Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20110228 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 28, 2011 5:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances APWA Award - Engineering 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 #16, 2011 — Quizno's Pro - bicycling contract b) Resolution #17, 2011 —Aspen Skiing Company Contract c) Resolution #18, 2011 — Contract Fire Alarm System d) Resolution #19, 2011 — Contract Fire Suppression System e) Resolution #20, 2011 — Ordinance Legal Notice Procedure f) Aspen Skiing Company Spring Jam Concert — Request for Noise Variance g) Funding for Historic Marker at Cortina Lodge h) Minutes — February 14, 2011 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #10, 2011 — Anderson Subdivision P.H. 3/28 b) Ordinance #9, 2011 — 500 W Hopkins (Boomerang) PUD Amendment P.H. 3/14 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amending Election Code continue to 3/14 b) Ordinance #15, 2010 — Castle Creek Energy Hydropower Plant continue to 7/11 c) Ordinance #3, 2011 — Engineering Fees d) Ordinance #4, 2011 — Community Development Fees e) Ordinance #5, 2011 —BMC Annexation f) Ordinance #6, 2011 — BMC Zoning g) Ordinance #8, 2011 — Adopting the International Energy Code IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting March 14, 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 active listening COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. To: Chris Bendon 0 ; ? J 1 f RECEIVED From: Peter Fomell Date: February 25, 2011 CITY Ur ASPEN Re: Departmental fee increases COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Chris, Thank you for providing me with the memorandum for the discussion of fees for development applications and building permit applications. I have also had a chance to look at the plans for the other departmental increases. The first thing I would like to say is that I am pleased to see that for local citizens to make minor or even necessary changes to their homes, that there is a small flat fee for their work. Government is here for them and their goals are not profit oriented. I believe that these persons may frequently come in without planners and hope to complete their work themselves. These applicants need the assistance of planning as much or more than larger developments. Considering this, the departments need to be subsidized to accommodate our community needs. I also have had a chance to look at your estimation of fees for a mock development of approx. $5M residential development. Certainly this is an opportunity to attempt to offset some of the expense of the departments to maintain the best personnel and sufficient staffing. The associated fees increase from $170k to $210k. I don't believe that any developer sees the difference between these number if the process improves. Updated automation, higher communication and better processes could, in my opinion greatly speed up the average time an application is in the process. If you are carrying $5M in debt to support a project that is ready to start, a permit completed in 4 months instead of 9 is actually further ahead financially. Don't be afraid to ask for the money, concern yourself with the timeliness. I know developers who will willfully start projects prior to permitting, knowing that when observed will pay the fines associated simply to be underway. That is just how important timing is to success. With respect to the process, I have ideas which I would like to discuss with you. You have fees that are collected to subsidize parks, housing, schools, etc. and those fees are important to the community. The effort to create these fees are squarely on the shoulders of community development and the building department to see through. Although the profit centers occur on other balance sheets, without the publics' faith in the process the train stops. Consider that departments need to be staffed and maintained to complete tasks in a timely manner. My application for my 8 affordable deed - restricted affordable housing units took 9 months, I don't believe it needed to take that long. I would appreciate it if you would convey my thoughts during the discussion on February 28 as I am unavailable to be present that evening. The departments are filled with excellent people, lets give them every opportunity to be effective and efficient. Sincerely, i // Peter Fornell Via. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Quizno's Pro Challenge - Contract REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approve contract to host stage finish on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 for the Quizno's Pro Challenge. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On August 16` 2010 Council approved staff submitting an RFP for this event. BACKGROUND: Championed by Governor Bill Ritter and Lance Armstrong, legendary road - race cyclist and seven time Tour de France champion, an international pro - cycling competition will be held in Colorado August 22 -28, 2011. The race is expected to become one of the most significant international pro - cycling events worldwide. The event will reinvigorate the legacy of the Colorado -based Coors International Bicycle Classic, which stood as the pre- eminent international pro- cycling event in North America from 1979 -1988. Staff has been meeting and tentatively formulating partnerships /a formal organizing committee to create and submit a proposal nominating Aspen as a host venue. The Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Stay Aspen Snowmass, Aspen Cycling Club, several City departments and the former head of the Aspen portion of the Coors Classic are all working together to formulate the best proposal possible. DISCUSSION: In order to host the stage finish, the City must enter into a legal agreement with Classic Bicycle Racing LLC. Staff feels this event will bring spectators of the sport to Aspen during a historically slow time during the summer, bring national and international media to Aspen during the summer, highlighting what a great cycling venue we have. Aspen has the resources, community support and venue to provide a great event for the stage finish. Staff has been working with the Aspen Skiing Company as co- producers on this event. Page 1 of 2 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The current working budget for the Quizno's Pro Challenge is approximately $190,000 with a financial contribution of $50,000 from the Aspen Chamber Resort Association. The remainder is currently not provided for in the Special Events budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the contract. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the contract, the event will find another location (other than Aspen) to host the stage finish. FJ O Itt]) 63- rr PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve ,dinaace # (V." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: r,1ve o-u...n. va 4 r, flu•r CLJ$ *d L7` ,� "11,4- .�. e �c s • � ,i1/4A.' S, _ .,,. _ r Zvi -.:7`. S* abet A ENS: G r."-4441 / 0 0 1. Memo dated August 13, 2010 0 2. Contract 3. Resolution 4 ((p Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION # Ib (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND CLASSIC BICLYCLE RACING LLC SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING HOSTING RACE STAGE FINISH ON AUGUST 24, 2011 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 Classic Bicycle Racing LLC regarding hosting race stage finish on August 24, 2011, 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, February 28, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk QUIZNOS PRO CHALLENGE CITY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (STAGE FINISH: CITY OF ASPEN) This Quiznos Pro Challenge City Participation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is entered into as of this of 2011, by and between Classic Bicycle Racing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter "CBR "), and the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado (hereinafter "City" or "Host "). (CBR and City are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party") RECITALS: WHEREAS, CBR owns the Quiznos Pro Challenge TM , a multi -stage cycling race across the State of Colorado (the "Tour "); WHEREAS, in connection with its ownership of the Tour, CBR has rights to certain marks, logos, and other distinctive indicia of the Tour; WHEREAS, CBR has contracted Medalist Sports ( "Medalist ") to assist with presenting, organizing and coordinating the Tour and developing its route and to utilize the Tour Marks (as hereinafter offered) in connection therewith; WHEREAS, City wishes to acquire the rights and benefits of hosting the Host Stage (as that term is defined herein) and to undertake all of the obligations related to such hosting, all under the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to grant such rights to each other under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Designation of Host and Location of Host Stage City. CBR licenses to City (the "Host ") the right to host a Stage Finish (the "Host Stage ") for the Tour to be held in August 2011. The 2011 Tour is scheduled to be held from August 22nd through 28th, 2011 and the Host Stage is scheduled to be held on August 24 2011. Host accepts such license and agrees to exercise such license to host the Host Stage and to undertake and perform the Host Obligations, as defined hereinafter and as set forth more specifically in Section 4 of this Agreement. The Host Stage shall be held at a location in City which shall be subject to the prior review and approval of the City, CBR and Medalist Sports (the "Host Stage Location "). 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin as of the date first set forth above (the "Effective Date ") and, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms set forth herein, shall continue through and including October 14` 2011 (the "Term "). 3. CITY. City shall be subject to the following requirements: a. General. At all times during the Term of this Agreement, City will not discriminate in any way on the basis of age, sex, race, national origin, handicap, religion or any other characteristic protected by law, in the conduct of its activities. b. Structure. City will be led by one or more chairperson(s) who will be primarily responsible to coordinate the performance of City's obligations under this Agreement. Such chairperson(s) shall endeavor to ensure that the City's representatives relating to Tour include individuals with experience in the following areas and whose responsibilities could be as follows for the Host Stage in City (Cities have option to have one individual handle more than one responsibility): Sponsorship /Sales Director; Operations Director Finance Director; Media & Public Relations Director; Marketing Director Medical /EMT Coordinator; Technical Director; Volunteer Director; VIP /Hospitality Director; School /Community Outreach Ceremony Coordinator Ancillary Events /School Community Director Health and Wellness Expo Liaison 4. Host Obligations. In consideration of the license granted by CBR to host the Host Stage as set forth in Section 1 and the Host Benefits as set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement and in addition to those other obligations set forth in this Agreement, Host agrees to undertake and perform the following obligations (collectively, the "Host Obligations "): a. Implementation in Accordance with Planning Manual. Host shall provide assistance in accordance with the 2011 Planning Manual for the Tour ( "Planning Manual ") which has been furnished by CBR or Medalist to Host. To the extent that there is a discrepancy between such Planning Manual and this Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement will govern. b. Publicity and Promotion. Host shall use reasonable efforts to publicize and promote the Tour and the Host Stage through all local media. c. Host Obligation Specifications. Provide the following only as they might occur within the city limits of Host at the sole expense of Host in accordance with the specifications set forth on Exhibit "A ". To the extent that there is a discrepancy between 2 Exhibit A and either the Planning Manual or this Agreement, the provisions of the Planning Manual or the Agreement will govern.: (1) Auxiliary Space and Equipment for Tour Requirements: Those types of areas, premises and equipment for the time period designated on Exhibit A. Host will endeavor to locate facilities that are designated as being "adjacent to" the start line within two blocks of the finish line.; (2) Police Services: Local (City only) police services, but only within the municipal boundaries, to work in coordination with the Colorado State Patrol and Colorado Department of Transportation, as well as Tour representatives and City volunteers, to provide for safe road closure, fixed -post positions, traffic and crowd control and general public safety; (3) Public Works and Road Services: Support police efforts to accommodate road closure and course safety within the municipal boundaries; (4) Permits: Waiver or payment of all City permit fees for operation of the Tour in Host's locale and presentation of the Host Stage, including but not limited to special event permits, parking permits, road closure and use permits, alcohol permits, and concession sales permits. All required permits and licenses (including sales and use tax licenses) must be obtained by CBR. Host will reasonably assist in applying for such permits and licenses; (5) EMS /EMT Services: Emergency medical services and emergency medical technicians that will be available to serve the general public within the Host's municipal boundaries at and on the day of the Host Stage in City, in a number and location to be determined by Tour representatives and by the Host's emergency services representatives; (6) Portable and /or Public Restrooms: Portable (e.g., port-o-johns) or public restroom facilities within the Host's municipal boundaries on the day of the Host Stage in a number and location to be determined by Tour representatives and Host's emergency service representatives; (7) Waste Management/Trash Removal/Recycling.; Waste management, trash removal services and recycling within the Host's municipal boundaries following conclusion of the Host Stage in City; and (8) Volunteers: Recruitment of volunteers to assist local police and Tour personnel with various functions to be designated by Tour representatives. Host will be responsible for the selection and training of its volunteers. All volunteers will be expected to perform their assigned duties and services in a competent manner, to the best and full limit of their abilities at all times and in accordance with applicable law and the rules and regulations established by Host, Medalist and CBR. All volunteers will be required to sign the standard Volunteer Waiver and Release of Liability, Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement form for the Tour. 3 (9) Parking: All parking requirements as described in the Planning Manual and Exhibit "A ". Host will endeavor to locate facilities that are designated as being "adjacent to" the finish line within two blocks of the finish line. (10) Hotel Accommodations: Host shall provide the hotel rooms it proposed in its proposal to CBR. d. Tour Course Layout and Host Stage Location. Host will assist Medalist and CBR in obtaining a design and layout of that portion of the city limits of Host through which the Tour course will run and provide access to such course without imposition of any site fees. e. Ambush -Free Zone. Host agrees to work with CBR and Medalist to create a zone which consists of the Host Stage Location and a radius around the Host Stage Location (the "Ambush -Free Zone ") that shall be free from temporary merchandise vending, temporary advertising, and temporary signs and inflatable items where such would compete directly with the Tour, its exclusive sponsors, or the sport of bicycling. Nothing herein shall obligate Host to take any actions as it relates to permanent retail establishments in the Ambush -Free Zone. The Parties recognize that third parties may have First Amendment expressive rights that neither Host nor CBR may fully control or prevent. The parameters of the Ambush -Free Zone should be within a 1-block radius of the Start/Finish area. f. Merchandise Counterfeiting and Trademark Enforcement. Host shall cooperate with CBR in preventing unauthorized use of the Tour Marks, admissions for the Host Stage and other intellectual property and the sale or distribution of unlicensed merchandise bearing the Tour Marks or any other reference to the Tour. Such commitment shall apply and be in force during the Term of this Agreement, particularly with respect to the period beginning August 1 prior to the Tour and continuing through thirty (30) days following the Tour. Host will cooperate with CBR by permitting CBR the right to pursue (at CSR's expense) legal enforcement measures to prevent unauthorized use of the intellectual property regarding the Tour, including but not limited to action against any seller or distributor of unlicensed merchandise. The decision to pursue civil legal action or settle claims against an unauthorized user of the intellectual property of CBR or against a seller or distributor of unlicensed merchandise will be at the sole discretion of CBR. g. Media and Marketing Plan Cooperation. Host will cooperate with the media and marketing plan of CBR and its contractors, Medalist and designated public relations entity, including accommodating television broadcasters, sponsors, and other persons and entities to whom and to which CBR has granted and will grant rights. h. Tour Sponsor Recognition. Host agrees that Tour sponsors shall have the right to have recognition and visibility at the Host Stage Location and that CBR shall determine placement of signage, recognition and visibility. i. Ancillary Events. Before staging any ancillary events in connection with the rights licensed by CBR as set forth in this Agreement, Host shall obtain the prior written approval of CBR and Medalist for the type, location and anticipated size of the event as well as sponsors. 4 j. Sale of Merchandise. Host agrees that no merchandise bearing CBR - licensed designs other than that designated by CBR will be sold on -site by the Host at the Host Stage Location during the Tour without the prior written consent of CBR. k. Reference to Name of Tour. Host shall refer to the Tour by the exact name supplied by CBR from time -to -time, including any title or presenting sponsor identification (should title or presenting sponsorship rights be granted), and shall include, in all agreements that Host may enter into with third parties, a requirement that all third parties utilize the exact name for the Tour supplied by CBR from time -to -time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if CBR changes the name or logo of the Tour after Host has created Tour related identification, Host shall not be required to recreate the Tour related identification. 1. Guidelines and Amendments. All services and other activities required to be performed or provided by Host described in this Agreement will be performed or provided in compliance with all reasonable and customary guidelines, standards, policies and directives (collectively, "Guidelines ") developed and issued by Medalist and CBR from time to time. Host recognizes that, while the contents of the Planning Manual issued by Medalist represents the current position of Medalist and CBR on such matters, such material may evolve as a result of technological and other changes, some of which may be beyond the control of the Parties to this Agreement. Medalist and CBR reserves the right to propose amendments to this Agreement to address such changes. Should amendments to the Agreement or Guidelines result in adverse effects on the financial or other obligations of Host, it will so inform CBR in writing and CBR will then negotiate with Host in order to address such adverse effects in a mutually satisfactory manner. m. Progress Reports. Except to the extent any such dates occur after the execution of this Agreement, Host will submit to Medalist and CBR written progress reports describing the status of its plans relating to the Host Stage and the Host Stage Location and any related events, as well as copies of committee meeting minutes. Such periodic progress reports shall include, but not be limited to, information on: (1) the local sponsorships sold by Host and the status of efforts to present local sponsorship opportunities to various prospects; and (2) other revenues that Host has generated and expects to generate to pay the costs of discharging its obligations under this Agreement. n. Promotion of Goodwill. Host agrees to conduct the activities contemplated by this Agreement and the Planning Manual in such a way as to promote the goodwill associated with the Tour, the Host Stage and the Host Stage Location, CBR, Quiznos, Medalist, the State of Colorado, and the sponsors of the Tour, and will not at any time disparage the good name, reputation, or image of the Tour, the Host Stage and the Host Stage Location, CBR, Quiznos, Medalist, the State of Colorado, or the sponsors of the Tour. This section shall not be interpreted to preclude any action or proceeding by Host to enforce or defend its rights under the Agreement and shall not preclude Host or its representatives from communicating information, which Host reasonably determines to be factually accurate, pertaining to the Tour, its organizers or sponsors. o. Credentials. CBR and its contractors shall be responsible for producing credentials of all types for the Tour, including the Host Stage and Host Stage Location and further including credentials for members of the media and operational personnel, 5 which credentials shall be produced at the sole expense of CBR. CBR shall be responsible for all decisions regarding to whom media, VIP and operational credentials should be issued and shall establish all rules and regulations regarding media access to the Tour, the Host Stage and the Host Stage Location. p. Other Services. Host will provide those other services and undertake those other obligations set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 5. Host Benefits. In consideration of the agreement by Host to undertake and perform the Host Obligations, CBR agrees to provide the following recognition and benefits to and for the benefit of Host (collectively referred to as the "Host Benefits "): a. Recognition. Include recognition for Host in the official Tour Guide, Tour web site, and in a press conference announcing that Host has agreed to serve as the host for the Host Stage of the Tour; b. Hospitality. Provide 40 credentials for and grant access to VIP hospitality area that CBR intends to create; c. Local Sponsorship. Provide local sponsorship opportunities for Host to utilize, as a means of fundraising, in accordance with the terms of Section 7 of this Agreement; and d. Ancillary Events. Establish activities ancillary to the Host Stage within City for the promotion of the State of Colorado and Host, subject to the prior review and approval of CBR. 6. Financial. a. Tour Revenues. Host acknowledges and agrees that CBR shall be entitled to retain all revenues that it contracts for or generates attributable to the Tour, the Host Stage and the Host Stage Location, except as may be specifically set forth in Sections 6c and 7 of this Agreement. b. Expenses. Host agrees that it shall be responsible for the entire cost and expense of undertaking and performing those Host Obligations listed in Section 4(c) of this document and in otherwise discharging its obligations under this Agreement. c. Local Revenues. (1) Parking. Host may offer parking for spectators for the Host Stage. Host may retain all revenues from such parking and shall be responsible for all parking expenses. (2) Food and Beverage Concessions. Subject to certain VIP hospitality to be offered exclusively by CBR, Host may offer food and beverage concessions at the Host Stage - Location for purchase. Host may retain all revenues derived from food and beverage concessions and shall be responsible for all expenses attendant to such concessions. 6 (3) Ancillary Events. Host may create, organize and present events ancillary to the Host Stage, that such ancillary events are not in violation of the provisions of this agreement, and Host may retain all revenues generated thereby. Host shall be responsible for all expenses of creating, organizing and presenting such ancillary events. (4) Revenues derived from approved, Local Sponsors and contributions to the Host or LOC. (5) Merchandise. Host may create and sell merchandise bearing an original logo created by Host that may reference the Host Stage, but which may not incorporate any aspect of the Tour Marks, which logo and merchandise shall be approved by CBR prior to production. Such approval shall not be unreasonably denied, conditioned or delayed. 7. Local Sponsorships. Host acknowledges and agrees that CBR holds and retains superior rights to grant sponsorships for the Tour, including for a title and presenting sponsor as well as for sponsorships which will grant recognition for the entire Tour (collectively, the "Tour Sponsors "). Notwithstanding the foregoing, CBR grants to Host a license to solicit and secure local sponsors to support the activities of Host in connection with the Host Stage, in accordance with the following terms and conditions: a. Designation. Each local sponsor may be given the designation "Local Stage Sponsor ", to the exclusion of any other sponsorship designation. A Local Stage Sponsor may neither be referred to nor describe its involvement with the Host Stage by any other designation, including but not limited to a sponsor of the Tour or a local sponsor of the Tour. b. Sponsorship Levels. Host may create one or more sponsorship levels for Local Stage Sponsors, including a local presenting sponsor. c. Local Sponsorship Benefits. Host shall be able to provide Local Stage Sponsors with those local sponsorship benefits to be provided by CBR as is more particularly set out in the Planning Manual, or which may be subsequently approved by CBR. Host shall also be able to provide approved, Local Stage Sponsors with local sponsorship benefits that are not provided by CBR d. Local Sponsorship Guidelines. Sale of Local Stage Sponsor rights shall be subject to the following guidelines. (1) Reserved Tour Sponsor Categories. Host acknowledges that CBR has retained the exclusive right to sell sponsorship rights in specific sponsorship categories to Tour Sponsors ( "the Tour Sponsor Categories "). A listing of the current Tour Sponsor Categories is set forth on Exhibit "B ". Exhibit `B" may be updated by CBR to add or delete sponsor categories provided that the addition of any new categories shall not prohibit or exclude any existing local sponsor, or any local sponsor that has been presented to CBR for approval. Unless specifically authorized by CBR in advance, Host acknowledges that it may not sell local sponsorship rights to become a Local Stage Sponsor to any company whose primary business is the manufacture, marketing or 7 distribution of products or services in any of the Tour Sponsor Categories, such right being reserved to CBR for Tour Sponsors. (2) CBR Approval. CBR shall have the right of prior review and prior approval over the identity of all proposed Local Stage Sponsors as well as recognition and benefits to be provided to such Local Stage Sponsors, but solely for the purpose of avoiding conflicts between Tour Sponsors and Local Stage Sponsors. Host and CBR shall work collaboratively and proactively using their best efforts to avoid such conflicts (3) Use of Tour Marks. Host has no authority to grant a sublicense to and Local Stage Sponsors shall have no right to use the Tour Marks at any time. (4) Recognition of Tour Sponsors. Host shall reasonably co- operate to facilitate the recognition of Tour Sponsors by CBR. (5) No Other Recognition. Local Stage Sponsors shall not receive any endorsements from individual athletes participating in the Tour without the involved athlete's prior permission, nor will local sponsors be guaranteed broadcast exposure of any type. 8. Required Clauses. Host agrees that, in every written agreement of more than $5000.00 that the City enters into regarding the fulfillment of Host obligations for the Tour, the Host Stage or the ancillary events, the following required clauses will be incorporated: a. Commercial Identification Prohibition. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by CBR, and except for approved, Local Stage Sponsor agreements, third parties contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour and/or any ancillary events related thereto must agree that neither they nor their affiliates, agents, representatives, employees, suppliers or subcontractors shall commercially exploit in any manner the nature of their transaction with goods and/or services provided to Host for the Host Stage or the Tour, including without limitation (1) by referring to the transaction or the goods or services, Host, the Host Stage or the Tour and /or events related thereto in any sales literature, advertisements, letters, client lists, press releases, brochures or other written, audio or visual materials; and (2) by using or allowing the use of the Tour Marks or any other service mark, trademark, copyright or trade name now or which may hereafter be owned or licensed to signify the Tour in connection with any service or product: or (3) by otherwise disclosing their affiliation with Host or the Host Stage or the Tour and /or events related thereto for a commercial purpose. b. Clearances and Licenses. Third parties contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour or events which Host hosts or associates with during the Host Stage and/or events related thereto must agree that they are responsible for providing all clearances, licenses, permissions and consents (including without limitation all music clearances, synchronization rights, union and guild fees and the like) as may be necessary for the presentation of all such events, in any and all media and in any and all forms, whether now known or hereafter developed. 8 c. Indemnification. Every party contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour and/or events related thereto must agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CBR, QUIZNOS, Medalist, designated public relations entity, the State of Colorado, Union Cycliste Internationale ( "UCI "), and Tour Sponsors, and their respective parent, subsidiary, and affiliated companies and each of their respective shareholders, members, trustees, partners, officers, directors, agents, volunteers, employees, and other representatives (collectively, the "CBR Parties ") from and against any claims, demands, damages, liabilities, lawsuits, losses or expenses, including without limitation, interest, penalties, reasonable attorney's fees, and all amounts paid in the investigation, defense or settlement of any or all of the foregoing ( "Claim" or "Claims ") resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the contracting parties' obligations to Host or the provision of goods or services to Host d. Compliance with Law. Every party contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour and/or events related thereto must agree to comply with all laws, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations (state, federal, municipal or promulgated by other agencies or bodies having or claiming jurisdiction) applicable to the performance of such party's obligations to Host. e. Exculpation Clause. Third parties contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour and/or events related thereto must agree to look solely to the assets of Host for any recourse, and not those of CBR, Medalist or Quiznos. c. Insurance. Depending on the risk factors of the goods or services provided, as determined by the City, third parties contracting with or providing goods or services to Host in connection with the Host Stage or the Tour and /or events related thereto must agree to maintain, at no cost to CBR or the CBR Parties, appropriate insurance coverage for Claims arising out of the contracting party's operations, personnel, products and services. All such insurance provided by each contracting party shall be endorsed to name Host, CBR, Medalist, and Quiznos as additional insured. 9. Licenses to Use Marks. a. Tour Marks. (1) Acknowledgements Regarding Tour Marks. CBR retains the rights to sell title and presenting sponsorships in and to the Tour and, in such event, to incorporate the name and /or marks of such title and /or presenting sponsor into the Tour Marks or to develop new marks and logos for the Tour, acknowledging such title and /or presenting sponsor's relationship with and support for the Tour. Host acknowledges the foregoing and that the term "Tour Marks" as used herein may also refer to the Tour Marks as such may be expanded to include the name and /or marks of a title and/or presenting sponsor of the Tour. Upon being advised by CBR and Medalist of a change to the Tour Marks in the event of a sale of title or presenting sponsorships, Host agrees to utilize the updated Tour Marks with the name and/or marks of a title and/or presenting sponsor, all as designated by CBR for any future related materials. Reclaiming materials made obsolete by such changes, and reprinting or redistributing materials with such new sponsorship information shall be at CBR's sole expense. 9 (2) License to Use Tour Marks. CBR hereby grants to Host a limited non - exclusive license to use the name, logos, trademarks, service marks, designs, product and service identification, artwork and other symbols and distinctive indicia associated with the Tour and identified in Exhibit "C" (the "Tour Marks ") during the Term of this Agreement, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Tour Marks Guidelines set forth in Section 9a(6) hereinbelow, solely at or in connecting with the site of the Host Stage, including the Host Stage Location.. The foregoing license is subject to the right of CBR to review and approve in advance all such uses of the Tour Marks. Host shall have no right to assign, license or "pass- through" rights to use the Tour Marks to any other person or entity. In exercising this license to use the Tour Marks and in each and every reference to the Tour, Host shall utilize the Tour Marks and the exact name of the Tour designated by CBR, which shall include the name of any title and /or presenting sponsor. (3) License Does Not Extend to Merchandise. Host shall not manufacture or sell, or license the manufacture or sale of, any promotional or other merchandise which bears the Tour Marks after July I, 2012. (4) Acknowledgements Regarding Goodwill. Host acknowledges the great value of goodwill associated with the Tour Marks. Host acknowledges that the goodwill attached to the Tour Marks belongs exclusively to CBR. Host agrees that any and all goodwill and other rights that may be acquired by the use of the Tour Marks by Host shall inure to the benefit of CBR. (5) No Disparagement by Host. Host will not, at any time, disparage, dilute or adversely affect the validity of the Tour Marks or take any action, or otherwise suffer to be done any act or thing which may at any time, in any way materially adversely affect any rights of CBR in or to the Tour Marks, or any registrations thereof or which, directly or indirectly, may materially reduce the value of the Tour Marks or detract from their reputation. This section shall not be interpreted to preclude any action or proceeding by Host to enforce or defend its rights under this Agreement and shall not preclude Host or its representatives from communicating information, which Host reasonably determines to be factually accurate, pertaining to the Tour, its organizers or sponsors. (6) Tour Marks Guidelines. Any use of the Tour Marks during the Term shall be further subject to the following conditions and limitations (collectively, the "Tour Marks Guidelines "): (a) The Tour Marks shall be used in accordance with the Quiznos Pro Challenge Graphics Standards Manual, published by CBR from time -to- time; (b) Host shall not use the Tour Marks in any manner that is misleading or that reflects unfavorably upon the reputation of the Tour, CBR, QUIZNOS, Medalist, the State of Colorado or any competitor in the Tour or in any manner that is contrary to applicable laws and regulations, including, without limitation, those relating to truth in advertising and fair trade practices; 10 (c) Host shall not (i) permit any tradename or mark of a third party to appear in conjunction with Host's materials that display any of the Tour Marks in a manner that could be reasonably interpreted as a promotion or endorsement of a third party's products or services; or (ii) participate with any third party in a promotion using the Tour Marks or permit the Tour Marks to be used in a manner that could be reasonably interpreted as a promotion or endorsement of a third party's products or services; (d) Host shall not use the Tour Marks without the appropriate trademark or copyright designation as required by CBR; (e) Host acknowledges that its selection as a partner is not based upon the results of any quality comparison between Host and any other municipality within the State of Colorado and agrees that it shall not represent otherwise to any third party . (f) Host shall not, after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, use any slogan or graphic device that was developed for use in conjunction with the Tour Marks if such slogan or graphic device implies an ongoing association with the Tour. b. Host Marks. (1) License to Use Host Marks. Host hereby grants to CBR a limited non - exclusive license to use the name, logos, trademarks, service marks, designs, product and service identification, artwork and other symbols and distinctive indicia of Host and identified in Exhibit "D" attached hereto (the "Host Marks ") during the Term of this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the Host Marks guidelines in accordance with Section 9b(2) of this Agreement, specifically to provide Host with the Host Benefits. The foregoing license is subject to the right of Host to review and approve in advance all such uses of the Host Marks. CBR shall have no right to assign, license or "pass- through" rights to use the Host Marks to any party, except as necessary to fulfill its obligations set forth in this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge and agree that, upon the expiration or termination of the Term of the Agreement, CBR shall discontinue any use of the Host Marks and CBR may continue to use the Tour Marks. (2) Host Marks Guidelines. CBR shall utilize the Host Marks pursuant to the license granted herein in accordance with those graphics standards supplied by Host to CBR in writing from time -to -time. 10. Trademarks. a. Tour Marks. (1) The Tour Marks, specifically including but not limited to the words "Quiznos Pro Challenge ", are and shall remain the property of CBR and CBR shall take all steps reasonably necessary to protect such Tour Marks, which steps may include registrations through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( "PTO ") and foreign registrations, as it deems desirable and through reasonable prosecution of infringements. 11 (2) The rights licensed by CBR to Host with respect to use of the Tour Marks shall convey license rights only and shall convey no rights of ownership in or to the Tour Marks. (3) CBR represents and warrants that it has the right to use the Tour Marks, specifically including but not limited to the words "Quiznos Pro Challenge ", and to license the use of the Tour Marks to Host as set forth in Section 9a of this Agreement. (4) CBR (as well as Quiznos) shall own all right, title and interest in and to the Tour Marks. CBR shall have the right to take all steps reasonable necessary to protect the Tour Marks through PTO registrations and such foreign registrations as it deems desirable and through reasonable prosecution of infringements. CBR shall be the record owner of all such registrations for the Tour Marks. Host shall cooperate as reasonably necessary to assist CBR in obtaining such trademark protection and in prosecuting any alleged infringements of the Tour Marks except that Host shall not be obligated to expend any funds in connection therewith. b. Host Marks. (1) The Host Marks are and shall remain the property of Host and Host shall take all steps reasonably necessary to protect such Host Marks through the PTO and foreign registrations as it deems desirable and through reasonable prosecution of infringements. (2) Host represents and warrants that it has the right to use the Host Marks and to license the use of the Host Marks to CBR for use in connection with the Tour and to provide the Host Benefits. (3) The rights granted to CBR by Host with respect to use of the Host Marks shall convey license rights only and shall convey no rights of ownership in or to the Host Marks. 11. Merchandising. The Parties acknowledge and agree that CBR shall be the sole licensor of all Tour - related merchandise bearing the Tour Marks. Host shall have the right to purchase Tour - Related Merchandise from the licensee for such Tour - Related Merchandise at amount to be agreed upon by and among CBR, Host and such licensee an amount that will yield a profit- sharing ratio of &5% to host and 25% to CBR, but shall have no right or license to manufacture or distribute Tour - Related Merchandise or any other merchandise bearing the Tour Marks. 12. Approvals. a. Except for the use of the Tour Mark in the normal course of transacting business Host agrees to submit to CBR for its prior written approval all proposed uses of the Tour Marks that Host wishes to make pursuant to the limited license granted to Host in this Agreement, including, if required by CBR, submission of representative samples of advertising, promotional and other materials to be used in connection with Host's products and services as well as any premiums that Host may wish to use containing the Tour Marks. If Host's request is not responded to by CBR within five (5) business days • 12 after CBR has received the material from Host, Host shall provide written notification to CBR of such fact and CBR agrees that any such proposed materials shall be deemed approved if Host's request is not responded to within five (5) business days following receipt of such written notice. b. If requested, Host shall supply to CBR for administrative and archival purposes at CBR's expense two (2) originals of all advertising, promotional or other materials in connection with the products and services to be used by Host in connection with the licenses granted under this Agreement. c. All requests for approval, including representative samples of all advertising, promotional and other materials shall be sent to CBR at the address for notices under this Agreement to the attention of the individual designated to receive notices for CBR. 13. Broadcast and Media Rights; Other Commercial Exploitation of Tour. As between Host and CBR, CBR controls all rights to distribute, promote, market and otherwise commercially exploit the Tour and the Host Stage by means of any and all audio, visual and audiovisual media of all types, including but not limited to television, radio, Internet and print, and wireless devices as well as with respect to sponsorship, licensing, hospitality, merchandising, and other marketing rights with respect to the Tour ( "Commercial Exploitation Rights ") and that Host will not purport to grant or license any such rights to a third party without the prior express written approval of CBR. This provision shall not prohibit or preclude the City from promoting itself, and including in such promotion the role that it played as a Host City. 14. Ownership and Protection of Intellectual Property. a. Ownership of Intellectual Property. (1) Subject to the terms of Section 10 of this Agreement, each Party shall own all right, title and interest in and to all intellectual property created by or on behalf of such Party in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, all logos, names, ideas, concepts, creative materials, promotional materials, advertising, graphics, including all copyrights and proprietary rights therein, and any inventions and discoveries first conceived or developed, whether or not protected by patent, trade secret or copyright, subject to the ownership rights of the other Party to such other Party's trademarks to the extent that such are incorporated into such intellectual property (such property being collectively referred to as the "Intellectual Property "). (That Intellectual Property which has been created by or on behalf of Host is referred to as the "Host Intellectual Property" and that Intellectual Property which has been created on behalf of CBR is referred to as the "CBR Intellectual Property ") (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the Tour Marks and the distinctive colors, concepts, indicia and look displayed by CBR throughout the Tour and by CBR in its regular business operations and materials shall constitute CBR Intellectual Property and therefore be owned by CBR. Host expressly acknowledges that the Parties have agreed that all copyrightable aspects of the CBR Intellectual Property are to be considered "works made for hire" within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended (the "Act "), of which CBR is to be the 13 "author" within the meaning of such Act. All such copyrightable works, as well as all copies of such works in whatever medium fixed or embodied, shall be owned exclusively by CBR as its creation and Host expressly disclaims any interest in any of them. Host expressly acknowledges that it is not a joint author and that the CBR Intellectual Property and all other work created by CBR hereunder are not joint works under the Act. (3) In the event (and to the extent) that any CBR Intellectual Property or any part or element thereof is found as a matter of law not to be "work made for hire" within the meaning of the Act, Host hereby conveys and assigns to CBR the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in the ownership to all such CBR Intellectual Property, and all copies of it, without further consideration, and agrees to assist CSR's efforts to register, and from time to time to enforce, all patents, copyrights, and other rights and protections relating to the CBR Intellectual Property in any and all countries. To that end, Host agrees to execute and deliver all documents requested by CBR to evidence any assignment as well as otherwise in connection therewith. (4) Host understands that the term "moral rights" means any rights of paternity and integrity, including any right to claim authorship of a copyrightable work, to object to a modification of such copyrightable work and any similar right existing under the judicial or statutory law of any country or under any treaty, regardless of whether or not such right is referred to as a "moral right ", including, without limitation, the rights of attribution and integrity in works of visual art pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106A. Host irrevocably waives and agrees never to assert any moral rights Host may have in the CBR Intellectual Property, even after any termination or expiration of this Agreement. (5) The Parties agree to affix appropriate copyright and trademark notices as reasonably designated by the other, together with their own notices as appropriate, on the CBR Intellectual Property to identify CBR as the owner of the CBR Intellectual Property and Host as the owner of the Host Marks. b. Protection of Intellectual Property. (1) Host acknowledges that it has no right, title or interest in the Tour Marks and that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as an assignment to Host of any right, title or interest in the Tour Marks, except the license to use of the Tour Marks as provided in this Agreement. (2) Host agrees that CBR shall have the sole right to determine whether any action should be taken to terminate unauthorized use of the Tour Marks or to settle any proceeding brought by CBR to terminate such unauthorized use. All proceeds from any enforcement action shall belong exclusively to CBR. (3) CBR and Host agree to assist each other in the defense of any proceeding or claim with respect to the use of any Tour Marks by Host in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. CBR agrees to defend, at its expense, any such proceeding or claim on behalf of Host. Host shall be permitted to retain, at its expense, separate counsel in such defense. 15. Reservation of Rights. CBR reserves all rights not expressly licensed to Host under this Agreement. Any and all rights of CBR, including those in and to the 14 Tour and the Tour Marks, not expressly granted to Host under this Agreement are reserved to CBR and may be exercised, marketed, exploited or disposed of by CBR concurrently with the Term of this Agreement in such form and manner as CBR wishes. Host acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not convey or grant to it any rights of ownership in or management of the Tour, CBR or the Tour Marks. 16. Representations and Warranties. a. By CBR. CBR represents and warrants that: (1) It has the full right, power, legal authority and financial capability to enter into and fully perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms without violating the rights of any other person, that there are no other agreements or commitments, oral or written, that will interfere with its full performance hereunder and that it will fully comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations applicable to the day -to -day conduct of its business and to its obligations and performances hereunder; (2) CBR owns and has authority to grant to Host a license to use the Tour Marks; (3) The Tour Marks do not infringe the trademarks or other proprietary rights of any other person or entity; (4) Any materials created under the control, direction or supervision of CBR shall be original, shall be owned by CBR and shall not infringe any third party copyright or trademark; and (5) It will comply with all applicable laws, regulations and ordinances pertaining to the promotion and conduct of the Tour. b. By Host. Host represents and warrants that: (1) It has the full right, power and legal authority to enter into and fully perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms without violating the rights of any other person, that there are no other agreements or commitments, oral or written, that will interfere with its full performance hereunder and that it will fully comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations applicable to the day -to -day conduct of its business and to its obligations and performances hereunder; (2) Host owns or has the authority to grant to CBR a license to use the Host Marks; (3) The Host Marks do not infringe the trademarks or other proprietary rights of any other person or entity; (4) Any materials created under the control, direction or supervision of Host shall be original, shall be owned by Host and shall not infringe any third party copyright or trademark; and 15 17. Indemnification. a. By CBR. To the extent permitted by law, CBR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Host, its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, partners, shareholders, members, agents, employees, and other representatives (collectively, the "Host Indemnified Parties "), from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, lawsuits, losses or expenses, including without limitation, interest, penalties, reasonable attorney's fees, and all amounts paid in the investigation, defense or settlement of the foregoing (the "Claim" or "Claims ") arising out of, based on or in any other manner related to: (I) the breach of any representation, warranty, material covenant or obligation of CBR under this Agreement; (2) any negligent act, negligent omission or willful conduct by CBR; and (3) any Claim that the Tour Marks or other CBR Intellectual Property infringe upon any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other right of' a third party. b. By Host. To the extent permitted by law, Host shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CBR, Quiznos, Medalist, the State of Colorado, USA Cycling, UCI, and Tour Sponsors, and their respective parent, subsidiary and affiliated companies, and each of their respective officers, directors, partners, trustees, shareholders, members, agents, employees, volunteers and other representatives (collectively, the "CBR Indemnified Parties "), from and against any and all Claims arising out of, based on or in any other manner related to: (1) the breach of any representation, warranty, material covenant or obligation of Host under this Agreement; (2) any negligent act, omission or willful conduct by Host; (3) the products, services, and other deliverables provided by Host and its employees, volunteers, agents, representatives and contractors in carrying out its obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that Host shall not be responsible for indemnification resulting from road conditions of State of Colorado maintained or Host maintained highways and roads; (4) the exercise by Host of its rights and the Host Benefits under this Agreement, including but not limited to any parking, food and beverage concessions, ancillary events or local sponsorships organized by Host; (5) advertiser's liability or other claim arising out of or in connection with the use by Host of the Tour Marks, including but not limited to any claim based upon an allegation of sponsorship or guaranty by CBR of City; (6) a claim that the Host Marks infringe upon any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other right of a third party; and 16 (7) the failure or alleged failure by Host to comply with all Laws relating to labor relations, fair employment practices, safety and similar rules and regulations, including without limitation, all Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) provisions as required by law, regulation or executive order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this indemnification shall not extend to or include any claims, damages, suit or attorneys fees arising out of any claim or allegation that any of the routes, roads, trails o other parts of the Tour course were negligently designed or selected. c. Procedure Regarding Indemnification. Each Party shall give the other Party prompt written notice of any Claim coming within the scope of any indemnity expressly set forth in this Agreement. Upon written request of' any indemnitee, the indemnitor will assume defense of any such Claim, action or proceeding. The indemnitee shall cooperate with the indemnitor in the investigation, defense and/or settlement of any such Claim. The indemnification obligations in this Section 17 of this Agreement shall survive the expiration and /or termination of' this Agreement. 18. Termination. a. Default. Either Party may terminate this Agreement, at its option, upon written notice to the other Party, upon the occurrence of one or more of the following events (the "Termination Events "): (1) Material breach of any material covenant, agreement, representation, warranty, term or condition of this Agreement, if such breach has not been waived in writing and if such breach is not cured or remedied by the breaching Party to the other Party's reasonable satisfaction within thirty (30) days after delivery of written notice specifying the nature of the breach, or if the Parties agree that the breach is not capable of being cured or remedied within said thirty (30) days, then within the time period mutually agreed to by the Parties in a jointly approved plan of corrective action developed within thirty (30) days after the delivery of written notice to the breaching Party specifying the nature of the breach; (2) A Party becomes insolvent, fails to pay its debts or perform its obligations in the ordinary course of its business as they become due, admits in writing its insolvency or instability to pay its debts or perform its obligations as they become due, or becomes the subject of any voluntary or involuntary proceeding in bankruptcy, liquidation, dissolution, receivership or general assignment for the benefit of creditors, provided that, if such condition is assumed involuntarily, it has not been dismissed with prejudice within sixty (60) days after its commencement; or (3) A Party is the subject of public controversy of such a magnitude that such Party's association with the other Party pursuant to this Agreement creates a negative association for such other Party, in the reasonable judgment of such other Party, in which case the other Party may terminate this Agreement without cost or penalty. (4) By CBR, in the event that, in its reasonable discretion, the Tour as a whole, or the inclusion of the Host stage in the Tour, is no longer economically feasible. 17 (5) By Host, in the event that it determines, in its sole discretion, that it does not desire to continue participation in the Tour b. Effect of Termination. Should either Party terminate this Agreement as a result of a Termination Event set forth in subsection a above, then upon termination of this Agreement, Host's Host Benefits shall terminate and Host shall cease using the Tour Marks. In addition, should such termination result from termination notice given by Host to CBR from occurrence of a Termination Event of the type set forth in Sections 18a(I) or (2) above, CBR shall repay to Host all amounts actually expended by Host in performing its obligations hereunder; provided, however that in no event shall CBR be liable for amounts in excess of $10,000. Should termination result from termination notice given by CBR to Host from occurrence of a Termination Event of the type set forth in Sections 18a(1) or (3) above, Host shall repay to CBR all amounts expended by CBR in licensing to Host the right to host the Host Stage, to provide the Host Benefits, and to relocate the site for the Host Stage; provided, however that in no event shall Host be liable to CBR for amounts in excess of $10,000. 19. Independent Contractors. CBR and Host are independent contractors with respect to each other and nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to create any partnership, joint venture or agency relationship between them. Host is simply serving as host to the Host Stage of the Tour under the license of rights granted herein and is agreeing herein to provide certain services and to undertake certain obligations in order to acquire certain marketing rights and benefits. Neither Party shall have any authority to contract or bind the other Party in any manner and shall not represent itself as the agent of the other. 20. Insurance. a. CBR Provided Insurance. Throughout the Term of this Agreement (including any extensions thereof), CBR (or Medalist) shall provide and maintain, at CBR's expense, the following insurance policies which shall protect the CBR Parties on a primary basis from any and all Claims arising out of or in connection with respect to the staging of each Tour and the obligations of CBR pursuant to this Agreement: (I) General Liability insurance of with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate; (2) Auto Liability insurance covering Claims arising out of the use, operation or maintenance of any vehicle (whether owned, non - owned, leased, hired or borrowed) by CBR, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage (3) Workers' Compensation insurance covering CBR's employees with limits as required by statutory law, including Employer's Liability coverage with limits not less than $500,000 each accident; (4) Umbrella and /or Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $4,000,000 each occurrence shall apply in excess of and on a following form basis to the primary Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Employer's Liability policies; and 18 (5) Any other insurance necessary and appropriate for the staging of the Tour as determined by CBR and Medalist. All such insurance to be maintained by CBR shall be (1) primary with respect to Claims arising out of the CBR's staging of each Tour and the obligations of CBR pursuant to this Agreement; and (2) shall be written by insurance companies with ratings of "A" or better in the latest edition of the A.M. Best key rating guide. All such coverage may not be cancelled unless CBR provides thirty (30) days prior written notice to host. Policies (1), (2) and (4) above shall be endorsed to name Host as Additional Insureds with respect to the negligent acts or omissions of CBR and Medalist. At least 15 days prior to each Tour, CBR shall provide Host with a certificate of insurance certifying that the appropriate insurance is in place and that the policies have been properly endorsed to meet the insurance requirements as set forth above. b. CBR Optional Insurance. CBR may, but shall not be obligated to, secure Event Cancellation insurance providing reimbursement of insured losses if any Tour does not take place, in whole or in part, due to any Act of God or other event beyond the control of the CBR and those other circumstances set forth in Sections 21 and 22 of this Agreement. Covered perils may include adverse weather conditions; natural disasters; outbreak of disease; damage to or loss of venue; unavoidable transportation delays; non- appearance of key participants due to death, injury or illness; situations which pose significant danger to the public or Tour participants; and other causes beyond CBR's control which are not specifically excluded under the policy. Notable exclusions will include war, civil commotion, riot, martial law, seizure, or radioactive/ nuclear contamination; poor event planning and management; fraud, misrepresentation or concealment. All event cancellation proceeds shall constitute the property of CBR. CBR's obligation to secure Event Cancellation insurance is limited to the extent such coverage is available at a reasonable cost in the sole discretion of CBR. c. Host Provided Insurance. Throughout the Term of this Agreement (including any extensions thereof), Host shall provide and maintain, at its expense, the following insurance policies (or in the event Host is self - insured, a program of insurance), which shall protect Host, CBR, Medalist, and the CBR Parties on a primary basis from any and all Claims arising out of or in connection with the Host's activities, operations, representations and warranties, rights, obligations and duties of Host pursuant to this Agreement: (1) General Liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Such insurance shall include coverage for contractual liability, products - completed operations, personal and advertising injury, premises damage legal liability, liquor liability (if applicable), property damage and bodily injury liability (including death); (2) Auto Liability & Physical Damage insurance covering Claims arising out of the use, operation or maintenance of any vehicle (whether owned, non - owned, leased, hired or borrowed) by Host, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage; 19 (3) Workers' Compensation insurance covering Host's employees with limits as required by statutory law, including Employer's Liability coverage with limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, $1,000,000 disease -each employee and $1,000,000 disease- policy limit; (4) Umbrella and/or Excess Liability insurance with limits not less than $3,000,000 each occurrence shall apply in excess of and on a following form basis to the primary Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Employer's Liability policies Policy. Such umbrella and /or excess liability insurance shall not be required if the primary policies of insurance afford limits of not less than $5,000,000 each occurrence. (5) Any other insurance necessary and appropriate for covering the Host's activities, operations, representations and warranties, rights, obligations and duties pursuant to this Agreement. All such insurance to be maintained by Host shall be (1) primary to and non - contributory with any insurance maintained by CBR and the CBR Parties; and (2) shall be written by insurance companies with ratings of "A" or better in the latest edition of the A.M. Best key rating guide Such coverage may not be cancelled unless Host provides thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CBR. Host's participation in a public entity self insurance pool holding a certificate of authority from the Colorado Insurance Commissioner shall suffice in lieu of insurance meeting the rating requirement of this paragraph. Policies (1), (2) and (4) above shall be endorsed to name CBR and the CBR Indemnified Parties (as defined in Section 17b of this Agreement) as Additional Insureds with respect to the negligent acts or omissions of Host. At least 15 days prior to each Tour, Host shall provide CBR with a certificate of insurance certifying that the appropriate insurance is in place and that the policies have been properly endorsed to meet the insurance requirements as set forth above. All insurance coverage required by this section may not be cancelled unless Host provides thirty (30) days prior written notice to CBR. 21. Force Maieure. In the event that the Tour does not take place or is rescheduled, in whole or in part, due to any Act of God or other event not reasonably foreseeable by the Parties or beyond the control of the Parties which is generally considered an event of force majeure ( "Force Majeure "), including without limitation, weather, fire, flood, act of public enemy or terrorism, strike or labor dispute, governmental action or directive or local, regional or national day of mourning, whether such event of Force Majeure has occurred in a community through which the Tour course shall run or not, then CBR may discontinue provision of the Host Benefits to and for the benefit of Host and Host need not continue to perform those Host Obligations which remain unperformed as of the date of cancellation or postponement. CBR shall determine whether the Tour is to be cancelled in whole or in part or postponed due to a Force Majeure event. Should the Tour be cancelled in whole or in part due to an event of Force Majeure, CBR shall have no further obligation, financial or otherwise, to Host and Host 20 shall have no further obligation to CBR in connection with the Tour. In the event that the Tour is postponed in whole or in part due to an event of Force Majeure and CBR intends to reschedule the Tour, CBR and Host shall discuss in good faith the terms under which such rescheduling should occur. In the event of such cancellation or postponement due to a Force Majeure event, the obligations of CBR and the rights of Host shall be as specifically set forth in this Section 21 as the sole and exclusive remedy by virtue of such cancellation or postponement. 22. Cancellation or Postponement of Tour for Reason Other than Force Maieure. CBR represents and warrants that it will produce and operate the Tour and Host Stage as generally represented to the public, the Host, and as described in this Agreement and the Planning Manual. While deviations in the general scope of the Tour and/or Host Stage may occur, cancellation or postponement of the Tour shall only occur in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 18 and 21 of this Agreement. 23. Public Announcement. The Parties agree to make a joint public announcement and press release upon in the near future following execution of this Agreement. The Parties agree that the form and substance of such announcement and press release shall be mutually agreed between the Parties. 24. Police Power Reserved. This Agreement embodies the intent of the parties concerning rights and obligations of the Parties pertaining to production of the Tour and Host Stage only. The rights granted herein to CBR shall not waive, limit or otherwise restrict the right of the City to exercise its police power with respect to its land use regulatory powers, control of its property, control of its rights -of -way, enforce its laws and ordinances, or otherwise. CBR shall comply with all laws and ordinances of the City and shall pay, collect and remit all municipal sales and use taxes as may be required by law. This Agreement shall not be construed as an approval by the City of the Tour for the purpose of any regulatory approvals that are otherwise required. 25. General. a. Assignment. Host may not assign any rights or obligations under this Agreement or this Agreement itself, in whole or in part, without the prior express written consent of CBR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Host may retain the services of subcontractors to discharge certain obligations under this Agreement. b. Notices. Except as expressly provided to the contrary herein, any notice, consent, report, documents or other item to be given, delivered, furnished or received hereunder shall be deemed given, delivered, furnished and received when given in writing and personally delivered to and received by an officer or designated employee of the applicable Party, to seventy -two (72) hours after the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified first class mail, return receipt requested addressed as set forth below, or to such other address as either of the parties shall advise the other in writing or sent by confirmed facsimile transmission: If to Host: City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street 21 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn.: Steve Barwick, City Manager If to CBR: Classic Bicycle Racing LLC 1515 Arapahoe Street Tower 1, 10 Floor Denver, CO 80202 Attn; John M. Moore c. Entire Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or supplemented or otherwise changed, except by a written document executed by an authorized representative of each of the Parties hereto. d. No Waiver of Rights and Breaches. No failure or delay of any Party in the exercise of any right given to such Party hereunder shall constitute a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right preclude other or further exercise thereof or of any other right. The waiver by a Party of any default of any other Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such subsequent default or other default of any Party. e. Captions. Section headings used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction of any provision of this Agreement. f. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and authorized assigns. g. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Colorado and for all purposes governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. h. Construction of Agreement. Each Party acknowledges that it has participated in the negotiation of this Agreement and that no provision of this Agreement shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any Party hereto by any court or other governmental or judicial authority by reason of such Party having or deemed to have structured, dictated or drafted such provision. i. Relationship of Parties. This Agreement shall neither be deemed nor construed to create a joint venture or partnership between CBR and Host, nor shall this Agreement be deemed or construed as making either Party the agent or representative of the other Party. Neither Party shall have the authority to bind the other Party in any respect. j. Survival. Those covenants, acknowledgments, representations, agreements and obligations contained in Sections 9a(4), 9a(5), 9a(6)(f), 13 -17, 18b, 20 -22, and 24 -25 of this Agreement shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 22 k. Compliance with Law, Rules and Regulations. The Parties agree to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations applicable to the performance of their respective obligations under this Agreement, both now existing and as such may hereinafter be adopted. 1. Time of Essence. The Parties agree that time is of the essence in performing obligations under this Agreement. m. Exhibits. The documents attached hereto as exhibits are incorporated by reference herein and made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. n. Severability. The determination that any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable shall not invalidate this Agreement, all of such provisions being inserted conditionally upon their being considered legally valid, and this Agreement shall be construed and performed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision(s) were omitted. o. Exclusive Jurisdiction. The Parties agree that venue of any judicial action in connection with this Agreement shall lie exclusively in the state courts located in Pitkin County, Colorado, or the federal courts located in Denver, Colorado. The Parties accept, generally and unconditionally, the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts and any related appellate court and irrevocably agree to be bound by any judgment rendered thereby in connection with this Agreement. The Parties further agree that they irrevocably waive any objection they may now have or hereafter have as to the jurisdiction or venue of any such suit, action or proceeding brought in such court or that such court is an inconvenient forum. The Parties acknowledge that they possesses the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Colorado sufficient to establish jurisdiction over the Parties in State and Federal Courts in Colorado. p. Further Assurances. The Parties agree to execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, such instruments and documents as either Party may reasonably request or require to carry out more effectively the purpose and intent of this Agreement. q. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. r. No Third Party Beneficiaries. It is expressly understood that there are no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. 23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Agreement on their respective behalf, all as of the day and year first above written. CBR: Classic Bicycle Racing, LLC By: Name: Title: HOST: CITY OF ASPEN By: Name: Title: 24 EXHIBITS A Host City 2011 Request for Proposal B Sponsorship C Challenge Marks D Host Marks EXHIBIT A HOST CITY REQUIREMENTS - STAGE FINISH As a partner of the Quiznos Pro Challenge, a Host City is REQUIRED to provide the following support and assume all related costs as part of their bid submission. CITY SERVICES - ALL STAGES POLICE SERVICES - Local (City and/or County) police services and related costs are the responsibility of the host venue. In coordination with Colorado State Patrol, Colorado Department of Transportation, as well as the Tours motor and road marshals and in conjunction with the LOC volunteer program, local police provide for a safe road closure, which may include fixed -post positions, traffic control, crowd control, enforcing no- parking zones and maintaining general public safety. PUBLIC WORKS AND ROAD SERVICES - Local Public Works and Road Services and costs are the responsibility of the host venue. These services are necessary to support police efforts to ensure road closure and safety of the course. These services include: • detours and detour equipment barricades; • cones; • printing /posting of No Parking signs; • trash removal /restoration and street repair PERMIT SERVICES - All fees associated with city permits and permit requirements for the operation of the event are to be procured by the host venue on behalf of the Tour. They include, but are not limited to: • Parking - both on and off street • Alcohol (beer/wine) — including possibility of public consumption contained /sampling, as well as served in the Tour's official hospitality area. • Road closures and use of roads for setup and racing (includes permits for construction of staging, tents, wiring /electrical, portable generators, power equipment, and fork lift) • Special and Ancillary Events - pre -event and race day • Banners /Signs - hanging and display of pre - event, race day ads, and sponsor banners. • Concession Sales - on -site concession stands and 10 individual peddlers serving the spectators. • A "'Please list any special permitting/restrictions that the Tour should be aware of, including Alcohol, Signage and Sound Amplification. This may affect the options for START /FINISH LINE placement. EMT /EMS SERVICES - It is the responsibility of the host venue to provide EMT /EMS services for the general public the day of their Stage. Please note that the Tour provides medical services for the athletes, team support and staff personnel. Placement of EMT /EMS services will be decided by the Tours Technical Director. RESIDENT /BUSINESS NOTIFICATIONS — Host venues are responsible for notifying local residents and businesses of the impact of the Tour including road closures, traffic advisories etc. within their city limits PORTABLE TOILETS- Host dties will secure port-o -let services or public restrooms during the day of the Stage. The number of units and placement of the units will be mutually agreed upon by the host venue and the Production Director. Portable toilets to be guaranteed to arrive the night PRIOR to the start or finish event for the graveyard crews. Specific Portable Toilet needs per event stage will be provided in a separate production outline WASTE MANAGEMENT — Host cities will provide waste management/trash removal services and recyclina during and at the conclusion of the event. Necessary supplies and services include: trash containers, roll off containers, dumpsters, recycling containers and the crews to remove full containers of liners, and replace them with fresh liners. Also needed are crews to restore the venue to its original beauty, meaning removal of trash from streets, parking lots, parking garages, curbs, city property. county property and federal property. Street sweeping is recommended the day before the event and the evening after tear down. Trash / Recycling needs per event stage will be provided in a separate production outline HEALTH AND WELLNESS EXPO — The Host City is required to support the Challenge with the Health and Wellness Expo by assisting with the following: • Nlocation of a suitable are for the Expo • Handle all Expo permits and associated fees • Electricity and waste management • Parking for all vendors `Quiznos Pro Challenge reserves the right to determine final placement of the start/finish line. A START AND AWARDS CEREMONIES - STARTS - The LOC has the opportunity to allocate (5) dignitaries for recognition during the pre - ceremony and identity a Color Guard and National Anthem performer from the community as part of the offidal start ceremonies. FINISHES (AWARDS) - The LOC has the opportunity to allocate five (5) dignitaries for recognition during the pre - ceremony and three (3) awards presenters for the official awards ceremony (19 2^^ and 3b). The LOC will provide eight (8) floral bouquets (fifteen (15) bouquets for the Overall Start and Overall Finish) to be used in the awards ceremony. In addition, the LOC/host city can provide a unique gift to the stage winner.' Additional details, timelines and forms regarding the start and awards ceremonies will be provided during the planning process. A HOTELS, PARKING, AUXILIARY SPACE AND MEALS HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS* The Host City is FINANOALLY RESPONSIBLE for all costs associated with the rooms outlined below, including aII-inclusive room rate: NIGHT BEFORE THE STAGE FINISH: • 170 Rooms (60/40 Ratio of Doubles /Single Rooms) • Parking expenses NIGHT OF THE STAGE FINISH: • ?S0 Rooms (60/40 ratio of Doubles/Single Rooms) (this is to accommodate approximately 400 individuals) The Host City must secure the following rooms at $90, all-inclusive room rate (including all local and state taxes and fees): NIGHT BEFORE STAGE FINISH FOR TRAVELING ENTOURAGE: • 50 rooms (60/40 Ratio of Doubles/Single Rooms) NIGHT OF STAGE FINISH FOR TRAVELING ENTOURAGE: • 250 rooms (60/40 Doubles /single rooms)* *Per the Aspen Proposal, LOC can guarantee a $110, all- inclusive room rate and will work with QPC to find any reductions possible HOTEL REQUIREMENTS: • No more than three hotel properties • Tour will work with LOC to select properties for each functional area • Hotels must be a minimum of a 3 -star hotel property • Hotels must be within close proximity to the finish line • Hotels must be located in close proximity to each other • Hotels must be full - service properties with banquet facilities • * The QPC will make a concerted effort to explore all opportunities to reduce overall rooming needs, based on final entourage headcount If any reductions are found, QPC will work with the LOC and respective lodging partner to reconfigure room blocks. * *The Quiznos Pro Challenge must approve all properties prior to contracting and has the right of refusal for any properties A SITE VISITILOC MEETING ROOMS: The Host City is financially responsible for providing the Tour with 40 hotel room nights to be used anytime from September 1, 2010 to September 1, 2011. MEALS • MEDIA LUNCH - The Host City is financially obligated to provide a lunch the day of the Finish, for approximately 150 working media. The lunch should be located at the designated media workroom. The catering agreement and menu should be defined and submitted to the Tour's media operations team two weeks in advance of the Tour. The Host City must assign an individual to be present to monitor food preparation and replenishment throughout the day • TEAM DINNER — The Host City is financially obligated to provide dinner for athlete and team support personnel only (approximately 280 people) the night of the Stage Finish, based upon menu specifications provided by the Tour's Operations Director. The dinner will be located at the Team Hotel (or in close proximity) and the space must be large enough to accommodate forty-one (41) rounds of eight (8) people • STAFF PER DIEM — A dinner per diem of $15 per person should be provided for staff of 410 people • TEAM BREAKFAST — The Host City is financially obligated to provide a breakfast the morning after the Stage Finish for athletes and team support personnel only (approximately 280 people). The Tour's Operations Director will provide a specific menu for the team breakfast. The breakfast will be served at the Team Hotel AUXILIARY SPACES and EQUIPMENT The Host Odes are responsible for providing the following auxiliary spaces within the 24 hours leading up to the Stage Finish. MEDIA WORK ROOM (Rata Day) - Must be in dose proximity to the finish line area (no more than 500 meters from finish line). Requires approximately 2000 square feet Workrooms will need to remain operational until 9:00 PM Below are the elements that the Media Work Room must have: • 150 chairs • Fifty (50) 6' skined tables • Fifteen (15) 110V outlets and power strips for each table • Two (2) high speed copiers which collate and staple. Copiers will be delivered and installed in the media office and should print a minirnurn af 30•S0 pages per minute. Copiers should come with a service agreement that includes on -site maintenance, if necessary A AUXILIARY SPACES and EQUIPMENT (cont). MEDIAWORK ROOM (cont.) • Three dedicated phone lines — 2 telephones and one fax machine • Two (2) T1 lines or capacity to accommodate 150 users, whichever is greater. The Tour will travel with four (4) 32 -port, wireless routers and a booster. Available as much as 24 hours in advance • Sufficient trash and recyclable cans • Screen to project images from computer PRESS CONFERENCEAREA • Requires approximately 1,500 square feet; minimum • 100 chairs arranged theatre style • Three (3) 8 -foot skirted tables for dais on platform • Two - tiered risers for media cameras facing dais • Four(4) 1IOV outlets with power strips "The Tour will provide a mult.bo, microphones and a sound system. "The Tour' media operations team w3I provide a schematic with details regarding the press conference and media work room. T1 UNES — A minimum of a TWO (2) additional Ti Lines established at the finish line near the 1V compound (to be mutually determined). A T1 line can handle a high speed Internet connection speed of 1.544 Mbps (total of 3 Mbps download speed). MEDICAL OFFICE - Suite at the Team Hotel or a meeting room at Team Hotel with a nearby bathroom. COMMISSAIRES MEETING ROOM — Small conference room for approximately 8.10 people; close proximity to finish line. OPERATIONS OFFICE— Suite at the team hotel or alternatively a small conference room for 8 to 10 people. A PARKING REQUIREMENTS The Host City should provide suggested directions to each parking area and assist with providing parking staff day of the Stage Finish. • TEAM PARKING AND MECHANICS WORKAREA — Requires a sizable portion of the Headquarter Hotel parking lot with HIRED ovemigM security. Each team travels with a motor coach, trailer and support vehicle, and additional space is needed for mechanics to work on bikes. Must have access to water and power • TEAM PARKING (FINISH LINE) — Requires a sizable lot (approximately 160 parking spaces) in close proximity to the Finish line, to accommodate team vehicles. Each team travels with a motor coach, trailer and support vehicle • VIP PARKING — Requires parking for approximately 150 vehicles adjacent to the finish line location • FESTIVAL EVENT PARKING — Requires parking within close proximity of the finish area for approximately 150 vehicles for festival vendors • CREW PARKING — Parking must be secured for the construction crews vehicles at the Stage Finish location with hired security • MEDIA PARKING — Parking 150 local and visiting media within close proximity of the press work room /press conference. Additional parking for television trucks to accommodate live shots at the finish line • STAFF EVENT PARKING — Requires parking for approximated 75 vehicles adjacent to the finish line location • CREW SECURITY — Security must be provided for the build crew graveyard shifts and should begin the evening prior to the event to watch over equipment and crews VOLUNTEER PROGRAM A The Host Oty will be responsible for securing and organizing local volunteers for the Tour. Volunteers will assist the Tour and the LOC with coordinating activities on the day of the event Each Host City will have different volunteer requirements, but the total number of volunteers is typically 400 to 500 per Host Gty. If LOC decides that volunteer check-in, for stan or finish, is at a location other than the start or finish line location, then LOC is responsible for its own infrastructure (tents, tables, chairs, generators). The Tour will not provide these items to satellite locations. RECYLING PROGRAM The Quiznos Pro Challenge is committed to producing a green event. As such, Host Cities should provide sufficient means of recycling for all areas of the event. Clearly marked recycling bins should be placed at every trash receptacle to encourage attendees to recycle. Host Cities should provide dumpsters for recyclables only and inform Challenge staff of the location of these dumpsters to ensure proper disposal of recyclables. These dumpsters must be provided within the entire footprint (ie hospitality, start/finish area, Expo, etc.) 13 EXHIBIT B TOUR SPONSORS Protected Categories (Exclusivity) These categories are subject to change over the course of the planning process and could open up for local revenue opportunities. CBR will inform all Host cities regarding any additions /deletions made based on National Sponsorship in a timely manner. • Quick Service Restaurant and Fast Casual • Soft Drink • Auto • Bank • Financial Advisors • Healthcare (not including Hospitals) • Energy Bar • Energy Drink • Alcoholic Beverages • Lasik Surgery • Consumer Electronics • Airline • Telecommunications • Consumer Electronics The following categories will NOT be allowed for inclusion in the 2011 Quiznos Pro Challenge: • Firearms • Pornography • Tobacco B EXHIBIT C [Tour Marks .. roam* pair A daada,uanatTwrMarks Togiq#0s n4.ad'$gn!gaYiami,9liw ' c 0.5014 bitrit$RT4I<eeke4rseawre wmPBmiww4 ilw*Wt4iliet ibliteapect w, Anamam i :uee a[axTaiablei7�x . U'SA if ) Q . C Qu1Znos r 0 CHALLENGE AMERICA'. PRO TOUR C EXHIBIT D Host Marks (To be Inserted) JPWsaved 2/18/1- quanos- hca aspen rev 2 -17 -2011 docx MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events and Marketing THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: August 13, 2010 MEETING DATE: August 16, 2010 RE: Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge RFP REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting the support of Council to proceed with submitting a proposal for Aspen to be a stage start and /or finish on the Inaugural Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge. This proposal is due prior to September 10, 2010. BACKGROUND: As stated in the RFP; Championed by Governor Bill Ritter and Lance Armstrong, legendary road -race cyclist and seven time Tour de France champion, an international pro - cycling competition will be held in Colorado August 22 -28, 2011. The race is expected to become one of the most significant international pro - cycling events worldwide. The event will reinvigorate the legacy of the Colorado -based Coors International Bicycle Classic, which stood as the pre- eminent international pro - cycling event in North America from 1979- 1988. Staff has been meeting and tentatively formulating partnerships /a formal organizing committee to create and submit a proposal nominating Aspen as a host venue. The Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Stay Aspen Snowmass, Aspen Cycling Club, several City departments and the former head of the Aspen portion of the Coors Classic are all working together to formulate the best proposal possible. DISCUSSION: Staff would like to submit a proposal to the Pro Tour Committee (which is the selection committee for the Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge) that outlines why Aspen should be chosen as a host venue. All of the partners listed above will be involved in creating this proposal. The partners have initially broken out into committees based on expertise and tasks to be accomplished to provide the best proposal possible in this short time frame. The committee is aware that in order to be successful in such a short timeframe that we must work together, and to that end, everyone is in complete agreement. This will be a team effort. The committee feels that, if chosen, details regarding what the Tour is asking can be negotiated and determined. Only Page 1 of 2 then can a detailed budget be developed. This budget can be approved jointly by the committee and Council prior to any final commitment to the bike race. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: As of right now, staff does not have a dollar figure to give to Council. As the committee moves forward with the proposal, a preliminary budget will be developed. This preliminary budget will be brought to Council within the next two weeks, prior to submission to the Tour Committee. At this point, Council will have the opportunity to fully review the submission proposal including budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would like Council to approve moving forward with submitting a proposal, prior to the due date of September 10, 2010. Page 2 of 2 Vib MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events THRU: Jeff Woods, Manager, Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Quizno's Pro Challenge — Services Agreement with the Aspen Skiing Company REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that Council approve the attached agreement which designates the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC) as the co -lead organizer for the Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge (QPC) along with City Staff. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On August 16` 2010 Council approved staff submitting an RFP for the Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge. BACKGROUND: Staff feels that by partnering with the Aspen Skiing Company to co -manage this event, we have a winning situation. With the ASC's involvement in World Cup and X Games, they are able to easily parlay those experiences and know -how into helping to manage what is shaping up to be Aspen's largest single day event. Staff feels that by enlisting the help of the ASC, they will also be getting the expertise of all that ASC is involved in, including areas like merchandising, sponsorship sales, and volunteer programs. DISCUSSION: The City and ASC will be known as the Local Organizing Committee on the event. They will be the lead contact for the lodging community, ensuring that all rooms needed for the QPC will be met; they will be the lead contact for the volunteer recruitment, training, scheduling and placement; Community Outreach and Education which helps to promote the QPC within our community; VIP /Hospitality and Expo from operations to fulfilling sponsorship needs and managing the Lifestyle Expo that travels with the event; manage the local merchandise program which will be used as revenue source for the event. A detailed list of the scope of work is found in attachment 2. Page 1 of 2 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The service agreement is for $30,000 which is not within the current special events budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would like Council to agree to the Services Agreement. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve the agreement with the ASC, staff would need to make some major adjustments to internal staffing, which would require an additional staff person to the events department. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: a... _ ,,r__ f a C 'C d MIA li. F i 1 CoL-rAdc % . / • •• S 4L� �_ n r..Il. .. .e. • Rd • t • • Ce ,�yp�. -A /!AIL' .I� b'.C. yr a L1 ,t c..e. , G-ra�L " w .A2 1`Gw_ it• Lu ti.c. i R CA_An /7^ a dC l can / c4 b1/4? ATTACHMENTS: -Y-' C.rp r e- a' 1. Memo dated August 13, 2010 V 2. Services Agreement 3. Scope of Work 4. Resolution *R Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION #/7 (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ASPEN SKIING COMPANY SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING CO- ORGANIZING THE QUIZNO'S PRO BIKE CHALLENGE 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 Aspen Skiing Company regarding co- organizing the Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge, 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, February 28, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Li The City of Aspen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2010 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: AGREEMENT made as of day of February, 2011. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Steve Barwick 130 South Galena Street Total: $30,000 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Professional: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid Aspen Skiing Company until it has been approved by the City P g P y Council of the City of Aspen. c/o John Rigney P. O. Box 1248 City Council Approval: Aspen, CO 81612 Phone: (970)925 -1220 Date. Resolution No.: For the Following Project: Aspen Skiing Company, Co- Organizer in Quizno's Pro Bike Challenge. Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Quiznos Pro Challenge City Participation Agreement Agreement Professional Services Page 0 The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. The parties hereto understand that the City has agreed to be a Host Stage City for the 2011 Quiznos Pro Challenge Tour and in connection therewith has executed an certain agreement with Classic Bicycle Racing, LLC, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter Quiznos Agreement. "). Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Professional's Work shall be consistent with and conform to the terms and conditions of the Quiznos Agreement, including, without limitation, (a) the implementation of the 2011 Planning Manual referenced at Section 4.a of the Quiznos Agreement; (b) the Required Clauses provisions set forth at Section 8 of the Quiznos Agreement; and, (c) all other provisions of the Quiznos Agreement requiring compliance by third party providers of services. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than August 28, 2011. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars and 00 /100 ($30,000.00) in three equal payments as follows: $10,000.00 upon execution of this Agreement, $10,000.00 on June 15, 2011, and $10,000.00 upon completion of the event. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the total of all payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non - Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub - Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors' officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub - contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. The Work 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. Agreement Professional Services Page 1 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self - insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or Agreement Professional Services Page 2 its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self - insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non - owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no Agreement Professional Services Page 3 owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (I) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24 -10 -101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. Agreement Professional Services Page 4 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. 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 services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non - discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term; covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens — CRS 8- 17.5 -101 & 24- 76.5 -101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06 -1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07 -1073) and 06 -1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. Agreement Professional Services Page 5 "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre - employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. Agreement Professional Services Page 6 (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8- 17.5 -102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24- 76.5 -101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24- 76.5 -103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional 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 Professional for the purpose of securing business. Agreement Professional Services Page 7 (b) Professional 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) Professional 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 Professional, 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 Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. Agreement Professional Services Page 8 (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: [Signature] [Signature] By: By: [Name] [Name] Title: City of Aspen, City Manager Title: Vice President, Aspen Skiing Company Date: Date: Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Agreement Professional Services Page 9 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Aspen Skiing Company Scope of Work — 2010 QPC Stage Finish Co -chair for QPC Organizing Committee o Manage bid process with QPC o Create and manage event production timelines o Receive updates from committee heads o Communicate with committee heads regarding progress on timeline o Assist in creating two budgets, an "Aspen Skiing Budget" and a "City of Aspen Budget ", and thereafter managing the Aspen Skiing Budget. The Aspen Skiing Company and the City of Aspen shall both have authority to make expenditures within their individual budgets. Any proposed expenses by the Aspen Skiing Company in a particular line item within the Aspen Skiing Budget that exceeds the budgeted amount, shall require the written approval of the COA prior to encumbering the proposed expense. o The ASC and the COA shall each process invoices through their normal financial systems. No later than October 1, 2011, the COA and ASC shall meet to reconcile their receipts and expenditures. o At least no less than once per month during the term of this agreement, ASC and COA staff members shall meet to share each other's financial statements to include all revenues, expenditures, and budget reports. o Assist in setting financial structure of organizing committee by creating and incorporating a non - profit organization and obtaining IRS §501(c)(3) status to enable the organizing committee to receive tax deductible donations. Prior to the establishment of the 501(c)(3) organization, the Aspen Ski Company shall make arrangements with local 501(c)(30 organizations, to accept tax deductible donations. Such an organization may be reimbursed a reasonable fee for the accounting services that will be required. o Oversee expenses including bids, negotiations with vendors, invoices, payments and budget tracking, per designated areas of budget for ASC. o Recruit, manage and regularly communicate with Organizing Committee members o Collect status updates and compile for communication to QPC o Facilitate Organizing Committee meetings o Organize and attend QPC meetings (local and regional) o Lead organization of the following LOC Committees: Operations, Volunteer, Sponsorship, Education /Community /Outreach, Merchandise, VIP and Expo Agreement Professional Services Page 10 o Lead technical TV Production coordination with QPC o Coordinate integration of any ASC ancillary events into overall QPC event in Aspen (Mountain Bike Race, BBQ) o Maintain Aspen status with race organizers to bid on future event host designation o Negotiate vendor contracts utilizing existing relationships o Leverage ASC assets, inventory and relationships for event execution o Lead event wrap meeting and wrap Operations (Meals, Parking, Auxiliary Space) o Manage organization, budget and fulfillment of meal requirements with support from volunteer Organizing Committee member o Organize parking plan and any infrastructure required for parking area with co -chair and support from parking volunteer o Negotiate and manage use of required space for QPC needs (media space, operations office, etc) with support from volunteer VIP /Hospitality & Expo o Assist with QPC's hospitality area — set -up, operations, etc. o See to all local sponsorship /sponsor needs o Coordinate awards presenters, athlete escorts, local awards, flowers, etc. o Assist with accreditation system (wristbands), including enforcement o Distribute hospitality invitations to respective LOC guests o Assist with all aspects of QPC's lifestyle expo Sponsorship Program o Work with QPC organizers to determine benefits and categories available for fundraising o Maintain constant communication on available categories o Create sponsorship program with support levels and corresponding benefits o Organize local sales effort o Define fundraising committee o Set fundraising targets o Identify other potential sources of revenues o Work with Organizing Committee members to approach potential sources Education & Community Outreach o Assist Tour with promoting and supporting the QPC message and objectives o Coordinate the message of bike safety & helmets with local bike shops and clubs o Assist QPC officials with scheduling appearances, photo ops, etc. o Develop and implement local educational campaign regarding QPC aspects, teams /athletes, etc. o Create and coordinate QPC into school curriculum (i.e. International aspects) o Coordinate participation and attendance of local school system during event Agreement Professional Services Page 11 • Merchandise o Evaluate merchandise opportunity as fundraising mechanism o If viable, designate someone to oversee execution of merchandise production, sales, reporting back thru to us Agreement Professional Services Page 12 v� MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Facilities and Property Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE: February 22, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: City Hall Fire Alarm Upgrade REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff asks for approval of a construction contract with Vision Security of Glenwood Spring in the amount of $47,876.00 to replace the fire alarm system in City Hall. Scope of the project includes the following: Installation of a Silent Knight IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control System by Honeywell. This includes the general building fire alarm as well as the connections to the fire sprinkler system, interface to the clean agent control system in the IT Data Center, and required elevator interface. All fire alarm equipment, raceways and wire, labor, plans, submittals, permitting, and acceptance testing. BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with Ed Van Walraven to resolve problems with the fire alarm and sprinkler system in City Hall since 2008. The current systems have many deficiencies and needs to be upgraded to meet code. It was agreed upon to explore the possibility of adding sprinklers to the first and second floor (currently on the basement and third floor have sprinklers) and upgrade the fire alarm. Repairs have been made to the City Hall Fire • alarm however the technology of the current system is out dated and the system is past the end of its useful life. Parts are not readably available and it is almost impossible to maintain the current system. Upgrades to the fire alarm system in City Hall were requested by Aspen Fire Protection District; triggered by remodels in 2008 to City Hall. The upgrades to the system were agreed upon between the District and the COA pending scope and budget development. Preliminary scope and budget was developed in 2009 and requested and approved in the 2010 AMP. Scope was refined, and approved by the Fire District in 2010 and a RFP was released for the project. RESOLUTION # f (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND VISION SECURITY SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM IN ASPEN CITY HALL 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 Vision Security regarding the installation of a fire alarm system in Aspen City Hall 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, February 28, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk The City of Aspen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2011 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: AGREEMENT made as of day of , in the year . BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: Total: If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Professional: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: For the Following Project: Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Agreement Professional Services Page 0 The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non - Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub - Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors' officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub - contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. 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. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of Agreement Professional Services Page 1 this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self - insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property Loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Agreement Professional Services Page 2 Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self - insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non - owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be Agreement Professional Services Page 3 primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professionals insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24 -10 -101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty /Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. Agreement Professional Services Page 4 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. 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 services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13 -98, pertaining to non - discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens — CRS 8- 17.5 -101 & 24- 76.5 -101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06 -1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07 -1073) and 06 -1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Agreement Professional Services Page 5 "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre - employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: Agreement Professional Services Page 6 (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8- 17.5 -102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24 -76.5 -101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24 -76.5 -103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional 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 Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional 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 Agreement Professional Services Page 7 ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (I) 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 Professional, 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 Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. Agreement Professional Services Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: [Signature] / - [Signature By: BY ,\onno, QC `Fort [Name] [Name] Title: Title: ttt, r Date: Date: a12a1 ]i Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Agreement Professional Services Page 9 Exhibit A Scope of Work Vision Security p. Toll Free: 800.797.0562 Fx: 970.945.4019 M t >> -P.. GWS: 970.963.4043 Vail: 970.476.1438 Breckenridge: 970.547.4631 Proposal for the Installation of a Fire Alarm System In Aspen City Hall Section 2: Fire Alarm System Proposed Vision Security proposes to specify the Silent Knight IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control System by Honeywell. A full description and list of features is included for reference. The Silent Knight IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control System by Honeywell meets the specifications listed in Section 2 of the RFP in the following ways: Silent Knight is an approved equipment line. Silent Knight has been in business for 35+ years and enjoys an excellent reputation. The benefits and advantages of the Silent Knight IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control System by Honeywell are as follows: • The system is non - proprietary. • Parts are readily available. • Service is local. • The system is easily expandable to meet future needs. • The system has built -in digital communication that can be connected to a UL listed digital uplink, eliminating the need for traditional POTS lines which are scheduled to be discontinued within the next 10 years. 3710 HWY 82, SUITE #3, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 www.VisionSecurity.net INTELLIKNIGHT FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL It h SILENT IntelliKnight Model 5820XL KNIGHT Addressable Fire by Honeywell Alarm Control System The IntelliKnight System is the easy way to make the most of fire alarm technology. IntelliKnight 5820XL is the first fire alarm system to provide you with revolutionary value and performance in addressable sensing technology. The 5820XL FACP offers exclusive, built -in digital communication, distributed intelligent power, a modular design and an expanded, easy to use interface. Powerful features such as drift compensation and maintenance alert are delivered in this powerful FACP from Silent Knight. For more Information about the 5820XL system, or to locate your nearest source, please call 800- 328 -0103. Description �1 5820XL is an intelligent addressable fire alarm control panel (FRCP). The basic 5820XL system can be expanded by adding modules such as 5860 t) ' remote annunciator, 5815XL signalling line circuit expander, 5824 serial/parallel printer interface module (for printing system reports), and 5895XL intelligent power module. 5820XL supports Hochiki or SK devices. 5820XL also features a powerful built -in dual line fire communicator that allows for reporting of all system activity to a remote monitoring location. Features • Built in support for 99 SK detectors and 99 SK modules, expandable to 396 SK detectors and 396 SK modules using System Sensor protocol • Built in support for 127 Hochiki devices, expandable to 508 Hochiki devices using Hochiki protocol. � '. I • Uses standard wire —no shielded or twisted pair required • Built -in digital communicator • Central station reporting by point or by zone * • Built -in synchronization for appliances from AMSECO®, Gentex ®, Faraday, System Sensor, and Wheelock® • Flexput" I/O circuits Model 5820XL • Supports Class B (Style 4) and Class A (Style 6) configuration for SLC, SBUS, and Flexput circuits • Distributed, intelligent power Installation • Drift compensation The 5820XL can be surface or flush mounted • 13 pre - programmed output cadences (including ANSI -3.41) and 4 Compatibility programmable outputs • Built -in annunciator with 80- character LCD display The 5820XL SLC supports multiple device types of the same protocol: • RS-485 bus provides communication to system accessories • Built -In RS -232 and USB interface for programming via PC • SK (System Sensor) • Built -in Form C trouble relay rated at 2.5 amps at 27.4 VDC • Hochiki • Improvements In SKSS software deliver five times faster You cannot mix Hochiki and SK devices on a uploads/downloads FACP. • Two built -in Form C programmable relays rated at 2.5 amps at 27.4 VDC • Supports sounder bases • 6 amp power supply and maximum charging capacity of 35 amp hours (An additional cabinet enclosure is required for batteries in excess of 18 amp hours) • Programmable date setting for Daylight Saving Time • Plex -1 door option combines a dead front cabinet door with a clear window, limiting access to the panel while providing single button operation of the reset and silence functions INTELLIKNIGHT FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control Panel Indicator Lights 5820XL features a 6 amp power supply required to start a new system. The General Alarm (Red): Flashes when in and maximum battery charging built -in keypad and 5860 remote alarm; solid when alarm silenced capacity of 35 amp hours. An additional annunciator give on -site access to all cabinet enclosure (PN RBB) is required programming. You can also program Supervisory (Yellow): Flashes when a for batteries in excess of 18 amp hours. remotely using the 5660 Silent Knight supervisory condition exists; solid when Flexput circuits on 5820XL control can Software Suite, which is Windows® - supervisory silenced be individually programmed to function based software. System Troubles (Yellow): Flashes as notification circuits, auxiliary power when a trouble condition exists; solid outputs, or initiation circuits that Built - Digital Communicator when trouble silenced support both 2- and 4 -wire smoke 5820XL features a built-in UL listed detectors. digital communicator for remote System Silenced (Yellow). On when an The 5820XL system operates on non- 9 alarm, trouble or supervisory condition twisted, unshielded cable when wired reporting of system activity and system has been silenced but not yet cleared in compliance with standard wiring programming. The communicator has System Power (Green): Flashes for AC practices as called out in the National the ability to seize two telephone lines to report alarms and troubles to a failure; solid when power systems are Electric Code 760 -51 specifications for monitoring facility. The communicator normal power - limited fire protective signalling supervises two phone lines and will cables. No special wiring is required. activate a trouble signal if a line failure System Application 5820XL provides 13 preset notification i sustained for more than 45 seconds. 5820XL has one built -in signalling line cadence pattems (including ANSI 3.41) Other communication features include: circuit (SLC) which supports multiple and four user programmable selections retry if communication fails, two phone devices dependent on protocol being for fire alarm notification. number capability, download phone used. Three additional loops can be Two programmable general purpose number capability and Touch -Tone or added using the 5815XL SLC Form C relay outputs are provided on rotary dialing. The communicator is expanders to increase overall capacity. 5820XL. compatible with SIA and Ademco Additionally, the IntelliKnight system Contact ID. The format is selectable by The 5820XL SLC loops support features a built -In walk test and auto- account number. multiple device types, including: programming. Its innovative, dead -front • Addressable photoelectric smoke cabinet design allows for flush or ">!!»? ?nxT ° �s:=.• - :T. detector surface mounting. System maintenance - f ( is easy to perform. s� t ;, a • Addressable ionization smoke - l- detector User Interface - t } • Addressable heat sensor The 5820XL built -in annunciator with - �� � • Addressable duct smoke detector 80 character LCD display and large tly �l�! • Contact module easy -to-use tactile touchpad can be i i df 4E ' • Relay output module used for system operation, " II r3't : yf t programming and maintenance. It has for mitt • Addressable notification module five LEDs for alarm, supervisory, ' • Addressable beam detector (SK system trouble, system silenced and protocol only) system power. System operations include silencing alarms and troubles, Approvals • Addressable multi - criteria smoke pp detector (SK protocol only) resetting alarms and the display of NFPA 13, NFPA 15, NFPA 16, alarm troubles and memory. The NFPA 72: Central Station; Remote • Addressable multi modules (SK system's non - volatile event history Signalling; Local Protective Signalling protocol only) buffer stores 1000 events for viewing Systems; Auxiliary Protected Premises from the built -in or remote annunciator. Unit; & Deluge Releasing The following advanced sensor g capabilities are available with 5820XL: System operation can be initiated with Service. Suitable for automatic, a mechanical firefighter's key or a valid manual, walerflow, sprinkler • Automatic drift compensation 4- to 7 -digit operator's code. supervisory (DACT non - coded) • Maintenance alert Programming signalling services. • Built -in sensor test to comply with The IntelliKnight system offers several Other Approvals: UL Listed; NFPA 72 calibration testing options to simplify and speed up CSFM 7170 -0559: 135; requirements programming. The JumpStarto feature MEA 429 -92 -E Vol. VI; FM Approved minimizes programming INTELLIKNIGHT FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control Panel IntelliKnight 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm System ,,..., :€ >.a SK (System Sensor) Protocol Devices elai h ,T r eC (`nmpalbleCS R cmmer II —a s6Z0%L l 8 SK 200 Conxemn Visorelamt hitornet 4 1P Coauimuatc. h . { P� 5886K �w, nt r y$ ' •,` ._-••.. �.-.• »wiv "iawnwvM,mn.'.: ^ ;. 4c'1 1 ,t 5 L■m NCV c. It rF` SS I5XL I • s8U 60 'yy,, e 6 0 w 6a24 r a 1160Firol 4 5815XL i cali . w ou0um 6Fhvpet i _ X Climb ^ be laP,o $ Pi or °Souk 9 _ ' um wear LX' 4 3 I l 1 I ... 1-., i .... lR SK-Ion 6K31onlmr SKi11dO 6KLOnIN1 BIWSfl 614Kw1 SK2ab6 ... -- n�a. PS 1am.m uex.. 6886 .i' d SK. Photo -T SK Contact 5K44eetROR 0224110 822481 8210LP Ir f. '5888 ikt Vo aL41' ( i cw I t � I p A62 • w ays,M SK.OeM SK Mon 10 SK.H8a1 KT SKPPW� SK Duct SK Minima 6WRe1.y4 SKK4so SK.Banm.T W k. 'daunt mt64 wn.wa.. ,ww 58664 x58853 us. the 588010 60111r0 up 10 a 4__. "slam 1 5883 Rely 1ttterlsce Medutes INTELLIKNIGHT FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL IntelliKnight Model 5820XL Addressable Fire Alarm Control Panel Specifications _ S -BUS Accessories Miscellaneous Accessories Electrical 586018 Remote Fire Annunciator 5660 Silent Knight Software Suite Primary AC: Features the same 80 character backlit (SKSS) 120 VRMS at 50/60 Hz, 2.5A or LCD display keypad and firefighter's User- friendly Windows software for 240 VRMS at 50/60 Hz, 1.4A keyswitch as the 5820XL. 5860 is gray remote programming of 5820XLs using Total Accessory Load: 6A @ 27.4 VDC, and 5860R is red. a PC. Upload and view panel account power - limited 5815XL Signal Line Circuit Expander information, event history, and detector The SLC expander is used to add more status. Standby Current: 215 mA addressable devices to the IntelliKnight 5670 Silent Knight Software Suite Alarm Current: 385 mA system. 5820XL supports three (SKSS) Flexput Circuits: 5815XL's. Each 5815XL can support Powerful end -user facility management Six programmable circuits which can be 127 devices. software allows viewing of detector programmed individually as: 5895XL Intelligent Power Module status and event history via modem or Notification circuits: 3A @ 27.4 VDC Adds 6 amps of power, 6 Flexput I/O direct connection. per circuit, power - limited circuits and 2 Form C relay circuits to a Plex -1 Auxiliary power circuits: 3A @ 27.4VDC 5820XL system. Dead front cabinet door with clear per circuit, power - limited 5496 Intelligent Power Module window to limit access to the FACP. Initiation Circuits: 100 mA @ 27.4VDC A 6 amp notification power expander RBB per circuit, power limited that provides four power - limited notifi- Remote battery box accessory cabinet. cation appliance circuit outputs. Use if backup batteries are too large to Physical 5880 LED/I0 Module fit into FACP cabinet. Dimensions: Flush Mount Dimensions: Features 40 LED outputs. 8 normally i6" W x 10" H x 6" D 14.5 "W x 24.75 "H x 3.9 "D open dry contact inputs, and one piezo (406 mm W x 254 mm H x 152 mm D) (36.8 W x 62.9 H x 9.8 D cm) output. SD505 -DTS -K 5865 -3 and 5865-4 Remote lest switch. Used with Overall Dimensions: Remote LED Annunciator SD505- DUCTR. Provides remote key 16.2 °W x 26.4 "H x 4.2 "D Features 30 programmable LED (15 operated test function and annunciation (40.6 W x 67 H x 11.8 D cm) red and 15 yellow) outputs, and a piezo of detector alarm. sounder, The 58654 adds a silence Hochiki and SK Devices Weight: 28 lbs. (12.8 kg) and reset switch to the package. See the specification sheets listed 5883 Relay Board below for a complete listing of the Color: Red Features 10 general purpose Form C Hochiki and SK devices. relays. Used with 5880 module. 53624 Hochiki Devices Data Sheet Battery Charging Capacity: 7.0.35 AH 5824 Serial /Parallel Printer 53623 SK Device Protocol Devices Interface Module Specification Sheet Battery Size: 18 AR max allowed in Provides one parallel and one RS -232 control panel cabinet. Larger capacity serial port for connecting a printer to batteries can be housed in RBB the 5820XL. Use to print a real -time log accessory cabinet. of system events, detector status reports, and event history. Interfaces Telephone Requirements: with building control system. FCC Part 15 and Part 68 approved Type of Jack: RJ31X (two required) SILENT This document Is not intended to be used for installation purposes. We try to keep our product Made in America ith K NIGHT information up-to -date and accurate. We cannot cover all specific applications or anticipate all wil requirements. All specifications are subject to change without notice. For more Information, contact Silent Knight 12 Clintonville Road, Northford, CT 08472 Phone: (203) 484 -7161. PN 350210 Rev G by Honeywell Fax: (203) 484 -7118. wvw.siieniknight.com. 02010 Honeywell International Inc. IntelliKnight & Jumpstart are Registered Trademarks of Silent Knight Flexput Is a Trademark of Silent Knight VISION SECURITY Proposal - Silent Knight Equipment List PREPARED BY:, .,_r,fetin'i£ek; e , , Dater,Aat ..'.+e: 'Suarg2;"l,"Z CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: PREMISE INFORMATION: COMPANY NAME: 7T- R � ASPEN I7 ` k PREMISE NAME: ew' 4.fet + - -. t ' ADDRESS: L4f a ' ° g 4Stree : 5 .. ADDRESS: i q itrfc CITY: 9 . 4 as i , ' +1a ak ZIP CODE j k Ct "' ($461,1 ZIP CODE: t ip,, ' OFFICE NUMBER lifelAtija CONTACT NAME:s „ mss,.,; „ ..' i y ONTACT NUMBER: a E-mail ADDRESS: e '-10" SELECT EQUIPMENT TYPE START DATE a a.w 1Q1Ac k gn xtiata1SGr ,..:,_,,. `' SHIP DATE: ia:4e SNIP. *i n�.a,,,EZ *- TOTAL: $47,876.00 QTY DESCRIPTION PART NUMBER 1 5820 XL CONTROL PANEL 5820XL 1 5496 NAC EXTENDER 5496XL 1 LCD ANNUNCIATOR RED 5860Rt 1 LCD ANNUNCIATOR RED TRIM RING 5860TR 4 BACKUP BATTERY 12V 18 AH POW PS 12180 F1 72 PHOTO SMOKE DET. ADDRESSABLE SD505 -APS 1 HEAT SENSOR ADDRESSABLE SD505 -AHS 73 BASE 6' SMOKE / HEAT SD505 -6AB 10 PULL STATION - ADDRESSABLE SD500 -PS 1 WATERFLOW CONNECTION MFG. 5 TAMPER CONNECTION MFG. 2 LOW TEMP MFG. 14 MIM - MINI INPUT MODULE SD500 -MIM 9 ARM - ADDRESSABLE RELAY MODULE SD500 -ARM 1 HORN / STROBE 110 CD, 2 WIRE, WP SS P2RK 15 STROBE 75 CD, 2 WIRE SS SR 20 HORN / STROBE 30 CD, 2 WIRE SS P2R 5 DOOR HOLDER MFG. 1 SPRINKLER ACCEPTANCE TEST 1 ELEVATOR ACCEPTANCE 1 PERMIT Proposal - page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule Thank you for allowing Vision Security Systems the opportunity of providing you with a cost proposal for the above referenced project. Please review the items we have included in our scope of work. Vision will supply all necessary insurance documents as required. AIA documents accepted. PLEASE SEE THE INCLUDED PROPOSAL FOR A LIST OF EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT Your Fire Alarm Design includes: Turnkey proposal includes all material & labor except as noted. Certified NICET IV design, permitting, acceptance testing, training. PER PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS General Notes: - Proposal is contingent on Fire Marshal approval. BY OTHERS: Required (2) telephone lines to fire panel. Required 120 VAC to alarm equipment panel(s). EXCLUSIONS • Devices not listed on the Equipment List. ASBESTOS MITIGATION Total cost for your system: __ $47,876.00 Central Station Monitoring Service per month. DECLINED ..... Annual Inspection & Maint Service per month: DECLINED Total Contracted Price: ,_. $47,876.00 Federal, State and Local taxes not included Vkt MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Pendarvis, Facilities and Property Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE: February 23, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: City Hall Fire Suppression System Upgrade REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff asks for approval of a construction contract with Western States Fire Protection Co. of Glenwood Spring in the amount of $90,410.00 to upgrade the fire suppression system (fire sprinkler) in City Hall. Scope of the project includes the following: Installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system to meet local code. Add new control valve with drains and inspectors for the new first and second floor systems and the existing third floor and attic system. All existing heads that are not quick response will be replaced with quick response heads. Installation of a Sapphire clean agent system. BACKGROUND: Staff has been working with Ed Van Walraven to resolve problems with the fire alarm and sprinkler system in City Hall since 2008. The current systems have many deficiencies and needs to be upgraded to meet code. Currently only the basement and top floor of City Hall has fire sprinklers; the first and second floors do not. It was agreed upon to explore the possibility of adding sprinklers to the first and second floor (currently on the basement and third floor have sprinklers) and upgrade the fire alarm. Upgrades to the fire sprinkler system in City Hall were requested by Aspen Fire Protection District; triggered by remodels in 2008 to City Hall. The upgrades to the system were agreed upon between the District and the COA pending scope and budget development. Preliminary scope and budget was developed in 2009 and requested and approved in the 2010 AMP. Scope was refined, and approved by the Fire District in 2010 and a RFP was released for the project. DISCUSSION: Ed Van Walraven of the Aspen Fire Protection District has reviewed the project and approves of the plan. This is a life safety issue and the COA has made assurances to the Fire District to follow through with the project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This expense was included in the 2010 AMP budget and will be requested to be carried forward to 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Sti rerS Council a roves the contract with Western States for $90,410.00 to complete�'1•eplace the fire, in ^ sl C y Hall. ALTERNATIVE: If request is denied; staff will discuss alternatives with the Aspen Fire Protection district. a PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. I ` , Series of 2011 ". CITY MANAGER COMMENT • RESOLUTION # 19 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING INSTALLATION OF A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM IN ASPEN CITY HALL 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 Western States Fire Protection Company regarding installation of a fire suppression system in Aspen City Hall 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, February 28, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk The City deepen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: 2010 -081. AGREEMENT made as of 28` day of February, in the year 2011. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Capital Asset Management 130 South Galena Street Total: $90,410.00 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Professional: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid Western States Fire Protection Company until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. c/o Todd Lindholm 7026 Tuscon Way City Council Approval: Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: 303-792-0022 Date: Resolution No.: For the Following Project: Installation of a new fire suppression system in Aspen City Hall Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Fee Schedule. Agreement Professional Services Page 0 The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than April 30. 2011. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non - Assignabilitv. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub - Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors' officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub - contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. 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. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be eamed after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement Professional Services Page 1 Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self - insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional Agreement Professional Services Page 2 shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self - insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non - owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or Agreement Professional Services Page 3 provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24 -10 -101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. Agreement Professional Services Page 4 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. 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 services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13 -98, pertaining to non - discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens — CRS 8- 17.5 -101 & 24- 76.5 -101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06 -1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07 -1073) and 06 -1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Agreement Professional Services Page 5 "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: Agreement Professional Services Page 6 (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8- 17.5 -102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24- 76.5 -101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24- 76.5 -103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional 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 Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional 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 Agreement Professional Services Page 7 ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional 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 Professional, 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 Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. Agreement Professional Services Page 8 IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date fast written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESS ONAL• U 57&d ‘51 TeC m€ /% t [Signature] gnome] By: :y: - re . CDA [Name] [Name] Title: Title: A2(o} AAA AIAGea- Date: Date: 2/ ) Co (I Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Agreement Professional Services Page 9 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work General: All work to be performed after normal working hours- the cost for our labor is higher waking after nomtal hours but the extra cost of working around employees and the public (not to mention the safety factor) would add many hours to the project. The price to do it during the day would be higher. We do not include taxes or permit / plan review fees. We include labor, material, design, testing, and commissioning per project specifications. 2 inspections in the first year are included. Staff training on system operation and maintenance. _ 0 J Automatic Fire Sprinkler System: Install an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system to meet local code. Woric to begin at the existing system. Add new control valve with drains and inspectors for the new first and second floor systems and the existing third floor and attic system. Pipe to be concealed where possible and exposed in hard ceilings. All existing heads that are not quick response will be replaced with quick response heads. The price for the interstitial spaces cannot be determined uatil test holes are made in several areas. The price for each interstitial head needed will be $150.00, not included in the above pricing. Sprinklers =155° reliable semi - recesses in finished ceilings, brass uprights in unfinished areas. Dry sidewall type sprinklers for exterior overhangs. Sapphire System: Sapphire clean agent system per contract documents. 62 Ibs of clean agent. Suppression panel, detection, manual releases, abaft stations, audible and visual devices inside the protected area and outside the area at each entrance, signage, system wiring and control wiring. Installation, testing, design, materials and commissioning. Owner training. General Exclusions: The work listed below shall be provided by others, per specifications: A. 120 VAC or 220 VAC power supply to the system control panel B. Interlock wiring and conduit for shutdown of HVAC, dampers and/or electric power supplies, relays or shunt trip breakers (We provide dry contacts at our release panel for others to tie into.) C. Wiring and programming of the train panel from the suppression system control panel. 11 Abatement of hazardous materials. E Sealing and securing the protected spaces against agent loss and/or leakage during the 10- minute "hold" period. F. Reserve tank (we include 1 tank with 62 lbs of agent) G. Painting of any kind, Patching of Tat Holes, Custom Cover Plates IL Upgrades to existing system equipment found defective during construction, except as specifically identified in the contract documents. Agreement Professional Services Page 10 EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule Our total price for providing automatic fire sprinkler system upgrades and a sapphire clean agent system for the above project, per documents prepared for this proposal is $90,410.00. 9.1 Aspen City Hall Fire Suppression System Specifications 92 Aspen City Hall Sapphire Design 9.3 Aspen City Hall Floor Layout/Plan APPENDIX A: Instruction to Offerors of Professional Services APPENDIX B: Standard City Contract for Profession Services and Procurement Pricing Breakdown: Performance Bond (Not Included in Total Cost of Total Cost of System Labor Portion Other Costs System) Automatic Sprinkler System $ 74,510.00 $ 66,810.00 $ 17,700.00 $ 669.00 Sapphire Clean Agent System $ 15,900.00 $ 6,760.00 $ 9,140.00 $ 119.00 Total...: $ 90,410.00 $ 63,670.00 $ 26,840.00 $ 678.00 Pricing for the interstitial spaces cannot be determined until test holes are made in several areas. The price for the heads will be $150 each and is not included in the above pricing. Agreement Professional Services Page 11 via MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: February 16, 2011 RE: Resolution f(�Q2011 Establishing Procedures for the Publication of Ordinances REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council adopt Resolution # 2011 Establishing Procedures for the Publication of Ordinances DISCUSSION: In November 2010, the electorate voted on a Charter Amendment Shall Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2010, be adopted? This ordinance proposes to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter by adding the following subsection to section 4.10: (h) Whenever an ordinance is required to be published in full or by title pursuant to this Article IV of the Aspen Home Rule Charter, it may be made by posting the same on the City's internet website, www.aspenpitkin.com, or successor website. Said publication shall be made available for viewing by the public for a minimum of 30 days. This amendment passed 1625 to 878. At the August 9, 2010, Council meeting, Bob Nix said he would support the Charter Amendment if Council would adopt an ordinance about publication procedures. The city's legal staff felt a resolution was more appropriate. At that meeting, Councilman Johnson requested it be made clear if a citizen did not have internet, they could obtain a copy of the ordinance in another manner. The last sentence of the legal notice does that. At the beginning of 2011, the city clerk's office set up a "legal notice" section of their page which contains a link to the ordinance, the public hearing date, and the effective date. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Not publishing ordinances in full will save the city at least $10,000 /year, the costs are dependent on how many and how complicated ordinances were being published. There are still publishing costs for this small notice, for development orders, for liquor license hearings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution ALTERNATIVES: If Council prefers an ordinance, they may direct staff to re -write this as an ordinance. PROPOSED MOTION: If Council adopts the consent calendar, they are approving Resolution # »011 — Establishing Procedures for the publication of ordinances. RESOLUTION # (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR THE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES. WHEREAS, Ordinance #19, Series of 2010, was approved by the voters in November 2010, which ordinance amends Section 4.10(h) of the Charter of the City of Aspen to allow ordinances to be published in full or by title by posting to the city's internet website; and, WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish procedures for such posting of ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 1. Before City Council causes the first reading of any proposed ordinance, the City Clerk shall post the entire proposed ordinance on the City of Aspen's internet web site in a section entitled "Legal Notices." The notice shall provide a short summary of the ordinance and indicate the date(s) of any scheduled public hearings and the date scheduled for second reading of the proposed ordinance. The notice shall be in substantially the form indicated below: LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE #X, 2011, PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance #X, Series of 2011, was adopted on first reading by the Aspen City Council at its meeting on [date]. This ordinance, if adopted, will [provide short summary of proposed ordinance] The public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for [datel , at 5 PM, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena. To review the entire text of the proposed ordinance, go to the city's legal notice website http:// www. aspenpitkin .com/Departments /Clerk/Legal- Notices/ If you would like a copy FAXed or e- mailed to you, call the City Clerk's office, 429 -2686. 2. Following the adoption of all ordinances, the City Clerk shall cause to be posted on the City's internet website the entire ordinance as adopted by the City Council and shall indicate the effective date of the ordinance. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 day February 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk V1 4s MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: February 16, 2011 RE: Spring Jam Core Party SUMMARY: Aspen Skiing Company has requested a special event permit for the Spring Jam Core Party for a Concert on the Cooper and Galena mall, Friday, March 18 - 8 to 11 p.m. This will be the eighth year of a Spring Jam Core Party in that location. The special event committee reviewed this application and recommends approval. The approvals requested from Council are: • approve or disapprove the request for noise to 11 p.m., which is beyond allowed time of 9 p.m. • the request to close Cooper and Galena at 4 p.m. DISCUSSION: The applicants delivered letters to every business and residence fronting each venue. The letter for the Spring Jam concert is attached as it thoroughly outlines the event and related requests. The street closures will be the same as last year. Cooper and Galena streets will not be closed until 4 p.m. The first year the streets were closed for the entire day. There were requests from merchants asking the city not to approve street closures for the entire day. Staff and the applicants worked out a plan that allows the parking on Galena and Cooper Avenue to be left open until 4 p.m. on the 18 The Aspen Skiing Company will be responsible for signing the two blocks with fluorescent signs alerting people that the streets will be closed after 4 p.m. The Skiing Company will have volunteers circulating and letting people know they must move their car by 4 p.m. The Skiing Company will work with the parking and police departments to try and locate owners of any cars left in the venue. There will be no tows unless a vehicle is left in front of the stage area. This approach has worked well in the past 5 years. Section 18.04.050(a)(3) allowed noises states (3) Special Events or other events to which the public is invited with the following conditions: (a) The maximum decibel level at the perimeter of the event does not exceed 100 decibels; and (b) Amplified noise shall be created only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; and (c) Neighbors within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the site of the proposed sound source are notified. Such notification must be in writing and be done seven (7) days prior to the starting time of the event; and (d) The arrangement of loud speakers or the sound instruments must be such that it minimizes the disturbance to others resulting from the position or orientation of the speakers or from atmospherically or geographically caused dispersal of sound beyond the property lines. This event is open to the public and is free. The Special Event Committee reviewed the noise variance request and recommends Council approve. C. J. Oliver, environmental health department, requested a definitive schedule on sound checks. Council has final review authority on proposed concert because of the proposed hours until 11 p.m. and that it is located in the middle of the commercial core. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There may be some overtime costs to both the police department and the parking department. The parking department will charge for parking spaces used by this event. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council support this event. The venue has worked in the past; it is open to the public. It is during Spring Jam and meets the Ski Company's goal of adding value to the guest's experience and focuses on Aspen, the world's premier resort community. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative is not to approve the concert. The Skiing Company states they "hope to continue creating exceptional spectator venues which establish Aspen/Snowmass as a cutting edge leader in resort activities ". We did not discuss alternative locations. PROPOSED MOTION: If Council adopts the consent calendar, they are approving the Core Party Saturday March 18 from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. located at Cooper and Galena and also to allow Cooper and Galena to be closed after 4 p.m. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: c e .t.�ntr' c.<.Q e i/ry c Attachments: 1. Letter to adjacent properties re: Spring Jam concert 2. Map of Spring Jam concert venue BUDL 5pfrag , J Core Party featuring Broken Social Scene — Friday March lg`" 12 Annual Kick Aspen Big Air — Saturday March 19th Hi -Fi Concert featuring TBD — Friday March 25 This year's Spring Jam is full of events that will make the Aspen experience a memorable one for all that are visiting town and for locals that have come to expect exceptional events from Aspen/Snowmass. The Core Party is scheduled for Friday, March 18, on the corner of Cooper and Galena streets where a sound system will be running (8:00 pm —11 pm: please see attached layout on reverse side). Parking and streets will remain open until 4 pm on March 18, with the exception of 10 spots requested for event use from 8 am Friday, March 18 until Noon on Saturday, March 19. The public will be encouraged to continue with "business as usual" until 4 pm when the streets /parking is closed. There may also be announcements earlier and a sound check will be conducted from 5:30 — 6:30. A teardown of the venue will happen that evening from l 1pm — 12:30am. We will make best efforts to work with surrounding homeowners and lodges to keep loud noise to a minimum. The Core Party venue is located on City of Aspen property, which required a special permit. ASC representatives will appear before the special events permit committee for permission to host the event and before the City for the noise variance until 1 1pm and the necessary street closures. If you have any concerns regarding plans in the venue please contact either Kathryn Koch with the City of Aspen at 970 -429 -2685 or Event Manager Deric Gunshor at 970 - 300 -7036 and we will be happy to address your questions. KickAspen Big Air is scheduled to take place on the Little Nell run just west of the Gondola building from 8:00 p.m. — 9:30 p.m. on March 19. The event will be held under the lights and will feature top regional skiers and snowboarders as well as local Aspen /Snowmass team riders competing for a $7,000 prize purse. There will be a DJ and announcer on the PA system from 6:00 p.m. — 9:30 p.m. Lighting will be on -hill to light the venue and access areas for the athletes and spectators as well as sponsor displays, tents and vehicles in the upper and lower Gondola Plazas. ASC will conduct a light test on -hill between 8pm and lOpm on Friday, March 18. If you have any concerns regarding plans in the venue please contact the event manager, Justin Erickson at 970 - 300 -7031. The Hi -Fi Concert featuring TBD will be held on Friday, March 25, from 7:30 -10:00 pm at the base of Aspen Mountain. A small stage will be placed on the west side of the upper Gondola Plaza (the side with the Little Nell chair lift). The stage will play south up the ski slope. The stage will be placed in position on March 24 after 5:00 pm. The stage will be removed from the hill after the event on the night of March 25. The venue for the crowd will be confined to the upper gondola plaza and the lower slope of the Little Nell Run. For any additional questions please contact Deric Gunshor at 970 - 300 -7036. The impact of our events on the homeowners, businesses and guests of Aspen are very important to us. A key component of hosting these events is to increase the experience for our guests, appeal to the local community and to bring additional business to downtown Aspen. Please feel free to contact us at 970- 300 -7036 with any concerns or questions leading up to this year's event. For more information on these and other Aspen Skiing Company events go to www.aspensnowmass.com. Thank you for your continued support, Event Marketing Department Aspen Skiing Company il : 1_ L ' i 1 1 - , -. 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 J 1 1 __.1 i i H. • • • 4 , M , � gym• • Galena St, Mir; *: r. . 110 f' Ff * 0 r a ' vi re / 1 -- 1 f 1 e' 7 - !ll __/// i .1 g 1 B. I ip if i 1-1 11 1 i n i L • * i 1 • 1 m 1 S i ••0•40. i„,,;„,. a t„ 1 (.,,,,, .1, .=... g . _1 lig]. !, $ .,'• , _ ., ,,.; e 1 g _ .rii Al. g I 1 .7. i l thth ,1 J. i :g e I I I c *. �. vi MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director( FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 220 and 230 E. Main Street, The Cortina Lodge- Historic Marker Funding, Council Contingency Fund DATE: February 28, 2011 SUMMARY: On January 10, 2011, City Council approved Ordinance #25, Series of 2010, making The Cortina Lodge an Aspen landmark. During comments Councilmen Torre and Dwayne Romero suggested that Council should consider funding a historic marker for the building out of Contingency Funds. This may be appropriate given the fact that designation was voluntary and coincided with the launch of the AspenModern ordinance, plus The Cortina Lodge is prominently located in the Main Street Historic District and it has recently been successfully remodeled. The City has funded the cost of numerous « historic markers in the past. In recent years, ' Community Development has worked with a ' , e Utah based firm called Interpretive Graphics. 3 They create an etched metal sign that is durable and can include photos or logos, as seen at right. The estimated cost for a marker that could include a logo, but no photographs, is $330. A marker with a photo is $385. Staff has not yet located a historic photograph of The Cortina Lodge, but requests Council funding not to exceed $400, to allow the possibility of providing an illustration of the building. Staff anticipates that the marker will be installed by the property owner, who has agreed to place it at the street level of the two story building. Staff will review the text with the owner. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to allocate up to $400 to create a historic marker for The Cortina Lodge." CITY MA GER COMMENTS: n n- .. '--? Q-4 CAAA ecrAdi 11 Exhibits: A. Council Minutes, January 10, 2011 B. Interpretive Graphics estimate 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 Mayor Ireland said most of the bed base that has been lost has been in the moderate income sectors. Mayor Ireland suggested staff look at a preference for locally serving businesses in the growth management sector. Mayor Ireland said there should a limit or accountability for affordable housing to measure the growth impacts of affordable housing. Councilman Romero asked if the staff has ever considered breaking the lodge allotments into separate categories. Ms. Garrow noted the growth management code is written so that if you have smaller lodge rooms, you get a break on your housing mitigation. Mayor Ireland said it takes less staff to run lodges with smaller rooms, which makes that a natural consequence. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2010 — Cortina Lodge Historic Designation Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council this is a voluntary landmark designation for the Cortina Lodge at 220/230 East Main street. Ms. Guthrie reminded Council when the PUD amendments were given to the Hotel Jerome, one of the conditions of approval was submittal for consideration a historic designation for the Cortina. Ms. Guthrie told Council this was built in 1950 as 2 one -story kit log cabins and added on to in the 1960's. Ms. Guthrie said staff finds this building very representative of construction common in the 1960's and of the chalet style. Ms. Guthrie said staff and HPC find that the criteria for designation have been met. The building is under renovation to upgrade. Julie Maple, representing the applicant, told Council the plastic should be off the project next week. Ms. Maple said there will be 20 pillows for Hotel Jerome employees Councilman Johnson noted this structure only scored 76 points and 75 is the minimum threshold and asked if there is anything left to preserve. Ms. Guthrie said the building has been deteriorating; the integrity is there and there have been little changes to the one -story building. Councilman Torre asked if there will be a plaque on the front of this building once the historic designation is complete. Ms. Guthrie said this is a prime place for a marker; however, there is no money for that in the community development budget. Councilman Romero suggested funding that out of the Council's contingency account. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Bill Wiener said he supports designation. The criteria for this building is community character and proves that should be an element in the new historic ordinance, that buildings need to preserve that protect the character of this community. Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing. 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2011 Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2010, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Skadron. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Romero, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2010 — Code Amendment Historic Modern Amy Guthrie, community development department, pointed out the changes focus on 3 areas. The first is an Aspen Modem map. The second is a certificate drafted by the city attorney's office and to what extent the Council can be bound by this certificate. This certificate commits that Council wishes to leave the program unchanged for a certain period of time. The third relates to designation of city -owned property. The task force recommended the city set an example by designating properties owned by the city. The language has been amended to state that the city manager will initiate those designations after consulting with the tenants of the buildings. The city manager has requested that the pedestrian malls not be designated. Ms. Guthrie noted Mike Maple has raised questions about tracking TDRs and right now staff is only aware of when a TDR is created and when it is sold. Ms. Guthrie told Council some language has been added to the ordinance about tracking TDRs. Ms. Guthrie pointed out the city attorney's office provided a draft of the letter to the homeowners, which says the assurance will be in place for 10 years from the date of signing, which means this can be in place longer than 10 years. Ms. Guthrie said that was not the original intent, but it has been written that way. Mayor Ireland asked about having TDR sales recorded, which seems like a simple mechanism and has a chain of title showing ownership. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council the TDR program was not set up that way; however, most property owners would want to record a transaction as a security. Mayor Ireland said it would be easy to amend the ordinance stating any person wanting to use a TDR must show their chain of title. Councilman Romero said there seems a fundamental benefit to a property owner who has a TDR. Councilman Romero said he is most interested in strengthening the assurance certificate to the allowable legal limits. Councilman Romero asked the difference between a certificate of assurance and a TDR. Bendon said eliminating the TDRs would be seen as a takings as one owns a specific piece of property. Mayor Ireland noted the biggest danger to TDRs is if the Council deregulates them and lets people build whatever they want. Councilman Johnson said he supports having TDRs recorded. Bendon said he does not want to get into "who owns what" issue. Bendon said he could amend the TDR section of the code to add that they shall be recorded in Pitkin County and reported to the City of Aspen. Mayor Ireland said he does not think property owners should be required to report these to the City. If the city wants to know, they can look in the records of the county clerk. 8 INTERPRETIVE D OTE SIGNS 85YSTEMS SOLUTIONS THAT WORK To: Amy Guthrie / City of Aspen From: John Peters Date: February 17, 2011 Subject: Quote for Novalloy Signs Quote No: O2172O11ASPEN Thank you for asking us to provide you with a quote. The prices and specifications follow. Based on your request to provide layout, fabrication, and shipment of 8 "x10 "x3/8" thick, two -color Novalloy signs with square corners, beveled edges, blind taps, and no half tones, the cost is $329.70 each. If photos are required, the cost is $384.74 each. The above cost is based on sign texts and images being provided to Interpretive Graphics. Estimated packaging and shipping is also included in the above cost. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. We are anxious to work on this project with you. Sincerely, / / / / / / /s / / / / /// John Peters Please sign as your authorization to produce: Date: / / 3590 SUMMERHILL DRIVE SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121 801/942-5812 FAX 801/943 -6008 MEMORANDUM Vita. TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 1 . A Ifv\ FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 2nd Amended Plat, Anderson Subdivision - Subdivision Amendment — First Reading of Ordinance 10, Series 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: reconfiguration of the shape and size of the lots City of Aspen (Lot 1) within the subdivision. Orr Family Partnership (Lot 2) REPRESENTATIVE: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special projects Manager (Lot 1) Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services (Lot 2) LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Anderson Subdivision, -"° commonly known as Anderson Park CURRENT ZONING & USE oit - - 0 .: -- - , 00. 'µ ., � . yn, Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone _ district, with a Planned Unit Figure 1: Photo of Lot 2 Development (PUD) Overlay. Currently Lot 1 contains Anderson Park with a ,4� i L; � , - - oa ? All cabin and outbuildings while lot 2 is '"`'Q � i.i. ,05,, r - : � l',, undeveloped but approved for a single - ,. i;r '_ - ft, family residence. , ° ' x- - 3" v o a "' , ' w 3,2 ■Y" g 3. 1 . � 1 10261. f /' W az -- - 111 1 f. PROPOSED LAND USE: The current subdivision is approved for a Z` > , " , p , , total of two lots. No changes to the uses` . .,r � ! ' are proposed; only relocation of lot 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: --* `' C Approval with 05, , r r . l'Ar , ., 105 88414 ti SUMMARY: i tt ' ` k ' 4 The Applicant requests a subdivision . iii' 4 a amendment to relocate and reconfigure . r -_ ' `4 the existing Lot 2 resulting in an overall Figure 2: Vicinity Map LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval to redevelop the site: • Subdivision Amendment for a change to an approved plat that is consistent with the approved plat (same number of lots) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposal). PROJECT SUMMARY: In 1979, the Anderson Subdivision was approved by City Council. The approval allowed for the creation of two lots (Lots 1 and 2), from a parent parcel of 60,585 square feet. That same year Lot 2 was sold to the Orr family, subsequently Lot 1 was sold to the City in 1999. A plat amendment was recorded in 1996 to slightly reconfigure Lot 1 and establish an utility easement. Figure 3: First Amended Plat (1996) 00 .'• / ' ' "a•,.. a p, - .0 .. " -Aum Lau. / / I , a _ ewe yer�y ji 1 . I ' / t, 1 :14. .. .1 i 9A. . 14, 1 / . e: . � tt 3j-s¢r7 ' ./ 1 0004 � A � j i f j J J +.�'�'j _ / ? i > de, - 4 4 f ;Ts z '''.-2A---; -. — / f' ' i I / / e <44 / .1 , .. ___. . I: l / I .1 , 4 (�// � // /�f ,� LOT P O i I , �.. e�Ye. M. ,, . h40 1e, f F - / k r WMCY 'P� / 1 . 'i '* --- Reap *Nw p,?tI ItY -, trAelre4sse= ' ' u; tti .WC ,� / as gym Lot 1 is currently 54,493 sq. ft. and is used as a park containing a cabin and outbuildings. Lot 2 is located in the southeast corner of the subdivision, contains 6,092 sq. ft. and is permitted to be developed with a single family residence. Page 2 of 5 The Parks Department has been in an ongoing master planning effort for the park and has also been in negotiations with the Orr family with regard to the master planning process. Specifically, the two parties have been negotiating the reconfiguration of Lot 2 "in a manner that both parties' objectives could be met." In evaluating the site the Parks Department has ascertained that Lot 2 is located partly in an area of the subdivision that was identified as useable land due to the site's topography. A series of meetings have been held between both parties and the Open Space Board has been involved. The proposed lot reconfiguration before City Council moves the lot to the northeast portion of the subdivision, closer to Highway 82 /Cooper Avenue, away from the useable land. The Applicant is requesting approval to amend the plat in order to reconfigure the two lots (Exhibit A). Specifically, the Applicant would like to reconfigure the dimensions and location of Lot 2 while maintaining the existing lot size of 6,092 sq. ft.. Only a single family residence is permitted to be developed on the lot. However, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allocated for Lot 2 would be adjusted. Figure 4: Proposed Lot 2 C °der de, e �,�, - r� °ram az, ° tcz w �� _ - _ �a`e 4 -rnv MyUrcnr :b / f 7y� ; Found, / 5 @a. koy o i 4' ., L 2� .Pfe9@ra , ,1 Q tic L sa i. +/ 0 / ! 014 AG +/- Borr�erf ` Lot 1 ..s 6i j! vow & B ' f o - Ta1a Sox ,( , Eh c. ,vr.r li W N 0 $ I h 0, S , sr, a ,_ / ; V ) 2 ' Nu &ore & A+ a cb N i i.,, ? e -- l _. ic1�.s0 Pow IS ratio and t +, Sa ra ad pin rre n„ y 4 s i Former Lot 2 r 4002 Sok Ft. +/- . �. 014 AG +/- 6• W p i� N j 4,5¢' D t 2 r 1 `�9y 6 .'7 Foun P./ Noe and 2 ' 0 ' 2 Maher L.S 25947 u � ti E d' } tv ! k1 0 �i4,5. Sly' of Agoan • p ry :' 0 tibd'ytSt�n N«18°oia� n enr • ofe S Proposed Lot 2's topography includes: steep slopes along the proposed western boundary and the site is somewhat mounded and raised above both Highway 82 /Cooper Avenue and Riverside Page 3 of 5 ) Drive. The following table compares the existing and proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Medium - Density Residential (R -6) zone district for Lot 2 with regard to lot size and allowable floor area. A p r Al - gr 40 0,' - dogi _ ' • ` r Figure 5: Western edge proposed Lot 2 Figure 6: Southeastern edge proposed Lot 2 Table 1: Dimensional Requirements with regard to lot size and Allowable Floor Area Dimensional Requirement Underlying Zone Existing Proposed District Requirements Lot 1 Lot 1 (SFR) (SFR) Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 6,092 sq. ft. 6,092 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 60 feet >65 feet >108 feet Lot Area adjusted for slope 3572.5 sq. ft. 3,253 sq. ft. reduction Allowable Floor Area 2,560.3 sq. ft. 2,470.84 sq. ft. STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval for a proposed amendment to a subdivision plat that is consistent with the approved plat. This is considered a subdivision amendment in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.080, Amendment to subdivision development order. The Orr family and the Parks Department have been working together to develop a reconfigured Lot 2 that meets the goals of both parties. The Open Space Board has reviewed the proposal and supports it. The allowable density on Lot 2 remains the same and the allowable floor area is less than what can currently be built on the existing Lot 2. As this reconfiguration of the subdivision constitutes a land trade of publicly owned land, the subdivision amendment requires an approval by the voters of Aspen as required by the city charter. At second hearing on March 28 staff will introduce ballot language for the May election; however the draft language is included as Exhibit B for Council's review. Any approval Page 4 of 5 o the 'lat amendment will be conditioned on a success I ballot measure as noted in the dra ordinance. Additionally, the application notes that the newly proposed Lot 2 "is mounded up by approximately 6 -8 feet above the elevation of Riverside Avenue ....and the Orr family will dig this mound to drop the house elevation to approximately street level. "This condition has been included in the ordinance. Finally, the Applicant has also agreed to ensure that any basement level shall not be exposed by a walk -out design or in some similar manner along the hillside shared with the park and this is also noted in the ordinance. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The Fire Marshal, Aspen Sanitation District, and the Utilities Department have all reviewed the proposed application and any requirements have been included as conditions of approval where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance on first reading, approving with conditions, a subdivision amendment, for the 2 Amended Plat — Anderson Subdivision. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. lO, Series of 2011, upon first reading." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Draft Plat EXHIBIT B — Draft Ballot Language EXHIBIT C — Application Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. ll/ (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE SECOND AMENDED PLAT — ANDERSON SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 AND 2, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2 73 71 813 98 01 and 273718139002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Orr Family Partnership represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and the City of Aspen Parks Department, requesting approval of Subdivision Amendment to replat the existing subdivision's lots; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the replat is to relocate and reconfigure Lot 2 within the subdivision and maintain the same lot size; and, WHEREAS, a Subdivision Amendment shall be approved by the City Council as outlined in Section 26.480.080 B., Other Amendment, of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision amendment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 28, 2011, the City Council opened the hearing, took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, and referral agencies of the, approving with conditions, the subdivision amendment which maintains two lots within the subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves with conditions the Second Amended Plat — Anderson Subdivision which amends the configuration of Lots 1 and 2 within the existing subdivision. The Approval is conditioned on the following: Page 1 of 3 1) Approval of the exchange of property by the voters pursuant to charter section 13.4, of the home rule charter; and, 2) The residence to be developed on Lot 2 will be built so that the ground floor is approximately at the elevation of Riverside Drive. This will be memorialized with a measured and referenced elevation on the plat; and, 3) Any basement level shall not be exposed by a walk -out design or some similar manner along Lot 2's westem boundary shared with the park (Lot 1). Similarly, any grading that is undertaken will respect the natural topography and minimize any need for retaining walls. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. Section 3: 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 City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 28 day of March, 2011, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 day of February, 2011. Page 2 of 3 Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C.Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Page 3 of 3 lull :Ili ra' k ' SI r — ''' . ` a 3 "-5 11 , Y i'1 • Y ; 4t 1 _ E c ; ' P . 1. . I `. ,' f „ ,f ' ti c 1 t .E :4 . 4 . 1 1 ti : ,,, ,L 1 1 o¢ °r4 R iver b 4 ) 1 -' ,- � 1 oTMtid. 0 0. �� �4 ° [i�10 I�t t t It� ..� I A to ' t [ t R e.. e5 ` ° a„ O a t { {E t, ! 1 ;t g t 1 a t tt�! tl iMI FdK r '. - °w. o oh I igii 11111 lF (fi I . �`� r 7 !� t ; o , l ' 4 C f ! la i g I it Milk Z .,;% % ti ; 01 t ` < `fi 1 t ttr. , [1t1 ■ e - • e it y ele �! a 4 o � t 4111 i i ill l 4t 3. f C te 1. HI: a i j rl, t II r �� .t i [ I tI , 4 l - /ri € 'tt _ _-- 2 ` q . � t 'J t [ t t " si [ k. If �[ [ � t 5�� = t 1 t � { d 1I iii . ah .: it l:f y# s lit i . ! 1 I I � • t t i f t4 911th � i rir h, 4' [ ik I l ea; it 1 ! ;.e � ditit 11 1 II, e 1 R111 ,11 ! 1 b . I f i l • 'I i . /1 t l t 1 J ; ! i ` ' . t1i i � t l a l l [ I I i ! 't jt� q , 'j ! II 1 11 t ; ;l� t ! ' Ii I i� e g l 1 t lehtl k :i��Ie[;e !! F r c f t WI i1a — I btt t t 1111 , t o Iil t3 t t i t, I�! I rit t t r t i a � i �; Si . >t t� t a 0 0 i #! I o I% I i o2 R q 0 y m 0. 1 t �t1t r • s 6[ 8 t i a' r 4t ! • IllrD f ! rrol I e I rr up r q �� ' k 1M 8 1! I 8t f h C [ 1 1a t r I ` I A' j 1 1 t ` I 8 e i t t I o o 11:) 1 o �' F'' [ i J.1 j i t � { +I l I }rt t I 1 a n o. h �, tC tt ti Lit 6 ip 5 i II I ill gilt �1 II ¢ 1i;te1 N. F j [ " t 1c P j jL !: I I r t { t l 1 I r i ,P1 l ( t [ t l tj ' , 1 III IN14d013A3a MINfIWF100 N3dSV d0 A110 1102.0 Z Nvf tint 2 �� ' g g•96 N 20 -,2,c Y .,g S , 9l. 9 o� 1 , 9 ' v 0 S • y C O 5 A m O 9 e S , h R 6110 ,5' g " a O JOr �. Greate S /o (SOSh ti `t �S 'C" h F (ov ne V • V `o' N � - � ` U� '� V ti b 2 A 7 »�C i 6' 2j 0.( Q ? S , NI :e0'2'3 �o 03 CI -O O^ F c O O � ` j N , gi \ i- � - /o pO, A i (,O t �. 3 TTi R - ti;� � I � i e `m ls a y n, 0 3 .-. \. O \ 0 4 R b m _ 0 �� �P_ (-2 0 -209, �" , cl, � ' c n 2 o , .... R Q) 0 0 u U _ c a o O \ A� \ N 'V - 7 v b''` R N /Ito 3 ' O j'' y T & R S M • Th z 4 y, h co �' W a 26.9 43 C; m C tai ON \ °. m `'� k 4 e 4 gi `o � '�. - ( N - @ P4 c � to '- �+ 4 k 4 ' , m . 4 V a rn - $ m U ` a. 4 - 4 0 4' 3, Q n2_ o y $sapt ZJ y. o Y C� 1104 E w i a IN " i U! k °L. co EA p °a`eEii €S FFI .a 11 ft N i e ° c° L - I E pi: 11 eE A $ a l s oli p• k# k '€ 01 c C \ • kgi � jr L 7 P ne , 00 5314 `S9 1 mv, r ti E� O ads, pax Av ., e V i o p N R��6B y v o CS y '21' : m n O h '% 1z �. i Pr 4 'o� � o d /; ?.> Tj Bo C BS o Ph f 1 11 ; ,^` � Gl- o` o9e 8 o ti y9 eaterS e - � ` � _ V - �N • ht ° I 0 N so (, �. a, / c 6 ^ - 0 -2D9 -o�n 9,-- c .A fio 0 ' y. /� - (l✓o /�, S 'ope c o o O : i / r! • 1 tchih ti % 1 • s L. i Q • ", _ 051 - .�'' _... fi t e -0 'ge _ 7692 tw o �; //� �, o rs e _ � 2� _ v y 4 58- r R en 0 N S• o m o m� ° x ° V o ga. `.? °''O 4 tt Ed ii ea f }�7 t $ _ tn 111 ff eg i e d j}€ € g g q ii 3 g E e , ' ; }} t } si i g g , 1i.� o a l I l} t € lt ;, II% t 4 s d i ' I :i ! — c � oI= • al 1a Y O N Cif Ike s 9, 0 RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING AUTHORITY TO EXCHANGE CITY OWNED OPEN SPACE FOR AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF LAND WITHIN THE ANDERSON SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen owns certain property of approximately 54,500 square feet, commonly referred to and known as Lot 1 of the Anderson Subdivision, originally acquired for the preservation of open space and the future development of Anderson Park; and WHEREAS, a private party owns a parcel of land within the Anderson Subdivision designated as the "Lot 2" on the First Amended Plat of the Anderson Subdivision recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder in Book 39, Page 101, as Reception No. 394519, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, said "Lot 2" has an area of approximately 6,087 square feet and is located within the Anderson Subdivision so that it substantially interferes with the ability of the City owned lot to serve as public open space or for the future development of Anderson Park; and WHERES, the owner of said "Lot 2" has agreed to exchange his lot for a similarly sized parcel of land owned by the City within the Anderson Subdivision that would not interfere with the development of a future park; and WHEREAS, the development rights of the privately owned lot will not change by the proposed exchange; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved an amendment to the Anderson Subdivision to amend the location of Lot 2 within the Subdivision as more fully described in the Second Amended Plat appended hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Section 13.4 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter requires voter approval to sell, exchange, or dispose of real property in public use including property acquired for open space purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to obtain authorization from the electors of the City of Aspen to exchange lots with the private owner of a lot within the Anderson Subdivision to facilitate the development of the Anderson Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question, authorizing the City Council of the City of Aspen to exchange lots within the Anderson Subdivision with the private owner of a similarly sized lot, shall be placed on the ballot at the May 3, 2011, election: Shall City Council be authorized to exchange a City owned parcel of land within the Anderson Subdivision of approximately 6,087 square feet for a parcel of privately owned land of equal size within the Anderson Subdivision? • The exchange of land is being proposed to make the entire Anderson Subdivision land owned by the City function better as open space and the future development of Anderson Park. • The exchange of lands will not affect the development rights of the privately owned parcel of land. • A plat of the Anderson Subdivision graphically depicting the parcels of land proposed to be exchanged is available for public inspection during business hours in the City Clerk's Office. Yes No INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RECEIVED JAN 2 0'2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ii ; : 4y h ! ; 1 . e. ac A t o p S ` ji1 tla X 'a a �s �$ �� k ° 6n a • a E S t o $ 6 Ea j g� hs o a N z,c R 3 g p0.a 4^ •o J 1 ° M c X O • N b U f b 6 & �4 k 1 I o , k F iN '' I lb % ; f i I i i � ° 4 ° s g 2 p ' � # ?mil I . $ � $ a a 6 ! a a .Q b 4 ' d N \ ( � v p r 6 'E ` Y a & ° o 2S N '\l ` s U 1 t . Z ��` �I 7 V V E e ° l id h1 ! i ( �1 } � a lb£ $ a `1 '� O A t. 0 ° _ m �i At 0 2j 2° ke° c i ct t c - a 4 O ,:ti o ' r 4C a ° A h h g w o 't,, � h o � *.'s p h -$! 1 h t.!-,k �i ,,, N 1 9•@ 33 t O O a 02 a � � 0. h � ^g k ' SSE Ye $. F. m G8 l� 0 iv p O '+v a $ 4 £ u, r F 8 "$� o 1 Op % .. Cn E -a V � u 'ORe pp •F 8 0 3 o a2% W £ o $ & 4 fi" � $ a `o1jil e °£ t ' &£ �� �•:w3 $ . i o L1 £�o• ° t'4%• ma o E' 3 2 °� P a k a ° �� ^° ¢ "% ° G ° •O °p g% 0. m £yg K C ! , �ku� Na•H"'.� o'' £E $'' o8 6. 4 yfi .6∎0 , ° e b Ep $ ° � 0 .E a co�a m � °� °sm g3 ° ;e £ oDCna..do '4a ;oo,mSC ° �'� lJ m E ' g �£ 03 £m $ o co.E2 hmo� at ° ; a § y $ 6 " ge e m � � m £ e E„- � � $ m o o mo "aE`-a" , � £.. e $8� €a akJ• _o -i I1i �B ` o'Wam c m c il 2.34 £� 4 g 1 , w6S,o` 1 2 a k,6 n %I.0, ` •r°c 0'r0+£ £ ro a � a o h $a� � a b Sit iia ° va a «n ° 2 ` e. C ° C C° H$ & a� "' , !3 � t � a a£ " ° a°1 L �p o , � £ o o m g "i 6 ,s° m ss Sg '4 a 8 ° £ c F 2 q3 4 .-2 $4 1 fl; il g,� o,omc m �.� .p, gsI. m � 4 u °• am.C.Z. , C c °mcE' $ � ` ° '' k d mga'C § d$ a —bt •0. $ a " � e P �° F $ � '£o 8o 1,:".i.". o�'o c,EA 1 e VZ... ,, m3 ° tI o g o y .•$ £ '" P 4 ,-. . &Q k- t '- $, �kj 4 , "u " , g ., .. q '�t atu,o °' oo°-biltts °E a -% f �� � � -cimC cO .��oA C•�s�0.4RE.'c,��cp � F 8 m Imo" cl) - , P.1 mi x� i anua 2d a o toy �s ° ' . �ZS �° ° a ° o u� mo i aE 11 o O a i! t," 1 ' 4, u 1,1111;-- I, v$ i4 'K e ,;v i Eke, h £off` 2 v � n - 81 °1 $m q$ J yeg m >,4.0.:g £ �O � a ,� ss z � = x c $ a ° N - 6'0E2 °%=.-E .. c3 ' sE[y .4VE ro � a f h � M ^° 8 � a $m S s t d^ �� oc` �� 1L0! f 4 L, N y a a.. a N ', "a° o N V, V i�_1' YY v"5�t nl n y�" 3 � �a��$o '� � g _ y mgo 6 ' o /�� � M SI 4 ' �7 ,� t� 1'c�& ' c o� 4 .� e oY' � o ^ e 1 o -b �C3.q � .1 e 8 % 4 c%--. , % p k 4 2 6 °.o 1H ; k g. Q i ; C E b 1 0.0 0 �` I k' "" ml £ E ' � a ,0 ,S) 4 '4 5 ' o k o � 0 "££ o ° ''' o$.R $ W'o r.. N�3 7,� ro � - qp.9 Ge c a - pb ° �z v 4 , y O Vie m 4 k`$°Ea . Al es w� u I t I. I I I I tl'fS 0. 4, A‘ M .00,t1.00 5 .p 3 ..- IP e ° 5 s' �o 3 4' `v %i I v & lita w Sa - 4 : 6 1: , 1016�5� : , - - .. [ °a �i� � N 26. 67 .r ry�t `� . F fY yy 3 /x •�N3 .9Z,9L[ N 3 _6fff.Z N .,cjq. � ` !- ,Zrf .g . e , ` `may ' � r _ ..C Z N . — er 41 O i ` w ,. ;� 'k. o g 09) J L cl !3 .°1' V O w , �/ rlp, -'c`' \ ]� � \ OQ . f ib . @.r ` iL r ! � � ° �' 1 . a � r « f. U T+ , { \ 2 � , - o c Ch u p f e e j+ 1 \ a ,E , ` e. M/ Y A � � ; ' MiN � a gg` ' -4 .W N , . 9 r l �� v3 ' 4 1 • ly r ' f . : . .c) ''' 4 t" �. � I g 8 A ST . . _ I . 4, i 3 a i i as e SSa ■ 0 M Z & & > o C LL, O §, - ~ 6 “ C+7 !L O Itl ,L- g a i e it III O :. ' U Fitt' iii i Jti t� { 6 {p a Li F B WE s i v,1�N \ '� a °AiB 6 # E � � � fi • H 1 11 ti) "k, y y " !, 1p In 6 1 3 $ I i c l ° 1 5 ?� \3 y � � 'lt # s 5 ' mss° 'O I < � ins° °� sa o aCi O .V ! t i i i a . L a� 2 c , _ I u 0 -� 3 ON z N- o o Q <r cct 0 in co 0 0 0 ,ys�s WA • o CI O la' s cC_ C.) C7 W IN e� N „ .s .� � A N o tzo _. �co 0 0 o (so plV J ,. h � a �o _0 to oo�o N tO 0 ob o� \ yam, 190(0 /S� - of N c C Z ( n s v, a`i o o I \ \ r'c N L O 4ia 7 a � O , `Z ` \N \ j � \ t ti sow ° k I 1 _ �� N, 'Co . / --� v 11 11 �� `` << e ( '�''� // N so J N - 6 S ` (-/S'D a p 44 m m II p/S _z9,10ad IC: Ch ° ',", ° •1 Oe ----I -'`..- 5 zof U cn 4q U s m �� tt pas v ooa m k C) k u q OS Cs) Li � 31 a ssB p °� 6 58 , i . . 0 B a t erC l- CC W o a.° 2 6 cord 0 ILI } 2 5� a g ` �3 £ Y '9s�rf V �W 6 B s �.+£. o ifit ttN { p $ � _ li kil \ 1.11111 11E11 , tc '13 i 4 2‘% i k � ... 1 1111Q4 € €E 1 11 t $ } $ i tai ii s o E M x g r ° ' 61 i l 0� o� o fill g € g t H aa ! s v i r I'll 5 �'t matl8 __ ®, ©I l3 a 5 x, e a ea A a a ° 4 �t � !ma k tv 11 4 0 L Qi gJ Z j U k 0 0 U a� 6 �� t3 j N N o A ---- ' ----- — ' N . (I � , o °Q' ti) �� f i ' ap p 41,14 9 O �' moo\ L. 0 /% ; e`'a cry 0 \, A o e Qt 1 `` co p C N (6u/ ys� o 6/ 8 �� i o ° b y O (� 0 . � z o ��c�� B o — O ii) , , , U U '� '' ,t °C1L N � � {s � •' c c 4) oc) a d o \ ., ° ,..s- R — o O 3a Ce CO N. �O d�o \� � �.sfr f{ J = oa 3 v .� 9 moo, po 1V�► \ , C O < / o �/a s8! �o� / / SOS ) / �Q `��� i Oj c>/ Jam �c O O o ^ h \--,..... • >(-- 0 8 9/ z r�N � � W 4/ I a; 4 9 �� teao II II ',Sys C) -, 1 ) ",R ° (; J m;0 h . �nU I 1E LE 9 6 t it O qt 910 l ` � N$ r ptigi i ad 1 4 Obfif'BZL'0L6 )&d BELE'9ZL'OLfi'19115E64900'30I flh131 0W0M96E 00 'N3dSH ■ ssoOZS'OL6 Vd OfissszsO1s931. I9 a w'e3asv I'3MNVW H1sV3O 9 3AV SNINdOH'M 009 r d 0 U woo •ai}iuuno fM 510311HO IV 2ddINNf1O S31 1VHO 30001 ONV 13W008 1 G OB y 7 ' . , j y YY \\ i Iffr L11 1 � J -0 at U) o cN 1 1 1 - I b.17 i I 1 1 T . , ,. 1 :1: 1 . 1 0 ° . : °a dd 0 ii : "limmj...... . t. 1 t 4 i 1 It 1 / I 0 Lidd °tldd °1.M/et .1 -'- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- ■ 06fif'OSL'OLfi 7(V2 I BELf9LLOL6:131 I 9E6lB 00 301NO1'131 OH0100MNE Otll10'IOOMO6E �4�N111c.7 S•N��d 'M 00 CSS>' OL6 XtlH 1065SSS6OL6 131 1 8948 'ota Stl I'3AtlN and �H 'M 009 N 0 0 k woo aj}iuuno naHrr S1O31IHO21V 333INNf1O SMIVHO 30001 ONV I2VJ008 CL Z . . 1 W Z 1 o N w • CD P V/All . 12: I cr. I i 0 - W P I 1 4 Cr 111 ,` 4 P . $. • J ■ >hai I * --nd t • ■ MEWL 'OZ ZCOL6 )(VA I 0659 Z 6 13.1 I1 MB 00 '30111M13.1 I 1 00%11010D 3Atl Ntl L55 Ot9 00W10100 I N3dSH 46'OLfi XtlO6555Z6'OL"131L91B 0O'N3dStlIWAH 1643Ot9 and SN01dOH N1009 CO ( woo•apuuno nwm S1031IH0 IV 333INNf1O S31IVH0 30401 0Nb13W008 J W W J 0 - CC ° ■ W _ � A 4 >rnarf "rag • ■ Q oro6e'SUSLSxtld I e6Le'6ZCOL6a31 1 9E6L9 o0 1 ammo M96e OOHNOIO3'N3dSV LS56'OZ6'OLfiXtld I OfiSS'SZ6'OLfi9311149LB 00 N3dStl 1 3AtlNVWAH1Stl3049 3AV SNDfdOH M 004 EL U () woo anpuno'mmm S IO31IHO21V OddINNfO 5311VHO 3J40� JNb2:13W008 ® ra ® ® z I >. 0 ® g W 1%. R 0 W 3 a J N F M W - O � / 1 �' J 0 ma . I ° I • // I " — a N J a 1� _ P .A eS N M r IA u N N h . 1 J P . r W N lit a r N ._' .1 a- .J N V \ 1 A eS V en lEliii.1. : . , A 016 [ r... , ...,." , . ... cs .. I /11S111111111 fa a rn t u, s r 1I N • ■ < OM EL ' 0L6 & )& d 1 6ELC6ZL'OL6:1111 SEM 00'301W11131 1 00Vd0100M OO� 'N3dSd LSS6'OL6'0L6 ) d 1 0655SS60L61311 LIM 00'N3dSV 1 3A NVNIA3V3 019 019 00 S M S 1 // L � O � S 1O311HO�IV 3ddINNf1O S31bVHO 30001 0NV 13W008 l�J. OW IP I Z r r , r o g; 11 1 3 1 O r irj COW s eq. O . . . . . A.' . / T--- I 1 e Q o r I_ Z -- — . `4 — D - 0 '. 1 -- C I o , / 0 • \ sa 0 ,,, .. J I ,S p i r ..�Jy r O Lo (11 D 0 1 rirni » N _ D: m ',— ` I I `, .s 1 < OV6C'EL'OL6 L9Sk :Xtl8 9D OOtl80100 O ■ L 556' OZ6' OL 6B( tl8IO65S' 5Zfi' OC 6a31I 119U942 0000 'N3dStlI'3AtlNtlWAH15tl3O19 3AVSNINd M 009 CO LL m S 1O311HaIV addINN(10 S31eJVHO 30401 ONV J31N008 I 1 / III SA ; \ r ' f f r f} E 0 IQ N , alit tO v] i__ t 1 r f 1 Irs - t . z _ 1=1 , 0 F \ o t r W 1 0 N %. 1, t : ) E - ] 1 1 f O r o 73 � - I] a �I� h 0 1 i \ \ 1 1— . r 1 r 1 1 W f in , j i . , I I z / v 066E'BZL'0L6 XVd 1 BELEBZL'0L6 911 56VW 0T731 100Vtl010O AM OGv O1OO ■ C LS56OZfi'0Lfi) d 1 0655'SZ6'OLfi 121 1 11918 OD 03 N3d N3dStl 1 3M NWIAH 19V3019 • and SNINdOH M 004 U woo •agluuno mnnm S10811HObV 888INNf1O S812IVHO 80001 ON MBI IOO8 MS 0 r N I CI r 1 � me, me, 1 1 0 I I We r r 1— 4Hfl 1 1 is 0 .. 1 ,t_ , 1 1 , i i . r o o .. 4 > 0 <>I. a) in r m [i ` r O / I I 1 I i S r _ _ r L.L o 1 I 1 II I I I II: f d. i i 1 If .4- .--T-- .. 1 f \-- istovik.14 Q 30id 69L9'6ZL'OGfi:1311 S900 OOtlHOWOM669 00V2J0100 N3dSd ■ L56 >'OZB'OL6 Xtld Ofi55'SZfi'OLfi 131 1 USNl6 00'N3dStl 1 3Atl NtlWAH 1SV3 0l9 . and SN INdOH MOOS M W 00 , CL woo eipuuno mmm S10311HalV 3d3INNf10 SThiVH0 30001 0Nb2131A1008 CI:1 11 ; El n. , i i a O E ta a) m o l' ~ • r N r N 0 1 0 I I G . 0 E1 . 1 .• \ art " _ 1 _ ■ � , 5 V o s ee O 4 w.r,- % N c gli 1 lail w 0 0 1 la MP _ o a H � Z v D 0 I n ______ ._____7 1 1 El — _ mar Orio s 0669'9ZEOL6 C d 1 99L9'9LOd6 131 1 59149 Oa '30121M 1 OOtlNO1OOM869 00160100 'N3dSV ■ L556'OZ6'OL6Xtld 10655' SZ6' OL693111WL900N3dStl I '3AtlNbWAH15b3019 3AVSNIMOH X1009 CD U woo agiuuns rnrnM S10311HalV 3ddINNf1O S21 lVHO 3040 ONb2131A1008 o 00 E o 0 ° 0 D • 8 1=J i m c O " o . 0 . Dif L H z M A El I Ns.,.. I Y V I Ell Ell . 4 \ =4 4 t , . r L....J v • r z r — E 1 N. 1.1-0 MI o I - \ • - o 0 / /' 1 . f I Z: . .� i ro . IIIIII a , 0 1111111 J. 4 L9000 ) d 1 BELE'OZL'OL6 131 1 SEV48 03 301tln1131 1 00tltl0103M86E OGV O ' N3dSH LSS9'Od6'OL6 k 999 'd 1066'0h613114W4803 N3dStl1 JAYNWIAH 15Y3019 and SNINdOH M 009 0 0 woo elpuuno MANN S 10311H02JV 2ddINN110 3311VH3 30001 ONb'131A1008 EL a O a M 'c1' M co co co co 'V V' V V V V co M M V d N 0 Y 0 0 N l0 0 0 0 10 u ) 0 0 0 0 ' 4 " r 00 ° Y n V' O m c0 co co 0) m O as co as O . r r 3 co co O n H co W n n n n n n W co W W LL. N CO N N m E c J • LL O 10 0 c0 0 c0 10 0 0 0 0 0.0 )0 0 10 10 3 c E N V N r M C' 0) 8 0 0 0 0 40 n O N N N O p 3 t d' lf) [O (D (O (0 CO n n n n n n 00 a0 m 0) O N O O) i.,. O W O -c n O) w W -p c c x U • a N x 0 a 07 U 1 O . y N N y O as as co 2 ~ W m Q S Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 LL U Y U` 0 7 0 m N r "— CO c o r a v O L a w O O N RI C C WOO la O 0 E E N E E O LL O. p 0 0 y Q o O O -o IT a O O w :p 2 2 c r 7 'O ' O w N U) 0 0 C y m m 1— E U) m m y 7 r N N N o O 0 O N co V CO CO 0D M V' V' V V V V M M M V y co V M co V d' V' V V d' co co V 0 U 0 Y Y O 0 d co D N 10 O 0 10 In O O O O N' O 1-.° N N 10 In O O O O V CO O 0 w n V' O co W N 0) 0) as an co W O O O O r n V' W W 0) m 0 0) co O O O O 1 LL LL N co i 1 LL O 0 0 0 O 40 O O 10 t0 0 0 )0 4[) 4[) LL O 10 i0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 N u7 )0 N V c 0 c co m m m O n N- n n I 0 n m c m W co V 10 co CD O n O n N- N- 1- N- W O 0)) N C . y 0 . T '= T E W m < 0 Y 0 0 D ~ W CO <<<<<<OLL 000 c m ca co - Et a O C . p E 0 o C, p E 0 IT. 1 — a o 2 LL H a 6. p lc - 0 L c co to m L C co m m W r N H = r N O1 1 8ELE'9ZL'OL6:131 1 9E148 00 '301M1111. 1 00160100M96C Q`J ' L996'OZ6'OL6 XVd 1 0699'9Z6'0L6:1aL 1 44948 00'N3dSV 1 '3AVNVW QQ�f Q100 N2dSd AH1SV3019 •�AV SN1 M 005 1 0 W uaoo mmm S IO3JIHOIV 3ddINN(lO S31?:IVHO 30001 ONV?:I2WOO8 . t .: 41,6 1111 \, Ill �. I j + 1 � . I • . I . ' ___) . o 111 r �I 13' 1:1111 1 > y , II _,_ ......._ _ , 0 " FEI ,. I� b. u.�J • c > (x1 liar o - E I ! 1111111 i 11wt C!) 11011 =I1. i� Co z • i, hi i 111. ► ; I . f� _ ►j E E 2 - Imu �,► /x1111 �. w l I. = ����III -- wo I . I �I I , i t - I I 1 I 1 ,-I • I� � C , I MI 1 ! Q i T IIMI I �' L - I s�� f In il Iiti }II /14t.__. uii L _ �7 1� 1 1 -. - U I _ -\11: ,' I 2 1 ' . ' 2..i „ .10 i. - I 1 i • . i - J .�— i 1 X 11 1�4,d,7 � .1 _ _ 1 i i � i I_- I t iiILi • I — \ i 1*1 $U I�I ^� i.. . . m L A 1 I < ' j wit .:�, E I MI I d �. c (� I I t r IWO_ i 111 ! Ili , • •' . 1 j lint - �f� t J i !I I I im • �� 4 AL � A f : ; l c 1 1 I ... Iki40 1 . EN 'i _A Pm 1 ' i M �h ��l •L i' .ill NIMM! Gtr? I r 11���� l�l1 • ■ 770- ,: ' . . I I:_ MI i - II - • , . , : • MI 1011.= ' I • , S9 Ili� - IIf 2 I�ill �� I�� lY i 1 � �'' ' I ) /-- al . I� I • : S [ 1 4 . I 1 ,/i III , 41' 1 066E114L'0L6 •XVd 1 9ELE'BZL'OL6 7 131 1 99619 00'3018911131 1 00Vi1o10o M 869 04`dZI0100 ' N3dSd L99V'OZ6'0L6.XVd 1 0699'9Z6'OL6�31 1119L9 03'N3dSV 1' 3AVNVWAHISV3019 and SNINdOH M 009 N 0 ( , W woo S ±OJIIHO JV 3dZINN11O SJ1IVHO BOQO1 ONVI91A1OO8 z i a � -� � I. .... 4. Q M I E !Y + 0 s t I 0 • 1 . 1 • 1 E � L 1 I ._. I li 9_ _ J- 1 ! i! I� i - _ I E ‘1"--- - I O .L.,a, 1ft i t IL_ , I. I .r L 1 !�I • 1 _ !� I�af 1 11)1H1 1�1�1 b w I, Iy , r; : li 1i '' ' .. ' I,� i1; - I 1 I - I!I Illid II� +.Iil_ V 1 1 �� is • k ICI I ► ,� r / ' I • -t I I __ 1 I 1 I 'I - .a : i I ` i t —I C i 1 -.. s, 1 9 1 1 i" I,I. , p __ . r - 1 i1 `� I,I1I 1 1,,,' , : L O p 1111 1 I . 1 I O 1 . 1 ! I i ° ° l � J 1 . J_ ,H N ti r , � _ W N WI i t t \ 111: 1 e lli • 1 ill g rim, I I it I ti "1: I - 1 , H j Iiwi i, -41r� 1 1 __, ! i - •11.111!I; , - 1 1 0 1 r/ )L_1 .� i i . .s I I 1 I I b I 1 li 1 ; , r I 1 1 _ • ,. , 1 EIi I Ii i r 4- -f I III rP I �1 >a. 1 - !i . 11;1, r'' i # 1 I MI • 1 1_ 1 , MI . i ; –ffp – � 1 .I I1;ii Il�ii1 . l� —a j 1 a — AIL WOK E I 1 1_ j r r ; • '� I6 III '� � � I , � _ a 1 / soilli ,Bi ;! la 1i II �. j I 1141111 ` ,1 - 1 �I.li' 0il��i. 'yi ,, 1 ..; I l , ' ,I 1 1 14 j 1_ •ilia . 1 1 . ...... I i EIH Ill rififi-911-.70_11' � • , , *r-r 1 1 1 I s r o 1 i- z t A N Z 1 WM- 01 19£L£'9ZL'OL6 131 1 9E419 00 '300111131 1 00W:10103 M 96E QQ M:10100 ' N3dSd L991 OZ6'OL6:XVd 1 0600 9Z6'OL6 :131 1 11919 03'N3dSV 1 '3Mv NVWAH 1Sb'3 019 and SN I )IdOH M SV 0 0 ' �n k V J won n S1081IHO IV BdZINNf10 S21 JVH0 80001 0NV BVJO08 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 pfpf , _ . .... low 1 4 N I ,,,,I r 1 r, F I 4 , I lo I Is 1 �- 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i lr A I . '' . Illirlig."11.11"111111111111111* . Z V -. '( \ F W — In CD M ° \ � 1I,� li Am I _ \-. > :_ y� 1 ' --. ,, _, . 1 c '� 1 ., �'G 1 I / i �- , 1 1 . 1 z 1 * t, -r 1 fly — 1 it : f • (fl4 1 1 �� V . . ti i I I � � =, f 1 . 1 I- E -�1. 1 ; ' 1 I ` 1 1 1 ' v �"� ir, I : filik i , a: Or Ilk I I i I . i , 'I:: : 1 r 1 I ;•' l' t I I R I 0 1 I ■ 1 t 46 .lo i ••_......•._.....•., - p I' / IA.. 0:" •* • • • . •'•• .ii•I`si, •22 : i r f 14-; 1 t iP, -- �. 1 ) 1 r 0e6s1ZEOL6NW 1 9EL6'ezL'OL6-131 1 964tO 00 '301M11131. 100V 0100MOM 00\10 N3dSd 111141: L556'Ob6'OL6 xvd 108S5'Sb611L6 131 1 11.9133 00 13asv 1 anv NW AH lsva ats • ] AV S N I>I d 0 H 'AA 009 CO 0 0 ' woo a nnrow SJ O811HOId a lz HNNfO S3 2S007 ONV1I2W008 1 Q w cc Q . LI z o GO 0 . v' 0 • e'V 1 CC . • . 0 , -, ,...' ...-: . 1 oir k , ior t A Y +✓ %' y , 4 '.., illi 40 IP I • ---- . - . - 4-i t 1 1 1 `` • , • ., ...... ., 4.. F,.. , , , , • , ., . . ,-,... L'Q, ,..,' ' • d i 3 . ck.,_ ' . . ,,'.i 1 . Mil I 1 ,, i : , • • • . - ' -.... -'''' ,-"' - jei ' . I 1 / 1 I i 1 5 ,7_ .4i: '`r = • 1 A ' - • - :. - L___ ,., , i „ , .•• ,.• _, 1 . ,.! , .. f . 1 _ . I 1 I 1 . • 1111 - • • • I I 1 L3317 O Z 6O L6 N 1 8 693 S Z 6 l6 :131 1 %K2 o0' 3altlnll311 oatltlo103 M ese OOY O1O0 I N3dSV ■ LSSt'6Z6'OL6Xtl3 66SSSZ6'6Lfi"1311 1•0[13 00 N3dStl 1 3AtlNVWAH15b30t9 and SNDidOH M 009 co VJ 0 0 wirm S 1031IH0ZI`d 3dAINNf1O S311VHO 39401 ONV IJW008 du ..9 - .a 1 1 1n3T�15 HJ- flOd _ _1N ,Vd ��sa 1 I l I 1 I 1 - -T 1 O I n I m v I m o I m I Q L � � � I O 1 In In II I II II II II II II ,J._ J 1 J..� - L� - L. _ L_ -L.� - I I _ z )11VM 31311 'JNO' 4 C 3NI1.kL SOLd O� 3 • • ii /i /l • • 2. I`\\ \ 1 • k l' . .. i — III O a N Q j — u) c , / . _I I fis Iti W < r 0 :, 0 ' o -s i IL I t •rt OF u N•k if m Ti • %1111 s: m i / //� ' Z W I j �t S Z j Ill fir y, N m a •aa ■ z et W z I r e.' p i O Im \\ \III / j e4: R _ d ' /� I \ \\I %11,; ; S 'I I —�! I P. I I I I 1 0 O -.5 ^ I il� 1 - 1 in < i i9 4 y 1 1 5I1VM 31310N07 VI( b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 500 W. Hopkins — Amendment to Zone District Map, PUD Amendment and Subdivision qq, First Reading of Ordinance No. C 3 (Series 2011) MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: The development of housing units requires Aspen FSP -ABR LLC, Steve subdivision approval. Stunda STAFF RECOMMENDATION: REPRESENTATIVE: Staff recommends approval upon first reading. Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht P.C. SUMMARY: Applicant requests City Council approval of LOCATION: Rezoning, PUD, and Subdivision. 500 W. Hopkins CURRENT ZONING & USE Medium - Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation and Planned Unit development overlay (R- 6 /LP /PUD). Boomerang Lodge approved in 2006 for 47 lodge units, five free market resident units, two affordable housing units PROPOSED LAND USE: - a Applicant, in general, would retain'% the exterior as approved in 2006, Existing East Wing of Boomerang Lodge. but convert the use to 46 affordable housing units. Applicant requests rezoning the property from R -6 /LP/PUD to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) /PUD. PUD Amendment is necessary to memorialize the current proposal's dimensions. Figure 1: Vicinit Map of 500 W. Ho.kins Ave. (former Boomerang Lodge) - - *Fa s � GENERAL BACKGROUND This application was submitted in September of 2010. The application was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission in November and December of the same year as well as January of 2011. As a result of the hearings conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z), Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) was passed by a four to one (4 -1) vote (Exhibit D) and Resolution No. 4 (Series of 2011) was passed by a three to two (3 -2) vote. The P &Z's Resolution No. 22 approved two growth management reviews (development of affordable housing and change -in -use from primarily lodge to residential) and issuance of Certificates of Affordable Housing. Also the Commission made a recommendation of approval of Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (rezoning), Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Other Amendment. Due to an Appeal heard by City Council on January 8, 2011, the application was remanded back to the P &Z to solely reconsider off - street parking under PUD review standards. Resolution No. 4 recommends an overall parking configuration of 47 parking spaces for the proposed project with conditions. The P &Z reviewed the Application on November 2, 2010, December 14, 2010 and January 8, 2011. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibits E and F. The actual parking spaces shown by the applicant's site plan is 46 rather than 47. Staff miscounted the at- grade parking. Page 2 of 12 Conditions of both resolutions include the following: • Applicant consider breaking up the mass of the building by architectural modification. (Resolution No. 22) • 1:1 parking requirement is met; however, the Commission recommends additional parking be provided. (Resolution No. 22) • The P &Z recommends City Council accept and approve the proposed underground and head -in on street parking for the project. (Resolution No. 4) • The P &Z recommends maintenance of the encroachment license for the project. (Resolution No. 4) • P &Z recommends City Council investigate and encourage the applicant to investigate additional methods of reducing street parking demands. (Resolution No. 4) • P &Z recommends City Council require the applicant undertake a parking study. (Resolution No. 4) • Verify that the 12 head -in parking spaces can realistically accommodate 12 autos. (Resolution No. 4) LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting approval of the following land use approvals from the City Council: • 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 City Council, at a public hearing, to determine if the application meets the standards for an amendment to the Zone District Map after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Amendment to the Planned Unit Development — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030 (B)2, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the PUD after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. 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 City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove of the Subdivision after receiving a recommendation by the Planning Zoning Commission. The City Council is the final decision - making body. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Boomerang Lodge redevelopment was approved in 2006 for 47 lodge units, 5 free - market residential units and 2 affordable housing units. Via Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 2006) a lodge redevelopment was approved with 31 underground and 12 surface (partially in the right -of -way) parking spaces. The total height was 36'6 ", and the total square footage was 44,915. (In January 2007, staff approved an Insubstantial Amendment to the PUD, increasing the maximum height by Page 3of12 one foot — to 37'6" — in some portions of the structure, due to Building Department requirements for minimum ceiling height.) Figure 2: Recorded Elevation for the approved Boomerang Lodge (2006) Y.... . . It N'lT. 9 1, 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 authority over the East Wing, but does not grant review authority for the rest of the structure. The current 2010 application seeks to convert the Boomerang Lodge project into a 100% affordable housing project. The application originally requested the approval of 56 affordable housing units, without changing the exterior of the proposed redevelopment, as approved by City Council in 2006; however, based upon input from the P &Z the proposal has been modified. During the December l4`h hearing, the P &Z recommended that the applicant bring the proposal into greater compliance with the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone district standards, as a result the design recommended for approval by the commission contains: • 46 dwelling units rather than the original 54 proposed with a mix of studios, ]- bedroom and 2- bedroom units; and, • A three story building as the previously approved fourth floor has been removed resulting in a height of 32 feet; and, • 33 underground parking spaces and 13 at -grade parking spaces with additional storage units for each unit located in the basement. Page 4 of 12 Table 1: Current Application compared to underlying RMF Zone District - .N Dimte .x t x Rio F Zone 'Septemt►ei• O�i - T1an Urr 2011 r$ment a _ t x A►�ti :.. Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 27,000 sq. ft 27,000 sq. ft Min. Lot Area / Dwelling No requirement 500 sq. ft. per dwelling 586 sq. ft. per Unit unit dwelling unit Maximum Allowable No requirement 54 units 46 Density Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 270 feet 270 feet Minimum Front Yard 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 5 feet 4'3" — east* 4'3" — east* 5' -- west 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5 feet 5' 5' 2 "d floor balcony 4'5" 2 floor balcony 4'5" into setback into setback Maximum Height 32 feet 37'6" 32' Minimum distance No requirement N/A N/A between buildings Public Amenity No requirement N/A N/A Floor Area ratio 1.5:1, or 40,500 1.66:1, or 44,915 sq. 1.5:1 or 40,500 sq. ft. sq. ft. ft. Minimum Off - Street One space per 54 46 ** Parking dwelling unit Notes: * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 ** 33 underground parking spaces, 13 at -grade (1 alley space and 12 head -in Fourth Street spaces via an encroachment license) STAFF COMMENTS: There are three different land use review processes related to the current application before City Council, as listed previously. Many contain the same or similar standards; for example, a PUD, a Rezoning and a Subdivision all require consistency with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Included are "Key Issues" that staff has identified. Amendment to the Zone District Map (Rezoning) — The current application seeks to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential (R -6) / Lodge Preservation (LP) / Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Multi- Family (RMF) / PUD. This rezoning reflects the applicant's desire to convert the primary use from lodging to multi- family residential. One of the key standards (Exhibit B) to consider in a rezoning application is, "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." Staff finds that the proposed RMF -PUD zoning designation is compatible with the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, which includes some RMF parcels, some PUDs, some affordable housing and a large amount of R -6 and R -15 zoning. Page 5 of 12 On its face, R -6 and R -15 zoning would seem incompatible with RMF zoning. However, the existence of R -6 and R -15 zoning in this neighborhood can be traced back to the 1970s, when a dramatic downzoning was approved for this neighborhood. The fact is that much of the existing development in this neighborhood does not reflect the uses or dimensional limits of R -6 and R -15 zoning, which limits development to low density single - family homes and duplexes, with relatively low Floor Area Ratios, ranging between .3:1 and .54:1. In fact, much of the existing development in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood reflects the use dimensional prescriptions allowed by RMF zoning, which allows high densities, along with Floor Area Ratios between .75:1 and 1.5:1. In addition, the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District along Main Street allows high- density residential and lodging uses, and allows Floor Area Ratios of up to 1.25:1 FAR. While there are a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District. Table 2: Comparison of Neighborhood Developments Lot Size Unit Count Lot Area per Floor Area Max. (sq. ft.) Dwelling Ratio Height Unit West Hopkins 12,000 11 1 per 1,090 .79:1 1 2 stories Townhomes sq. ft. 7th and Main 9,000 12 1 per 750 sq. .96:1 30' ft. 700 W. 9,000 15 1 per 600 .84:1 2.5 stories Hopkins Condominiums 608 W. 9,000 7 1 per 1,285 .54:1 2 stories Hopkins 605 W. 26,375 15 1 per 1,758 .82:1 35' Hopkins 501 W. Main 27,000 26 1 per 770 .85:1 34' (to (Christiana) ridge) 500 W. 27,000 46 1 per 586 1.5:1 32' Hopkins (Boomerang) Staff supports a rezoning to RMF, as a multi- family use of the property is compatible with surrounding "land uses considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics." The existing neighborhood contains many examples of multifamily development and the proposed use of the property as multi - family is compatible with established uses in the neighborhood that include lodging, single- family, duplex, and multi - family development. Page 6 of 12 Planned Unit Development (PUD) — The PUD process often consists of weighing community benefits against allowing additional height, mass and/or density, while considering impacts on the neighborhood. It is a holistic style of review, considering a wide range of factors. For example, during the 2006 PUD review process, consideration of the lodge use was weighed heavily as a community benefit, resulting in the granting of the dimensional variations allowed by a PUD process, as specified in the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district (Section 26.710.320). As part of the 2006 review, the applicant also utilized the Incentive Lodge Development portion of the Growth Management section, which incentivized lodge redevelopment that featured small room sizes. (As part of the 2006 approval, the lodge incentives allowed housing mitigation to offset the free market residential on a per unit basis, rather than on a square- footage basis.) In the current application, the proposal to convert lodging to affordable housing effectively trades one community benefit for another. From staff's perspective, this means all the elements of the proposal are again on the table for discussion. In other words, both the P &Z and City Council should once again weigh community benefits against dimensional variations and neighborhood impacts. This discussion may result in the same project or may lead to amendments. If the property is rezoned Residential Multi - Family, the applicant will be requesting variations to the underlying zone district for setbacks and off - street parking. Currently, the proposed zone district requires a five foot minimum setback from property lines and one off - street parking space per dwelling unit. Overall, Staff finds the community benefit to be very significant with this proposal. "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged ...," according to the 2000 AACP. Also, the community has not yet reached the upper goal of 1,300 new units defined in the 2000 AACP. In addition, the 2000 AACP emphasizes "the importance of the private sector playing a greater role in the production of affordable housing" — lifting part of the burden of providing this critical community asset from the shoulders of the public sector alone. Regarding the PUD variations sought by the applicant and subsequent impacts on the neighborhood, staff finds that the current proposal does meet the AACP standard that "Housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community ... " Staff also finds the application meets the PUD standard requiring "compatibility with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area," and the PUD standard that requires a "scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage favorable to the character ... of the surrounding area." The neighborhood contains other examples of two and three story buildings and multi - family development. Page 7 of 12 Setback variation. Included in Exhibit G are representative floor plans for each level of the building and for the proposed units as well as elevations of the proposed character of the building. The scale, mass and height of the building have been reduced since its review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the removal of the fourth floor, the applicant is now proposing 46 units compared to the previous iteration of 54 units. The units are comprised of a mix of studios (6), one - bedroom (29) and two bedroom (11) units and almost all of the units are proposed with balconies. All 46 units are provided an underground storage unit. Of the 46 units, 21 units meet or exceed the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines for minimum net livable area, while 25 units are less than the required minimum; however, these units are within a permitted reduction allowance of 20 percent. APCHA reviewed the updated proposal and recommended approval of these 25 units, noting that existing conditions such as additional storage in the basement, efficient and flexible layouts, site location near parks, trails and open space, all units being located above ground, and the provision of exterior balconies meet the standards to permit the reduction in unit size. Based upon APCHA's recommendation, the P &Z approved the growth management review for the development of affordable housing. The neighborhood contains a mix of single - family, duplex and multi- family developments with up to three story elements. The setback variation requested permits access to sheltered underground parking and storage access for the residents as well as for decks, adding valuable outdoor living space for almost all of the units. Weighing potential dimensional variations with the community benefits and compatibility with the neighborhood, staff recommends approval of the setback variations. Off - street parking variation. As proposed, the building will contain 33 underground parking spaces. In addition to these underground parking spaces, the applicant currently holds an encroachment license for the use of 13 parking spaces: 1 ADA space that slightly encroaches into the alley and 12 head -in parking spaces along Fourth Street. The applicant can provide 34 on -site parking spaces and with the encroachment license, the property has the use of 46 parking spaces and meeting the intent of a 1:1 parking to unit ratio required by the city. The applicant has been working on a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan with the Transportation Department. A few minor items still need to be finalized with Transportation and overall the document is heading in the right direction; it will be provided as an exhibit at second reading. Additionally, the site is located near public transit (see below), a few blocks from a Car - to-Go site and along a summer pedestrian route. The site is within walking and biking distance to the commercial core. Page 8 of 12 Fi • ure 3: Transit stop locations on Main Street 4 ' Westbound 4e. " e transit stop ra- Jr— »' Eastbound transit stop Similar to the Boomerang, many older properties were developed with head -in parking partially on -site and partially within the public right -of -way. When these properties are redeveloped, the City considers the historic parking patterns and considers formalizing (or legally recognizing) the head -in parking that is partially in the right -of -way. That has occurred with the Christiania, the Ullr affordable housing, the Hotel Aspen, and several other properties. In each case, the physical limitations and needs of the project and those of the neighborhood are weighed. Maintenance of this encroachment license is ultimately decided by the City Council. Minimum parking requirements for new development are a constant debate. Many cities, including Aspen, have come to realize that requiring high amounts of on -site parking can challenge other goals of limiting traffic, encouraging density near the core of town, and encouraging a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. This is not to say that any of these are an "either /or," just that many cities are questioning the affect of minimum parking requirements. In fact, a few cities (not Aspen) have gone as far as to mandate maximum parking standards. Staff has reviewed some of these examples, seen projects first -hand, and talked with planners from those cities. While the approach and outcomes are different, a maximum parking strategy does not seem to relieve a community from arguing about parking. While Aspen has not gone to maximum parking standards, Aspen's parking requirements for in -town locations are intentionally lower than for other more - remote areas. The City requires one parking space per residence. This recognizes the availability of street parking, the desire to encourage density to occur within the townsite, the ability to walk, bike or take transit, and the potential for a less auto - reliant living situation. The parking standard does not require all of a project's parking to be on -site and the City expressly understands that parking is one of the difficult trade -offs inherent in any review of development within the townsite. Aspen's parking standard does not expect that any given resident will have only one car. And, the standard does not expect (or require) residents to change their habits or adopt a different lifestyle. The standard represents a trade -off — a balance of community goals and expectations. Like any trade -off, the standard is not imagined to be a perfect solution for every individual. Page 9 of 12 The Boomerang site is located within the original Aspen townsite. It is one block to the second largest public transit system in the State, a few blocks from a successful Car -to- Go site and along a summer pedestrian route. The site is within walking and biking distance to the commercial core. If a potential resident were looking for a less auto - reliant lifestyle, this would be a good neighborhood to consider. The neighborhood streets can absorb additional on street parking. With blocks containing parallel parking and no curb cuts the City's Parking Department estimates that each side of the street can accommodate eleven (11) parking spaces or a total of twenty - two (22) per block. Following is a sample of parking counts recently taken by planning staff December 2010 through February 2011. Table 3: On- Street parkin_ counts alont Hopkins Ave. Hopkins Ave. % of Pictures of Hopkins Avenue street parking on Date Time 3rd -4th 4th -5th 5th -6th capacity December 28 12/22 8:00 AM 2 5 8 23% ti {` 12/22 5:15 PM 2 3 8 20% '` r ';; 12/23 7:45 AM 2 1 5 12% .n 12/23 5:00 PM 2 2 6 15% =- 12/27 8:00 AM 3 3 8 21% - 12/27 5:15 PM 3 2 7 18% 12/28 8:00 AM 3 2 8 20% • 1/14 8:15 AM 1 2 6 14% 1/14 5:00 PM 2 4 8 21% 1/19 8:00 AM 1 3 7 17% a Vitl 1/19 5:45 PM 3 4 8 23% 4e4V \ ' 1/27 9:00 AM 1 2 5 12% 1/31 6:00 PM 1 2 8 17 %/ qqr x k - 2/1 7:00 PM 2 1 7 15% ax 2/2 8:30 AM 2 2 7 17% i- Average 2 2.5 7 17% Page l0 of 12 The above counts do not take into account intermittent events such as Saturday, January 30, 2011. On this day, the special event parking lots for X -Games were full and attendees were directed to town for parking. According to neighbor reports, the neighborhood was filled with cars and virtually all existing capacity was used. Staff considers this an out -of -the- ordinary occurrence. The staff counts also do not reflect available parking on 4` 5` or 6 Streets between Hopkins and Main Street. Staff did notice unused capacity in these areas but the above numbers do not reflect this condition. The purpose of the staff counts is to demonstrate the availability of street parking. The exact total capacity and the exact usage patterns can be argued. But, staff has witnessed available spaces over several different days and times. The Parking Department prefers the Fourth Street head -in parking be available to the public; however, the department recognizes that the applicant currently possesses an encroachment license for the exclusive use of the parking. Parking Director Tim Ware did indicate that even if the head -in parking is available to the general public, it tends to operate as de -facto parking for the property adjacent to it. In either scenario, the head -in parking will be used by residents of this project. Counting the head -in spaces, a total of 46 spaces will be available for residents of this project. This meets the City's standard for one space per residence. As acknowledged above, some residents will park on the street. Considering the present un -used capacity, staff believes the existing street parking can accommodate any off -site parking demands from this project. An alternate way to consider this project's parking condition is on a per bedroom basis. With 46 parking spaces, this project provides .81 spaces per bedroom (46 spaces for 57 bedrooms). The Little Ajax Affordable Housing project provides .61 parking spaces per bedroom (25 spaces for 41 bedrooms). The Christiania provides .54 parking spaces per bedroom (20 spaces for 37 bedrooms). A typical house in the neighborhood has four bedrooms with .5 parking spaces per bedroom (2 spaces for 4 bedrooms). In this per- bedroom context, the Boomerang project is providing slightly higher levels of parking than similarly situated projects. Staff supports 46 spaces being the overall required parking with the off - street parking being set at 34 spaces (33 underground and 1 at- grade, adjacent to the alley) with the continued use of 12 spaces, via an encroachment license, along Fourth Street. Considering "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" and "The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City, " staff feels this parking proposal is appropriate. Subdivision: The Applicant is requesting the City Council approve the request for subdivision. Subdivision review is triggered with the development of multiple dwelling Page 11 of 12 units. In reviewing the request, staff finds the Applicant meets the review criteria (Exhibit C) for Subdivision. The development of affordable housing meets many goals of the AACP, multi- family development is prevalent within the neighborhood and adequate utilities exist to serve the development. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP in providing affordable housing that is located within the city near transit and within walking distance to the commercial core. Staff recommends approval on first reading. At second reading, staff will include a Transportation Demand Management Plan and anticipates the applicant will provide a parking study or additional parking information. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. g , Series of 2011." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: PUD Review Criteria Exhibit B: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map Review Criteria Exhibit C: Subdivision Review Criteria Exhibit D: P &Z Resolution No.22 (Series of 2010) Exhibit E: P &Z minutes: 11/2/10 Exhibit F: P &Z minutes: 12/14/10 Exhibit G: Addendum to the application: representative drawings Exhibit H: Application Page 12 of 12 ORDINANCE NO. a (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - OTHER AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRIC MAP, 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, 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, Page 1 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) 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, due to an appeal on the approved resolution the City Council remanded the application back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to reconsider their parking recommendation solely on the PUD review criteria; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission took public testimony, considered the application and approved Resolution No. 4 (series of 2011); and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Subdivision, PUD — Other Amendment, and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map approval of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 14, 2011, the City Council 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 City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1:General Development Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves PUD -Other Amendment, Subdivision Review and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to develop 46 affordable housing units as further described herein. Page 2of8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) Section 2: Amendment to the Official Zone District Map (Rezoning) The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be, upon filing of the subdivision plat and Final PUD plans, amended by the Community Development Director to reflect an underlying zone district designation change from Medium Density Residential with a Lodge Preservation overlay and Planned Unit Development overlay (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi - Family with a Planned Unit Development overlay (RMF /PUD) on all portions of land described as: Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R and S, Block 31, Aspen Townsite. Section 3: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, and Section 26.445.070, Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, within 180 days of approval by City Council. Section 4: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance No. - -- (Series 2011) and P &Z Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted city standards. e. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. f A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. A detailed excavation plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. h. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 5: Planned Unit Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD plans. Page 3 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) 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 Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' r' floor balcony projects 4'S" into setback Maximum Height 32' Minimum dist. between buildings N/A Minimum Open Space Not required Allowable Floor Area 1.5:1, or 44,915 sq. ft. Minimum Off - Street Parking 46 Total 34 -on -site (33 underground, 1 alley space) 12 within the 4 street r -o -w, maintained by an encroachment license * Per HPC approval, 4/25/2007 Section 6: Affordable Housing Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing, via Resolution No. 22 (Series of 2010) creating 46 deed - restricted affordable housing units not required for mitigation. 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 Section 7: 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 approved the 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. Page 4 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) 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 8: 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. The Applicant shall provide the following required Right -of -Way improvements, 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 5th Street. • Installation of two ADA sidewalk ramps at the intersection of West Hopkins and 5 and 2 ADA ramp on the intersection of 4th 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 9: 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 10: 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 11: 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 Page 5 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) 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 12: 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 13: 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 14: 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 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 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: Transportation A transportation demand management (tdm) plan has been submitted with the Final PUD application. The Applicant shall be required to meet the standards of the tdm plan. Page 6 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) Section 18: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 8, Series of 2010 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Parcel C of the Aspen Valley Hospital District Subdivision and commonly known as 401 Castle Creek Road, City of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. 12 Series of 2010, of the Aspen City Council. Section 19: 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 or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 20: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 21: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 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 22: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 14 day of March, 2011, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Page 7of8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 28 day of February, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Page 8 of 8 Ordinance No. - -- (2011) Exhibit A PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets and even exceeds many elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R- 6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi - Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF /PUD). This request reflects the applicant's desire to convert the Boomerang Lodge development (approved by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of multi - family affordable housing. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The new Boomerang proposal would be one of the largest affordable housing project ever produced by the private sector in the City of Aspen. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, especially because it 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) Staff finds this criterion met. 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. Staff finds this criterion met. 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. The parking aspect of the proposal, including the design and access points, are not situated in a way that would adversely affect the ability to develop other properties in the area. Future development within the surrounding area will not be adversely impacted. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: The application has received all necessary growth management approvals that are necessary for the proposed project. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 to be compatible with the surrounding area the neighborhood has examples of two and three story buildings in the immediate vicinity. Staff suggests that the allowable FAR should be established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District as currently proposed by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion met. b) Natural or man -made hazards. Staff Finding: Not applicable. No natural or man -made hazards. Staff finds this criterion met. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. 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. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 46 off- street spaces for this proposal. With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) 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 via an encroachment license. 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. Residents will have access to parking within and proximate to the property in a very similar manner, type, number, ratio to units, and ratio to bedrooms as existing developments in the neighborhood. The standards for residential parking are the same for free - market residential development and affordable housing. Staff believes the parking for this project is consistent with the character of existing and future land uses in the neighborhood and the character of parking for existing and future land uses in the neighborhood. The project has been designed considering the pedestrian bikeway on Hopkins Avenue. The applicant has responded to staff's desire for this frontage to not include curb cuts and to maintain the existing configuration of the public right -of -way. Locating high- density residential development, especially locally occupied units, along the pedestrian way enables more residents the opportunity to walk or bike to work and other attractions. This enhances the value and utility of this public resource. The proposal also recognizes the opportunities that existing with the proximity to transit services. This site is optimum for residents who want to rely less on an automobile (than other locations in town) without requiring any resident to subscribe to a different lifestyle or to "give -up" automobile ownership. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 Floor Area Ratio that is established at the limit prescribed in the RMF Zone District. Staff finds this criterion met. 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: 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 can be established as part of establishing dimensional requirements for a Final PUD Development Plan, pursuant to Section 26.445.040(C)14, Minimum off - street parking spaces. As noted in the PUD section entitled Dimensional Requirements, "the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimension for each provision." With regard to parking, the applicant proposes to meet code requirements for 46 residential units (one space per residential unit) 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 via an encroachment license. The applicant, with the maintenance of the encroachment license, can achieve 46 parking spaces for this application if Council ultimately approves a PUD and maintains the existing encroachment license. If the encroachment license is not maintained, no change is proposed to the head -in parking is proposed and the residents of this project will have access to these spaces. Regardless of the encroachment license being maintained, 46 parking spaces will be available to residents of this project, slightly exceeding the City's one space per residence requirement. It is likely, or probable, that residents of this project will have additional cars and will avail themselves of the available street parking in the neighborhood. While this is expected, it is not illegal or counter to city policy or counter to the review standards. The City's street parking system is managed to allow residents of a neighborhood to be exempt from the 2 -hour parking limits that otherwise apply. The program has been in effect for 15 -20 years and seems to meet the needs of residents. The neighboring streets appear to have un -used capacity. Staff has been monitoring the street parking in the past months during different times of the day and existing capacity exists. (The staff memo contains a chart showing street parking counts.) There is no doubt that some residents of this project, like any other development within this neighborhood, will use street parking. Staff expects that they will use street parking much in the same way as current residents use it — for an oversized vehicle or an extra car, for a trailer, for guests, or for other parking purposes. This seems to be the way current residents use street parking, according to staff observation. Staff believes the residents of this project should enjoy the same allowances for street parking and have the ability to obtain and use a street parking permit. The project contains primarily small residential units — the proposed 46 units contain a total of 57 bedrooms. While the City's code for a project of this type does not specify parking requirements on a per bedroom basis, this analysis is useful in determining an appropriate number of parking spaces. With 46 parking spaces, this project provides .81 spaces per bedroom (46 spaces for 57 bedrooms). The newly developed Little Ajax Affordable Housing project across the street provides .61 parking spaces per bedroom (25 spaces for 41 bedrooms). The Christiania Lodge, just north of the project, provides .54 parking spaces per bedroom (20 spaces for 37 bedrooms). A typical house in the neighborhood has four bedrooms with .5 parking spaces per bedroom (2 spaces for 4 bedrooms). Older developments in this neighborhood fall significantly short of the per - bedroom ratio that this project is proposing. In this per bedroom context, the Boomerang project is providing slightly higher levels of parking than similarly situated projects. The "availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access" (Section 26.445.050 (B)(3)(c)) such as the adjacent West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, the nearby Midland Trail and close proximity to transit both through the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) and the Car -to -Go carshare program provides a basis for permitting only 34 off - street parking spaces on the subject site. Additionally the site's location meets the following philosophy statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling" (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21). Owning a car is not a necessity with multi - modal options available and the subject site is within close proximity "to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City" (Section 26.445.050 (B)(3)(d)). Again the project's location meets a philosophy statement of the AACP with regard to lessening one's reliance on the auto because "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) If overflow parking does occur, the parking department has noted that additional parking can be absorbed within the neighborhood. All of these factors provide a basis for permitting a requirement of 34 off - street parking spaces with a recommendation that the encroachment license be maintained for the redevelopment. Staff finds this criterion met. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Not applicable. Joint use parking is the common use of one private parking facility by two different uses. Joint use can be acceptable when the uses have very different demand profiles. For example, an office building and a church sharing one parking lot where the pattern of demand for the office building is very different from the church and one parking lot has the ability to serve both needs. The project is 100% residential and joint use parking is not proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: The Boomerang is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, is located one block from a major public transit corridor of the second largest transportation system in the State, and is in proximity to a Car -to -Go carshare parking space and the downtown area. As a result of the site's location there are a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Bike racks are being proposed by the Applicant as well as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. While the project residents will have access to 46 parking spaces exceeding the one space per unit requirement, these factors provide a legitimate basis for accepting a lower parking ratio for the proposed project. Staff believes the availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, the availability and access to the Hopkins pedestrian corridor, the proximity to the publicly available car -share program, and the transportation demand management techniques being proposed by the applicant render the proposed parking sufficient and meeting this criterion for PUD approval. 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. This proximity lessens the necessity for everyday use of a car as many trip can be accommodated by walking, bicycling or by transit. The location also appears to be a favorable site for affordable housing, according to the AACP. The AACP speaks to lessening one's reliance on the auto because "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). The location meets the following philosophy statement of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP): "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling" (Transportation Philosophy, pg 21). The AACP goes on to say "Development of affordable housing within the traditional town site should be encouraged ..." Staff believes the proximity to the commercial core, employment opportunities, recreation opportunities, and the City's activity centers lend this site an ideal place for affordable housing with the parking as proposed. The proposal is consistent with the aspirations of the community plan and in conformance with the PUD standards for parking. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The property is served with sufficient utilities to service the property and, since located in the original townsite with street access on three sides of the subject block and alley access on the fourth, has adequate road access. 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: a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: Not applicable. The development proposed is located on a relatively flat site within the original townsite. Run -off will be mitigated with a management plan and any development is required to meet adopted environmental health standards. 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. Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi - family dwellings in the Residential Multi - Family Zone District. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi - family dwellings in the Residential Multi - Family Zone District. There are no negative physical characteristics of the site as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, regarding infrastructure and natural hazards. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: There is no maximum density for multi - family dwellings in the Residential Multi - Family Zone District as noted in other review criteria, there are examples throughout the neighborhood of multi - family residential development so additional multi- family development is compatible with the neighborhood. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: There are many fully mature trees on the site that provide visual interest and will be preserved according to the Final PUD Landscape Plan. The remaining portion of the Boomerang Lodge is a designated historic landmark. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: The proposed development is within the Aspen Infill Area, located in the original townsite. The proposed development maintains the historic structure and existing landscaping. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: The proposed structure is appropriately oriented to public streets. Multiple street entrances to individual units are proposed. Most of the building's facades are parallel to adjacent streets and many of the units provide a deck or balcony which creates visual interest. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Proposal has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory in this regard by the Fire Marshall. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: A new sidewalk is required on Fourth Street and Fifth Street, and sidewalk repair is required along West Hopkins. Handicapped access will be provided, as required by the Engineering and Building Department prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with site drainage requirements as required by the Engineering and Building Department prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Not applicable. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well- designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: A landscape plan was approved as part of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006. No substantial deviation from this plan is anticipated, The Final PUD landscape Plan must be approved by the Parks Department prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Mature trees on the site are significant features and are preserved per the landscape plan, as reviewed and approved by the Parks Dept. prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with Parks Department requirements prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: The reduced size of the structure better respects the scale and massing of the adjacent historical resource (Boomerang Lodge /East Wing). The proposed facade creates more favorable variety of heights and tend to break up the massing of the structure to better reflect the visual character of the City. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: The bulk of the structure is south facing. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Applicant must meet this condition prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with relevant code and building permit requirements. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to convert a pool area between the east side of the structure and 4` Street into a lawn area intended as a common element maintained by the homeowners association. This request has been approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding: The lawn and common area is intended to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: The lawn and common area is intended to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Any future development requires PUD approval. Staff finds this criterion met. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with requirements of City Utilities Department and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permit. There are no known capacity or service issues. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Finding: Developer will mitigate or commit to mitigate any adverse impacts as identified prior to issuance of building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: The structure has direct access to an alley and multiple public streets. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: The net increase in development is not expected to create substantially increased traffic congestion. The site is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The Car -to -Go program has a parking space in the neighborhood. Access to the underground parking is via the alley. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: New sidewalks on 4 and 5 streets, and improved sidewalk on West Hopkins will contribute to improved access and use of the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway. Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: Not applicable. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions. J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. Exhibit B Amendment to Zoning Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings 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 Finding: The amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finds this criterion met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposal meets the relevant elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R -6 /LP /PUD) to Residential Multi - Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF /PUD). The rezoning meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because the property is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, and especially because it is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Street Bike and Pedestrian way and near the Midland Trail. The Boomerang is also one block from a major public transit corridor on West Main Street. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the following statements in the 2000 AACP: • "New development should take place only in areas that are, or can be served by transit, and only in compact, mixed -use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling." (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) Staff finds this criterion met. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the proposed RMF -PUD zone district designation is compatible with the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, which includes some RMF parcels, some PUDs, some affordable housing and a large amount of R -6 and R -15 zoning. On its face, R -6 and R -15 zoning would seem incompatible with RMF zoning. However, the existence of R -6 and R -15 zoning in this neighborhood can be traced back to the 1970s, when a dramatic downzoning was approved for this neighborhood. The fact is that much of the existing development in this neighborhood does not reflect the dimensional limits of R -6 and R -15 zoning, which limits development to low density single - family homes and duplexes, with relatively low Floor Area Ratios, ranging between .3:1 and .54:1. In fact, much of the existing development in the Shadow Mountain Neighborhood reflects the use and dimensional prescriptions allowed by RMF zoning, which allows high densities, along with Floor Area Ratios between .75:1 and 1.5:1. In addition, the adjacent Mixed Use Zone District along Main Street allows high- density residential and lodging uses, and allows Floor Area Ratios of up to 1.25:1 FAR. While there are a number of properties in the neighborhood that are zoned R -6 and R -15, the characteristics of most of these properties are more consistent with the higher FAR and density allowed in the RMF Zone District. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff finds this criterion met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Finding: Prior to the demolition of part of the Boomerang Lodge, there were 34 lodge units on the site. The proposed rezoning would allow for 46 residential units in an area that is close to the urban core and is amenable to walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit. The fact that the Boomerang site is directly adjacent to the West Hopkins Pedestrian and Bikeway, near the Midland Trail, is located one block from a major pubic transit corridor, and is in close proximity to downtown provides a number of alternative modes of travel available to future residents. Also, the townsite grid roadway system is designed to absorb traffic efficiently. Staff finds rezoning would not result in a significant change to traffic generation or road safety. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 Finding: The rezoning allows for multi - family residential uses, which is a typical use in the area, and does not significantly increased demands on public facilities. Staff finds this criterion met. 2 F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: The proposed rezoning would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The property is located within the Aspen Infill Area within an original townsite block and has an existing structure on it. Staff finds this criterion met. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would result in new residential housing in the townsite, where such development is appropriate due to existing infrastructure and development patterns. As previously mentioned the neighborhood is comprised of a mix of lodging, commercial, multi - family, single — family and duplex development. Additional multi - family development fits into the community character of the neighborhood and city. Staff finds this criterion met. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: There are no recently changed conditions that would support or oppose the proposed amendment. 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 Finding: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest. A goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the development of affordable housing and the development of this project will further that community goal. Staff finds this criterion met. 3 Exhibit C Subdivision Review Criteria & Staff Findings Sec. 26.480.050. Review standards. A development application for subdivision review shall 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: Staff finds that the proposal meets and even exceeds many elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from Medium Density Residential / Lodge Preservation / Planned Unit Development (R- 6/LP/PUD) to Residential Multi - Family / Planned Unit Development (RMF/PUD). This request reflects the applicant's desire to convert the Boomerang Lodge development (approved by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2006) from 47 lodge units, five free - market residential units and two affordable housing units into 54 units of multi - family affordable housing. The production of affordable housing is a central priority of the 2000 AACP. Encouraging the private sector to produce affordable housing is also an important goal. The proposal also meets the goals of the 2000 AACP because it is within the original townsite, located in a neighborhood that it is walkable and bikeable, especially because it 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 proposed rezoning 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) Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the 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. Staff finds this criterion met. 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. The development, once completed, will not restrict access to adjoining lots. Existing utilities are available to serve the project Staff finds this criterion met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding: The subdivision is in compliance with all applicable requirements, subject to filing a plat and subdivision improvements agreement. Staff finds this criterion met. 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 subject parcel is flat; no natural hazards. Drainage plan required as part of Final PUD Plan, prior to building permit issuance. Staff finds this criterion met. 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: Not applicable. There is only one structure on the parcel which is located in the Aspen Infill Area and already served with utilities. Staff finds this criterion met. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area 2 Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas and /or the goals of the community. Staff Finding: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580 as required. Staff finds this criterion met. 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: Applicant proposes to meet standards of Chapter 26.580 as required. No design variation has been requested. Staff finds this criterion met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement housing program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding: This is a 100% affordable housing proposal. The standard is not applicable. E. School land dedication. Compliance with the School land dedication standards set forth at Chapter 26.620. Staff Finding: Applicant will comply with school land dedication fees, with the exception of credits for pre- existing units and exemption for designated historic structure as permitted by the city. Staff finds this criterion met. F. Growth management approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH -PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44 -2001, §2; Ord. No. 12, 2007, § §29, 30) Staff Finding: All growth management approvals have been granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff finds this criterion met. 3 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 CHANGE 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, 12/2212010 at Page 1 of 6 11:00:18 AM, 1 OF 6, R $36.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION P &Z. Resolution No 22 (2010) 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 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. Page 2 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) 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 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 1- lousing 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 Minimum Front Yard 5 feet Minimum Side Yard 4'3" — east* Page 3 of 6 P &Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) Dimensional Req. 5' -- west Minimum Rear Yard 5' 2 floor balcony projects 4'S" 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). 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. 13. 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 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: City Attorne y Stan Gibbs, Chair ATTEST: difia 12 „eel ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of 6 P&Z Resolution No. 22 (2010) tycitea 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 Conunission. Mike Wampler asked if they go to the MAE 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. Hoffinan 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. Hoffinan cited the letter from Jody Edwards that were complaints raised by a number of other parties who submitted letters. Hoffinan 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'/ 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 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 i 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 RIvIF 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. I (tackle Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 14 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 I6`" 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 Plannine & Zonine 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 LJ 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. a ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 V Q 1 SO MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: February 22, 2011 RE: Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amendments to the Election Code Staff and the Election Commission request you continue this ordinance to your March 14, 2011 meeting. The Election Commission is reviewing amendments and wording to the ordinance and will not meet in time to comment on these for your February 28 meeting. MEMORANDUM 1 1 TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: Castle Creek Energy Center, Power Plant Road: Subdivision, Rezoning, Consolidated PUD Review, Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010. (public hearing is continued from August 9 September 13 October 12 November 8, 2010, January 24, 2011 ) MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 continued to July 11, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen. ` - REPRESENTATIVE: "- Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC. a LOCATION: 9' ,, Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt Ranch d Open Space, along Power Plant Road beneath " , the Castle Creek bridge. CURRENT ZONING: a R -30, Low Density Residential. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests approval to construct a hydroelectric plant, aka the Castle Creek Energy Aerial view of proposed site. Arrow Center, on Power Plant Road adjacent to the indicates proposed location of the new City Shop building. The application includes the building. following reviews: subdivision to create a new lot and to remove the area from the open space STAFF RECOMMENDATION: inventory, rezoning from R -30 to the Public Staff recommends that City Council grant Zone, consolidated PUD review to determine approval for Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD dimensional requirements, Growth Management and Growth Management for an Essential Review for an Essential Public. The project is Public Facility for the Castle Creek Energy exempt from Stream Margin Review because it Center with conditions. is a utility and is essential for public health and safety. 1 Castle Creek Energy Center, Power Plant Road Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010 02.28.11 NOTE: During the September 13, 2010 public hearing, City Council encouraged Tim McFlynn and Ruthie Brown to pursue the public suggestion that a group of stakeholders gather to discuss the proposed Stream Health Monitoring Program that is an integral part of the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center. The proposed Stream Health Monitoring Program intends to protect and to evaluate the health of the streams (both Castle and Maroon) after the Castle Creek Energy Center begins operations. City Council continued the November 8 public hearing to January 24, 2011and again to February 28, 2011 to allow further time for the citizen led group to convene. The mediation date is scheduled for March 22, 2011. Staff recommends that City Council continue the public hearing to July 11, 2011 to allow adequate time for the City to respond to the citizen group's comments. The proposed July date also pushes the hearing out past the June election and allows this issue to be heard by the new Council. 2 Castle Creek Energy Center, Power Plant Road Second Reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010 02.28.11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David Hornbacher, Deputy Director of Utilities and Renewable Energy THRU: Phil Overeynder, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Castle Creek Energy Center update DISCUSSION: The Independent Review and Community Mediation initiated in September, 2010, have progressed to the second step. The first step, Independent Expert Review, was completed January 21 , 2011 with report out through the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers and Streams Board. The second step, originally scheduled for February 9 was rescheduled to March 22 " This time allows for the Independent Experts to gather additional information and data, and to confer with the City of Aspen Experts in an effort to close the difference in opinions on the stream flow levels. In support of this process, and to provide staff time to act on outcomes from the mediation session, it is recommended that the Castle Creek Energy Center land use planning application be continued to the July 11 2011 Council session. Page 1 of 1 V I it c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: February 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Second Reading Ordinance 43 -- Proposed Engineering Fees SUMMARY: Staff is proposing Engineering Permit Review Fees to recover costs for staff time associated with building permits. This is the second of two readings. PREVIOUS MEETINGS: At the January 3, 2011 work session, Council directed staff to proceed with a fee structure that included a subsidy for those services that were associated with activities related to public service. The first reading of the proposed engineering fees occurred on February 14, 2011. DISCUSSION: Currently, fees are not charged for the engineering staff time associated with building permit review and the related construction mitigation for these permits. By not charging engineering fees, development is receiving "free" engineering services from the City. These services are subsidized through a combination of the General Fund and the Stormwater Fund. Often times we will see an application multiple times through several iterations because we are not charging for this service. Staff is proposing to recover those costs associated with the staff time used toward building permits. This represents 65% of the total costs. Those services associated with public service will continue to be subsidized. Public service examples include pedestrian and transportation safety, stormwater program activities, right of way (ROW) support and capital projects. Exhibit A contains the analysis of the Department's activities. Based on the Department's activities as shown in Exhibit A the costs to deliver development services was analyzed. This is shown in Exhibit B. The Engineering permit review fee proposed will vary depending on project size, i.e. the bigger the project the more time to review the application. The table below estimates the amount of time it takes to review each type of permit: Building Permit Engr. Review Estimate Basic Avg 2 hr Minor Avg 5 hrs Major Avg 22 hrs A construction mitigation fee of $1 per gross square foot is proposed to cover those services directly related to development. Fifty percent of this fee would be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Exhibit C shows the proposed fees for engineering staff time for building permits and associated construction mitigation. Affected Area will be used for the calculation of the Engineering permit Review Fee. The affected area is the best way to apply an applicable fee to a project, because the engineering review includes an analysis of the site such as drainage, grading, stabilization. Gross square footage will be used for the calculation of the construction mitigation fee. Gross square footage was used because it relates directly to the amount of inspection needed for a project. Examples of what the fees would look like for a variety of scenarios is presented in Community development's Memo. Exhibit D includes the estimated revenue of the proposed fees. Since the activities associated with building permit review is spread across two funds, (General Fund and the Stormwater Fund) the revenue will be distributed proportionally across these funds, refer to Exhibit D. These fees appear to be consistent with other high end resort style municipalities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: With the adoption of the proposed fees, the costs associated with building permit and land use review (approx $774,000) would be recovered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Engineering Development fees as proposed in the ordinance included in Exhibit E. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # amending the municipal code of the City of Aspen to increase certain Engineering Fees." ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fees. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments Exhibit A - Engineering Department Activities Exhibit B - Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation Exhibit C - Proposed Fee Structure Exhibit D - Revenue Estimate Exhibit E - Fee Ordinance Exhibit A Engineering Department Activities Development (direct and indirect) Public Service Building Permit Review Construction Mitigation (mudftaw, flood plain, (CMP review, site visits, Other (projects, ped and stabilization, drainage, erosion inspections; ROW permits and trans safety, general sediment control) complaints) t.anduse Encroachments support City Engineer 10% 10% 10 %''- 10% 60% Project Manager 11 20% 80% Development Engineer 90% - 10% Stormwater Manager 7% 7% 7% 79% Construction Mitigation Officer 11 75% - 25% Construction Mitigation Officer 1 38% 38% 24% Engineering Technician 11 20% 80% Admin (1/2 FTE) 34% 33% 33% 0% Total Employees: 1.2 1.5 I' 0.2 1.0. 3.6 Exhibit B 2011 Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation inT-T; 161:4121371treek=r4L:tCptirin.q717;:4::"."';: Mgaljsla “a rciTher"40"4 # Non Compensation Recoverable Recoverable Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025 triaravir “ ..;45; "if.1-4 • T Non Avg. Expense Recoverable Recoverable Administration (15000) $260,930 $170,330 $90,600 Remodel Depreciation $120,000 $78,340 541,660 Total Operating $380,930 $248,670 $132,260 , 11 1 441akotiff.th ZiOlii raTLAKtaastraidt4 Pads': ..- Non Expense Recoverable Recoverable Overhead (IT and GF) $225,540 $147,230 $78,310 v.,rizto 4 —e t iatfealirti4Rit:AA*4:4' Recoverable Non Type Total Expense Recoverable Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025 Operating Expenditures $380,930 $248,670 $132,260 Overhead $225,540 5147,230 578,310 Total $1,202,729 $785,133 $417,595 Billable Hours 2,954 Cost/Hour $265.82 Exhibit C Proposed Engineering Development Fee Structure Engineering Permit Review Fee Affected Area Fee Basic review = 200 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00 Minor Review = 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1325.00 Major Review = 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000 Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr (Minimum charge '/2 hr) Construction Mitigation Fee 400 - 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project. Above 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05 per square foot of project over 15,000 sf. Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Exhibit D 2011 Estimated Revenue (2010 Activity Level) New Fee Revenue Existing New General Fund. Stormwater Construction Mitigation Total $173,600 $0 $173,600 $0 Land Use Engineering Review Total $212,000 $6,000 $184,800 $21,200 Building Permit Engineering Review Total $394,600 $0 $276,200 $118,400 ROW & Encr Fees Total $90,943 $90,943 $0 $0 Total $871,143 $96,943 $634,600 $139,600 Note: This is a full year of estimated revenue and the fee has not been adopted so only two -third might be recognized in 2011. This might be the amount expected for 2012. Additionally because 50% of the construction mitigation fee is collected up front, the revenue may be less than what is shown. It all depends on the completion of the project which could extend into multiple out years. • Exhibit E Ordinance No. Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fee that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth International Building and Residential Code Permit fees, is hereby amended to include the following additional section: 2.12.100 (0 Engineering Development Fees Engineering Permit Review Fee Affected Area Fee 200 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1,325.00 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000 Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr (Minimum charge '/2 hr) Construction Mitigation Fee 400 - 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project. Above 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05 per square foot of project over 15,000 sf. Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of Mick Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of Mick Ireland, Mayor Attest: MEMORANDUM V 1 1 3 o TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I " DATE: February 28, 2011 1, / RE: Community Development Fees 2" Reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2011 SUMMARY: Community Development is proposing changes to the fees charged to applicants for planning and building services. The current system subsidizes development services and has become a major burden on the General Fund. Development fees have not been raised in four years. During a recent work session, City Council directed staff to prepare a development fee system based on how each type of service should be allocated — either as a development service, a public service, or split. This proposed system represents an approximate 20% subsidy of Community Development. Planning reviews are billed at an hourly rate that includes the department's overhead costs. The rate has been $245 per hour. Long -range planning activities are a significant portion of • the department's expenditure. Council directed staff to prepare a fee structure based on long - range planning being supported 75% by development and 25% by the public's general fund. This results in an hourly rate of $330. The proposed ordinance uses a rate of $315 per hour, which is the rate currently charged by Pitkin County. Many services remain free or at a low rate in this new system. Zoning review fees are based on the size and complexity of a project. The proposal separates projects that require precise measurements (floor area, height, etc.) verses those that are limited to interior work and take significantly less time to review. Staff is proposing lower zoning fees for projects under $10,000 in valuation. New are change order fees and a fee for a conditional CO. These are extra services not included in the base fee. Building fees for projects of less than $10,000 are being lowered. These small projects represent about 50% of the number of permits issued by the City each year. Projects over $10,000 will not be seeing a reduction in fees while projects over $50,000 will no longer be subsidized by the general fund. Real estate development has undergone a fundamental shift and Community Development has made significant cuts in both staffing and expenses. Permit activity is rebounding and staff is responding with a qualified level of service to meet expectations. City Council's directive was to maintain certain services free to the public and a low fee structure for simple projects — acknowledging some inherent subsidy of ComDev. The proposed fee structure meets that directive and represents a balance of community interest without impairing other expectations of the General Fund. 1 FIRST READING COMMENTS: Staff is continuing to make process improvements within the building permitting system. The City's Business Process Analysts is assisting staff to look at every function and every type of permit process for efficiency gains. Staff is reviewing proposals for a new software system that will allow digital submissions, web interface options for applicants and the ability for parallel reviews. This will streamline permit review and make timelines more predictable. The proposed system does provide benefit to "model" applicants that submit well - prepared plans that meet adopted codes. These applications are reviewed faster and tend not to require additional staff time for coaching applicants on the standards, change orders, conditional COs, code violations, correction items, etc. These applications tend to be from repeat customers knowledgeable of the system. In addition, staff is looking at offering outright discounts to "super users" within the context of overall permit system changes. This may be a way to incentivize use of digital plans and the web interface. Staff has prepared a series of example permits for fee comparison. Exhibit C shows six real examples and all fees associated with each project (not just ComDev fees). Within this selection, ComDev fees represent 2% to 6.3% of a project's total cost. Staff has also reviewed the fee system with several architects, contractors and developers. Staff will report on their input at the hearing. A question about different fee methodologies was raised. Some fees are based on square footage, others on valuation, etc. Staff explored the best indicators of staffing needs for various types of projects. Project valuation is the best indicator of staffing needs for a building permit review and inspection service. This indicates both the complexity of the scope and the duration of the project. Sub - permits (electrical, mechanical, plumbing) are based on the number and type of fixtures. A project's square footage is the most relevant indicator for zoning review time, not project valuation. There's a big difference between projects that require precise measurements (floor area, height, etc.) and those that are limited to interior work. Zoning reviews requiring measurements for PUD projects are inherently more complex. While the proposed system uses different indicators, the development community is familiar with the approach. And, it represents how most jurisdictions approach fees. 2 BACKGROUND: Community Development is within the General Fund of the City. Any subsidy of the planning and building functions is essentially a cost to the general public. Currently, revenues do not cover the expenses and the public is subsidizing these services. This holds true in future projections promoting the need to address the issue by either accepting the deficit, ensuring development fees cover the costs of services, or a combination thereof. City Council reviewed the planning and building functions and how the costs of services should be allocated as either a public service or a development service. Exhibit B contains a detailed summary of the work session direction. Based on this direction, staff time for the planning and building divisions is allocated as follows: Planning Department Activities Development Service Public Title Direct Indirect Service Admin Asst 2% 50% 48% Administrative Manager 2% 50% 48% ComDev Director 12% 61% 27% Deputy Planning Director 26% 49% 25% Historic Preservation Officer 31% 42% 27% Long Range Planner 8% 61% 31% Planner 36% 43% 21% Senior Planner 37% 44% 19% Special Projects Planner 6% 55% 39% Zoning Enforcement Officer 39% 31% 30% Temp 0% 50% 50% Total Employees: 1.7 4.6 2.9 Building Department Activities Development Service Public Title Direct Indirect Service Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20% Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20% Building Inspector 50% 28% 22% Chief Building Official 5% 59% 36% Joint Combo Inspector 30% 24% 46% Field Inspection Manager 18% 50% 32% Plans Examination Manager 40% 50% 10% Plans Examiner 30% 50% 20% Administrative Manager 0% 42% 58% ComDev Director 0% 27% 73% Total Employees: 1.3 4 2.6 3 Considering the Planning Division's payroll, operating, and overhead expenditures an hourly rate for time directly associated with a planning case should be $330 per hour. Staff is proposing an hourly rate of $315 to align with the Pitkin County rate. Planning Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation R 2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable Total Payroll $935,195 $183,114 $462,518 $289,563 Area Avg. Expense Joint Administration (13000) $17,500 Planning (13200) $60,850 Historic (13400) $1,500 Code Amend. - 3/4 of average $75,000 MCP - 3/4 of average $115,000 Special Projects - average $25,000 Tech. Services - Average $55,000 Total Operating Expenditures $334,850 ; 0erhea `.1 t o � 'p -c ^ :�!;' Expense 2011 Allocation 44 $334,664 Type Expense Payroll $645,632 Operating Expenditures $334,850 Overhead $334,664 Total Recoverable Costs $1,315,146 Billable Hours 4,027 Cost/Hour $330.27 4 The same calculation method applied to the Building Division results in an hourly rate of $262. Staff is proposing a fee structure based on an hourly rate of $250 for building services. Building Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation rY1r 2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable Total Payroll $848,388 $158,736 $369,724 $319,928 Qpeating Expel =* ,: ;f Area Avg. Expense Joint Electrical (21100) $2,750 Building (21000) $197,770 Litigation /Arbitration $50,000 Special Projects $25,000 Total Operating Expenditures $275,520 Overhead a ; ?: Expense 2011 Allocation $189,470 Type Expense Payroll $528,460 Operating Expenditures $275,520 Overhead $189,470 Total Recoverable Costs $993,450 Billable Hours 3,786 Cost/Hour $262.43 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Long -Range forecasting of development services is a tenuous exercise. Under the new fees system, revenues are much closer to expenditures. However, many projects remain "on-hold" and the department is not issuing many of the permits that are being applied for. This means that actual revenues may not meet these projections. And, depending on how many of these projects do go forward, staff resources may need to be adjusted. Attached as Exhibit A is an estimate of revenue for a "normal" year and years 2011 through 2013 prepared in conjunction with City Finance. 2011 reflects one third of the year with existing fees and two thirds with the proposed fees. Subsidy percentages are decreasing in out years. 5 �... . CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the approval of Ordinance No. 28, Series 2011." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Projected Revenues Exhibit B — Summary of January 3` work session Exhibit C — Example Permit Fees 6 3 m a ^ 2 2 E ` 0 0 d m o o a n o a o ca O 5 m •4 • C as • d 0 0 m _ m " 0 2 J/p�� Sail t m m t am) › m 0 7w' d' m ) . u_ a) 0 LL d m V �' c m c a s m c 3 0 m 0 0 0 oo oo O m a ...Ix.- • 0 O cum 5 m ° 2 -228 D „ E m m E C m m 2 O O m M o 0 2 2 = :: • 0 E N 0 0 N O O W a o (p C 0 _, h r t K - w E m d 8 r o ° u y ° E o 2 m o N r 4) 3 2 2 U 5 N U S al 2 cc a CC o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q o o 0 Q o g t l d o o O O O O O O O N O t0 O O O O m O O O O O O O O N 0 th • O N O O O (0 O O O O O Q O N 6 e O Q W ^_ 0 0 Q 0 0 0 O n CJ M O 0 0 Q of or CO N 0 N 6 6 6 6 N r N N N M r. N O+ ^ 0 W r c� N N a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (p O y O O • O.- N C 0 0 o h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 out W m N EE 0 tr) O n r V N 0)) 1I 0 m N N .- 0 y N 0) n N O) OW r N d O N N a a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e coo 0 coo 0 0 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' co 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 c O O O t0 O O O O O O) O O V) C) 7 m 0 N - 0 N o N o a6 0 o m a y 0) ° (0 N_ 0 0 N n W `" C N O ... ✓ N a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 L o 0 0 o O O o 0 o o 0 0 o ° o in t..: co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o r o 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O co O co O co coo co co 0 co co N N L N N 0 Q N O) N(0- N N m ei r N Q C) Q O Z a a W f0 W Z W Z LL LL f W F cc U K W K W a = 0 ", a CI- LL c7 F U J Z D. 3 W w Z W 0 5 z W w > > Z O re 2,x0 F It ❑ W 0 Z W I- Y Z Z Z N F W 0-w m 0. U Z 33 2 Z Z z w g z z 0 z z Z d n O 0 0 0. 2 W G O w p 00 W 0 Q Q • N N 0 0 0 z 0 0 0 z Q O O O m 0] W m m R1 LL O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N- 0 0 0 N 0 Q N f0 r W 0 tO t0 f0 0 N (0 t0 0 (0 Cr) 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 T N N N N N N N N N a a W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f0 V) LL Work Session Follow -Up TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council V A"›.)/ FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Johannah Richards, Administrative Manager Tricia Aragon, City Engineer WS DATE: January 3, 2011 RE: Development Fees — Work Session Summary SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION: Community Development and Engineering staffs proposed changes to the fees charged to development. In order to propose a fee structure, staff asked Council for direction on cost allocations between services considered public service (charged to the general fund) and development services (charged to development applicants). Some changes were made to staff proposal and are reflected in the attached pages. City Council also discussed ways to minimize permit fees for "small" projects. Council reiterated their desire for small projects to enjoy low fees and requested staff return with a proposal. Council expressed concern about harming the general fund. Staff reviewed development fee structures from other municipalities. They vary widely. The fee structures reflect a jurisdiction's public policy on development — either encouraging development through low fees or requiring the full costs of services be covered by development. Mesa County, for example, has waived all development fees for 2011 and adopted a developer's bill of rights. Other jurisdictions require development pay for every service, including pre - application conferences. These are extremes, but demonstrate the wide variety of approach. DEFINITIONS: Public Service — This is a service that the public, collectively, should pay for. It is a service that is a core service of the City, like police protection or snow plowing. It is a service that should exist regardless of the amount of development activity happening. These also may be development - related services that promote certain public goals deserving of a subsidy. Services in this category will translate to an amount that ComDev and Engineering are supported by the general fund. Development Service — These are services directly related to development that development should pay for. These are services that the City would not need to provide if development were not occurring. Services that can be attributed to a specific project will be billed to that applicant. Services that are development based, but are not easily assigned to any particular project are considered overhead costs and are paid by development on a proportionate basis. 1 Current Planning Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect POD, Walk -in, Pre -Apps, 50% 50% Gen. info. Code Updates - Printing & 50% 50% Web Code Interpretations 75% 25% Interpretation Appeals 100% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Admin. Food Vending 50% 50% Admin. Temp. Use 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Case Review - analysis, 100% hearings, plats /agmts. Case Admin. - Opening, 100% Closing, AR Historic Preservation Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Historic Designation 100% Hist. Pres. - Exempt by HPO 100% Hist. Pres. - Approval by 75% 25% HPO Hist. Pres. - Amend by HPO 100% Hist. Pres. - Amend by 100% Monitor Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect HP Case Review - analysis, 100% hearings HP Case Admin. - Opening, 100% Closing, AR Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Annual HP Awards 100% State & Federal Tax Credit 50 -75% 25 -50% Program Property-Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice 2 Long - Range Planning & Special Projects Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Code Amendments - 25% 75% Development Policy Task Force - Development 25% 75% Policy Aspen Area Community Plan 25% 75% ** *Amended from a 50/50 split Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Non - Development Long- 100% Range Special Projects - COWOP, Depends on each situation Area Plans Administration Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect General Admin., HR, Reflect overall ComDev split % Personnel, Training Budget, Eden, AP Reflect overall ComDev split % Front Desk Reflect overall ComDev split % Const. Use Tax (moved to 100% Finance) ** *Amended from a 50/50 split to mirror the overall allocation within ComDev. 3 Zoning Review Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Dev. Review Committee - 100% Project related Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Zoning Review for Building 100% Permit Change Orders 100% Special Services - CCO, Red 100% Tags, Corrections Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Bear -Proof container 75% 25% Signs & Awnings 50% 50% Fence Permit 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Development- Related 100% Zoning Enforcement General Zoning Enforcement 100% * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 4 Building Division Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect BOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Policy /Code Interpretations 75% 25% Policy /Code Interp. Appeals 100% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Dev. Review Committee - 100% Project related Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Building Permit Review 100% Change Orders 100% Inspections through CO 100% Special Services - CCO, Red 100% Tags, Re- Inspection Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Code Amendments / 50% 50% Adoptions Public Training - New 100% Codes/Programs/Outreach Property -Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 5 City Engineering Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Policy / Code Updates 50% 50% Property -Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice Pre -App Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre -App Assist. - Major 50% 50% DRC & Case Review 100% Plats and Agmts. Review 100% ** * Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Review for Permit/Changes 100% Special Services — CCO, Red 100% Tags ** *Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Pre - Const. Meetings 100% CM Plan Review /Changes 100% CM Daily Inspections 100% Complaints / Enforcement 25% 75% Special Services — CCO, Red 100% Tags, Re- Inspections ** * Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assistance 50% 50% Enc. & ROW Permit Review 100% Daily Inspections 100% ** *Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 6 �xh %611 City of Aspen n Community Development Department / /'Y' e � . Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid l:�^�✓c�' New Single Family Residence Valuation $ 5,353,800 Square Footage 8,976 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit 55,165 55,165 School Dedication 52,460 52,460 Stormwater System 35,813 35,813 Sanitation District 32,867 32,867 Building Permit 31,474 54,969 Building Plan Check 21,160 35,730 Water Tap 19,700 19,700 County Use Tax Deposit 13,385 13,385 Road Impact Fee 7,818 7,818 Energy Code 3,147 8,245 Zoning Fees 2,757 10,376 REMP Fee 1,433 1,433 GIS 200 200 Construction Mitigation Fee - 8,976 Engineering Review Fee - 15,482 Housing Cash In Lieu - - Park Dedication - - TDM - Air Quality - - Encroachment/Right of Way - - After Hours Inspections - - Total Fees Paid $ 277,379 $ 352,618 Total Fees To ComDev $ 58,539 $ 109,320 Total Fees To Engineering - 24,458 Amount of "City" Fees $ 170,849 $ 221,631 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 1% 2.0% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0% 0.5% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 5% 6.6% City of Aspen Community Development Department Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid New Single Family Residence Valuation $ 4,713,824 Square Footage 7,385 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit 48,445 48,445 School Dedication - - Stormwater System 28,647 28,647 Sanitation District 25,437 25,437 Building Permit 27,858 51,054 Building Plan Check 17,371 33,185 Water Tap 29,560 29,560 County Use Tax Deposit - - Road Impact Fee - - Energy Code 2,786 7,658 Zoning Fees 2,114 8,785 REMP Fee - - GIS - - Construction Mitigation Fee - 7,385 Engineering Review Fee - 12,300 Housing Cash In Lieu 99,761 99,761 Park Dedication 4,429 4,429 TDM - Air Quality 498 498 Encroachment/Right of Way 2,524 2,524 After Hours Inspections - Total Fees Paid $ 289,430 $ 359,668 Total Fees To ComDev $ 50,129 $ 100,682 Total Fees To Engineering 2,524 22,209 Amount of "City" Fees $ 156,781 $ 207,334 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 1.1% 2.1% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0.1% 0.5% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 6.1% 7.6% City of Aspen Community Development Department Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid New Single Family Residence Valuation $ 2,200,000 Square Footage 6,000 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit 22,050 22,050 School Dedication 29,273 29,273 Stormwater System 13,366 13,366 Sanitation District 32,706 32,706 Building Permit 13,654 31,450 Building Plan Check 8,875 20,443 Water Tap 14,340 14,340 County Use Tax Deposit 5,500 5,500 Road Impact Fee - - Energy Code 1,365 4,718 Zoning Fees 1,680 7,400 REMP Fee - - GIS 200 200 Construction Mitigation Fee - 6,000 Engineering Review Fee - 9,530 Housing Cash In Lieu 151,956 151,956 Park Dedication 19,930 19,930 TDM - Air Quality 2,241 2,241 Encroachment/Right of Way - - After Hours Inspections - - Total Fees Paid $ 317,137 $ 371,103 Total Fees To ComDev $ 25,575 $ 64,010 Total Fees To Engineering - 15,530 Amount of "City" Fees $ 75,531 $ 113,966 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 1.2% 2.9% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0.0% 0.7% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 14.4% 16.9% City of Aspen Community Development Department Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid Commercial Remodel Valuation $ 25,000 Square Footage 350 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit - - School Dedication - - Stormwater System - - Sanitation District 4,364 4,364 Building Permit 476 575 Building Plan Check 309 374 Water Tap 359 359 County Use Tax Deposit 63 63 Road Impact Fee - - Energy Code 48 86 Zoning Fees 125 350 REMP Fee - - GIS - - Construction Mitigation Fee - - Engineerinq Review Fee - 530 Housing Cash In Lieu - - Park Dedication - - TDM - Air Quality - - Encroachment/Right of Way - - After Hours Inspections - - Total Fees Paid $ 5,744 $ 6,701 Total Fees To ComDev $ 958 $ 1,385 Total Fees To Engineering - 530 Amount of "City" Fees $ 1,317 $ 1,744 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 3.8% 5.5% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0.0% 2.1% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 23.0% 26.8% City of Aspen Community Development Department Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid Commercial Tenant Finish . Valuation $ 110,000 Square Footage 964 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit 105 105 School Dedication - - Stormwater System - - Sanitation District - - Buildinq Permit 1,242 3,450 Building Plan Check 807 2,243 Water Tap 1,255 1,255 County Use Tax Deposit 275 275 Road Impact Fee - - Energy Code 124 518 Zoning Fees 292 700 REMP Fee - - GIS - - Construction Mitigation Fee - 964 Engineering Review Fee - 1,325 Housing Cash In Lieu - - Park Dedication - - TDM - Air Quality - - Encroachment/Right of Way - - After Hours Inspections - - Total Fees Paid $ 4,100 $ 10,834 Total Fees To ComDev $ 2,465 $ 6,910 Total Fees To Engineering - 2,289 Amount of "City" Fees $ 3,825 $ 8,270 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 2.2% 6.3% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0.0% 2.1% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 3.7% 9.8% • City of Aspen Community Development Department Total Building Permit Fees Taxes Paid Residential Remodel Valuation $ 259,200 Square Footage 903 Fees/Taxes Existing New City Use Tax Deposit 1,672 1,672 School Dedication 7,284 7,284 Stormwater System 20,808 20,808 Sanitation District 4,002 4,002 Building Permit 2,254 7,134 Building Plan Check 1,519 4,637 Water Tap 1,029 1,029 County Use Tax Deposit 648 648 Road Impact Fee - - Energy Code 225 1,070 Zoning Fees 210 1,377 REMP Fee - - GIS 200 200 Construction Mitigation Fee - 903 Engineering Review Fee - 1,325 Housing Cash In Lieu - - Park Dedication 8,858 8,858 TDM - Air Quality 996 996 Encroachment/Right of Way - - After Hours Inspections - - Total Fees Paid $ 49,705 $ 61,943 Total Fees To ComDev $ 4,208 $ 14,218 Total Fees To Engineering - 2,228 Amount of "City" Fees $ 27,917 $ 37,927 % of ComDev Fees to Cost of Project 1.6% 5.5% % of Engr Fees to Cost of Project 0.0% 0.9% % of Total Fees to Cost of Project 19.2% 23.9% ORDINANCE NO. 4 Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Building Permit and Inspection Services, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit A. Section 2. That Section 26.104.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Land Use Applications for planning or historic preservation review, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit B. Section 3. That Section 26.104.071 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section did set forth certain fees for historic preservation review, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26.104.071— Reserved. Section 4. That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain fees for zoning review and inspection services of a building permit application, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit C. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 28 day of February, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the l4 day of February, 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1 Sec. 2.12.100 — BUILDING PERMIT FEES ExhibitA The Chief Building Official may establish policies for estimating permit valuation, including policies and procedures for accepting applicant- submitted project valuation, which may include post - project audit and fee reconciliation requirements. Notwithstanding the building permit fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of building permit fees, engineering review fees, or construction mitigation fees as deemed appropriate. The Community Development Director shall waive building permit fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. The Community Development Director may reduce building permit review fees by no more than 50% for projects with a fee significantly disproportionate to the service requirements. The City may not waive or reduce fees collected on behalf of a separate government agency. The City may not reduce or waive a tax. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. Permit Valuation Fee Schedule Permit Valuation Fee based on Valuation $0 - $5,000 $25.00 Flat fee $5,001 to $10,000 $50.00 Flat fee $10,001 to $100,000 $50 plus 3.5% of permit valuation over $10,000 $100,001 to $250,000 $3,200 plus 2.5% of permit valuation over $100,000 $250,001 to $500,000 $6,950 plus 2.0% of permit valuation over $250,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $11,950 plus 1.5% of permit valuation over $500,000 $19,450 plus 1.0% of permit valuation over $1,000,001 to $2,500,000 $1,000,000 $34,450 plus .75% of permit valuation over $2,500,001 to $5,000,000 $2,500,000 $53,200 plus 0.5% of permit valuation over $Above $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Hourly Building Permit Review Fee $250 per hour Fees Due Upon Permit Acceptance: Plan Check Fee 65% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Energy Code Review Fee 15% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fire Plan Check 65% of the Permit Valuation Fee. This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only Fees Dues Upon Permit Issuance: Building Permit Fee 100% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fire Sprinkler Permit Fee 100% of Permit Valuation Fee. This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only REMP Fees - as applicable See Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program or Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, as applicable. Use Tax Deposit - City of Aspen 2.1 % of value of materials for projects over $100,000 [(Project Valuation - $100,000.00) X .5] X 2.1% Use Tax Deposit - Pitkin County 0.5% of value of materials (Project Valuation X .5) X .5% Geographic Information Systems Fee Only applies to permits changing the footprint of a building. Interior work is exempt. $250.00 Fees Dues Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee Reconciliation Payment and reconcilliation of all plans review, change order, inspection fees as applicable. Adjustments in project valuation are subject to department policy. Use Tax Adjustment - City of Aspen Final Use Tax calculation minus Original Use Tax calculation Adjustment and reconcilitation occurs 30 days after issuance of a CO. Use Tax Adjustment - Pitkin County Pursuant to Pitkin County Use Tax Policy Change Order Fees Applications for change orders shall cause a new project valuation. The change order fees shall be based on this revised permit valuation. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Not all change orders will require additional fees in each fee category. A change order fee applies each time a change order is submitted. A change order may propose multiple changes and applicants are encourage to "bundle" their change order requests to minimize fees. Change Order Fee - Plans Examination Minor Change Order - Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less. Greater of 5% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $250 Major Change Order - Projects with a valuation more than $500,000. Greater of 10% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $500 Change Order Fee - Energy Code 10% of original Energy Code fee Change Order Fee - Fire Sprinkler Pursuant to Aspen Fire Protection District Policy Special Services Fees Expedited/Phased Permit Fee - applies to the issuance of an Excavation /Foundation only 35% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fee is in addition to fees due upon issuance of a full building permit. Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no permit is required or no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Building Permit Extension Fee - for each extension $125.00 Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less. $250.00 Projects with a valuation of more than $500,000. Certificate of Occupancy Fee No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Valid for a limited period $250.00 for first CCO issued $500.00 for second CCO issued $1,000.00 for third and subsequent CCO issued. Issuance is at the discretion of the Chief Building Official Enforcement Fees and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Violations of this policy are subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge Stop Work Order or Correction Notice Fee - Assesment for non - permitted work: 1st Infraction Double Permit Valuation Fee 2nd Infraction Four times the Permit Valuation Fee 3rd Infraction Contractor License subject to suspension or revocation plus eight times the Permit Valuation Fee. Enforcement Penalties and Fees For violations of the adopted building codes other than a stop work order or correction notice, the Chief Building Official may issue a Municipal Court citation. Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Building Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Penalties may include: revocation of Contractor License(s); prohibition of any work on the property for a period of time; recovery of costs to the public for any required remediation of the site; additional Building Permit Review Fees; fees to recover administrative costs required by City staff to address the violation; and, other fees, fines, and penalties or assesments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Renewable Energy Mitigation Fees RREMP (Residential) Exterior Energy Use Calculations Snowmelt: $34.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress, or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the Chief Building Official. Outdoor Pool: $136.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package, or portable self- contained, spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt Roof and gutter deicing systems: The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated above. On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,250 per 1 KiloWatt of the system (certain restrictions apply). Solar Hot Water: $125 per 1 square foot of the system design Ground Source Heat Pump: $1,400.00 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity (certain restrictions apply). CREMP (Commercial) Exterior Energy Use Calculations Snowmelt: $60.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress, or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the Chief Building Official. Outdoor Pool: $170.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt Roof and gutter deicing systems: The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated above. On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,250 per 1 KiloWatt of the system (certain restrictions apply). Solar Hot Water: $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design (certain restrictions apply). Ground Source Heat Pump: $1,400.00 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity (certain restrictions apply). ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Section A: Residential Fees This fee, based on the enclosed living area only, includes construction of, or remodeling or addition to a: single family home, duplex, condominium, or townhouse If you are ONLY changing or providing a service and not wiring any portion of the above, see section B below for correct permit fee. LIVING AREA Not more than 1,000 s.f. $115.00 1,001 to 1,500 s.f $172.50 1,501 to 2,000 s.f $230.00 More than 2,000 s.f Base fee of $230.00 plus $11.50 per 100 s.f over 2,000 Example: The home is 2,235 s.f. The base fee for 2,000 s.f. (of the 2,235 s.f. total) is $230 $230.00 The remaining 235 s.f. is rounded up to 300 s.f. (3 x $11.50 = $34.50) $34.50 Total fee is: $264.50 Section B: All Other Fees Including some residential installations that are not based on square footage (not in a living area, i.e. garage, shop, and photovoltaic, etc.). Fees in this section are calculated from the total cost to customer, including electrical materials, items and labor - whether provided by the contractor or the property owner. Use this chart for a service connection, a temporary meter, and all commercial installations. Such fees shall be computed as follows: (See 'C' below for the permit fees for mobile /modular home and travel trailer parks). Valuation of Installation: (based on cost to customer of labor, materials, and items): Not more than $2,000.00 $115.00 $2,001.00 and above $11.50 per thousand OR FRACTION thereof PLUS $115.00 Example: The cost of installation is $5,150 (round up to $6,000) The base fee is calculated as: 6 x $11.50 = $69 PLUS $115 Total fee is: $184.00 Section C: Mobile Homes and Travel parks, per space $115.00 Section D: Reinspections $57.50 Section E: Extra Inspections $57.50 Section F: Temporary Heat Release $57.50 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters 1 For the issuance of each mechanical permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 canceled or had a final inspection Unit Fee Schedule (Note: the following does not include permit issuing fee) 1 Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50 including ducts and vents attached to each appliance up to and including 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50 including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/ h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of floor furnace, including vent $62.50 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed well heater or $62.50 floor- mounted unit heater 2 Appliance Vents $31.25 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included with unit heater 3 Repairs and Additions $31.25 For the repair of, or addition of each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical code 4 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 $62.50 horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower $125.00 (10.6 kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower $166.67 (52.7 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) Or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu /h (146.6 kW) to and Including 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower $250.00 (105.5 kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower $312.50 (176 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW) 5 Air Handlers For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 $31.25 Us), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air - handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. For each air - handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 Us) $62.50 6 Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $31.25 7 Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $25.00 For each ventilation system which is a portion of any heating or air cooling system $31.25 authorized by a permit For the installation of each hood which is served by the mechanical exhaust, $31.25 including the ducts for such hood 8 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but is $31.25 not classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table. Other Fees - Mechanical Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Mechanical $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1 For the issuance of each plumbing permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 cancelled or finaled Unit Fee Schedule (does not include permit- issuing fee) 1 Fixtures and Vents For Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, $25.00 drainage piping and backflow protection thereof) For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $12.50 2 Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $250.00 For each cesspool $500.00 For each private sewage disposal system $1,000.00 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, $62.50 excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as traps Rainwater systems, per drain (inside buildings) $31.25 3 Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water treating equipment, or $25.00 both. Fee for each. For each water heater including vent $31.25 4 Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $12.50 For each additional outlet over five, each $6.25 5 Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including Back -flow protection $25.00 devices thereof. For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included in Item 1: 1 to 5 devices $25.00 Over 5 devices, each $6.25 For each backflow- protection device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers: 2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $31.25 Over 2 inches (50.88 mm) $50.00 6 Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa: Public pool $1,500.00 Public spa $750.00 Private pool $500.00 Private spa $250.00 7 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not $31.25 classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code Other Fees - Plumbing Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Plumbing $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. Sec. 26.104.070 - PLANNING & HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW FEES Exhibit B Hourly Review Fee $315 per hour No Charge Planning and Historic Preservation Services Applies to: $0 Pre - Application / Pre - Permit meetings Call -in, walk -in development questions GMQS - SF or Dx on Historic Landmark Historic Designation Hist. Pres. - Exempt Development Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, HPO Review Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, Monitor Review Development Order Publication Fee Note: Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit service. Planning Review - Administrative, Flat Fees Applies to: Flat Fee 1 $79 GMQS - Temporary Food Vending Code Interpretation, formal issuance Historic Pres. - Cert of No Negative Effect Flat Fee 2 $158 Temporary Use, admin. Flat Fee 3 $315 GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - cash -in -lieu GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - ADU, admin. GMQS - Change -in -use for Historic landmark GMQS - Minor Enlargement for Historic landmark GMQS - Alley Store GMQS - Exemption from MF Housing Replacement Flat Fee 4 $630 Residential Design Variance, admin. GMQS - Minor Enlargement, non - historic Planning Review - Administrative, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 2 $630 Review of Condominium plats or amendments. Review time for City Attorney and other referral departments also applies and is billed at same hourly rate. Review time for City Engineer is billed at the rate stated below. Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 3 $945 Recordation Documents Review - review of subdivision plats, subdivision exemption plats (except condo), PUD plans, development agreements, subdivision agreements, PUD or SPA agreements, or amendments to recorded documents. Review time for City Attorney and other referral departments also applies and is billed at same rate. Review time for City Engineer is billed at the rate stated below. Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 4 $1,260 Admin. Cond. Use or Special Review Admin. ESA or ESA exemption Admin. Subdivision - Lot Line Adjustment Admin. PUD or SPA Amendments Admin. Commercial Design Review Amendment Exempt Timesharing Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - Admin. reviews, as applicable $265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $630 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $630 City Parks Department, flat fee $630 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - One -Step, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 4 $1,260 Historic Pres. - Minor Development Historic Pres. - Major Development up to 1,000 s.f. Temporary Use, City Council Vested Rights Extension, City Council Appeals of Administrative or Board Decisions Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 6 $1,890 Historic Pres. - Major Development over 1,000 s.f. Historic Pres. - Demolitions and Off-Site Relocations Historic Pres. - Substantial Amendment Board of Adjustment variance Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 10 $3,150 Growth Management - Minor P &Z (incl. AH certificate) Conditional Use Special Review (incl. ADU @ P &Z) Environmentally Sensitive Area Review Residential Design Variance - P &Z Minor Subdivision - Lot Split, Historic Lot Split Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 14 $4,410 PUD Amendment - P &Z only SPA Amendment - P &Z only Commercial Design Review, Conceptual or Final Growth Management - Major P &Z, or City Council Subdivision "other" review - City Council only Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - one -step reviews, as applicable $265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $945 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $945 City Parks Department, flat fee $945 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Mannino Review - Two -Step, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 24 $7,560 Subdivision Land Use Code Amendment Rezoning or Initial Zoning (Annexations) Plus hourly rate $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - two -step reviews, as applicable $265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $1,260 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $1,260 City Parks Department, flat fee $1,260 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - PUD and SPA, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: PUD and SPA projects 32 $10,080 Planned Unit Development or PUD Substantial Amend. Specially Planned Area or SPA Substantial Amend. per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If Plus hourly rate $315 case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - PUD & SPA reviews, as applicable $265 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $1,575 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $1,575 City Parks Department, flat fee $1,575 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - COWOP Review or Joint Applicant Applications for the City's COWOP process - Convenience or Welfare of the Public - shall be assessed land use review fees and /or a portion of joint planning costs as determined appropriate by City Council. If no such determination is made, the application shall be billed as a PUD. Special Services - Planning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established $315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one special project. Planning Review Deposit and Billing Administration The Community Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of each land use application and additional billings shall be made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the city when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time than is covered by the deposit. In the event the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the regular issuance of invoices and collection of amounts due. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of past due invoices, as required, which may include any of the following: 1) Assessment of additional late fees for accounts at least 90 days past due in an amount not to exceed 1.75% per month. 2) Cessation of application processing. 3) Review of past -due accounts with City Council. 4) Withholding the issuance of a Development Order. 5) Withholding the recordation of development documents. 6) Prohibition of the acceptance of building permits for the subject property. 7) Cessation of building permit processing. 8) Revocation of an issued building permit. 9) Other penalties, assessments, fines, or actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Flat fees for the processing of applications shall be cumulative. Applications for more than one land use review requiring an hourly deposit on planning time shall require submission of the larger deposit amount. The Community Development Director shall bill applicants for any incidental costs of reviewing an application at direct costs, with no administrative or processing charge. Land use review fee deposits may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination shall be made during the pre - application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. Review fees for projects requiring conceptual review, final review, and recordation of approval documents. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of recordation documents. Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive planning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of planning review fees as deemed appropriate. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. Sec. 26.104.072 — ZONING REVIEW FEES Exhibit C General and Applicability Zoning review fees shall apply to all development requiring a building permit and all development not requiring a building permit but which requires review by the Community Development Department. The fee covers the Zoning Officer's review of a permit including any correspondence with the caseload planner, Historic Preservation Officer, the Deputy Director, the Director, or other city staff. A permit, amendment to a permit, or change order which requires a Floor Area, Height, net leasable, or net livable measurement by the Zoning Officer shall be considered a Major permit. All other permits are considered Minor permits. For the purposes of zoning fees, the square footage used to calculate the fee shall be the greater of the gross square footage affected by the permit or the gross square footage which must be measured to review the permit. All change orders and amendments to a permit require additional fees. A change order or amendment to an un- issued permit shall require payment of both fees (initial and change order). Official confirmation of existing conditions of a property which requires measurement of Floor Area, Height, net leasable area, or net livable area of a structure, prior to demolition or for other purposes, shall be considered a Major permit. For projects with multiple uses, the zoning review fee for each individual use shall be calculated based on the gross square footage of the use and added to determine the total project fee. Zoning review fees for major permits for properties within a Planned Unit Development shall be 125% of the fee schedule. This additional charge does not apply to demolition permits. Zoning referral fees - for official zoning comments on a planning application - shall be according to the fees policy for planning review. Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive zoning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of zoning review fees as deemed appropriate. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. 50% of Zoning Review Deposit Required For any Zoning fee of $500 or more, 50% of the fee is due at permit submittal. This deposit is non - refundable. The applicant shall pay the remaining 50% at permit issuance, which shall include any reconciliation of fees due. Special Services - Zoning Review Hourly Zoning Review Fee $315 per hour Pre - Permit or Pre - Application Meetings Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit service. Zone District Confirmation Letter $315 Formal issuance of a letter confirming parcel's zoning only. Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses. Existing Conditions Confirmation Service subject to authorization by Community Development Director and may not be available. Fee based on a Major permit review for the type of land use. Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses. Requires submission of dimensioned drawings. Expedited Zoning Review Double Applicable Fee. Prioritizes projects zoning review over all other projects. Service subject to authorization by Community Development Director considering department workload, staffing, and effects on other projects. Change Order Fees - Zoning Review Applications for change orders shall require an additional Zoning Review Fee. A change order which does not require a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable, or net livable shall be considered a Minor change order and assessed the minor fee. A change order which requires a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable area, or net livable area shall be assessed the Major zoning fee. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee - Zoning No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Zoning $315 for first CCO issued $630 for second CCO issued $945 for third or subsequent CCO issued. Business License Approval - Zoning No charge. Other fees may be required. Apply to City Finance. Special Review or Inspection Fee - Zoning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established $315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one review or inspection. Demolition Zoning Review Fees Minor Zoning Fee - Does not require measurement or confirmation of existing conditions. Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $63 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $236 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $315 Major Zoning Fee - If demolition requires measurement of the structure or confirmation of existing conditions, the fee will be the major fee according to the land use. Exterior Repair Zoning Review Fees Applies to Residential, Commercial, Lodging, Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional exterior repair work requiring a building permit or review by the Historic Preservation Officer. Does not apply to interior work. Does not apply to alteration. Fee is based on wall area or roof area being repaired. Does not apply to signs or awnings. Square footage of Repair Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $32 501 to 1,000 sq. ft. $63 1,001 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158 Above 2,500 sq. ft. $315 Residential Zoning Review Fees Applies to single - family, duplex, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, multi - family and residential units in a mixed -use building Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation: Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32 Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63 Projects over $10,000 in total valuation: Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project Major Residential permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Commercial Zoning Review Fees Applies to commercial projects and commercial portions of a mixed -use project. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation: Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32 Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63 Projects over $10,000 in total valuation: Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project Major Commercial permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) • Lodging Zoning Review Fees Applies to lodging projects and lodging portions of a mixed -use project. All fractional interest, timeshare, and exempt timeshare projects are considered Lodging for the purposes of this review fee. Minor Zoning Fee- Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Proiects up to $10,000 in total valuation: Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32 Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63 Projects over $10,000 in total valuation: Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 3 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Lodging permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional Zoning Review Fees Applies to Arts, Cultural, Civic and Institutional uses or portions of a mixed -use project with these uses. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Projects up to $10,000 in total valuation: Valuation $0 to $5,000 $32 Valuation $5,001 to $10,000 $63 Projects over $10,000 in total valuation: Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Signs and Awnings - Zoning Review Fees Individual Sign Permit Fee $63 per sign Multiple Sign Permit Fee $158 per business, unlimited number of signs Permanent Sandwich Board Sign $63 per sign * Must be in an approved sandwich board location Temporary Sandwich Board Sign $32 per one -week permit $158 for 8 one -week permits Awning Permit Fee $63 per awning * Includes signage Multiple Awning Permit Fee $158 per business review fee. Banner Installation Fee $63 Single banner * Banner fees collected $158 Double banner by the City Manager's Office Fence - Zoning Review Fee Single - Family and Duplex Residential $63 All other uses $158 Bear -Proof Trash Container - Combined Zoning & Building Review Fee Single - Family and Duplex Residential $63 All other uses $158 Enforcement Fees, Fines, and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay applicable fees is subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Non - Permitted Work Fee: Work done without a zoning approval (when one is required), without a building permit (when one is required), or work done counter to an issued zoning approval is subject to this enforcement fee. Non - permitted work fee is per infraction and per project. Additional hourly fees may be applicable to account for staff time. No other action on the project may occur until non - permitted work issue has been rectified to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Any correction requiring a building permit or zoning application shall also be subject to the Correction Order Fees described below. First infraction $315 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Second Infraction $630 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Third Infraction $945 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Correction Order Fee: This fee shall apply to any work required to correct a zoning violation or to permit work that has been accomplished without a permit or not covered by an issued permit. Infractions are per project. First infraction Double Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500 Second Infraction Four times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500 Third Infraction Eight times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500. Subject to additional penalties by citation as assigned by the Municipal Judge. For any correction requiring a planning review, the planning review fees shall be increased according to the above schedule. Municipal Court Enforcement - Zoning Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Land Use Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Zoning Enforcement Fee may include an assessment for administrative time required by the Zoning Officer to address the violation. V110. The Im of Omen Memorandum ChY Aaornev's Office TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: February 14, 2011 RE: BMC West Property Annexation - Ordinance No. 5 , Series of 2011 - First Reading Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted, would annex the Bar /X Ranch Property to the City of Aspen. This matter is before you on First Reading. The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on November 17, 2010. On December 6, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31 -12- 107(1), C.R.S. A public hearing was held on JANUARY 24, 2011, at which time Council determined that the proposed annexation was in compliance with §§ 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S. City staff will be present at the public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance to answer any questions you might have on the proposed annexation and potential impacts the annexation will have on City operations. The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all. ACTION REQUIRED: A Motion to approve Ordinance No. 5 , Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: cc: City Manager Community Development Director i ORDINANCE NO. 5 (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "BMC WEST PROPERTY" ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010, the City Manager on behalf of the City of Aspen, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 98, Series of 2010) at its regular meeting on December 6, 2010, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 10, Series of 2011) at its regular meeting on January 24, 2011, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the `BMC West Property ", and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. That 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. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on 28 day February, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. 2 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 16, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Fiscal Impact of BMC West Parcel Annexation REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to provide information requested by City Council at the first reading of an ordinance approving annexation of the BMC West parcel. The request was to provide information on the fiscal impact of the annexation. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the Ordinance annexing the BMC West parcel at first reading on February 14, 2011. BACKGROUND: When a parcel of land is annexed to the City it is subsequently subject to the laws and regulations of the City including fees and taxation. It is also eligible for the services provided by the City. A fiscal impact analysis evaluates the impact of the annexation to the City from a strictly financial perspective. Typically these are related to development proposals were the impacts may be complex. As this is a parcel that is already developed and has no appreciable City infrastructure associated with it, the fiscal impact analysis is relatively simple. There has been no effort to estimate the fiscal impacts of a future redevelopment of this parcel for employee housing as the development plan, timing and density are unknown at this time. DISCUSSION: The major revenue sources that will arise from the annexation of this parcel are sales taxes and franchise fees. The total amount of estimated revenue to be received on an annual is basis is shown below. Sales Tax $ 129,600 Franchise Fees 5,300 Cigarette Taxes 1,100 Specific Ownership Taxes 1,000 Motor Vehicle Registrations 100 Total Additional Revenue $ 137,100 Estimated sales tax includes additional sales tax on utilities that would be sold and an estimate for use taxes that are credited against any sales tax that might be received. Franchise fees are also estimated based on various sales by utilities. Cigarette taxes are allocated by the state based on the total retail sales within the city compared to the State as whole. Specific Ownership taxes and Motor Vehicle tax revenues are just rough estimates. Since the parcel is owned by the City Page 1 of 2 there are no property taxes that are collected from this parcel as the City is tax exempt. This includes the building. Since no public right of way is to be annexed as part of this action, incremental costs should be relatively low. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impacts of this annexation are shown above. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This is to provide information related to the fiscal impacts of the annexation only. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. This is provided as information only. ALTERNATIVES: None PROPOSED MOTION: None Page 2 of 2 4I(i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo A MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 �YV RE: Amendment to the Zone District Map — Zoning of the BMC West property 2 " Reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Aspen Staff recommends City Council assign the property to the Service Commercial REPRESENTATIVE: Industrial Zone District with a Planned Steve Barwick, City Manager Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD). Scott Miller, Asset Manager And, staff recommends Council approve a Chris Everson, Project Manager PUD Plan reflecting current conditions. LOCATION: P&Z RECOMMENDATION: 38005 Highway 82 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended in favor or this application SUMMARY: by a five to zero vote. This property is being considered for annexation. If annexed, the City needs to provide the property with zoning within 90 days. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The application requires the following reviews: • Amendment to the Zone District Map !Initial Zoning] — 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, forward a recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Consolidated Conceptual and Final 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, forward a recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final decision - making body. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen purchased the 4.6 -acre BMC West property in December 2007, with the long -term intent of developing affordable housing. However, the City has no intent to initiate a public process to plan the property for at least three to five years. In the meantime, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers to annex the property in order to collect property tax, sales tax and Construction Materials Use tax. Applicant is in a parallel review process for annexation. The intent at this time is to essentially "freeze" the site in its current condition as a lumber yard. This will be accomplished by the adoption of a Final PUD Plan that establishes the dimensional requirements and use of the parcel as they are today, referencing the 2009 Improvement Survey Plat (see application). A new development plan for the parcel would require a full review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council either through a PUD Amendment or rezoning — and very likely both. STAFF FINDINGS: Many of the standards of review for an Amendment to the Zone District Map do not apply in this case, because there is no "proposed development." For example, standards for an Amendment to the Zone District Map ask whether the proposal is "compatible with surrounding zone districts;" if it would have an impact on "traffic generation;" if it would place "demands on public facilities;" or if it would have "adverse impacts on the natural environment." If the City were seeking only to have the subject parcel rezoned to Service /Commercial /Industrial, the applicant would need to conduct an analysis of the potential build -out of the parcel under the allowances of the S /C/I Zone District. However, by adopting a Final PUD Plan that effectively "freezes" the current condition in place, this application does not include any "proposed development." The concept is that once the City is ready to move forward with a development plan in approximately three to five years, a land use application would be submitted, resulting in a comprehensive land use review. Therefore, this Amendment to the Zone District Map would not have any impact on surrounding zone districts, traffic generation, public facilities or infrastructure, or the natural environment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets or exceeds the standards of review. Staff recommends the property be zoned SCI -PUD and the existing conditions be considered the approved PUD plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2011." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Application — Provided in February 14 packet Exhibit B — Staff Findings for Amendment to Zone District Map Exhibit C — Staff findings for Final PUD Plan Exhibit D — P &Z Minutes ORDINANCE NO. 6, (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING TO THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FORMER BMC WEST PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38005 STATE HIGHWAY 82, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 AND 2, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273503101801 and 273503101802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen, represented by City Manager Steve Barwick, requesting approval of an Amendment to the Zone District Map and a final Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the property at 38005 State Highway 82, commonly known as the BMC West property, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, and is zoned B2 (General Business) in Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested and received annexation into the City of Aspen and the City has a requirement to designate zoning for the property; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department found that the application meets or exceeds applicable standards of review and recommended the property be zoned into the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District with a Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 1, Series of 2011, by a five to zero vote, recommending approval of an Amendment to the Zone District Map, initially zoning the property as Service Commercial Industrial with Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD), and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD plan reflecting existing dimensions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the Ordinance No. 6, Series 2011. Page 1 recommendations of the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2011, the Aspen City Council approved an Amendment to the Zone District Map, initially zoning the property as Service Commercial Industrial with Planned Unit development overlay (SCI - PUD), and approved a Final PUD plan reflecting existing dimensions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable standards and that assigning the subject property to the SCI -PUD Zone District 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: Initial Zoning to SCI -PUD Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director to reflect Lots I and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, as included in the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District with a Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD). The Community Development Director shall use the survey descriptions contained in the Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009, attached as Exhibit A, as the basis for determining the zoning boundaries. Section 2: Approved PUD Dimensions The dimensional allowances and limitations for Lots 1 and 2, Block I, Aspen Airport Business Center, shall be the existing conditions as outlined in Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009, attached as Exhibit A. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance No. 6, Series 2011. Page 2 Section 5: 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 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 28 day of February, 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 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14 day of February, 2011. 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 Exhibit A: Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009 Ordinance No. 6, Series 2011. Page 3 Exhibit B Amendment to Zone District Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings 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 Finding: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portion of this title, as the responses to standards of review illustrate below. The applicant proposes an initial underlying zoning of Service /Commercial/Industrial, which is the only city zone district that expressly permits a lumber yard. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with the express intent of "freezing" the existing development on -site in its current condition, including the existing dimensions and use. Any future change to the existing dimensions and use would require a rezoning and/or PUD Amendment. The intent of the current request is to facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lumber yard; this application does not represent a proposed development. Staff believes this criterion is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." If the property is annexed, the City of Aspen has an obligation to assign a zone district to the property. Staff believes S /C /I- PUD for this property is consistent with all the elements of the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not create any adverse effects on the subject property's neighborhood or surrounding environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding compatibility. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 1 Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding traffic generation and road safety. Staff believes this criterion is met. 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 Finding: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued operation of the lumber yard, there will be no additional demands on public facilities. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard for rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding public facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding impacts on natural resources. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding "consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area," as well as criteria regarding site design and architectural character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 2 Staff Finding: The City has purchased this parcel and wishes to annex it at this time, largely in fiduciary responsibility to city taxpayers through the future collection of property and sales taxes. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. 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 Finding: Based on the above responses, the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the "Standards of review" criteria established in the above noted Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 3 Exhibit C PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." This parcel is part of the urbanized area of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the character in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. Initial zoning and PUD designation will not adversely effect future development of the surrounding area. 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, fmal PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: No GMQS allotments are being requested. 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 BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 1 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. b) 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 landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds criteria a -d are met. 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: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate. 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. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development. The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds these criteria met. Any future PUD Amendment must comply with this criteria. 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: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 2 Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 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: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is not a proposal to increase allowable density. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 3 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard C(1 -7). D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well - designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard D(1 -3). E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards E(1 -3). BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 4 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards F(1 -2). G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no common park or open space propsed. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no proposed increase in development at this time. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standard H(1 -3). I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 5 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There is no proposed change to the access or circulation patterns. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets criterion I (1 -6). J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no phasing proposed. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 6 0 Plannin. &Zonin. Meetin — Minutes — Februa 01 1 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest S/�W04C/ None stated. ' Acki ,- . sa PUBLIC HEARING: BMC Rezonin ' recommendation to rezone 37925 H 82 . s • art of an nnexation application Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on BMC rezoning recommendation as part of an annexation application. Chris Bendon said that we haven't done one of these in a few years; it is a legislative review that City Council does. Bendon said within 90 days of annexation into the city the city needs to provide the property with zoning; assigned to a zone district which is this commission's review tonight. Bendon distributed a map of the property to give a closer view of the large map that Chris Bendon had on display; the property was highlighted with orange and part of the property was along highway 82 and the airport to the west, the AABC, Annie Mitchell Affordable Housing and along the slope of Deer Hill to the east and south of the property. Bendon stated the property is known as BMC; it is actually Harbert Lumber now, a lumber yard and hardware store. If the City Council does annex the property Community Development would like to get a recommendation on the proper zoning for it; the closest zone district we have is SCI, Service /Commercial/Industrial; it allows for a lumber yard, it allows for a hardware store, it allows for a range of service and industrial uses that you would expect to see on a property like this. Bendon noted the property is 2 'A acres so it is much larger than a typical town site property so if you apply SCI zoning and apply the 2 to 1 FAR you would have an enormous potential for development; that would be inappropriate for this site. Bendon said staff was recommending SCI with a PUD Overlay; the PUD would essentially have the effect of freezing everything in place dimension wise; the existing building, the existing floor area, parking ratios would be what exists there today. Bendon said if there was an expansion of the existing uses or similar use within the SCI P &Z and Council would see it as a PUD Amendment. Bendon said it is expected at some point the city will want to redevelop this site as affordable housing, potentially a mixed use; you probably wouldn't see anything in the 3 -5 year timeframe; if the city does pursue it. Cliff Weiss asked how annexing the property accomplishes freezing. Bendon responded annexation doesn't do anything to freezing the property; the city has a responsibility to assign a zone district to it. Bendon said in addition to recommending it be rezoned SCI that it also have a PUD applied to it. The city as owner would have to come before P &Z and Council to talk about any changes to 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 the dimensions to the project are proposed in the future. LJ Erspamer asked if freeze the dimensions meant the building or the property lines; what dimensions are you freezing. Chris Bendon responded that the building, the floor area, the setbacks, the parking, the height and the property lines; nothing can change on this. Bendon said that there were 2 lots; there was a site improvement survey attached to the resolution. Erspamer asked if this was annexed was there anything to prevent the city from trading this property. Bendon replied there might be some limits because it is a city ownership that would require a vote. Jim True stated there were various obligations that the city would have to go through. Erspamer asked what the ABC was zoned. Bendon replied the County zoning was B -2 which would allow for a wide variety of uses. Bert Myrin asked if the city has the responsibility to collect property tax and is there an estimate of property taxes that the city collected. Bendon responded there wouldn't be a property tax; there would be a sales tax. Jim True said that annexation would affect the receipt of the sales tax because it would move it to the city. Bendon said the question before P &Z is not whether the city should annex the property; the question is what zone district should it be in if the city annexes the property. Stan Gibbs said that taxes collected were not part of the P &Z review. Myrin asked if it could be zoned as an AH PUD. Bendon replied it could be but it would be creating a non - conforming use. Myrin asked if it could continue in operation if they did that. Bendon answered it could. Myrin asked the downside to that. Bendon replied that it takes a little bit of a leap of faith and if we are all certain that is the appropriate zone district, then it would be fine; it is a little awkward to create a non - conforming use but you can do that through your resolution and then the City Council would just recognize the non - conforming use. Bendon said that we try to zone for what they currently are and not what they may be in the future. Myrin asked if the electric could be changed over like it was done at Burlingame. Bendon responded that he preferred it was done as a separate motion because you can't do rezoning with conditions. Myrin asked why do this now rather than down the road when all this comes up. Bendon said there was no applicant here to respond to that. Bendon said that if Council annexes this property it needs to be zoned within 90 days. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager, came from Council Chambers and stated that the City owns the property, it is currently generating retail sales and the City would like the sales tax into city coffers so why not annex the property and receive the benefit of the sales tax. Crook said eventually they will file a development application. Crook said the sales taxes were a couple of hundred thousand a year and currently they are receiving a small amount of use tax on materials bought in from another site. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Cliff Weiss said within the Aspen Area Community Plan there was a lot of conversation about SCI and loss of local business; we know this property is going to have multiuse with potential affordable housing and he would like to see the potential for SCI businesses there. Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg asked if this will include a transportation overlay. Bendon j replied no. Kronberg spoke of the access points being reviewed by the county and the expansion of the airport and the entrance to Aspen starting at the airport and the gondola (Aspen aerial). Stan Gibbs closed the public portion of the hearing. it MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to adopt Resolution 001, series 2011 BMC Rezoning recommendation; seconded by LJErspamer. Roll call Myrin, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: Misc. Code Am • : 1 ments — Historic Lot S • lit Stan Gibbs • . -ned the public hearing on mis -- aneous code amendments, historic lot sp • . Amy Guthrie said the amendm • were to the municipal code. G . . e sa' is was related to historic lot s. • s; the city has had developed • - istoric .reservation program since the : and in the 80s it included spe benefits to landmarked sites. Guthrie • i in the 90s the idea of allowi • : ubdivision to allow separate ownership oft. - additional units was propose. Guthrie stated • re have been about 20 histor' • of splits since the idea was adopted a • ere are about 2,000 parcels • • • spen with 300 designate..arcels. This is elatively small group of lane • .rks that are affected or i. - rested in this ki • of incentive but it seems to b- . ccessful in many cases • ove additional • -velopmental right off the h' .ric building and move to eparate detached e structure. To remove 1..:.. ge that requires the pu . • . - of the lot split for the creation of a new si. _ e family home. Staff esti.• ed there were about 6 lots ' • the Mixed Use . e District that are possib : andidates. Guthrie said th- ere proposing • . low the lot split in the C- one District, which is a r- . ively small zone d' • ct to the east and there w -, e 4 historic properties; th- - ould be more op unities to create detach- • tructures and separating • , ership that HPC has found successful for pres - , ng small buildings; the . :.erties that might want t pursue this are all sm. -r miners cottages. Gut • said that HPC unanimo 5 uLitxt BMC Parcel , • will %I% ,.. . 0- 0, - ,:. . 7,- ow. -5 ,...•--. .t..,.. , .,-, , 1)- -\ .?•4;:. 11 \ 5 -1,,, ,/, - .- ' —, . li... ' ' -4 ... - —., k ,34 stiO $ , t, 0 itery.a 4 9 .• , 4 . \IN # ‘ It ' . FP '5piari , . ., 'I A * • /' 41 V W'. ti L . •/ cr ' -.,-- .. a 'Viola 1 .1hain. , , o . I , . 4,00- - i .:. ■10. • il %-, .... 1. .. ''- - *" 7 ":" a ly A ..: ' eT"T'm`••••■• 1 ' ' !zpt ,:- 1 • - - ' = • ,i ' pprea 1 '_ _ S' , -.., ' OP • .11 j !. l'E—%:/r-• r ) no----.- " '.......'- ,..„ 4 4 -.. AP re l irmln , A-, , • + 20o ' .; '%. / .7..," n ff s!, ' -^4,ii: ' ' k O' " i,.; St. ' -' ilt7 "1"." ''''' ' "• -.. . ' . ,, • why , :'..r... ' ''''''' ''''!2 ' ' ' '''''',' V . 1 '0 * A fi. * v • ,,1,,:, - 4 1 ,,z;.„„%trt. ';', . i , . . .... • • .1,....„7 ..; - ., s ' - ...-' 1,."-- .. ..4„..,. , „„ • 1 14. 0.. ' - ti9,,,,, • , :, , i I Ki : ' ,.. 'Cf: ,; ''. '. . ' . — - - i ' 761 ± fb. , "s .- :- 11 4. :,,,, /.., ' r' 4 , i , ,..=',,,,:, ,_ , , . .•,, ", ..- ... 4 r '! ''' i> ' IA l' , ;-.7 pp , V!, , . • * ' , -- - 0' ‘.." •` - ., . - , • ,..,.. 'Ir , '4,,.. ' A ' — - - -- "1 , 1 4 ,...... s '' „:2,,let.q. , -- - -, , e . - - • I AINk , - -. I . . N. - ; koir a lc I .• 4 / 1 nrseris......s.".... • 1 „,..:,.. ,..', - ' - ' CN -',. '' , BMC Parcel 06 ,. 1 = i 1-„„. • , - --: - -- City Limits ----- -4- ' -, „' • I • - ", , . s • ,. • 0 175 350 700 1,050 , . r 11 % 11111111111 , Feet 1 vlsi MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 28, 2011 �✓ •�� RE: Amendments to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. 2 " Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2011 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests action from Council regarding an Ordinance to adopt amendments to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. The code will continue to include commercial and residential renewable energy mitigation programs. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Appendices A and B result from staff and community input since June 2009 and the adoption and administration of the new code. Staff sought clarification regarding required inspections and sequencing. The design and energy engineer community produced results of monitoring solar hot water and ground source heat pump systems and offered suggestions to more fairly equate the onsite energy credits. Also, sections are added to address electric and hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems. This is the first of several ordinances building staff will bring to Council for adopting the 2009 International Codes. A change from first reading is to include an off -site renewable option approved by the building official and CORE and located within the City. This parallels the off -site option offered in the Pitkin County adoption. BACKGROUND: The 2009 IECC was adopted by the City in June of 2009 and has been applied to hundreds of residential and commercial projects over seventeen months. Free trainings have been offered to the public and staff continues to support our design and construction professionals to achieve compliance in plan review and the field. Staff and design professionals agree the proposed amendments to Appendix A, the Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, and Appendix B, the Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program refine, clarify and make the code equitable and user friendly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 8 (SERIES 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.46 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is nationally recognized as a leader in developing, adopting and administrating progressive energy codes; and WHEREAS, in 1995 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to regulate exterior energy use; and WHEREAS, in 2000 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a mandatory Renewable Energy Mitigation Program; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of and visitors to our community to continue and maintain a leadership role in energy code adoption and administration. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 8 Chapter 8.46 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 8.46 International Energy Conservation Code Sec. 8.46.010. Adoption of the 2009 Edition of the International Energy Conservation Code. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the laws of the State and the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, as published by the International Code Council except as otherwise provided by amendment or deletion as contained in Section 8.46.020 of this Chapter. At least one (1) copy of the International Energy Conservation Code shall be available for inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's Office, second floor of City Hall. Sec. 8.46.020. Amendments. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, the addition of Appendix A "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" and Appendix B "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" as adopted by the City at Section 8.46.010, is hereby amended to provide and read as follows: (a) Section 101.1 Insert: "City of Aspen" for [NAME OF JURISDICTION]. Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 1 (b) Section 104.3 "Final Inspection" is hereby amended and to read as follows: Section 104.3 Required energy efficiency inspections. The building official, upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 104.3.1 through 104.4.5. Section 104.3.1 Building thermal envelope. Specific items referenced in Section 402.4.1 and Section 502.4.3 shall be inspected and approved. Section 104.3.2 Fenestration. All fenestration as defined in Section 202 shall be labeled, inspected and approved before the gypsum board inspection. Section 104.3.3 Insulation. All above and below grade wall and ceiling cavity insulation shall be labeled, inspected and approved before the gypsum board inspection. Section 104.3.4 Other inspections. In addition to the inspections specified above other inspection shall include, but not be limited to, inspections for: duct system R- value, HVAC and water - heating equipment efficiency and lighting compliance. Section 104.3.5 Final inspection. The building shall have a final energy efficiency inspection and not be occupied until approved. (c) Section 107.2 "Schedule of permit fees" is hereby amended and to read as follows: "A permit shall not be valid until the fees prescribed by Section 2.12.100 of this Code are paid in full." (d) Section 109 "Means of appeal" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "Section 109.1 Appeals shall be in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of this Code." (e) Add Section 110 "Liability" to read as follows: "The Building Official or his or her authorized representative charged with the enforcement of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in the discharge of his or her duties, shall not thereby render himself or herself personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act or omission in the discharge of his or her duties. "This Code shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any person owning, operating or controlling any building or structure for any damage to persons or property caused by defects on or in such premises, nor shall the code enforcement agency, any employee thereof or City be held as assuming any such responsibility or liability by reason of the adoption of this code or by the exercise of inspections authorized and carried out hereunder or by the issuance of any permits or certificates issued pursuant to this code." Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 2 (1) Section 301 "Climate zones" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "The City of Aspen, Colorado shall use Climate Zone 7 in determining the applicable requirements from Chapters 4 and 5 ". (g) Section 402.4.2 Shall be amended as follows: Air sealing and insulation. Building envelope air tightness and insulation installation shall be demonstrated to comply with Section 402.4.2.1 . (h) 402.4.2.2 is deleted in its entirety. (i) Section 403.8 Snow Melt System Controls (Mandatory).shall be amended as follows: (Add) 403.8.1 "Snow Melt Slab Insulation. "R 10 insulation shall be installed under the area to be snow melted or R -5 insulation shall be installed under and at the slab edges of the area to be snow melted. (Add) 403.8.2 "Roof and gutter deicing ". Electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall be self regulating type cable and include automatic controls which limit the use of the system to daylight hours by means of a programmable timer. When installation exceeds manufacturers' design requirements electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall have automatic controls capable of turning off the system with when the outdoor temperature is above 50 degrees F and monitor moisture. Hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems shall have an automatic or manual control that will allow shutoff when the outdoor temperature is above 40 degrees F. (j) Section 503.2.4.5 Snow Melt System Controls. Shall be amended as follows: (Add) 503.2.4.5.1 "Snow Melt Slab Insulation. "R 10 insulation shall be installed under the area to be snow melted or R -5 insulation shall be installed under and at the slab edges of the area to be snow melted. (Add) 403.8.2 "Roof and gutter deicing ". Electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall be self regulating type cable and include automatic controls which limit the use of the system to daylight hours by means of a programmable timer. When installation exceeds manufacturers' design requirements electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall have automatic controls capable of turning off the system with when the outdoor temperature is above 50 degrees F and monitor moisture. Hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems shall have an automatic or manual control that will allow shutoff when the outdoor temperature is above 40 degrees F. Section 2. The International Energy Conservation Code is hereby amended by the addition of an Exhibit A which shall read as follows: Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 3 Appendix A "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 101.1 Scope. Residential snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Appendix A. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Residential Building is defined in IECC section 202. Section 101.2 Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Option — Exterior energy use for residential snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On - site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The RREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Section 103 Credits for on - site renewable energy. This RREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Micro -hydro and wind generation systems will be credited according to industry standard site specific production reports. The building official and CORE may approve offsite locations within the City of Aspen. Section 104 Pre - existing systems. Pre- existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel by inspection before demolition. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. Section 105 - Residential Repairs. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment which do not increase their pre- existing energy consumption need not comply with RREMP. All replacement mechanical equipment shall be Energy Star© rated. SECTION 201 EXTERIOR ENERGY USE CALCULATIONS Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $34.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Electric snow melt energy consumption shall be Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 4 calculated as a RREMP payment option at $34.00 per square foot. Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the building official. Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $136.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 2013 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package portable self contained spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Section 201.4 The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated in section 201.1. Section 202 The total RREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. SECTION 301 ON - SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,250.00 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association) , NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed electrical contractor registered with the City of Aspen. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $125.00 per 1 square foot of the system design. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association) , NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed plumbing contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 301.3 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity. In order to use a GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 40% of the peak load for heating and cooling the building (Manual J or approved equivalent). A minimum COP of 3 at entering source water temperature maximum of 30 degrees and leaving load water temperature minimum of 110 degrees shall be the design criteria. Section 302 The total RREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as RREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 5 EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt Example (Snowmelt requested 800 sq. ft.) $34.00 *800/ .91 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $29,890.11 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $29,890.11 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 96 square feet of solar hot water panels *$125.00 per square foot = $12,000.00 RREMP payment option will be $17,890.11 OR 4.8 KW photovoltaic system *$6,250.00 per kilowatt = $30.000.00 RREMP payment option will be $0 Section 3. The International Energy Conservation Code is hereby amended by the addition of an Exhibit B which shall read as follows: Appendix B "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION. Section 101.1 Scope. Commercial snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program ( CREMP) Appendix B. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Commercial Building is defined in IECC section 202. Section 101.2 Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (CREMP) Option — Exterior energy use for commercial snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On - site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The CREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 6 Section 103 Credits for on -site renewable energy. This CREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Micro -hydro and wind generation systems will be credited according to industry standard site specific production reports. The building official and CORE may approve offsite locations within the City of Aspen. Section 104 Pre - existing systems. Pre - existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel by inspection before demolition. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. Section 105 - Commercial Repairs. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment which do not increase their pre- existing energy consumption need not comply with CREMP. Section 201 EXTERIOR ENERGY USE CALCULATIONS Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $60.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Electric snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $60.00 per square foot. Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the building official. Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $170.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.3 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package portable self contained spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Section 201.4 The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated in section 201.1. Section 202 The total CREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. Section 301 ON - SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,250.00 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association), NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or) or a licensed electrical contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 7 Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association), NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed plumbing contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 3013 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity. In order to use a GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 40% of the peak load for heating the building (Manual J or equivalent). A minimum COP of 3 at entering source water temperature maximum of 30 degrees and leaving load water temperature minimum of 110 degrees shall be the design criteria. Section 302 The total CREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as CREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR COMMERCIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt area 1200 sq. ft. $60.00* 1,200/.92 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $78,260.87 Pool area 700 sq. ft. $170.00 *700 /.92(efficiency rating of boiler)= $119000.00 Spa area 80 sq. ft. $176.00* 80 /.92(efficiency rating of boiler) = $15,304.35 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $222,913.04 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 448 square feet of solar hot water panels *$125.00 per square foot = $56,000 20 KW photovoltaic system *86,241.20 per kilowatt = $124,824.00 RREMP payment option will be $0 Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. [signatures on following page] Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 8 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14 day of February, 2011. 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: John Worcester, City Attorney Ordinance No. 8, Series 2011 Page 9