Construction of approximately 150 linear feet of four feet (4') wide concrete valley pan along 4 Street. • Construction of new curb and gutter along 5' Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of approximately 697 square yards of asphalt paving to replace the alley surface. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Page 4 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required to be memorialized prior to development and issuance of a building permit Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation. perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement. Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site, C. 'there should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks, An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The original tree permit, 142007 -012, is valid as long as there are no further changes to the trees being removed and final mitigation plans. Changes to these two areas will most likely trigger a new permit or an addendum to the original. Page 5 of 6 P &Z. Resolution No. 22 (2010) Section 14: Parking and Alternative Modes of Transportation Off - Street parking includes a minimum of 33 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 13 at -grade spaces in the 4` Street Right of Way, as allowed by Encroachment License #2007 -E030, recorded at Reception # 535627. Section 15: Residential Design Standards Applicant will meet Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040(D) or obtain a variance prior to issuance of building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee -in -Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided. and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 14th day of December, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: inLe City A rn Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: ,L_i ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of 6 P &Z. Resolution No. 22 (2010) EST ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD & HECHT P.C. E. Michael Hoffman 601 Ease Ilyman Arcata: f E- Mail'. mhoffman@garfieldhechl.com Aspcn, Colorado 8161 phone' (970) 544 -3442 Telephone (970) 925.1936 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 ausimi le !9701925 -31108 Since 1975 wss .garfieldhcclitcom January 3, 2011 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal Filed by Joseph E. Edwards III on Behalf of Neighbors of the Proposed Boomerang Affordable Housing Project Dear Mayor Ireland and Councilmen Johnson, Romero, Skadron and Torre: We represent the owner of the former site of the Boomerang Lodge and the applicant of the current proposal to develop the site as affordable housing, Aspen FSP -ABR, LLC (the "Applicant "). As you know, on December 14, 2010, the Applicant received a conditional recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the affordable housing proposal. Mr. Edwards, on behalf of several neighbors of the project, filed an appeal of the P & Z's recommendation. For the reasons stated below, we believe Mr. Edwards' appeal is without basis and should be denied. At issue is the parking proposed for the project. The project is currently proposed as a three - story building which will include 46 affordable units in the mix described in the attached Exhibit A. (All of the exhibits referenced in this letter and attached to it were provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and are a part of the record.) The mix of unit types shown in Exhibit A was reviewed and approved by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. The Applicant proposes to provide 46 parking spaces to residents of the project. As shown in Exhibit B, 33 of those spaces are to be created in an underground parking garage. The remaining parking spaces are located at ground level. As shown on Exhibit C, one parking space is located mostly on the property adjacent to the alley while the rest are head -in spaces located along Fourth Street. These are shown on the right -hand side of Exhibit C. The slight encroachment of the alleyway parking space and all of the head in spaces are made available to the project pursuant to existing Encroachment Licenses granted to the Boomerang project in 2007. The issue raised by Mr. Edwards in his appeal is whether the parking spaces made available to the project pursuant to the existing Encroachment Licenses can be counted against the demand for parking created by the project. He contends that these parking spaces cannot be counted under the special review Code provisions of the City's Land Use Code ( "Code "). He concedes Aspen City Council January 3,2011 Page 2 that they can be counted if the decision is made under the City's PUD regulations. The City's planning staff concluded that the spaces can and should be counted under either the special review or PUD regulations. Staff stated that parking is adequate under the current proposal. In its Pre - Application Conference Summary, the planning staff stated that the application needed special review approval for parking, but that that review should be combined with the parking review required under the PUD provisions of the Code. (The relevant section of the Summary is highlighted in the attached copy of the Pre - Application Conference Summary. In both cases the P & Z would make a recommendation to City Council, which is the final decision maker for this application. In its Memorandum of October 28, 2010 for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of November 2, 2010, staff stated that a ten percent "reduction [in the size of the project] would result in the elimination of 5 -6 units, [bringing] the project so close to conformance with off - street parking requirements that staff would again find the project meets the standards of a Special Review for Parking. "' Staff found that the Applicant could satisfy the special review for parking requirements by reducing the number of units in the project to 48 or 49 units. In response to staff comments and those of the P &Z at the November 2 meeting, the Applicant reduced the size of the project by more than the number requested by staff. As proposed and approved at the December 14 meeting of the P & Z, the project is now configured with 46 units and 46 parking spaces. This one -to -one ratio was precisely the ratio described in Code Section 26.515.030. As staff concluded in its October 28 memorandum, the special review standards of Section 26.515.040 have been met. In its memorandum to the P & Z for its meeting of December 14, 2010, staff applied and found that the Applicant's proposal complied with the PUD parking requirements established in Section 26.445.050 B. 3. of the Code. The Applicant has reduced the density by 8 units and now proposes 46 units. With 33 parking spaces underground and an encroachment license for 14 [sic] at grade spaces, the Applicant meets the 1 space per unit standard. Staff supports the proposed parking as the property is within walking distance to the commercial core of Aspen, along a pedestrian route and close to transit and a 'Car to Go' location. All of these factors minimize the need for a resident to need a vehicle or drive one. Staff supports the proposed parking arrangement based upon "The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development" X26.445.050 B. 3. c)] and "The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City" [26.445.050 B. 3. d)]. Staff Memorandum of October 28, 2010, bottom of Page 10. Aspen City Council January 3, 2011 Page 3 Community Development staff found that the parking proposed for the project met both the special review and PUD standards of the Code. At the time it drafted the Pre - Application Conference Summary, Staff believed that parking for the project had to comply with both Code provisions. At some time between the November 2 and December 14 meetings, staff reconsidered its position and correctly decided that compliance with the special review provisions of the Code was unnecessary. A close examination of those Code sections which deal with parking in a PUD reveals that those provisions are intended to be comprehensive and that the special review for parking section do not apply when zoning for the project is subject to a planned unit development overlay. Because zoning for the Boomerang project is subject to a planned unit development overlay, the PUD sections of the Code apply to this application and the Special Review provisions do not apply. Section 26.445.030.A. General, states that "any development within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or on land designated with a PUD Overlay on the Official Zone District Map shalt be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter." The role of the P & Z in its review of development on land designated with a PUD Overlay is to provide a recommendation to City Council concerning the application. City Council, and not the P & Z, is the final decision maker in land use applications dealing with a PUD Overlay. The chapter of the Code which deals with Off Street Parking explicitly states that it does not apply when the project is a planned unit development. "Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a planned unit development final development plan, that review shall be pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned unit development.' The very next sentence of the Code states that special review applies under other circumstances, when "parking requirements shall be established through a special review." Finally, there was no confusion or procedural defect created by staff's decision to eliminate the need for the project to comply with the special review for parking section of the Code. Elimination of special review for parking did not modify the requirement that the project comply with the PUD sections of the Code. From the very beginning staff made clear that the project had to meet the Amendment to PUD sections of the Code. All of the notices for the hearings included language informing the public and the P & Z that a PUD review was necessary. A copy of the notice mailed to the neighbors is attached hereto as Exhibit E and the affidavit filed by the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the posting and mailing of notice requirements is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Amendment to a Planned Unit Development is clearly noted on both the mailed and posted notice. Codc § 26.445,030.C. Code, § 26.515.030. Aspen City Council January 3, 2011 Page 4 The Planning and Zoning Commission neither abused its discretion nor exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted a conditional recommendation of approval for the Boomerang affordable housing proposal. Mr. Edwards' appeal should be denied. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman Table of Exhibits Exhibit A -- Unit Mix Table Exhibit B — Plan for Underground Garage Exhibit C — Surface Parking Plan Exhibit D — Pre - Application Conference Summary Exhibit E - Form of Notice Mailed to Neighbors Exhibit F Affidavit of Notice rt = I c CO 1. ! =1 I, I m m CO Z '3 o 9 o ` z o ' 13 g Ii 1 I 9 �I 1 (' 1 a _ F 1 1 � I _ 0 OI �+ O>>.'>>> > W m y N 1 0 ( F 7I h O ` D >1.1> D> D � 6 RI ' N I i 1 I { I ,1 a �I 1N a m o rn m t, 1,9 oiiggoo q nl,t I 1 1 " ogrnao' mo h l j 1 II � � ,I 111 I '1 I 1 ,iRn II'It 1 T N) °s 1 Imw W a x J o n OI0 ( i `} u p Y 1 1 na I ( 1 I 1 n . o a ..alto. LIa a J 1.1 .! 01 °1° 1 0 1 1 I '111 1 W I I i 1, 1 1 1 1 1 �1 I � 1 1� I I_ 1, I I � I I I m 1 � mI I w _l m `n ^I . a 1 n Ea- -1 c i81 6 I a l h 1I 7 a !F1 ;III J 1 1 j 1 J I ■ 1 I- � a I c 1 CIc ,o >Dsnanz > om ri d a h T 1 E 1 1 l Iy i w i I ' 11 ., o o o o 8 o Q n T. 10 1T x 1i 1 I yl 1 1 1'_�_ 1 � 1 1 1 1 i I 1 ml l Ioao .e� aT H I 161 o o .,1 I m l n l i I 1 1 1 1, ' ( 1 ;1 j 1 ,1, .4 I 1 au ., v (> t 1 BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /� /� SWA'* n;nliXexm " ` f u � ■ 0 000A HOPKINS AVE n s. `'m " asu t ra r� AS?EN. COLORADO ti 0. °' s r y w r , ,, s ` e N � r b u t W ., wi 41 3 C N t e -_ -. r _i, w i t. 1 r —H` °[1 N. a . I' _ ti { O m IC' Dr m \ , . N e BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /� /� 1 www cenniile com `,` , A > SCOW HOPKINS AVE . „«- wwx. "a�ro "M1O Sma ASPEN, COLORADO sit w n cz+ro CO EL varnvx =u STREET I -- I rw.a / `ail __ .£� Tf 1 I elh ! l 1 -L � 1 1 1 i I 1 i F I II I. 1 7 I 1 PO ° i i 4g r A P a 5 • I b ,3, 1, 6 I ' --1 I I 1 I i I r I r Al ` I 1 I I I v I I m 7 � . K 0 • I III 6 -0 I I j I, g _... e, r.. - torea.. uxe L > °I •� off. I " 1.z ii 1 11 FORT-4 5T4EET BOOMERANG LODGE CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS /� /� www.annefe.mm "` , cn ASPEN, , COLO SAVE. , D �ser o n e . .sr ■ ASPEN, WLORADO Ae„su �eu,wd ,m K. none FA mom.. Exhibit D CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Ben Gagnon, 429 -2755 DATE: 8/18/10 PROJECT: 500 W. Hopkins REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield & Hecht OWNER: Aspen FSP -ABR LLC c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North 4 Aspen 81611 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Growth Management, PUD Amendment, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review for Parking, Housing Credits DESCRIPTION: The Applicant would like to change the use of the Boomerang Lodge from lodge /free market residential to affordable housing; converting existing approvals • for 47 lodge units, five (5) free market units and two (2) affordable housing units to approximately 60 deed - restricted affordable housing units; and seeking affordable housing credits. Applicant is also seeking Special Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements. Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.515.040 Special Review for partial parking waiver* 26.470.070(4) Growth Management for Affordable Housing 26.310.020(B) Amendment to Zone District Map; Rezoning from R -6 /LP /PUD to RMF /PUD 26.540 Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit 26.480.040(C) Subdivision 26.445.100(B) Amendment to PUD* 26.710.040 R -6 Zone District (R -6) 26.710.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) 26.710.090 Residential Multi - Family (RMF) *Note: Parking review by P &Z to be combined with Amendment to PUD review, per Chris Bendon. Amount of off - street parking will not be subject to final action of P &Z, but will be a recommendation to Council for final action. Applicant must meet criteria for Special Review for partial parking waiver, as well as parking criteria for PUD. Review by: • Staff for completeness. • Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing for recommendation to Council on Amendment to PUD, Rezoning, Subdivision and Special Review for partial waiver of off - street parking requirements; final action on Growth Management for Affordable Housing, and establishing Affordable Housing Credits. • City Council public hearing for final action on Amendment to PUD, Special Review for Parking, Rezoning and Subdivision Public Hearing: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board, pursuant to 26.540.040(C) + 26.470.070(4)a; Planning and Zoning Commission; City Council Referral Agency Fees: Housing: $410.00, Parks: $410.00 and Engineering: $410.00 Total Planning Deposit Due: $2,940 for 12 hrs. of Community Development staff time (additional hours are billed at a rate of $245 per hour) Total Deposit: $4,170.00 Total Number of Applications: 25 copies To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total deposit for review of the application. 2. Proof of ownership. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application, including materials required in Section 26.304.030(B) and 26.540.030. 5. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 6. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 7. An 8 '/2" by 1 1" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. A site improvement survey performed by a licensed engineer. 9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. 10. Copies of prior approvals. 11. A written description of proposed construction techniques to be used (not required). 11 Site plan at 1" - 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed (not required). 13. Floor plans, roof plan (roof plan not required; floor plans required if any change to prior approval). 14. Elevation Drawings (not required). 15. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. 16. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements; see #4 above. 17. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above). Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested right. Exhibit E PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 WEST HOPKINS AVE., AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONE DISTRICT MAP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR CHANGE IN USE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review proposals submitted by Aspen FSP -ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth St. Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Amendment to the Zone District Map, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for Change in Use, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing and Special Review for Parking for the property commonly known as 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, and legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and 5, Block 31 of the City of Aspen Townsite. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD). Applicant seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge development, approved in August 2006, from 47 condominiumized lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of affordable housing only. The applicant proposes to make interior changes to floor plans, but proposes no changes to the exterior of the building, as previously approved. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2755, (or by email at Ben.Gagnon@ All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e -mail or physical address. s /Stan Gibbs, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on October 17, 2010 City of Aspen Account Exhibit F ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 500 W. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 2, 2010 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, E. Michael Hoffman, being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: © Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not Tess than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 16 day of October, 2010, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. El Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the c rrent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) •-: ys prior to e .. e the public hearing. A copy of the owners and goyornns ntal age /es so noti' ed i atta ed hereto. G / J� ` rte a f Hoffman The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thii J.d day of November, 2010. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: io /c-' trs a ublic List of Attachments PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 0. -/33:! ... I LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL =Teo •,p 1, LINDSAY 's LOGAN , S • My Commission Expires 1011812013 , d i . dti F�• . R4 #r '� � ' P ro 4, , m4.1 b '* a k � w4" , ' s�3X , -, usa x _ s a "max e._� PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 TIME: 4:30 p.m. PLACE:Sister Cities Meeting Room, ° Aspen City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado PURPOSE: Consideration by the City of Aspen Planning and w.� Zoning Commission to review proposals submitted b Aspen FSP ABR LLC, c/o Steve Stunda, 602 North Fourth Street. Aspen CO 81611, for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Amendment nt to the , Subdivision, Growth Manageme Review tor Change District in Map Use, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing an d Special Review for Parking for the property c ommonly known as X 500 VI. Hopkins Avenue, and legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31 o the City of Aspen Townsite. The applicant proposes identto: rezone al the property from Medium Density Residential ( 6) / Lodge Preserva (L P) /Pla Unit Develop to Res Multi- Family ( RMF) / Planned Unit Development (PUD); idential convert units the Boomerang Lo dge development, approved in August 2006, from !`' 47 condominium lodge units, five free - market res and tw affordable housing units into 54 units of affor dable. housing only. The applicant proposes to make inter changes to floor plans, but proposes no changes to the exte of the build as �' `previously approved. For further information, cont Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Coinntunity Development Department, 130 S. 'a- Galena 51., Aspen, C (970) 429 2755, (or by email ;� ° Ben. Gagnon C ci.aspen.co.u � W Exhibit 16 Exhibit 16 List of Property Owners within 300 Feet of Boomerang Lodge 501 W HOPKINS LLC 501 WEST MAIN LLC 521 -523 W HOPKINS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PO BOX 8769 532 E HOPKINS AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 61612 ASPEN, CO 61611 -1818 521 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 604 WEST LLC 612 WEST LLC ALEXANDER JOAN P 604 W MAIN ST 604 W MAIN ST PO BOX 4818 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ALLEN DOUGLAS P ALPINE BANK ALPINE BANK ATTN ERIC GARDEY 403 LACET LN 600 E HOPKINS AV PO BOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 AMAYA JOSE ANTONIO ASPEN MESA STORE LLC ANGELOV DIMTAR S & DANIEL D ARGUETA BLANCA EDITH 605 W HOPKINS AVE #209 C/O ASPEN BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #103 PO BOX 8238 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC INC BARTON META PACKARD BERR LLC 617 E COOPER 4475 N OCEAN BLVD APT 43A 611 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33463 ASPEN, CO 81611 BRIDGE WILLIAM BROOKS NORMAN A & LESLEE S CARROLL MEREDITH COHEN 2075 SHERWOOD DR 16311 VENTURA BLVD #690 CARROLL ARTHUR RICHARD 605 W HOPKINS CA 93428 ENCINO, CA 91436 605 W AVE #210 ASPEN, , CO CO 81611 CARTER RICHARD P CHAKERES JOHN B TRUST CHRISTIANA UNIT D101 LLC 400 E 3RD AVE #804 3801 KENNETT PIKE C200 795 LAKEVIEW DR DENVER, CO 80202 GREENVILLE, DE 19807 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 CITY OF ASPEN CLEANER EXPRESS CORONA VANESSA LOPEZ ATTN FINANCE DEPT 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 3670 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 CORTALE ITA CUMMINS RICHARD DESTINATION RESORT MGMT INC 205 S MILL ST #112 1280 UTE AVE #10 610 S WEST END ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 [Type text] DILLON RAY DUNSDON S MICHAELE EMERICK SHELLEY W DI IV BOX 10543 BORKENHAGEN DAVID A 2449 5TH ST DO BOX 10 ASPEN, 81612 617 W MAIN ST #D BOULDER, CO 80304 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 [Type text] ERICKSON A RONALD FARR CHARLOTTE FAT CITY HOLDINGS LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #211 306 MCCORMICK AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 CAPITOLA, CA 95010 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINE FREDRIC N & SONDRA FRANSEN ERIN M & GREGORY H FRIAS PROPERTIES OF ASPEN LLC 412 MARINER DR PO BOX 5082 730 E DURANT JUPITER, FL 33477 GILLETTE, WY 82717 -5082 ASPEN, CO 81611 GANT CONDO ASSC GARMISCH LODGING LLC GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R & CHERYL J 610 S WEST END ST 110 W MAIN ST 430 W HOPKINS AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GOLDMAN DIANNE L GORDON LETICIA H & H PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 518 C/O JOE RACZAK GOLDEN HORN 807 W MORSE BLVD STE 101 FAIRFIELD, CT 06824 555 E DURANT AVE WINTER PARK, FL 32789 -3725 ASPEN, CO 81611 HAISFIELD MICHAEL DOUGLAS HAYMAN JULES ALAN HY- MOUNTAIN TRANSPORTATION INC HAISFIELD LISA YERKE 9238 POTOMAC SCHOOL DR 111C AABC 616 W HOPKINS POTOMAC, MD 20854 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD IGLEHART JIM IGLEHART JIM OF ASPEN 610 W HALLAM ST 617 W MAIN ST 435 W MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSON STANFORD H JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST KELLY KIM PO BOX 32102 2018 PHALAROPE 605 W HOPKINS AVE #202 TUCSON, AZ 85751 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ASPEN, CO 81611 KONIG DEBORAH KELSO DOUGLAS P KIRVIDA KATHY L REV TRUST HANSON KIM 627 W MAIN ST PO BOX 518 605 W HOPKINS AVE #203 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1619 LINDSTROM, MN 55045 ASPEN, CO 81611 KURKULIS PATSY & PAUL R LESTER JAMES LITTLE AJAX CONDOMINIUM ASSOC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #201 229 CHRYSTIE ST #1417 605 W HOPKINS #006 ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10002 ASPEN, CO 81611 [Type text] LOT 2 BOOMERANG LOT SPLIT MADSEN MARTHA W MARSHALL ALISON J & JOSHUA W PLANNED COM OWNERS ASSOC 608 W HOPKINS AVE APT 9 605 W HOPKINS AVE #212 533 E HOPKINS AVE 3RD FL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 [Type text] MOLLER DIANE T NECHADEIM REALTY LLC NELSON TREVOR T & ROSE MARIE 1710 MIRA VISTA AVE PO BOX 4950 605 W HOPKINS #207 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93103 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 NIX ROBERT JR NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN LLC NORTHWAY LLC PO BOX 3694 200 $ ASPEN ST 106 S MILL ST #202 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 OHARROW SIOBHAN P PERRY EMILY V RENO ASPEN PROPERTIES LLC 605 W HOPKINS AVE #208 PO BOX 11071 605 W MAIN ST #002 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 REVA LLC RODRIGUEZ JOANN ROLAND DANIEL P & LEAH 5 PO BOX 1376 605 W MAIN ST #00A 605 W HOPKINS AVE #102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 SCHEFF JONATHAN & BUTTERWICK RUFUS CAMI CAMI LLC SCHALL FAMILY TRUST 8/31/1998 KIMBERLY 1280 UTE AVE #7 18518 ST MORITZ DR 6450 AVENIDA CRESTA ASPEN, CO 81611 TARZANA, CA 91356 SAN DIEGO, CA 92037 SCOTT MARY HUGH SHADOW MTN CORP SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC RUSSELL SCOTT III & CO LLC C/O FINSER CORP C/O JENNIFER SHERWIN 5420 S QUEBEC ST #200 7321 N.W. 75TH STREET 1714 VISTA ST GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 MEDLEY, FL 33166 DURHAM, NC 27701 SLTM LLC SMITH ANDREW C & DONNA G /0 KEON PROPERTIES NV C 106 S MILL ST #202 3622 SPRINGBROOK ST C/O ON WILLIAM 7321 NW 75TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 MEDLEY, FL 33166 STASPEN LLP STUART DAN SUBOTKY JULIE E KING & SPALDING PO BOX 183 55 WEST 14TH ST #15L 1180 PEACHTREE ST NE LOMA, CO 81524 NEW YORK, NY 10011 ATLANTA, GA 303093521 THROM DOUGLAS H TODD SHANE TOMS CONDO LLC C/O BRANDT FEIGENBAUM PC 617 W MAIN ST PO BOX 2654 132 MIDLAND AVE #4 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT, CO 81621 [Type text] TUCKER LUCY LEA ULLR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERNER DANIEL A & MERYLE PO BOX 1480 600 E HOPKINS #304 2577 NW 59TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BOCA RATON, FL 33496 [Type text] VIEIRA LINDA 50% INTEREST WAGNER HOLDINGS CORP LLC HALL TERESA 50% INTEREST VOSS NATALIE S C/O BILL POSS 0095 LIGHT HILL RD 605 W HOPKINS AVE #204 605 E MAIN ST SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASHBURN LYNN S WENDT ROBERT E II WERLIN LAURA B TRUST TERRELL SERENE -MARIE 350 MT HOLYOKE AVE 2279 PINE ST 605 W HOPKINS AVE #205 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 ASPEN, CO 81611 -1607 WEST ALFRED P JR & LORALEE S WHITNEY KURT A & JACQUELINE WINGSTONE TOY COMPANY LLC 58416475 METAVANTE WAY 6448 E CRABTREE PL 12 GREENBRIAR LN SIOUX FALLS, SD 57186 YUMA, AZ 85365 PAOLI, PA 19301 YLP WEST LLC YOUNG DONALD L YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST 7 SOUTH MAIN ST PO BOX 4444 8117 PRESTON RD SUITE 300 WEST YARDLEY, PA 19067 ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75225 lr H (- tir ereW 6( AFA is not required to construct the project as affordable housing, it is not constructing the project to mitigate impacts of development already approved by the City, nor is the project a requirement or obligation of an existing Development Order. C. A recommendation of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors has been made, establishing the number of Full- Time - Equivalents (FTEs) accommodated by the affordable housing units, pursuant to Affordable Housing Guidelines, as amended. The APCHA Board of Directors will meet to consider this project on October 6, 2100 to establish the number of FTEs as shown on Exhibit 8 of this application. VII. Special Review for Partial Parking Waiver. The project, as current conceived, includes 54 units and 51 proposed parking spaces. According to Code Section 26.515.030, one parking space is required for each unit. The Code permits fewer than the required number of spaces with multi - compliance to the special review standards set forth at Section 26.515.040 A. AFA proposes the adoption of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan similar to the one attached hereto as Exhibit 9. The TDM Plan is designed to address demand for parking, in particular, and to develop strategies which reduce the need for individually -owned automobiles. The three (3) space deficit proposed for this project is justified under those standards, as described below: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. As shown on the TDM plan, AFA will use the following strategies to reduce the demand for parking within the Project: • Provide a $20,000 grant to the City's CAR TO GO Carshare program for use in the purchase of a new car, administrative cost, etc. • Dedicate one on -grade parking space to the CAR TO GO program (subject to annual review to determine if the continued dedication of the space is justified by utilization of the space by program participants). Page 15 �X >Ll l 1J 1 r • Provide bicycle racks and storage in the basement of the Project. Design the common areas to allow easy access to the basement by bicycle users • Police the use of bike racks by removing bikes that have been abandoned and not moved from the racks. • Establish and enforce covenants which discourage the ownership of cars by owners. • Coordinate carpooling through the Project's homeowners' association. • Implement parking passes for available parking spaces and enforce penalties for use by non- residents. • Investigate creating Project -based "rides on demand" program which would allow an owner within the Project to call for a ride home. • Promote use of RFTA by publishing schedules and other actions It has been the experience of the City's Transportation Department that one CAR TO GO "satisfies" the needs of approximately 15 people. The $20,000 contribution planned by AFA and the conditional dedication of one surface parking space should fully address the three parking space shortfall at issue here. The other strategies set forth above will further reduce demand for parking. The Project's proximity to no -cost mass transit on West Main Street, located a half block away, and its location on the West Hopkins Avenue pedestrian/bicycle corridor create intrinsic incentives which reduce the need for parking in this project. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The underground parking garage already approved for the Project will be expensive to build. Expansion of the proposed underground lot is impractical for budgetary purposes, but also because of site constraints and the need to use available subgrade space for other purposes — including storage for unit owners and to house HVAC equipment. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. For the reasons stated above, the 51 spaces to be provided within the Project will be adequate to serve the needs of unit owners within the project. VIII. Response to Subdivision, Condominiumization and Common Development Procedures Code Provisions. The Subdivision and Condominiumization provisions of the Code are not central to this application because they were considered in depth during when the City processed the existing land use approvals in 2006. For that reason AFA's responses to those sections of the Code have been moved to Exhibit 10, attached hereto. Responses to the Code's Common Development Procedures are also found in Exhibit 10. Page 16 P68 KLEIN, COTE & EDWARDS, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN hskiikcdaw.nc'1 2 01 NORTH MILL STREET. STE 703 LANCE R. COTE. PC Ircru kcelamixl ASPEN. COLORADO R1611 JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. 111, PC jec@..kcelaw.nel IELEPHONE:(970) 91e -5700 COREY T. ZURBUCH rtz(iikcelau: net FACSIMILE.• (970)92 EBEN P. CLARK cpclikcelae.nel %Mw.kczIatv.nrl MADHU B. gRISIINAMURTI n,bbakrelae. net DAVID C. UHLIG drunkcciay.nrt • dsu admhmd m C I'dnrua December 7, 2010 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission elo Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Boomerang Lodge Proposed Rezoning and PUD Amendment Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: Our office represents Steve and Cheryl Goldenberg, Dan Verner and John Staton, all of whom are neighbors of the Boomerang property. We are very concerned about the impact on the neighborhood of the proposed changes to the development program for the Boomerang Lodge. These changes will have significant and detrimental impacts on the quality of life in the neighborhood. You are being asked to approve a parking waiver for a property that does not meet the required standards for a parking waiver. You are also being asked to recommend approval of rezoning which is not compatible with the neighborhood. For these reasons you should deny the request. Parking The City Code is very clear that all developments "shall be provided with off street parking" as provided in the parking section of the Code. See Code § 26.515.010,A. The word "shall" is mandatory. Code § 26.104.080.H. The Code requires one parking space for each unit in the development. Code § 26.515.030. The Planning and Zoning Commission is allowed to grant special • review approval to waive a portion of this parking requirement "based on conformance" with specified criteria. Code § 26.515.040.A. This means that the P &Z can grant the requested approval for a waiver of the mandatory requirement if the application satisfies the listed criteria. If the application docs not satisfy the criteria, then P &Z may not grant the special review approval to waive the mandatory parking requirement of one space for each unit, There are only three criteria, and the second one states: An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. The property is 27,000 feet and absolutely flat — there are no steep slopes, wetlands, avalanche flow areas, stream setbacks, mud and debris flow area, or other environmental concerns which would make practically difficult the construction of parking on -site. In response to this criterion, the City staff states: "An on -site parking solution has been substantially met." Exhibit 0 of the October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum. Apparently. City staff counts on-street parking in this parking solution. The application provides for 33 off-street parking spaces in a below -grade parking garage and one mostly ?crn r Z P69 Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2010 Page 2 off - street handicapped space at grade level. The October 28, 2010 Staff Memorandum notes that there is some question whether the below -grade garage can accommodate 31 or 33 parking spaces. See Exhibit G at Paragraph A.1. Either the application provides for a total of 32 or 34 parking spaces for 46 proposed units — in either case it is not one space for each unit. The Code does not allow for "substantially" meeting the one to one Code requirement or for counting on- street spaces to meet the - - 9 meeting the Code requirement of one parking space for each unit is difficult in any respect or results in an undesirable development scenario. The only "difficulty" is the developer's desire to place the parking on- street so that it can maximize its profits with maximum development on site and use the public right of way to satisfy its parking requirements. This is nothing more than a back -door public subsidy of the project. It would be a very simple matter to reduce the number of units developed to the number of off - street parking spaces provided. Rezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the property from R-6/LP (medium-density makes - nsi tecomd recommendation lodge pre to RJMF (high density residential, multi- family), The the City Council which has final authority with regard to a rezoning of the property. In order to justify a re- zoning of the property, the applicant must show and the Commission is required to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the surrounding zone districts, land uses and neighborhood characteristics. Code §26.310.040.C. The question is not whether affordable housing is compatible with the neighborhood — affordable housing is allowed in the R -6 zone district and is undeniably compatible with the neighborhood. The question is whether RJMF level density is consistent with the surrounding zone d istricts, land uses, and neighborhood characteristics. Importantly, the Little Ajax development (zoned AH /PUD) provides all of its required parking off - street, is developed at a much lower density than is proposed by Boomerang (14 units for 26,000 square feet) and is compatible with the neighborhood. The remainder of the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R -6, R -15, and Lodge Preservation. None of the neighborhood is zoned R/MF. By separate letter, Steve Goldenberg convincingly demonstrates that the proposal is not (even remotely) compatible with the neighborhood. For all of the above reasons and others we previously provided, we respectfuly request that you (1) deny the Boomerang project request for Special Review for waive or off-street parking, and (2) recommend to the City Council that it deny the request for rezoning. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning any of this. and we look forward to discussing this with you at the hearing on December 14, 2010. Sincerely, KLEIN, C ATE & EDWARDS, LLC J %dwards, 111 y P7 • Subdivision — An application for Subdivision, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040(C)1, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to recommend approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Subdivision. The City Council is the final decision - making body. All of the above land use reviews are for P &Z to make findings and recommendations to City Council for final action. All the land use reviews below are for the P &Z to make the final decision. Regarding parking, the Council will still have this issue before them for discussion, as the number of off- street spaces must be specified in the proposed PUD. • Growth Management: Affordable Housing — An application for Growth Management: Affordable Housing; pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(4), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Growth Management: Change in Use — An application for Growth Management: Change in Use, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.070(2), requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. • Special Review for Off - Street Parking — An application for Special Review for Off - Street parking, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515.040 requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny Growth Management. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision - making body. However, the number of off- street parking spaces is established in the PUD, and therefore subiect to Council review. • Issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit — An application for issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit, pursuant to Section 26.540.040, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to find that the development meets defined criteria. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision- making bodv. BACKGROUND; In August 2006, the applicant received City Council approval for an expansion of the Boomerang Lodge, including 47 lodge units, five free market units and two affordable housing units. The applicant obtained a demolition permit for the Middle Wing and the West Wing of the existing Boomerang Lodge, which were removed that summer. The applicant had reached an agreement with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2006 to retain the East Wing of the original Boomerang Lodge, which remains standing today, along 4 Street. The rest of the property is currently vacant. The agreement gives the HPC review P16 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CHANGE IN USE, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OFF - STREET PARKING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDITS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), REZONING, AND SUBDIVISION, WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 31, ASPEN TOWNSITE AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 500 W. HOPKINS AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel 114: 273512449002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen FSB -ABR LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman Esq., requesting approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, Rezoning, and Subdivision, to develop 54 affordable housing units at 500 W. Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing vested right to develop the property with 47 lodge units, 5 free - market units, and 2 affordable housing units via Ordinance No. 26 (series of 2006), commonly known as the Boomerang Lodge; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for Affordable Housing Growth Management, Change in Use Growth Management, Special Review for Off - Street Parking, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 500 W. Hopkins Ave. and is currently zoned Medium - Density Residential (R -6), Lodge Preservation (LP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended remanding the application to applicant to reduce allowable FAR from 1:66:1 to 1.5:1, to meet the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) standard of compatibility with the neighborhood; and, Page 1 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P17 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 2, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and remanded it back to the Applicant for further consideration and amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant amended the application by reducing the height, floor area, and unit count of the proposal; and WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on December 14, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _ , Series of 2010, by a vote, with conditions: and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Growth Management Approval for Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, creating 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation, as reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted to Category 3 and 4. There will be 35 Category 3 and 19 Category 4 units. The units shall be sold through the APCHA lottery process and meet APCHA guidelines. Design of the units, parking on -site and storage will be finalized with the recordation of a PUD Plat. Unit Type Number of Units Category 3 Category 4 studio 6 3 3 One bedroom 29 11 18 Two bedroom 11 8 3 Total 46 Page 2 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P1 Section 2: Growth Management Approval for Change in Use Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen' Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Growth Management Review for Change in Use, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the review criteria of Section 26.470.050. Section 3: Approval of Special Review for Parking Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves a Special Review for Off - Street Parking, finding that the proposal meets or exceeds the standards of review pursuant to Section 26.510.040, and setting the Off- Street Parking requirements at 33 sub -grade parking spaces, and 14 at -grade parking spaces. The at -grade parking includes 13 head -in parking spaces on 4 Street that are in the Right of Way, allowed by a Revocable Encroachment License granted for parking in March 2007; see Pitkin County Clerk Reception #535627. Section 4: Certificates of Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves issuance of 97.5 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits, such certificates to be granted subsequent to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, pursuant to Section 26.540.040. Unit Type Employee Housed Number of Units Certificates of AH studio 1.25 6 7.5 One bedroom 1.75 29 50.75 Two bedroom 2.25 11 24.75 Total 83 Section 5: Amendment to the Zone District Map Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby finds that the proposal to rezone the 500 W. Hopkins Ave. property from R -6 /LP/PUD to RMF /PUD meets the standards to Amend the Zone District Map, pursuant to Section 26.310.040 and recommends approval by the City Council. Section 6: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision, with conditions. Dimensional Req. Minimum Lot Size 27,000 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling Unit 586 sq ft Maximum Allowable Density 46 units Minimum Lot Width 270 feet Page 3of7 P &Z Resolution No. (201 0) P19 Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 2 floor balcony projects 4'5" into setback Maximum Site Coverage Per 2007 plat Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 Minimum Off -Street Parking 46 33 -on -site and 13 within the 4 street r -o -w * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 7: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant shall be subject to the Stormwater System Development Fee. Prior to the final approval by City Council, the Applicant shall work with the Engineering Department and the Streets Department to ensure that any proposed/required Right -of- Way improvements, including curbs and gutters, will meet all applicable standards. Minimum required site improvements are as follows: • Construction of sidewalk in the public right -of -way along West Hopkins Ave, 4 Street and 5` Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5` and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4` and Hopkins Street. • Installation of two concrete alley ramps. The alley ramp on 5' Street will include an ADA sidewalk ramp. • Construction of approximately 150 linear feet of four feet (4') wide concrete valley pan along 4 Street. • Construction of new curb and gutter along 5 Street and West Hopkins. • Placement of approximately 697 square yards of asphalt paving to replace the alley surface. Section 8: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Page 4 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. - -- (2010) P2 0 Section 9: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. The recorded plat shall provide adequate easements for all utility lines. This shall be reviewed by engineering and the water department prior to recordation. Section 10: Sanitation District Requirements Since an upgraded main sanitary sewer line is required to serve this new development, a "Collection System Agreement" is required to be memorialized prior to development and issuance of a building permit Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office at the time of construction. Applicant's engineer will be required to give the district an estimate of anticipated daily average and peak flows from the project. A wastewater study flow will be required for this project to be funded by the applicant. All clear water connections are prohibited (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains), including entrances to underground parking garages. On -site drainage and landscaping plans require approval by the district, must accommodate ACSD service requirements and comply with rules, regulations and specifications. On -site sanitary sewer utility plans require approval by ACSD. Section 11: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regards to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements and noise abatement, Wildlife protection/enclosures for the trash and recycle area is required. Section 12: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 13: Parks Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection. A. Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. B. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. C. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. An approved tree permit is required before submission of the building permit set. The original tree permit, #2007 -012, is valid as long as there are no further changes to the Page 5 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) P21 trees being removed and final mitigation plans. Changes to these two areas will most likely trigger a new permit or an addendum to the original. Section 14: Parking and Alternative Modes of Transportation Off - Street parking includes a minimum of 33 sub -grade spaces, a handicapped space on the alley and 13 at -grade spaces in the 4th Street Right of Way, as allowed by Encroachment License #2007 -E030, recorded at Reception # 535627. Section 15: Residential Design Standards Applicant will meet Residential Design Standard Section 26.410.040(D) or obtain a variance prior to issuance of building permit. Section 16: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee -in -Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 18: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this day of December, 2010. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Stan Gibbs, Chair • Page 6of7 P &Z Resolution No. • 2010) P22 ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 7 of 7 P &Z Resolution No. (2010) Sec. 26.304.060.Review of a development application by decision - making bodies. • Review procedures and standards. Specific development review procedures and stand. •s for diffe - - types of development applications are set forth in the relevant chapters of this e. They include the a lowing: • Permi • Uses: Chapter 26.404 • Variances: Chapter 26.314 • Residential Desig tandards: Chapter 26.410 • Development involvin • . e Aspen Inventory • istoric Landmark Sites and Structu : or in an ., • istoric Overlay District:Chapter 26.415 • Conditional Uses: Chapter 26.425 • Special Review: Chapter 26.430 • Development in Enviro. entally Sensitive eas: Chapter 26.435 • Specially Planned , eas (SPA): Chapter 26.440 • Planned Unit ►, - velopments (PUD): Chapter 26.445 • Tempor. ses: Chapter 26.450 • Gro • Management Quota System (GMQS): Chapter 26.470 • : bdivision: C . • er 26.480 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map: Chapter ' : 10 B. Modification of review procedures. 1. Combined reviews. The procedures for reviewing development plans and applications where more than one (1) development approval is being sought simultaneously may be combined or modified whenever the Community Development Director determines, in consultation with the applicant, that such combination or modification would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of time, expense and clarity; provided, however, that all public noticing normally associated with the subject development application(s) is maintained and that a thorough and full review of the application and proposed development as otherwise required by this Title is achieved. etch plan review. If the Community Development Director, in consultation who he applic. , • - ermines that a proposed development application may be com. - , ave the potential for sign' -- • community interest, involves a public facility o - proposed project would benefit from addition. immunity input, the Communit :-velopment Director may schedule a joint meeting with the Ci ..uncil and either • - p anning and zoning commission, the historic preservation commission or bot , - • .. etch plan review. A sketch plan review may be held either before or after an applic. is s.:. itted and determined to be sufficiently complete by the director of the Com.• . ity Development : = .artment. If it is scheduled after an application is determined o plete by the Community Deve :• ent Director, the sketch plan review meeting s.: .e conducted prior to any other land use revi- .roceeding required by this Code. a s etch plan review meeting shall be noticed by publica •• , mailing and postin_ .-e Subsection 26.304.060[E] Paragraph [3]) and the joint meeting shall .- inducted a . .ublic meeting. The minutes of the joint meeting shall become part of the formal rec. • of City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, Page 8 x H/3/ i Chapter 26.515 OFF - STREET PARKING Sections: 26.515.010 General provisions 26.515.020 Characteristics of off - street parking spaces 26.515.030 Required number of off - street parking spaces 26.515.040 Special review standards 26.515.050 Cash -in -lieu for mobility enhancements 26.515.010. General provisions. A. General requirements. All development shall be provided with off - street parking as provided in this Chapter. '. Requirements for expansion /redevelopment of existing development. • de -lopment shall reduce the number of existing off - street parking spaces bele the mini - m number of existing spaces required herein for that development, unle . expressly exempte• • this Chapter. If existing development is expanded, additional o street parking spaces shall :; •rovided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a se..rate development. An existing defic of parking may be maintained when a property is r-9 -veloped. C. Off - street parking c. culation. All requirements for o street parking for residential dwellings and lodges shall be - . Iculated based on the nu : -r of units. Requirements for off - street parking for commercial us• shall be calculat eased on the net leasable area of the structure or use. Requirements for a other lane ses not considered residential, lodging or commercial shall be established by specia - 'ew. D. Required number of spaces . en fractiona -.aces computed. When any calculation of off - street parking results i.. required fractional sp. said fractional space may be paid through a cash -in -lieu p. ent, or an entire space may be p • 'ded on the site. E. Commerci 'arking Facilities. When a parking facility is pr..osed to function as a commercia parking facility, as such terms are used herein, review an. . shall be accordi, to Chapter 26.430, Special review and the review standards of Sect. • 26.515.040, Spe review standards. Development of such a facility may also require con.' 'onal use r. iew in some Zone Districts. Also see definition of "Commercial parking facility," - ion 6.104.100. (Ord. No. 17 -2005, § 1) City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 33 6 For p • -rues listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, -wer spaces may .- .rovided and/or a waiver of cash -in -lieu fees may be approve. .•rsuant to Chapter 26.430, •: ial review and according to the review criteria set fo. • . elow. For lodging projects with flex . - unit configurations, also . own as "lock -off units," each separate "key," or rentable division, s . constitute . • it for the purposes of this Section. For projects with parking requiremeo in mu - categories (residential, commercial, lodging or other), the provisi. • of on -site parking be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use •.ncurrently, pursuant to Chapter •.430, Special review and according to the revi- criteria set forth below. (For example: • : o'ect comprised of commercial use • 1uiring five [5] parking spaces and lodging use requiring - [5] parking spaces ma .e approved to provide Tess than ten [10] total parking spaces.) This all not apply : parking which is provided through a payment -in -lieu. (e •. No. 17- 2005, §1) 26.515.040. Special review standards. Whenever the off - street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, an application shall be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the special review application. A. A special review for establishing, varying or waiving off - street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on- street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on -site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on -site or off -site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. B. A special review to permit a commercial parking facility may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 500, Page 37 g )CbfIg1 i