Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20120827CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 27, 2012 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation — Eat Drink Local 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) Board Appointment — Aspen /Pitkin Animal Shelter b) Resolution #81, 2012 — Calling Special Election — November 6, 2012 c) Minutes — August 13, 2012 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #22, 2012 — Sales Tax Bonds — Parks Projects P.H. 9/10/12 VIII. Public Hearings a) Resolution #82, 2012 - CC and C1 Code Amendments — Policy Direction IX. Action Items a) 420 E. Hyman — Call UP b) 601 E. Hyman — Call Up c) 435 W. Main — Notice of Call Up X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting September 10, 2012 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES • Stick to top priorities • Involve others in community problem solving • Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. PAO- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: August 17, 2012 RE: Board Appointment By approving the consent calendar, Council is making the following appointment: Aspen/Pitkin Animal Shelter — City /County member - Roberta Teliska Name: Roberta Teliska Mailing Address: P.O. Box 10012 Physical Address: 731 S. Mill St. City: Aspen Zip: 81612 Home Phone: 518 -522 -7014 Work Phone: Fax: Email: btekal7nr,aol.com Board Applied For: Aspen / Pitkin Animal Shelter Time Lived in Pitkin County: 2 years Address for Last Two Years: 731 S. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 Why the Appointment is Desired: I am a big animal lover and have been concerned with the welfare of animals from a very young age. Throughout my life, my family and I have always had pets - numerous cats and dogs that were greatly loved and well taken care of. Since relocating to Aspen from New York, we are unable to have pets in our condo, but my husband and I regularly walk dogs from the animal shelter. Also since moving here, in an attempt to become involved in and give back to the community, we have tried to become involved in as many community activities as possible and have done volunteer work at the World Cup and Food and Wine events and for PC Open Space trail maintenance. I would love to be able to contribute to the welfare of animals in the Roaring Fork Valley. My background is in research administration for the State University of New York, which I retired from in 2010. Roberta M. Teliska SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS • Results oriented, professional research administrator with 40 years of experience in research administration and management • Strong communication, negotiation, team building and project management abilities • Extensive background in sponsored programs administration • Strong commitment to excellence in customer service EXPERIENCE The Research Foundation of State University of New York June 2002 - March 2010 Assistant Vice President - Office of Sponsored Programs Services Responsible for managing the grant administration services to centralized SUNY campuses and supervising personnel directly engaged in the provision of grant and contract support provided to the campuses. Responsibilities include: • Manage a staff of 26 employees • Development of procedures to support business processes • Provide on -going training to address campus needs • Interpret policy and resolve problems for campuses • Insure acceptable levels of service for account establishment and accounts receivable functions • Strive to improve cash position of central office and campuses • Contribute to policy formulation on sponsored program issues Oversee internal controls evaluation of award establishment and maintenance, award administration, award and contract review and negotiation, advisory support and proposal submission functions October 2000 - June 2002 Associate Director - Office of Information Services (OASIS Project) As lead of the Grants Team, responsible for review, testing, implementation and stabilization of the Oracle Grants Management module. • Identified award establishment and administration business requirements • Worked with consultants to develop customizations (indirect cost controls) and custom reports to meet the RF's grants administration needs • Represented the Research Foundation on the Higher Education Special Inerest Group for Grants Enhancements • Participated in Beta testing or Oracle 11 i Grants module at Oracle Headquarters • Participated in review and input on development of Oracle Proposal module September 1981 - October 2000 Contract and Grant Specialist - Office of Contract and Grant Services As a staff member in the Office of Contract and Grant Services, represented the RF and SUNY campuses in interactions with federal, state and private funding agencies, based on a comprehensive knowledge of research and academic programs, requiring adherence to policies and processes especially those related to research activities and financial management. Duties included: • Agreement Review and Negotiation • Award Review and Account Authorization • Campus Liaison • Account Administration • Development • Technology Transfer • Special Assignments June 1974 - September 1981 Assistant to Director - Office of Chancellor's Awards and Scholarly Programs This position entailed the administration of seven grant and award programs within the State University system: • Faculty Grants for the Improvement of Undergraduate Instruction • Distinguished Teaching Professorships • Chancellor's Awards for Excellence in Teaching, Librarianship, and Professional Service • Conversations in the Disciplines • Faculty Exchange Program Work involved close contact with SUNY faculty, arrangement of travel and meetings for committee members, supervision of one employee and liaison between faculty and committees. Also involved was administration of grants after funding - budget supervision, maintenance of progress reports, record keeping. EDUCATION • State University of New York, Empire State College; Bachelor of Science Degree, Human Services (1982) • Hudson Valley Community College, Associate of Applied Science Degree, Secretarial Science (1970) PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • National Council of University Research Administrators • Society of Research Administrators REFERENCES Furnished upon request. iL60 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: August 13, 2012 RE: Resolution #81, 2012 — Calling Special Election REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #81, 2012 calling a special election for November 6, 2012. DISCUSSION: The Charter of the City states: Section 2.2. Municipal elections. A general municipal election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of 1971, and biennially thereafter. Any special municipal election may be called by resolution or ordinance of the council at least sixty (60) days in advance of such election. The resolution or ordinance calling a special municipal election shall set forth the purpose or purposes of such election. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose to not propose any questions to the electorate at this time. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #81, Series of 2012, calling a special election for November 6, 2012." OR by adopting the consent calendar, Council is calling a special election for November 6, 2012. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RESOLUTION #81 (Series of 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, CALLING FOR AND ESTABLISHING A DATE FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012 WHEREAS, Section 2.2 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen provides that any special municipal election may be called by resolution or ordinance of the City Council at least sixty (60) days in advance of such election, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to place before the Aspen electorate certain ballot questions relating to the Castle Creek Energy Center and Aspen Education Foundation school taxes, and WHEREAS, the City Council may add such additional questions to the ballot as it may hereafter deem appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 A special municipal election shall be and is hereby called and established for Tuesday, November 6, 2012, for the purpose of submitting to the electorate question relating to the Castle Creek Energy Center and Aspen Education Foundation school taxes and any other questions to be determined by the City Council at a future date. Section 2. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of August, 2012. 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 August 27, 2012. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Don Taylor, Director of Finance Steve Barwick, City Manager August 20, 2012 August 27th, 2012 lm:Af RE: Ordinance Authorizing Issuance of Bonds for Parks and Open Space Projects and Advance Refunding of outstanding 2005 Bonds REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is for the City Council to authorize the issuance of $5,225,000 in new Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bonds to finance capital improvements and also to issue $4,445,000 in bonds to partially, advance refund outstanding 2005 Parks, Recreation and Open Space bonds. There will be approximately $326,000 in premium generation on the sale of these bonds that is part of each projects capital requirements. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council, as part of the approved 2012 budget gave preliminary go ahead for the issuance of approximately 4 million dollars in new bonds in order to finance a list of capital improvements proposed as part of that budget. Subsequently, the parks department discussed with City Council additional project proposals that brought the total estimated cost of all projects to $5,320,000. BACKGROUND: In 2001 the City electorate authorized the issuance of up to $38,000,000 in bonds for various projects. To date $25,680,000 has already been issued. Authority to issue $12,320,000 in Bonds remains. As part of the development of the asset management plan for 2012 — 2022 a list of capital projects were deemed important to undertake as soon as possible and staff was directed to finance the cost of these projects through the issuance of bonds. These projects were as follows: $1,225,000 Wagner Park 2013 $ 750,000 Galena Plaza Landscape Project $ 750,000 City share of Droste $ 225,000 Golf Course Pond 2012 $ 220,000 Bob Helm Bridge 2012 $ 100,000 Rio Grande Park Restroom 2012 -2013 (2 year project) Page 1 of 3 $ 500,000 Rio Grande Park 2012 -2013 (2 year project) $ 225,000 Rio Grande Irrigation and Pump System $ 750,000 Burlingame Park Development $ 575,000 Open Space Acquisitions DISCUSSION: The total financing shown above totals $5,225,000. Closing costs will bring the size of the issue to $5,403,000. The all in true interest cost of this issue is estimated to be 3.3% if sold today. The proposed debt service structure for the bonds is a little unique as the bonds are issued as interest only until 2026. This allows the City to take advantage of extremely low interest rates for a longer period of time and still maintains a level debt service schedule. The overall Parks debt service schedule is level because other parks bonds will be paid off in 2026 when the 2012 bonds will be scheduled for repayment. If Council approves the ordinance, staff will work with Stifel Nicolaus to place these bonds under the parameters established in the ordinance. As to the refunding bonds the present value savings must equal at least 5% of the refunded bonds in ordered to proceed with the issuance. The ordinance sets out all of the terms for the issuance of the bonds. In addition to issuing bonds to finance these projects, staff has been analyzing the possibility of doing a partial advance refunding (refinance) of the 2005B Parks and recreation bonds. Interest rates have dropped so low and we are now close enough to the call date that the bonds can be refunded in two tranches and save the City money. The City would issue $4,445,000 in bonds as part of this overall debt package to refund a portion of the outstanding 2005 bonds. The estimated savings on the first refunding tranche is $280,000. In 2013 the City would issue another 10 million to refund most of the remainder of the 2005 bonds if interest rates remain low enough to make the refunding financially viable. The reason this is split in two tranches is that there are IRS regulations that give tax advantages to small issuers of tax free debt. As long as our total issuances are less than $10,000,000 million annually we will maintain that tax advantaged status. The estimated true interest cost for the bonds to conduct the refunding is 3.0 %. The actual interest rates for both of these issues will change based on market conditions on the date of the sale. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impacts of the new money bond issue is debt service costs in the amount of $160,000 annually until 2026 when the annual debt service costs will increase to approximately $840,000 per year until 2032. The financial impacts of the first refunding tranche are a $280,000 savings over the remaining life of the outstanding 2005 Parks and Recreation Bonds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the issuance of Bonds to both refund outstanding 2005 bonds and to raise $5,403,000 in new money for the proposed projects. Page 2 of 3 ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to not issue bonds and to spread completion of the projects over many years and pay for them out of current revenues each year. PROPOSED MOTION: Move to approve ordinance authorizing the issuance of bonds for the purpose of completing parks and open space projects and refunding a portion of the outstanding 2005 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bonds. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. � {SERIES OF 2012) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2012, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,995,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCE REFUNDING A PORTION OF THE CITY'S SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2005B AND PURCHASING AND IMPROVING TRAIL, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF THE SERIES 2012 BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SERIES 2012 BONDS FROM THE SAME REVENUES PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE SERIES 2005B BONDS TO BE REFUNDED (CONSISTING OF THE CITY'S ORIGINAL 1.0% OPEN SPACE SALES TAX AND ITS ADDITIONAL 0.5% OPEN SPACE SALES TAX); PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS AND APPROVING OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERIES 2012 BONDS; DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN TERMS OF THE SERIES 2012 BONDS; DIRECTING OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH REFUNDING BONDS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City "), in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, is a legally and regularly created, established, organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (as more particularly defined in Section 1 herein, the "Charter ") (all capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in the recitals hereof shall have the meaning assigned in Section 1 of this Ordinance); and WHEREAS, under the Charter, the City is possessed of all powers which are necessary, requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters, all powers which are granted to home rule municipalities by the Colorado Constitution, and all rights and powers that now or hereafter may be granted to municipalities by the laws of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10.6 of the Charter, the City Council of the City (the "City Council ") may authorize, by ordinance, without an election, the issuance of refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding and providing for the payment of the City's outstanding bonds; WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of Title 11, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the "Refunding Act "), the City is authorized to issue refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding, paying and discharging any part of the Series 2005B Bonds (described below) and for one or more other purposes, including but not limited to effecting certain economies for the City, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations in the Refunding Act; and 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution ( "TABOR ") provides that voter approval in advance is required for the creation of any district (as such term is defined in TABOR, which includes governmental entities such as the City) direct or indirect debt or other multiple- fiscal year financial obligation whatsoever except for refinancing district bonded debt at a lower interest rate; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1970 (the "Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance "), the City levies a one percent (1.00 %) sales tax (the "Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax ") on all sales of tangible property and services specified in Section 23.32.090 of the City's Municipal Code for the payment of food tax refunds, and for the acquisition of real _property including open space or construction of capital improvements for municipal purposes, or the payment of indebtedness incurred for such acquisition or construction of capital improvements for municipal purposes, for the expenditures necessary to protect such property against loss, damage or destruction; and WHEREAS, receipts from the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax are required by Section 23.32.060(c)(3) of the City's Municipal Code to be set aside in a separate fund entitled "Parks and Open Space Fund" and expended by the City Council solely for the acquisition of parks, trails and open space real property, for the construction of improvements on any real property, owned or purchased by the City for parks, trails and open space purposes, for the maintenance of real property owned by the city and used for parks, trails and open space, and for payment of indebtedness incurred for acquisition or improvement of parks, trails and open space real property, food tax refunds payable by the City, and for such expenditures as may be necessary to protect real property or the improvements thereon owned by the City for parks, trails and open space purposes and for the payment of sales tax revenue bonds issued by the City; and WHEREAS, the following question (the "Ballot Question ") regarding the imposition of an additional 0.5% sales tax (as defined herein, the "Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax" and, collectively with the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, the "Parks and Open Space Sales Tax ") and the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of buying, improving and maintaining trail, recreation and open space properties and ancillary facilities was submitted to the electors of the City at the City's November 7, 2000 election, and was approved by a majority of those voting on the question: SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $2,280,000.00 (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE, NET OF ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TAX CUTS) ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL 0.5% SALES TAX COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2001, AND TERMINATING ON DECEMBER 31, 2025, AND SHALL CITY OF ASPEN DEBT BE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $38.0 MILLION WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $91,065,000.00 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING, IMPROVING AND MAINTAINING TRAIL, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES; 2 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 SUCH DEBT TO CONSIST OF REVENUE BONDS PAYABLE FROM CITY SALES TAXES THAT BEAR INTEREST, MATURE, ARE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND ARE ISSUED, DATED, AND SOLD, AT SUCH TIMES AS NEEDED TO FINANCE THE PURCHASES OR IMPROVEMENTS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND CONTAIN SUCH TERMS AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND SHALL ANY EARNINGS (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) FROM THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAXES AND SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER - APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE? ; and WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2001 (the "Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance" and, together with the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance, the "Parks and Open Space Tax Ordinances "), has since January 1, 2001 levied the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax and, pursuant to Section 23.32.060(c)(7) of the City's Municipal Code, deposits the revenues of the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax in the Parks and Open Space Fund; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2001, pursuant to Ordinance No. 29 (Series of 2001) (the "Series 2001 Ordinance "), the City issued the City of Aspen, Colorado, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 (the "Series 2001 Bonds "), originally issued in the aggregate principal amount of $10,780,000, none of which remains outstanding, for the purpose of providing funds for buying, improving and maintaining trail, recreation and open space properties and ancillary facilities; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2005, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 19 (Series of 2005) (the "Series 2005 Ordinance "), the City issued the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005 (the "Series 2005 Bonds "), originally issued in the aggregate principal amount of $12,380,000 and presently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $7,335,000, for the purpose of refunding the City's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1999; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2005, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 42 (Series of 2005) (the "Series 2005B Ordinance "), the City issued the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2005B (the "Series 2005B Bonds "), originally issued in the aggregate principal amount of $14,900,000 and presently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $14,300,000, for the purpose of buying, improving and maintaining trail, recreation and open space properties and ancillary facilities; and ' WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 24 (Series of 2009) (the "Series 2009 Ordinance "), the City issued the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2009 (the "Series 2009 Bonds "), originally issued in the aggregate principal amount of $7,070,000 and presently outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of 3 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 $6,895,000, for the purpose of refunding a portion of the Series 2001 Bonds (the remainder of which Series 2001 Bonds have now been paid); and WHEREAS, the net revenues of the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax are pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds and the Series 2009 Bonds, pursuant to the Series 2005 Ordinance, the Series 2005B Ordinance and the Series 2009 Ordinance, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Series 2005B Bonds maturing on or before November 1, 2015 are not subject to redemption prior to their respective maturities, and the Series 2005B Bonds maturing on and after November 1, 2016 are subject to redemption prior to their maturity, at the option of the City, on November 1, 2015 at a redemption price equal to the principal amount of the bonds so redeemed, plus accrued interest to the redemption date; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to refund a portion of the Series 2005B Bonds to be determined by the Sale Delegate in accordance with the delegation authority set forth herein (as more particularly defined herein, the "Refunded Bonds "), up to an aggregate principal amount of $5,500,000, and for the purpose of refunding such Refunded Bonds at a lower interest rate, funding costs of the Project, acquiring a reserve fund surety bond and to fund costs of issuance, to issue the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2012 (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") in the aggregate principal amount of up to $9,995,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the delegation authority herein, in the event that the principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds allocable to the refunding of the Refunded Bonds exceeds the principal amount of the Refunded Bonds, in accordance with Section 11 -56 -107, C.R.S., the principal amount of such allocable portion of the Series 2012 Bonds, when combined with the principal amount of the Series 2005B Bonds outstanding which is not being refunded, will not exceed the total original authorized principal amount of the Series 2005B Bonds, such that such portion of the Series 2012 Bonds allocated to the refunding of the Series 2005B Bonds will constitute a refunding at a lower interest rate not requiring electoral authorization in accordance with TABOR and the Refunding Act; and WHEREAS, the portion of the Series 2012 Bonds allocated to the funding of the Project will require electoral authorization in accordance with TABOR and the Refunding Act, and the City has determined that, based on the limitation of the principal amount thereof set forth herein, the City has sufficient electoral authorization remaining under the Ballot Question for the same; WHEREAS, the Series 2012 Bonds will be secured by a lien on the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax revenue on parity with the lien thereon of the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds and the Series 2009 Bonds; and WHEREAS, a portion of the proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2012 Bonds shall be deposited in the Escrow Account solely for payment of the Refunded Bonds and shall be applied by the Escrow Agent to refund, pay and discharge the Refunded Bonds as shall be more particularly set forth in the Escrow Agreement and the Sale Certificate; and 4 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 WHEREAS, the City Council has been presented with a proposal from Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, of Denver, Colorado, to purchase the Series 2012 Bonds upon specified terms and conditions, the final terms and conditions of which are to be set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement in accordance with the Sale Certificate, and, after consideration, the City Council has determined that the negotiated sale of the Series 2012 Bonds, subject to the parameters set forth herein, to said company is to the best advantage of the City; and WHEREAS, no member of the City Council has a potential conflict of interest in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale or use of proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.11 of the Charter, the City is authorized to adopt emergency ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety; and WHEREAS, there is a need for issuing the Series 2012 Bonds in a timely manner in order to take advantage of existing market conditions and obtain the greatest savings to the City's inhabitants, thus freeing up City revenues which can be used for the purposes of preserving public property, health, peace and safety; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is being adopted to authorize the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2012 Bonds, to provide for the payment of the Series 2012 Bonds and to provide the details of the Series 2012 Bonds; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council, among other things, substantially final forms of (a) the Preliminary Official Statement, (b) Paying Agent Agreement, (c) the Bond Purchase Agreement (subject to completion in accordance with the terms of the Sale Certificate), (d) the Escrow Agreement, and (e) the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking; and WHEREAS, subject to the limitations set forth in this Ordinance, the City Council desires, as provided in the Supplemental Public Securities Act, Part 2 of Article 57 of Title 11 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, to delegate the authority to the City Manager, or in the City Manager's absence, the Finance Director, to identify the Refunded Bonds and to determine certain provisions of the Series 2012 Bonds to be set forth in the Sale Certificate, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to delegate the authority to the City Manager, or in the City Manager's absence, the Finance Director to determine whether it is economically beneficial to obtain a financial guaranty insurance policy insuring the payment of the Series 2012 Bonds and, if so determined, to identify the Bond Insurer and execute the Commitment; to determine whether a surety bond is to be obtained to secure payments on the Series 2012 Bonds, and to execute and deliver the Bond Purchase Agreement and approve certain terms thereof, all in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of City of Aspen, Colorado: Section 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings as used in this Ordinance: 5 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 "Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax" means the 0.5% sales tax that is levied in addition to the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax by the City pursuant to the authority granted by the Ballot Question, the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance and Section 23.32.060(c)(7) of the City's Municipal Code. It is acknowledged that such 0.5% sales tax terminates on December 31, 2025. Any extensions or replacements thereof, if any, shall not constitute Additional Parks and Open Spaces Sales Tax for purposes of this Ordinance and the proceeds of any such extension or replacement thereof shall not constitute Pledged Revenues hereunder. "Additional Parity Bonds" means any bonds or other obligations (which may or may not be multiple - fiscal year financial obligations) permitted to be issued pursuant to Section 13 hereof with a lien that is equal and on a parity with the lien of the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds and the Series 2012 Bonds on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund and the Revenue Fund. "Ballot Question" means the ballot question approved by City voters on November 7, 2000 authorizing the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax. "Bond Counsel" means (a) as of the date of issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, Kutak Rock LLP, and (b) as of any other date, Kutak Rock LLP or such other attorneys selected by the City with nationally recognized expertise in the issuance of municipal bonds. "Bond Fund" means the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Bond Fund" which fund is reaffirmed as such in Section 10(b) hereof. "Bond Insurance Policy" means the municipal bond insurance policy, if any, issued by the Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds as provided therein. "Bond Insurer" means the entity, if any, set forth in the Sale Certificate, or any successor thereto. "Bond Purchase Agreement" means the agreement between the City and the Underwriter concerning the purchase of the Bonds by the Underwriter. "Bonds" means, collectively, the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds, and any Additional Parity Bonds. "Business Day" means any day other than (a) a Saturday or Sunday or (b) a day on which banking institutions in the State are authorized or obligated by law or executive order to be closed for business. "Charter" means the Charter of the City of Aspen, adopted June 16, 1970, as amended. "City" means the City of Aspen, Colorado, and any successor thereto. "City Council" means the City Council of the City, and any successor body. 6 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 "Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Each reference to a section of the Code herein shall be deemed to include the United States Treasury Regulations proposed or in effect thereunder and applicable to the Series 2012 Bonds or the use of proceeds thereof, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. "Commitment" means, collectively, those certain offers, if any, to issue the Bond Insurance Policy, designated as the Commitment, issued by the Bond Insurer. "Defeasance Securities" means Permitted Investments that are bills, certificates of indebtedness, notes, bonds or similar securities which are direct non - callable obligations of the United States of America or which are fully and unconditionally guaranteed as to the timely payment of principal and interest by the United States of America. "Escrow Account" means the special account designated "Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Escrow Account" to be maintained by the Escrow Agent in accordance with the Escrow Agreement and the provisions hereof entitled "Escrow Account." "Escrow Agent" means UMB Bank, n.a., Denver, Colorado, in its capacity as escrow agent under the Escrow Agreement, its successors and assigns. "Escrow Agreement" means the Refunding Escrow Agreement between the City and the Escrow Agent, relating to the deposit of funds thereunder for the purpose of defeasing the Refunded Bonds. "Event of Default" means any of the events specified in Section 24 hereof. "Interest Payment Date" means any date on which a payment of principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds is due pursuant to Section 3(c) hereof. "Letter of Instructions" means the Letter of Instructions, dated the date of issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, delivered by Bond Counsel to the City, as it may be superseded or amended in accordance with its terms. " Moody's" means Moody's Investor Service and its successors. "Ordinance" means this Ordinance, which authorizes the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, including any amendments or supplements hereto. "Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax" means the 1.0% Open Space Sales Tax levied by the City pursuant to the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance. "Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance" means the City's Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1970. "Outstanding" means, as of any date, all Bonds, except the following: (a) any Bond cancelled by the City or the Paying Agent, or otherwise on the City's behalf, at or before such date; 7 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (b) any Bond held by or on behalf of the City; (c) any Bond for the payment or the redemption of which moneys or Defeasance Securities sufficient to meet all of the payment requirements of the principal of, interest on, and any premium due in connection with the redemption of such Bond to the date of maturity or any redemption date thereof, shall have theretofore been deposited in trust for such purpose in accordance with Section 23 hereof, and (d) any lost, apparently destroyed, or wrongfully taken Bond in lieu of or in substitution for which another bond or other security shall have been executed and delivered. "Owner" means the Person or Persons in whose name or names a Series 2012 Bond is registered on the registration books maintained by the Paying Agent pursuant hereto. "Parks and Open Space Fund" means the City's Parks and Open Space Fund maintained by the City pursuant to Section 23.32.060(c)(3) of the City's Municipal Code. "Parks and Open Space Sales Tax" means, collectively, the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax and the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax. "Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances" means, collectively the Original Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance and the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinance. "Paying Agent" means UMB Bank, n.a., and its successors in interest or assigns approved by the City. "Permitted Investments" means any investment which is permitted for investment of City Funds by the Charter and all other applicable laws which are included on the following list: (a) Cash (insured at all times by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation); (b) Direct obligations of (including obligations issued or held in book entry form on the books of) the Department of the Treasury of the United States of America; (c) obligations of any of the following federal agencies which obligations represent full faith and credit of the United States of America, including: Export - Import Bank Rural Economic Community Development Administration — U.S. Maritime Administration — Small Business Administration U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (PHA's) 8 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Federal Housing Administration Federal Financing Bank; (d) direct obligations of any of the following federal agencies which obligations are not fully guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America: senior debt obligations issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC); obligations of the Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP); senior debt obligations of the Federal Home Loan Bank System; and senior debt obligations of other Government Sponsored Agencies approved by Ambac; (e) U.S. dollar denominated deposit accounts, federal funds and banker's acceptances with domestic commercial banks which have a rating on their short-term certificates of deposit on the date of purchase of "A 1" or "A 1 +" by S &P and "P 1" by Moody's and maturing no more than 360 days after the date of purchase, where ratings on holding companies are not considered as the rating of the bank; (f) commercial paper which is rated at the time of purchase in the single highest classification, "A 1 +" by S &P and "P 1" by Moody's, and which matures not more than 270 days after the date of purchase; (g) investments in a money market fund rated "AAAm" or "AAAm G" or better by S &P; (h) pre - refunded municipal obligations defined as follows: Any bonds or other obligations of any state of the United States of America or of any agency, instrumentality or local governmental unit of any such state which are not callable at the option of the obligor prior to maturity or as to which irrevocable instructions have been given by the obligor to call on the date specified in the notice; and (i) which are rated, based on an irrevocable escrow account or fund (the "escrow "), in the highest rating category of S &P and Moody's or any successors thereto; or (ii)(A) which are fully secured as to principal and interest and redemption premium, if any, by an escrow consisting only of cash or obligations described in paragraph (a) above, which escrow may be applied only to the payment of such principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on such bonds or other obligations on the maturity date or dates thereof or the specified redemption date or dates pursuant to such irrevocable instructions, as appropriate; and (B) which escrow is sufficient, as verified by a nationally recognized independent certified public accountant, to pay principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the bonds or other obligations described in this paragraph on the maturity date or dates thereof or on the redemption date or dates specified in the irrevocable instructions referred to above, as appropriate; (i) municipal obligations rated "Aaa/AAA ", or general obligations of states with a rating of at least "A2 /A ", or higher by both Moody's and S &P; and 9 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (j) investment agreements and other forms of investments approved in writing by the Bond Insurer. "Person" means a corporation, firm, other body corporate, partnership, association or individual and also includes an executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed according to law. "Pledged Revenues" means, for each fiscal year, all of the proceeds of the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax after deduction of the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses of collecting and enforcing the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, if any. "Project" means the purchase and improvement of trails, recreation and open space properties and ancillary facilities, to the extent proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds may be expended to such purposes in accordance with the Ballot Question. "Rebate Fund" means the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Rebate Fund created in Section 10 hereof. "Refunded Bond Requirements" means the principal, redemption premium, if any, and interest due in connection with the Refunded Bonds, at maturity or upon prior redemption, as set forth in the Escrow Agreement. "Refunded Bonds" means such principal amounts and maturities of the Series 2005B Bonds as are set forth and designated as the "Refunded Bonds" in the Sale Certificate, provided that the aggregate principal amount thereof shall not exceed $5,500,000. "Refunding Act" means the Public Securities Refunding Act codified in Article 56 of Title 11, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. "Reserve Fund" means, as the context requires, any one or more of the Series 2005 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, and /or any reserve fund or funds established for Additional Parity Bonds. "Reserve Fund Contract" has the meaning specified in Section 16(c)(i) hereof. "Reserve Fund Requirement" means, as of any date on which it is calculated, with respect to each series of Bonds, the least of (a) 10% of the principal amount of such series of Bonds, (b) the maximum annual debt service in any calendar year on the Outstanding Bonds of such series or (c) 125% of the average annual debt service on the Bonds of such series; provided, however, that the Reserve Fund Requirement may be reduced if, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, the funding or maintenance of it at the level otherwise determined pursuant to this definition will adversely affect the exclusion from gross income tax for federal income tax purposes of interest on any of the Bonds. "Revenue Fund" means the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Revenue Fund" which fund is reaffirmed as such pursuant to Section 10(b) hereof. 10 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 "Sale Certificate " means the certificate executed by the Sale Delegate under the authority delegated pursuant to this Ordinance, which sets forth, among other things, the prices at which the Bonds will be sold, the delivery date of the Bonds, interest rates and annual maturing principal for the Bonds, as well as the dates on which the Bonds may be redeemed and the redemption prices therefor, the identity of the Bond Insurer (if any), additional provisions required by the Bond Insurer, including terms of the Commitment, and details regarding any Series 2012 Surety Bond. "Sale Delegate" means the City Manager or, in the City Manager's absence, the Finance Director. "S &P" means Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a division of the McGraw -Hill Companies, Inc., and its successors. "Series 1999 Ordinance" means the City's Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1999, pursuant to which the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1999 were issued (all of which were subsequently advance refunded with proceeds of the Series 2005 Bonds). "Series 2005 Reserve Fund" means the Reserve Fund established for the Series 2005 Bonds pursuant to the Series 2005 Ordinance. "Series 2005B Reserve Fund" means the Reserve Fund established for the Series 2005B Bonds pursuant to the Series 2005B Ordinance. "Series 2009 Reserve Fund" means the Reserve Fund established for the Series 2009 Bonds pursuant to the Series 2009 Ordinance. "Series 2012 Reserve Fund" means the City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Reserve Fund created in Section 10(a)(ii) hereof. "Series 2012 Reserve Policy Agreement" means the reserve policy agreement, if any, with respect to the Series 2012 Bonds and the Series 2012 Surety Bond, between the City and the Bond Insurer. "Series 2012 Surety Bond" means the Reserve Fund Contract, if any, issued by the Bond Insurer guaranteeing certain payments from the Series 2012 Reserve Fund with respect to the Series 2012 Bonds. "State" means the State of Colorado. "Supplemental Act" means the Supplemental Public Securities Act codified in Part 2 of Article 57 of Title 11, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended. "Underwriter" means Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, the original purchaser of the Bonds. Section 2. Authorization and Purpose of Series 2012 Bonds. Pursuant to and in accordance with the Constitution of the State, the Charter, the Supplemental Act and the 11 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Refunding Act, the City hereby authorizes, and directs that there shall be issued, the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2012" in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the Sale Certificate (the "Series 2012 Bonds ") for the purpose of funding the costs of the Project, refunding the Refunded Bonds, purchasing the Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any) or otherwise funding the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, and paying the costs of issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds. Section 3. Series 2012 Bond Details. (a) Registered Form, Denominations, Original Dated Date and Numbering. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be issued as fully registered bonds in the denominations set forth in the Sale Certificate, shall be dated as of the date set forth in the Sale Certificate, shall be consecutively numbered in the manner determined by the Paying Agent and shall be registered in the names of the Persons identified in the registration books of the City maintained by the Paying Agent. (b) Maturity Dates, Principal Amounts and Interest Rates. The Series 2012 Bonds shall mature on November 1 of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest at the rates per annum (calculated based on a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months) set forth in the Sale Certificate. (c) Accrual and Dates of Payment of Interest. Interest on the Series 2012 Bonds shall accrue at the rates set forth in the Sale Certificate from the later of the original dated date or the latest interest payment date (or in the case of defaulted interest, the latest date) to which interest has been paid in full and shall be payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing on the date set forth in the Sale Certificate. (d) Manner and Form of Payment. Principal of, premium, if any, and the final installment of interest on each Series 2012 Bond shall be payable to the Owner thereof upon presentation and surrender of such bond at the principal office of the Paying Agent in the city identified in the definition of Paying Agent in Section 1 hereof. Interest (other than the final installment of interest) on each Series 2012 Bond shall be payable by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed on the interest payment date to the Owner thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not such day is a Business Day) of the month preceding the month in which the Interest Payment Date occurs. All payments of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America. (e) Book -Entry Registration. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the Series 2012 Bonds shall be delivered only in book -entry form registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ( "DTC "), New York, New York, acting as securities depository of the Series 2012 Bonds and principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds shall be paid by wire transfer to DTC; provided, however, if at any time the Paying Agent determines, and notifies the City of its determination, that DTC is no longer able to act as, or is no longer satisfactorily performing its duties as, securities depository for the Series 2012 Bonds, the Paying Agent may, at its discretion, either (i) designate a substitute securities depository for DTC 12 4838 - 4505 - 1920.2 and reregister the Series 2012 Bonds as directed by such substitute securities depository or (ii) terminate the book -entry registration system and reregister the Series 2012 Bonds in the names of the beneficial owners thereof provided to it by DTC. Neither the City nor the Paying Agent shall have any liability to DTC, Cede & Co., any substitute securities depository, any Person in whose name the Series 2012 Bonds are reregistered at the direction of any substitute securities depository, any beneficial owner of the Series 2012 Bonds or any other Person for (A) any determination made by the Paying Agent pursuant to the proviso at the end of the immediately preceding sentence or (B) any action taken to implement such determination and the procedures related thereto that is taken pursuant to any direction of or in reliance on any information provided by DTC, Cede & Co., any substitute securities depository or any Person in whose name the Series 2012 Bonds are reregistered. Section 4. Form of Series 2012 Bonds. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be in substantially the form set forth in Appendix A hereto, with such changes thereto, not inconsistent herewith, as may be necessary or desirable and approved by the officials of the City executing the same (whose manual or facsimile signatures thereon shall constitute conclusive evidence of such approval). Although attached as an appendix for the convenience of the reader, Appendix A is an integral part of this Ordinance and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full in the body of this Ordinance. Section 5. Registration, Transfer and Exchange of Series 2012 Bonds. The Paying Agent shall maintain registration books in which the ownership, transfer and exchange of Series 2012 Bonds shall be recorded. The Person in whose name any Series 2012 Bond shall be registered on such registration books shall be deemed to be the absolute owner thereof for all purposes, whether or not payment on any Series 2012 Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice or other information to the contrary. The Series 2012 Bonds may be transferred or exchanged, at the principal office of the Paying Agent in the city identified in the definition of Paying Agent in Section 1 hereof, for a like aggregate principal amount of Series 2012 Bonds of other authorized denominations of the same maturity and interest rate, upon payment by the transferee of a transfer fee, any tax or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange and any cost of printing bonds in connection therewith. Upon surrender for transfer of any Series 2012 Bond, duly endorsed for transfer or accompanied by an assignment duly executed by the Owner or his or her attorney duly authorized in writing, the City shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver in the name of the transferee a new Series 2012 Bond. Section 6. Replacement of Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Series 2012 Bonds. If any Series 2012 Bond shall become lost, apparently destroyed, stolen or wrongfully taken, it may be replaced in the form and tenor of the lost, destroyed, stolen or taken bond and the City shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a replacement Series 2012 Bond upon the Owner furnishing, to the satisfaction of the Paying Agent: (a) proof of ownership (which shall be shown by the registration books of the Paying Agent), (b) proof of loss, destruction or theft, (c) an indemnity to the City and the Paying Agent with respect to the Series 2012 Bond lost, destroyed or taken, and (d) payment of the cost of preparing and executing the new bond or bonds. 13 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Section 7. Execution of Series 2012 Bonds. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City with the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tern of the City, shall bear a manual or facsimile of the seal of the City and shall be attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk or Deputy or Assistant City Clerk, all of whom are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Series 2012 Bonds in accordance with the requirements hereof. Should any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on the Series 2012 Bonds cease to be such officer before delivery of any Series 2012 Bond, such manual or facsimile signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes. When the Series 2012 Bonds have been duly executed, the officers of the City are authorized to, and shall, deliver the Series 2012 Bonds to the Paying Agent for authentication. No Series 2012 Bond shall be secured by or entitled to the benefit of this Ordinance, or shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose, unless the certificate of authentication of the Paying Agent has been manually executed by an authorized signatory of the Paying Agent. The executed certificate of authentication of the Paying Agent upon any Series 2012 Bond shall be conclusive evidence, and the only competent evidence, that such Series 2012 Bond has been properly authenticated and delivered hereunder. Section 8. Redemption of Series 2012 Bonds Prior to Maturity. (a) Optional Redemption. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City, in whole or in part, and if in part in such order of maturities as the City shall determine and by lot within a maturity, at a redemption price of 100% of the principal amount so redeemed plus accrued interest to the redemption date, on such dates as are set forth in the Sale Certificate. (b) Mandatory Sinking Fund Redemption. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption by lot on November 1 of the years and in the principal amounts specified in the Sale Certificate, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount to be redeemed (with no redemption premium), plus accrued interest to the redemption date. If the Sale Certificate designates mandatory sinking fund redemption dates for the Series 2012 Bonds, the City, at its option, to be exercised on or before the forty -fifth day next preceding each sinking fund redemption date, may (i) purchase and cancel any Series 2012 Bonds with the same maturity date as the Series 2012 Bonds subject to such sinking fund redemption and (ii) receive a credit in respect of its sinking fund redemption obligation for any Series 2012 Bonds with the same maturity date as the Series 2012 Bonds subject to such sinking fund redemption which prior to such date have been redeemed (otherwise than through the operation of the sinking fund) and cancelled and not theretofore applied as a credit against any sinking fund redemption obligation. Each Series 2012 Bond so purchased and cancelled or previously redeemed shall be credited at the principal amount thereof to the obligation of the City on such ,sinking- find redemption date, and the principal amount of Series 2012 Bonds to be redeemed by operation of such sinking fund on such date shall be accordingly reduced. (c) Redemption Procedures. Notice of any redemption of Series 2012 Bonds shall be given by sending a copy of such notice by first - class, postage prepaid mail, not 14 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 less than 30 days prior to the redemption date, to the Owner of each Series 2012 Bond being redeemed. Such notice shall specify the number or numbers of the Series 2012 Bonds so to be redeemed (if redemption shall be in part) and the redemption date. If any Series 2012 Bond shall have been duly called for redemption and if, on or before the redemption date, the City shall have set aside funds sufficient to pay the redemption price of such Series 2012 Bond on the redemption date, then such Series 2012 Bond shall become due and payable at such redemption date, and from and after such date interest will cease to accrue thereon. Failure to deliver any redemption notice or any defect in any redemption notice shall not affect the validity of the proceeding for the redemption of Series 2012 Bonds with respect to which such failure or defect did not occur. Any Series 2012 Bond redeemed prior to its maturity by prior redemption or otherwise shall not be reissued and shall be cancelled. Section 9. Delivery of Series 2012 Bonds Upon Original Issuance. Prior to the authentication and delivery by the Paying Agent of the Series 2012 Bonds in connection with their original issuance there shall be filed with the Paying Agent (a) a certified copy of this Ordinance and (b) a request and authorization to the Paying Agent on behalf of the City and signed by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to authenticate the Series 2012 Bonds and to deliver the Series 2012 Bonds to the Underwriter or the Persons designated therein, upon payment to the City of a sum specified in such request and authorization plus accrued interest thereon to the date of delivery. Upon the authentication of the Series 2012 Bonds, the Paying Agent shall deliver the same to the Underwriter or its designee as directed in such request and authorization. Section 10. Creation and Reaffirmation of Funds and Accounts. (a) There is hereby created by the City the following funds and accounts: (i) the Series 2012 Rebate Fund, designated as the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Rebate Fund;" and (ii) the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, designated as the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Reserve Fund." (b) The following funds, originally created pursuant to Section 13 of the Series 1999 Ordinance and renamed pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Series 2001 Ordinance, are hereby reaffirmed as follows: (i) the Bond Fund is hereby reaffirmed as the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Bond Fund;" and (ii) the Revenue Fund is hereby reaffirmed as the "City of Aspen, Colorado, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Revenue Fund." Section 11. Application of Proceeds of Series 2012 Bonds. The proceeds received by the City from the sale of the Series 2012 Bonds shall be applied generally as set forth below, and as more particularly provided in the Sale Certificate: 15 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (a) to the Escrow Account, proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds which are sufficient to pay the Refunded Bond Requirements in accordance with the Escrow Agreement; and (b) to fund the Series 2012 Reserve Fund or to pay for the Series 2012 Surety Bond (as determined by the Sale Delegate and set forth in the Sale Certificate); and (c) to pay the costs of issuing the Series 2012 Bonds, including any premium due with respect to a Bond Insurance Policy (if any); and (d) the remainder shall be separately accounted for by the City to pay the costs of the Project. Section 12. Special Obligations; Pledge and Lien for Payment of Bonds. (a) Series 2012 Bonds. The City hereby pledges the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds at any time Outstanding, and grants an irrevocable and first lien for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund. (b) Series 2009 Bonds. The City hereby further pledges the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2009 Bonds at any time Outstanding, and grants an irrevocable and first lien (but not necessarily an exclusive such lien) for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund. The lien of the Series 2009 Bonds on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, and the Revenue Fund is on parity with the lien of the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds and any Additional Parity Bonds. (c) Series 2005E Bonds. The City hereby pledges the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2005B Bonds at any time Outstanding, and grants an irrevocable and first lien (but not necessarily an exclusive such lien) for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund. The lien of the Series 2005B Bonds on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, and the Revenue Fund is on parity with the lien of the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds and any Additional Parity Bonds. (d) Series 2005 Bonds. The City hereby further pledges the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2005 Bonds at any time Outstanding, and grants an irrevocable and first lien (but not necessarily an exclusive such lien) for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund. The lien of the Series 2005 Bonds on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund, and the Revenue Fund is on parity with the lien of 16 4838 - 4505 - 1920.2 the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2012 Bonds and any Additional Parity Bonds. - -(e) - Additional Parity Bonds.- Subject to _Section 13 hereof, the City also hereby pledges the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund and the Revenue Fund for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on any Additional Parity Bonds at any time Outstanding, and grants an irrevocable and first lien for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund and the Revenue Fund. (f) Equally and Ratably Secured. The Bonds shall be equally and ratably secured by the pledge of and lien on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund and the Revenue Fund granted by this Section and shall not be entitled to any priority one over the other in the application of Pledged Revenues or the moneys on deposit at any time in the Bond Fund and the Revenue Fund. (g) Superior Liens Prohibited. The City shall not pledge or create any other lien on the revenues and moneys pledged pursuant to this Section that is superior to the pledge thereof or lien thereon pursuant hereto. (h) Subordinate Liens Permitted. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from pledging or creating a lien on the revenues and moneys pledged and the lien created pursuant to subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section that is subordinate to the pledge thereof or lien thereon pursuant to such subsections, provided that no such subordinate pledge or lien shall be created unless and until there is delivered to the Paying Agent a written certification by the Mayor that no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. (i) No Prohibition on Additional Security. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from (i) using, pledging or granting a lien on any revenues from the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax that are not Pledged Revenues or any other moneys for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds or (ii) depositing any revenues from the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax that are not Pledged Revenues or any other moneys into the Bond Fund or the Revenue Fund (and thereby subjecting the moneys so deposited to the pledge made and lien granted by this Section). 0) Bonds are Special, Limited Obligations of the City. The Bonds are special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from and secured solely by the Pledged Revenues and the other sources specified in this Ordinance and shall not be deemed or construed as creating a debt or indebtedness of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. Section 13. Conditions to Issuance of Additional Parity Bonds. So long as any Bonds may be Outstanding: (a) Limitations Upon Issuance of Additional Parity Bonds. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the issuance by the City of Additional Parity Bonds (including refunding obligations) payable in whole or in part from the Pledged Revenues (or any designated part thereof) and constituting a lien thereon on a parity with, 17 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 but not prior or superior to, the lien of the Series 2012 Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2005 Bonds and any previously issued Additional Parity Bonds; provided, however, that before any such Additional Parity Bonds are authorized or actually issued: (i) The City is then current in all payments required to have been accumulated in the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund, and any reserve fund maintained with respect to any then Outstanding series of Additional Parity Bonds, and there is not otherwise an Event of Default as defined in Section 24 hereof. (ii) The revenues derived from the entire Pledged Revenues for the twelve consecutive calendar months immediately preceding the month of issuance of such Additional Parity Bonds shall have been sufficient to pay an amount equal to 150% of the combined maximum annual principal and interest requirements (to and including the final maturity of each then - Outstanding series of Bonds) on the then - Outstanding Bonds and on the Additional Parity Bonds then proposed to be issued (including any reserve requirements therefor). (iii) The ordinance authorizing such Additional Parity Bonds shall require that a reserve fund for Additional Parity Bonds be created in an amount equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement for such Additional Parity Bonds. The City may, however, comply with the Reserve Fund Requirement through a Reserve Fund Contract that meets the standards established in Section 16 hereof. (b) Certificate of Revenues. A written certification by a certified public accountant who is not a regular salaried employee of the City that such Pledged Revenues are sufficient to pay the amounts required by paragraph (a)(ii) of this Section shall be conclusively presumed to be accurate in determining the right of the City to authorize, issue, sell and deliver Additional Parity Bonds. (c) Subordinate Obligations Permitted. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent the issuance by the City of additional obligations (including refunding obligations) payable from the Pledged Revenues (or any designated part thereof) and having a lien thereon subordinate or junior to the lien of the Bonds. (d) Superior Obligations Prohibited. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to permit the City to issue additional obligations (including refunding obligations) payable from the Pledged Revenues (or any designated part thereof) having a lien thereon prior and superior to the lien of the Bonds. (e) Refunding Obligations. The provisions of this Section are subject to the following exception: (i) Privilege of Issuing Refunding Obligations. If at any time after any of the Bonds, or any part thereof, shall have been issued and remain Outstanding, the City shall find it desirable to refund all or any part of the 18 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Outstanding Bonds, such Bonds, or any part thereof, may be refunded (but only with the consent of the Owner or Owners thereof, unless such Bonds, at the time of their required surrender for payment, shall then mature, or shall then be subject to redemption prior to maturity). (ii) Limitations Upon Issuance of Parity Refunding Obligations. No refunding obligations payable from the Pledged Revenues (or any designated part thereof) shall be issued on a parity with the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, and the Series 2012 Bonds, unless: (A) the lien on such Pledged Revenues of the outstanding obligations so refunded is on a parity with the lien thereon of the Series 2005 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds and the Series 2012 Bonds; or (B) the refunding obligations are issued in compliance with subsection (a) of this Section. (iii) Partial Refunding of Bonds. Any refunding obligations so issued to refund any of the Bonds shall enjoy complete equality of lien with any Bonds which are not refunded. (iv) Limitations Upon Refundings. Any refunding obligations payable from the Pledged Revenues may be issued with such details as the City may by ordinance provide, but without any impairment of any contractual obligations imposed upon the City by this Ordinance. Section 14. Application of Pledged Revenues. So long as any of the Bonds shall remain Outstanding, all Pledged Revenues, as they are received, shall be transferred from the Parks and Open Space Fund or any other funds or accounts to which they are required to be deposited by the Section 23- 32- 060(c)(7) of the City's Municipal Code or otherwise, and shall thereupon be deposited into the Revenue Fund, and the Pledged Revenues are hereby appropriated for such purpose. Moneys on deposit in the Revenue Fund shall be transferred from the Revenue Fund and applied to the following purposes and in the following order of priority: (a) FIRST, there shall be credited to the Bond Fund an amount necessary, together with any moneys therein and available therefor, to pay the next due installment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; (b) SECOND, there shall be credited, on a pro rata basis, to the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund, the Series 2001 Reserve Fund and any reserve fund or funds created with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds an amount, if any, necessary to increase the amount on deposit in each of such funds to the Reserve Fund Requirement for such fund or to repay the provider of a Reserve Fund Contract for a drawing thereon. No payment need be made into any such fund so long as the moneys therein shall equal not less than the Reserve Fund Requirement for such fund and no draw has been made on any Reserve Fund Contract deposited in such fund. The Reserve Fund Requirement for each such fund 19 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 shall be accumulated and maintained in each such fund as a continuing reserve to be used, except as hereinafter provided, only to prevent deficiencies in the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. (c) THIRD, there shall be credited to the Parks and Open Space Fund or, subject to any limitation in the Charter, the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances and the City's Municipal Code, used in any lawful manner by the City, any amounts remaining after making the deposits required by subsections (a) and (b) of this Section. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Section, no payment need be made pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of this Section into either the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund or any reserve fund created for a series of Additional Parity Bonds if the moneys on deposit in such funds total a sum at least equal to the entire amount of the Outstanding Bonds as to any principal, premium, if any, and interest requirements, to their respective maturities, or to any redemption date on which the City shall have exercised its option to redeem all or a portion of the Bonds then Outstanding and thereafter maturing, and both accrued and not accrued, in which case moneys in such funds in an amount at least equal to such principal, premium, if any, and interest requirements shall be used solely to pay such as the same accrue, and any moneys in excess thereof in such funds may, subject to any limitations in the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances or the City's Municipal Code, be used in any lawful manner by the City. Section 15. Bond Fund. Moneys in the Bond Fund shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Section 16. Series 2012 Reserve Fund. (a) Use of Moneys in Series 2012 Reserve Fund. If on any date specified in Section 19 hereof, the City shall have for any reason failed to pay to the Paying Agent the full amount required to pay the next installment of principal of or interest on the Bonds, then an amount equal to the amount needed to bring the amount in the Bond Fund to the full amount so required shall be immediately paid, pro rata, to the Paying Agent from: (i) the Series 2012 Reserve Fund with respect to the portion of the deficiency corresponding to the amounts due on the Series 2012 Bonds; (ii) the Series 2009 Reserve Fund with respect to the portion of the deficiency corresponding to the amounts due on the Series 2009 Bonds; (iii) the Series 2005B Reserve Fund with respect to the portion of the deficiency corresponding to the amounts due on the Series 2005B Bonds; (iv) the Series 2005 Reserve Fund with respect to the portion of the deficiency corresponding to the amounts due on the Series 2005 Bonds; and (v) any reserve fund or funds created with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds with respect to the portion of the deficiency corresponding to the amounts due on such series of Additional Parity Bonds. The money so used shall be replaced in the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and any such other reserve fund or funds on a pro rata basis from the first Pledged Revenues thereafter received not required to be otherwise applied hereunder, but excluding any 20 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 payments required for any subordinate obligations. If in any period the City shall for any reason fail to pay into the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund or any such other reserve fund or funds the full amount above stipulated from the Pledged Revenues, the difference between the amount paid and the amount so stipulated shall in a like manner be deposited therein from the first Pledged Revenues thereafter received not required to be applied otherwise by this Section, but excluding any payments required for any subordinate obligations. Moneys in the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and any such other reserve fund shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the series of Bonds with respect to which such fund is maintained. (b) Use of Moneys in Excess of Reserve Fund Requirement Any moneys at any time in excess of the Reserve Fund Requirement in the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund or any reserve fund or funds maintained with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds may be withdrawn therefrom and, subject to any limitation in the Charter, the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances and the City's Municipal Code, used in any lawful manner by the City. (c) Reserve Fund Contract. (i) The City may substitute for the cash or Permitted Investments in any Reserve Fund a surety bond issued by entity rated at least "A" by S &P (a "Reserve Fund Contract "), so long as the amount on deposit in any Reserve Fund after such substitution is at least equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement applicable to such Reserve Fund. In the event the City shall substitute a Reserve Fund Contract for the cash or Permitted Investments in any Reserve Fund, the amount on deposit in any Reserve Fund shall be that amount available to be drawn or otherwise paid pursuant to such surety bond at the time of calculation. If any Reserve Fund shall include both cash or Permitted Investments and a Reserve Fund Contract, the cash and Permitted Investments shall be used before any demand is made on any Reserve Fund Contract. Notwithstanding the foregoing, prior to such substitution, the City must receive an opinion of nationally recognized municipal bond counsel to the effect that such substitution and the intended use by the City of the cash or Permitted Investments to be released from any Reserve Fund will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds to which such Reserve Fund applies. (ii) The Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any) is hereby recognized to be a Reserve Fund Contract described in paragraph (i) of this subsection (c). Upon issuance thereof by the Bond Insurer, the Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any) shall be deposited in the Series 2012 Reserve Fund and shall be used in the manner described in paragraph (i) of this subsection (c). 21 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (d) Valuation of Deposits. Cash shall satisfy the Reserve Fund Requirement for the Series 2012 Reserve Fund by the amount of cash on deposit. Permitted Investments shall satisfy the Reserve Fund Requirement by the value of such investments. The value of each Permitted Investment on deposit in Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and any reserve fund or funds created with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds shall be (i) its purchase price from the date of purchase until the first date thereafter on which the Reserve Fund Requirement is calculated pursuant to subsection (e) of this Section and (ii) following each date on which the Reserve Fund Requirement is calculated pursuant to subsection (e) of this Section until the next date on which the Reserve Fund Requirement is so calculated, its fair market value determined as of such calculation date. A Reserve Fund Contract shall satisfy the Reserve Fund Requirement by the amount payable to the City pursuant to such contract. (e) Calculation of Reserve Fund Requirement and Transfers Resulting from Calculation. The Reserve Fund Requirement for each of the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and any reserve fund or funds created with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds shall be calculated as of (i) the date of issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, (ii) the date of issuance of each series of Additional Parity Bonds and (iii) each November 1, commencing November 1, 2013. If, on any calculation date, the amount on deposit in any of such funds is less than the Reserve Fund Requirement for such fund, Pledged Revenues shall be deposited into such fund as provided in Section 14 hereof to the extent necessary to satisfy the Reserve Fund Requirement in cash or by the purchase of Permitted Investments or a Reserve Fund Contract. Section 17. Escrow Account. (a) Establishment and Maintenance of Escrow Account. There is hereby authorized and directed to be established pursuant to the terms of the Escrow Agreement a special account designated as the "Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2012, Escrow Account," which shall be maintained in accordance with the provisions hereof and of the Escrow Agreement. The Escrow Account shall be maintained in an amount at the time of the initial deposits therein and at all times subsequently at least sufficient, together with the known minimum yield to be derived from the initial investment and any temporary reinvestment of the deposits therein or any part thereof in Federal Securities to pay the Refunded Bond Requirements with respect to the Refunded Bonds. Except as may be otherwise provided in the Escrow Agreement, the City shall have no right or title to the moneys credited to or held in the Escrow Account, and such title shall be and is hereby transferred to the Escrow Agent in trust for the payment of the Refunded Bond Requirements for the Refunded Bonds pursuant to the Escrow Agreement. Moneys shall be withdrawn by the Escrow Agent from the Escrow Account in sufficient amounts and at such times to permit the payment without default of the Refunded Bond Requirements for the Refunded Bonds. If for any reason the amount in the Escrow Account shall at any time be insufficient for the purpose hereof, the City shall forthwith from the first moneys available therefor deposit in such account such additional moneys as shall be necessary to permit the payment in full of the Refunded Bond Requirements for the Refunded Bonds. ON 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (b) Call of Refunded Bonds. The City Council does hereby declare its intent to exercise on behalf of and in the name of the City its option to redeem all of the Refunded Bonds on the earliest date on which the Refunded Bonds can be called and redeemed. The City hereby authorizes and irrevocably instructs the Escrow Agent, in its capacity as paying agent for the Refunded Bonds, to give or cause to be given a notice of refunding, defeasance and redemption of the Refunded Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Series 2005B Ordinance. Section 18. Rebate Fund. The City shall deposit earnings from the investment of proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds, earnings from the investment of moneys on deposit in the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund or other legally available moneys in the Rebate Fund in the amounts and at the times provided in the Letter of Instructions. Earnings from the investment of moneys on deposit in the Rebate Fund shall be retained in the Rebate Fund. Moneys on deposit in the Rebate Fund shall be used as provided in the Letter of Instructions. Section 19. Payments to and by Paying Agent. (a) Payments to Paying Agent. No later than the Business Day immediately preceding each Interest Payment Date, the City shall deliver moneys to the Paying Agent in an amount sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds on such date from the sources and in the priority order set forth below: First, from moneys on deposit in the Bond Fund; and Second, if and to the extent the moneys on deposit in the Bond Fund are not sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, or interest due on the Bonds on such date, from the Series 2012 Reserve Fund, the Series 2009 Reserve Fund, the Series 2005B Reserve Fund, the Series 2005 Reserve Fund and any reserve fund maintained with respect to any series of Additional Parity Bonds, on a pro rata basis, pursuant to Section 16 hereof. (b) Payments by Paying Agent. The Paying Agent shall use the moneys delivered to it pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. Section 20. General Administration of Funds. The funds and accounts established pursuant to this Ordinance, with the exception of the Rebate Fund, shall be administered as follows, subject to the limitations stated in Sections 16 and 21 of this Ordinance: (a) Investment of Money. Any moneys in any such fund and account may be invested in Permitted Investments. The obligations in which moneys in each fund or account are invested shall be deemed at all times to be part of the respective fund or account, and any appreciation or loss resulting therefrom shall be recorded to such fund or account. Interest accruing on the investment of any moneys in the Series 2012 Reserve Fund shall be deposited as received into the Revenue Fund, and interest accruing on the investment of any moneys in any other such fund or account shall be credited to the fund or account from which it is derived. The City Finance Director shall present for 23 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 redemption or sale in the prevailing market any obligations so purchased as an investment of moneys in the fund or account whenever it shall be necessary to do so in order to provide moneys to meet any payment or transfer from said fund or account. (b) Deposits of Funds. The moneys and investments comprising each of such funds and accounts shall be deposited in one or more banks or savings and loans associations, each of which is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Each payment shall be made into and credited to the proper fund or account on the date specified, but if such date shall be other than a Business Day, such payment shall be made on the next preceding Business Day. Nothing herein shall prevent the establishment of one or more such bank accounts, for all of such funds and accounts, or shall prevent the combination of such funds and accounts with any other bank account or accounts for other accounts of the City. Section 21. Additional General Covenants. In addition to the other covenants of the City contained herein, the City hereby further covenants for the benefit of Owners of the Bonds that: (a) Payment of Series 2012 Bonds. The City will promptly pay or cause to be paid the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds, at the place, on the dates and in the manner provided in this Ordinance, according to the true intent and meaning of this Ordinance. (b) No Repeal or Modification of Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances or Applicable Sections of City's Municipal Code. The City shall not repeal the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances or adopt any modification of such ordinances or any provisions of the City's Municipal Code which would impair the Pledged Revenues. (c) Duty to Impose Open Space Sales Tax. If the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Ordinances, the provisions of the City's Municipal Code referred to in subsection (b) of this Section or any modifying or supplemental instrument thereto not contravening the limitations of subsection (b) of this Section, or any part of such ordinances or such portions of the City's Municipal Code, shall ever be held to be invalid or unenforceable or shall otherwise be terminated, it shall be the duty of the City, to the extent possible under then existing law, to adopt immediately such ordinances, to seek such voter approval, if any, as may then be required by law, or to take any other action necessary to produce at least the same amount of Pledged Revenues as would have otherwise been produced under the terms of such ordinances and such portions of the City's Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is hereby acknowledged that: (i) the Additional Parks and Open Space Sales Tax terminates on December 31, 2025, (ii) the City shall have no obligation to seek an extension or replacement thereof after such date or to otherwise take action to produce the amount of Pledged Revenues that would otherwise be received from a 0.5% sales tax after such date, and (iii) in the event that an extension or replacement of such 0.5% portion of the Parks and Open Spaces Sales tax is authorized and imposed, such extension or replacement shall not constitute Additional Parks and 24 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Open Spaces Sales Tax for purposes of this Ordinance and the proceeds of any such extension or replacement thereof shall not constitute Pledged Revenues hereunder. (d) Impairment of Contract. The City agrees that any law, ordinance or resolution of the City in any manner affecting the Pledged Revenues or the Bonds, shall not be repealed or otherwise directly or indirectly modified in such a manner as to impair any Bonds Outstanding, unless in the case of this Ordinance the required consent of the Owners of the then Outstanding Bonds is obtained pursuant to Section 26 of this Ordinance. (e) Records. So long as any of the Bonds remain Outstanding, proper books of record and account will be kept by the City, separate and apart from all other records and accounts, showing complete and correct entries of all transactions relating to the Pledged Revenues. The Owners of any Bonds shall have the right at any reasonable time to inspect such records and accounts. (f) Audits. The City further agrees that it will, within 180 days following the close of each fiscal year, cause an audit of such books and accounts to be made by an independent certified public accountant, showing the revenues and expenditures of the Pledged Revenues. The City agrees to furnish forthwith a copy of each such audit to the Owner of any Bond at his request, and without request to the Original Purchaser. Any such Owner shall have the right to discuss with the accountant or person making the audit its contents and to ask for such additional information as he may reasonably require. (g) Extending Interest Payments. In order to prevent any accumulation of claims for interest after maturity, the City will not directly or indirectly extend or assent to the extension of time for the payment of any claim for interest on any of the Bonds and it will not directly or indirectly be a party to or approve any such arrangement; and in case the time for payment of any interest shall be extended, such installment or installments of interest after such extension or arrangement shall not be entitled in case of default hereunder to the benefit or security of this Ordinance except subject to the prior payment in full of the principal of all Bonds and then Outstanding, and of matured interest on such Bonds, the payment of which has not been extended. (h) Performing Duties. The City will faithfully and punctually perform all duties with respect to the Pledged Revenues required by the Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City, including but not limited to, the proper segregation of the Pledged Revenues and their application to the respective funds. (i) Other Liens. Other than that granted for the Bonds herein, there are presently no other liens or encumbrances of any nature whatsoever on or against the Pledged Revenues. 0) City's Existence. The City will maintain its corporate identity and existence so long as any of the Bonds remain Outstanding, unless another body corporate and politic by operation of law succeeds to the duties, privileges, powers, liabilities, 25 4838 - 4505 - 1920.2 disabilities, immunities and rights of the City and is obligated by law to receive and distribute the Pledged Revenues in place of the City, without affecting to any substantial degree the privileges and rights of any Owner of any Outstanding Bond. Section 22. Covenants Regarding Exclusion of Interest on Series 2012 Bonds from Gross Income for Federal Income Tax Purposes. For purposes of ensuring that the interest on the Series 2012 Bonds is and remains excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the City hereby covenants that: (a) Prohibited Actions. The City will not use or permit the use of any proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds or any other funds of the City from whatever source derived, directly or indirectly, to acquire any securities or obligations and shall not take or permit to be taken any other action or actions, which would cause any Series 2012 Bond to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code, or would otherwise cause the interest on any Series 2012 Bond to be includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes. (b) Affirmative Actions. The City will at all times do and perform all acts permitted by law that are necessary in order to assure that interest paid by the City on the Series 2012 Bonds shall not be includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes under the Code or any other valid provision of law. In particular, but without limitation, the City represents, warrants and covenants to comply with the following rules unless it receives an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such compliance is not necessary: (i) gross proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds will not be used in a manner that will cause the Series 2012 Bonds to be considered "private activity bonds" within the meaning of the Code; (ii) the Series 2012 Bonds are not and will not become directly or indirectly "federally guaranteed "; and (iii) the City will timely file Internal Revenue Form 8038 -G which shall contain the information required to be filed pursuant to Section 149(e) of the Code. (c) Letter of Instructions. The City will comply with the Letter of Instructions, including but not limited by the provisions of the Letter of Instructions regarding the application and investment of Series 2012 Bond proceeds, the calculations, the deposits, the disbursements, the investments and the retention of records described in the Letter of Instructions; provided that, in the event the original Letter of Instructions is superseded or amended by a new Letter of Instructions drafted by, and accompanied by an opinion of, Bond Counsel stating that the use of the new Letter of Instructions will not cause the interest on the Series 2012 Bonds to become includible in gross income for federal income tax purposes, the City will thereafter comply with the new Letter of Instructions. (d) Designation of Bonds as Qualified Tax- Exempt Obligations. The City hereby designates the Series 2012 Bonds as qualified tax - exempt obligations within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. The City covenants that the aggregate face amount of all tax - exempt obligations issued by the City, together with governmental entities which derive their issuing authority from the City or are subject to substantial control by the City, shall not be more than $10,000,000 during calendar year 2012. The 26 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 City recognizes that such tax - exempt obligations include notes, leases, loans and warrants, as well as bonds. The City further recognizes that any bank, thrift institution or other financial institution that owns the Series 2012 Bonds will rely on the City's designation of the Series 2012 Bonds as qualified tax - exempt obligations for the purpose of avoiding the loss of 100% of any otherwise available interest deduction attributable to such institution's tax - exempt holdings. Section 23. Defeasance. Any Series 2012 Bond shall not be deemed to be Outstanding hereunder if it shall have been paid and cancelled or if cash or Defeasance Securities shall have been deposited in trust for the payment thereof (whether upon or prior to the maturity of such Series 2012 Bond, but if such Series 2012 Bond is to be paid prior to maturity, the City shall have given the Paying Agent irrevocable directions to give notice of redemption as required by this Ordinance, or such notice shall have been given in accordance with this Ordinance). In computing the amount of the deposit described above, the City may include interest to be earned on the Defeasance Securities. If less than all the Series 2012 Bonds are to be defeased pursuant to this Section, the City, in its sole discretion, may select which of the Series 2012 Bonds shall be defeased. Notwithstanding anything in this Bond Ordinance to the contrary, in the event that the principal and /or interest due on the Series 2012 Bonds shall be paid by the Bond Insurer pursuant to the Bond Insurance Policy, the Series 2012 Bonds shall remain Outstanding for all purposes, not be defeased or otherwise satisfied and not be considered paid by the City, and the assignment and pledge of the Pledged Revenues and all covenants, agreements and other obligations of the City to the Owners shall continue to exist and shall run to the benefit of the Bond Insurer, and the Bond Insurer shall be subrogated to the rights of such Owners. Section 24. Events of Default. If any of the following events occurs, it is hereby declared to constitute an Event of Default: (a) default in the due and punctual payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or interest on any Bond whether at maturity thereof, or upon proceedings for redemption thereof, or (b) the City is for any reason rendered incapable of fulfilling its obligations hereunder; or (c) default in the due and punctual performance of the City's covenants or conditions, agreements and provisions as set forth in this Ordinance, other than those delineated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Section, and such default has continued for 60 days after written notice specifying the default and requiring the same to be remedied has been given to the City by the Owners of 25% in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding; or (d) the City shall file a petition for bankruptcy or shall be declared insolvent by a court of competent jurisdiction. 27 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Section 25. Remedies for and Duties Upon Events of Default. (a) Remedies for Events of Default. Upon the happening and continuance of any of the Events of Default as provided in Section 24 of this Ordinance, then and _in every case, the Owner or Owners of not less than 25% in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding, including but not limited to, a trustee or trustees therefor, may proceed against the City and its agents, officers and employees, to protect and enforce the rights of any Owner of Bonds under this Ordinance by mandamus or other suit, action or special proceedings in equity or at law, in any court of competent jurisdiction, either for the specific performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein or in an award of execution of any power herein granted for the enforcement of any proper legal or equitable remedy as such Owner or Owners may deem most effectual to protect and enforce the rights aforesaid, or thereby to enjoin any act or thing which may be unlawful or in violation of any right of any Owner, or to require the governing body to act as if it were the trustee of an express trust, or any combination of such remedies. All such proceedings at law or in equity shall be instituted, had and maintained for the equal benefit of all Owners of the Bonds then Outstanding. The failure of any such Owner so to proceed shall not relieve the City or any of its officers, agents or employees of any liability for failure to perform any duty. Each right or privilege of any such Owner (or trustee thereof) is in addition and cumulative to any other right or privilege, and the exercise of any right or privilege by or on behalf of any Owner shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right or privilege thereof. (b) Duties Upon Events of Default. Upon the happening of any of the Events of Default as provided in Section 24 of this Ordinance, the City will do and perform all proper acts on behalf of and for the Owners of the Bonds to protect and preserve the security created for the payment of their Bonds and to insure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on Bonds promptly as the same become due. All proceeds derived from the Pledged Revenues, during such period of default and so long as any of the Bonds, as to any principal, premium, if any, and interest are Outstanding and unpaid, shall be paid into the Bond Fund, and used for the purposes herein provided. In the event the City fails or refuses to proceed as provided in this Section, the Owner or Owners of not less than 25% in principal amount of the Bonds then Outstanding, after demand in writing, may proceed to protect and enforce the rights of the Owners as herein provided. 28 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Section 26. Amendment of Ordinance. This Ordinance may be amended or supplemented by ordinance adopted by the City Council in accordance with law, without receipt by the City of additional considerations and without the consent of the Owners, to make any amendment or supplement to this Ordinance which, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, is not to the material prejudice of the Owners. This Ordinance may be amended or supplemented by ordinance adopted by the City Council in accordance with law, without receipt by the City of any additional consideration, but with the written consent of the Owners of 66 -2/3% of the Bonds Outstanding at the time of the adoption of the amendatory ordinance, excluding any Bonds held for the account of the City; provided, however, that no such ordinance, without the consent of the Owners of all Outstanding Bonds which will be adversely affected, shall have the effect of permitting: (a) an extension of the maturity of any Bond; or (b) a reduction in the principal amount of any Bond, the rate of interest thereon, or the premium payable thereon; or (c) the creation of a lien upon or pledge of Pledged Revenues ranking prior to the lien or pledge of Pledged Revenues created by this Ordinance; or (d) a reduction of the principal amount of Bonds required for consent to such amendatory or supplemental ordinance; or (e) the establishment of priorities as between Bonds issued and Outstanding under the provisions of this Ordinance; or (f) the modification of or otherwise affecting the rights of the Owners of less than all of any series of Bonds then Outstanding. Section 27. Appointment and Duties of Paying Agent. (a) The Paying Agent identified in Section 1 hereof is hereby appointed as paying agent, registrar and authenticating agent for the Series 2012 Bonds unless and until the City or the Bond Insurer removes it as such and appoints a successor Paying Agent, in which event such successor shall, subject to subsection (b) of this Section, automatically succeed to the duties of the Paying Agent hereunder and its predecessor shall immediately turn over all its records regarding the Series 2012 Bonds to such successor. The Paying Agent, by accepting its duties as such, agrees to perform all duties and to take all actions assigned to it hereunder in accordance with the terms hereof. (b) Any successor Paying Agent appointed as such pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section must: (i) be a trust company or bank in good standing located in or incorporated under the laws of the State; (ii) be duly authorized to exercise trust powers and subject to examination by federal or State authority; (iii) have a capital and surplus at the time of such appointment of not less than $75,000,000; and (iv) be acceptable to the Bond Insurer. 29 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, no removal, resignation or termination of the Paying Agent shall take effect until a successor, acceptable to the Bond Insurer, shall be appointed. Section 28. Parties Interested Herein. Nothing in this Ordinance expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon, or to give or grant to, any person or entity, other than the City, the Paying Agent, the Bond Insurer and the Owners of the Bonds, any right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Ordinance or any covenant, condition or stipulation hereof, and all covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements in this Ordinance contained by and on behalf of the City shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City, the Paying Agent, the Bond Insurer and the Owners of the Bonds. Section 29. Events Occurring on Days That Are Not Business Days. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein with respect to a particular payment, event or action, if any payment to be made hereunder or any event or action to occur hereunder which, but for this Section, is to be made or is to occur on a day that is not a Business Day shall instead be made or occur on the next succeeding day that is a Business Day. Section 30. Findings and Determinations. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: (a) it is in the best interest of the City and its residents that the Series 2012 Bonds be authorized, sold, issued and delivered at the time, in the manner and for the purposes provided herein; (b) all actions required by the Charter and any other applicable law to be taken by the City for the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds and the application of any of the provisions hereof have been taken by the City; (c) the interest rate on the Series 2012 Bonds as sold to the Underwriter, shall be a lower interest rate than the interest rate on the Refunded Bonds; therefore, the Series 2012 Bonds are issued to refinance City bonded debt at a lower interest rate for the purposes of TABOR and the Refunding Act; (d) the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds will not cause the City to exceed its debt limit under the Charter or applicable State law; (e) the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds and all procedures undertaken incident thereto are in full compliance and conformity with all applicable requirements, provisions and limitations prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State and the City, including the Charter, and all conditions and limitations of the Charter and other applicable law relating to the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds have been satisfied; (f) the refunding of the Refunded Bonds with proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds will, in accordance with Section 11- 56- 104(1), Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended, accomplish one or more of the following purposes: (i) reducing the net effective interest rate on the City's bonds (based on a comparison of the net effective interest rate on the Refunded Bonds to the net effective interest rate on the Series 2012 30 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Bonds); (ii) reducing total interest payable over the life of the City's bonds, by issuing bonds of a shorter term, or at a lower net interest cost, or having a lower net effective interest rate than the Refunded Bonds; (iii) reducing the total principal and interest payable on the Refunded Bonds or the principal and interest payable thereon in any particular year or years, or (iv) effecting other economies; (g) in accordance with Section 11 -56 -107, C.R.S., the principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds allocable to the refunding of the Refunded Bonds, when combined with the Series 2005B Bonds outstanding principal amount which is not being refunded will not exceed the total original authorized principal amount of the Series 2005B Bonds, and the remaining principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds will not exceed the principal amount of debt authorization remaining under the Ballot Question; and (h) as required by Section 11 -56- 104.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended: (i) the Underwriter, simultaneously with the submission to the City of its proposal to refund the Refunded Bonds, disclosed, in writing, to the City Council, the entire income, from all sources, which it anticipated receiving if its proposal were to be accepted, specifying all such sources and amounts, as well as disclosing all expenses which it anticipated the City would incur as a part of the refunding transaction; (ii) the City Council will require, as a condition to the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, that the Underwriter provide to the City Council (A) an update of the information described in clause (i) above and (B) a comparison of annual debt service requirements before and after the refunding, by year and amount, including funds which are required in addition to bond proceeds, showing the present value of all annual differences in debt service requirements, using as a discount factor the net effective interest rate of the Series 2012 Bonds, all computed from the date on which the transaction is closed, including funds provided by the City as a reduction of, or an addition to, debt service requirements and showing funds provided by the City in excess of accrued principal and interest, and earnings on the funds, over the life of, and compounded at the net effective interest rate of, the Series 2012 Bonds. Section 31. Delegation and Parameters. (a) The City Council hereby delegates to the Sale Delegate the authority to determine and set forth in the Sale Certificate: (i) the matters set forth in subsection (b) of this Section, subject to the applicable parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section; and (ii) any other matters that, in the judgment of the Sale Delegate, are necessary or convenient to be set forth in the Sale Certificate and are not inconsistent with the parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section. (b) The Sale Certificate shall set forth the following matters and other matters permitted to be set forth therein pursuant to subsection (a) of this Section, but each such matter must fall within the applicable parameters set forth in subsection (c) of this Section: (i) the date on which the Bonds will be issued, which shall be the Dated Date; 31 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 (ii) the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds; (iii) the principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds maturing in each year; (iv) the interest payment dates; (v) the rate of interest; (vi) the prices at which the Series 2012 Bonds will be sold pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement; (vii) the Refunded Bonds, to be identified by the principal amount thereof maturing in each year; (viii) the Series 2012 Bonds which may be redeemed at the option of the City, and the dates upon which such optional redemption may occur; (ix) the principal amounts, if any, of Bonds subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption, and the years in which such Bonds will be subject to such redemption; (x) the identity of the Bond Insurer (if any); and (xi) the amount (if any) of net proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds to be deposited into the Reserve Fund or applied to pay for the Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any). (c) The authority delegated to the Sale Delegate by this Section shall be subject to the following parameters: (i) in no event shall the Sale Delegate be authorized to execute the Sale Certificate and Bond Purchase Agreement after the date that is 180 days after the date of adoption of this Ordinance and in no event may the Series 2012 Bonds be issued after such date, absent further authorization by the City Council; (ii) the aggregate principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds shall not exceed $9,995,000; (iii) the aggregate principal amount of the Refunded Bonds shall not exceed $5,500,000; (iv) the final maturity of the Series 2012 Bonds shall be no later than the date that is 21 years after the date of issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds; and (v) the principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds allocable to the refunding of the Refunded Bonds, when combined with the Series 2005B Bonds outstanding principal amount which is not being refunded shall not exceed the 32 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 total original authorized principal amount of the Series 2005B Bonds, and the remaining principal amount of the Series 2012 Bonds shall not exceed the principal amount of debt authorization remaining under the Ballot Question; (vi) the net effective interest rate on the Series 2012 Bonds shall not exceed the net effective interest rate of the Refunded Bonds and the debt service on the Series 2012 Bonds allocable to the refunding of the Refunded Bonds shall represent a net present value savings, as compared to the Refunded Bonds, of not less than 5.00 %. Section 32. Authorization to Execute Documents. For a period of 180 days following the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the Sale Delegate to execute the Sale Certificate and to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement in accordance with the provisions hereof. The Mayor or City Clerk, or any other duly authorized officer of the City, shall, and they are hereby authorized and directed to, take all actions necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, the execution of the Escrow Agreement, the Paying Agent Agreement, and the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking, in substantially the forms presented to this meeting of the City Council, with such changes therein, if any, not inconsistent herewith, as are approved by the City (which, once executed by the appropriate City official, shall constitute conclusive evidence of approval of the City), a "Tax Compliance Certificate" or similar certificate describing the City's expectations regarding the use and investment of proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds and other moneys, an Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 -G with respect to the Series 2012 Bonds, and all other documents and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds, the investment of proceeds of the Series 2012 Bonds and the other transactions contemplated hereby. The execution by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem of the City or any other duly authorized officer of the City of any document authorized herein shall be conclusive proof of the approval by the City of the terms thereof. Section 33. Authorization of Bond Insurance and Series 2012 Surety Bond. The Underwriter may request, on behalf of the City, the submittal of bids to issue the Bond Insurance Policy. In the event that the Sale Delegate determines, based in part upon information provided by the Underwriter, that the premium bid for issuance of the Bond Insurance Policy is less than the interest cost savings to be realized by the City as a result of the issuance of the Bond Insurance Policy, the Council hereby delegates to the Sale Delegate the authority to execute the Commitment with the Bond Insurer designated by the Sale Delegate, provided that the Bond Insurer shall be listed in The Bond Buyer's Municipal Marketplace Directory— Spring 2012, published by Thomson Media. In the event that a Bond Insurance Policy is to be issued by the Bond Insurer, there is also delegated to the Sale Delegate the authority to determine whether the Series 2012 Reserve Fund shall be funded with a Series 2012 Surety Bond, which determination shall be set forth in the Sale Certificate. The officers of the City are also hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to cause the Bond Insurer to issue the Bond Insurance Policy (if any) in accordance with the Commitment and to issue the Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any) in accordance with the Commitment, including without limitation, payment of the premium(s) due in connection therewith and entering into any authorizing agreement, including a Series 2012 Reserve Policy Agreement. The execution of the Commitment by the Sale Delegate or other authorized officer of the City is hereby ratified and approved. The Sale Delegate is also 33 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 authorized to set forth in the Sale Certificate such additional terms, provisions and conditions as may be required to cause the Bond Insurer to issue the Bond Insurance Policy and the Series 2012 Surety Bond (if any) in accordance with the Commitment, and the provisions of this Ordinance shall be subject to such provisions, if any, set forth in the Sale Certificate. Section 34. Approval of Official Statement. The City Council hereby approves the distribution and use of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Series 2012 Bonds in connection with the offering of the Series 2012 Bonds and authorizes and directs the City staff to prepare a final Official Statement for use in connection with the sale of the Series 2012 Bonds in substantially the form thereof presented to the City Council at the meeting at which this Ordinance is adopted, with such changes therein, if any, not inconsistent herewith, as are approved by the City Attorney of the City. The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tern is hereby authorized and directed to- execute the final Official Statement. - - - - - - Section 35. Application of Supplemental Act. The City Council specifically elects to apply all of the provisions of Title 11, Article 57, Part 2, C.R.S. (as previously defined, the "Supplemental Act "), to the Series 2012 Bonds. Section 36. Limitation of Actions. Pursuant to Section 11 -57 -212, C.R.S., no legal or equitable action brought with respect to any legislative acts or proceedings in connection with the authorization or issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds shall be commenced more than thirty days after the authorization of the Series 2012 Bonds. Section 37.Ratification of Prior Actions. All actions heretofore taken not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance or the Charter by the City Council, the Finance Director, or by the officers and employees of the City directed toward the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds for the purposes herein set forth are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 38. Repeal of Inconsistent Resolutions; Contract with Owners of Series 2012 Bonds; Resolution Irrepealable. All ordinances and resolutions, or parts thereof, that are in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed. After the Series 2012 Bonds have been issued, this Ordinance shall be and remain a contract between the City and the Owners of the Series 2012 Bonds and shall be and remain irrepealable until all amounts due with respect to the Series 2012 Bonds shall be fully paid, satisfied and discharged and all other obligations of the City with respect to the Series 2012 Bonds shall have been satisfied in the manner provided herein. Section 39. Headings, Table of Contents and Cover Page. The headings to the various sections= and subsections tor this Ordinance, and the cover page and table of contents that appear at front of this Ordinance, have been inserted solely for the convenience of the reader, are not a part of this Ordinance and shall not be used in any manner to interpret this Ordinance. Section 40. Severability. It is hereby expressly declared that all provisions hereof and their application are intended to be and are severable. In order to implement such intent, if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such determination shall not affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof or the application of the provision in question to any other 34 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 situation; and if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be valid or enforceable only if its application is limited, its application shall be limited as required to most fully implement its purpose. Section 41. Recordation. A true copy of this Ordinance, as adopted by the City Council of the City, shall be numbered and recorded, and its adoption and publication shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Clerk and by a certification of publication. Section 42. Declaration of Emergency and Effective Date. Due to fluctuations in municipal bond prices and interest rates and due to currently favorable interest rates and due to the need to preserve public property, health, peace and safety, it is hereby declared that, in the opinion of the City Council, an emergency exists, and therefore this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. [remainder of this page intentionally left blank] 35 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE by the City Council of the City of Aspen at its regular meeting on. 2012, as provided by the City's Charter and applicable law. [SEAL] Attest: By City Clerk C Mayor READ, PASSED ON SECOND READING, FINALLY ADOPTED AND APPROVED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE AND ORDERED PUBLISHED WITHIN 10 DAYS OF SUCH FINAL PASSAGE by the City Council of the City of Aspen at its regular meeting on �� L, 2012, as provided by the City's Charter and applicable law. [SEAL] Attest: By City Clerk C Mayor [signature page to Bond Ordinance] 36 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 No. R-- APPENDIX A FORM OF SERIES 2012 BOND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO SALES TAX REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BOND SERIES 2012 Interest Rate: Maturity Date: Original Dated Date: CUSIP: % November 1, REGISTERED OWNER: * *CEDE & CO. ** Tax Identification Number: 13- 2555119 PRINCIPAL SUM: DOLLARS The City of Aspen, Colorado (the "City "), a legally and regularly created, established, organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado (the "State ") and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter ") and political subdivision of the State, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of the registered owner named above or registered assigns, solely from the special funds as hereinafter set forth, on the maturity date stated above, the principal sum stated above, in lawful money of the United States of America, with interest thereon from the original dated date stated above, at the interest rate per annum stated above, payable on May 1 and November 1 of each year, commencing May 1, 2013, the principal of and premium, if any, and the final installment of interest on this bond being payable to the registered owner hereof upon presentation and surrender of this bond at the principal office of UMB Bank, n.a.,, as Paying Agent (the "Paying Agent "), in Denver, Colorado, and the interest hereon (other than the final installment of interest hereon) to be paid by check or draft of the Paying Agent mailed on the interest payment date to the registered owner hereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month (whether or not such day is a Business Day) preceding the month in which the interest payment date occurs, except that so long as Cede & Co. is the registered owner of this bond, the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this bond shall be paid by wire transfer to Cede & Co. This bond is one of an issue of bonds of the City of Aspen, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2012, issued in the principal amount of $ (the "Series 2012 Bonds "). The Series 2012 Bonds are being issued by the City for the purpose of refunding a portion of the City's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2005B, funding the purchase and improvement of trail, recreation, and open space properties and ancillary facilities, 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 and the funding of a reserve fund surety bond for, and the costs of issuance of, the Series 2012 Bonds, pursuant to and in full conformity with the State Constitution and the Charter, the laws of the State, including, in particular, Article 56 of Title 11 and Part 2 of Article 57 of Title 11, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended and pursuant to an ordinance (the "Ordinance ") adopted by the City Council of the City prior to the issuance hereof. [Insert Redemption Provisions from Sale Certificate] Notice of any redemption of Series 2012 Bonds shall be given by sending a copy of such notice by first class, postage prepaid mail, not less than 30 days prior to the redemption date, to the Owner of each Series 2012 Bond being redeemed. Such notice shall specify the number or numbers of the Series 2012 Bonds so to be redeemed (if redemption shall be in part) and the redemption date. If any Series 2012 Bond shall have been duly called for redemption and if, on or before the redemption date, the City shall have set aside funds sufficient to pay the redemption price of such Series 2012 Bond on the redemption date, then such Series 2012 Bond shall become due and payable at such redemption date, and from and after such date interest will cease to accrue thereon. Failure to deliver any redemption notice or any defect in any redemption notice shall not affect the validity of the proceeding for the redemption of Series 2012 Bonds with respect to which such failure or defect did not occur. Any Series 2012 Bond redeemed prior to its maturity by prior redemption or otherwise shall not be reissued and shall be cancelled. The Paying Agent shall maintain registration books in which the ownership, transfer and exchange of Series 2012 Bonds shall be recorded. The person in whose name this bond shall be registered on such registration books shall be deemed to be the absolute owner hereof for all purposes, whether or not payment on this bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice or other information to the contrary. This bond may be transferred or exchanged, at the principal office of the Paying Agent in Denver, Colorado, for a like aggregate principal amount of Series 2012 Bonds of other authorized denominations ($5,000 or any integral multiple thereof) of the same maturity and interest rate, upon payment by the transferee of a transfer fee, any tax or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange and any cost of printing bonds in connection therewith. The Series 2012 Bonds are special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from and secured solely by the sources provided in the Ordinance and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. Pursuant to the Ordinance the City has pledged for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 2012 Bonds, and granted a lien for such purpose on the Pledged Revenues, constituting, for each fiscal year, all of the proceeds of the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax (as defined in the Ordinance) after deduction of the reasonable and necessary costs and expenses of collecting and enforcing the Parks and Open Space Sales Tax, if any, the Bond Fund, the Series 2012 Reserve Fund and the Revenue Fund (all as defined in the Ordinance). The Series 2012 Bonds are issued on a parity with the City's Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005 (the "Series 2005 Bonds "), the City's Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2005B (the "Series 2005B Bonds ") and the City's Parks and Open Space Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2009 (the "Series 2009 Bonds "). The City is further authorized by the Ordinance to pledge and grant a lien, on a parity with the lien for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the A -2 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Series 2012 Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds, the Series 2005B Bonds and the Series 2005 Bonds, on the Pledged Revenues, the Bond Fund and the Revenue for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on additional bonds or obligations (which may or may not be multiple - fiscal year obligations), upon satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Ordinance. This bond, including the interest hereon, is payable solely from and secured solely by the special funds provided in the Ordinance and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or provision. THE ORDINANCE CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS BOND AND THE CITY. THIS BOND IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTRACT AND, AS SUCH, IS SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IN THIS BOND. The City agrees with the owner of this bond and with each and every person who may become the owner hereof, that it will keep and perform all the covenants and agreements contained in the Ordinance. The Ordinance may be amended or supplemented from time -to -time with or without the consent of the registered owners of the Series 2012 Bonds as provided in the Ordinance. It is hereby certified that all conditions, acts and things required by the State Constitution, the Charter, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City, to exist, to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this bond, exist, have happened and have been performed, and that the Series 2012 Bonds do not exceed any limitations prescribed by the State Constitution, the Charter or the ordinances of the City. This bond shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Ordinance, or become valid or obligatory for any purpose, until the Paying Agent shall have signed the certificate of authentication hereon. [remainder of this page intentionally left blank] A -3 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this bond to be executed with the manual or facsimile signature of its Mayor and attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City Clerk, and has caused the seal of the City to be impressed or imprinted hereon, all as of the date set forth above. [SEAL] CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Attest: I:1 City Clerk LIM Mayor A -4 4838 - 4505 - 1920.2 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Series 2012 Bonds described in the within- mentioned Ordinance. UMB BANK, N.A., as Paying Agent I:3 Authorized Signatory Date of Authentication: A -5 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 [STATEMENT OF INSURANCE] A -6 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto (Please print or typewrite name and address of Transferee) (Tax Identification or Social Security No.) the within bond and all rights thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to transfer the within bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. TRANSFER FEE MAY BE REQUIRED A -7 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 PREPAYMENT PANEL The following installments of principal (or portion thereof) of this Bond have been prepaid in accordance with the terms of the Indenture. Date of Principal Prepayment A -8 4838 - 4505- 1920.2 Signature of Authorized Representative of the Depository MEMORANDUM im TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 4 "vvi RE: Policy Resolution: Downtown Height and Uses Code Amendments Resolution Y4 , Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 SUMMARY: The attached Resolution outlines Council policy direction for code amendments related to the downtown. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to ensure new development in the CC and C -1 zone districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. Once the Policy Resolution is approved, staff will bring an Ordinance to City Council that amends the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C -1) zone districts. The memo and resolution summarize the policy direction received to date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This meeting is to review potential changes to the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C -1) zone districts. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments. All code amendments are subject to a three -step process. This is the second step in the process: 1. Public Outreach 2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should the pursued 3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council directed Community Development staff to amend the height allowances and free - market floor area allowances in the CC and C -1 zone districts. On April 2 °d, City Council approved a code amendment lowering the allowed height in the CC and C1 zone districts to 28 feet and increasing the required setback for any rooftop appurtenances. At the time, City Council indicated an interest in exploring additional code amendments to allow a third story, but that additional discussion regarding the specific height and allowed third floor uses was necessary. 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 1 of 7 Staff has worked to compile public feedback on the types of uses and dimensions the community feels are appropriate for downtown. The data from the various forms of public feedback received from the survey responses, small group meetings, and the online Open City Hall forum are attached as Exhibits B -F. This was also presented to City Council in a work session on June 18, 2012 where Council provided some initial direction. The attached Policy Resolution is based on the direction received at that meeting. In addition, staff has conducted research on building heights and land uses in other mountain communities. The complete report is attached as Exhibit G. The communities interviewed include: • Crested Butte, CO • Jackson, WY • Durango, CO • Ketchum, ID • Steamboat Springs, CO • Park City, UT • Telluride, CO • Truckee, CA Finally, staff contracted with an outside consultant to provide a study of heights needed for mechanical /structural equipment between floors and on roofs. This report is attached as Exhibit H. The study was just recently completed, so staff has not had an opportunity to ask local architects to review it based on their experiences working in Aspen's downtown. Staff has asked a number of local architects to review the work, and their comments will be brought forward as this code amendment continues through the City Council review process. DOWNTOWN ZONING TOPICs: Changes to the downtown zone districts are focused in two policy areas: heights and land uses. These are discussed below. Each section outlines the general consensus from the public feedback, Council's initial direction from the June 181h work session, information on these requirements in other mountain resort communities, and staff's recommendation. The "Heights" section also references the mechanical /structural study recently completed. HEIGHTS: One of the main points of discussion has been related to the heights that should be allowed downtown. This includes how roofs are treated, necessary setbacks for upper stories and mechanical equipment. Public Feedback: Public feedback on this topic was mixed, but there was general support for the following items: • A setback requirement for rooftop mechanical equipment. • A setback for any third story, if a third story is allowed. • Usable deck space on roofs, with a setback. Initial Council Direction: At the June 18 1h work session, City Council provided the following policy direction related to heights, which is included in the attached Policy Resolution: A. Three stories may be appropriate in some situations, but not every building should be three stories in height. The Land Use Code should address this through zoning, or some other review mechanism. 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 2 of 7 B. Any third floor should include a significant setback to ensure minimal visual and shading impacts on the street. C. Rooftop mechanical equipment and access stairs /elevators should be setback from any street fagade to minimize their impact on the pedestrian environment. D. Rooftop decks should be permitted, but only if setback from any street fagade to minimize their impacts. E. The first floor floor -to -floor height should be larger than upper floors. F. A larger floor -to -floor measurement is appropriate in the CC zone district to ensure continuity with Aspen's historic development pattern. For instance, 13 feet to 15 feet may be appropriate. G. A tall first floor floor -to -floor measurement is appropriate in the C -1 zone district to encourage viable commercial spaces, but the height should be less than in the CC zone. For instance, 11 feet to 13 feet may be appropriate. Other Mountain Communities: Staff conducted informal interviews with a number of other mountain resort communities. Each has a different way of addressing heights. The heights allowed in their downtowns range from 35 feet to 55 feet. Some include a lower height limit of 28 feet if the building is residential. In general, the height limits allow for 2 and 3 story buildings. The heights tend to reflect the different historic development patterns in each community. In Steamboat Springs, there is a variance process to enable a 4th story. According to their staff, the projects receiving such variances were generally not well- received by the community, and there is a movement to maintain the 3 story limit at approximately 38 feet. Any third floor is required to maintain a 15 foot setback from the property line. Like Aspen, each community has a height limit which can be exceeded for mechanical equipment, flagpoles, etc. Steamboat Springs requires all rooftop equipment be shielded from view and not occupy more than 20% of the roof area. Height Study: The Community Development Department contracted with Coburn Development out of Crested Butte and Boulder to conduct a mechanical /structural study. Coburn was selected because of their experience in mountain towns and because they do not currently have a project in for review by the City. Their study, attached as Exhibit H, outlines interior structural and mechanical (HVAC) considerations as well as interior space quality needs. The study finds that, depending on the type of construction used (i.e. wood vs. steel), the required space between ceiling and floor is 18 inches to 34 inches. Wood construction typically requires less space than steel. Most construction is Aspen's downtown utilizes steel and concrete, and the study recommends allocating 26 inches for all structural and mechanical components between floors and for the roof system. Additional considerations for the roof include the need for adequate space for snow shedding and drainage. The study recommends 8 inches for roof slope or a parapet. 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 3 of 7 In addition to required structural and mechanical components, the study discusses how to create interior finished spaces that enable a quality user experience. The study finds that ceiling heights closer to 13 feet will suffice for the typical retail and restaurant spaces seen in Aspen. A 10 foot to 11 foot ceiling, the study finds, will limit the types of tenants that could occupy commercial spaces. Lower ceiling heights on upper floors could be appropriate for office and residential uses — the study suggests a minimum of nine feet. The study recommends that "some flexibility be built into whatever height restrictions are arrived at ... to take into account the unique characteristics of each site and the desired uses." In addition, the study recommends a maximum overall height that is slightly higher than the combined totals of interior ceiling or floor -to -floor heights. Finally, the study examined the height and spaces required for rooftop mechanical equipment. In general, the study found that six feet is the required height for reasonably sized equipment and their mounting systems, as well as renewable energy systems, Staff Comments: From staff s perspective, three story buildings should be permitted in the downtown. They are consistent with Aspen's historic built environment and are part of good urban form. There may be locations where three stories is inappropriate, which is why staff supports the established view planes as well as the commercial design guidelines. Staff believes a diversity of heights is important and is reflective of Aspen's historic development pattern. Staff is also supportive of including rooftop mechanical in the overall discussion for commercial design. Roofs represent an additional "fayade" of the building, and careful design can help ensure their visibility from the street is minimized. Staff believes there could be improvements to the code to ensure rooftop mechanical is better addressed through the design review process. Based on Aspen's historic development pattern and the Coburn height study, staff recommends the following height dimensions for the CC and C -1 zone districts. Rather than recommending an "absolute minimum" height, staff is recommending a height that reflects Aspen's historic character. The above heights enable flexibility in the design process while providing a minimum standard that promotes quality interior spaces. Staff believes these heights are reflective of Aspen's historic development pattern, which is important to maintain so that new buildings do not look "squished" or out of context with the rest of the buildings in the area. The C -1 zone district is a transitional zone, and as such staff is recommending lower heights than in the CC zone district. The current Commercial Design Guidelines require that all upper levels be lower in stature and 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 4 of 7 CC C -1 Minimum 1St level floor -to -floor height 13 ft. 11 ft. Minimum upper level ceiling height 9 ft. 9 ft. Overall maximum height 37 -40 ft. 35 -38 ft. Mechanical Over -run 6 ft. from the point attached 6 ft. from the point attached The above heights enable flexibility in the design process while providing a minimum standard that promotes quality interior spaces. Staff believes these heights are reflective of Aspen's historic development pattern, which is important to maintain so that new buildings do not look "squished" or out of context with the rest of the buildings in the area. The C -1 zone district is a transitional zone, and as such staff is recommending lower heights than in the CC zone district. The current Commercial Design Guidelines require that all upper levels be lower in stature and 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 4 of 7 heights than the first floor, which staff believes is critical to maintaining Aspen's historic character and pedestrian scale. Staff also recommends that some three story buildings be permitted without a third floor setback. Having a building, for instance, anchor the corner and be more prominent in stature is consistent with Aspen's development pattern, and ensures new buildings will not all look the same in terms of massing. Staff recommends maintaining the review of third floor setbacks through the Commercial Design Review process. Finally, staff recommends a required setback for all rooftop mechanical equipment. According to the Coburn height study, a 14 foot setback for a 38 foot tall building would eliminate the ability to see the equipment from the street. Staff recommends a 15 -20 foot setback. LAND USES: One of the main points of discussion has been related to the different land uses that should be allowed downtown. This includes a discussion of lodging, commercial, and residential uses. Public Feedback: Public feedback on land uses generally supported mixed uses downtown, especially Lodging and Commercial Uses. There was mixed support for free - market residential uses. Most comments focused on the importance of maintaining a vibrant downtown commercial area. Initial Council Direction: At the June 18 th work session, City Council provided the following policy direction related to Land Uses, which is included in the attached Policy Resolution: A. Free - market residential uses should be limited in the CC and C -1 zone districts. B. Lodging uses should be encouraged in the CC and C -1 zone districts. C. Affordable Housing is an appropriate use in the CC and C -1 zone districts. Some allowances for off -site housing in order to encourage lodging uses may be appropriate Other Mountain Communities: Staff conducted informal interviews with a number of other mountain resort communities. There is a broad spectrum to addresses land uses in the eight communities interviewed. Crested Butte, for instance, does not allow any free - market residential uses in their downtown, and only allows affordable housing through a Conditional Use Review. Durango allows residential uses but demand for residential uses downtown is limited, so there are not many residential units in the downtown. Steamboat Springs allows additional height for residential uses — both affordable and free - market, and Ketchum allows an increase to 48 feet in height for affordable housing uses. In communities that allow residential uses in their downtown, they are generally prohibited from the first floor in an effort to maintain the commercial character of the district. Staff Comments: From staffs perspective, mixed -use buildings should be allowed and encouraged downtown. Residential uses create vitality and more "lights on." Staff continues to support affordable 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 5 of 7 housing uses in downtown buildings for this reason. Staff recognizes that there are some problems created with free - market residential uses, especially when that use starts to push out traditional commercial uses in the downtown core. The downtown should primarily be filled with commercial uses, and free - market residential uses have started to overshadow commercial uses as the primary driver of development projects. Staff believes it is important to ensure a vital commercial core, which requires a variety of commercial uses — from bars and nightclubs to restaurants and retail. Residential uses are part of creating an interesting downtown, but they should not become the primary or predominant use. There is not one opinion in the community, or on Planning staff, regarding the appropriateness of eliminating Free - Market residential uses from downtown. It is important to get some clearer direction from City Council on this issue so staff can craft appropriate code language for the next step in the code amendment process. Some pros and cons of downtown free - market residential uses, from staff's perspective, are outlined below: Pros • The ability to development free - market residential units often creates the capital needed to remodel /redevelop deteriorating commercial /office spaces. • Free - market residential uses have the potential to create more people and "lights on" in the downtown. • Allowing free - market residential uses may mean more affordable housing is developed downtown due to mitigation requirements. • Free - market residential uses could be limited to historic projects, and used as an incentive to restore or designate historic or potentially historic structures. • A positive example of a recent redevelopment with a free - market residential unit is the Crandall building, which voluntarily designated the building through the AspenModern program and improved the existing commercial spaces in the building in exchange for one third floor free - market unit. Cons • Free - market residential uses can erode the commercial uses in the downtown. Some examples: o The cost of free - market residential units has created an unrealistic expectation of having city amenities but a quiet living environment. Commercial uses tend to be louder than residential ones, and the expectation of a quiet mountain environment has led to the squeezing out of commercial uses, or one owner of a building who likely has no intention to rent the commercial space. In a number of mixed -use buildings, common spaces have been privatized for use by the free - market residential unit(s) through various methods, severely limiting the types of commercial uses that can succeed in the building. o The city does not have the ability to control condominium declarations, and some of those documents for downtown buildings have excluded the ability to have certain commercial uses in the building even though those uses are allowed in the underlying zone district. • A negative example of a recent redevelopment with free - market residential units is the Motherlode building, which has remained vacant for a number of years. 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 6 of 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Policy Resolution and asks City Council for clearer direction regarding free - market residential uses. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2012, approving a Policy Resolution outlining direction for code amendments to downtown zoning." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Staff Findings Exhibit B — Open City Hall Responses Exhibit C — Survey Monkey Responses Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes Exhibit E — Additional Public Comment Exhibit F — Comments from P &Z and HPC Exhibit G — Comparative Communities Study Exhibit H — Building Height and Mechanical Study 8.27.2012 — Downtown Zoning Policy Direction Page 7 of 7 RESOLUTION N0. _, (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOWED HEIGHTS AND LAND USES IN THE COMMERCIAL CORE (CC) AND COMMERCIAL (C -1) ZONE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the allowed heights and land uses in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C -1) zone districts; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach to gain feedback from the community on potential code changes to the CC and C -1 zone districts; and, WHEREAS, the Public Outreach included three small group meetings, an Open City Hall Forum, an on -line survey, and individual letters from members of the public; and, WHEREAS, the more than 200 individuals were engaged in the Public Outreach process; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the permitted uses and heights in the CC and C -1 Zone Districts; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on August 27, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution No. , Series of 2012, by a to L — vote, requesting code amendments to the CC and C 1 zone districts; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No , Series 2012 Pagel of 3 Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed code amendments is to ensure new development in the CC and C -1 zone districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. Section 2: Heights City Council provides the following direction regarding heights in the CC and C -1 zone districts: A. Three stories may be appropriate in some situations, but not every building should be three stories in height. The Land Use Code should address this through zoning, or some other review mechanism. B. Any third floor should include a significant setback to ensure minimal visual and shading impact on the street. C. Rooftop mechanical equipment and access stairs /elevators should be setback from any street facade to minimize their impact on the pedestrian environment. D. Rooftop decks should be permitted, but only if setback from any street facade to minimize their impacts. E. The first floor floor -to -floor height should be larger than upper floors. F. A larger floor -to -floor measurement is appropriate in the CC zone district to ensure continuity with Aspen's historic development pattern. For instance, 13 feet to 15 feet may be appropriate. G. A tall first floor floor -to -floor measurement is appropriate in the C -1 zone district to encourage viable commercial spaces, but the height should be less than in the CC zone. For instance, 11 feet to 13 feet may be appropriate. Section 3: Land Uses City Council provides the following direction regarding land uses in the CC and C -1 zone districts: A. Free - market residential uses should be limited in the CC and C -1 zone districts. B. Lodging uses should be encouraged in the CC and C -1 zone districts. C. Affordable Housing is an appropriate use in the CC and C -1 zone districts. Some allowances for off -site housing in order to encourage lodging uses may be appropriate. Section 4: 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 resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 5: 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. Resolution No , Series 2012 Page 2 of 3 FINALLY, adopted this day of , 2012. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: James R True, City Attorney Resolution No _, Series 2012 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review — Initiation In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two — Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment. Staff Findings: Staff believes there is a community interest in updating the downtown zoning code to enable development that is consistent with Aspen's historic two and tree story development patter. The proposed direction will be consistent with the community interest expressed during public feedback sessions for this topic. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: As part of the implementation of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), City Council has directed Community Development staff to amend the height allowances and free - market floor area allowances in the CC and C -1 zone districts. The AACP calls for an examination of building heights, and includes a policy stating, "Establish lower maximum building heights to maintain Aspen's small town character." (Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy I.6) It also calls for an examination of commercial zone districts: "Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in (commercial) development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights..." (Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability Policy V.3) In addition, the AACP discusses the importance of maintaining commercial uses in the commercial zones. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The intent of the proposed amendments are to ensure new development in the CC and CA zone districts respects the historic character and development pattern in the City, and well as encourage continued vitality of the commercial uses in these zones. This is consistent with the intent of the City's Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8.27.2012 Downtown Zoning Policy Direction; Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exho I-+ B Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM All Participants around Aspen Tiir Cirt- dpi A,,mv As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? Introduction In early April, City Council made changes to downtown zoning. The changes lowered height to 28 feet for two story buildings and require an equal amount of affordable housing to be built on a property if it is developed with free - market housing. In the CC zone district, the height was lowered from 38 - 42 feet to 28 feet. In the C -1 zone district, the height was lowered from 36 - 40 feet to 28 feet. During the discussion, City Council indicated an interest in increasing the height to allow three stories of development, but that additional discussion and public outreach was needed to determine the appropriate height and land uses for downtown. In the coming months, City Council will be considering changes to the CC and C -1 zone districts. The City is interested in your comments and opinions regarding potential changes to the allowed heights. Your comments will be used in conjunction with other public outreach efforts by City Council as they consider zone district changes. Questions to consider as you respond: What kinds of heights do you think are appropriate for downtown? Do you think varying heights on a block is important? Do you think three story development is appropriate downtown? Are there specific land uses you think should be encouraged or discouraged downtown? Are there specific uses you think should exist in a building in order to allow three story development? Do you think there are any uses that are inappropriate for a third floor? Do you believe housing, whether affordable or free - market or both, is appropriate downtown? Do you think activity, such as restaurant seating, private decks, pools, etc, on building roofs is appropriate in downtown? Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 1 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? As of June 14, 2012) 12:51 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 153 Participants around Aspen: 24 Hours of Public Comment: 1.2 Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www,peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 2 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen Sally Spaulding outside Aspen June 12, 2012, 1:41 PM I believe buildings should be no taller than the Wheeler Opera House to maintain the building as a focal point of our past and future; however, I have no issues with three and four story buildings in the core -- particularly if they house businesses on the first floor and create vitality and visual interest for our visitors and locals. Walt Madden inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 9:59 PM The addition of third floor penthouses are a cancerous blight on our downtown and should not be allowed. Justifying third floor penthouses as necessary in order to provide the "economic engine" for redevelopment is not a sustainable practice -- what happens in 20 or 30 years when these buildings need redevelopment again -- do we add another penthouse as a 4th floor? Additionally, high -end residential doesn't mix well with a vibrant night -life -- already we see the penthouse occupants complaining that the commercial activity below is disrupting their use of the penthouse. If you owned the top floor penthouse and could have your say regarding the ground floor occupant (see the Motherload) would you choose an art gallery that closes at 5PM or a restaurant/bar with the accompanying noise and odor to occupy the floors below your penthouse? The free market is a powerful thing - the prices of downtown buildings will reflect the potential return - if penthouses weren't allowed, the prices will adjust to account for that. Bobbi Teliska inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 11:04 AM My husband and I have been visiting Aspen for the past 30 years and what drew us here and keeps us coming back - and deciding to move here two years ago - is the spectacular views - not the buildings and businesses. The views of the mountains make Aspen unique, and should be preserved. Businesses and residences should be able to be supported in existing buildings. There a number of new developments (e.g., the Mother Lode) that currently (and for a couple of years) have not contributed to the vibrancy of the town. In fact, the fact that they lay idle is a detriment. Please keep the character of the town in tact. Linda Vitti inside Aspen June 11, 2012, 9:09 AM When I first visited Aspen in the 1960's, it was a magical experience to walk downtown and see the mountains surrounding the city. It made an impression that kept me returning until I moved her a few years later. The views of our mountains make Aspen unique, and should be preserved. Chad Weltzin outside Aspen June 6, 2012, 4:31 PM When I'm on a hike, I want views. When I'm downtown, i want vitality. It's perfectly appropriate to be surrounded by three -story buildings, as long as the street -level is dedicated to retail /commercial. Not only are some of the most vital and vibrant places in the world (Mykanos, Copenhagen, Venice,....) almost exclusively residential from the second floor up, but they deny their amazing views when wandering the tight streets in the core. This actually enhances the experience of the place, turning Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 3 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen my attention to the activity around me, instead of always drifting to the long view. And, like Aspen, each of those places has opportunities to soak in the views just a few blocks away. Lynn Link inside Aspen May 31, 2012, 9:58 AM The point that Mayor Ireland made in the work session, city council meeting, recently, about a residence added above a commercial building lowering that buildings use downtown is appropriate and well said! I agree with Ireland that residences in the middle of commercial areas and on top of commercial buildings will limit the usage of said commercial building in the precious downtown core area. It begins with one 'exception' regarding some of the newer construction that could eventually kill the purpose of downtown usage over time. Please carefully consider private residences in, and on top of, commercial buidings as potential commercial area killer in a busy 24/7 town like Aspen! Regarding building heights - careful consideration of that item in the downtown area is a must. Not so much a mandated at a certain height, but decisions made for that particular building height in relation to other buildings and condos around that building under construction are important to those in the neighborhood who are effected. Brandon Marion inside Aspen May 31, 2012, 7:29 AM This issue is very simple. We have a historic town and we need to preserve it. Growth is not mandatory. Taller buildings really have no place in Aspen. It is Aspen's unique qualities that make it the way it is. The Eagle's had it right, "Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye ". We can easily work with what we have here, update sure, preserve yes, but start down the slippery slope of taller buildings and we will regret it. Remember why you came to Aspen in the first place.... Gordon Ledingham outside Aspen May 29, 2012, 7:22 PM I believe that the market should decide what use is appropriate and yet financially viable. We need to promote a sustainable and diverse economic environment. Development and real estate are two industries that have been extant and perhaps, predominant in Aspen since the 1960's, contributing to the growth and maintenance of tourism and skiing. Currently, I believe the 3rd story luxury penthouse concept is an excellent choice for development and community use because: a) it keeps pedestrians on the street level, b) promotes more residential /2nd home /hospitality guests to stay downtown WITHOUT permanently removing street level space from public /commercial inventory; c) this highest and best use allows landowners /developers to maximize profit / return on the top floor thereby reducing pressure for profit on the lower levels, indirectly INCREASING likelihood that street level use will be more affordable for retail /commerce - for both tourists and locals. The mixed use concept is common in many cities /communities worldwide: e.g., street level is for retail /commerce and 2nd level (and above) is for residential use (albeit, typically for the shop keeper /family owned business downstairs). In historical districts, rebuilds often involve the ground level facade being maintained with public use (retail /commerce), while the upper floors are redeveloped as office /residential, even as multi -story high rises. Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 4 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen Limitations on building heights might include a 3rd level (or above) requiring some setback (e.g., Limelight, Dancing Bear and Patio Buildings). In all three, public use is offered on the street level (meeting space /bar, restaurant, and small community biz, respectively). Incentives might be to allow higher height limits (over 2 or 3 levels) if say, affordable retail /commercial space is guaranteed on the street level and upper levels are setback. However, defining "affordable" retail /commerce can become convoluted and too restrictive / cumbersome. The current 3rd story luxury penthouse model works with street level retail /commercial - don't kill it and in the process, force premature development on the community and landowners (woops, too late!). chuck frias inside Aspen May 29, 2012, 3:57 PM Removing the economic engine needed to replace functionally obsolescent buildings that tenants nor customers want to use makes no sense. The occupants of these spaces spend significant money in our town and consume limited resources. Creating zonning that limits reconstruction of buildings that are functionally obsolescent and or expensive to occupy reduces potential tax revenus the occupants generate and jobs, nor is it keeping with our green inititatives. Certainly there is a way to allow enough free market space to be built that supports a upgrade or new building yet does not negatively impact the community or views. Case in point, the Patio Building is far superior to what it was, better looking, user friendly and a place the tenants and customers want to be. Why not allow the top floor residential use yet step back the facades so there is less impact of views to the street if that is the concern? Why not meet with the local development community and planners to create a win win for the community. orooerty owners, tenants and customers? Elizabeth Farson inside Aspen May 24, 2012, 1:06 PM For a few years I've expressed my concern that Aspen is allowing buildings with too much mass and that are too tall and inappropriate to maintain a semblance of our historical integrity. That becomes more obvious every month! Mick Ireland has expressed his concerns and priorities, with which I agree. Penthouse Suites provide rental income to help support building them on the third floors downtown, which many of us believe is an inappropriate use of downtown space. And, we should no longer consider third -plus floors on any buildings downtown. I, personally, no longer want to stroll the streets of downtown Aspen because of building renovation and new construction. Please regard the citizens' concerns regarding preservation of this highly treasured town. Thank you, Elizabeth Farson Aspen Steve Sklar inside Aspen May 24, 2012, 9:29 AM I think we need to stop building up. I think most of us are here because of the beautiful views. The Stage Three building is a perfect example of an unnecessary building that benefits so few at the Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www,peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 5 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen expense of so many. What about the Motherlode building. And I absolutely abhor the idea of the new Art Museum. This town is full of beautiful art galleries, whose admission is free, that don't take our magnificent views, or add more shadows to our already icy streets and sidewalks. If you want a big or tall city, please, I beg you, go find one, don't turn mine into one. Sven Erik Alstrom outside Aspen May 23, 2012, 8:15 AM The'emergency height ordinance' stopped a 51 foot building which was proposed near the 54 foot tall historic Elks Building. This was a good thing. View planes of the Elks Building and Wheeler Opera House and views of Little Nell from various points in downtown Aspen need to be preserved. For significant projects in a historic district physical cardboard or other models should be required to be presented in public meetings in order to have a real understanding of the impacts upon adjacent structures and sidewalks. The Wheeler Opera House and Elks Building were built when Aspen was booming in the mining era and modeled to a certain extent after building in New York at that time. Having been raised in the Kansas City area where the first outdoor shopping mall The Country Club Plaza n Kansas City, Missouri was designed in 1922, it is important that buildings from across the street do not put the shopkeepers on the opposite side of the street in shadow. This is important in Aspen also for snow removal in the central downtown area. I was a past member of the Aspen Historic Resources Commission and wish to see both view planes and the integrity of the historic heritage of Aspen preserved, this however does not mean that I would endorse 'bell -jar' type preservation and I do not support the current radical height limit in the downtown commercial core. Aspen needs to implement what is now called 'Form Based Development Codes', which are being proposed for Park City, Utah, and are in place in downtown Overland Park, Kansas a 1960's suburb of Kansas City. Form Based Codes assign the size, shape, scale, and massing in order to define an appropriate urban design scale for the particular area. This needs to occur in Aspen - and allow infill structures and the adaptive reuse of the historic inventory as uses change over time. Form based development codes help to moderate abrupt changes in height and also emphasize the importance of corner buildings where a change in a neighborhood scale is important, an example is where Highway 82 reaches a stop sign on the east border of downtown Aspen - a four story building there would seem inappropriate to most people. Likewise the recently proposed building next to Boogie's was simply too big and too tall and did not truly fit into the context. Denver and Boulder both have solar access easements which protect residential property access to solar - renewable energy. Aspen also needs to include solar access easements in order to support development of photovoltaic and hot water solar systems in the commercial core. This also will impact adjacent proposed development heights. Together a Form Based Development Code and Solar Access Easements, along with Historic Review requirements will allow help to reduce building heights. I agree to a certain extent with Stan Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 6 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen Clausson's comments here, and support some infill up to four stories in height. I was a full time resident of Aspen from 1988 until 2002 and have designed several buildings there including the currently existing one story GAP building which was designed to support a second level of affordable housing and a third level of two luxury townhomes. The GAP building received a City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee Honor Award for best commercial infill within a historic district in 1994. The three story project was designed by the late architect C. Welton Anderson and not built. He died in December 1991. The currently existing building was completed in 1994 and I was the design architect for the final version which exists today and has new foundations and columns to support an additional two floors above the retail space. The approved three story building was 38 feet in height but the approvals have expired. In 2007 my architecture firm received approval on two historic district projects in Crested Butte and I have worked in Aspen on many historic projects in concert with both Herb Klein and Paul Taddune on local preservation projects there. Best Wishes to all on resolving this, I strongly feel that rooftop views should generate some rooftop restaurants and in 1994 designed a second floor addition for Aspen Sports which remains unbuilt. Ziska Childs inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 12:54 PM This keeps the view plane and quashes "affordable Aspen ". The fewer buildings, the more expensive and exclusive the ones remaining. The less density the more traffic. If the intent was to increase existing property values, eliminate residences from the downtown core, decrease employee housing, discourage new retailers and ban developers then it was a good strategy. This will also inevitably lead to a major backlash if and when it's repealed. You can't be this radical without inciting an equal an opposite reaction. Some of us remember the Continental Inn addition being torn down because it was 7" higher than the Wheeler. At least "no higher than the Wheeler" was something we could all understand. Then we got the St Regis, the Nell timeshares and building above the sacrosanct 8000' elevation mark all because of the mercurial nature of our zoning enforcement. It's the arbitrary nature of it all which is frustrating it's like being inside a pinball machine. All of our zoning seems to be a reaction to a specific events instead of emanating from a core philosophy. I will be happy to loan my copy of Jane Jacobs to anyone who wants to read it... William Schaffer inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 10:34 AM I believe the 38 -42 foot height is fine. The effort to stop owners from building condos on the top floor is just populist rage aginst sucessful people. Mick Ireland inside Aspen May 22, 2012, 10:08 AM To: Aspen City Council Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 7 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen From: Mick Ireland, Mayor Date: May 21, 2012 Subject: Changes to create sustainable resort downtown (2nd in a series) Pursuant to my memo of January 1, 2012 and discussions with council surrounding the AACP and the impacts of "infill" zoning, I have some further suggestions on land use code changes. 1. Stop rewarding building destruction by giving credit for employees who were not housed to begin with. The present code allows affordable housing credits for destruction of buildings. For example, had the Benton building been destroyed, a calculation would have allowed credit for affordable housing units associated with the destroyed building. These credits would have counted against the housing generated by the proposed Penthouse or other uses for the new building. This credit is allowed irrespective of whether the building to be destroyed ever provided housing or payment in lieu for any employees. This creates an incentive to scrape and replace. A preference for scrape and replace rather than remodel or re -use is contrary to the environmental ethic as it throws away embedded energy, is contrary to preservation of historical character and unnecessarily increases the impact of construction on downtown (see, for example, Bad Billy's.) I suggest we amend the code to provide some credit for preservation of existing structures that are repurposed to more intense uses and that credits for scrape and replace be limited to the actual mitigation provided for that building. 2. End the mixed use "double dip" that provides that a mixed use building that consists of residential and commercial uses has to mitigate for only one of the two uses. The "mixed use" provision virtually guarantees that top floor luxury residence will top off commercial buildings because the additional residential component will be exempt from mitigation. Abolishing the distinction means commercial uses will compete equally with residential uses. Given the already adequate number of luxury residences available downtown and in the neighborhoods, we do not need to provide incentives for the creation of more. 3. Allow heights above the recently adopted 28 foot limit only under the following conditions: A. The proposed use does not include condominiums or free market residences. B The building uses consist of a combination of "hot" beds as determined by council through analysis, local serving or tourist serving uses such as retail or tourist/local service businesses. Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 8 of 9 Downtown Heights and Land Uses What are the appropriate building heights and land uses for downtown? All Participants around Aspen C The building does not, in the view of council and upon a finding of fact, negatively impact views of the mountains from the public right of way and does not unduly shade adjoining streets or buildings. D Any such building must be consistent with the scale and mass of the immediate neighborhood including but not limited to adjoining buildings. These amendments would be intended to create council discretion to allow heigh variances from 32 feet, particularly on the north side of streets, for uses that enhance downtown vitality and do not unduly impinge on vitality or crowd preclude the creation of such uses. For example, the Mother Lode reconstruction has effectively deleted an active, vital use from the downtown. Chris Striefel outside Aspen May 21, 2012, 6:56 PM If the city would like to keep development within the urban growth boundary it has to seriously embrace some density in the core. This is why the infill code was adopted in the first place. 3 story buildings are not out of character. It seems like because one developer was able to ram a particular project through the process by threatening the city we got this knee jerk reaction of a moratorium in a sense. All the height restriction is going to do is allow for certain buildings that have reached the end of their useful life to be trapped in a city forced market condition that will prevent any willing developer from improving them. No one wins when government acts to quickly with legislation. I think the swarm of applications proves this. Now we have projects on the table that weren't ready economically to happen that have to happen now just to make sure that the landowner has their right to improve their property to market standards. It doesn't matter where you are, a 1 story building will block mountain views from the perspective of the pedestrian. The only ones getting their mountain views blocked are those who are already in their second and third level units. Lets stop the "Im here now, stop all building type attitude" William Sharp inside Aspen May 21, 2012, 4:30 PM We have a beautiful mountain -that has been a pleasure to look at for all the years.- I feel that we should not add extra hight to every building. If you do this there will be no view of the monutain.Lets keep our beautiful town as it is. Where the buildings are high, the snow does not melt on the streets all winter. Towering condos for the pleasure of the rich and famous. Lets keep our humble roots. Bill and Pat Sharp, Cemetery Lane Stan Clauson inside Aspen May 21, 2012, 4:21 PM Although there has been much ado about building heights recently, the Aspen Land Use Code from the 80s and 90s allowed four -story buildings in the commercial core. Indeed there are a number of four -story buildings from this period. It makes sense that the commercial core would allow this level of development, as has historically been the case. While some historic buildings are indeed two stories and will need to be preserved, generally two stories for the downtown is not consistent with historical precedents for significant buildings and do not represent good land use in the core. Public comments as of June 14, 2012, 12:51 PM http: / /www.peakdemocracy.com /934 Page 9 of 9 Downtown Aspen Exhibit L SurveyMonkey 1. The following questions ask you to identify if you think there is a benefit to implementing the following policy statements. 21.2% Great (18) (11) Benefit 14.1% All development should mitigate for 28.2% 20.0% the new employees it generates. (24) (17) Affordable housing mitigation (20) 26.2% 15.3% should be located on the same site 10.6%(9) 3.20 (22) (13) as a new proposed development. Maintain and encourage a diverse 36.8% 26.4% and balanced lodging inventory. (32) (23) Encourage new economy /moderate 29.8% 20.2% lodging inventory. (25) (17) Preserve our existing lodging 43.7% 25.3% inventory. (38) (22) Require less affordable housing 22.6% 19.0% mitigation for all lodging. (19) (16) Require less affordable housing 14.3% 20.2% mitigation for economy /moderate (12) (17) lodging only. 21.2% 12.9% (18) (11) 22.4% 14.1% (19) (12) 24 1% Little Rating Response Benefit Average Count 17.6% 13.1% 16.7% 25.0% 2.72 85 (15) (11) (14) 37.6% 3.53 85 (32) answered question skipped question 1 of 11 87 84 84 84 87 2 5.7% (5) 6.9% (6) 2.20 (21) (1 6) 20.2% 13.1% 16.7% 25.0% 2.67 (17) (11) (14) 184% 2.93 answered question skipped question 1 of 11 87 84 84 84 87 2 8.0% (7) 4.6%(4) 2.05 (1 6) 25.0% 23.8% 9.5%(8) 2.93 (21) (20) 26.2% 29.8% 9.5% (8) 3.20 (22) (25) answered question skipped question 1 of 11 87 84 84 84 87 2 2. Which statement do you agree with the most about replenishing our lodging bed base? Response Response Percent Count We should replenish what we've lost, but only focus on moderate and economy lodges. We should replenish what we've lost without focusing on one type. Any lodge we can get, even if it's in the deluxe category, is important. I don't think we need to try to replenish our bed base. I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 2of11 27.4% 23 50.0% 42 19.0% 16 3.6% 3 answered question skipped question 84 5 3. There has been some discussion that the City should play a role in creating economy /moderate lodging. What do you think? The City should partner with the private sector to create economy /moderate lodging. This ED could mean through funding, land, or other methods. The City should have no direct role in the creation of lodging. - The City should encourage lodging, but should not be a developer. The City should raise funds for lodging, but should not be a 0 developer. 3of11 Response Response Percent Count 4.8% 4 32.1% 27 57.1% 48 6.0% 5 answered question 84 skipped question 5 4. I would most like to encourage the following types of land uses in Aspen's downtown. (Pick up to three) Free market housing Affordable housing 0 Lodging .� Tourist - oriented commercial space Day - today commercial services (basic or essential goods and services) Response Response Percent Count 9.5% 8 15.5% 13 39.3% 33 46.4% 39 47.6% Office space 13.1% Restaurant 42.9% Public /Institutional 6.0% Arts and cultural facilities 25.0% Let the market decide , , 40.5% answered question skipped question 4of11 40 11 36 5 21 34 84 5 5.1 would most like to discourage the following types of land uses in Aspen's downtown. (pick up to three) Response Response 5of11 Percent Count Free market housing 36.1% 30 Affordable housing 34.9% 29 Lodging 7.2% 6 Tourist - oriented commercial space 10.8% 9 Day - to-day commercial services (basic or essential goods and 10.8% 9 services) Office space 24.1% 20 Restaurant 3.6% 3 Public /Institutional —., --j 28.9% 24 Arts and cultural facilities 24.1% 20 Let the market decide_- 38.6% 32 answered question 83 skipped question 6 5of11 6. Please pick the response that best reflects your feelings about development in the downtown. Response Response Percent Count 1 care most about height, and want any new building to be only two stories in height, no matter what. I care most about height, and want any new building to be only three stories in height, no matter what. I care most about the context of the downtown. I think the height of any new building should fit into its context, rather than adhering to a specific height. I care most about the kinds of land uses in the building. What goes inside the building is more important that the height, and I am willing to allow for an increase in height if the public benefit(s) associated with that increase justifies it. I am not concerned about downtown development. I don't know enough to answer this ❑ question. 6of11 37.3% 31 2.4% 2 34.9% 16.9% 6.0% 2.4% answered question skipped question 29 14 5 2 83 6 7. In terms of land uses in downtown buildings, I think the following uses are appropriate downtown: (Pick all that apply) 7of11 Response Response Percent Count 44.6% 37 39.8% 33 80.7% 67 72.3% 60 53.0% 44 28.9% 24 1.2% 1 answered question 83 skipped question 6 8. 1 would be willing to have three story buildings downtown: Regardless of the uses in the building If that meant more affordable housing in the building. If that enabled a lodge to operate on the property. If that meant a restaurant were in O the building. If that meant commercial spaces that provide day -to -day goods and services were in the building. I don't think we should allow three - story development. Buildings should be limited to two - stories. I don't know enough to answer this ❑ question. 8of11 Response Response Percent Count 36.1% 30 7.2% 6 7.2% 6 3.6% 3 10.8% 9 32.5% 27 2.4% answered question skipped question 2 83 6 9. If three story buildings are allowed downtown, I think the third story should be used for (pick all that apply): Response Response Percent Count Free market housing 25.0% 20 Affordable housing -j 31.3% 25 Lodging 36.3% 29 Tourist - oriented commercial space 15.0% 12 Day -to -day commercial services (basic or essential goods and 18.8% 15 services) Office space 18.8% 15 Restaurant 30.0% 24 Public /Institutional 15.0% 12 Arts and cultural facilities -, 23.8% 19 Let the market decide 51.3% 41 answered question 80 skipped question 9 10. 1 believe free - market residential uses should be permitted downtown. Response Response Percent Count True 69.5% 57 False 30.5% 25 answered question 82 skipped question 7 9of11 11.1 have lived /worked in Aspen for Response Percent Count Response Response 3.5% Percent Count 0 — 5 years 9.4% 8 5 — 10 years 12.9% 11 10 — 15 years 14.1% 12 15 — 20 years 12.9% 11 21+ years 50.6% 43 answered question 85 skipped question 4 12. What sector best describes your type of business or profession? Retail Restaurant Lodge Service Professional Office Non - profit Government Financial /Banking Services Other (please specify) 0 El 0 0 10 of 11 Response Response Percent Count 2.4% 2 3.5% 3 10.6% 9 8.2% 7 32.9% 28 7.1% 6 9.4% 8 4.7% 4 21.2% 18 answered question 85 skipped question 4 13. Where do you live? Response Response Percent Count "Innie" — inside of the 62.4% 53 Roundabout "Outie" — outside of the Roundabout 12.9% 11 as far as the Airport/AABC "Far Outie" — I live past the ° Airport/AABC 24.7 /° 21 answered question 85 skipped question 4 14.1 am a (select all that apply): Response Response Percent Count Full -time Aspen renter [ 14.1% 12 Full -time Aspen property owner 62.4% 53 Part -time Aspen renter 1.2% 1 Part-Time Aspen property owner El 2.4% 2 Second Homeowner Q 3.5% 3 Worker commuting into Aspen from ° 17.6 /° 15 somewhere else Other 0 1.2% 1 answered question 85 skipped question 4 11 of 11 Exhibit D - Small Group Meetings were held on June 11, 12, and 13. Attendees included: • Roger Haneman • Helen Klanderud • Jim Smith • Raymond Auger • Warren Klug • Lindsay Smith • Bill Wiener • Patrick Saga[ • Keith Howie • Mike Maple • Lucy Nichols • Richard decamp • Junee Kirk • Allison Kelly • Scott Gordon • Adam Fortier • Les Rosenstien • Lorrie Winnerman • U Erspamer • Stan Clauson • Phyllis Bronson The comments are compiled below and are broken into three sections: Trade -offs, Dimensions, and Uses. Trade -offs • Would only accept a 3`d floor if it is setback 25 feet or more from the street for restaurant /bar on the 3`d floor. • 3`d floor penthouse is okay if it is setback or if the VS floor is a vital space, like a restaurant /bar /Aspen Drug type retail. • Restaurant /bar is also okay on the 3 d floor • 3`d floor is ok if setback and there is more pedestrian amenity on the ground floor and if it is next to an existing building with 3 floors. • South side of the street should have a larger setback • 3`d floor penthouses are ok if affordable housing is also on the 3`d floor. • Eliminate rooftop mechanical through technology. • I'm not worried about the uses in a building. • Trade something for greater setbacks. • Willing to accept higher real estate prices for smaller buildings. • Don't trade our character for things "in lieu" • "Hot beds" are a good idea, but no site is large enough to make sense. Site are too small and will produce nothing. • 1 don't have an issue with free - market housing downtown. • Nuisance issues are ownership issues, not zoning issues. • Commercial and Residential uses are appropriate downtown. • Free - market units do not belong in downtown: they do not create • Want buildings worth looking at. Need to be 2 floors, not 1 floor. Tradeoffs • 1 don't see a need for a change from the current code (not the amended 28 foot height, the old code). Some good projects have come from the current code. The new 28 foot height code suggests that nothing should happen. • 1 have no problem with free - market residential or third floors. • Not sure hotels downtown will work. The properties are not large enough. No space, no parking. Look at Independence Square. • We should be careful using examples to prove assumptions (Motherlode is a unique situation). • Use conflicts are management issues. You know what you're buying. • Don't see a problem with use restrictions through Condo Documents in the downtown. Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 1 of 6 • Ok with some 3`d story buildings. Maybe establish a maximum number or percentage that are allowed per block, but not all. • 3`d floor is okay if it is setback enough to not see from the street. (Crandall). • Sightline issue, sun /shade issue, and context are important, • Willing to have 3`d stories in downtown with less views from the street. • Ok with Council discretion for design scale and mass if the public has a right of referendum. • Projects from negotiation are the most offensive. Variances in negotiations need more explanation. The outcomes of these elusive process are what has gotten us in this situation. • The code should allow 3`d stories. It's fine; I have no problem with them. 1 story buildings are a waste (the James Pearce and Gap buildings). • I fear a uniformity of heights — we'll lose our character. • 1 don't see a problem with 3`d floor residences, • Decks are okay. They help create setbacks. • I'm not willing to trade mitigation requirements /fees for 3`d floor restaurants. I am — mitigation is already heavy handed. • I'm okay with mixed use buildings. They have charm. Trade -offs • OK with 3`d floor if setback a minimum of 10 feet. • Crandall building is a great example of appropriate downtown buildings. The spring building is as well. • Free- market units downtown bring vitality • Free - market units are a financial necessity to make a project work. • 3`d floor residential is ok with specific conditions. We should encourage inventive solutions. Now it is too restrictive. • Will not accept stagnation with reduced heights. • On -site affordable housing can raise difficult issues; willing to accept off -site. • Willing to accept higher buildings for more flexibility on how affordable housing is provided; options now are too limited. • Affordable Housing projects work better as whole projects, not individual units. • Would accept higher buildings and reduced setbacks with activated roof deck, not private. I'm ok with restaurants without setbacks because of the vitality. • Not willing to accept 3`d floor on south sides of the street because of icing issues. • Willing to accept 3`d floors if no other "extras" on top (mechanical, elevator, etc) • Not willing to accept money in -lieu of parking. • Willing to accept relaxation of maximum unit size limits for free - market residential. • If restricted uses (affordable commercial or restaurant), then community should subsidize. • Willing to look at heights based on %s of building footprint. • Crandall building air does not circulate and I don't like the facade. • Not willing to trade anything for a 3`d floor. I don't want residential downtown. • Willing to accept a 3`d floor if there is no impact on views /shading. • Not willing to trade building heights for additional affordable housing • Bonus for on -site affordable housing was a good trade -off; option for developer. Not willing to lose this with a more rigid system. • We should make it easier to develop rental housing (affordable housing) • For a hotel, we should allow 4 stories. Will be needed for a usable lodge. Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 2 of 6 • Willing to deal with 28 feet for free coffee and doughnuts every day!!! • Too much rigidity does not allow site issues to be resolved. Dimensional Requirements • Concern there are too many people, cars, businesses, and parking. We must address adding to our capacity. We will start degrading the quality of town, if we haven't already. We are over capacity on all of the metrics- air quality, water, sewer, etc. We should reduce the capacity and size of town. This is a quality of life issue. • 1 am in favor of the 28 foot height because of our capacity issues. • 1 am concerned about 5 major areas: carrying capacity, the cumulative effects of expansion, character, cost, and building orientation. • Character — we are a real town with a real history. Protecting our character is an economic factor, • Cost - with more people there are more service needs. • Building Orientation — concern about views, sunlight, and energy consumption . • The 28 foot height limit chokes off any future development. There is still commercial demand. I worry that we are pushing out problems and businesses out. • 1 want more commercial /business options downtown. • 1 am comfortable with the old dimensions (38 — 42 in CC and 36 — 40 in C -1) • Rooftops are not an issue for me. • We can use technology to minimize mechanical on rooftops. Hydraulic elevators, underground mine shafts, etc. We don't need to use the roofs for equipment. • I am ok with a 3rd story if it is done correctly: vitality (restaurant /bar /retail), setback (like in Crandall Building), and fit within the context. • Context is subject to change, is too subjective. • If we must have a third floor it should be set back. • 1 support 28 feet. You could put 3 stories in that height, • Roof structures need to be part of the considerations in the review and design process. They will be on the roof, and they should be allowed, but it should not become a defacto 4 1 floor. • Roofs should be used. • The code needs to consider what happens on the roof. • 1 want an absolute height limit that would include parapets, mechanical, elevators, etc. • Peaches is successful. • 1 have a general concern about the use of the Mall by businesses. I like the vitality it creates, but not the administration. It's taking up a lot of space and the city is undercharging. • The uses in buildings are important when talking about public amenity space. Not all spaces are created equal. The Bidwell sunken courtyard is unsuccessful, while Peaches and Paradise are. • Covered walkways do not work well. The hard covered space does not invite people in. It's hard on retail. • Bidwell is iconic, western vernacular. I like the covered walkways. It provides protection from the elements. • We should encourage setbacks on corner lots for restaurant uses, like Peaches and Paradise. • Street level public amenity spaces are preferred, • 1 would give more height if there was open space on the ground floor. The taller height, though, must be set back. Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 3 of 6 • Parking is necessary /required for all uses. Subgrade parking is underutilized. Dimensions • There should be a setback on the 3�d floor • The equal free - market residential and affordable housing requirements is onerous, especially at 28 feet. • A 3`d story is okay if you can't see it. The Crandall Building and Spring Building are good examples. • Sight lines are the primary consideration for allowing a 3`d story. Views and sunlight are important. • In downtown, 3 stories is appropriate. It's okay if it blocks some views. • Decks and usable spaces on roofs are okay for both residential and commercial uses. BB's is a good example. • It's nice to be outside in the summer — rooftop uses encourage this. • 1 support tall 15` floor ceiling heights. • 1 support variable heights. Dimensions • South side and North sides of the street are different. I'm comfortable with a 3rd story on the sunny side (north side) • Don't support 3`d story — it impacts the visual experience • Would look lopsided to have one side of the street with only 2 stories and the other with 3 stories. It would also impact alleys. • Protect view planes - not just the code identified ones. • Roofs — concerned that with all the mechanical equipment, etc that is on the roof it becomes another floor. They aren't used and they create a visual impact. • Roof decks are used year round. They add to the ambiance and quality of the building and the liveliness of the community. • Concerned that private decks are unused, but they have view impacts. I'm concerned with all the "stuff" required by the building code for access. I am not. • 4 story buildings have been successful in town (Aspen Square) • Setback 3rd stories with the previous code. This was acceptable to me. It fits with our Victorian history. • Glass railings help create a transparent edge. • 1 like the mayor's plan. • 1 don't like the mayor's plan. • Victorian style matched Complete Streets. The scale of 3 story buildings feel comfortable, classic, and has the right proportions to the large street widths. Larimer Square in Denver is a good example of the proportions of height to street width. The proportions help make pedestrians feel comfortable. • 1 want more than 28 feet • 1 support 1 %2 to 2 story buildings with larger floor heights. • You should be able to put whatever you want in the building's dimensions. • I'm comfortable with larger free - market units if they fit within the exterior dimensions of the building. Larger dimensions might encourage locals to live there. Families need more space than 2,000 sq. ft. (like the Stage 3 building). I'm okay with something like 3,000 sq. ft. • I'm comfortable with 35 feet for three stories. Like Obermeyer. Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 4 of 6 • Obermeyer did a good job with their mechanical — there's only 1 vent. • Some in these meetings have financial involvement in new buildings. Should be sorted out. • 2 buildings were ugly because of the old public amenity codes — Bidwell and 517 E Hopkins (the City's Building Department annex). The sunken pits are not good. • Public amenity space should be at street level. • Not all spaces should have public amenity space. Not all spaces are equal. • Proportion requirements can go wrong. Other things to do? Smaller space, green roofs, etc. • Investment in public space and public health. • Design consideration is important for roofs. You can see roofs from hikes and the Gondola. We need to pay attention to what happens on roofs. They need to be beautified. • 3 stories is appropriate, but pay attention to established view planes. • The Crandall building was done well... setbacks help. • The Spring and Hopkins building is good too. - - - • Third floor bars and restaurants are ok. • Codes are too restrictive. There's not enough flexibility to encourage inventive solutions. The code is cumbersome and too predictable in its massing guidance. It only prescribes "vanilla" and not even cherry vanilla, just vanilla. The same types of buildings are encouraged. • Seaside Florida is a good example. They encourage inventiveness. • 1 support 3 d floors. There should be flexibility relative to the footprint of a building. If you go up in one area, then go down in another. • 1 like the 28 foot height limit. I wish it had happened before now. It allows more light. But I like flexibility too. • Density and heights should occur in the core /downtown. • Without higher limits, we can't build any new iconic buildings like the Wheeler and elks. • Yes, but not all buildings should be that big. I like that there are only a few iconic buildings. • We should relax the dimensions depending on site location and constraints. We can't paint everything with the same brush. Each site is different. • Allow decks to the edge of the building, with setbacks for the third floor mass (10 —15 foot setback) • Mechanical equipment needs to be screened and setback. • We should encourage higher dimensions to enable a consolidation of equipment and screening. These elements should be centered on the roof and out of views and sight lines. • Roof decks should be usable by all uses. They increase vitality. • The code should allow the use of roofs. Uses • Uses should be "wide open" for all floors — free market should choose • Like to see more outside dining on any floor • More west - facing restaurants and bars; any floor • Would like to know the commercial /residential /lodging balance of other resorts and "regular" towns — is there a desired balance? • We may not be meeting people's commercial needs if people shop out of town (not necessarily local- serving business) • Concerned that some commercial has converted to retail. Do we have less retail space than we did 20 years ago? • 1 want buildings I can interact with i.e. Art Museum, Elks building Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 5 of 6 • Like the idea of restaurants on upper floors • Would like publicly accessible upper floors Uses • Free - market residential is ok downtown, if on the 3`d floor, maybe on the 2nd floor, and definitely not on the 1" floor. • Offices uses are appropriate on the 2nd level. • Retail /restaurant uses are appropriate for the 1" floor. They could also be appropriate on upper floors. • We should encourage a mix of uses in buildings. • I'm not sure hotels in the core will a palatable to visitors. There's not enough space, no parking, and conflicts with other uses (noise). • Mitigation is too high, especially for lodging. It makes it hard to create good, attractive projects. • 1 want to see a mix of different uses throughout town on the 3`d floors. They shouldn't all be residential or restaurant. • Don't be rigid on the allowed 3`d floor uses. • I'm concerned that any mitigation breaks to encourage something will hurt existing businesses (commercial and lodge). We will be hurting the very businesses we talk about wanting to preserve (like the older lodges) • Downtown hotels would be niche hotels — they should not be subsidized. Uses • Opposed to penthouses. What happened to the Mother Lode deadened the whole block. • The Mother Lode was overbuilt and over - priced; it's a unique circumstance and not a general trend. Opposed to restricting 3`d floor use; free market residential is the economic driver that allows for a new building and other commercial uses. • Several agreed that lodging downtown is impractical and not functional due to lack of space; requirements for retail on 1" floor, no parking. • We have old buildings that are dilapidated and not special that need to be replaced. • People say what happened with the Bidwell process and perceive the approval process as a real obstacle and very costly. • 3`d floors should be any use • The rhetoric has miscast the deadness of penthouses; that's not the case. • Shouldn't mandate on -site affordable housing; sometimes the site can't accommodate it — should have flexible options for mitigation • The code ends up giving us "vanilla" buildings • Shouldn't mandate uses floor -by -floor /Should be no prohibited uses • Let the market decide, or there won't be any redevelopment • May get more bang for your buck on affordable housing off -site. Problems arise when you mix affordable housing and free market in a building; Assessments for improvements too costly. Exhibit D — Small Group Meeting Notes - Page 6 of 6 TO: CC: RE: FROM: �xVnbi��. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Planner Mayor Mick Ireland and Council Members Torre, Steve Skadron, Adam Frisch and Derek Johnson Aspen Downtown Development Guidelines Bob Nevins, 13 Ajax Avenue, Aspen, CO, Tel: 925 -1657 DATE: 22 May 2012 Chris and Jessica thank you for soliciting and encouraging public comment regarding building heights and uses in the downtown core of Aspen. Outlined below are my initial thoughts: 1. Building height: Recommend 2- stories "by- right" with the floor -to -floor levels that are based on historic building proportions (Aspen Block, Red Onion, Brand Building, The Cantina, etc.). Setting an arbitrary height limit of 28 -feet or even 32 -feet may not ensure the desired results unless it has a historical basis or context. A third story/floor should be Conditional depending upon location, context and proposed use. Generally, a third floor should be setback approximately 50 feet from the front lot -line so that it is not visible from across a street with a 75 -foot right -of -way (there are a few examples of this currently downtown -the building next to Quiksilver on Hyman Avenue Mall). Free - market condos could be allowed on the third floor if they are setback and not visible from the public street. A full third story should only occur if the proposed building is mixed -use, boutique hotel, single -room occupancy apartments (SRO), Bed & Breakfast Inn, hostel or similar high occupancy use (Independence Square or Paragon Apartments are examples). Fourth floors should be prohibited regardless of use or setbacks. Roof -top gardens should be strongly discouraged, if not prohibited as they add additional height (elevators /stairways, trellises, umbrellas, etc.), visual impacts, activity and noise. Garden - levels (Aspen Daily News, Bidwell Building) and sub -grade plaza areas (Aspen Mountain Plaza -D & E) should also be prohibited as they are uninviting and detract from the historic urban pattern and streetscape. 2. Allowed uses by floor: First floor /street level- retail commercial, restaurants/ bars /cafes, markets /delis /bakeries, florists, book/music /pet stores, banks, brew pubs and B & B /hotel lobbies. Parking, trash and loading docks along the alley, Second floors: professional offices, personal services, fraternal /community organizations, galleries, apartments, lodging rooms and employee units. Third floors: apartments, lodging rooms, employee units and as a secondary conditional use: free - market condos if adequately set back from the street. Basements: storage, mechanical, automated robotic parking, restaurants /bars, brew pubs, theatres /nightclubs and galleries /showrooms. 3. Massing: 2 -story buildings should have the two (2) floors situated in the same vertical plane, the second floor should be flush with the ground floor and not "stepped" or set back (examples of this type of inappropriate massing include: Mill Street Plaza, Mezzaluna and former La Cocina). Depending on the type of use, location and context, a 3 -story building should also be in the same vertical plane (Independence Square) and not "stepped" or set back unless there are free- market condominiums which should be sufficiently set back so they are not visible from the street. 4. Proportions: Building widths should reflect the historic platted lot module of 30- feet by 100 -feet. No individual building facade should occupy more than 2 -city lots or 60 -feet in width (unlike North of Nell, new Stage 3 offices on East Main or future Aspen Art Museum). Buildings and windows should have a vertical, rectangular proportion rather than a horizontal or square orientation; doorways should be recessed and angled if located on a corner lot. Floor -to floor heights and architectural detailing should reflect the historical context of downtown and be "carried- through" from building - to- building and block -to- block. 5. Architectural character: Buildings should be "respective" of Victorian and mining era architecture (Kandy Kom Building, Cantina addition, Ellie's addition, Hotel Jerome addition) without being "replicative" or "cutesy" (Grand Hyatt) or lacking local or historical context (Little Neil, Stewart Title, Aspen Plaza- Kenichi, Wells Fargo Bank, Locals Corner -too many bad examplesM). 6. Building materials and details: Reddish brick and sandstone are common building materials used in both historical and contemporary buildings downtown. While it is historic, regional and attractive, other building materials should also be encouraged for diversity, interest, texture and color. Horizontal wood siding is especially appropriate for. 2-story buildings; corrugated, rusted sheet metal may be appropriate for a new brew pub, nightclub, market/bakery or gondola terminal; false - fronts or simple gable roofs might be appropriate with these materials (there a good examples of this in Telluride and Crested Butte). Stone should be limited to base /foundations and accents and not used as a primary building material like The Residences at Little Nell or Dancing Bear. More contemporary urban materials and forms (metal panels, glazed tile, stucco, glass block, barrel -vault roofs, dark colors, etc) should be used cautiously, if at all. 7. Parking and servicing: All downtown development should provide off - street parking, loading areas and trash /recycling facilities along the alleys. Buildings should be set back 2 -4 feet from the alley pavement to better accommodate vehicular access. Buildings with a large amount of residential and /or lodging units should be encouraged to provide underground, automated robotic stacked parking that does not require vehicular ramp access or HVAC. 8. Summary: I strongly believe that NOW is the time to re- evaluate building height, massing, scale and architectural character so that we can redirect our energies and recapture the history, the spirit, the human -ness and "the magic' that makes Aspen... Aspen... a place, a town and a citizenry like nowhere else! HYMAN & HUNTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2- 24 -12) integrated with Benton Building and Little Annie's A. Corner lot at Hyman and Hunter 1. Size: 60 feet x 100 feet (6,000 square feet) 2. Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Maximum: 3:1(18,000 square feet above grade) 3, Proposed Basement (Nan -FAR): 6,000 square feet 4. Proposed Building Height Limit: 42 feet (3 Floors) 5. Proposed Rooftop Mechanical: 10 feet high with 25 foot setback from both street facades 6. Architectural Character and Massing 'a. Historical Reference: Independence Square b. Contemporary Reference: Obermeyer Place 7. Recommended Building Modifications a. Building to be 42 feet (3 Floors) with 60 -foot frontage on Hyman Avenue b, Angle building at the corner of Hyman and Hunter and provide an primary entrance c. Provide an architectural feature that reflects the historic 30 -foot lot width d. Create attractive street level fagade with large vertical windows, recessed entries e. Utilize historic material (red brick /sandstone) with contemporary details f. Third level has south - facing views over Boogies to Aspen Mtn; maximize private deck area 8. Proposed Uses a. Street Level: Retail /Commercial; Restaurant /Deli /Cafe b. Ailey Level: Trash /Recycling; Emergency Access c. Second Floor: Office /Professional; Free - market Residential; Employee d. Third Floor: Free - market Residential e. Basement: Restaurant /Bar; Nightclub; Theatre /Cinema; Storage /Mechanical 9. Potential Uses a. Street Level: Lobby /Guest Check -with Specialty Retail b. Alley Level: Parking (5 -6 spaces) or Robotic Car -park Access c, Second Floor: Boutique Hotel; Residence /Vacation Club d. Third Floor: Penthouse Suites; Boutique Hotel; Residence /Vacation Club; Residential e. Basement: Robotic Car -park (possibly 2- levels without access drive or HVAC) B. Interior lot on Hyman Avenue 1. Size: 30 feet x 100 feet (3,000 square feet) 2, Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Maximum: 2.5:1(7,500 square feet above grade) 3. Proposed Basement (Non -FAR): 3,000 square feet 4. Proposed Building Height Limit: 42 feet (2 -1/2 floors) 5. Proposed Rooftop Mechanical: 10 feet high with 80 -foot setback from Hyman Avenue 6. Architectural Character and Massing a. Historical Reference: Red Onion b, Contemporary Reference: Crandell (aka Patio) Building 7. Recommended Building Modifications a. Building to be 28 feet along Hyman with 50 -foot setback for 14 -foot third floor b. More contemporary building that reflects the historic 30 -foot lot width d. Create attractive street level fagade with large vertical windows, recessed entries e. Utilize more contemporary materials with references to historic details 8. Proposed Uses a. Street Level; Retail /Commercial; Bookstore /Gallery b. Alley Level: Trash /Recycling; Emergency Access c, Second Floor: Office /Professional; Free - market Residential; Employee d. Third Floor: Free - market Residential e. Basement: Storage / Mechanicai 9, Potential Uses a. Alley Level: Parking (2 -3 spaces) c, Second Floor: Apartments d. Third Floor: Apartments e. Basement: Robotic Car -park to be integrated with 60 -foot lot r� zRxaszstau.zMs�sasas EBfwC C�IZ3b>br��.�6'..SfxE •-•, .a�waa> ?aa'�a nt,. ,•,y w fJc a,�,,,,,,,,,,,.,. Ly2t �1Cf o-�^'• � x � t�3'\a;aw. 0 •i.'�: o * ffY�� i �ftyypp t tE�E�aa�iGS; C?? fit, �.. b'4 f. .i...Y.�Ecixv:.�1�}i� .r.,, •<. bbii.- .`r_T..DDS3 .iti -- 1a.b,$ ti €"t15 �F•♦ :1 ,: �{ I ....:.•tY t.+.+2p�w+� ���2, 1 pA C � � LY•3.`C.;.•S.�ib J ♦�io7. T ..,..J.LC bw��..6�Era �`+�bGi�a? J ��,t i ✓ ��'E�f \� �J"� ypY n ,t➢E 4y< 1 ;4l. E0 SU. ! tt; � tfF Y �f a ���`3�4 � e- e'�^�rc y 'esF""_„ 'is >. � 4 TbJ:sa �Gf� .5 ta..\z.., c 1 c;b t a J> ,r' - 3r.,zt.: a'��SS: •.,��S.,aa+d.,t ..<c+%� . �y„�a St�Y.�erAY � � ➢�- XS.i.E3')✓„;,\i R.y.;i� }a'D��d � ,vA'� L:o5.w2. w�' SSa\'.Yawu�GwG K2. \�a4a+.w�ww aJ. a� - 3�i�3t3 '��amL3.3fXaY.fw� ry - { i lx 3 x S n za C\ v �� ?E br 9 Jessica Garrow _ From: Lani White <aspenrealestate@ live. com> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1;01 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: FW: heights in downtown Aspen Categories: Purple Category Dear Jessica, I:just finished a survey regarding three stories in downtown Aspen. They also gave your address to directly contact you regarding our views on this subject. (1) I was very against the art museum at the Wienerstube site and was actively fighting it. My reasons were: too tall and not in keeping with the heights of other neighborhood buildings and dwarfing or being as high as our downtown historic buildings also .... too contemporary (glass and bamboo in a town of brick, stone and wood buildings) and very out of place in the neighborhood (and, for that matter, it doesn't fit aesthetically anywhere in Aspen) and I had a number of other concerns about the project that I won't go into here. (2) I was also very concerned about the saving of Little Annies and the Benton building at the cost of having a totally inappropriate building (the one proposed by developer Nikos Hecht) that comically dwarfed the little, Little Annies, in order to put a penthouse on top of the new buiding that would be taller than any other building on the block. (3) If there is to be any new 3 story building, I would only grudgingly ok it if it was for a restaurant (or perhaps lodging) and if it was next to another similarly sized building and it fit, aesthetically, into the neighborhood. (4), I hate the idea of having any kind of residential housing on the 3rd floor, and that absolutely includes employee housing. There are so many abuses of employee /affordable housing. The 3rd floor employee /affordable housing would basically be affordable downtown Aspen penthouses for those very very lucky few .... and the abuses will be too common. We can be assured that those employee units will be rented out every Christmas for $1,000+ per night (ignoring the regulations) and probably also other key weeks of the year, in order to pay their mortgages on their second homes in Maui, Costa Rica or Puerto Vallarta. This has been common for years in employee housing all over town and everyone knows it. Employee housing would just be so much more profitable for the owners of penthouse employee housing units. That choice housing would probably never turn over. People would keep them until they die (renting them out as much as they can get away with... their neighbors probably doing the same thing). I just don't think that this is the intention of our subsidized housing. !"have lived in Aspen for 35 years and have seen a lot of changes. Many of them have been welcome and many have been hard to get used to. I used to love walking around town in the evening and looking into all the restaurants and enjoying the ambience. — looking in and seeing friends sitting at a bar and maybe stopping in .... There used to be so many.ground floor restaurants and bars and now there are so few. The restaurants are mostly in the basement or upper levels and not visible from the street level. Now, when you walk around town most evenings, even peak season,the retail stores are almost all closed and mostly dark .... all the many art galleries, jewelry and fur stores, designer stores. We are losing so much of our vitality and our charm. And, with all the developers wanting to tear down and rebuild (and add third stories), virtually every block downtown will be under construction ..... usually for 2 years construction for each building. The corner at Paradise Bakery/Raph, Lauren is probably the most photographed corner in downtown Aspen. If the Bidwell family gets the OK to tear down and rebuild, not only will we have more density, but that very important corner will be a noisy and dusty and ugly construction zone. I'm very worried about what is happening to Aspen. During this time, when Aspen is sinking lower on all the polls and "Best of,.." lists, and our economy is so hard hit, we should be embracing our history .... our charm .... our beauty ... all the things that have made us special and brought people here and made us want to live here .... (besides, of course, the awesome skiing). We shouldn't be trying to look like a smaller Houston or Dallas or Palm Beach or LA or New York. Our historic ski town doesn't need a huge $38M contemporary art museum downtown and we don't need $15M penthouses on the top of every building in downtown, blocking everyone's views. Respectfully, Lani White Lani. White LANI WHITE & ASSOCIATES (970) 948 -9464 asnenreaiestate @live. com www.LciniWhiteAspen.com 0 Email, secured by Check Point 2 Jessica Garrow From: Susan McCoy <susan. s. mccoy@att. net> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 7 :55 PM To: Jessica Garrow Subject: FW: Height Limits From: Susan McCoy [mailto:susan.s.mccoy @att.net] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:42 PM To: ' Jessica.garrow @ci.aspen.co.gov' Cc: 'Lani White' Subject: Height Limits Dear Jessica, have lived in Aspen since 1969. My husband and I joined Joe Edwards and many others trying to preserve the small Victorian town character of Aspen and open space with limited development and slow growth. I am adamantly opposed to developing any more three story buildings in downtown Aspen. I do NOT want to see this charming town become a mega- tropolis! We are not Chicago and I originally moved here to get away from the big city atmosphere. The Art Museum plans which passed without voter approval is abominable in its size, scope and design! Please do not ruin the charm and character of our lovely town by patronizing these greedy developers. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Susan McCoy Email secured by Check Point 1 Building Heights for Downtown Aspen I support the Mayors approach, however here is a tweak June 6, 2010 Problem Aspen has a brand, which is the result of our history manifested in our built environment nestled in a magnificent natural setting. This is our character, which sets us aside from the other plastic Rocky Mountain resorts. This is our economic edge and it should be protected. One of the most compelling elements of our character, the brand, is our "Mass and Scale ". This is the dominant factor of the "Look and Feel " of our community. Should we allow this to disappear, then we become just another bottom line mountain place. More than anything else, the heights of our structures not style, dictate who we are and what are our values. Program To preserve our values: Core, Economic, Fairness, Mass & Scale, Look and Feel and Energy, we must forever limit the heights of the buildings in the downtown area. Parameters 1. The major streets run, East — West 2. The major view "AJAX" is to the South 3. The sun is to the South 4. The winters are cold with snow and ice on the sidewalks and streets. 5. Tall buildings on the south side of the street block both the sun and views. 6. New codes should allow for development of non- historic buildings sites. 7. There should be a level playing field for all, with no fudging or exceptions. 8. Saving energy should be a goal 9. It should be very difficult for any future city council to overturn this action. Solution A. The entire downtown shall be rezoned to 2 '/2 stories. The first step in producing a level playing field for all. However you can't build a half story. B. The buildings on the south side of the street are to be limited to 26 (based on 15 ft, first floor and 11 feet second floor). This leaves a 5 '/z foot half story that can never be used on this south side of the street. However if this half story was a TDR, it could be sold for development only on the north side of the street. This would make the property values on both sides of the street almost equal. D. The results would be 26 foot high buildings on the south side of the street that do not severely block the view of mother AJAX and also allow the winter sun from the south to shine in to bath the street with warmth and light during a bleak winter, This sunshine would reduce snow removal needs, thus conserving energy. E. On the north side of the streets after acquiring a TDR the buildings could be 36'/2. feet high. The views from the third floor would look across the street and over the 2 story structures located there. As this would make the north building site worth more with a TDR it would create demand and value for the TDR. F. As most buildings, both historic would remain, we would have the richness of great variation along the block. Guarding the Zoning + Any changes to this new height code shall require a unanimous vote of Council. This unanimous action should probably need to be ratified by a public vote. Power to the people. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Wiener, A.I.A. A.P.A Design.Bill @gmail.com Should you have any questions please call: 925 -5390 home Q 948 -8255 cell Jessica Garrow From: Bill Lipsey <billriverstudio @me.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:11 PM Cc: Chris Bendon; Ben Gagnon; Jessica Garrow Subject: Current Urban Design Issues facing Aspen RE: Buildina Heiahts, Mixed Use, Lodging, Emplovee Housing, Mill Street, Rio Grande Place, Etc. Whenever I need to put urban design in perspective I find myself coming back to James Kunstler who. has a simple, yet super articulate way of looking at our cities & towns. Below are some excerpts from his hilarious & indignant TED talk. Much in the talk can be applied to Aspen. You can find the whole talk (video) at: http: / /blog.ted.com /2007 /04/20 /fames howard ku 1/ -- (slide: old engraving of colonial or Victorian town, caption: "A Sense of Place ") A sense of place. Your ability to create places that are meaningful and places of quality and character depends entirely on your ability to define space with buildings, and to employ the vocabularies, grammars, syntaxes, rhythms, and patterns of architecture in order to inform us who we are. The public realm in America has two roles: It is the dwelling place of our civilization and our civic life, and it is the physical manifestation of the common good. And when you degrade the public realm, you will automatically degrade the quality of your civic life, and the character of all the enactments of your public life and communal life that take place there. The public realm comes mostly in the form of the street in America, because we don't have the thousand year old cathedral plazas and market squares of older cultures. And your ability to define space and to create places that are worth caring about all comes from a body of culture that we call the culture of civic design. This is a body of knowledge, method, skill, and principle that we threw in the garbage after World War Two and decided we don't need that anymore, we're not going to use it. And consequently we can see the result all around us. The public realm has to inform us not only where we are, geographically, but it has to inform us where we are in our culture. Where we've come from, what kind of people we are, and it needs to- by doing that it needs to afford us a glimpse to where we're going- in order to allow us to dwell in a hopeful present. And if there is one tremendous- if there is one great catastrophe about the places we've built, the human environments we've made for ourselves in the last 50 years, it is that it has deprived us of the ability to live in a hopeful present. ,,(photo: street open air market scene, caption: "Public Space Worth Caring About ") Public space- this is a good public space. It's a place worth caring about. It's well defined, it is emphatically an outdoor public room, it has something that is terribly important- it has what's called an active and permeable membrane around the edge, That's a fancy way of saying it's got shops, bars, bistros, destinations, things go in and out of it, it's permeable. The beer goes in and out, the waitresses go in and out, and that activates the center of this, place- it makes it a place that people want to hang out in. You know, in these places in other cultures, people just go there voluntarily, 'cause they like them. We don't have to have a craft fair here to get people to come here. (laughter). You know, you don't have to have a Kwanzaa festival. People just go, because it's pleasurable to be there. "The pattern of main street USA- in fact this pattern of building downtown blocks, all over the world, is fairly universal. It's not that complicated- buildings more than one story high, built out to the sidewalk edge, so that people who are- you know, all kinds of people can get into the building, Other activities are allowed to occur upstairs, you know, apartments, offices, and so on, you make provision for this activity called "shopping" on the ground floor. "(photo: two pictures of tree lined pedestrian paths, caption: "Role of 'Green' In City Center Is Formal ") The street trees have really four jobs to do, and that's it. To spatially denote the pedestrian realm, to protect the pedestrians from the vehicles in the carriage -way, to filter the sunlight onto the sidewalk, and to soften the hardscape of the buildings and to create a ceiling -a vaulted ceiling- over the street, at its best. And that's it. Those are the four jobs of the street trees. They're not supposed to be a cartoon of the north woods, they're not supposed to be a set for The Last of the Mohicans. WiNIum Lipsey River .Studio Architects 955 King St Aspen, CO 81611 c 970 309 4595 billriverstudioame.com Email secured by Check Point Exhibit F — Summary of P &Z and HPC Comments At a May 30th small group meeting, Cliff Wiess, Jasmine Tygre, and Ann Mullins provided comments on heights and uses downtown. • Cliff expressed comfort with the 2 story limit, with the ability to go to three stories if there was an innovative project. He also expressed that three story buildings should not be permitted on the south side of the street because of the sunlight and icing issues. • The group expressed varying concerns about residential uses. Cliff felt residential uses should not be downtown because of the negative impact they have on rents for local businesses. Ann felt that free - market housing and affordable housing do not blend well, and Jasmine expressed that residential uses might be more appropriate in the C -1 district as opposed to the CC district. There was also general support for the residential unit size caps in the zoning code. • All the members felt that lodging on the third floor would not be feasible because of the lack of space available on small downtown parcels to create a viable hotel. • Ann expressed a desire to have the roofs cleaned up and to have them become a larger part of the design review process, and that there should be a focus on green roofs. She also expressed support for larger first floor ceiling heights. • There were mixed opinions on the usability of roofs. Some are used, which creates vitality and interest. On the other hand the equipment needed to access the roof can create visual impacts. • Jasmine expressed that trading uses and dimensions to get things the community confuses the issue and that they should not be connected. She felt that the height and other dimensions should be defined because once the building is constructed it will be there for a long time. Regardless of what uses are in the building, the community will be stuck with what the building looks like. She felt that 3 story buildings might be appropriate within certain contexts, and that building design should relate to context. Both Bert Myrin and Stan Gibbs emailed brief statements indicating support for the Mayor's proposal presented at the May 21" work session. Stan expressed particular support for eliminating the ability to satisfy only the larger of multiple housing mitigation requirements if housing is provided on -site (sometimes referred to as "double dipping "). Bert expressed support for increasing parking requirements for the downtown to the lesser of 2 spaces per unit or 1 space per bedroom. Comments from the entire HPC at a March check -in on this issue focused on the important of having new buildings that fit with our historic character. There was strong support for maintaining the larger first floor floor -to -floor heights because of the historic relevance as well as creating good commercial spaces. There were a number of concerns expressed related to rooftop equipment, and the important of including that in the design review process. There was also a consensus that three story buildings should be allowed. BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATION STUDY Commercial District Building Height Limits in Mountain Communities Prepared for the City of Aspen, Colorado by: Phillip Supino August, 2012 PA S JCS TABLE OF CONTENTS Issue Statement 1 Current Regulations 1 Methodology 1 Regulation Comparison Table 3 Community Briefs: Crested Butte, CO 4 Durango, CO 4 Steamboat Springs, CO 5 Telluride, CO 6 Jackson, WY 6 Ketchum, ID 7 Park City, UT 8 Truckee, CA 8 Compiled Municipal Regulations 10 ISSUE STATEMENT Ordinance 12, Series 2012 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code revised the building height limits for the CC and C1 zones. The ordinance reduced the maximum allowable building height in the CC zone from 38 feet to 28 feet, as well as stipulating that the maximum height is not an entitlement and is conditional on site context and design standards. Similarly, the maximum allowable height in the C1 zone was reduced from 36 feet (with an option of 40 feet) to 28 feet for two -story building elements. Again, the maximum allowable height is not achievable by right and requires consideration of context and design elements. City Council continues to examine the appropriate height limit for the downtown zones and has expressed interest in allowing three -story development in the CC and C1 zone districts. This report provides information on best practices from other communities regarding height regulations. The study provides comparative metrics from eight western communities, as well as commentary from planning officials about the implementation and impacts of those regulations on the various communities. CURRENT REGULATIONS The following section of the City of Aspen Municipal Code govern land use and development in the CC and C1 zones: 26.710.140 CC Zone Requirements 25.710.150 C1 Zone Requirements 26.575.20.F Measuring Building Height and Exceptions to Height Limitations In addition to the Municipal Code, the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines provide owners and developers with direction for the renovation and construction of commercial buildings within the CC and C1 zones. A number of the design guidelines adopted for the CC and C1 neighborhoods relate to building height. The guidelines direct new development to reinforce the two story scale and 30' wide lots found in the downtown area, set back third floors, and to be compatible with surrounding buildings (especially historic structures) both in terms of individual floor heights and overall building height. Relevant guidelines include: CC Zone: Design Objective #4, page 94 Design Guidelines 6.23 - 6.35, pages 107 -113; Guidelines 6.43 - 6.46, page 117- 119; Guideline 6.57, page 122. CA Zone: Design Objective #5, page 14 Design Guidelines 1.22 - 1.29, pages 24 -28; Guideline 1.33, page 30; Guidelines 1.35 - 1.36, page 31; Guideline 1.44, page 34. Taken together, the building height regulations in the Municipal Code and Design Guidelines provide property owners a framework for appropriate development patterns in the CC and C1 zones. These regulations and guidelines reflect the historic context and contemporary economic realities of the Aspen downtown commercial core. METHODOLOGY This study is meant to provide information and guidance to City staff on how best to regulate building height and further community development and economic goals in the historic commercial core of Aspen. The study compares regulations in eight western mountain communities: • Crested Butte, CO • Durango, CO • Steamboat Springs, CO • Telluride, CO • Jackson, WY • Ketchum, ID • Park City, UT • Truckee, CA The communities were selected based on geographic, demographic, economic and regulatory similarities with the City of Aspen. All of the communities in the study are proximal to a ski area, maintain a historic district and see development patterns similar to those in downtown Aspen. Municipal Land Use Code research and analysis was conducted using code sections obtained from the communities' online Municipal Land Use Code. The code sections referenced were the most up -to -date sections available. The study first provides a comparative table of each of the eight communities' regulations including six basic metrics: • Maximum height allowed; • Maximum number of floors allowed; • Residential uses allowed; • Whether or not a contextual zoning /design program is in place; • Whether variances from the height maximum are allowed; Any relevant exemptions to the height maximum. Following the municipal code review, interviews with planning officials were conducted via telephone. Interview questions focused on a number of relevant social, economic and demographic issues related to building height: • How did the community develop the building height regulations? • Is the current height maximum reflective of traditional building height and scale in the core zone? • Is there community support or opposition to the regulations? • From which sections of the community do support and opposition come? • What is the average height of historic buildings in the core zone? • How does building height in the downtown district impact the aesthetic quality of the town? • What have been the economic impacts of the height regulations? • What other regulatory and zoning schemes have been considered to regulate building form in the community? Interview notes and municipal code sections from each community were compiled and distilled into briefs, which are included in this report. For each community, the relevant code section numbers, interviewee's name and contact information have been provided for follow -up discussion by the Community Development Department staff. The report does not provide recommendations or conclusions. 2 Cnmearative Table: Municipal Height Regulations in Downtown Historic/Commercial Zones * There Is no maximum height In the conditional review process. The Anal height Is at the discretion of the Durango Planning Com- mission and is based upon specific site and design criteria. **Jackson uses a contextualftm -based zoning code, but it has been under moratorium. ***Truckee zoning allows for either building height or maximum number of floors, whichever is less, to be used. 3 Height e 9 t Floors Residential ontextual Exemptions'" Code Zone Max. Variances All d Max. Allowed Zoning Section B1 Conditional upon Flagpoles, communica- Crested Butte ntown Core 35 No 3 affordable housing deed restriction on No tions equipment, renew abie energy equipment 16 -5 -160 Busnew the proposed unit CB Yes* Requires condl- Architectural features, Durango 9 centmi tral 55' Requires N/A tional use permit as No mechanical equipment, 4 -3 -11 Business conditional part of mixed -use others discretionary review bulldin co 28'Wo real AfT. Housing/Multi- Architectural features, 26 -134 Steamboat commercial 38'(vd rte) No N/A Family conditionally, not permitted on Yes mechanical equipment, renewable energy 26 -91.J Old Town 42'(w/ pub. ground floor Mulement amani 35' Yes Multi - family permit Architectural features, Telluride HisWc up to 4W in up to 4g' in N/A ted by right; other as part of mixed -use No renewable energy equipment 3 -212.0 Commercial PUD PUD building 28' Single - family Architectural features, Aft UC, UC -2 nssidentlal No N/A homes and mixed- ** YCS mechanical equipment. Table Jackson, WY urban 35, use buildings renewable energy 2400 Commercial permitted by right equipment non -res. Only in mixed -use _ Architectural features, Ketchum, ID GornmCerclal 35' to 40' contextual No N/A housing affordable housing multi- Yes renewable energy equipment, egress 17 -64 -020 Ctrs family development elements HCB Singlelmultl-family Architectural features, Park City, UT Hlsioric 45' No NIA by right. not on No mechanical equipments renewable energy 15 -2.6 -1 Commercial Bush -as permitted ground floor equipment Yes 3.5* Single/multl4amlly Architectural features, Truckee, CA DMU Downtown ,* SFR only wl (which- by right, not No mechanical equipment, renewable energy 18 -12 -040 conditional ever Is permitted on wed Use melew less) ground floor equipment * There Is no maximum height In the conditional review process. The Anal height Is at the discretion of the Durango Planning Com- mission and is based upon specific site and design criteria. **Jackson uses a contextualftm -based zoning code, but it has been under moratorium. ***Truckee zoning allows for either building height or maximum number of floors, whichever is less, to be used. 3 CRESTED BUTTE, CO Contact: Bob Gillie, Building Official (970) 349 -5338 Code Section: 16 -5 -160 Crested Butte Municipal Code section 16 -5 -160 regulates building height in the B1 historic, downtown commercial zone. The maximum building height is 35 feet with the following exceptions: flagpoles, chimneys and communications equipment. The design guidelines for the historic district permit the application of renewable energy equipment on roof - planes; however, there is no guaranteed exception from the height limit for such applications. The historic preservation guidelines in place ensured the scale and style of development in the B1 maintained the small -town feel of the B1 zone. The historic preservation guidelines prevent additions and remodels from significantly altering the historic mass and scale of buildings. Additions are located on the rear of buildings and are not permitted to be highly visible from the street. The traditional building height in the B1 is two stories or approximately 30 feet. The number of historic buildings in the B1 prohibits a majority of the building stock in the zone from being demolished or significantly altered. The Town of Crested Butte Design Guidelines provides supplemental mass and scale regulations, which are administered by the Board of Zoning and Architectural Review. Bob Gillie, Building Official for the Town of Crested Butte, stated that in over 25 years in his position, the height limit in the B1 zone has not had a negative impact on the scale, pace or economics of development in the downtown commercial core. "Prohibiting residential uses in the B1 has kept the pressure off of undermining the commercial intent of the zone." Gillie stated that the prohibition on free - market residential uses in the B1 zone has precluded large -scale redevelopment and infill projects with a residential component. He added that in resort communities, the most lucrative developments are residential, and limiting those uses in the historic core has helped preserve the character of scale of the zone. DURANGO, CO Contact: Paul Hornbeck, Planner, (970) 375 -4850 Code Section: 4 -3 -11 The Durango Municipal Code establishes a maximum building height of 55 feet in areas of the CB zone not adjacent to the historic residential neighborhood, which borders the CB. Those areas of the CB bordering the historic residential zone are limited to a maximum building height of 35 feet. 4 Despite the 55 -foot height allowance in the CB, most buildings in the zone are not built to the maximum height, according to Paul Hornbeck of the City of Durango Community Development Department. He added that new building proposals and remodels do not typically challenge the maximum height limit in the CB zone. This is due to market conditions and construction costs, rather than zoning regulations. "The development community sees parking requirements and payment -in -lieu fees as a bigger obstacle to development in the CB than building heights." While the zoning and historic preservation regulations permit additions to historic buildings, the impact of additions must be minimized and located on thee rear of structures out of view from the street. Hornbeck stated that there has been little addition and redevelopment activity in the CB. Reasons for this include build -out of the zone, as well as the current recession and constricted commercial construction and financing markets. Hornbeck indicated that there is weak demand for residential uses (which are permitted in mixed -use development) in the CB. As a result, there is little in the way of development pressure for residential projects in the CB. STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO Contact: Bob Keenan, Senior Planner, (970) 871 -8260 Code Section: 26 -134, 26 -91.J The City of Steamboat Springs has adopted a form -based zoning code. Section 26 -132 governs development in the Commercial Old Town (CO) zone. Affordable housing and multi - family residential (as part of a mixed -use development) are conditionally permitted. Single - family, multi - family and duplex developments are not allowed in the CO. Residential uses are not permitted on the ground floor of buildings to preserve the commercial and historic character of the zone. The historic building height in the CO zone is approximately 20 feet (1 to 2 stories) with a 2 to 4 foot parapet. Newer buildings in the zone are built to or near the height limit (three stories with the third story set -back 15 feet from the facade per design guidelines) and often include a residential component. The height limits in the CO zone depend on the uses included in the development. If no residential use is included, then the height limit is 28 feet. If there is a residential component, then the height maximum is increases up to 38 feet. Buildings with sufficient public amenity /use components or affordable housing units may be allowed up to 42 feet. Due to the form -based code regulations, building height and height variances are at the discretion of the building official and design review board. Bob Keenan reported that a handful of developments have been granted variances for a fourth floor, and there was negative feedback from the community regarding the scale of those projects. He added that the 10 -foot height bonus for residential components has met the objective of stimulating more mixed -use development, and having height limits has not impacted the pace of development in the CO zone. "My sense from the community at large is that 38' or roughly three stories is generally appropriate for our downtown. The developers would love another story of residential but I think they understand the scale that the community is looking for." Included in the zoning regulations are requirements that rooftop egress and mechanical systems be shielded from view and not occupy more than 20% of the roof area. TELLURIDE, CO Contact: Mike Davenport, Preservation Planner, (970) 728 -2175 Code Section: 3 -212.0 Like Crested Butte, Telluride maintains a large historic downtown district with strict architectural controls. The maximum height limit of 35 feet reflects the traditional two to three story height of buildings in the Historic Commercial (HC) zone. The limit reflects historic development patterns and is meant to preserve the scale of the historic district. The design guidelines require that third floors be set- back from the front fagade sufficiently to not be seen from the right -of- way. The Town has detailed exceptions to the height limit for rooftop renewable energy equipment, as well as architectural features and mechanical equipment. Article 3, Section 3- 212.C.11 of the Telluride Municipal Code provides building height regulations and exceptions for the HC zone. Telluride allows PUD development in the HC, and the code provides a maximum height of 40 feet for buildings in a PUD development. However, to date there have been no applications for a PUD in the HC. Additionally, the number of historic buildings in the HC prohibits a large portion of the building stock from being demolished or significantly altered. Additional height and building mass and form regulations are included in the Design Guidelines for the historic district. According to Mike Davenport, Community Development Director for the Town of Telluride, the height regulations have not had a negative impact on the scale, pace or economics of development activity in the HC. He stated that there is broad public support for the regulation and preservation of the built environment in Town. "The people of Telluride are used to the idea that we are a low - rise community." Generally, Davenport felt that business is not hampered by the height regulations, because business is usually conducted on the ground floor of buildings in the HC. He added that the local economy benefits from historic preservation efforts, which includes preserved scale. JACKSON, WY Contact: Lindsay Travis, Planner, (307) 733 -0440 Shawn Hill, Senior Planner, (307) 733 -0440 Code Section: Art. 2, Table 2400 The UC and UC -2 zones allow for a maximum building height of 28 feet for detached single - family homes and 35 feet for all other uses in the zones. Mechanical equipment including HVAC, renewables and venting are allowed an additional four feet above the maximum. Structural elements, such as stair egress and elevator equipment, are considered for height exceptions by the Building Official on a case -by- case basis. Features such as railings for roof decks or other non- essential elements must be within the height maximum. Residential uses, including single and multi - family dwellings, are permitted by right in the zones. However, there are relatively few residential developments and applications for residential projects in the zone are ra re. A Traditional building height in the historic district is one story at approximately 10 to 15 feet. (There are a small number of two story buildings between 25 and 30 feet.) The maximum allowable height for the district has been 35 feet for decades, but it is only in the last 20 years that developments have gone to the height limit. "Floor area ratio, rather than height limit, has the greatest impact on the scale and viability of development in the UC and UC -2 zones." Shawn Hill, Senior Planner for the Town of Jackson, stated that the public is sensitive to height and scale issues in the zones, and there have been a number of development proposals that have pushed the height limit and caused consternation among residents. There is community discussion about whether the maximum height in the zone should be 35 to 42 feet, in order to encourage redevelopment and economic activity. Hill also noted that the Town adopted a discretionary zoning scheme for the downtown district, but that it has been under moratorium for some time due to public outcry over the developments it enabled. Through the discretionary zoning regulations, the Town sought to stimulate infill and affordable housing development. Under the scheme, developers entered into a PUD -style negotiation for development rights in exchange for public amenities and affordable housing. Three four -story buildings over 40 feet tall were approved under the discretionary zoning program, with significant public opposition, before the Town Council put the regulations under moratorium indefinitely. Hill speculated that the discretionary zoning regulations would be abandoned for a more traditional zoning scheme in the near future. KETCHUM, ID Contact: Rebecca Bundy, Associate Planner, (208) 727 -5082 Code Section: 17 -64 -020 In 2006, the Town of Ketchum adopted a form -based zoning code. There has been very little development activity since the new code was adopted, so the downtown Community Core (CC) zone reflects the traditional zoning scheme in place for decades. Municipal Code section 17.64.010 governs the CC zone and provides a height maximum of 35 to 40 feet or three stories, depending on site context and proposed uses. Historic building heights in the CC are two stories and approximately 20 — 24 feet in height, depending on design elements. New development is typically three stories and closer to the 35 -foot height maximum for non - residential uses. "The code allows for four story buildings up to 48 feet in the CC if the whole building is dedicated to affordable housing units." Planning and Zoning Official Rebecca Bundy indicated that despite the recession - induced slow -down in development activity, there is nothing to suggest that building height limits have a negative effect on the aesthetic quality or economic viability of development in the CC. She noted that given that the height limit prior to the form -based code was 35 feet, it is safe to assume that the height limit in the CC has never been seen as burdensome to the development community. 7 Ketchum recently lost an Idaho Supreme Court case regarding the transfer of development rights within the CC zone. The Town allowed developers to apply for height variances in the CC through the use of development rights purchased from property owners in other zones. The Court found that the allowance created a lack of uniformity in the application of zoning regulations and struck down the provision. PARK CITY, UT Contact: Kayla Sintz, Planner, (435) 615 -5060 Katie Caftan, Senior Planner, (435) 615 -5060 Code Section: 15 -2.6 -1 The Historic Commercial Business (HCB) zone allows for a maximum building height of 30 feet on the front facade, rising to 45 feet some distance behind the facade. Rooftop mechanical equipment is allowed an additional five feet above the maximum, and it must be clustered and hidden from view of the right -of -way. The HCB zone allows for a wide range of residential uses_ including single and multi - family units. However, no residential (or office) uses in mixed -use buildings may occupy the ground floor. This is to preserve the commercial character of the zone. Code section 15 -2.6 -1 allows for a number of architectural exceptions to the height limit based on the angle of pitched roofs and other design elements. The City provides projects an opportunity to apply for height variances in the HCB, however, they are not typically granted. The process requires the building official to look at site context and adjacent structures before issuing the variance. Kayla Sintz indicated that the development community in Park City challenges the height limit regularly with infill development proposals. She felt that this was due in large part to the inclusion of residential uses in mixed -use development in the zone. She added that remodels of historic buildings do not challenge the height limit, because of the historic preservation regulations in place. There is opposition to the regulations from the development community, but Sintz indicated that residents and visitors are happy with the preservation of the character and scale of the HCB. TRUCKEE, CA Contact: Justin Anderson, Planner, (530) 582 -7700 Code Section: 18 -12 -020 The Downtown Mixed -Use (DMU) zone covers Truckee's historic commercial district. The height limit in the DMU is 50 feet or 3'/z stories, whichever is less. The 50 -foot limit is common throughout Truckee's commercial districts. N Residential uses are permitted by right in the DMU, but barred from the first floor of buildings to preserve the commercial character of the zone. Anderson indicated that there is not a lot of residential development activity in the DMU, which tends to decrease development pressure generally. However, there have been some mixed -use projects in the last 10 years with residential components that complied with the height and design regulations. Anderson stated that development projects in the DMU tend to "strive to fit -in" with the surrounding architectural and use context of the DMU and, therefore, do not push the building height or design regulations. He noted that the small lot sizes and hefty parking fees in the DMU tend to drive smaller -scale development. Finally, Anderson stated that the public is generally in support of the architectural controls in the DMU and appreciate the preserved scale of the zone. APPENDIX Compiled zoning regulations from eight surveyed communities. 9 Comuiled Heiaht Reaulations Crested Butte, CO Height of building means the highest vertical distance measured on any side of the building. Said vertical distance on each side shall be measured from the elevation of the natural grade on each side to the highest point of the roof surface on said side. Sec. 16 -5 -110. Intent. The purpose for which this District is created is to allow the use of land for retail, service, commercial, recreational and institutional purposes, with customary accessory uses, in order to enhance the business and service character in the central core of Town. Sales tax - generating uses are encouraged. Accommodations and residential uses are limited to accessory status, except that service housing is encouraged as part of a business structure, and historical residential uses may be maintained under certain circumstances. (Ord. 6 §1, 2009). Sec. 16 -5 -150. Floor area. The following shall regulate measurements for floor areas located in the "B1" District: (1) Minimum floor area: a. Four hundred (400) square feet for each residential unit. b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each structure. (2) Maximum floor area ratio: a. For a lot area not exceeding three thousand one hundred twenty -five (3,125) square feet, 1.55 as matter of right if a Dumpster space is provided on site or is otherwise provided. F.A.R. may be as high as 1.74 if that part of the building creating a F.A.R. in excess of 1.55 is used exclusively for residential units and adequate parking for the residential units is provided on site, in addition to an on -site or otherwise approved Dumpster space. Residential parking shall not be required for any residential building or portion thereof constructed prior to May 26, 1990, which continues to be used as a residence. b. For a lot area of more than three thousand one hundred twenty -five (3,125) square feet but not exceeding six thousand two hundred fifty (6,250) square feet, 1.25 as matter of right up to 1.55, dependent upon provision of site amenities. F.A.R. may be as high as 1.87 if that part of the building creating a F.A.R. in excess of 1.55 is used exclusively for residential units and adequate parking for the residential units is provided on site, in addition to an on -site or otherwise approved Dumpster space. Residential parking shall not be required for any residential building or portion thereof constructed prior to May 26, 1990, which continues to be used as a residence. c. For a lot area of more than six thousand two hundred fifty (6,250) square feet, 1.0 as matter of right up to 1.55, dependent upon provision of site amenities. F.A.R. may be as high as 1.9 if that part of the building creating a F.A.R. in excess of 1.55 is used exclusively for residential units and adequate parking for the residential units is provided on site, in addition to an on -site or otherwise approved Dumpster space. Residential parking shall not be required for any residential building or portion thereof constructed prior to May 26, 1990, which continues to be used as a residence. (3) Maximum floor area: accessory building, one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area or two- thirds (%) of the floor area of the principal building, whichever is smaller. (Prior code 15 -2 -10; Ord. 4 §15, 1991; Ord. 22 §6, 1992; Ord. 3 §25, 1994; Ord. 4 §1, 2009) Sec. 16 -5 -160. Additional provisions. (a) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. (b) No open space is required. (c) Minimum exterior wall height shall be seven (7) feet. (d) Minimum vertical distance from eave line of roof to the finished grade level shall be six (6) feet. (e) Slope of roof shall be a minimum of 4:12. A flat roof must contain a parapet on the side facing a street, and as otherwise required by the Board. (f) Stream margin review: All uses within twenty (20) feet of a designated water course shall meet the requirements of Section 16 -11 -10 of this Chapter. (Prior code 15 -2 -10; Ord. 3 §10, 1994; Ord. 4 §1, 2009) Sec. 16- 14 -80. Height restrictions. The following exceptions to the stated height restrictions in each district shall apply: (1) Flag poles; (2) Chimneys, as may be permitted by the Board; (3) Radio or TV antennae, excluding satellite dishes, for private noncommercial use located on the roof or in the rear yard of a building; and (4) Radio, TV or other communication towers or structures, excluding satellite dishes, for public or private broadcasting relay purposes or commercial uses upon permits issued by the Board. (Prior code 15 -2 -19) Durango, CO 1 4 -3 -11 CB, Central Business District. This zone is intended primarily for areas of concentrated indoor retail and service business uses but not for regional shopping (malls) or large outdoor sales areas. These areas shall be organized and developed to encourage pedestrian circulation among the uses from common parking areas. Establishment of "Parking Districts" within adjoining areas is encouraged. Development in this zone shall be compatible with existing land uses in the area. Dimensional requirements are as follows: (a)Maximum height of structures .....55 feet If adjoining the alley between East Second and East Third Avenues, the portion of the structure located within the east (rear) one -third of the lot shall be limited to thirty -five (35) feet in height. (b)Minimum front, rear, and side setback (also see section 10 -1 -2) .....0 feet If adjoining a residential zone .....10 feet If provided, side setback minimum shall be .....5 feet (c)lf front setback areas are provided, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of that area, in addition to any abutting unimproved public rights -of -way, shall be landscaped. If property is located within a city street tree program area, trees shall be planted along the frontages in accordance with that program. (d)Limitations: (1)Where possible, service entrances and service yards shall be located only in the rear and /or side yard of the business use or accessed from an alley. Service yards shall be screened from any adjoining residential zone or use by the installation and maintenance of a solid wall or fence having a height of not less than six (6) feet. (2)When a CB District directly adjoins a single - family district, or is separated from a single - family district by an alley, the boundary between the CB District and the single - family district shall be fenced as required in (d)(1) above. (3)Residential uses approved through the special use process shall not exceed a maximum density of forty -two (42) units per acre. (4)Any temporary or seasonal use shall submit a site plan for review in accordance with section 8- 3 -1(f). Staff shall review and approve the plan prior to placement of such use. Also see use /zone matrix (section 4 -2), building permits (Article 8), general regulations (Article 10) for regulations applicable in all zone districts, definitions (Article 15). It is recommended that specific application of these regulations be discussed with the staff. (Ord. No. 0- 2004 -9, § 2, 3 -2 -04; Ord. No. 0- 2007 -1, § 1, 1- 16 -07) 10 -1 -4 Structure height. (a)The maximum height for structures in all zone districts, except single - family (RS) and single - family /two- family (RST), may be increased if approved by the city council, upon a recommendation of the planning commission, following a public hearing(s) in accordance with section 4- 6 -2(a) through (e). (1)An increase in height for a structure shall be approved only when written evidence is submitted from the fire and building departments that submitted preliminary plans for the proposed structure indicate adequate provisions for fire protection, and public safety shall be provided, and a building permit for that structure will include these provisions. (2)Areas providing for fire and other emergency access (fire lanes) shall be designed to adequately service the structures and occupants. These areas shall be designated and shall prohibit parking by appropriate signage at the curb point. (3)Criteria for review, recommendation, and approval. The following evaluations shall be made in reviewing a proposal for an increase in structure height: _ a.Has there been a change in character in the area due to zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, development transitions, etc.? b. Is the height increase compatible with the surrounding area or will there be adverse impacts? Consider impacts on light and shadow, solar energy, views, privacy, and neighborhood scale. c.Will there be benefits derived by the community or area in granting the height increase? d.ls the height increase in conformance with the policies, intents and requirements of this Code and other adopted plans and policies? (b)Exceptions to height limitations. (1)Architectural features. The height limitations of this Code shall not apply to architectural features such as spires, belfries, cupolas, and domes, provided that the features comply with the following criteria: a.The combined area of all such features does not cover more than ten (10) percent of the total roof area of the building; and b.The maximum height of features is not greater than fifty (50) percent of the maximum height of the building; and c.The features are not used for human occupancy. (2)Mechanical equipment. The height limitation of this Code shall not apply to mechanical equipment and penthouses, provided that the equipment and penthouses comply with the following criteria: a.The mechanical equipment and penthouses are set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any face of a building; and b.The mechanical equipment and penthouses are screened from view with materials that are consistent with the building materials and colors; and c.The mechanical equipment and penthouses do not exceed eight (8) feet above the roofline of the building. (Ord. No. 0- 2007 -1, § 2,1-16-07) Steamboat Springs, CO Sec. 26 -132. Dimensional standards. Commercial Old Town (CO) zone (a) Exemptions. (1) Height limitations. a. The following building appurtenances of a greater height than otherwise permit- ted in a zone district are permitted upon proof that the appurtenances do not, in aggregate, cover more than ten (10) percent of the total roof area of a building and the height of appurtenance does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the maximum height of a building. Appurtenances may include, but are not limited to: 1. Architectural features including but not limited to: domes, cupolas, and spires; 2. Monuments; 3. Mechanical appurtenances provided they are screened from view; and 4. Parapet walls provided they do not exceed four (4) feet. Sec. 26 -135. Commercial neighborhood (CN) design standards. (10) Maintain the average perceived building scale from the public right -of -way. Floor -to- floor heights shall appear similar to those seen traditionally. First floor heights 3 measured from floor plate to floor plate were typically eight (8) to ten (10) feet high. In particular, the windows in new construction shall appear similar in height and proportion to those seen traditionally. Telluride, CO Section 3 -212 Commercial Zone District 3- 212.A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Zone District (C) is to allow land to be used for retail and service commercial establishments and uses, together with accommodations uses. Some recreation, multi - family residential, accessory and institutional uses may also be appropriate, especially those that strengthen the Town's commercial core. 3- 212.C.14 Maximum Building Height: Telluride Land Use Code Commercial Zone District 3 -67 a. All buildings, thirty -five feet (35') provided that the maximum height may be increased up to forty feet (40'), if approved pursuant to the PUD process. b. The height of the primary facade of a building shall be not less than sixteen feet (16). c. Upon review and approval-of H.A.R.C., the building height may be increased to forty feet (40'), provided that the maximum above grade floor area to lot area ratio shall not exceed a ratio of one point two to one (1.2:1), regardless of any other LUC requirements including, but not limited to, parking and employee housing. d. Upon review and approval of H.A.R.C., an architectural element may be located on top of a building, provided that the element may not extend more than twenty percent (20 %) beyond the highest point of the building. No element shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross floor area or ten percent (10 %) of the structure's ground coverage, whichever is less. (1) No such element shall be permitted if it substantially reduces or blocks an adjacent structure's access to light or air. (2) No building shall be allowed more than one (1) architectural element. (3) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish how the excess in height will benefit the neighborhood and the Town. (4) In determining whether to approve an architectural element, H.A.R.C. shall consider, but not be limited to, such site conditions as large lot size, placement of the structure on the lot, the relationship and proximity to adjacent neighboring structures, major street intersections and dead -end streets, and whether the element would create a positive focal point. e. The height of a structure rated as "contributing" or "supporting" by the Telluride Historic and Architectural Survey may be increased if the applicable following requirements are met: (1) the height increase is necessary to replace an architectural element historically associated with the structure during the "period of significance "; or (2) for buildings which have existing primary facade heights of twenty (20) feet or less, the addition is stepped back from the primary facade a minimum of four (4) horizontal feet for each one (1) vertical foot of increase in height; for buildings which have existing primary facade heights of greater than twenty (20) feet, the addition is stepped back from the primary facade a minimum of three (3) horizontal feet for each one (1) vertical foot of increase in height; and (3) is stepped back from side streets and side alley rights -ofway a minimum of two (2) horizontal feet for each one (1) vertical foot of increase in height. Height increases authorized pursuant to this paragraph e. shall not be ubject to ompliance with the requirements of paragraph d., above, of this subsection. f. The height of all roof - mounted mechanical and service equipment shall be counted in determining building height. g. Renewable energy fixtures and equipment are permitted to project above building roof membrane for existing buildings provided HARC finds that the following items are complied with: (1) The visual impacts of active solar collection devices shall be subservient to the historic integrity and visual characteristics of the building. (2) Screening that is consistent with design guidelines shall be provided to shield fixtures that are in the sight line of the street or alley at which they are viewed. (3) All fixtures and equipment shall be located in the least visible location possible while maintaining the efficiency of the solar panels proposed. For example, PV shingles and propanel /standing seam integrated products can be used to achieve minimal visibility. Furthermore, renewable energy fixtures and equipment are permitted to project above the - - building roof membrane for existing buildings provided that: (4) Renewable energy fixture and equipment heights do not exceed three (3) feet if more than seventy -five percent (75 %) of the roof is covered with panels. (5) Fixture and equipment heights do not exceed four (4) feet if fifty percent to seventy -four and nine tenths percent (50% to 74.9 %) of the roof is covered with panels. (6) Fixture and equipment heights of up to five (5) feet are permitted if less than fifty percent (50 %) of the roof is covered with panels. (7) All fixtures shall be installed in a manner that conforms to the Uniform Building Code, and roof load engineering may be required. (8) All fixtures and equipment shall possess an antireflective top coating, such as TOPS (Tempered glass tefzel glazing) or titanium dioxide. All metal surfaces shall be a matte finish. (9) Top -of -pole ground mounts shall be permitted on the ground provided HARC finds that: (a) Fencing or screening is provided surrounding the fixtures. Furthermore, renewable energy fixtures and equipment shall be permitted provided that: (b) The fixture(s) conform to all 4 setbacks. (c) The highest portion of the ground- mounted fixtures does not exceed six (6) feet. (d) Fixtures are located in the rear third of the structure or site. h. Renewable energy fixtures and equipment that are incorporated into new structures shall be permitted to project above building height limits provided HARC finds that the following items are complied with: (1) The visual impacts of active solar collection devices shall be subservient to the historical integrity and visual characteristics of the building. (2) For new structures, renewable energy fixtures shall be incorporated into the design of the building to minimize their appearance. (3) Screening that is consistent with design guidelines shall be provided to shield fixtures that are in the sight line of the street or alley at which they are viewed. (4) All fixtures shall be located in the least visible location possible while maintaining the efficiency of the solar panels proposed. For example, PV shingles and propane] /standing seam integrated products can be used to achieve minimal visibility. Furthermore, renewable energy fixtures and equipment that are incorporated into new structures shall be permitted to project above building height limits provided that: (5) Two feet above allowable height limits will be permitted if HARC determines that appropriate screening is provided. (6) All fixtures and equipment shall possess an antireflective top coating, such as TOPS (Tempered glass tefzel glazing) or titanium dioxide. All metal surfaces shall be a matte finish. (7) All fixtures shall be installed in a manner that conforms to the Uniform Building Code, and roof load engineering may be required. (8) Top -of -pole ground mounts shall be permitted on the ground provided HARC finds that: (a) Fencing or screening is provided surrounding the fixtures. Furthermore, renewable energy fixtures and equipment shall be permitted provided that: (b) The fixture(s) and equipment conform to all appropriate setbacks. (c) The highest portion of the ground- mounted fixture(s) does not exceed six (6) feet. (d) Fixture(s)and equipment are located in the rear third of the structure or site. Jackson, WY - Relevant Zones: UC & UC -2 Height, Building or Structure. The height of a building or structure is the vertical dimension measured from any point on the exterior of the building or structure to the nearest point of finished grade. For purposes of measuring height, finished grade shall mean the grade directly adjacent to the structure, which has been set through an approved grading and /or drainage plan. The term "finished grade" may also mean natural grade when no terrain alteration is proposed, or where otherwise applicable. Fill which is not necessary to achieve positive drainage or slope stabilization, or which is otherwise proposed clearly to raise the finished floor elevations(s) for any other purpose, shall not be considered finished grade. The vertical dimension from the highest point of the structure to the lowest point of finished grade, as viewed on any structure face or elevation, shall not exceed 110 percent of the maximum height allowed as shown in the diagram below. No part of any structure may exceed the maximum structural height except for the following: 1. Chimneys, vents, and roof -top mechanical equipment such HVAC systems, provided that the maximum height is not exceeded by more than four (4) feet; and /or 2. Antenna used for the reception of television broadcast signals. Max. Height (ft). The Maximum Height column gives the maximum height, in feet (ft), that any structure may be in the specified zoning district. TABLE 2400 SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONAL LIMITATIONS Zoning District Min Max and Development OSR/Min Gross Type LSR Density du's /ac URBAN COMMERCIAL (UC) Conventional .30 8.7 Single Family Home Planned Unit Development Floor Min Min Min Min Min Max Area Site Lot Street Side Rear Height Ratio Area Area Yard Yard Yard (ft) [1, (sf) (sf) (ft) (ft) (ft) [2, 51 11] .45 15,000 5,000 12 5 20 28 All Nonresidential .10 n/a 1.30 n/a Uses /Mixed Uses See Section 2170, Planned Unit Development n/a 0 0 03 35 Town Square .00 n/a 1.83 7,000 7,000 0 0 03 35 Overlay URBAN COMMERCIAL -2 (UC -2) Conventional .30 8.7 .45 15,000 5,000 12 5 20 28 Single Family Home Non- .20 n/a .65 n/a 7,500 107 0 206 35 Residential /Mixed Uses Planned Unit Development See Section 2170, Planned Unit Development Lodging Overlay .20 n/a .80 n/a 7,500 10 0 20 35 AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL (AC) Single Family .50 4.6 .30 n/a 7,500 20 10 30 26 Detached .48 n/a .32 n/a 7,500 20 10 20/54 with one .45 n/a .35 n/a 7,500 20 10 5 accessory unit with two accessory units Planned .40 11.7 .40 22_,500_ n/a 25 15 25 28 Residential Planned Unit Development See Section 2170, Planned Unit Development Office .25 n/a .4010 30,000 n/a 20 108 20 35 Other Non- .25 n/a .2510 30,000 n/a 20 108 20 35 Residential /Mixed Uses Non- .20 n/a .46 n/a n/a 20 10 20 35 Residential /Mixed Uses9 Lodging Overlay .20 n/a .65 n/a 7,500 10 10 20 35 URBAN RESIDENTIAL (UR) Conventional .30 8.7 .45 15,000 5,000 12 5 20 28 Single Family Home Planned .20 23.5 .65 15,000 n/a 12 5 20 28 Residential Planned Unit Development See Section 2170, Planned Unit Development AUTO URBAN RESIDENTIAL (AR) Single Family .50 4.6 .30 n/a 7,500 20 10 30 26 Detached .48 n/a .32 n/a 7,500 20 10 20/54 with one .45 n/a .35 n/a 7,500 20 10 5 accessory unit with two accessory units Planned .40 11.7 .40 22,500 n/a 25 15 25 28 Residential Planned Unit Development See Section 2170, Planned Unit Development Ketchum, ID L. Development Specifications for Site Design And Building Form: 4. Building Type 1: Traditional mixed use: c. Building Type 1 Mass And Height Specifications: 11 Legend: A. First floor ceiling height: 12 feet to 15 feet. B. Upper floor ceiling heights: 8 feet minimum and up to 80 percent of the height of first floor ceiling. C. Minimum number of floors: 1. D. Maximum number of floors: 3. 1.A fourth floor is permitted with transfer of development rights or if all uses above the ground floor are exclusively affordable residential units. 2.On streets and avenues the fourth floor shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet with an average of 15 feet. The average setback shall be calculated based on the built portion of the fourth floor facade and shall be calculated for each street or avenue elevation; the calculation of the average setback is not cumulative. In addition to the minimum and average setback requirement from the property line, the fourth floor shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the facade of the third floor. E. Maximum building height 1. Two- and three -story buildings: 40 feet. 2. Four -story buildings: 48 feet. 3. An additional 2 feet may be permitted if the additional height will contribute meaningfully to the building character or function. 4. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 20 feet from the front and rear property line. F. The third floor may be stepped back. G. At building entrances, the elevation of the ground floor shall be within 0 to 12 inches above the adjacent sidewalk grade. H. Building width: 16 feet minimum. 5. Building Type 2: Mixed use with cellar: c. Building Type 2 Mass And Height Specifications Legend: A. First floor ceiling height: 12 feet to 15 feet. B. Upper floor and cellar ceiling heights: 8 feet minimum and up to 80 percent of the height of first floor ceiling. C. Minimum number of floors: 1. D. Maximum number of floors: 3. 1. A fourth floor is permitted with transfer of development rights or if all uses above the ground floor are exclusively affordable residential units. 2. On streets and avenues the fourth floor shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet with an average of 15 feet. The average setback shall be calculated based on the built portion of the fourth floor facade and shall be calculated for each street or avenue elevation; the calculation of the average setback is not cumulative. In addition to the minimum and average setback requirement from the property line, the fourth floor shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the facade of the third floor. E. Maximum building height: 1. Two- and three -story buildings, 40 feet. 2. Four -story buildings, 48 feet. 3. An additional 2 feet may be permitted if the additional height will contribute meaningfully to the building character or function. 4. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 20 feet from the front and rear property line. F. The third floor may be stepped back. J. Roof gardens (private and public) are allowed. 6. Building Type 3: Neighborhood mixed use: a. Applicable Subdistricts: B, C. c. Building Type 3 Mass and Height Specifications Legend: A. First floor ceiling height: 10 feet to 15 feet. B. Upper floor ceiling heights: 8 feet minimum and up to 80 percent of the height of first floor ceiling. C. Minimum number of floors: 1. D. Maximum number of floors: 3. 1. A fourth floor is permitted with transfer of development rights or if all uses above the ground floor are exclusively affordable residential units. 2. On streets and avenues the fourth floor shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet with an average of 15 feet. The average setback shall be calculated based on the built portion of the fourth floor facade and shall be calculated for each street or avenue elevation; the calculation of the average setback is not cumulative. In addition to the minimum and average setback requirement from the property line, the fourth floor shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the facade of the third floor. E. Maximum building height 1. Two- and three -story buildings, 40 feet. 2. Four -story buildings, 48 feet. 3. An additional 2 feet may be permitted if the additional height will contribute meaningfully to the building character or function. 4. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 20 feet from the front and rear property line. F. Upper floors may be stepped back. G. Building width: 16 feet minimum. 7. Building Type 4: Multi- family home: c. Building Type 4 Mass And Height Specifications: Legend: A. Ceiling height: 8 feet to 12 feet. B. Minimum number of floors: 1. C. Maximum number of floors: 3. D. Maximum building height: 1. Two- and three -story buildings, 40 feet. 2. An additional 2 feet may be permitted if the additional height will contribute meaningfully to the building character or function. 3. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 30 feet from the front and rear property line. E. Upper floors may be stepped back. F. Building width: 32 feet minimum. 8. Building Type 5: Urban residential: c. Building Type 5 Mass And Height Specifications: Legend: A. Ceiling height: 8 feet to 12 feet. B. Minimum number of floors: 1. C. Maximum number of floors: 3. 1. A fourth floor is permitted if the building is using transfer of development rights or if all uses are exclusively affordable residential units. 2. On streets and avenues the fourth floor shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet with an average of 15 feet. The average setback shall be calculated based on the built portion of the fourth floor facade and shall be calculated for each street or avenue elevation; the calculation of the average setback is not cumulative. In addition to the minimum and average setback requirement from the property line, the fourth floor shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the facade of the third floor. D. Maximum building height 1. Two- and three -story buildings, 40 feet. 2. Four -story buildings, 48 feet. 3. An additional 2 feet may be considered if the additional height will contribute meaningfully to the building character or function. 4. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 30 feet from the front and rear property line. E. Upper floors may be stepped back. F. Building width: 32 feet minimum. 9. Building Type 6: Hotel: a. Applicable Subdistricts: A, B. c. Building Type 6 Mass And Height Specifications Legend: A. First floor ceiling height: 12 feet to 20 feet. B. Upper floor ceiling heights: 8 feet minimum and up to 80 percent of the height of first floor ceiling. C. Minimum number of floors: 3. D. Maximum number of floors: 4. 1.5 floors may be allowed in locations as designated by city council. 2. On streets and avenues the fourth floor and fifth floor shall be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet with an average of 15 feet. The average setback shall be calculated based on the built portion of the fourth and fifth floor facades and shall be calculated for each street or avenue elevation; the calculation of the average setback is not cumulative. In addition to the minimum and average setback requirement from the property line, the fourth and fifth floors shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the wall of the third floor. E. Maximum building height: 1. Three -story hotel, 48 feet. 2. Four -story hotel, 58 feet. 3. Five -story hotel, 68 feet. 4. All buildings greater than 48 feet shall require final approval from the city council. 5. A stairway /elevator shaft providing access to a roof garden may exceed the maximum height by up to 10 feet, provided it is stepped back at least 20 feet from the front and rear property line. F. If the building is not set back from the sidewalk, then the entrance shall be at the grade of the sidewalk. If the building is set back from the sidewalk, then the entrance may be elevated above the sidewalk grade by up to 4 feet. G. Third floors may be stepped back. H. Building width: 55 feet minimum. 0 H. Roof gardens (private and public) are allowed IN ALL ZONES Park City, UT 15- 2.6 -5. MAXIMUM BUILDING VOLUME AND HEIGHT. (A) The maximum Building; volume for each Lot is defined by a plane that rises vertically at the Front Lot Line to a height of thirty feet (30') measured above the average Natural Grade and then proceeds at a forty- five degree (45 °) angle toward the rear of the Property until it intersects with a point forty- five feet (45') above the Natural Grade and connects with the rear portion of the bulk plane. PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 15 LMC, Chapter 2.6 - HCB District 15 -2.6 -5 (B) The rear portion of the bulk plane for each Lot that does not abut Swede Alley is defined by the plane that rises vertically at the Rear Yard Property Line to a height of thirty feet (30') measured above the average Natural Grade and then proceeds at a forty - five degree (45 °) angle toward the Front Lot Line until it intersects with a point forty -five feet (45') above the Natural Grade of the Building Site. No part of a Building shall be erected to a height greater than forty-five feet (45'), measured from Natural Grade at the Building Site. This provision must not be construed to encourage solid roofing to following the forty -five degree (45 °) back plane. (C) For Lots abutting Swede Alley, the rear portion of the bulk plane is defined by a plane that rises vertically at the Rear Yard Property Line to a height of twenty-four feet (24') measured above the average Natural Grade and then proceeds at a forty-Five degree (45 °) angle toward the Front Lot Line until it intersects with a point forty -five feet (45') above the Natural Grade. This provision must not be construed to encourage solid roofing to follow the forty- five degree (45 °) back plane. (D) Wherever the HCB District abuts a residential Zoning District, the abutting portion of the bulk plane is defined by a plane that rises vertically at the abutting Lot Line to a height matching the maximum height of the abutting Zone, measured from Existing Grade, and then proceeds at a forty - five degree (45 °) angle toward the opposite Lot Line until it intersects with a point forty - five feet (45') above Existing Grade. (E) The Zone Height for the HCB District shall correspond to the maximum height of the Building plane as described in Section 15- 2.6 -5(A) through (D). (F) MAXIMUM BUILDING VOLUME AND BUILDING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS. The following exceptions apply. (l) A gable, hip, gambrel or similarly pitched roof may extend up to five feet (5') above the Zone Height. (2) Antennas, chimneys, flues, vents, and similar Structures may extend up to five feet (5') above the highest point of the Building to comply with International Building Code (IBC) requirements. (3) Water towers, mechanical equipment, and associated Screening, when enclosed or Screened, may extend up to five feet (5') above the height of the Building. (4) Church spires, bell towers, and like architectural features, subject to the Historic District Design Guidelines, may extend up to fifty percent (50 %) above the Zone Height, but may not contain Habitable Space above the 'Zone Height. Such exception requires approval by the Planning Director. (5) Elevator Penthouses may extend up to eight feet (8') above the Zone Height. 10 Truckee, CA Max height — 50' OR 3.5 stories, which ever is less C. Exceptions to height limits. The height limits of this Development Code may be exceeded as follows. 1. Fire or parapet walls may extend up to four feet above the allowable height limit of the structure. 2. Belfries, chimneys, cupolas, domes, flag poles, gables, monuments, penthouses, scenery lofts, spires, towers (e.g., hose, radio, utility, water, etc.), water tanks, similar structures, and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be authorized to exceed the height limit established for the applicable zoning district, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit in compliance with Chapter 18.76. 3. Telecommunication facilities, including antennae, poles, towers, and necessary mechanical appurtenances, may be authorized to exceed the height limit established for the applicable zoning district, in compliance with Section 18.58.250 (Telecommunications Facilities). 4. The height of a single family dwelling in a residential zoning district as measured in accordance with Sections 18.30.090.B.1 and B.2, may be increased up to an additional five feet, when the average slope of the parcel within the building pad is 25 percent or greater. D. Director exceptions to height limits. The Director may approve additional height up to a maximum of 10 percent of the height limit for a single family dwelling in a residential zoning district. 11 �xhibi+ fi City of Aspen Building Height Study FINAL DRAFT August 17, 2012 Introduction The purpose of this report is to assess the issues surrounding the appropriate height for 3 story buildings in the core area of Aspen. Two main areas will be explored: building height and the impacts of appurtenances and rooftop equipment. Building Height • Structural Considerations — discuss the proper dimensional range of floor /ceiling and roof /ceiling structural components. • HVAC Considerations — assess how heating and cooling ductwork effect ceiling heights. • Interior Space Quality — discuss how ceiling height affects the quality of interior spaces. Roof top Equipment and Appurtenances • Assess the appropriate height exemption • Discuss how setbacks could be taken into account Building Height The analysis below considers standard building and construction practices but assumes that some creativity and inventiveness would be employed to achieve desired interior ceiling configurations. We have not assumed that costly or exotic thin structural or HVAC systems would be required. Structural Considerations The dimensions of the floor and roof structures will have an impact on the overall building height. Construction type, span distances and whether HVAC and piping can run through the structure or not are all issues to consider. Additionally, the mix of uses anticipated could require fire and /or sound separations between floors. We have assumed that this will be required and taken it into account. Construction Types — We assume that smaller projects could dictate wood frame construction and that larger projects would be steel with either bar joists with concrete decks or composite steel and concrete slabs. • 1 Joist Wood Frame —wood systems can either be long span via open -web wood joists or engineered '1' - joists. I- joists are typically used for shorter spans — up to 20' — and are therefore thinner in depth. However, they do require beam and column support more often. For the typical 30' wide Aspen lot, one intermediate bearing line would be required. In such a system, smaller piping can be accommodated within the structure but HVAC lines have to run below the structure. Typical total depth of this system is 18" to 24 ". City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/17/2012 1 C ' PL f*'t_ ( 2 LAYERS w' r 2x SO ri1 F ' r 00 I— O • Open Web Wood Trusses - wood trusses are deeper but do not require the intermediate support. They can also support smaller HVAC lines and piping within the open webs. This will be discussed further below. Typical total depth of this system is 24" to 32 ". a" Fk'` '14 ",y)PDd 4h EN ,XC,C,C, JC'I'A `'J Sf'Et DEC, EI N,_; • Composite Steel and Concrete — this system is comprised of wide flange steel beams and a concrete deck that is an integral part of the spanning system. Typical total depth of this system is 24" to 34 ". City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/1712012 2 YCONCRUE STEEL DLCKIN(r 16'VAM, RANGE RFANA SOSPFNDFD CFI1 INC; HANGER S I USPENDED CEIL IN ASSUMILY 0 a CV Open Web Steel and Concrete Deck — similar to the open web wood trusses, this system allows the possibility to HVAC and piping running within the structure. Typical total depth of this system is 24" to 32", -RETE 'TFR D'F+ 1uSFEiq[3 EC, �--EUI+-� 4-if HI 5�JSFEHDEDCEUNI;a A S",PM ELY R. ff City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/1712012 3 3�" CONCRETE STEEL. DECKING 12" OPEN WEB STEEL JOIS1 RC C fiANNEL 21..AYFR.S DRYWALL 2X SOFFIT FRAMING ' DRYWALL .................. ............................... C�7 v C7 j The required depths for roof construction will mirror the floor /ceiling depths. Aspen's snow load for roofs is very close to the same loading requirement for an office floor. Therefore, we believe the depth of the structure is the same. However, roofs will need to slope to drain. To take this into account, we have allowed for a parapet/roof slope of 8 ". As the above diagrams indicate, the span of the elements has a great impact on the depth of the system. It is our opinion that it is appropriate that the benefits of column -free longer spans are mitigated by a loss in ceiling height. This gives designers options — and challenges. The systems illustrated above indicate a range of 18" to 34" for the spanning structure and ductwork for upper floors. We believe that based on this information, a reasonable number to use is 26 ". HVAC Considerations Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning systems need to also be accounted for. We believe that a discussion of building height limits should assume that conventional ducted forced air systems should be accounted for. There are other ways to heat and cool buildings including radiant in -floor heat and mini -split air conditioning systems as well as high pressure small duct systems. However, there is almost always a need to move air. Even with no cooling or a system that utilized mini - splits, fresh air is often required via an air to air heat exchanger. All the above diagrams show how a conventional forced -air system would be accommodated. In some cases, this does indeed lead to deeper floor /ceiling assemblies. Should a project's needs and budget allow for it, alternative (smaller) heating and cooling systems - such as those outlined above - could be used. This would shallow the floor /ceiling sandwich — allowing for an increase in ceiling height. City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8117/2012 4 Interior Space Quality The main issue to address here is the width to height ratio of interior spaces. Generally, spaces that have larger horizontal dimensions need to have taller ceilings to feel correct. Bathrooms, for instance, often have lower ceilings and auditoriums have quite tall ceilings. Ceiling heights for the first floor of downtown buildings would typically be taller than upper floors. The main floor spaces typically house retail uses and have larger open floor areas. The larger the open area, the taller the space should be to maintain a welcoming width to height ratio and allow for taller windows to get natural light deeper into the space. Retail users also desire taller walls to increase merchandizing opportunities and they will tell you the taller, the better. Although retailers would prefer higher, ceiling heights of 10 to 13' would probably suffice for the size of retail spaces we would expect in the core of Aspen. Businesses requiring smaller spaces would work at the lower end of the scale while larger businesses would desire ceiling heights at the upper end of the scale and beyond. For instance, a boutique jeweler might prefer a smaller — more intimate space and thus a lower ceiling. An outdoor equipment retailer selling kayaks and rafts would likely need a larger space and taller ceilings. As a result, a height limit that led to main floor ceiling heights at 10 or 11', could limit the types of users that would choose to inhabit those spaces. If 'larger' retail users are desired for future main floor spaces, Aspen may want to consider a minimum height for the main floor to ceiling. This would avoid buildings having taller upper floors at the expense of inadequate main floor spaces. Logical uses for the upper floors are office and residential. Office spaces come in many sizes and shapes but they often include some open areas that would dictate a higher ceiling where possible. Similarly, while residential spaces tend to be smaller and could therefore get by with shorter ceilings, today's designs tend to have larger open areas — again indicating that a taller ceiling would be appropriate. In both cases, we believe 9' should be considered a minimum. Shorter ceiling heights should be allowed in ancillary rooms like bathrooms and closets. There will undoubtedly be cases where a taller than 9' ceiling is desired. This could be achieved through a number of different techniques: narrowing spans by using mid -span beam lines; choosing HVAC systems that fit within the structural system; and using open (exposed structure) ceilings. City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/17/2012 5 SAMPLE BUILDING SECTION Recommendations We recommend that some flexibility be built into the height restrictions arrived at, This flexibility will allow designers to take into account the unique characteristics of each site and the desired uses. We suggest considering the minimum floor to ceiling heights and floor ceiling sandwiches noted below combined with a maximum overall height that is slightly higher than the combined totals. This will allow the project designers to use the'extra' feet and inches in places that best suit the particularities on their project. • Floor /Ceiling Sandwich - 24 to 30" • Main Floor to Ceiling —11' minimum • Upper Floors to Ceilings — 9' minimum • Parapet — 8" The key question will be how much 'extra' to allow for. As you approach a lower number, ceiling heights will tend to be lower and /or structural systems will either get more interior supports to stay thin or employ more expensive and heavier system. More exotic HVAC systems may also be employed. Using a higher number will allow for taller ceilings and /or allow architects and builders more flexibility in their designs and could result in simpler systems. They may therefore also City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/17/2012 6 be less expensive. This is somewhat mitigated however by the high value placed on ceiling height. Developers and their designers may opt for more expensive construction in order to get taller and generally more desirable ceiling heights. Should second and third floor ceilings be desired that are taller than the 9' dimension used for this analysis, they could be achieved through several techniques: • Shorten spans to allow for thinner structure. • Expose structural systems and /or ducting. • Utilize HVAC systems that require less depth. Rooftop Equipment and Appurtenances Mechanical equipment comes in all sizes and shapes but it is generally perceived as a negative. This report assumes that the main goal is minimize the visual impacts of roof top equipment — whatever its size and shape, This can be achieved by addressing: • Equipment size • Setbacks. • Screening Equipment Size There are many options for heating and cooling a building. Generally, the larger the building and more centralized the system, the larger the system needs to be. However, multiple, smaller pieces of equipment can usually meet the same heating and cooling needs. There are also systems such as geothermal which may have little or no rooftop equipment. The chart below illustrates the sizes of some typical packaged rooftop units (RTU's) these units are provide forced air heating and cooling and are very common in the industry, Residential uses will require smaller units in the 3 — 5 ton size. A 2000 square foot retail use would require a 5 or 6 ton unit. An 8000 square foot space might take (2) ten ton units. Large multi- tenant office spaces would typically use multiple unit in the 10 to 20 ton range or go to even larger units of a different type that can better handle multiple spaces. For the purposes of this study for Aspen, we will use the height of the units ranging from 7.5 tons to 17.5 tons — which is just over 4' RTU's will also need to be raised off the roof so that piling up snow does not block venting or air intakes. For Aspen snow levels, 14" to 24" should be considered. To allow for flexibility and manufacturer differences we are using 6' overall as the target height for mechanical units. 48HC Unit Information AHRI Nomina 1 1 Low Gas Dimensions Medium High Gas Approx. i Cooling Efficiency Coolin f Heating (in) Gas Heating Heating Unit Stages j (SEER) Ton Size L x Wx H Input Input Input Weight EER j (MBtuh) (MBtuh) (MBtuh) # (lb) City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/17/2012 7 3 1 (15.0) 74 x 47 x 33 72 115 - 505 4 I 1 (15.6) 74 x 47 x 41 72 115 150 590 5 1 (15.2) 74 x 47 x 41 i 72 115 150 600 6 1 12.0 88 x 59 9 x x 41 , 72 125 150 765 7.5 2 12.0 88 x 59 x 49 125 ± 180 224 1 925 8.5 i 2 1! 12.0 188 x 59 x 49 125 180 224 925 �- -- __ 10 2 11.5 88 x 59 x 49 180 224 250 1099 12.5 2 12.2 116x63x ( 150 180 240 1430 i 57 j j 128 x 15 2 12.0 4987 220 310 400 1892 17.5 2 12.0 141 ��87 x 220 310 400 2102 20 2 12.0 141 x 87 x 220 310 400 2247 57 25 2 1 11.2 158 x 87 x 220 310 400 2292 57 PACKAGED ROOF TOP UNIT SIZES — FROM CARRIER CORP. Solar Panels and associated equipment is similar in its visual impacts. The most common active solar systems are photovoltaic (PV) and hot water. There are a couple of aspects to using solar panels in snowy climates. The angle of the panels should be 45 degrees or more so that snow can adequately shed off the panels without manual service, and the panels should be lifted off the surface of a flat roof to avoid piled up snow blocking the panel from the sun, The diagram below illustrates this point. PV panel sizes fall in a fairly predictable range. Panels can be mounted in either a vertical or horizontal orientation. In a three story downtown building, the roof area is unlikely to support enough panels to power the building below. Assuming that projects employing PV will want to get as much power as possible, and assuming that Aspen wants to support alternative energy systems, we should consider maximizing square footage available for PV. This would mean allowing panels to be installed in the vertical position. Typical panel size is 35" to 40" wide by 50" to 65" tall. We have used a 60" tall panel for the diagram below. Hot water panels are typically larger than PV panels — 4'x8' or 4'x10'. There are options that can be mounted horizontally — meaning that they with fit within the same envelope as PV panels mounted in the vertical position. Additionally, hot water systems are typically used for domestic hot water and such systems do not require the square footage of a PV system. We should keep in mind that there will be situations where both PV and hot water systems are desired — increasing the need for panel square footage. City of Aspen - Building Height Study Last edit: 8/1712012 8 SOLAR PANEL INSTALLATION EXAMPLE Based on the above information for HVAC equipment and solar panel installations, we believe it is reasonable to use 6' -0" as the target height for all rooftop equipment. Setbacks One could argue that if you cannot see the equipment, what difference does it make how tall it is? The diagram below illustrates the affect of setbacks on the visibility of equipment and appurtenances. The height of the equipment matters – smaller equipment could be closer to the street, larger, taller equipment would have to be placed further back. Rather than prescribe a specific setback, we recommend the use of a line above which no mechanical equipment would be allowed and below which, any equipment would be allowed. This approach would both allow for hidden HVAC equipment and allow a high degree of flexibility with regard to building and system design. We suggest setting this plane as indicated in the diagram below. One point on the line is eye level (5 -0 ") on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. The other point is the highest point of the building that would block the view. City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/17/2012 9 ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SETBACKS NtP�eki is €, iL;tti 4 �... i .. r ti Ni ,. R1= FfF.Y-NT WS -- Acs:s%t Y 2 Awr) ,&TORY VA JiVA'! An alternative approach would be to use this general method to arrive at a fixed setback for a "reasonably sized" piece of HVAC equipment. This method would be easier for staff to administer but it would provide somewhat less flexibility in design of buildings and systems. For this method, we suggest that the height of mechanical equipment be 6' as outlined above. With a 38' building height, the setback would be 14' for the unit to be completely hidden from view. A lower 2- story building would require a larger setback to keep the equipment hidden and an alternative setback for two story buildings may want to be considered. Clustering of equipment may also be used as a technique to minimize impacts. There are a few problems we see with this approach: putting all the HVAC equipment in one place reduces one of the main benefits of decentralizing it — putting the equipment closer to where it is needed and therefore increasing efficiency and reducing ductwork. For solar, the issue will be that larger systems will want to use as much of the roof as possible. Panel arrays cannot effectively be clustered — they need separation to avoid shading each other. And as mentioned above, if a building wanted truly achieve maximum solar benefit, they would want to use the entire roof. COBURN DEVELOPMENT INC. City of Aspen • Building Height Study Last edit: 8/1712012 10 Elk C•7 EXHIBIT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE COD ADDRESS OF PROPERTY , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 2 7 e s : 6ag11% 2012 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, 'a4 Sc (name, please print) being or represe ting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that 1 have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an offic* paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, ,Which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) J�5 Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. " , "/, � a:: � � Signature/ The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this a% day of PUBLIC NOTICE RE: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE NOTICE IS HER BY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on M h�day, September 27, 2012, at a meeting to begi at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Co n. I Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., As -n, to determine if an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code should be Pursued. The potential amendment would address the allowed height and uses in the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (C-1) zone districts, as well as the allowed height for rooftop equipment and other appurtenances. For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429 -2780, iassica parrow�ci aspen co.us. s/ Michael Ireland. Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on August 9, 2012 18247249] WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL ommission expires: JP, Public TC jF 0`0-�- ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: * COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 K X� E MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 3W, RE: Call -up of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition 420 E. Hyman Ave., HPC Resolution #17, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 COUNCIL REQUEST: On August 13th City Council voted to call up the HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development Review, Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Demolition to construct a new three story building located at 420 E. Hyman (where Zocalito and CB Paws are located). Council is asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the options listed below. REVIEW PROCESS: During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider the record established by the HPC. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the HPC. City Council may take the following action: 1. Accept the decision. 2. Remand the application to HPC with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. 3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the new changes to the application. This application is subject to future Subdivision, Growth Management, and Final Commercial Design and Final Major Development Reviews. BACKGROUND: (UNCHANGED FROM AUGUST 13TH MEMO The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing two story building and to construct a three story building. The building currently contains commercial and free market residential and is proposed to comprise commercial, free market residential and affordable housing. The project meets underlying dimensional requirements. HPC granted approval for off -site public amenity for the required 10% (300 square feet) subject to review by the Parks Department. The third floor is approved to be 38 ft. in height which meets the 38 — 42 ft. height limit in the Commercial Core. HPC denied the request to increase the height to 40 ft considering the adjacent historic landmarks to the east. HPC increased the proposed setback of the third floor to 15 feet. HPC was concerned about the impact that the material palette could have on the mass and scale, and added a condition of approval that mass and scale shall be addressed during Final Review when the materials are finalized. Planning staff recommended continuation of the design review for restudy, and the HPC approved the design by a vote of 3 - 2. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: Planning Staff recommended that HPC continue the conceptual reviews to allow time for the applicant to restudy the third floor setback and reduce the overall height of the building. During the HPC hearing the applicant proposed to increase the third floor setback to 15 feet and to reduce the overall height of the building to 38 feet. The applicant did not present revised drawings to illustrate the reduced height or the increased setback. HPC struggled with the impact that the primarily glass material palette would have on the mass and scale of the building and voted 3 - 2 to approve conceptual reviews with the condition that a full review of mass and scale with materials be reviewed during Final Review (see staff's alternative recommendation below). Conceptual review is a binding approval in terms of mass, scale, and height of the building — it defines the size of the box. Adding a condition that allows a full review of mass and scale at Final Review is contrary to the process in the Land Use Code and creates problems with subsequent land use reviews for the project. The redevelopment requires Growth Management allotments and Subdivision approvals prior to proceeding to HPC for Final Review. Both of these reviews deal with what goes into the box, which is a futile conversation without an approved size of the box. The minutes from the HPC meeting (pertinent sections are underlined in Exhibit C) convey HPC's concern about the impact of the proposed materials on the perceived mass and scale of the building and their reasoning behind adding the mass and scale condition to the approval. Staff understands the interrelatedness between mass and scale and materials, especially when dealing with a glass building; however Staff is concerned about putting off the mass and scale of the project until Final Review. In addition the Code requires approval of a Conceptual Design be binding on the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council remand the decision back to the HPC with direction to decide on appropriate mass and scale as part of the Conceptual approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to remand HPC's decision to grant Conceptual Major Development, Conceptual Commercial Design and Demolition back to Commission and direct the Commission to decide on the mass and scale of the project." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: HPC Resolution 17, Series 2012 Exhibit C: HPC approved minutes i :r i� �,. i. ►���,!•d. ' s 7 vow:! ' ���►r '''� I�i�!!�'. `�-r •., �� 'h c� ' ��r0' y Y�, ���',(ti 1 j/J' 'S _ r� y7i yj`. `� 1•:� ti ,. 11.x, ' 6'• 'r '� V n iii+ 'v';'�� t r` I �. 3i '` �y �• � + � ® �� ,�- •` ' t 0 :try ' � . ;•� ..S ' �� }. s�,:. � � J *fit` � it'll k — rb CI ._I — 30' -0" 30' -0" PARKING MECHANICAL 8.5x18 PARKIN3 277 SF 8.5x18 SERVICE 11x20 BASEMENT LEVEL II o COMMERCIAL ° MAIN LEVEL 2056 SF �� NON -UNIT 7VME\\ 38 SF -1L �� UP MAIN = COMMERCIAL - - 1745 SF = 0 0 0 ADJACENT BUILDING 30' -0" ALLEY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE SIDE WALK ADJACENT BUILDING HYMAN AVENUE n MALL/ MAIN LEVEL n BASEMENT LEVEL SITE/ LANDSCAPE / PARKING PLAN 1' -0" 1 /16" = 1' -0" U1/16"= 1' -0" 0 0 0 SUMMARY: NET LEASABLE AREAS COMMERCIAL BASEMENT = 2,333 S.F. = EXEMPT MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS = 1,745 S.F. SECOND LEVEL = 519 S.F. = 2,264 TOTAL SF P.N. T.N. AHU SECOND LEVEL = 1,080 SF THIRD LEVEL = = 872 SF = 1,952 TOTAL SF FREE MARKET SECOND LEVEL = 623 S.F. THIRD LEVEL = 1,143 S.F. = 1,766 TOTAL SF C W I— U w 2 U Q E w ° w LL Z Z U w J Q U Z Q 2 w O N Al 0 0 zQ Q0� 20 y J 20 WU oz N W IT d U) Q T.O. ROOF 138' -0" T.O. PARAPET 128' -0" T.O.S. THIRD LEVEL 127' -0" T.O.S. SECOND LEVEL_ 115' -6" T.O.S. MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" ALLEY NORTH ELEVATION 2 1 /8" = PROPOSED ELEVATION HYMAN AVE. MALL SOUTH ELEVATION _ T.O. ROOF 138' -0" T.O. PARAPET 128' -0" T.O.S. THIRD LEVEL 127' -0" T.O.S. SECOND LEVEL 115' -6" T.O.S. MAIN, LEVEL - ' 100' -0" U) U U Q E W ° LL to _ c z U U) w J Q U Z Q 2 W O WA O 0 Q� 20 20 U w C) Z N W Nr a U) Q ME* ROOF PLAN r,--\ 1/16" = 1' -0" 2BEDROOM -AHU NET LEASABLE 872 SF FREE MARKET NET LEASABLE 1143 SF 3RD DECK A 433 SF 30' -0" PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS P.N. T.N. THIRD LEVEL 2 1 /16" = 1' -0" 30' -0" AHU - STUDIO #1 Z o Q� 0 0 0 502 SF ES. ROOFTO MECH AREA 72 o ROOF PLAN r,--\ 1/16" = 1' -0" 2BEDROOM -AHU NET LEASABLE 872 SF FREE MARKET NET LEASABLE 1143 SF 3RD DECK A 433 SF 30' -0" PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS P.N. T.N. THIRD LEVEL 2 1 /16" = 1' -0" 30' -0" 2ND DECK B FREE MARKET 130 SF NET LEASABLE BECK. 623 SF AHU - STUDIO #1 Z o Q� 502 SF 72 o _ (n uj I— P a AHU -2 BEROOM W SECOND LEVEL 1 NET LEASABLE �. 1/1611 " = 1' -0 78 SF U AHU - STUDIO #2 C 500 SF Q E W v m LL 2ND DECK A �- 215 SF SECOND LEVEL o z 8 z COMMERCIAL a ° 519 SF CD a 2ND COMMON m W 38 SF E Q 2 U 2ND DECK B FREE MARKET 130 SF NET LEASABLE BECK. 623 SF A2 Z o Q� 72 o _ =o uj w oZ O a Q SECOND LEVEL 1 1/1611 " = 1' -0 A2 WEST ELEVATION 1 l 18 = 1' -§ T.O. ROOF 138'-0" T.O. PARAPET 128' -0" T.O.S. THIRD LEVEL 127' -0" T.O.S. SECOND LEVEE 115' -6" T.O.S. MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" U) F- U W U Q E w LL LL _ c z "• z U W J ry Q U z p Q 2O J _ 0 ui W oZ O c,4 a N ,I- Q PROPOSED ELEVATION I A3 t*6i � A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL), COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARD REVIEW (CONCEPTUAL), DEMOLITION, AND VARIANCE OF TRASH/UTILITY/RECYCLE SERVICE AREA DIMENSIONS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LOT O, BLOCK 88, DUVIKE CONDOMINIUMS, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION # 17, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2737 - 037 -39 -020 THRU -027 AND 2737 - 073 -39 -801 WHEREAS, the applicant, Duvike Inc., has requested Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and a variance of the Trash/Utility/Recycle service area dimensions for the property located at 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 420 East Hyman Avenue is located within the Commercial Core Historic District and is not considered a contributing building to the integrity of the Historic District; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, in order to authorize a Demolition, according to Section 26.415.080, Demolition of designated historic properties, it must be demonstrated that the application meets any one of the followinp- criteria: RECEPTION #: 591420, 08/16/2012 at 420 East Hyman Avenue 11:15:04 AM, HPC Resolution #17, Series of 2012 1 OF 3, R $21.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 3 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO a. The property has been determined by the city to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner /applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, C. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen, or d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance, and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or historic district in which it is located, and b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and C. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area; and WHEREAS, for approval of reduction of trash/utility /service area dimensions, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.575.060.13 and Section 26.430 of the Municipal Code, that the reduction; 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility /trash/recycle service area proposed to be provided will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility /trash/recycle service area is adequate. 3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel. 4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other development in the block. 5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the construction of the access area. WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her staff report to HPC dated July 25, 2012 performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had not been met, and recommended continuation; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on July 25, 2012, continued from June 27, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public 420 East Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution # 17, Series of 2012 Page 2 of 3 hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and recommended approval with conditions by a vote of three to two (3 - 2). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants HPC Major Development (Conceptual), Conceptual Commercial Design Standard Review, Demolition, and a variance of Trash, Utility and Recycle Area Dimensions for the property located.at 420 East Hyman Avenue, Lot O, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. The height of the building is limited to 38 feet. 2. The third floor has a 15 feet setback from Hyman Avenue. 3. Utility /Trash/Recycle Service Area is approved as designed. 4. Off -site Public Amenity is approved subject to Parks Department approval. 5. A full review of mass and scale with materials shall occur at Final HPC Review. 6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan, The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one -time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 25'h day of July, 2012. Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Ann Mullins, Chair 420 East Hyman Avenue HPC Resolution 417, Series of 2012 Page 3 of 3 �ckibi� G. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Patrick Sagal, Jamie McLeod and Jan Hills. Sallie Golden and Nora Berko were absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Sara Adams, Senior Planner MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of July 11 th, second by Jane. All in favor, motion carried. Disclosure Jay will recuse himself on 420 E. Hyman as he does business with Zocalito Jane will recuse herself on 204 S. Galen as she lives within 300 feet of the property. S. Galena St. Conceptual Major Development and Co eptual \ Commercial Design Review, Demolition Exhibit I — po 3* er point Exhibit II — rende 'nas Jane recused herself. Amy stated that this is the rede lopment the site that is currently occupied by the Gap. The new st tur will occupy the entire site 9,000 square feet. It is primarily a one sto uilding with five retail spaces on the ground floor and a partial upper or wh contains a restaurant use. Staff finds that the demolition criter' are met. T . is an early 1990's building and we have determined th it doesn't have an istorical significance. In terms of the replacemen uilding the guidelines ca for a building that comes up to the street dge on all sides and that is imp ant for redevelopment do town because over the years we have ad a lot of infill that doesn't hol he front edge of the property and doesn't e rce the historical ch acter of the retail experience downtown and staff i leased to see this i e design. The proposal is a nice variety for downtown a adds relief t the streetscape. This doesn't prohibit someone from adding an er floo in the future. They are meeting the requirements of the store front ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Issues: Cornices, 30 foot modules on Hopkins and street elevation rendering of the Hopkins block for context. 420 E. Hyman Ave. — Conceptual Major Development and Conceptual Commercial Design Review, Demolition, Special Review — cont'd from June 27th Public Notice — Exhibit I Power Point — Exhibit II Sara said the project is a scrape and replace of 420 E. Hyman. The lot is a 3,000 square foot lot, 30 x 100. The existing building was built in the early 1970's and it is a two story building. The proposal is to replace it with a three story building. Currently the building is mixed use, commercial and residential. One of the requests is to grant a height increase from 38 feet to 40 feet. Staff is recommending continuation with two areas of restudy: Restudy the third floor setback and to lower the height of the building. Staff is in favor of the site plan which mimics the existing site plan in terms of access and the zero front yard setback. They are proposing an off -site amenity with improvements to the pedestrian mall subject to the Parks Department approval. Staff is concerned about the scale and mass particularly the third floor. Right now they are proposing a 12 foot setback but we find that not adequate enough as they are adjacent to two historic landmarks. The immediate adjacent landmark has a 15 foot setback and another one has a 20 foot setback. We do consider this a corner lot with the internal alleyway and you will be able to see two facades and have the visibility on two sides. The request on the height is to increase it to 40 feet. Staff is concerned about the context of that height in the historic district especially in this block which has a very strong two story element with a third floor that is set back. The third floor is 13 feet and the second 11 %2 feet. Typically you want the third floor to be subordinate. _Guideline 6.27 talks about the criteria for granting a height variance and feel none of those are met. The trash utility was a concern but the applicant has coordinated with the Environmental Health Dept. and they are supportive of their dimensions. Staff is recommending continuation because of the third floor setback and the height of the building. Staff also finds that the demolition criteria are met. Charles Cunniffe, Cunniffe Architects Brian West, Cunniffe Architects 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Charles said this is a constraint site and we looked at the plans and can go to a 15 foot setback which matches to the building adjacent to it. The roof continues along the easement because it covers the walkway to the second floor but we could eliminate that. The issues that need to be addressed are the height which we can accommodate and the setback from 12 feet to 15 feet which we can accommodate. About 50% of the building is set back from the easement. Across the street are two four story buildings. Charles said you enter the second floor for the free market unit and then you go to the top floor and there is a little deck in the corner which also gives us some relief on the corner and softens it. The second and third floors are both recessed because that is our access walkway to the four units on the second floor. We are using the access walkway as a setback because the building recesses at the alley and the third floor is open. We ran the roof over the third floor that is open. On the setback I guess we could eliminate that roof or bring the roof down to the second floor. We believe the walkway should have some shelter from the rain etc. Our client wants a gem of a building, a cool little glass building. We want to show the mullion lines in a more vertical pattern so it will reflect some of the historic patterns of store fronts yet be totally a glass block. Jane inquired about the fire wall. Charles said it is a privacy wall between the two decks and it is a cooperative with them and it is a fire wall because of the openness between the two buildings. We thought we could do some translucent fire rated glass so it will allow light to penetrate and it would add to the translucency of the building. Ann inquired about the height reduction and which floor that would be taken off of. Charles said probably 18 inches off the third floor and 6 inches off the second floor. Chairperson, Ann Mullins opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda was closed. Ann stated the issues: 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25,2 12 Site plan; scale and mass which includes the setback; height; public amenity option #2 and trash and utility. Jamie said she appreciates the height drop to 38 feet and the 15 foot setback for the third floor. As long as the trash enclosure works for the city that is fine with me. I'm also fine with the site plan and the public amenity. My— only concern is scale and massing and it has to do more with materials than scale and mass but to me they go hand in hand. The concern is how the darks and lights work together and how reflective it will be with all the other buildings. The connection details are critical. The mass and scale needs to be studied with the materials. We need renderings of all elevations with materials and that would be extremely helpful. Renderings show what the materials are really like. Charles said it is intended to be a non - reflective glass. Jamie said maybe we need to look at a sample on -site. Willis said the applicant is using more than one type of glass. Charles said some of the glass will have a grayish tint to it and some will be clear. The client wants a "jewel" box that you see into as opposed to being something solid. Willis requested a rendering from the north side to confirm what is there. We also need to see the firewall. The project is cool and it is about the materials being reflective. Jane said from a development perceptive this is an incredible difficult site to develop on. The massing is appropriate for the site and the onlv confusing area is how the building connect to the building next door up high as that is a difficult transition. I am not sure how the translucent glass works. I also agree that the materials are going to be very important. Patrick also thanked the applicant for reducing the height and setback. Eliminating the covered walkway also helps the massing. The comparison between the Quicksilver building 15 feet back and the proposed building 15 feet back it affects the mass and scaling the way the treatment of the soffit or overhang from the third floor occur. If there is too much overhang out there it adds to the mass. Ann said the site plan and public amenity solution are fine. The overall height of the building overpowers the adjacent much smaller historic ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 buildings, guideline 6.31 and 6.32. I am not sure how well the glass box works in reality once you get furniture and curtains in there. It might be too busy and distract from the other buildings. Maybe there are examples of buildings that have been constructed as glass boxes that we could see. Charles said Apple stores are an example and they have transparent glass and the buildings are very cool and engage you with the pedestrians. I feel they are more successful than a solid building. Morris and Frywall also did a small office by Clark's and it is nice and clean inside. The occupant of any of these spaces needs to recognize that the space will be very visible. The applicant is very consumed about architecture and sculpture and concerned with contemporary minimalism. If the glass is non - reflective I think the project can be very successful. I am hopeful that we can get adequate feedback from the HPC board. When an applicant can eliminate some of the restudy concerns right off the bat and be able to simplify what the application is then it would be easier to come to conceptual with conditions because the conditions are made much more simply. MOTION: Jamie moved to approve resolution # 17 for conceptual approval of 420 E. Hyman with the following conditions as discussed: Reduction of the height to 38 feet The third floor stepping back 15 feet Trash enclosure as redesigned Site plan OK Public amenity off site OK Approval of demolition Submit for final review within one year For final is a full review of mass and scale with the materials. Motion second by Jane. Discussion: Patrick said he would like to see the covered walkway eliminated for mass and scale reasons. Sara asked if Jamie is visioning that UPC could change the mass and scale for final? Jamie said yes. Sara pointed out that there are other steps that this protect needs to go through and they need to rely on the size of the box; growth management and subdivision. That request maybe problematic with the growth management if requires that the ox be smaller. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Jamie said her concern is with the materials and maybe a piece of the glass element becomes a solid element. I am generally OK with the mass and scale. Ann said materials and fenestration affect the mass and scale and wa nran'r supposed to look at that until final Sara asked Charles about looking at materials at conceptual. Charles said they are open to working to UPC's satisfaction if that can be something that is separate from the total mass and scale. If this building was solid and not glass it would still have the same mass and scale Willis said it is not clear to him how the materials transition from the front of the building into the back. Is there a wood material proposed. We also need to see the mass and scale from the alley, views you normally don't present. Charles said one of the problems is that materials are due at final and we are trying to get conceptual approval m or er to spen time doing the further research at your client's expense to take it tot the next step. When you have to look at materials up ont you need to invo ve a mechanical engineer for heat loss, structural engineers etc. That is the stuff you do between conceptual and final and when you put that kind of involvement on a client at this stage it is burdensome. There is a lot to do between conceptual and final. Jane said in terms of mass and scale and the variations of materials that might be used how much more massive and how much more different will this be. I can understand what the materials are as presented and if there has to be some kind of variation for one reason or another I think it is up to e monitor to assist in that effort. I am here to identify the mass on the site and _make sure it fit and that the proportions are done well. As a commissioner I feel this is met tonight. We need to respect the applicant that they aren't going to majorly change the materials. Proportionally it works well and the mass meet all e requirements and they are giving back tow at they Jamie said she doesn't see the overall mass and scale of the building changing. We need to know how they integrate. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 Ann said she feels the proposal is too big for the site. Total glass goes against the guidelines. Roll call vote: Jamie, yes; Patrick, no; Ann, no; Jane, yes; Willis, yes Motion carried 3 -2. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn, second by Patrick. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 11 lzbo MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner Technician jj�� THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directoroil RE: Call -up of Planning & Zoning Commission approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review: 601 E. Hyman Ave., P &Z Resolution # 13, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 COUNCIL REQUEST: On July 30`h City Council voted to call up the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval of Conceptual Commercial Design Review to demolish the exist building and construct a new three story building located at 601 E. Hyman Ave. Council is asked to proceed with the call up procedures and take action on one of the options listed below. REVIEW PROCESS: During a public meeting, City Council shall consider the application de novo and may consider the record established by the P &Z. The City Council shall conduct its review of the application under the same criteria applicable to the P &Z. City Council may take the following action: 1. Accept the decision. 2. Remand the application to P &Z with direction from City Council for rehearing and reconsideration. 3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to conclude the call up review. If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and reconsideration of the application by P &Z is final and concludes the call up review. Substantial changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to P &Z may require a new call up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the new changes to the application. This application is subject to future Subdivision, Growth Management, and Final Commercial Design Reviews. BACKGROUND: (UNCHANGED FROM JULY 23RD MEMO) On July 3, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P &Z) approved Conceptual Commercial Design Review for a project at 601 E Hyman Ave. Conceptual Commercial Design Review addresses the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. This property is located on the southeast corner of Hunter St. and Hyman Ave. The applicant is proposing a full demolition of the existing two -story building and its replacement with a three - story mixed -use building. The project meets all underlying dimensional requirements. The project decreases the amount of on -site public amenity space from 13% of the site to 6% of the site. The applicant proposes to provide cash -in -lieu payment for the remaining 7% of public amenity space. The building is proposed to be 35 feet in height, which is lower than the 36 — 40 foot height allowed under the code in effect at the time of initial application. The building is proposed to be a mix of Commercial and Free - Market Residential space. Planning staff recommended in favor of the design review, and the P &Z approved the design by a vote of 4:2. A copy of the P &Z Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. DISCUSSION: Planning Staff recommended that P &Z approve the applicant's request for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, provided that P &Z considered Staff's concerns on the topics of public amenity space and building massing. During the P &Z hearing the applicant presented plans to reduce the first floor setback from six feet to five feet, thereby creating a reduction in the recessed pedestrian space found below the cantilevered second and third floors. The applicant did not present amended plans for the public amenity space with the intent of keeping more on- site. The applicant's current amount of on -site public amenity space is 13 %, which must be provided for with the redevelopment. The applicant has submitted a plan that involves keeping 3.2% of the required public amenity space on -site, and providing a cash -in -lieu payment for the remaining 9.8 %. P &Z discussed the success of the public amenity space as it is proposed, including the amount proposed on -site and the appropriateness of its design and placement. P &Z voted 4 -2 to approve the conceptual review with the condition that the applicant will further examine and study the public amenity space, prior to Final Commercial Design Review, with the intent of increasing the amount of public amenity pace found on -site. Conceptual review is a binding approval in terms of mass, scale and height of building. Adding a condition that allows review of public amenity space at Final Review is contrary to the process in the Land Use Code and has the potential to create issues for subsequent land use reviews for the project. The redevelopment requires Growth Management allotments and Subdivision approvals prior to proceeding to P &Z for Final Review. Each of these reviews deal with what goes into the box. The potential to increase the amount of on -site public amenity space may be hindered by the approved placement of the building on the site. The minutes from the P &Z meeting (pertinent sections are underlined in Exhibit C) convey P &Z's concern regarding the reduction in on -site public amenity space, and their reasoning 2 regarding the condition to the approval. Staff is concerned about delaying the decision regarding the amount of on -site public amenity space until Final Review. In addition the Code requires approval of a Conceptual Design be binding on the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council remand the decision back to P &Z with the direction to decide on the appropriate amount of on -site public amenity space as part of the Conceptual approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to remand P &Z's decision to grant Conceptual Commercial Design Review back to Commission and direct the Commission to decide on the amount of on -site public amenity space provided by this project." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: P &Z Resolution 13 (Series 2012) Exhibit C: P &Z Approved Minutes 3 bW VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING SOUTH Exhibit A - 1: Model Images rs,of F- Prman VIEW LOOKING SOUTH E!�� �-- I VIEW LOOKING NORTH m m Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan L:40 UTILJT1ES KIETERSE, TRANS- FORMER STAIR2 19 DN Lj UP STAIR I LU z RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 0 1 m in °®, W-07 nR ti -i 3 3 f.. 3. .a Kra META A Kl Resolution Exhibit B - 1 E. Hyman Avenue Elevation f LEVM3 FL Qcr LEVULa LEVEL' T 0 FM F1 ..lam . Q Resolution Exhibit B - 2 S. Hunter Street Elevation RESOLUTION NO. 13 (SERIES OF 2012) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN FOR VICTORIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUMS, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 601 E. HYMAN AVE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737 - 182 - 250 -31, 2737 -182- 250 -28, 2737 - 182 - 250 -30, 2737 - 182 - 258 -01, 2737 - 182 - 250 -27, 2737 - 182 - 250 -32, 2737 - 182 - 250 -33, 2737 - 182 - 250 -29 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Victorian Square, LLC (Applicant), represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Commercial Design for Mixed Use development at Victorian Square; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.412 of the Land Use Code, commercial design review approval may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on June 19, 2012, and a continued public hearing on July 3rd, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and recommended approval of the conceptual commercial design with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval shall only grant the applicant the ability to submit a Final Design Review application and the proposed development is further subject to GMQS Allotment and Subdivision pursuant to the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standards for Conceptual Commercial Design Review have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Conceptual Commercial Design Review, pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for the Victorian Square building, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1 The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Commercial Design Review application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission. 2. The Final Commercial Design Review application shall include: a. An application for Final Commercial Design Review and the proposed development is further subject to Final Commercial Design Review, GMQS Allotment, and Page 1 of 4 Subdivision. A pre - application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions of the development. c. A proposed subdivision plat. 3. Approval of the Conceptual Commercial Design does not preclude meeting other requirements of the Municipal Code, such as Engineering and Parks standards. Drawings illustrating the Conceptual Commercial Design Review are attached as exhibits to this Resolution. Section 2: Public Amenity Space The approved public amenity space shall comprise a total of 13% of the total parcel. Proposed by the Applicant thus far is to provide 272 sf (6 %) of the total requirement on -site, and to provide cash -in -lieu payment for the the remaining 323 sf (7 %). Prior to Final Design Review, the Applicant will further examine and study the public amenity space with the objective of increasing the on -site amount. Section 3: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 4: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21, Title 28 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. A completed drainage report/plan as outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to Building Permit issuance. This major project is subject to the fee in lieu requirement of Section 2.12.140 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 5: Parks Landscaping in the public right -of -way will be subject to landscaping in the right -of -way requirement, Chapter 21.20, of the Municipal Code. There shall be no plantings within the City right -of -way which are not approved by the City Parks and Engineering departments. Per Municipal Code 13.20, an approved tree permit will be required prior to any tree removal or development within the drip line of the tree. All tree permits must be approved prior to approval of building permits. Parks will approve the final landscape plan during the review of the tree removal permit based on landscape estimates. Section 6: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Page 2 of 4 Section 7: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 8: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 9: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard 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, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 10: Engineering All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 11: School Lands Dedication Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a fee -in -lieu of land dedication pursuant to Chapter 26.620, School Lands Dedication. The amount of the fee shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 12: Impact Fees Before the Applicant is issued a Building Permit, the Applicant shall pay a Parks Development fee and a TDM /Air Quality fee pursuant to Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees. The amount of the fees shall be calculated by the Community Development Department using the calculation method and fee schedule in effect at the time the Applicant submits a Building Permit. Section 13: 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 14: 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. Page 3 of 4 APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on July 3, 2012. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A— Site Plan Exhibit 13— Elevations Page 4 of 4 LJ Erspamer, Chairman k b4 b Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in 'ster Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were an Walt scheid, Jim DeFrancia, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gib , and LJ Erspam Bert Myrin and Jasmine Tygre were not in attenda e. Staff in attendance ere Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; J fifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny, Co munity Development; and Jackie Lothia , eputy City Clerk. Comments LJ Erspamer stated t t Jennifer did a good JqKon the update. LJ asked to see the year of the Aspen Area ommunity Plan cuments when they are referring to it. Jennifer Phelan said the next on August 7`h the county was with City Council, Board of meet at 4 pm for the upd m would begin at 5p. eeti was July 17`" and at the following meeting t g to schedule a "West of Castle Creek" meeting -oun Commissioners, County P &Z and City P &Z to Jennife aid that then the regular City P &Z Meeting MOTION: ^R�n Walterscheid moved to apN his correctsS''�s seconded by Jim DeFrancia. A Decl ation o N e stated. Continued Public Hearing: the minutes from June I 91 with n favor APPROVED. 601 East Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Sara Nadolny stated that she emailed Exhibits A, B & H to be included in the record and the applicant provided a new Exhibit I. Sara Nadolny introduced Sarah Broughton and Stan Clauson. Sara said this was a 4,500 square foot parcel located on the corner of Hunter and Hyman; the applicant was planning a full demolition and replacement of the building. There was 6% public amenity and the remainder provided by cash -in -lieu. Sara said the Commercial Design Review included the placement of the building, height, massing and placement of the public amenity space. Sara said at the last public hearing a number of topics were raised like the trash /recycling area, the removal of the spruce trees, amenity space and the building space and massing. After the applicant met with Environmental Health and proposed an increased space for the trash /recycle area that will house four 96 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 gallon containers, 2 yard cardboard recycling container and a wider opening. The trash area is now separated from the exit stairs by an overhead door. Sara said the applicant has contacted the Parks Department regarding the tree removal and discuss the street trees; Parks response is Exhibit F and is in favor of the street trees. Sara said the applicant was preparing an increase from 144 square feet to 272 square feet public amenity space with the walkway increased by 5 feet, street trees, public art and benches on the site. Staff does question the quality of wiblic amenity space and refer to the design guidelines to be a fathering space with solar access an maintenance of a well defined street edge. The stair tower is now set ac k 4 feet and increased the public amenity space. Sara asked if the public amenity spaces on Hyman Avenue have a potential for more negative effects on retail. Sara said the staff has concerns using the 2nd and Yd stories elements over projected over the 1St story and showed (power point) of that overhang which was lessened to 5 feet from 6 feet. Sara asked if this overhang will create a dark recessed space and potentially hurt the success of a retail space on the first floor. Staff is seeing this as 3 modules (Exhibit H); staff recommends a study of the stair tower height and location for greater balance for the massing. Jim DeFrancia asked why staff thought the canopy overhang was an impediment to successful retail. Sara replied that it removes the retail from the existing sidewalk and people have to choose to walk into the space. LJ said there were so many iconic buildings in Aspen and asked if there were any iconic buildings located right next door to those iconic buildings or in other words does an iconic building stand alone in town. Jennifer said there were buildings that stand alone but the context is important for these buildings to relate. Stan Gibbs does not show the fagade as was proposed. Stan Clauson replied that they were asked to provide some drawings without the ornamentation so that the planning commission and staff have a better understanding of the underlying nature of the building. Jennifer said the ornamentation is at final design and material; those snow pillows will exceed the underlying height unless it is granted a variation. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 Cliff Weiss asked about the dimensions of the public amenity space and asked where is the 13% public amenity space on the existing building. Sara Nadolny said the public amenity space was 13% and it was the applicant's duty to keep that 13% however they are responding to that in the new proposal was to have 6% on site and the rest cash -in -lieu. Cliff asked what is that in square footage. Sara replied 272. Stan Clauson stated that they have made some changes based on comments and this has resulted in some minor changes in square footages; the 3rd floor residential unit has a net livable area of 1947 square feet. Stan Clauson said this was a project that was in conformance with the land use code and with the historic district guidelines with commercial design approval with the proposed max height at 36 feet and is specifically exempt as ornamentation such as the pillows. Stan Clauson said the proposed height overall is 8,798 which is considerably less that the code allowed on this 4500 square foot lot. Sarah Broughton thanked the commission for their comments; this is a unique situation with no alley access and 2 street sides. Sarah said it was appropriate to have the 2nd and 3rd stories not stepped back. Sarah said successful retail sidewalks start at 10 feet and is a code that they have studied and feel to create a great retail experience we need to step back the sidewalks. Sarah said the differences on the first floor were an increase in the transformer area, created a screen and open to the sky; a generous trash area that can accommodate retail and the rest of the retail; it is separated from the egress door from the stair and an opening. Stan Clauson said the public amenity is the walking- area around the sidewalks as a linear amenity. ara said that they get solar access the corner by pushing it ac eet from the property Stan Clauson said there were 4 objectives from the historic design guidelines that might be applicable: 1. having the wider sidewalk on Hyman strengthens the sense of relatedness to Hunter; 2. maintain a retail orientation and we were not losing retail orientation by the minimal setback; 3. promote a contemporary design and 4. encourage a defined street wall. Stan Clauson said that they met with Ashley Cantrell in Environmental Health regarding the trash /recycling area and that was how they came up with this design. Stan Clauson said that they removed the wing wall and feel it is a good design. Stan Clauson said some design changes were transits above the windows and increased orientation toward Hunter Street. Sarah said they have brought in French doors in the retail and are working with the retail to make sure that it is successful to pedestrians walking by. Stan Clauson said they have provided seating next to El Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes July 3, 2012 the Muse building and looking at a green wall which will come back to you at final and is doable in our climate. Stan Clauson showed the Hunter Street elevation with the 4 foot overhang and showed other retail with overhangs. Stan Clauson introduced Ron Garfield as the builder of the property. Ron said first he wanted to thank P &Z for the time tonight; Sara and Jennifer have given good information that they have taken to heart and made some changes. Ron said the building they were in right now is a failure as an office building and retail; the building was built in 1975 and there were 2 art galleries and a bakery in the space that is now occupied by Joshua Real Estate. Ron said the 2nd floor was separated into a number of small office spaces and as they took more and more of the f building and the building was originally designed to house a number of small spaces. Ron said that he and Andy had their law firm and were also developers and wanted to create retail space on the first floor of the new development. Ron said the challenge was the constraint of the site and when the buildings that are going up the town will look different and they are trying to make a statement with the glass design. Ron said they were clear with their team for no variances and there is a finite limit on what they can do on this site. Cliff asked how wide the public amenity space was on Hunter and Hyman. Stan Clauson replied 18 inches with a curved planter on Hunter and it is 5 feet on Hyman except where it goes u— er-ffie canopy. Cliff asked if there was rooftop access above Me oor. ara rep ie no. Cliff asked about the glass. Sarah replied that would be addressed at final. Cliff said that you show retail but could it be a restaurant. Stan Clauson said the code allows for a restaurant but it hasn't been designed for it. Stan Gibbs said the amenity space was only to the end of the bench. Stan Clauson replied it has an open quality but they did not count it as amenity space. U asked where the standard 10 feet sidewalk space. Sarah replied that a new urbanism has been around for 15 to 20 years and prior to that in the 1960s a Berkley Professor started the new urbanization scale in sidewalks that will encourage retail. U asked if there was an airlock with the French doors for winter. Sarah said they haven't gotten into that so far. Stan Gibbs said the dimension of the canopy coverage was 4 feet deep by how long. Sarah replied 35 feet. No public comments. 61 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 Commissioner Comments: Jim DeFrancia said there were no variances requested, the FAR was less than allowed and the staff had trouble with the public amenity space and noted that this was a constraint site. Jim said the 5 foot setback didn't have an impact on retail, personally. Jim said it was an attractive building and was satisfied with the turn out. Ryan personally liked the changes made to the building; the corner was well addressed by wrapping the storefront around the corner. Ryan said that he didn't have a problem with the massing and it is broken down; by pushing the trees out to the curb line you will put people closer to your building and will be more successful. Ryan said the next time P &Z sees this and we discuss materials you may be able to break up your modular more; by final how will you break up that storage in the basement. Keith liked the changes in the trash area and the setback for the stairwell; it flows with the block. Keith said that his concern was the overhang with water runoff. Cliff said he had no trouble tearing down what is there and putting something attractive in its place but was concerned about tying this block to downtown. Cliff asked about the one view but didn't like the piece of art. Cliff said the size, mass and scale he had no trouble with and he would like to see something a little more active than another gallery. U said that he liked Mr. Garfield's comments about the old building. U said that he was not a huge fan of modern contemporary but your comments were good. U said that he would like to see more public amenity space but was proud of the 10 foot sidewalk. U liked the canopy because it protects you from the elements but with cars parked in front and a canopy limits your view of retail spaces. U said he was not a fan of bringing street wall up to the sidewalk and likes that there was a setback. U said that he won't be supporting this because in his opinion he doesn't think that modern character reflects a small mountain town. Stan Gibbs said in general it was a good application and have done an admiral job of staying within the limits of development; in general he like the modularity but he doesn't favor the mass of that fagade and overhang. Stan said he likes the building better without the glass because it goes to the mass of that overhang. Stan blic amenity s ling the buildii amenity space and you rel )ace even with the 4 fef is taken out by if you take that 4 feet out you apparent mass of the building. feet of public tan wanted to Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 see more amenity space even though it is not sitting space but it is open to the st Stan Gibbs said that he pro a y won t support t is project and would like more thought given to making the building flush. Sarah said that with the bump out she felt that it looks to the pedestrian experience. Sarah stated the materials would be looked at final and wants to make something that is long lasting and one of the ideas was to bring back some color to town. Stan Clauson said they would look at the final design issues and any dripping from runoff and they feel this will add to the vitality to what is there. Cliff said that he could support the canopy and the glass was different and Aspen could use a change, so it was fine with him. Cliff asked why we were losing 7% amenity space was it truly more than just flow. Stan Clauson replied from an FAR standpoint they are giving up quite a bit of that FAR in the overall building. Stan Clauson said the allowable floor area on this site is 11,250 and proposed is about 8800 so there is about 2500 square feet in unused floor area; they need to look to the viability of building and the 2nd and 3rd floor projection does add interest. LJ asked Debbie Quinn if there was a tie vote there is no action and what happens then; these people can't apply for a year. Debbie Quinn quoted from Section 26.212.050 application actions required remain pending with a tie vote means they had a motion not to consider action and because action is required on a vote. Debbie said you could either continue after a 3 to 3 action vote or you could come back and reschedule. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #13, series of 2012 ew addition of the l further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final; Ryan Walterscheid seconded. Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, no; Keith Goode, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes;Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, no; Cliff Weiss, yes. APPROVED 4 -2. Discussion prior to vote: LJ asked if the resolution in the packet would be the resolution used. Sara replied yes although public amenity space has not been completed. LJ read from page 4 of the staff memo regarding the public amenity space. Stan Gibbs said if there were an amendment to the motion then the person who made the motion agreed to it then it would be included in the motion but if they don't agree then it can't be included and we just have to vote on it to get any amendment to the resolution. LJ said the person who made the motion and the 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 person who seconded it have to approve the amendment through that motion. Debbie Quinn said before it is voted on. Cliff said because of the loss of the 7% of public amenity if this were at final he would vote this down because it is critical for the amenity space. Jim DeFrancia suggested the language further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final. Adjourned at 6:15. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council C. FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer,,, ., RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking and a Setback Variance: 435 West Main Street, aka Aspen Jewish Community Center, HPC Resolution #20, Series of 2012 MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 BACKGROUND: On August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission Commission (HPC) approved Conceptual Major Development Review, Special Review for Parking and a Setback Variance for a project at 435 W. Main Street. Conceptual Major Development address the mass, scale and placement of a proposed building, compatibility of the building within the Main Street Historic District and historic landmarks on the site, and provides the applicant with direction for moving forward with their proposal. The applicant received Council approval in 2004 for a sanctuary, preschool, and administrative building on the west portion of the lot and preservation of 6 historic 1940s era tourist cabins along the alley and Third Street to be used as affordable housing and lodging for visitors related to church events and programming. Construction preparation for the sanctuary was initiated in June 2012. HPC aranted Conceptual aDDroval to construct a Darsonaae on the eastern half of the property. The parsonage replaces earlier approvals for a social hall to supplement the sanctuary space. The applicant has determined that being able to have the Rabbi and family live on site and receive the congregation is a higher priority need. The parsonage proposal is about 700 square feet smaller than the social hall that it is replacing. Approval of one on -site parking space for the parsonage was aranted. A front vard setback variance was granted to allow the parsonage to be in line with the sanctuary building along Main Street. Planning staff recommended continuation of the design review to restudy the width of the parsonage and the distance between the parsonage and the historic landmarks on the site, and the HPC approved the design by a vote of 4_3. A copy of the HPC Resolution and Minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. A copy of the approved massing is attached as Exhibit A. PROCEDURE: This call up procedure is new and was part of the AACP Gap Code Amendments approved on February 27, 2012. This is not a public hearing and no staff or applicant presentation will be made at the August 27th Council meeting. If you have any questions about the project, please contact the staff planner, Amy Guthrie, 429 -2758 or amy.guthriegci.aspen.co.us. Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), notification of all Conceptual Commercial Design Approvals must be placed on City Council's agenda within 30 days. City Council has the option of exercising the Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification on the regular agenda. For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at their August 27, 2012 meeting. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall stand, and the applicant will move forward through the land use review process. This application will be subject to future Subdivision, Growth Management, and Final Major Development Reviews. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Approved Plans Exhibit B: Draft HPC Resolution 20, Series 2012 Exhibit C: Draft HPC minutes from August 15, 2012 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL REVIEW AND SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A -I, BLOCK 38, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 20, SERIES OF 2012 PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -81 -100 WHEREAS, the applicant, Jewish Resource Center Chabad of Aspen, represented by Arthur Chabon Architect and Alan Richman Planning Services, has requested Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking and Setback Variance approval for the property located at 435 W. Main Street, Lots A -I, Block 38, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, HPC may establish parking requirements for the project based on the Special Review standards of Section 26.430.040.D; and WHEREAS, the HPC may approve setback variances according to Section 26.415.110.C. La, Variances; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated August 15, 2012, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards could be met with restudy and recommended that the public hearing be continued; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 15, 2012, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 4 to 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Special Review and a Setback Variance for 435 W. Main Street, with the following conditions: 1. The approved site plan is represented in Option B, presented at the meeting. 2. The roof over the dining room is to be restudied for Final. 3. The front door of the parsonage must face Main Street. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 15th day of August, 2012. Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Ann Mullins, Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Chairperson, Ann Mullins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Nora Berko, Willis Pember, Jay Maytin, Jamie McLeod, Patrick Segal and Sallie Golden. Jane Hills was absent. Staff present: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk Jamie moved to approve the minutes -of August 8th second by Patrick. All in favor motion carried. Ann abstained because she was absent at the meeting. 435 W. Main — Conceptual Major Development, Special Review for Parking, Setback Variances — Public Hearing Public notice — Exhibit I Deborah Quinn said the public notice requirements are complete except for the mailing list and it will be supplemented into the records. Amy said last week UPC discussed architectural changes to the sanctuary building at the west end of the property and those were approved and they are moving through the building permit process. The social hall will not be built but they intend to build a parsonage for the Rabi and his family. This is a major development two step review and it also has to go to P &Z and council. The social hall spanned across 3/4 length of the block with continuous construction. The parsonage has an immediate advantage because of its detached structure. There is a lot to be said having the open space created around it. It is a taller building than the social hall was and the height is being placed next to the historic cabins. Staff has a few issues with the design guidelines: One is the proximity to the historic cabins and can there be any more breathing room and can the parsonage building move a_ little closer to the sanctuary building. In this immediate block there are some of the biggest Victorian mansions that are left in town. This building will have some context to support its size but the Victorian buildings look to be approximately 35 feet wide and this building has a width of 50 feet. The building is set back but it seems wider than the historic buildings and staff has concerns about that. HPC needs to address parking and there are not regulations; it is case by case. The applicant is proposing one parking space in a garage. The Rabi and his family will be in a live work situation so we feel there is no need to provide more than they have requested. They are 1 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 asking for a setback variance to keep the parsonage five feet from the front lot line. That is closer to the street than most of the houses in the block so that might not be considered appropriate; however the sanctuary and the historic cabins are only a foot or two off the front property line so there is a reason to continue keeping the construction closer to Main Street. As a point of discussion whether the proposed garage should be integrated with the house or whether there should be some way to accommodate parking with a structure on the alley or uncovered parking. Staff is recommending continuance. Ann said there are five issues: Proximity to the cabins Width of the parsonage Parking Setback Garage Alan Richman, representing the applicant. We will do this in three pieces; introduction of Rabi Mintz; Arthur Chabon will address the design issues and I will conclude specifically focusing on the design guidelines. Rabi Mintz said for the success of the organization and the services we offer to the community and for the community itself it will have a big impact to have the two buildings side by side. It is not just really a home it is part of the Jewish center that will be next door. It is a great importance to my growing family and for the success of what we do. My wife and I spent a lot of time with Arthur designing this and we made every effort to eliminate any extra space. We made every effort to maximize the space for the community and our family. The size of the parsonage was dictated by the size of my family and capacity of events that we want to hold in the parsonage. It is important for us to move forward in a timely manner and it is important to do this simultaneously with the construction that will happen next door. We hope to leave here tonight with a vote in favor of the parsonage and allowing us to go forward. Leba Mintz said this is an emotional issue because it is our home. We live 1.2 miles from the center and every Saturday we walk to the center and if there are storms sometimes my children don't even go to the services due to inclement weather. It will make a big difference being next door to the N ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 center. We have made this home as simple as possible. I ask you to not drag this on and hopefully it can go forward. Arthur Chabon, architect — Elevations — Exhibit II Arthur said there are three primary issues: One is the overall length of the building parallel to Main Street. Proximity of the parsonage on Third Street blocks the views of the cabins and the issue that the parking should not be brought so far to the center of the lot. Site plan: Arthur said there are two site plans A and B. The basic strategy was to nestle the parsonage in the L that is defined by the cabins on the alley and cabins on Third Street. As required by the guidelines the main entrance is off Main Street and you enter on a porch which runs parallel to Third St. and then you enter the foyer, living room, dining room, kitchen, mud room and garage. On the Main Street entrance there is a smaller gable and the south elevation a pair of gables and at the west a larger gable to relate to the sanctuary itself. There is a gable over the garage, kitchen and mudroom. The gables are all centered exactly between the cabins. When looking through the cabins they create focal points. We deliberately did not copy the slopes of the cabins leaving a more dynamic dialogue between old and new. The parsonage is much smaller on the site than other properties that you see. Arthur went over Victorians with different facades dimensions within the vicinity. Our fagade is 27 feet and the overall is 53 feet but the element that brings you to 53 feet is 12 feet back. Cabins: Arthur said the social hall as approved obscured the three cabins completely. In moving the parsonage inward option B we lose the diagonal view of the cabins. The repetition of the cabins and the space and shadows between the cabins in a way subordinate the parsonage. From the Main Street side they are preserved and enhanced. Parking: Arthur said we have to be ten feet away from the adjacent property and the guidelines require the parking to be off the alley. The options are extremely limited and parking has to be accessed between the cabins. We also want to limit the amount of driveway into the property. There is no better proposal 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 for the parking than what we have. We feel our scheme is consistent with the general scale of Main Street and keeping the parsonage closer to the cabins further enhances the historic resource. Alan Richman said the parsonage brings many benefits to the project and it serves critical functions for the congregation and it provides a home for the leaders of the congregation and it creates a free standing residential structure that creates more of an open feel on Main Street as compared to the social hall that which stretched all across Main Street. The relationship between the parsonage and the cabins has been addressed by the guidelines. Your guideline 7.12 says a new structure should step down in scale. In terms of the location of the parsonage and staff's comment to move it to the west we think that there are three significant benefits to the location of the parsonage where it is. It opens up the views from Main Street to the cabins along the alley. By keeping the parsonage close to the cabins we create a playground in the middle of the property which is right next to the pre - school and it is big enough to be usable by the pre - school. If you move it over it cuts into the open space. It also breaks the mass along Main Street into distinct building forms because it keeps the parsonage far away enough from the community center that you actually read them as two separate masses. In the staff report one of reasons to move it west is guideline 7.5 which reads respect the historic settlement patterns. It talks about consideration of building setbacks and entry orientation and open space. We have oriented it to Main Street and keeping the building close to the cabins you create the open space in the middle of the site. The question is the setback. The pattern on our block is not like others. We have a 26 foot primary gable and a cross gable that is set back 12 feet from the primary fagade and is subordinate to the primary fagade. By the nature of the cabins being behind the building the only way we can accommodate the program the congregation needs is to begin to have the subordinate elements. Alan said they are clearly proposing to access the garage from the alley. We can't place the garage on the alley because we have cabins across the alley. In terms of floor area we are way below. The total build out with the six cabins and the two buildings is about 17,000 square feet. We are 3,000 square feet below the public and 10,000 square feet below what is allowed on the property. E ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick asked if it was thought of to flip the project so the parking would be accessed from Third Street. Visually it would be best to see the cabins coming from the west. Arthur said 7 years ago we did propose relocating the cabins and HPC determined that the cabins should not be moved. Jay inquired about the use of the cabins. Alan said the three along Main Street are deeded as affordable housing. The three along the alley are deed restricted for lodging for guests associated with the community center. Willis asked about the square footage of the parsonage as compared to the social hall. Allen said the parsonage is approximately 700 feet smaller than the social hall. Nora said we all worked hard to keep the program low with the social hall and is there any way to get the parsonage into that program. Rabi Mintz said we tried that and it could work if we got bigger but then you would have less of a view of the cabins. Alan said with rearrangement you could have a one story more spread out building. We went with the vertical building because that is the pattern you see on Main Street. Chair - person Ann Mullins opened the public comments. There were no public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was closed. Ann stated the issues: Proximity of the new building to the cabins. Width of the new building Parking The requested 5 foot setback Garage entry Entrance to the new building ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Patrick said in flipping the plan and putting the parsonage on the alley you would get a view plane of all the cabins and it would benefit the community and the Rabi. The reason why the cabins are where they are is because of the massing to the west. Amy said the proposal by Patrick would have to be a new public notice. The location and setting of the cabins is an important significance and that is part of why it was not brought forward. Ann and Jay said they would not agree to support moving the cabins. Jamie said she would have to review the past meetings before making any decisions. Willis pointed out that the applicant has not requested the change and it was important that the cabins remain in their original location. Sallie said she would consider it if the applicant requests it. Proximity to the cabins: Jay said typically we don't nestle things toward the historic structure. Jay said he supports option B so that there is more breathing room around the cabins. I have no problem with the overall width. I do have an issue with the roof over the dining room because it creates more mass. I have no issue with the parking or setback variance or the garage. I don't support the front door entry. The chimney creates more mass and a heaviness as it comes to the ground but that can be discussed at final. Jamie said she can support Option B. Along Main Street there aren't a lot of windows and other Victorians have windows that open up to Main Street. The building also seems a little top heavy with the mass of the roof. How are you nodding or stepping down to the cabins in the back of the alley? I also support what Jay said that the front door needs to face Main Street to give it the presence of the entry. I am also OK with the five foot variance. Sallie said she likes breaking the two buildings up and having the little cabins between the spaces. There is .more breathing room. The entrance is fine and the garage and variance are OK also. The building does seem a little top heavy. I can support Option A. n ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 Willis said Option A has the best site plan. Site lines enhance the reading of the resources which is what the site plan is about here. The parking and garage are not a issue. I am also fine with the entry and the width of the building has extensively been researched. I am fine with the front door because it is read from both Main Street and P Street. Where the door is located is not critical because it is not likely to be read at all. The entry is clearly marked as a one story element. Nora said she feels the building is too close to the cabins and doesn't honor the cabins enough. This is now a house and not a social hall so I cannot support the setback variance. It has a front door and should also have some front space. The garage is OK. Ann said the entrance needs to be restudied and come off Main Street. The door looks more like a back door rather than a front door (guideline 7.9) I cannot support the setback. Guideline 7.14 talks about stepping the building down to the historic resources. The garage and parking are fine. By moving the residence to the west it reinforces the historic use of the cabins which was a motor court accessed off Main Street. Patrick said he can support Option B. Since it is a residence my recommendation would be to move the chimney around the corner and put windows on the front and take the overhang off. The front door and windows should be on Main Street. Response to comments: Arthur said the front door is clearly articulated off Main Street. Whether it is perpendicular or parallel is not significant. That said it is an easy plan change. The Rabi specifically requested an entrance off the side street. You can't stop in front of the building on Main Street because there is a bus stop there. The reality is that you will enter from the alley and side street. We consciously did not put a lot of glass on Main Street because there are bedroom there. There are a lot of buildings on Main Street that are 12 to 15 feet apart. Alan said they will look at the requirement for the playground so that state standards are met. Willis said you need to look at the site lines. This is not just a house it is a parsonage and a synagogue. It is a parsonage that is attached to a particular 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2012 organization. Submitting the sanctuary and parsonage separately makes it difficult to read wholly and holistically. The reality is that you will enter off Third Street. Nora suggested we continue the meeting to a date certain. MOTION: Patrick made the motion to continue to restudy the setback and restudy of moving the house west closer to the sanctuary. Restudy the front Main Street fagade which includes the chimney, door, windows, and fagade overhang. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION: Jay moved to approve resolution #20 for 435 W. Main Option B with restudy of the roof line over the dining room and that the front door faces Main Street. Motion second by Ann. Amended motion: Willis amended the motion to approve Option A, second by Sallie. Vote on amendment only. Patrick, no; Jamie, no, Jay, no; Ann, no; Nora, no; Willis, yes; Sallie, yes. Motion failed 5 -2. Vote on entire motion with the conditions in staff memo. Patrick, yes; Jamie, no; Jay, yes; Ann, yes; Nora, no;Willis, yes; Sallie, no. Motion carried 4 -3 135 E. Cooper Ave. work session — no minutes Deborah Quinn, assistant city attorney said a work session is not a recorded public meeting and it is basically getting opinions of members of the board on a proposal that you place in front of them. There can be no approvals and the applicant cannot rely on anything that is said by the commission as a whole or by any individual commissioner. There is nothing that can be stated up front that you can rely formally on. Certainly you are trying to get impressions and input and you need to understand that work sessions are not for making final determinations. MOTION: Ann moved to adjourn; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk E- w w 0 ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado S i t e p l a n O p t i o n B S c a I e 3/32" = 1'•0" August 15, 2012 „0-,l =.9T /I aIeoS 0 u o 1 I d 0 Z T 0 Z `5T Isn2ny uolleAa13 IaaalS uIeA opeaoIo0 uadsy a2eu0saed 0 0 r V 10311H02id NOSVH0 2inHlad ARTHUR CHAB0N ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado A I I e y E l e v a t i o n O p t i o n B August 15, 201 2 Scale 1/8 " =1' -0" ZTOZ 'SI Isn9ny .,O-,T =..B/ T a l e 0 S S u o 1 e n a 1 3 I s a M 7F } s e a y} n o S ' y I A o N U o 1} e A a 1 3 1 s a M U o 1 1 e n a 1 3 y} n o S .0-.0 'l_NI� 4NOP5 opeao1o0 ' uadsy a .2 eu0saed 0 0 r V U o 1 1 e n a 1 3 } s e 3 10311H08V N0eVH0 8nHi2JV U o 1; e n a 1 3 4 I A o N ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage Aspen , Colorado B a s e m e n t F I o o r P I a n S c a l e 1/4" = 1' -0" August 15, 2012 O 1' 2' 4' D' ZT0Z `5T Isn2ny .0-,1 =„ti /T a I e 0 S u e I d j o o 1� ; s a I d opeaoIoO ` u ads y GBeuosied 00fV ----- - - - - -- - -- - -� -- - -- ------- - ------- do '\ / I I I I � as 09L •/' I �! 39V?�Y9 d5 4ZL I d6 ______ __ -_- --------------- W II II E 35 45 I d5 of N iu I r— I I I I I � I I ! 5 E I i W �'N l -1 I I � ' -I- _L..�...,_..- -- L_Z_- ...__..___.. >_ _ L I I i .b /I 0I -.81 .L /I L-.LL 13311HOHV NOSVHO 8nHi2IV A'S £6Z = aaeds paJanoD J'S 9'8ZL'£ = ease ssoJE) J'S £'L6Z = a .BeJeg j'S £'T£ti'£ = eajy algel!geH IPOI i's £'£9L'i = eajy 100IJ puoaaS i's '899'I= eaayJDOIJ}sni Second Floor Area = 1,763.3 S.F ARTHUR CHABON ARCHITECT AJCC Parsonage S e c o n d F l o o r p l a n Aspen , Coiorado Scale 1/4 " =1' -0" August 15, 2012