Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20130422 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA April 22, 2013 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation - Arbor Day b) Proclamation - Tom Anderson/Pomeroy Sports IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #45, 2013 - Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Construction Quality Assurance b) Minutes - April 8, 2013 c) Resolution #42, 2013 - Replacement of Dasher Boards in the Aspen Ice Garden d) Resolution #48, 2013 - Contract for Recreation Department Business Plan Update e) Roaring Fork Watershed - Regional Water Conservation Plan f) Resolution #46, 2013 - Water System Maintenance Trailer Purchase g) Resolution #47, 2013 - AABC Substation Upgrade VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #16, 2012 - Lot Split; Ordinance #17, 2013 - Disconnect 250 Willoughby Way b) Ordinance #18, 2013 - Jurisdiction in Aspen Municipal Court/Juveniles VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #11, 2013 - 605/675 S. Alps Road (Moses Lot Split), PUD Amendment b) Ordinance #15, 2013 - Supplemental Appropriation c) Ordinance #13, 2013 - Code Amendments: Trash, Utility, Recycle Areas d) Ordinance #8, Series of 2013, Annexation of the South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split e) Ordinance #6, 2013 - Aspen Valley Hospital PUD Continue to 5/13 f) Ordinance #12, 2013 - City Wide 20 MPH Speed Limit g) Ordinance #9, 2013 - Code Amendment - Campaign Contributions h) Resolution #47, 2013 - Theatre Aspen Tent IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting May 13, 2013 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. • Stick to top priorities • Involve others in community problem solving • Be thorough, deliberate and accountable for consequences when making decisions Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Click here to enter text. THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: Click here to enter text. MEETING DATE: Click here to enter text. RE: Click here to enter text. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: P1 III.a Page 2 of 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P2 III.a Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager and Steve Bossart, Capital Asset Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: April 15, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: 2013 Burlingame Phase IIA(i) Construction Quality Assurance REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of contract with Ascent Building Consulting in the amount of $74,925. BACKGROUND: At a budget work session on November 13, 2012, Council approved funding for the construction of buildings #1 through #4 (48 affordable housing units) at Burlingame Phase II. On January 14, 2013, Council approved a contract amendment with Haselden Construction for the physical construction of same. DISCUSSION: The contract with Ascent Building Consulting is for housing enclosure construction observation and construction deficiency reporting for the purpose of construction quality assurance for buildings 1 through 4 of Burlingame Phase II (48 housing units). The Burlingame Phase II project management team will utilize reports from Ascent Building Consulting to direct the general contractor, Haselden Construction, to remediate any construction deficiencies found during the construction process. This is intended to catch any potential problems while the buildings are still being constructed, rather than having to go back and remediate problems after the construction effort is complete. Ascent Building Consulting was selected by the Burlingame Phase II project management team among a field of six providers who bid via a competitive RFP process. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The project team has budgeted $60,000 for this work. The Ascent Building Consulting contract sum consists of $62,725 in fees plus an estimated $12,200 in reimbursable expenses. Staff feels that the reimbursable expenses can be mitigated, and we will make every effort to try to make sure that less than $10,000 of contingency b udget is used for this contract. The current contingency budget is over $1MM, and staff wishes to try to save the contingency budget to the fullest extent possible, but this contract is a prudent expense. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of contract with Ascent Building Consulting in the amount of $74,925. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: “Exhibit A”: Professional Services Agreement, Ascent Building Consulting P3 VI.a Resolution #45 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ASCENT BUILDING CONSULTING AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for housing enclosure construction observation services in the amount of $74,925 between the City of Aspen and Ascent Building Consulting, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for housing enclosure construction observation services in the amount of $74,925 between the City of Aspen and Ascent Building Consulting, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April, 2013. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on April 22, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P4 VI.a P5 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 1 The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than __________________. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of P6 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 2 this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The P7 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 3 Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non- owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be Waived for this contract P8 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 4 primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. P9 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 5 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. “Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. P10 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 6 “Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement. “Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: P11 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 7 (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for P12 VI.a Agreement Professional Services Page 8 ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. P13 VI.a P14 VI.a scent Building Consulting, Inc. 9061 Sanderling Way Littleton, Colorado 80126 Tel: 303-877-1119 March 18, 2013 The City of Aspen c/o Ms. Rebecca Hodgson Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 2013 Proposal for Burlingame Ranch Phase II – Building 1 to 4 Enclosure Inspection Services Ascent No.: 13007 Dear Ms. Hodgson and City Officials: Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. is pleased to provide this proposal to perform enclosure inspection services for the Burlingame Ranch Phase II – Buildings 1 through 4 Project located in Aspen, Colorado. We understand that The City of Aspen (The City) wishes to retain a third party consultant to provide construction observation services for the building enclosure systems for this project, to visit the site at appropriate intervals (to be coordinated with the City and Contractor) and to develop opinions as to whether the observed conditions of the building enclosure systems appear to be in general compliance with the “Construction Documents.” Documents Reviewed in Preparation of This Proposal for Enclosure Inspection Services We reviewed the following documents in the preparation of this proposal:  “Request for Proposals for Burlingame Ranch Phase II – Building 1 to 4 Enclosure Inspection Services”, 8 pages.  “Attachment A – The City of Aspen Instructions to Offerors of Professional Services”, 5 pages.  “Attachment B – City of Aspen Standard Form of Agreement”, 10 pages.  “Attachment C – Preliminary Building Schedule for Phase 2AI Buildings 1-4”, 12 pages.  “Attachment D – Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet”, 1 page.  Architectural Drawings for “Burlingame Ranch 100% Implementation Documents – For Construction”, 180 pages, dated August 31, 2012.  “Burlingame Ranch 100% Implementation Documents Project Manual – Volume 1”, 812 pages, dated August 31, 2012.  “Burlingame Ranch 100% Implementation Documents Project Manual – Volume 2”, 541 pages, dated August 31, 2012. Project Overview We understand that The City is constructing an affordable housing project named “Burlingame Ranch Phase II” on a 17 acre site. The completed project will ultimately include 161 affordable housing units contained within 15 buildings, with an additional 6 single family owned units. The scope of work included within the current phase only incudes 48 units in Buildings 1 through 4, which are made up of Pods A through D. Based upon our review of the documents provided above, we further understand that Buildings 1 through 4 are three story stick framed buildings installed over a concrete foundation and slab-on grade concrete floor, and consist of the following exterior envelope systems: P15 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 2 of 8 Roofing:  Dimensional laminated asphalt shingles, underlayment, snow fences, and snow clips for steep slope roofing.  Standing seam and corrugated metal roofing panels with snow clips for steep slope roofing.  Fully adhered TPO, underlayment board, and tapered polyisocyanurate insulation for low slope roofing.  Sheet metal gutters and downspouts.  Sheet metal chimney caps.  Metal copings caps at parapet walls.  Sheet metal overflow scuppers for low slope roofs.  Associated metal flashings at transitions with dissimilar roofing or cladding systems. Exterior Cladding:  Corrugated metal wall panels installed over vertical battens.  Fiber cement lap siding installed over vertical battens.  Fiber cement board and batten siding installed over vertical battens.  Fiber cement soffit panels.  Vinyl windows with fluid-applied membrane flashings, self-adhered membrane flashings, and sheet metal flashings.  Swing vinyl balcony doors with self-adhered membrane flashings and metal flashings.  Steel swing and overhead doors with associated flashings.  Exterior painting of metals with oil in water enamel paint, exterior wood with low VOC stain, and exterior wood and pre-primed siding and trim with acrylic latex paint.  Exterior sealants with single or multi-component urethane sealant.  Closed cell polyisocyanurate board sheathing with self-adhered flexible flashings. Exterior Balconies:  Plastic lumber decking over Douglas Fir balcony framing. Roof Insulation and Ventilation:  Soffit, head wall, and ridge vents at asphalt shingle roofing with open attic spaces.  R-60 spray cellulose insulation in attic spaces below asphalt shingle roofing.  Spray cellulose insulation in roof cavity below low slope roofing.  Spray cellulose insulation in roof cavity below metal panel roofing. Wall Insulation and Air/Vapor Barrier:  ½” closed cell polyurethane spray foam insulation behind insulated sheathing forming an air/vapor barrier.  Spray cellulose insulation within exterior wall cavity.  1-1/2” polyisocyanurate insulation boards and spray cellulose insulation at below grade exterior walls. Foundation Waterproofing:  Self-adhered membrane waterproofing with mechanically attached drainage composite.  Bituminous dampproofing at foundation walls not scheduled to receive waterproofing. P16 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 3 of 8 Section 1 – Experience & Representation of Services Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. (Ascent) is owned and operated by Steven R. Bunn, RRC, RRO. Mr. Bunn is the President and sole employee of the firm. He is a Registered Roof Consultant and Registered Roof Observer through the RCI, Inc. Services Provided by Ascent: Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in the evaluation and design of the building envelope to address or mitigate water intrusion into buildings and structures. Ascent performs evaluations and design of repairs on all kinds of existing buildings and structures, including municipal, commercial, multi-family, and single family properties. We have experience working on hundreds of projects throughout the United States, as well as other parts of the world. We are dedicated to providing services tailored to meet the needs of each of our clients. We have expertise and offer consulting services for the following:  Third party observation services for municipalities, owners, and property managers  Investigation and evaluation of existing water leakage and condensation problems  Property condition assessments and due diligence reports  Design of repairs to address existing building problems and design on new construction  Design consultation and design review for architects, engineers, owners, developers, and contractors  Services during construction including construction observation, review of submittals and pay applications  Dispute resolution services including investigations, reporting, and expert witness testimony  Evaluation of hail and wind damage for insurance carries and property owners Professional Experience of Steven R. Bunn: 2011 - Present: Ascent Building Consulting, Inc., Littleton, Colorado President 2008 - 2011: Building Consultants & Engineers, Inc., Littleton, Colorado Associate 2000 - 2008: Bornengineering, Westminster, Colorado Senior Project Manager 1995 - 2000: Exterior Research & Design, Seattle, Washington Building Envelope Consultant Mr. Bunn has been active in the building envelope and roofing consulting field for eighteen years. He has extensive experience with the evaluation and design of numerous types of roofing systems. Low-slope roofing systems which Mr. Bunn has evaluated include built-up roofing, modified bitumen roofing, single-ply roofing such as EPDM, PVC, EIP, TPO, and Hypalon, fluid-applied roofing, and inverted roof membrane assemblies. Mr. Bunn has comprehensive knowledge of steep-slope roofing systems which include concrete tile roofing, asphalt and composite shingle roofing, slate roofing, wood shake and shingle roofing, copper roofing, metal panel roofing, and synthetic slate roofing. Mr. Bunn has also evaluated a wide variety of accessory roofing materials and systems including flashings and copings. His extensive experience also includes the evaluation and design of below-grade and plaza waterproofing systems and pedestrian-grade traffic coatings. Exterior cladding systems which Mr. Bunn has evaluated include cementitious stucco, EIFS, fiber-cement and hardboard siding, brick, concrete block, stone masonry, precast concrete, wood siding, composite metal panels, windows, storefronts, curtain walls, exterior doors, sealant joints, and expansion joints. P17 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 4 of 8 He has worked on projects throughout the United States, as well as different parts of the world, including Mexico and Israel. He is a published author and has worked on many projects in snow-county environments which involved the design and evaluation of snow retention systems, cold roofs and superinsulated roofs, vapor drive analysis, and roof ice melt systems. Mr. Bunn has also provided technical consultation and testing services to manufacturers of roofing materials and systems, has managed a material’s testing laboratory, and has directed field testing including water spray testing, moisture scans, and infrared thermography analyses. In addition to evaluating designs for new construction and repairs to existing buildings, Mr. Bunn has provided consulting services to evaluate the performance of building materials and observe the construction of building envelope materials and systems. Mr. Bunn has served as an expert witness on projects involving building envelope design and construction-related issues. Advantages to the City of Aspen for Utilizing Ascent for Envelope Inspection Services: Ascent is uniquely positioned to provide quality envelope inspection services at a cost competitive rate. Ascent only uses a senior level professional to perform observation services whose level of experience and qualifications far exceeds that of technicians that are typically used for construction observations. Despite the use of such a senior professional, our low overhead costs enable us to provide a higher level of experience and service to our clients at fees that are competitive with other firms. While Ascent will not be providing design review services, our experience in designing, observing, evaluating building envelope systems, as well as our expert witness services provided during litigation, enables us to be more thorough and efficient during the performance of envelope inspection services. As we have designed and prepared Construction Documents for numerous projects, we know how to quickly and properly interpret Construction Documents, as well as identify areas that require further information or detailing from the Architect. We also have extensive experience observing the installation of many types of building envelope systems, as well as evaluating systems post construction that were not properly constructed by the Contractor. This enables us to more readily spot potential deficiencies in construction due to our understanding where Contractors typically are challenged in performing their work. By utilizing a single senior level professional on this project, there is no need for time delays or additional costs to have a technician’s work product review. Lines of communication with other parties is also streamlined and expedited as we can communicate directly with the City, Architect, and Contractor on issues we observe while on-site. Ascent is also dedicated to delivering services and work product that is highly tailored to the needs of each and every client. While we already use a construction observation report format that appears to closely comply with the needs of The City (a copy of which is attached in Section 4), we do plan on providing a customized report format with will best meet the needs of The City for this project. Section 2 – Fee For the purposes of The City’s review of our proposed fee, we have provided additional commentary confirming our understanding of the Envelope Inspection Services requested, with some additional description on how our fees were developed. We believe this will further inform The City on how we would propose to perform envelope inspection services during this project. The information provided below is intended to supplement the requirements noted within the RFP issued by The City, and it is Ascent’s intent to comply with the scope and requirements of said RFP. The Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet is included as an attachment to this proposal. P18 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 5 of 8 Purpose and Scope of Enclosure Inspection Services: We propose the purpose of our enclosure inspection services will be to provide construction observation services for the building enclosure systems for this project, to visit the site at appropriate intervals (to be coordinated with the City and Contractor) to develop opinions as to whether the observed conditions of the building enclosure systems appear to be in general compliance with the “Construction Documents.” The “Construction Documents” will include the “For Construction” set of drawings and specifications, and approved submittals. The “Construction Documents” will be provided by the City to Ascent in electronic .pdf format. We propose the following services be performed: 1. We will review the Construction Documents to become familiar with the requirements of the documents for observations during construction; however, the consultant will not provide any form of plan or code review of the Construction Documents. All responsibility for proper design of the buildings remains with the Architect of Record and other members of the design team. We may request additional information, specifications, and/or detailing from the Architect in order to obtain clarification on the requirements of the Construction Documents that appear to be unclear or in conflict. For the purposes of this proposal, it is presumed that the Construction Documents are complete and accurate. If it appears that significant clarifications and correspondence associated with incomplete or conflicting Construction Documents is required for Ascent to perform its enclosure inspection services, we will request that these additional services be paid for on any hourly rate basis. 2. We will perform a site visit to review the completed construction of the envelope systems of the mock-up for general compliance with the Construction Documents. Upon completion of the mock-up review, we will issue a brief report noting items that appear to be non-compliant with the Construction Documents. 3. We will perform intermittent construction observations during construction, at a rate of two partial days per week throughout the duration of the project while installation of envelope systems (as noted specifically within the RFP issued by The City) is taking place. The overall intent of the rate of site visitation is intended to observe approximately 25% of each of the envelope systems being installed. Our construction observation services will include the following:  For each site visit, we propose to visit the site and observe the work being performed by the contractor. Our site observations will be of the readily visible portions of the work, and no intrusive examination or testing of the work is included at this time. At the end of our site visit, we will review our findings with the project superintendent if available on site. Following each site visit, we will prepare a report summarizing our findings and will include observations of items that we observed that did not appear to comply with the general requirements of the Construction Documents. The report will utilize a Green/Yellow/Red traffic light system for documenting non-compliant items observed. A copy of this report will be sent to The City, the architect, the contractor, and other parties as requested by The City. It will be the sole responsibility for the contractor to address and rectify any deficiencies noted within our site visit reports. Weekly site visit reports will be issued shortly after the site visits are completed.  Upon evaluation of the Preliminary Building Schedule included within the RFP, we have developed the following methodology for site visitation in preparing our proposal and fees.  The installation of the foundation waterproofing systems appears to be scheduled from the week of April 22, 2013 through the week of June 17, 2013. No other envelope work appears to be scheduled during this time. As it is intended to observe 25% of the waterproofing installation, we have anticipated spending a portion of two separate days on site each week; however, there are no other envelope systems to install during this same timeframe. As a result, the anticipated fee to P19 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 6 of 8 observe the installation of the foundation waterproofing systems is a bit higher than installation of other envelope systems.  The installation of all other envelope systems appears to be scheduled from the week of July 15, 2013 through November 18, 2013. For most weeks, various envelope systems are scheduled to be installed. With the intent to observe 25% of the envelope system installation, we have still anticipated spending a portion of two separate days on site each week. As many of the observations for the different building systems can be performed concurrently, we have consequently reduced the fee for each item accordingly, which is to the benefit of The City. 4. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final report summarizing the known status of the Green/Yellow/Red traffic light reports for items noted as deficient during our site visits. 5. We will attend one OAC meeting each month during the construction of the envelope systems (from April to November). In the development of our fees, we have anticipated that we will be able to attend most of the OAC meetings at times when we will be in town to perform construction observation services. As it appears there is a three week period from the weeks of June 24, 2013 through July 8, 2013 where no envelope system installation is scheduled, we have anticipated we would need to make a separate trip to Aspen to attend an OAC meeting on this one occasion. Proposed Fees We propose to perform our services on a fixed fee basis as specified in the RFP. For the scope of services listed below, we believe our fee, including reimbursable expenses, will not exceed $74,925. A further breakdown of our fees and reimbursable expenses is provided below: 1. Exterior Mockup Review: .................................................................................................................... $1,125 2. 25% Observation of Foundation Wall Waterproofing on Buildings 1-4 ............................................ $15,000 3. 25% Observation of Exterior Walls on Buildings 1-4 ........................................................................ $15,200 4. 25% Observation of Exterior Balconies on Buildings 1-4 ................................................................... $4,800 5. 25% Observation of Roofing on Buildings 1-4 .................................................................................... $9,400 6. 25% Observation of Internal Unit Envelope on 48 Units ..................................................................... $6,000 7. 25% Observation of Interior Insulation on 48 Units ............................................................................ $8,400 8. Attendance of 8 OAC Meetings (April – November) .......................................................................... $2,800 9. Reimbursable Expenses Throughout Project (Mileage, Lodging, Per Diem) .................................... $12,200 Grand Total .................................................................................................................................................... $74,925 “Attachment D – Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet” is included as an attachment to this proposal. For all other additional services requested by The City, we propose to perform our services on an hourly rate basis of $125/hour. Section 3 – Relevant Reference Projects and References The following is a list of projects and references that included construction observation services. Most of the projects include services beyond that required by The City for this project; however, we believe this additional project experience will be beneficial to our understanding and performance of the services requested by The City. P20 VI.a    Name Ms. Rebecca Hodgson The City of Aspen March 18, 2013 Page 8 of 8 Section 4 – Example Construction Observation Report Please find a copy of a sample construction observation report for a current project attached for review. Thank you for your request for our assistance on this project. We hope we will be able to assist you with this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. Steve R. Bunn, RRC, RRO President Attachments: Burlingame Envelope Inspection Fee Worksheet Sample Construction Observation Report P21 VI.a Burlingame Phase II Buildings 1 through 4 Enclosure Inspection Services Fee Worksheet Ascent Building Consulting, Inc. ItemService Fee Each (for 25%  sample)Multiply bySubtotal 1Exterior Mockup1,125.00$             1 mockup 1,125.00$          2Foundation Walls3,750.00$             4 buildings15,000.00$        3Exterior Walls3,800.00$             4 buildings15,200.00$        4Exterior Balconies1,200.00$             4 buildings4,800.00$          5Roofing2,350.00$             4 buildings9,400.00$          6Internal Unit Envelope125.00$                48 units6,000.00$          7Interior Insulation175.00$                48 units8,400.00$          8OAC meetings350.00$                  8 months (April to  Nov)2,800.00$          9 Reimbursable Expenses  (estimate, to be paid for actual  costs only)12,200.00$        Grand Total74,925.00$     Hourly rate for principal125.00$                $/hour P22 VI.a Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 1 SWEARING IN POLICE OFFICER .............................................................................................. 2 PROCLAMATION – Architecture Month ..................................................................................... 2 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 4 Resolution #38, 2013 - Contract to Purchase Dump Truck - ............................................... 5 Resolution #41, 2013 - Revise the 2013 EOTC Budge t - .................................................... 5 Housing Board Appointment Joint alternate Renee West ............................................... 5 ACRA Supplemental Budget for 2013 ................................................................................ 5 Resolution #44, 2013 - Development Plan Design Re view and Inspection Services .......... 5 Minutes - March 18, 2013 .................................................................................................... 5 RESOLUTION #42, 2013 - Dasher Board Replacement Aspen Ice Garden ................................. 5 RED BUTTE CEMETERY DEVELOPMENT FEES REFUND .................................................. 5 RESOLUTION #39, 2013 - Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvement Project ........... 6 RESOLUTION #43, 2013 - Contract for Rubey Park Outreach and Design ................................. 6 ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Trash, Utility, Recycling Areas .... 6 ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2013 – Supplemental Appropriation .......................................... 8 ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2013 – City Wide 20 MPH Speed Limit .................................... 9 ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Signs ............................................. 9 RESOLUTION #40, SERIES OF 2013 – Height Variance 419 E. Hyman ................................. 10 ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2013 – Aspen Valley Hospital Phase III & IV Final PUD ........ 11 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Campaign Contributions .................. 17 P23 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 2 Mayor Ireland called the meeting to order at 5:07 pm with Councilmembers Torre, Frisch, Johnson and Skadron present. SWEARING IN POLICE OFFICER Mayor Ireland swore in Roderick O’Connor as an office of the Aspen Police Department PROCLAMATION – Architecture Month Mayor Ireland and Council proclaimed April Architecture month in Aspen, architecture impacts how people live and play, and urged all citizens to recognize and support architecture and design in the community. Scott Smith, AIA chapter president, told Council the national AIA theme is the citizen architect, an individual who uses his or her insights, talents and experience to contribute meaningfully to the improvement of the community by writing, publishing, being appointed to local boards and elected office. Smith noted from April 16 to 30th at the Pitkin County library there will be a display of pro bono and not for profit projects by local architects. Mayor Ireland said there have been 4 suicides in the last month, which is a lot for a small town population. Mayor Ireland said this is not a problem government can solve; deaths are related to life style. Mayor Ireland said he hopes that the community will take up the cause not only by supporting the Hope Center but recognizing and supporting people who suffer from depression and despair. Council had a moment of silence for victims and their families. Mayor Ireland reminded everyone of the Aspen Hope Center 925-5858 and available 24/7. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Paul Andersen told Council he has formed a non-profit, Huts for Vets, to provide wilderness and communal experiences to help veterans adjust and to enjoy civilian life. The tours are 3 days of guided hiking in the wilderness, going to the 10th Mountain hunts. Andersen said the mission is to help veterans adjust to and enjoy civilian life. Andersen told Council 22 US veterans commit suicide every day. Andersen requested financial support from the city, the use of the Wheeler for a fund raiser, and a place to house vets one night before they go to huts for vets. Mayor Ireland recommended Andersen apply for a non-profit grant through the city’s process, contact the Wheeler about the use of the Wheeler and talk to Stay Aspen Snowmass about hotel rooms. 2. Karen Derly, Creperie du Village, told Council they are trying to put a walk-in cooler of 60 square feet in the alley located on their landlord’s property behind their business and found they have to pay a housing mitigation fee of $21,000. Ms. Derly said she does not feel a housing mitigation fee is justified. The code considers the 60 square feet an increase in net leasable which triggers the need for more employees. The walk in cooler would help to produce food in larger quantities but it would not require more employees. Ms. Derly said the environmental health department is urging her to set up more commercial cooling space. Ms. Derly noted they P24 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 3 are a small business catering to locals and trying to stay in business. Ms. Derly pointed out the code states that net leasable is space within the commercial building and she does not consider the alley to be within their building. Mayor Ireland said he and other Council members are interested in providing some relief for the request, which is not adding tables and chairs. Mayor Ireland said the usual method is to have Council adopt a code amendment and then one could apply for an exemption so that all are treated equitably. Mayor Ireland suggested granting an exemption and directing the community development department to bring back to Council a code amendment. Councilmembers Skadron and Johnson support this direction. There are other small businesses that this may apply to. Councilman Frisch moved to exempt the fees for the walk in cooler and to direct staff to draft a code amendment and bring it back to Council; seconded by Mayor Ireland. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Skadron noted there was a great organic mini concert at the Nugget Gallery, topped only by the free Spring Jam concerts Friday and Saturday at Galena and Hopkins. It was great entertainment over the weekend and reminded him what a great place this is. Councilman Skadron noted the Ute Indian tribute on the mall this past weekend. 2. Councilman Skadron said there was a fund raiser for Justin Doty, attended by many locals and was a success. 3. Councilman Skadron extended his condolences to the Klanderud family for the loss of Soren. 4, Councilman Frisch reported on the 16th annual Grand Traverse ski race from Crested Butte to Aspen. The Grand Traverse organizers are planning a summer run race over the same 35 mile course. 5. Councilman Frisch congratulated the organizers of the Easter egg hunt at the Historical Society. 6. Councilman Torre reminded everyone the municipal election is May 7th and the deadline to register to vote is midnight April 8th. One can register online at gocoloradovote.com. Councilman Torre outlined the procedure for voting absentee if one is going to be out of town. Ballots will be mailed to those on the permanent mail in voter list and you can check that status at gocoloradovote.com 7. Councilman Torre said there have been some amazing local events; the disabled veteran’s events, the Ute Indian PowWow, and a fund raiser put on by the Aspen Volunteer Fire department for the benefit of the Detroit Fire department where there are 30 fires a day and their equipment is in need of replacement. P25 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 4 8. Councilman Torre brought up a letter to the editor regarding government spending. The letter writer pointed to Councilman Torre as trying to fix everything in Aspen with a tax increase. Councilman Torre stated the only tax increase he has discussed would be a property mill increase to benefit health and human services and would be appropriate for the community. Councilman Torre said the city budget is over $120 million, most of which is allocated to different funds and there is $22 million in the general fund which is where health and human services funding could come from. The city already contributes $400,000 to health and human services. 9. Councilman Johnson said yesterday was Bacon Day at Buttermilk, celebrating closing day. Councilman Johnson acknowledged the disabled veteran’s event has been a huge success. Councilman Johnson noted the Mountain Travel Symposium, which brings a lot of travel representatives to town is going on at Snowmass. 10. Mayor Ireland agreed there have been misrepresentations about the city budget; a lot of the budget is money that voters approved for special funds, like open space, Wheeler fund, tourism and promotion, transportation, housing development, kids first, storm water fund and those monies cannot be used for anything other than what the voters approved it for. 11. Mayor Ireland reiterated the municipal election is May 7th. There is no early voting; people can vote in the clerk’s office before leaving town. If people are out of the country and where ballots cannot be mailed, there is a special ballot procedure. Contact the city clerk’s office for details. 12. Councilman Torre said there is a sister cities meeting tomorrow and the 4 AVSSC kids who went to Abetone, Italy, to ski in the Pinocchio race will recount their experiences. 13. Councilman Johnson announced he attended the RWAPA meeting and there will be funding for the invasive mussel testing at Ruedi. 14. Councilman Frisch reported the housing frontiers group is finishing up their work on capital reserves. The frontiers group has gotten outside help to make sure the housing documents are accessible and understandable for everyone in the community. 15. Mayor Ireland said he is going to Pueblo to accept the Governor’s Arts award for 2013. Mayor Ireland said Aspen is very proud of the arts community. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ireland requested Red Butte Cemetery Development Fees Refund be pulled; Councilman Torre requested Contract for Rubey Park Outreach and Design be pulled; Councilman Frisch requested concrete replacement and pedestrian improvement project be pulled. Mayor Ireland moved to approve the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Johnson. The consent calendar is: P26 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 5 • Resolution #38, 2013 - Contract to Purchase Dump Truck - • Resolution #41, 2013 - Revise the 2013 EOTC Budget - • Housing Board Appointment Joint alternate Renee West • ACRA Supplemental Budget for 2013 • Resolution #44, 2013 - Development Plan Design Review and Inspection Services • Minutes - March 18, 2013 All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre asked if the community development department was going to need outside help in design review. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council there has been an increase in permit activity and a half time person was added last year. Plan review may be outsourced later in the year. Bendon said technical review issues can be outsourced but land use review really has to be reviewed by planning staff. RESOLUTION #42, 2013 - Dasher Board Replacement Aspen Ice Garden Councilman Johnson noted the memorandum states a $6200 price for the existing boards. Councilman Johnson asked if staff asked Aspen Junior Hockey if they are interested in the boards. Tim Anderson, recreation director, said he has not and it would be better than having to ship the boards out of the county. Anderson said Junior Hockey would have to negotiate with the contractor. Councilman Skadron asked if this is a safety issue. Anderson said it is; the boards are 20 years old and do not align properly. Council suggested this be put off so that Junior Hockey can be contacted. Mayor Ireland moved to table Resolution #42, Series of 2013, to April 22; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. RED BUTTE CEMETERY DEVELOPMENT FEES REFUND Mayor Ireland said in the original review, housing on site was proposed. Stone Davis said it was; however, this approval has a 10 by 32 warming space. Mayor Ireland suggested this be approved with the stipulation that space not be converted to residential use without Council review. Mayor Ireland moved to approve the Red Butte Cemetery Development Fees Refund stipulating no part of the maintenance facility be converted to residential use without consent of Council; seconded by Councilman Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. P27 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 6 Councilman Torre stated his concern for a consent agenda item for this amount of money and how appropriate is it to take $8500 from general fund and $4000 from contingency. Councilman Torre asked the impetus for the fee waivers. Councilman Johnson pointed out Council discussed this and agreed to it in 2009. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, said when this came through the land use process, the application fees were waived, directing the applicant to come back when the fees for the development were known. RESOLUTION #39, 2013 - Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvement Project Councilman Frisch said he get comments from citizens about tearing up work that was just done. Tyler Christoff, engineering department, said this project proceeds the streets department resurfacing and before they demo any curbs, they are evaluated with a rating system 1 to 5 and only curbs rated 3 or under are demolished. RESOLUTION #43, 2013 - Contract for Rubey Park Outreach and Design Councilman Torre asked what $177,000 will cover. John Kruger, transportation department, reminded Council the design portion of Rubey Park was divided into two phases. This is the first phase, outreach, existing conditions and getting to 30% schematic phase. The second phase will take this to 100% design and the 3rd piece is construction. This was approved by EOTC, which has a budget for it, and the city took it through the RFP process. The design alternatives will be brought back to Council before going to final design and going to the state FASTER grant. This will enable staff to get a cost for the entire project. This went through an RFP process, 16 teams bid on the project, the selection team narrowed it to 3 proposals. The city will have the final design on what will go into Rubey Park. Councilman Torre said this is a transportation hub that represents Aspen and it is in dire need of attention. Mayor Ireland moved to approve Red Butte Cemetery Development Fees Refund, Concrete Replacement Project, Rubey Park Outreach and design; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Trash, Utility, Recycling Areas Jessica Garrow, community development department, reminded Council this is the third step in the code amendment process and the purpose is to update the trash, utility and recycling area requirements. Ms. Garrow noted this reauthorizes the recycling ordinance which is set to sunset this summer as well as moving the trash/recycling requirements into the solid waste section of the code rather than the land use code as the environmental health department administers this rather than community development department. Ashley Perl, environmental health department, told Council the recycling ordinance has been in place since 2005 and it has been a success; the recycling rate in Aspen has increased from 14% to 30%. The recycling ordinance requires P28 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 7 everyone in Aspen pay for recycling as part of their trash rate. The aim of this ordinance is to provide users the ability to take advantage of recycling services. Ms. Perl said this eliminates the sunset; staff will watch this and come back to Council with changes as needed. Another amendment is to require better marked bins so people know what goes in each bin. Another change is to improve the procedure for haulers to communicate with their customers when recycling is thrown away because it is contaminated. The last change is asking the haulers to provide staff with more data in their biannual reports to get more information on recycling rates. Ms. Perl noted this applies to commercial, lodges and multi-family; single family and duplexes are exempt. This only applies to new development or projects triggering the definition of demolition in the code, unless a lodge or commercial development is adding a restaurant, which produces a lot more waste. There are currently no requirements for space for trash and recycling in multi-family units and the recommendation in this ordinance is that the space be based on the number of units. Ms. Perl told Council the environmental health department hears from at least one resident in a multi-family complex weekly all year. Ms. Perl noted there are provisions for special review, allowing people to share a dumpster. Ms. Perl said she has met with property management companies and some HOA board and showed them the potential amendments. The comments were they loved the template to help them design a trash/recycling area. Ms. Garrow said commercial and lodge properties are also supportive of this ordinance; the size requirements are based on what is actually working on properties. Councilman Johnson said for second reading he would like to hear more of the resistance, more about minimum requirement, about public outreach, and about costs to provide this. Councilman Torre stated he supports this and for second reading he would like some discussion about compactor, how they will fit in core. Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #13, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE No. 13 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AND WASTE REDUCTION CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 12.06.010, 020, 030, 050, 060, AND 080 – WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING; 12.010 – SPACE ALLOTMENT FOR TRASH AND REYCLCING STORAGE; 26.100.104 - DEFINITIONS; 26.412.060(B) – COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, UTILITY, DELIVERY, AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION; 26.430.030, 040(E), 060(C), 080, AND 090(A) - SPECIAL REVIEW; 26.575.060 – UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLE SERVICE AREAS; AND 25.575.180 – REQUIRED DELIVERY AREA AND VESTIBULES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. P29 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 8 Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2013 – Supplemental Appropriation Councilman Johnson moved to read Ordinance #15, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Pete Strecker, finance department, told Council this supplement appropriation is for $21 million, $18 million of which is carry forward for capital and operating projects. There are 3 new requests totaling $50,000 and $2.8 million in departmental and central savings. Strecker said the 3 new requests are general fund monies for community development department to help with a business assistance website, transportation funds for additional FASTER funds and city matching money, and the golf course requests money for retail purchasing for special orders. Councilman Frisch asked about the renewable energy fund and water operations. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, noted there is a request to carry forward $39,400 for support services for the CCEC from which the consultants’ time is paid. The only project that will come from that is the required update to FERC in August. Ready told Council at the end of 2012, there was $1.9 million left in the renewable energy fund for CCEC related expenses and the carry forward being proposed is $39,000. There was $1 million for construction of the building and staff suggests this return to fund balance; $928,000 set aside for penstock and outfall drain line completion and the only portion of that project that will be complete in 2013 is the drain line from power plant road to Castle Creek; the project has not gone to bid and after that, staff will evaluate those bids and return to Council. ORDINANCE NO.15 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,665,410, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $2,776,570 AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $1,202,160, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $393,060, AN INCREASE IN THE CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND OF $66,870, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $633,460, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $5,366,550, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $241,390, AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $799,960, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $1,689,110, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $1,476,380, AN INCREASE IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND OF $39,300, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING FUND OF $1,219,760, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF $41,800,AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $597,110, A INCREASE IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $226,920, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $141,590, AN INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OF $1,489,950, A INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $31,140 P30 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 9 Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2013 – City Wide 20 MPH Speed Limit Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #12, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Ireland asked if some streets are designated more than 20 MPH. Tricia Aragon, city engineer, said Maroon and Castle Creeks, Cemetery Lane, and Main street will remain 25 MPH. Mill, Ute, Neal, Park and Durant are recommended to be 25 MPH because the 85 percentile speed is above 25 MPH and is closer to 30 MPH. Staff has capital projects proposed for the Neal Avenue as well as Mill Street to lower the speed. Ms. Aragon said the Solomon curve is the speed at which people feel comfortable traveling regardless of the posted speed. Councilman Frisch said people need more than just a speed limit sign to change behavior. Mayor Ireland asked what is being done about the bike trail along Cemetery lane than has many intersections with driveways. Ms. Aragon said staff handles this on a case by case basis and tries to consolidate driveway cuts in redevelopment applications. Ms. Aragon said she will investigate ways to deal with sight lines along Cemetery Lane. Mayor Ireland asked why the speed limit is 20 and not 19 or 14 MPH. Jim True, city attorney, said the state has adopted regulations directing that all speed limits must be 5 MPH increments. ORDINANCE NO. 12 Series of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADOPT A CITY WIDE SPEED LIMIT OF 20 MPH Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Frisch, yes; Skadron, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Signs Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #14, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Jim Pomeroy, community development department, said the amendment is to make the sign code easier for the public to digest and for staff to administer. The way space is allotted for signs have changed to a simpler system of basing the size of the sign on the size of a business. Councilman P31 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 10 Torre said his objective is to see more creativity with signs around town, not necessarily how much square footage a sign is but what you do with it. Councilman Skadron said important to him is preserving the historic character in the downtown. ORDINANCE No. 14 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS AND SECTION 26.575.030 PUBLIC AMENITY. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Frisch, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Ireland, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #40, SERIES OF 2013 – Height Variance 419 E. Hyman Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council this building has commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above. HPC granted an approval 15 years ago to provide access to the roof top of the building, construction of a staircase and elevator and deck amenities. This building is almost 47’ and HPC approved height variances for those features. There is a new owner, who would like to remodel the deck and would like to move things around on the roof, not add any new elements. The building is well over the 28’ height limit and Council is the only board that can grant height variances. Ms. Guthrie noted the criteria are for hardships with a special unique circumstance and no other way to address the property or the owner would be deprived of rights enjoyed by similar properties. Ms. Guthrie noted a table in the packet describing which variances are being requested and the extent of that variance. Staff recommends not granting the variance because of the hardship criteria and that the applicant is not being deprived of reasonable use. HPC approved these design requests because of the lack of visibility from the street but cannot approve the height variances. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said the applicant wants to replace an existing skylight, relocate a hot tub, remove some features and install a retractable awning. This building is a designated landmark structure in a historic district. Everything on the roof top deck was legally established in 2000. The height of the building is 46’2” from the Hyman Avenue mall to the top of the parapet wall and the existing elevator shaft is 10’7” above the parapet wall. These proposals are all lower than the parapet wall. Haas showed the existing elements, the usable rooftop deck space, and the requested changes. The existing skylight is old and lets in too much heat in the summer, resulting in too much air conditioner. These cannot be seen except from Wagner Park. Haas reiterated HPC approved the design for this building. Haas noted 26.314.010 states that variances are a means for the city to grant relief when owing to special circumstances or conditions, the regulations will result in an undue and unnecessary hardship. Haas stated the P32 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 11 application is to remodel an existing legally established non-conforming structure and are part of a minor remodel. This proposal is consistent with the purpose for variances and is consistent with the code provisions for non-conforming structures. Haas said the proposed improvements cannot remain within the allowed heights since the building is already over the height limit. This is not expansion or enlargements of the buildings height. Haas said these unique physical characteristics are not the fault of any action taken by the applicant. This variance will not confer any special privileges on the applicant denied to other property owners but will allow for a reasonable remodel and will not have impacts on the surrounding public ways. This will not affect the historic character of the building. This will allow an expectation that all property owners, the right of minor updates and improvements. Mayor Ireland asked the undue hardship. Haas said moving around and remodeling what is already there requires a variance, not being able to do that would create a hardship. Bart Johnson, representing the applicant, said this building was constructed before the height limitation was imposed and the owner should not be excluded from enjoying roof top access like other downtown properties. If these features were allowed, the remodeling of them should also be allowed. Not allowing updates would be an undue hardship. Councilman Frisch said the net visual impact seems to be negligible. Ms. Guthrie said the issue is the criteria for height variances and how these have been applied to other project. Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out zoning is about having proscribed limits and those limits are set where appropriate for the community. To exceed those limits, one needs to demonstrate how the application of those limits deprives one of some rights other property owners enjoy. Councilman Skadron said this is a reasonable remodel that does not confer special privileges and that the request meets the criteria in Section 26.314.040 and he supports the resolution. Councilman Johnson agreed this application fits the criteria and making adjustments seems reasonable. Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution #40, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor with the exception of Mayor Ireland; motion carried. ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 2013 – Aspen Valley Hospital Phase III & IV Final PUD Chris Bendon, community development department, noted the hospital is a separate governmental body. Bendon said staff will present findings regarding land use issues but will not have a position on financial issues or the way the hospital is managed. Councilman Johnson said Council is reviewing this as a land use application and does not evaluate the financial issues. Bendon agreed the financial issues are not germane to the land use review; financial issues do come up during reviews. Jim True, city attorney, noted there are broad purposes within the PUD regulations and one of them states - promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities and public services. True said in broad consideration, members of the public bring those issues up. The code sets forth the review standards for final PUD, which are land use considerations. True stated it is appropriate to have discussions about financial issues but the specific criteria is how Council will decide this application. PUD is a discretionary action by Council; however, they do have to follow the review standards as set forth in the code. P33 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 12 Councilman Skadron said to him, it feels as if the mass and scale of the building were snuck through and is there a schematic of this project that was presented to Council in 2010. Councilman Skadron said the size of this facility and the possible economics to sustain the project is unsettling. Given that Aspen has flat population growth and a facility proposed to grow, is there assurance that the community will not be asked to fund the hospital through a mil levy in the future. Councilman Skadron noted when the hydropower plant was proposed, the community demanded many third party reviews and should that same level of scrutiny be used for this project. Councilman Skadron asked if there is a fallback position if the revenues or finances are not as projected, what are the alternate uses. Bendon stated some of the above are land use issues; the hospital board cannot bind a future board about ask for a mil levy increase. Councilman Skadron noted the criteria states that the public will not incur undue financial burdens so it seems to be in Council’s purview to ask questions about future financial burdens. Bendon noted the constituents of the city and the constituents of the hospital overlap and that does not give authority to the Council to limit the hospital board from issuing mil levy increases in the future. It is an important question but it is not in the domain of land use; the questions are important to the community. John Sarpa, hospital board, said the hospital board is an elected board. The hospital size is not driven by financial projections but by needs of the staff to provide the community with good health care. Dave Ressler, hospital, told Council the premise of this is to provide quality health care to the same number of patients taken care of today. Ressler stated future expectations are not part of these plans; the hospital is about half the size it should be for the services it provides. Councilman Frisch said the community would like to hear why the emergency room was saved for this phase. Ressler said the applicants will discuss what can be done to soften the view of the hospital; this is still a construction zone and barren. Councilman Skadron said he feels a disconnect between what was approved for the hospital and what is built there and what confidence is there that phases III and IV will be as promised. Sarpa said phases III and IV are to the south and west and behind what is currently built; phases III and IV are a smaller undertaking. Councilman Torre said he voted against the proposed scale and mass and the phasing when presented in 2010. Councilman Torre asked if phase III and IV could be separated. Councilman Torre asked what potential changes to architect exist at this time, like the style of architecture at the circular entrance. Councilman Torre asked the applicant to address any potential efficiencies or ways the project could be made smaller. Mayor Ireland said he is concerned with the assertion that size and financing are not of interest to the Council and if this project does not work financially there will be consequences for the community in increased charges or a request of Council to make concession to make the project fit financially. Mayor Ireland said he would like assurance that what Council sees is what the community is going to get. Mayor Ireland said he would like an independent evaluation on whether this proposed project is going to impose a burden on the taxpayer by increased rates, increased mill levy, or limiting service to those who can pay. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, noted this is the third public hearing on this and staff would like to hear what items have been addressed to Council’s satisfaction and what requests for additional information are. Ms. Phelan reminded Council staff was asked to review the new proposed outdoor lighting. The chief building official and building inspector P34 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 13 looked at the original lighting plan and the recommendations based on the city’s energy efficiency plan and the green construction code. The approved lighting plan met those codes. One proposed change is to create warmer light, which is not addressed in the adopted codes; also the light bars will be reduced, individual sheathing and replacing poles and bollards are proposed, all of which are above and beyond what the city’s code requires. Ms. Phelan noted the warmer lights are on order. Councilman Torre asked this retrofit to a warmer light may not make that much difference to the neighbors. Ms. Phelan said some poles will be replaced with lower bollards; there will be screens on individual lights. Ms. Phelan said this will go beyond the city’s requirements. There will be an area with updated lights so the comparisons can be made in real time. Ressler reminded Council this project was designed from the inside out; the architect team met with all departments to determine the amount of square feet required. All departments are put in a scheme, what department needs to be next to what, patient and equipment flow, all of which results in the footprint for the scale and size of the hospital, making it difficult to reduce here and there. Ressler said in a typical hospital the inpatient and outpatient services are proportionate and the medical office is free standing. Aspen Valley Hospital has to address the part-time owners and visitors; the demand on services is mostly outpatient demand and the need for emergency and trauma services. The medical office space is integrated into the hospital to reduce the scale and mass. Ressler said the emergency room is not less important than what was done in phase II; it is a matter of logistics and the necessity to build on one side of the building first. Ressler reiterated the hospital is not leveraging the future to accomplish this project and they will not proceed with building until the funding is in place. Ressler agreed there is an uncertain future for health care and the hospital has joined efforts to increase the efficiency, to have flexible staff to limit need for increased staff in the high season and staff that can work in several departments, have decreased costs, addressed purchasing supplies. Ressler told Council the hospital has started the Valley Health Alliance with other large employees to try and drive down the quantity of services and to maintain a healthy community. Ressler said the hospital has working relationships with other service providers so services can be shared by others who are better at those services. Ressler told Council the hospital has increased the landscaping budget so there will be more and larger landscaping. Ressler reiterated phases III and IV occur on the back side of the building affecting neighbors with whom they have been working to see what mitigation will work for them. Russ Sedmak, representing the hospital, showed the south and west side where phases III and IV will be built, where staff parking is located, which will be relocated to the constructed parking garage. The loading dock had to be relocated before phase III and IV could be constructed. The first floor addition will be below the existing berm and the Meadowood neighborhood. Sedmak showed a view of the existing building and a rendering of the phase III and IV addition. Sedmak said the lobby is 1-1/2 story space, not full two stories. The emergency entrance is a one-story entrance. Sedmak said the applicants felt the 1-1/2 story entrance is appropriate for the entrance to the hospital and will screen the mechanical equipment on the roof behind the space. The 1- 1/2 story lobby will also let in natural light to the outpatient services behind it. Sedmak said there will be very little light bleeding to the outdoors. Councilman Torre asked if this could be accomplished in only one story and not run a story all the way across the hospital. Councilman P35 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 14 Torre said he is trying to get away from soaring statements on buildings that could be done in a different way. Councilman Torre said the community is looking for more modest statements. Sedmak showed an example of screening for mechanical equipment; the applicant has chosen not to use them because it adds bulk to the equipment from the outside. These can be added if Council feels it is an appropriate mitigation measure. Councilman Torre asked about green roofing or vegetation to screen these mechanics. Sedmak said the primary reason for not green roofing is the load factor; the existing structure was not built to accommodate weight loads. There is also maintenance and leaking issue. Planting vertical trees would need to be in very deep pots. Sarpa told Council the hospital has met with the neighbors a number of times and one suggestion was to plant more trees in the swale. The neighbors and the applicant want to request the city allow that since it is the city’s water easement. The hospital will pay for it and will take the liability as planting trees in the swale will have a large screening impact. Jason Janes, DHM landscape architect, reminded Council at the last meeting he went over the amenities and mitigation internal to the site, improvements around Whitcomb Terrace. The applicants heard Council wants to know more about the perimeter and what can be done to improve the screening. Janes showed image to the south end of the property, the landscaping plan. Most phase III and IV improvements happen in already developed areas; there will be little disturbance and a smaller footprint than phase II. Janes pointed out the existing berm along Meadowood Drive and the proposed type of vegetation for this area. Janes said the berm is about 30’ high and is about even with the back of the hospital and grows in height moving from north to south. Janes said the remaining improvements are plantings around the parking, the drop off and small outdoor spaces around the hospital. North of the parking area will be planted with aspen trees, deciduous shade trees adjacent to the curving lobby; adjacent to the café will be small trees. There is a hill on the west property boundary covered in mature gambol oak and serviceberry which provides a great deal of screening from Meadowood Drive. The applicants have taken care to preserve the cottonwood trees on the east property line. Janes showed a slide of the water line easement along the edge of Castle Creek and within a water line easement one is prohibited from planting large trees and shrubs because of access to the water line and for safety to the water department employees. Janes said this is an important view from across the highway and from Castle Creek road and the applicant met with city staff to talk about what could be done to improve the screening. Staff’s concerns are to be able to get to the water line to do repair and maintenance work safely, the future potential cost of tree replacement if they are taken out for repair and the public perception of removing trees in case of water line maintenance. Janes said there is not much the applicant can do about the public perception of cutting down trees. Janes told Council there is support from the parks department to work with them to limit the required mitigation if there is planting and the applicant is willing to bear the burden of those costs. The job of the water department is to protect their assets as well as maintain their service and the applicants are looking at a compromise like appropriate plant materials, not unduly burden the corridor should maintenance need to be done. The applicant walked the corridor with the parks department and came up with a list of plant materials appropriate for that section. Janes pointed out since this is a construction zone, there is a substantial amount of phase II landscaping that has not been installed. P36 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 15 Janes showed slides of current conditions, recent plantings, planting in the water line. Janes said the applicants have increased both the plant size and the number of plants. Janes noted on the north end of the parking garage are 8’ tall ponderosa pines, which will be replaced with 18’ and twice as many. Janes showed a shot from Highway 82 at the golf course pond looking towards the hospital, showing the exposed north end of the parking structure, the PCU second floor and the affordable housing. Councilman Torre said the hospital looks small even though this is a photograph. Council agreed this is not the view they see driving by. Council agreed to go out and view the hospital from spots along highway 82 and Castle Creek. Councilman Skadron said he would like to gain a greater degree of confidence that the representations made at Council meetings come to fruition. Janes said the intent with this image was to show content, the large cottonwood trees but it doesn’t do that. Terry Collins, CFO, reminded Council this project is funded by a GO bond, cash reserves, and philanthropy. Collins said the hospital is not mortgaging the future through any of those financing methods and there will be no impact on the rate structure of the hospital by those means. The GO bond issuance is $50 million, cash reserves are $30 million and $60 million will be raised through philanthropy totaling $140 million. Mayor Ireland asked how the operation of a larger facility will be paid for; more patients or more revenue/patients to pay for increased operational costs. Collins said the largest operational cost in the hospital is personnel. The assumption made in developing the master facility plan was not to increase the services provided, there should not be additional staff except an engineer and housekeeping personnel. Collins said growth of the hospital would require more people but additional revenues from that growth should cover those expenses. Mayor Ireland said 82,000 square feet is being added, it will need more than 2 additional employees. Collins said the old building is inefficient and requires more effort to maintain and to clean; the number of patient beds will not increase; the heating and cooling due to technological efficiencies will not increase. Dave Ressler, Aspen Valley Hospital, said the increase personnel will not be material and will not increase the cost of services. Mayor Ireland said costs go up and the labor cost at the hospital is exceeding the growth in revenue and in income. Sarpa told Council the Board has worked extremely hard at determining and refining the costs. Sarpa stated the hospital is not going to build a building that is not paid for in advance or that has any reason to increase patient costs. Sarpa noted the hospital with the city and 3 other major employers has created the Valley Health Alliance, to figure out how to change the health care model as a way to reduce health care costs. Mayor Ireland stated the applicant is contending they are expanding the hospital to give better service and are there not costs associated with that premise. Collins stated the hospital’s assessment is that whatever the staffing requirements related to the expansion, those increases will not be material enough to require a change in the rate structure. Collins said they have done a good job of controlling rates at the hospital. The hospital’s rate increases over the past 4 years, according to an outside third party, have been ½ to 1/3 to that of the rest of the country. Collins said the hospital feels health care costs are too high and not sustainable and the hospital is not waiting for the federal level but is being aggressive with the largest employees in the community to reduce costs. Collins told Council Moody’s upgraded the hospital’s bond rating because they had a stable and effective governing board; the management of the hospital is doing a good job; the financial performance was strong even through the recession. Collins said over the past 8 years, there has P37 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 16 not been a year in which hospital revenues declined. Lee Schumacher, board member, said his goal when he was elected to the board was patient care, which includes the right size for the hospital, the right facilities for patient care. Schumacher reiterated the hospital is not subsidizing the medical office space; federal law requires the hospital not to subsidize doctors. Mindy Nagle, board member, said the hospital should not be compared to commercial development, like a hotel; it is a community asset. Ms. Nagle told Council the entire board has been into this project for 5 years; they have employed outside resources. The Board has scrutinized the project from the beginning. Ms. Nagle said this facility is about patient care and where health care is going – patient safety, patient quality and patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. How medicine is delivered depends on where medicine is delivered and where the care providers are. Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. Ann Smock stated the most critical piece of phases III and IV is the expansion of the emergency services. The community needs and deserve a first class emergency service update. Ms. Smock questioned not renovating the emergency room earlier in the project and sequence the services in a different order. Ms. Smock said future patient revenue is a concern and the beds would have to be occupied 365 days/year to meet finance needs. The emergency room is badly needed and the city has to be careful about the costs. Greg Balko, AVH doctor, said this project is about taking care of this valley in the best way possible. Balko said in order to that that, the facilities need to match the care provided inside the hospital. Donnie Lee, ACRA Board, told Council ACRA supports the AVH and completion of this project. The landscaping should solve some of the problem. This project will serve the community for the next 30 years. Debbie Braun stated the physical plant is falling down and the community deserves a world class hospital. Ms. Braun said the building is formidable but so is disease. Junee Kirk said she is concerned there is not the critical population to support an 83,000 square foot addition. Ms. Kirk said the most important part of this is an expansion of the emergency room and Council should approve that. Ms. Kirk stated the hospital has run into the red several times in the past 35 years and may have to come back and ask the community for additional funding in the future. Council needs to look at what the community will be getting back. Chris Beck, president medical staff, told Council he works in all departments of the hospital. Beck said Council has to make an evidence based decision and establish a risk benefit ratio. Beck noted patient volume is different than patient population; patient volume reflects how many services a patient needs and these increase as the population ages. Beck said the main drivers of patient cost are not the building but physician and nurses salaries, which are driven by fair market rates throughout the county. Beck said how much it costs to get health care are larger than this community. One of the risk benefit ratios is landscaping versus patient’s lives. John Keleher addressed the integrity of this process. Keleher stated his house is the closest to the hospital and during the design and construction, staff met with the Kelehers, addressed view planes, design and the construction schedule. Keleher said he has walked the site with staff, addressed landscaping and noise mitigation. There have been monthly meetings and opportunities to correct things. P38 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 17 Liz Means agreed the hospital upgrade is needed; however, she has a problem with the mass and scale. Ms. Means said it was difficult in the last phase to study the drawings and to understand the mass and scale. Ms. Means said cross country skiing in the area and looking at the hospital and the continued construction is frightening and the impact is large on cross country trails. Ms. Means said she is concerned about the lighting for phase III and IV; the landscaping on the west side, the size and scale and the general impact on the neighbors. Dorothy Thau commended Council for the diligent evaluation and examination of the finances. Ms. Thau thanked the applicants for taking the suggestions that have come up at the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Thau said lighting and landscaping affect more than just the neighbors. Mike McDill, water department, told Council the more obstacles there are in the water main easement, the more dangerous it is for staff to work. Staff does not get to choose the location or the times easements have to be serviced. Water lines are typically buried 7’ deep. McDill said he would prefer the safety of staff not be compromised. Council said they would like staff to address the problems of landscaping in this easement and whether there is a way to ameliorate the problems. Joe High, patient representative, told Council he tries to talk to every patient in the hospital every day. High said people have not complained that the rooms are too big, that being able to park in the parking garage is no good; people in same day surgery have privacy. Phyllis Bronson said this is a community hospital and the general consensus in the community is that this project is happening without enough process. Ms. Bronson questioned why this hospital has to be so big. The presentation on needs assessment has been put off to another meeting; Council needs to hear from the utility department about the impact of landscaping. Council agreed they want a site visit on the periphery to look at the views from highway 82 and trails. Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #6, Series of 2013, to April 22; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Campaign Contributions Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #9, Series of 2013, to April 22nd; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to adjourn at 12:10 AM; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn Koch City Clerk P39 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8, 2013 18 P40 VI.b MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR THRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECRATION DON PERGANDE, FINANCE DEPT. SCOTT MILLER, ASSET MANAGER DATE OF MEMO: April 11th, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22nd, 2013 RE: CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF NEW DAHER BOARDS FOR THE ASPEN ICE GARDEN REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking approval by City Council for the attached contract with Becker Arena Products Inc. for the purchase of new Dasher Boards to be installed at the Aspen Ice Garden at a cost of $107,080.00. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In a work session with Council last April of 2012 staff identified to Council the need for replacement of the boards. You will find a brief paragraph in attachment “B” under Board Replacement that mentions pending safety issues with the 20 year old board system and the need for replacement. Council seemed in favor of this direction for the safety of users. Additionally the funding was identified in the 2013 AMP presented to Council and was approved during the budget process. Note: At the April 8th Council meeting Council member Derek Johnson asked if Aspen Junior Hockey had been approached regarding possibly acquiring the old board system. At that time they had not so the approval of this contract was continued. Please find attachment “C” herein with AJH response to acquisition of the old board system. P41 VI.c BACKGROUND: Most importantly I think was the decision in 2010 to move forward with the funding necessary to replace the refrigeration plant at the Aspen Ice Garden which identified a willingness and commitment by Council to maintain the 50+ year old facility. This move showed a direction by Council that intended to keep this beloved facility at its current location and for many years to come when almost $500,000 were invested in the facility. Since then staff has been working on funding for continued improvements to the aging facility to meet the current user needs, safety concerns, and functional components to the facility. The Board System being requested in the contract will last another 20 years at least and only put a shine back on our wonderful old Ice Garden. DISCUSSION: The current board system has served the rink well for 20 years and it’s time for replacement. A new board system will parallel other improvements taking place at the rink such that the Aspen Ice Garden can function favorably with the programming is serves currently. The new board system will help us; the Aspen Community, to show off our senior ice facility during the annual Fall Face Off organized by Junior Hockey. The new boards ensure that we have a quality ice rink to host this type of event. Hockey participation has grown due to the popularity of women’s hockey, and we have seen an increase in men’s recreational hockey which has gone from a growing recreational A & B leagues to the addition of a men’s recreational C league and a men’s 45 & over recreational league. The new board system was needed due to the increase in play and the need to assure safety amongst our many users at this wonderful facility. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The capital cost is $107,080 for the purchase and installation of the new board system. Funding is available in the Asset Management Plan budget in the amount of $108,000. The contract price includes a $6,200 credit for the existing board system. No financial impacts as to operational costs. Without the replacement of the boards we could be jeopardizing events such as the Fall Face Off by not having adequate and safe components necessary for running a large event of that type, thus risking the loss of a million dollar economic influx of revenue to town. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No known environmental impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the contract for purchase of new Dasher Boards from Becker Arena Products Inc. in the amount of $107,080.00. P42 VI.c ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives are not really something we would recommend pursuing. We would hang onto the existing system a few more years and look for a company to come in and try repairing the existing system, but this would be difficult due to liabilities. We could research a used board system, but again this could become a safety issue and liability to the City. PROPOSED MOTION: I, (Council Member’s Name) , motion to approve the contract with Becker Arena Products, Inc. for the purchase of new Dasher Boards at the Aspen Ice Garden. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A” Contract for purchase Attachment “B” Aspen Ice Garden portion of Follow Up Memo from April 2012 Work Session with Council. Attachment “C” Aspen Junior Hockey response to acquisition of old board system. P43 VI.c Attachment “B” ASPEN ICE GARDEN IMPROVEMENTS: Staff discussed several improvements to the Aspen Ice Garden which have place holders in the 2013 budget and requested direction from Council as to their wishes in pursuing these improvements. The elements included in the 2013 Aspen Ice Garden capital are: 1. Board Replacement 2. Renovation of the West End Locker Room, restrooms, and skate shop space(s) 3. Replacement of Mondo flooring 4. Improved air handling to locker rooms #1 & 2 5. Renovation of locker rooms #1 & 2 Board Replacement: Staff identified that the existing boards are over 20 years old and in need of replacement. The boards are worn and have little action left to them. They don’t fit tight and are uneven in places causing edges to jut out. Referees responsible for the safety of the players say that these boards are at a point where they are in need of replacement soon to ensure safety of the players. Council seemed in favor of keeping the funding in the 2013 AMP and moving forward with replacement for the safety of the users. Renovation of the West End: Due to changes in the use of the Aspen Ice Garden; primarily the growth of women’s hockey but additionally the Fall Face Off and use by Events at the Garden, has prompted a look at how to effectively use the space to the west end of the rink. The locker room provides only 1 shower for women and no showers for men. The locker room is shared by hockey players and figure skaters. The restrooms are in need of upgrades not only to accommodate the rink uses, but the events that now provide large revenue streams to the facility. Lastly and perhaps foremost there are no handicapped accessible locker rooms at the Garden without shutting down the women’s restrooms and allowing handicapped individuals to access locker room #3 from that direction. This obviously leaves the facility without a women’s restroom, and even then the shower is not handicap accessible. Improvements to the west end would include: P44 VI.c • Provide Handicap accessibility • Additional Showers for women’s hockey • Showers for men’s hockey • Improved Locker space for hockey • Separate locker rooms for figure skaters • Locker Room space for officials • Improved restroom facilities to serve events Council seemed to be on board with the need for these improvements in general, but requested a breakdown of costs for renovations at the Garden. This information will be forthcoming during the 2013 budget process. Replacement of Mondo Flooring: This flooring is laid around the rink to protect the blade of the skaters and for safety of patrons walking around and accessing the ice sheet. Currently the Ice Garden has old black mondo flooring which doesn’t fit snug around the rink allowing for cracks in which the skater’s blades slip into thus dulling the blade which is quite important for figure skaters and hockey players. Staff is recommending replacement of this surface to something that fits better and is more aesthetically pleasing like the Lewis Ice Arena has. Council understood the need for the flooring and for it to be void of cracks. They asked that staff come back with options for the replacement of existing mondo flooring. Options will include: Supplementing the exiting flooring and taking it up and putting it down again to fit tighter, a lower grade of improved flooring and a higher grade of improved flooring. Renovation of Locker Rooms #1 & #2: These locker rooms are old and lacking adequate air flow. Staff is seeking funds to gut the locker rooms and renovate them. These locker rooms arguably require improvements to lockers, shower facilities, toilet facilities, lighting and paint. It seems that everyone agrees that improved air handling is something that is a must. Staff will again bring a menu of options through the 2013 budget process for renovations to locker rooms #1 & #2. Improvements to the Aspen Ice Garden don’t have to necessarily all be completed in 2013. Due to the fact that the city just invested over $500,000 for a new refrigeration system at the Ice Garden it would seem that we are committed to keeping this facility P45 VI.c operating for many years into the future and certain improvements should begin to be identified. Staff would prioritize the improvements at this time as numbered sequentially above. Funding could begin in 2013 for the highest priority components and be stretched out for other improvements to meet funding availability. Staff will provide through the 2013 budget process, options and cost identification for all improvements being requested at the Aspen Recreation Center and the Aspen Ice Garden. P46 VI.c RESOLUTION #42 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for Dasher Boards for the Aspen Ice Garden, between the City of Aspen and Becker Arena Products, Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for Dasher Boards for the Aspen Ice Gardens, between the City of Aspen and Becker Arena Products, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of April, 2013. 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, April 8, 2013 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P47 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 0 CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - V2010 PROCUREMENT SUPPLY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: 2013-010. AGREEMENT made as of 11th day of March, in the year 2013. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Aspen Ice Garden 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-5055 And the Professional: Becker Arena Products Inc. c/o James Becker ______________________________________ Savage, MN 55378 Phone: 800-234-5522 For the Following Project: Aspen Ice Garden – Dasher boards replacement project ____________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: The City and Professional agree as set forth below. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: Date: __________________________ Resolution No.:___________________ Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased. Exhibit B: Scope of Work. Exhibit C: Hourly Fee Schedule. Procurement: $86,980.00 Professional Services: $20,100.00 Total: $107,080.00 P49 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 1 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT 1. Purchase. Professional agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the supplies, equipment, or materials as described in Exhibit A, appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, for the sum of set forth above. 2. Delivery. (FOB [Enter Delivery Address] ). 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. ( 6HH([KLELW'). 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Professional respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Professional shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 7. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than July 1, 2013, with the installation and operation of all the equipment no later than July 1, 0213. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 8. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit C appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 9. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City P50 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 2 for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 10. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 11. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 12. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 13. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense P51 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 3 for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 14. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non- owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy P52 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 4 shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 15. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by P53 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 5 CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 16. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 17. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 18. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 19. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 20. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. P54 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 6 “Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. “Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement. “Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. P55 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 7 (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 21. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for P56 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 8 ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 22. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 23. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. P57 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 9 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: ________________________________ ______________________________ [Signature] [Signature] By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ [Name] [Name] Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________ Approved as to form: _______________________________ City Attorney’s Office P58 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 10 EXHIBIT A List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased With attached specification sheets, cut sheets, information, etc. P59 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 11 P60 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 12 EXHIBIT B Scope of Work P61 VI.c Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 13 EXHIBIT C Fee Schedule Materials Only $ 82,750.00 Freight to Aspen, Colorado $ 10,430.00 Installation $ 20,100.00 TOTAL $113,280.00 Less Trade in of old Dasher Boards -$ 6,200.00 Total $107,080.00 P62 VI.c Becker Arena Products, Inc. Sports Facility Supplies & Equipment 6611 West Hwy 13, Savage, MN 55378 800-234-5522  Fax 952.890.2680  www.beckerarena.com Mr. Jon Larson February 27, 2013 City of Aspen Ice Garden Aspen, CO Subject: Aspen Ice Garden Trade-in of existing dasher boards & shielding Dear Jon, Becker Arena Products offers a $6,200.00 trade-in of the dasher boards and glass system currently installed at the Aspen Ice Garden. Becker Arena Products will be responsible for the removal, packaging and transportation from the site. Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you. Best Regards, James Becker President Becker Arena Products, Inc. P63 VI.c P64 VI.c P65 VI.c P66 VI.c P67 VI.c P6 8 VI . c P6 9 VI . c Attachment "C" From: Tanner Williams [tanner@aspenjuniorhockey.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:27 AM To: Tim Anderson Subject: Boards Tim, The board voted down buying the boards, Thanks, Tanner Tanner Williams | Executive Director Aspen Junior Hockey (AJH) P.O. Box 3390 | Aspen, CO 81612 T - (970) 920-7081 | F - (970) 544-8034 tanner@aspenjuniorhockey.com P71 VI.c MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR THRU: RANDY READY, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION DON PERGANDE, FINANCE DEPARTMENT DATE OF MEMO: APRIL 15, 2013 MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 2013 RE: CONTRACT FOR RECREATION DIVISION BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting approval of the attached contract with PROS Consulting for the purpose of updating the Recreation Business Plan adopted in 2005. Work proposed in this contract is $49,960 for the scope of work attached. (Attachment “A”) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff met with Council in April of 2012 at a work session to go over certain recommended improvements to facilities and to discuss the Business Plan Update with SPARC representatives present. Staff and SPARC discussed the need for an update of the Business Plan in 2013 and Council agreed to consider it through the 2013 budget process at that time. More recently SPARC came to Council with a proposal for retiring the amount owed to the City by SPARC. The City and Council approved the payment of the SPARC debt and with that SPARC asked that their remaining funds be used for improvements to the Lewis Ice Arena and that the City engage in an update of the 2005 Business Plan. Council agreed to all of the above. P73 VI.d BACKGROUND: The adopted 2005 Recreation Business Plan looked at and included recommendations regarding the following components: • Review Division structure/resources/policies • Assessment of physical condition and functionality • Review of recreation services and programs • Review budget requirements • Review marketing program • Determine possibilities for facility expansion • Perform cost of service analysis • Conduct citizen survey To date staff feels all of these components associated with the 2005 adopted Business Plan have been addressed to the level of which funding and other resources are available. Areas in which resources have limited progress are all capital related components such as “facility expansion” and other capital improvements coming from the citizen survey. As Council is aware citizens have inquired about improved fitness facilities and outdoor pools for example. While work has been done on these items following the action recommendations of the 2005 plan, without further resources these projects may not progress at this time. DISCUSSION: The funding for the Business Plan Update is located in the 2013 AMP at a level of $35,000. As you can see the proposal from PROS which Staff is requesting approval for has a price tag of $49,960. Staff has $35,000 funded in the 2013 AMP for this project; the City Manager’s office has approved another $17,000 from central savings to cover the additional cost of the contract and $2,040 for ancillary costs. A supplemental appropriation won’t be necessary for the additional $17,000 in funding approved by the manager’s office. While this contract will have sufficient funding for the attached scope of work, the original RFP sent out by staff included the following components which have been deleted from the final contract: a. Review of the use of technology: $4,480.00 b. Development of Economic Impact Matrix $6,760.00 c. Review of Division Budget $5,880.00 d. Market Development $5,990.00 P74 VI.d a. Staff feels that our current Business Technology Manager; Nick Nicholson, does an excellent job of keeping the Recreation Division on top of the latest technology updates and improvements to our current systems in order to meet the needs of our operations and customers. We felt that there was no need to contract this work at this time. b. Our financial analyst, Jeff Alden, has developed and provides excellent reporting tools and information regarding the economic impact of Parks & Recreation facilities to the local economy and there again staff sees no need to contract this out. c. Staff feels it will be unnecessary to add a review of the Division Budget as we have a financial performance component in the scope of work attached to the contract that will help us to identify Recreational funding trends in the State of Colorado, comparisons on a National level, and a review of fees and performance such that we can assess where we stand financially and what opportunities exists. Additionally our Finance Department does a great job of assisting the Recreation Staff in the development of fees, funding, and supplemental requests while meeting Council goals. d. As to Market Development the staff is moving forward on this in house. We have a team of employees who are currently identifying the demographics we are targeting, the opportunities our facilities provide in serving them, and available inventory of time slots that we can entice them. We feel that staff will provide a quality product without major expense. If we feel the need staff may have a consultant review our work for recommendations to fine tune the marketing plan. If Council feels the need to add back any of these components the pricing has been identified so you know what the cost would be. We could either bring the contract back to Council with those components or simple add one through a change order and addendum to the contract. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: As mentioned in the discussion portion of this memo, staff has $35,000 funded in the 2013 AMP for this project. The City Manager’s office has approved another $17,000 from central savings to cover the additional cost of the contract P75 VI.d and ancillary costs. A supplemental appropriation won’t be necessary for the additional $17,000 in funding approved by the manager’s office. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending approval of the attached contract for updating the 2005 Recreation Business Plan. We feel this contract will adequately identify community needs and wishes for recreation, provide information to staff and Council sufficient to make financial decisions as we move into the next 5 to 7 years, and provide an objective view of operational challenges and how best to meet them. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives would be to further reduce the scope of work to the original $35,000 but staff and the Aspen Recreation Center Citizens Advisory Committee feel this would not provide adequate information for making sound long range decisions. We could postpone this one year if Council felt it to be necessary, but we are obligated through agreements with SPARC to conduct this update. To postpone it by one year would only add to the costs due to inflationary impacts. PROPOSED MOTION: I, , recommend approval of resolution # , a contract with PROS Consulting for the purpose of updating the 2005 Recreation Business Plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P76 VI.d ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A”- Contract with Scope of Work P77 VI.d RESOLUTION #48 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PROS CONSULTING FOR RECREATION BUSINESS PLAN UPDATE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the recreation business plan update, between the City of Aspen and PROS Consulting, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for Recreation Business Plan Update, between the City of Aspen and PROS Consulting, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April 2013. 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 April 22, 2013 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P79 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 0 CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.:2013-005. AGREEMENT made as of the 22nd day of April, in the year 2013. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/oTim Anderson, Recreation Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-5055 And the Professional: PROS Consulting, LLC c/o Leon Younger, President 201 South Capitol Avenue; Suite 505 Indianapolis, Indiana 46225 Phone: (877) 242-7760 Ext. 10 Cell: (317) 679-5615 For the Following Project: Recreation Division Business Plan Update ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. City Council Approval: Date: April 22, 2013__________ Resolution No.:___________________ Exhibit A: Scope of Work. Exhibit B: Fee Schedule. Total: $49,960.00 P81 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 1 The City and Professional agree as set forth below. 1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than May 1, 2014. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement P82 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 2 shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations P83 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 3 assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non- owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. P84 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 4 (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper- ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written P85 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 5 representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. “Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public P86 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 6 Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. “Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement. “Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. P87 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 7 (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, P88 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 8 preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 18. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. P89 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 9 (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: ________________________________ ______________________________ [Signature] [Signature] By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ [Name] [Name] Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________ Approved as to form: _______________________________ City Attorney’s Office P90 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 10 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work Scope of Services: Define a management approach for financial sustainability as well as assisting the City of Aspen to further broaden its user base in Recreation Facilities and Programming excellence. These recommendations should consider direction and policy from the Aspen City Council as well as Community Needs as they relate to scheduling, pricing, and general operations. Based upon a site visit to Aspen and the City of Aspen Recreation Division of the Parks & Recreation Department information will be obtained as to the demographics of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, identify factors, issues and concerns regarding the Recreation Division that need to be addressed, changed, altered or improved to increase the general appeal, operational efficiency, public use and financial integrity of the programs and facilities. The primary focus of the study should be to assess pricing, marketing, sales and use of technology in order to achieve City Council direction financial goals, determine if the current make up and use of facilities and programs are sufficient to meet community needs and to effectively achieve those financial goals of the division. A. Review past financial performance of the Aspen Recreation Division with the following considerations: Identify Facility constraints and parameters: Items in this area should consider the reasoning behind the construction of Aspen Recreation facilities, objectives and expectations, and outside impacts and considerations as to operational parameters. a. Is the percentage of daily users commensurate with other mountain communities and their population base? b. Is the number of pass holders commensurate with other mountain communities and their population base? c. Is the price structure commensurate with Valley Pricing and Competitors? Provide broad sample of costs and prices of comparable facilities across Colorado and on a National basis where applicable. d. What are the demographics of Aspen, the Valley, the guest and have these Markets been accurately identified and served? e. What is the market? Identify competition – facilities and price – and generally define unfilled niches. f. Is staff operating the Facility in an efficient manner given the objectives identified by City Council, City Management and the ARC Advisory Committee? g. What facilities or programs, if any, could be added to improve service and revenues? B. Review Division structure/resources/policies: Subjects in this area should be examined as to the potential for achieving budgetary goals as well as operational goals (i.e. programming and guest services). P91 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 11 1. Marketing and Promotional programs, schedules, and resources. •••• Web Site review •••• Contact processes-where could additional time and energy be productive in securing promotional and advertising possibilities. a. Policies and Procedures • Effective and complete Policies and Procedures for clearly addressing operational direction. • Effective organization of Policies and Procedures such that staff and users may easy access b. Staffing Plan: effectiveness of meeting customer needs. c. Maintenance Plan: how does maintenance funding compare to other mountain towns. d. Effectiveness of Facility(s) Programming 2. Sales • How do we sell more of what we already provide? • How would a sales position best be structured? 3. New Program ideas to boost membership demand. 4. Customer Retention Rates 5. Market Share controlled C. Community Survey: Develop a statistically valid survey that identifies community wishes as to: • The need for outdoor pools/hot tubs • The need for expanded fitness space • The need for indoor tennis • Level of program/facility communications with the community • Level of cleanliness/maintenance of facilities • Customer service • Customer expectations • Customer satisfaction with pricing and the perceived value. • Use of online registration • The need for an indoor field house and winter training center. • Need for additional public ice skating time D. Review of Division ability to provide for user facility needs: Based upon user group meetings and the survey, ascertain the need/wishes of the community to expand or add additional facilities. 1. Define operational impacts as to expenditures vs. revenues for: P92 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 12 • The addition of outdoor pools • The addition of expanded fitness space • The addition of indoor tennis • What would/could vacated space be used for; what does the community want/need? • The need for additional storage/office/administrative support areas? • Use of Ice facilities for dry floor events; potential? • Other potential additions/expansions 2. Are facilities sufficient to accommodate user programming? • How can future programming needs be accommodated? E. Prepare a written report with the following recommendations: This report should be a comprehensive analysis of current operations based upon Community Goals and existing and proposed outside competition from Health Clubs, hotels, Private Clubs and other outdoor oriented community recreation amenities (trails, skiing, fishing, river sports, etc) from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. The report should include: A comparison of usage numbers, expenditures and revenues and how they tie into Pricing, Programming, and current Marketing Strategies. It should identify target market and seasonal niches. Potential expansion possibilities and the impacts upon Budget and Community Goals should also be identified. The effectiveness given current operations of achieving operational goals including Maintenance and infrastructure of the Recreation Division. This document will serve as a living management tool for future City decisions in regards to: Program and service alterations or changes Operations (budget, fees, staff) adjustments or enhancements Effective use of Technology and trends Economic effectiveness of facilities Facility(s) Potential for expansions and redesign (short and long term) Marketing and Sales Strategies Community Survey Documents the assessments, reviews, findings, and recommendation of the project team. Identifies key issues, concerns, and problem areas. Report briefings; Action Plan timelines F. Conclusions and Action Plan: A specific section shall be dedicated to specific actions that will lead to operational improvements and associated timelines in which these are recommended to be accomplished or the timeline for which they could reasonably be expected to accomplish. A Measurement of success regarding each action item shall be identified. P93 VI.d Agreement Professional Services Page 13 Task Description of RFP Scope of Services Budget A.Review of Financial Performance 10,240.00$ Staff Input Meetings B.Review of Division Structure/Resources/Policies 11,140.00$ Staff Input Meetings C.Statistically-Valid Community Survey 10,000.00$ D.Review of Division Ability to Provide for User Facility Needs 5,880.00$ User Group Meetings/Public Meeting E.Review of the Use of Technology -$ F.Development of Economic Impact Matrix -$ G Market Development -$ H.Written Report and Briefings 7,280.00$ Steering Committee Meeting/City Council Meeting I.Conclusions and Action Plan 5,420.00$ TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT:49,960.00$ Aspen Recreation Center Business Plan Update Projected Line Item Budget by Task and Deliverable EXHIBIT B Fee Schedule Total Cost: The following fee breakdown is based on the project approach described in Scope of the Work for the Recreation Division Business Plan Update. The Consulting Team has based this fee on our current understanding of the City’s goal for the project. P94 VI.d Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utility Operations Manager Jeff Rice, Utilities Energy Efficiency Manager THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental Initiatives THRU: Jason Haber, Community Office for Resource Efficiency THRU: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: April 15, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: Roaring Fork Watershed – Regional Water Conservation Plan REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval for City of Aspen’s participation in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan as presented to Council by Jason Habor with the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) on April 1 2013 at a Council Work session. Staff also requests Council authorize City of Aspen Utilities Director to sign final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) this summer after CORE has final list of water provider participants in the Roaring Fork Valley and after City of Aspen’s attorney’s office has approved final version of MOU. Attached is a draft Memorandum of Understanding that would be executed by City of Aspen once the Roaring Fork Watershed municipalities are confirmed and finalized. It is currently anticipated that the participants in this regional plan will be: City of Aspen; Snowmass Water and Sanitation District; Town of Basalt; Town of Carbondale; and City of Glenwood Springs. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In April 1, 2013 Work session, City Council gave staff direction to put this item on the Consent Calendar of Regular Meeting for formal approval. BACKGROUND: The 2004 Colorado Water Conservation Act (HB 04-1365) requires that covered entities (water providers that sell 2,000+ Acre Feet per year) have a state-approved water efficiency plan. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the state’s designated approving body. The City of Aspen Water Department is a covered entity; however a state- approved plan has not been completed to date. P95 VI.e Page 2 of 3 In March 2012, the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC), Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), and numerous other partners operating within the Roaring Fork Watershed finished a comprehensive Roaring Fork Watershed Management Plan. The Watershed Plan assessed the conditions of the watershed and local water resources and recommended actions to preserve and improve those resources. Among the Watershed Plan’s 200+ recommendations were 10 urgent actions, including the creation of: 1) a water conservation plan to increase in-stream flows and aquatic/riparian ecosystem health; and, 2) a water conservation education campaign geared towards major water consuming sectors, such as agriculture, to encourage water use efficiency. The City of Aspen has previously committed significant resources to water conservation and has made significant progress towards water conservation goals in the context of its own Water Management Program. Aspen has implemented a number of specific measures designed to reduce water usage and to address potential water shortages during drought conditions. Notable among these are leak detection and correction programs, eliminating the practice of allowing customers to bleed lines during the winter to avoid freeze ups, adoption of an inverted block rate program to encourage efficient water use and an aggressive public education program that allows customers access to efficient fixtures and appliances. The net effect of these combined programs is that Aspen’s potable water use has been reduced by approximately 55% on an annual basis since reaching a high point in 1994 and actually uses about the same quantity of water as it did in 1967 when the water plant first went on line, despite more than a 250% increase in the number of customers. Aspen has been actively involved in drought response programs, implementing water use restrictions through its drought contingency program in 2002 and again in 2012. It’s likely that Aspen’s drought response will continue and intensify throughout 2013. DISCUSSION: An emerging strategy in water resource management is regional water conservation planning. While there are still relatively few regional water conservation plans being implemented, they are becoming more common as a water management tool in watersheds that span multiple jurisdictions because they work to bring together stakeholders within the entire watershed. CORE, RFC, RWAPA, and other partners operating in the watershed have begun the process to develop a regional water conservation plan for the Roaring Fork. CORE recently received a small grant from the CWCB to conduct an outreach effort to build consensus and buy-in to the regional planning effort among municipal water providers throughout the valley. As outlined in the attached draft MOU there are several benefits associated with adoption of a water efficiency plan, which can be leveraged by taking a more regional approach. In the end, it is envisioned that each water provider, including the City of Aspen would have its own plan, documenting the specific conditions and conservation strategies most appropriate to your community. However, these plans would also be included under a Roaring Fork Watershed umbrella plan that would identify shared goals and collaborative opportunities to enhance conservation at the Watershed level. Next steps will include: 1. CORE Meetings with the remaining regional water providers. 2. Execute an MOU to memorialize commitment to regional collaboration and planning. 3. Pursue CWCB planning grant to fund plan development FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: If all five identified primary water providers in the Roaring Fork Watershed participate in the plan, then the City of Aspen’s proportionate contribution is P96 VI.e Page 3 of 3 $5,000. However, if a smaller number of entities participate in the final MOU, the City’s share of the expected $25,000 collective contribution would increase. There currently exist sufficient funds in the 2013 Water Operating budget to participate in this Regional Water Conservation Plan. CORE estimated a total cost of $ 100,000 for regional plan preparation and adoption (and not including plan implementation). If CORE is successful in receiving a state planning grant for $75,000, then the local match would require a collective contribution from all participants of $25,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Roaring Fork River is the second largest tributary of the Colorado River within Colorado. Due to diversions and the hot and dry summer of 2012, sections of the Roaring Fork have recently been running below the normal levels impacting ecosystem health and habitat. Diversions depleted incoming stream flows in some segments by 80 percent. Development and implementation of the proposed plan would aid in establishing effective strategies to manage or reduce these impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council support participation in the regional planning effort, and direct staff to sign final MOU this summer after it has been reviewed and approved by City attorney’s office. ALTERNATIVES: In lieu of participating in the regional planning effort, the City could pursue the creation and adoption of a stand-alone water efficiency plan, pursuant to the requirements of state law. It is anticipated that the City would incur higher costs in preparing a stand-alone plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Draft Memorandum of Understanding—Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan P97 VI.e 1 DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (“MOU”) is entered into effective the last date written below, by and among the City of Aspen (“Aspen”), Snowmass Water and Sanitation District (“Snowmass W&S”), Town of Basalt (“Basalt”), Town of Carbondale (“Carbondale”), the City of Glenwood Springs (“Glenwood Springs”), together these entities are referred to below as “Providers,” and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (“CORE”). All together these entities are referred to below as “Parties.” RECITALS WHEREAS, this MOU is based on all of the Parties’ common interest in the Roaring Fork watershed, water conservation, water planning, and the desire to cooperate to further their individual and common interests; and WHEREAS, water conservation saves water through practices, techniques, and technologies that extend water supplies and other resources, such as energy; and WHEREAS, water conservation can free up supplies for other uses, such as population growth, drought needs, recreational uses, and environmental uses, such as instream flows; and WHEREAS, Aspen and Glenwood Springs are “covered entities” required to prepare and submit water conservation plans to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (“CWCB”) for approval pursuant to C.R.S. § 37-60-126; and WHEREAS, City of Glenwood Springs has a CWCB-approved water conservation plan; and WHEREAS, City of Aspen, Snowmass Water & Sanitation District, Town of Basalt, and Town of Carbondale are interested in water conservation planning to benefit their communities; and WHEREAS, economics and tourism significantly impact each of the Providers’ water demands in the Roaring Fork watershed; and WHEREAS, the Parties recognize their individual interests in water conservation planning have regional significance within the Roaring Fork watershed; and WHEREAS, there are community and regional benefits from implementing a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan, such additional water for drought protection, recreational uses and environmental uses; and P99 VI.e 2 WHEREAS, the Parties aspire to plan for, develop, and implement significant water conservation within their communities and the Roaring Fork watershed and wish to support the Providers’ individual water conservation efforts and prevent the “Tragedy of the Commons” that might result if Providers compete for growth by requiring less water conservation than their neighbors; and WHEREAS, water conservation may include demand management activities that share many common elements that are amenable to regional investigation, including: 1. Foundational activities, such as water efficiency pricing and tap fees; 2. Targeted technical assistance and incentives, such as water efficient fixtures and appliances, low water use landscapes, and water efficient commercial and industrial water using process through incentives; 3. Ordinance s and regulations; such as water wasting policies, watering restrictions, new construction regulations, and time of sale regulations; 4. Educational activities, such as one-way, one-way with feedback, and two-way; and WHEREAS, the selection of water conservation activities is a four-step process involving: 1. Assessment of community-specific water conservation activities, water supply and service area; 2. Identification of potential water conservation activities that are compatible with community systems and needs; 3. Qualitative screening of potential water conservation activities; 4. Evaluation and selection of final activities for implementation; and WHEREAS, regional cooperative identification, screening and evaluation of water conservation and demand management activities may facilitate selection and implementation by individual Providers; and WHEREAS, the Providers may be able to implement elements of their individual water conservation plans more easily and more successfully if they are common components of a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, public and stakeholder involvement can improve the quality, community support and implementation of water conservation plans, and regional planning can complement and enhance public and stakeholder involvement; and WHEREAS, public opinion surveys are expensive and can be extremely valuable for plan development, while a regional survey with community-specific questions can minimize these costs and enhance public involvement; and P100 VI.e 3 WHEREAS, the Providers desire to cooperate to prepare a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan that compliments and supports their individual water conservation planning; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Conservation Board provides financial assistance for water conservation planning; and WHEREAS, the CWCB’s Water Efficiency Grant Program has significant application submittal requirements, including a detailed scope of work utilizing the CWCB’s Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document (July 2012); and WHEREAS, water conservation plans must be prepared in accordance with the statutory requirements of C.R.S. § 37-60-126 and the technical requirements of the CWCB’s Water Efficiency Grant Program Fund Grant Guidelines for Water Conservation Planning Projects (Nov. 20, 2008) and the CWCB’s Municipal Water Efficiency Plan Guidance Document; and WHEREAS, the CWCB’s Water Efficiency Grant Program requires a 25 percent match. UNDERSTANDINGS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the Providers agree as follows: 1. To cooperate with CORE in the preparation and submittal of an application for $75,000 to the Water Conservation Board for a Water Efficiency Planning Grant to prepare a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan; 2. To agree on a single fiscal agent to act as the lead applicant and grant administrator for all; 3. To agree on a common planning horizon for the Regional Plan; 4. To cooperate in the preparation of a request for proposals for a consultant(s) to work with them to prepare the Regional Plan; 5. To agree on a the selection of a consultant(s) ) to work with them to prepare the Regional Plan; 6. To equally share the $25,000 match required by the CWCB for the Water Efficiency Planning Grant, that is, pay $5,000 each; and 7. To cooperate in the preparation of the Regional Plan; and 8. To cooperate in the implementation of the Regional Plan. P101 VI.e 4 This MOU: 9. Is intended to describe the rights and responsibilities of and between the Parties and is not intended to, and shall not be deemed to confer any rights upon any persons or entities not named as Parties, nor to limit in any ways the powers and responsibilities of the Parties or any other entity who is not a Party. 10. Shall be governed under and controlled by the laws of the State of Colorado. 11. Constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties concerning the subject matter and supersedes all prior representations, negotiations or other communications related thereto. 12. May be amended only in writing, which writing must be signed by all Parties in order to be effective. 13. Shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto. Each Party hereto represents that its representative signing below is authorized to execute this MOU on its behalf. This MOU may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same MOU. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as of the year and latest date written below. CITY OF ASPEN, a Municipal Corporation By____________________________ Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________________ City Attorney P102 VI.e 5 CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, a Municipal Corporation By____________________________ Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________________ City Attorney TOWN OF BASALT, a Municipal Corporation By____________________________ Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________________ City Attorney TOWN OF CARBONDALE, a Municipal Corporation By____________________________ P103 VI.e 6 Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________________ City Attorney SNOWMASS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a special district By____________________________ Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ District Clerk Approved as to form: _________________________________ District Counsel COMMUNITY OFFICE FOR RESOURCE EFFICIENCY, a non-profit corporation By____________________________ Its____________________________ Date__________________________ ATTEST: _______________________________ P104 VI.e Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, THRU: Click here to enter text. DATE OF MEMO: 4/15/2013 MEETING DATE: 4/22/2013 RE: Resolution #46, 2013 - Water System Maintenance Trailer Purchase REQUEST OF COUNCIL: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Click here to enter text. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: P105 VI.f Page 2 of 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Notes: • Please use page numbers on all memos and attachments, especially for work sessions • The memo should be as long as it needs to be – but remember, you’re not writing a novel. Use attachments for more detailed information, ordinances and resolutions, etc. • Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of the memo. All attachments should be titled as “Attachment”, “Exhibit” or “Schedule” with a letter following: Attachments: A - Exhibit One - Map ... B - Property Description C - Chart of Costs D - Resolution #97-1 P106 VI.f MEMORANDUN TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mike McDill, Deputy Director of Utilities THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: April 12, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 Re: Water System Maintenance Trailer Purchase REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approval of contract in the amount of $53,938 to purchase a water system maintenance trailer. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: Presently, the City Water distribution staff manually operates over 2,500 valves including hydrants valves on the water distribution system. The periodic and scheduled operation of these valves helps ensure their integrity and functionality when needed to immediately control the system in the event of a water main failure, system maintenance or extension, fire protection, and other vital functions of the system. Operating valves is time consuming and physically demanding. For example, a sticky valve may require an additional staff member (2 vs. 1 staff) with their combined strength to free the valve. Further, if a valve is not physically accessible, other equipment such as a jack-hammer to clear asphalt or other access restrictions must also be transported to the work site. These typical field issues increase the required maintenance time and competes against other high priority work tasks. DISCUSSION: As the city’s water distribution system has continued to expand over the years, maintaining the system’s valves and fire hydrants is increasingly time consuming using traditional manual methods. Further, when these tasks require labor of two people to complete, the higher priority tasks must take precedent leaving this core work differed decreasing the frequency and effectiveness of this aspect of the maintenance program. Equipment for routine water system maintenance has improved and now can support staff with power assisted capacities that increases daily work capacity and reduced direct human physical demand. In fact, the capability of this trailer is designed to: • Clean out and exercise buried water valves of any size with staff collecting & storing data on the location, size, and any problems with each valve • Exercise and test fire hydrants while de-chlorinating and defusing hydrant flows to protect adjacent property while collecting & storing data on the location, size, and any problems with each hydrant • Efficient flushing of system lines • Cut pavements with an on-board jackhammer • On-board vacuum to remove debris P107 VI.f Adding this specialized piece of equipment to the Water Utility fleet will improve the overall consistency of maintenance and system operational availability by enabling staff to be even more effective in performing their roles. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The 2013 Water Dept. fund has sufficient budget authority to complete the purchase ($53,938) adding this specialized equipment to our working inventory. A portion of the savings from prior year water fleet purchases were retained for this purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Use of the trailer reduces potential impact to the area immediately adjacent to hydrants and other appurtenances being tested by effectively in dissipating the flowing water’s energy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of this option to supply the Water System Maintenance Trailer. ALTERNATIVES: Continue with current manual methods, potentially decreasing the frequency and consistency of this maintenance work as the water distribution system grows and ages. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # ______, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Industrial Systems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $53,938.00 for the Water System Maintenance Trailer.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A - Industrial Systems, Inc. Proposal P108 VI.f RESOLUTION #46 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for an Incline Vac Water System Maintenance Trailer, between the City of Aspen and Industrial Systems Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for Incline Vac Water System Maintenance Trailer, between the City of Aspen and Industrial Systems Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April 2013. 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, April 22, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P109 VI.f P111 VI.f P112 VI.f P113 VI.f P114 VI.f P115 VI.f P116 VI.f P117 VI.f P118 VI.f P119 VI.f Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Andy Rossello P.E., Utilities Engineer THRU: Michael McDill P.E., Deputy Director of Utilities DATE OF MEMO: April 1st, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 8th, 2013 RE: AABC Substation upgrade REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests a contract award to Exponential Engineering in the amount of $62,850.00 the design of an expansion of the existing Holy Cross Substation to allow the city dedicated access to its own feeder circuit breaker. In addition to reducing energy costs for City facilities, the Express Feeder, when completed, will provide a reliable and more redundant source of electric power to the Aspen Municipal Electric System. When combined with the existing Puppy Smith 25kV Feeder, the Express Feeder will also reduce our reliance on facilities that are owned by Holy Cross Energy (HCE). PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has already approved the installation and completion of all aspects of the Cities’ Express Feeder Project up to this connection point. BACKGROUND: The primary benefit to making this switch will be more flexibility in serving the City of Aspen’s electrical needs. This completes the Express Feeder Project, allowing the City to feed power to its grid through two relatively independent routes for additional levels of energy independence, redundancy, reduction of wheeling costs, and increased reliability. DISCUSSION: The Express Feeder project extended power and communication conduit/vault system from this substation connection over Deer Hill, through the Burlingame Subdivision and Maroon Creek Golf Course, across Maroon Creek on the Highway 82 Bridge, through the Aspen Municipal Golf Course to the vicinity of the Power Plant Road below the State Highway. It also extends from this to the Aspen Recreation Center and up to the Water Treatment Plant. The Drain Line Project will finally connect this system to the Aspen Municipal Electric System at 8th and Francis Street. The installation of this equipment will enable the Aspen Municipal Electric System to directly feed the following City of Aspen loads: Water Plant, Aspen Recreation Center, Burlingame Affordable Housing, Streets Shop, and Aspen Municipal Golf Course. P121 VI.g Page 2 of 2 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of the design for this project is $62,850.00. The initial budgeted amount for this labor was $70,000 and this bid is within those constraints. The overall budget for the Aspen Express Feeder projects was $2.02 million. With engineering design completed, and large materials purchased, the overall project remains on budget. The phases of the Express Feeder Project, as discussed in the above section, encompass four projects. These four projects are individually on budget, and the expenses from all four phases of the Express Feeder Project will be paid back via savings incurred from lower charges from HCE for electric power. City facilities will be served by the City of Aspen Electric, which will mean lower electrical costs due to our electric rates being lower. It may also allow us the potential to serve other customers that are presently being served by HCE when our franchise agreement is over in 14 years. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be 1125 tons/year for the combined elements of the Express Feeder circuit due to the increase in renewable energy available to customers on the City municipal electric system. A direct comparison of CO2 levels is: 0.53 lbs. CO2/kwh for the City versus 1.78 lbs. CO2/kwh for HCE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request the Council approve the expenditure of $62,850.00 for the Design of the Holy Cross Substation Improvements ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives would be for the City’s loads to continue being served by Holy Cross Electric Association, and to remain limited to one primary feeder serving the City Municipal Electric System. This alternative would also result in the continued production of elevated greenhouse gases as shown in the above ‘Environmental Impacts’ paragraph. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #_______________________ CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: P122 VI.g RESOLUTION #47 (Series of 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND EXPONENTIAL ENGINEERING COMPANY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for substation design, between the City of Aspen and Exponential Engineering Company, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for substation design, between the City of Aspen and Exponential Engineering Company, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April 2013. 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, April 22, 2013. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P123 VI.g P125 VI.g P126 VI.g P127 VI.g P128 VI.g P129 VI.g P130 VI.g P131 VI.g P132 VI.g P133 VI.g P134 VI.g P135 VI.g P136 VI.g P137 VI.g P138 VI.g P139 VI.g First Reading Staff Memo 850 Roaring Fork Drive/250 Willoughby Way 04/22/13 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Sara Adams, Senior Planner RE: 850 Roaring Fork Road and 250 Willoughby Way: Lot Line Adjustment and Petition for Disconnection from the City, First Reading, Ordinances No. 16 and No. 17 , Series of 2013. Second Reading is scheduled for May 13, 2013. MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 Applicant /owner: Joan Merriam Crete and 250 Aspen, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht, P.C. LOCATION: 850 Roaring Fork Road (owner is Joan Merriam Crete), and 250 Willoughby Way (owner is 250 Aspen, LLC). CURRENT ZONING & USE: 850 Roaring Fork Road is located within Aspen city limits and is zoned R-15, Moderate Density Residential. 250 Willoughby Way is located in Pitkin County and is zoned R-30, Residential. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicants propose to resolve a land dispute through a lot line adjustment and petition for disconnection of a portion of the lot from the city. SUMMARY: This application addresses two parcels – one within City limits and one within Pitkin County. The two properties share a portion of land located within the Roaring Fork River and Aspen city limits. The applicants propose to divide the area where the parcels overlap through a lot line adjustment. 250 Willoughby Way, which is located outside the city limits, requests to disconnect the small tract of land that results from the lot line adjustment such that the entire property be within Pitkin County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Aspen City Council grant approval with conditions. Figure 1: Map illustrating both parcels. The circle delineates the overlap area. 250Willoughby Way 850 Roaring Fork Rd. P141 VII.a First Reading Staff Memo 850 Roaring Fork Drive/250 Willoughby Way 04/22/13 Page 2 of 4 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council to resolve the land dispute: • Lot Line Adjustment (Section 26.480.040) to divide the overlap area between the two properties. City Council is the final review authority. • Petition for Disconnection from the City to remove the small tract of land allotted to 250 Willoughby Way so that the entire property is within Pitkin County. City Council is the final review authority. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT SUMMARY: The legal description of 250 Willoughby Way was approved by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and Pitkin County Zoning Commission on August 18, 1960 as part of the Green Acres Subdivision, Block 1. 850 Roaring Fork Drive is part of the Merriam Subdivision that was annexed into the City as part of the “North Annexation” in 1967 via Ordinance 30. At some point both properties were surveyed to own the same tract of land. A 7,314 square feet tract of land located in the Roaring Fork River overlaps on both 250 Willoughby Way (Lot 3, Block 1 of the Green Acres Subdivision) and 850 Roaring Fork Drive (Lot 1, Merriam Subdivision). The legal descriptions of both the North Annexation Map and the Merriam Subdivision Plat refer to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River. The applicant hypothesizes that the overlap area occurred possibly because the legal description of the Merriam Subdivision is tied to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River at low water, which is not referenced in the legal description of the Green Acres Subdivision. Nevertheless, the owners of both properties have agreed to resolve the discrepancy by dividing the land between the two properties. Because each property has been including the overlap area in lot size calculations, the lot line adjustment reduces the size of each lot. A table and map are provided below. Table 1: Existing and Proposed Lot Sizes: Current lot size (sf.) Area to be removed from each lot (sf.) Adjusted lot size (sf.) 850 Roaring Fork Rd. 92,542 2,686 89,856 250 Willoughby Way 66,087 4,628 61,459 Total 158,629 7,314 151,315* * Each property is reduced in size because both properties have been including the overlap area in the current lot size calculation. P142 VII.a First Reading Staff Memo 850 Roaring Fork Drive/250 Willoughby Way 04/22/13 Page 3 of 4 Figure 2: Detail of the overlap area, shown in red. Aspen city limits are shaded in purple. The Roaring Fork River is blue and the parcel boundaries are blue. A lot line adjustment is required to amend the property boundaries to resolve the conflict. The area in question is located entirely beneath the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, which means that it is not included in floor area or density calculations according to City and County regulations. Furthermore, the survey shows that the land in question is part of a conservation easement granted to the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (recordation #327937). After the adjustment, the “city portion” of 250 Willoughby Way is requested to be disconnected from the City so that the entire property is located within the County. If the City approves the request, the County plans to process an application to rezone the disconnected tract consistent with the R-30 zoning on the remainder of the 250 Willoughby Way lot. Referral comments from the County are attached as Exhibit C. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff finds that the review criteria for a lot line adjustment listed in Exhibit A are met. The boundary change is a general clean-up for both properties and does not impact the development 850 Roaring Fork Rd 250 Willoughby Way P143 VII.a First Reading Staff Memo 850 Roaring Fork Drive/250 Willoughby Way 04/22/13 Page 4 of 4 rights. Both properties are reduced in size with the proposed lot line adjustment; however they still conform to the existing zone districts regarding size. State law authorizes City Council to adopt an ordinance to disconnect lands that are within and adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen upon the filing of an application by the property owners and a finding of the City Council that the best interests of the City would not be prejudiced by the approval of the disconnection. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no improvements within the area to be disconnected. According to the Finance Department the financial impact of the disconnection is near $0. RECOMMENDATION: Lot Line Adjustment: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment. Disconnection from the City: Staff is supportive of the request for disconnection as it corrects a surveying error and does not have financial impacts to the City. It also allows the entire 250 Willoughby Way parcel to be within one jurisdiction. Council is asked to make a finding that the best interests of the City would not be prejudiced by the approval of the disconnection. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No.16, Series of 2013, approving with conditions a Lot Line Adjustment on first reading.” “I move to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2013, approving the disconnection of a small tract of land located at 250 Willoughby Way on first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A –Lot line Adjustment Criteria. EXHIBIT B – Memo from City Attorney, James R. True. EXHIBIT C – Referral from Pitkin County Community Development. EXHIBIT D – Application. P144 VII.a 250 Willoughby Way/ 850 Roaring Fork Rd. Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance # ___, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 16 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 250 WILLOUGHBY WAY, LOT 3, BLOCK A OF THE GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION, UNINCORPORATED PITKIN COUNTY AND 850 ROARING FORK ROAD, LOT 1 OF THE MERRIAM SUBDIVISION, ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-121-26-001 (850 Roaring Fork Rd) 2735-121-03-003 (250 Willoughby Way) WHEREAS, the applicant, 250 Aspen LLC and Joan Merriam Crete, represented by Michael Hoffman, Garfield and Hecht, P.C., 601 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen, CO 81611, submitted a request for a Lot Line Adjustment for the properties located at 250 Willoughby Way, Lot 3, Block 1 of the Green Acres Subdivision, unincorporated Pitkin County, Colorado and 850 Roaring Fork Road, Lot 1 of the Merriam Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 250 Willoughby Way is partially located outside of the Aspen city limits; and WHEREAS, 850 Roaring Fork Road is located entirely within the Aspen city limits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480, the City Council may approve a Lot Line Adjustment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of a Lot Line Adjustment and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves a Lot Line Adjustment as shown in Exhibit A and described below in Table 1 subject to the following conditions. P145 VII.a 250 Willoughby Way/ 850 Roaring Fork Rd. Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance # ___, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 3 Table 1: Current lot size (sf.) Area to be removed from each lot (sf.) Adjusted lot size (sf.) 850 Roaring Fork Rd. 92,542 2,686 89,856 250 Willoughby Way 66,087 4,628 61,459 Total 158,629 7,314 151,315* *Each property is reduced in size because both properties have been including the overlap area in the current lot size calculation Section 2. Lot Line Adjustment Plat The corrected plat will meet the standards of the Aspen Municipal Code and conform to the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording Section 3. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4. Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site- specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 850 Roaring Fork Road and 250 Willoughby Way. P146 VII.a 250 Willoughby Way/ 850 Roaring Fork Rd. Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance # ___, Series of 2013 Page 3 of 3 Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of May, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law and by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April, 2013. _____________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this ______ day of ________________, 2013. _____________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Exhibit A: Plat illustrating the lot line adjustment. P147 VII.a 250 Willoughby Way – Disconnection Ordinance # ___, Series of 2013 Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 17 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE DISCONNECTION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, KNOWN AS 250 WILLOUGHBY WAY, LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF THE GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-121-03-003 WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, the owner of the property proposed to be disconnected from the City of Aspen did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a “Petition for Disconnection by Ordinance” pursuant to Section 31-12-501, C.R.S; and WHEREAS, Section 31-12-501, C. R.S sets forth the procedure required to disconnect a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city. WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the Petition for Disconnection of said territory to be in the City’s best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Disconnection, commonly referred to as 250 Willoughby Way, and as legally described below, is hereby disconnected from the City of Aspen, Colorado, in accordance with Section 31-12-501, C. R. S. A parcel of land situated in the NE ¼ NE ¼, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; said parcel of land being a portion of that property described as Lot 3, Block 1, Green Acres Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded September 27, 1963 under reception no. 116288 and a portion of that property described as Lot 1, Merriam Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded November 13, 1990 under reception No. 327935; said parcel of land being more particularly described in Exhibit A. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one (1) certified copy of this ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen (b) To certify and file two (2) copies of this ordinance with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this ordinance with the Division of Local Governments of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. P149 VII.a 250 Willoughby Way – Disconnection Ordinance # ___, Series of 2013 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Apsen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this ordinance. Section 4. The land so disconnected shall not thereby by exempt from the payment of any taxes lawfully assessed against it for the purpose of paying any indebtedness contracted by the City of Aspen while such land was within the limits thereof and which remain unpaid and for the payment of which said land could lawfully be taxed. Section 5. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of May, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law and by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of April, 2013. _____________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this ______ day of ________________, 2013. _____________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Exhibit A: Legal Description of De-annexation Parcel. P150 VII.a Exhibit A – Lot Line Adjustment Criteria 850 Roaring Fork Rd./ 250 Willoughby Way Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A – Lot Line Adjustment Review Criteria 26.480.030. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter: A. General exemptions. 1. Lot line adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met: a) It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and Staff Response: The legal description of 250 Willoughby Way was approved by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and Pitkin County Zoning Commission on August 18, 1960 as part of the Green Acres Subdivision, Block 1. 850 Roaring Fork Drive is part of the Merriam Subdivision that was annexed into the City as part of the “North Annexation” in 1967 via Ordinance 30. A 7,314 square feet of land located in the Roaring Fork River overlaps on both 250 Willoughby Way (Lot 3, Block 1 of the Green Acres Subdivision) and 850 Roaring Fork Drive (Lot 1, Merriam Subdivision). Surveys are provided with the application. The legal descriptions of both the North Annexation Map and the Merriam Subdivision Plat refer to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River. The applicant hypothesizes that the overlap area occurred possibly because the legal description of the Merriam Subdivision is tied to the centerline of the Roaring Fork River at low water, which is not referenced in the legal description of the Green Acres Subdivision. Staff finds that criterion a is met in that request is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels and to correct a presumed surveying error b) All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application; and Staff Response: Both landowners, Joan Merriam Crete and 250 Aspen LLC provided written consent to the application, included in Exhibit F of the application. c) The corrected plat will meet the standards of this Chapter and conform to the requirements of this Title, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the P151 VII.a Exhibit A – Lot Line Adjustment Criteria 850 Roaring Fork Rd./ 250 Willoughby Way Page 2 of 2 Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and Staff Response: The adjusted size of 850 Roaring Fork Road meets the requirements of the R- 15 zone district. The area in question does not contribute toward floor area or density calculations, so the lot line adjustment does not impact the existing development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights, including any increase in FAR or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment. Staff Response: The proposed lot line adjustment reduces the size of each lot. The area being removed from each parcel is located below the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. According to the current City of Aspen Land Use Code and Pitkin County Land Use Code, areas beneath the high water line do not contribute to floor area or density calculations. Approval of the lot line adjustment does not have any impact on the development potential of either parcel. P152 VII.a From:Suzanne Wolff To:Sara Adams Subject:Lot Line Adjustment and Disconnection: Joan Crete and 250 Aspen LLC Date:Thursday, April 04, 2013 11:51:27 AM Hi Sara. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Crete/250 Aspen LLC application. The Applicants propose to amend the lot lines in order to resolve an overlap and to disconnect the “City portion” of the 250 Aspen LLC property from the City of Aspen, such that the entire 250 Aspen LLC property would be within unincorporated Pitkin County. The County does not have any objections to the application, and agrees that it is appropriate to resolve the overlap. Please notify me once the disconnection is approved by the City Council, as the County will then initiate the process to rezone the disconnected tract consistent with the R-30 zoning on the remainder of the 250 Aspen LLC lot. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Suzanne Wolff Senior Planner Pitkin County P153 VII.a E. Michael Hoffman E-mail: mhoffmanl@garfieldhecht.com Phone: (970) 544-3442 March 14, 2013 Ms. Sara Nadolny Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot Line Adjustment Request, Joan Creté and 250 Aspen, LLC Dear Sara: This letter constitutes the joint application of Joan Merriam Creté (“Creté”) and 250 Aspen, LLC (“250 Aspen”) for an adjustment of the boundary between their respective parcels. Concurrent with this lot line adjustment request, 250 Aspen is seeking to disconnect from the City that portion of the “subject property” which will remain under the ownership of 250 Aspen following the effective date of the lot line adjustment. 1. Overview of Request. 250 Aspen purchased Lot 3, Block 1, Green Acres Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado (the “250 Aspen Property”) in January of 2012. During its due diligence review prior to closing, 250 Aspen learned that a portion of the southeast corner of the property “overlapped” with Lot 1, Merriam Subdivison, Pitkin County, Colorado (the “Creté Property”), as shown on the survey which has been filed with this application as Exhibit A. 250 Aspen was willing to close on its purchase of the Property notwithstanding the existence of the overlap with the Creté Property because all of the “Overlap Area” exists below the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. None of the Overlap Area can be developed and none of it contributes to the floor area of what may be developed on the parcel under to the Pitkin County Land Use Code. (All of the 250 Aspen Property lies within unincorporated Pitkin County other than that portion which constitutes the Overlap Area.) 250 Aspen approached Creté in 2012 for the purpose of dividing the Overlap Area and resolving the competing claims to the property. The result was the Agreement to Resolve Conflicting Property Boundaries (the “Resolution”) dated as of July 15, 2012, a copy of which has been filed P155 VII.a Ms. Sara Nadolny March 14, 2013 Page 2 with this application as Exhibit B. Under the Resolution, approximately half of the Overlap Area was to be consolidated into the Creté Property and half was to be incorporated in the 250 Aspen Property. Each party waived their claim to the property incorporated into the parcel owned by the other party. 2. Lot Line Adjustment Approval Standards. Lot line adjustment applications are exempt from the City’s subdivision regulations under Section 26.480.030 A. 1. The following conditions must be met to qualify as a lot line adjustment (the non-italicized language found below represent the responses of the applicants to each criteria of the Land Use Code): a) It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and The legal description of the 250 Aspen Property was established in the Plat of Block 1 of the Green Acres Subdivision which was approved by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners and Pitkin County Zoning Commission on August 18, 1960. A copy of the relevant plat has been filed with this application as Exhibit C. Although the plat itself indicates that the southern and southwestern boundaries of the 250 Aspen Property exist within the Roaring Fork River, it also includes “calls” for the dimensions of each of the lots within the subdivision. Survey monuments have been placed at some of the corners identified in the plat. Those monuments support the legal description of the 250 Aspen Property as shown in the plat. A licensed surveyor certified as to the accuracy of the survey and plat. A reduced version of the survey found in the plat is shown below: P156 VII.a Ms. Sara Nadolny March 14, 2013 Page 3 A Subdivision Exemption Plat for the Merriam Subdivision was approved by the City of Aspen on June 11, 1990. A copy of the relevant plat has been filed with this application as Exhibit D. As shown below, the Merriam Subdivison plat indicates that the parcel’s eastern boundary exists within the Roaring Fork River: The land which is now the Merriam Subdivision was added to the City of Aspen in the “North Annexation,” which was accomplished pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1967. A copy of the ordinance and the annexation map have been submitted with this application as Exhibit E. A review of the vicinity map found on the Merriam Subdivision plat and the North Annexation Map identifies the following as the Creté Property as shown on the North Annexation Map: Again, the North Annexation Map indicates that the northeastern boundary of what is now the Creté Property (and this section of the City of Aspen) exists within the Roaring Fork River. It may be important that the legal description of this property as found in both the Merriam Subdivision Plat P157 VII.a Ms. Sara Nadolny March 14, 2013 Page 4 and the North Annexation Map make reference to certain aspects of the Roaring Fork River as it existed at the time of each survey. The annexation map includes many references to “the centerline of the Roaring Fork River.” The legal description found on the Merriam Subdivision Plat begins “at the center line of the Roaring Fork River at low water” and uses that identifier repeatedly. Without a more complete analysis of the history of the conveyances of both of the parcels at issue here, it is impossible to say for certain how the overlap of the Creté and 250 Aspen Properties occurred. However, it is likely that changes in the channel of the Roaring Fork River may have been the cause. The cause may be related to the fact that the legal description of the Creté Property is tied to the location of the center line of the river at low water, while the description of the 250 Aspen Property has no such reference. In any case, it is clear that the surveyors of the plats for the two properties did not identify the “Overlap Area.” The parties have agreed to resolve the discrepancy by establishing a new boundary which “splits the difference” – providing each party with one half of the total area of the property originally claimed by both of them. b) All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application; and Written consent from both Creté and 250 Aspen are included with this application as Exhibit F. c) The corrected plat will meet the standards of this Chapter and conform to the requirements of this Title, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and A copy of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment Plat has been filed with this application as Exhibit G. d) It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights, including any increase in FAR or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment. The change effected by the lot line adjustment requested here will be to reduce the size of each of affected lots. While a reduction in the size of a lot would typically lessen the development potential of the lot, all of the area to be forfeited by each of these owners exists below the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Under the regulations of both the City and County no development potential is granted to property located below the high water line. Therefore, approval of this lot line adjustment request will have no effect on the development potential of either parcel. The lot line adjustment request should be approved. P158 VII.a Ms. Sara Nadolny March 14, 2013 Page 5 3. Disconnection from the City Requested for Resulting 250 Aspen Property. Following approval of the lot line adjustment request presented above, a portion of the 250 Aspen Property will be located within the City and the majority will be within unincorporated Pitkin County. To avoid questions of which authority has jurisdiction over the property, 250 Aspen requests that the “City portion” of its property be disconnected (or de-annexed) from Aspen. As a home-rule municipality, the City may have the right to establish its own regulations concerning the annexation to and disconnection of property from its boundaries. However, the City has not exercised this authority and the City Attorney has directed 250 Aspen to utilize general Colorado law which applies to statutory cities for this application. C.R.S. § 31-12-501 provides that When the owner of a tract of land within and adjacent to the boundary of a city or town desires to have said tract disconnected from such city or town, such owner may apply to the governing body of such city or town for the enactment of an ordinance disconnecting such tract of land from such city or town. On receipt of such application, it is the duty of such governing body to give due consideration to such application, and, if such governing body is of the opinion that the best interests of the city or town will not be prejudiced by the disconnection of such tract, it shall enact an ordinance effecting such disconnection. A petition of 250 Aspen seeking disconnection of its portion of the Overlap Area from the City is attached to this application as Exhibit G. Approval of the Petition will not prejudice the best interests of the City. The City does not reap any property tax from the Overlap Area. Taxes have been, and will continue to be, levied against the Creté Property. The portion of the Overlap Area to be disconnected from the City is located entirely within the Roaring Fork River and has no development potential. Disconnection should be approved in this case. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, E. Michael Hoffman P159 VII.a PETITION FOR DISCONNECTION 250 Aspen LLC (the “Applicant”), a Colorado limited liability company, as the owner of the following real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, Block 1, Green Acres Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded September 17, 1963 in Ditch Book 2A At Page 292, under Reception No. 1163228, County Of Pitkin, State Of Colorado, as said parcel has been amended from time to time (and referred to herein as the “Property”), hereby petitions the City of Aspen, pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-12-501, for the disconnection of certain real property from the City, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, which property is referred to herein as the “De-Annexation Parcel.” As shown in the proposed lot line adjustment plat submitted with this Petition, said De-Annexation Parcel is within and adjacent to the boundary of the City of Aspen. Further, Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council of the City of Aspen find that the best interests of the City of Aspen will not be prejudiced by disconnection of said De-Annexation Parcel from the City of Aspen, that it approve this request and memorialize its approval by the adoption of an Ordinance consistent with the request made herein and that two (2) certified copies of the Ordinance, along with a map of the area concerned, shall be delivered to the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder for recording in the real property records of Pitkin County, with instructions to the Clerk to file the second certified copy with the Division of Local Government in the Department of Local Affairs of the State of Colorado, as more particularly described in C.R.S. § 24-32-109. PETITIONER: 250 ASPEN LLC a Colorado limited liability company By: William Guth Date Manager P161 VII.a Exhibit A Legal Description of De-Annexation Parcel A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NE 1/4 NE 1/4, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN; SAID PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, GREEN ACRES SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1963 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 116288 AND A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 13, 1990 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 327935; SAID PARCEL OF LAND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION, WHENCE THE 1978 BLM BRASS CAP FOR THE N 1/16 SECTION 12/7 BEARS S.76o17’37"E., A DISTANCE OF 191.96 FEET (WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN BEING BASED ON A BEARING OF S.89o15'58"E. BETWEEN SAID BRASS CAP AND CORNER NO. 14, BROWN PLACER); THENCE N.54o05'54"W., A DISTANCE OF 102.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION; THENCE N.49o40'40'"E., ALONG SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE A DISTANCE OF 39.66 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.59o03'00”E., ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 28.11 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.23o12'00"E., A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, MERRIAM SUBDIVISION; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE S.05o57'00” E., ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 6.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 2,686 SQUARE FEET OR 0.062 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO P162 VII.a P163 VII.a P164 VII.a 86 5 85 5 87 0 86 0 85 0 84 5 84 6 36 8 36 4 24 7 28 8 25 0 21 8 23 9 20 9 15 2 207 W I L L O U G H B Y W A Y R O A R ING FORK RD Ci t y o f A s p e n 25 0 W i l l o u g h b y W a y Aerial Photo: Fall, 2008 Map Produced: March 22, 2012 1 i n c h = 1 2 5 f e e t01 30 65 Fe e t Z This map/drawing is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction.Copyright 2012 City of Aspen/Pitkin County Vi c i n i t y M a p 250Aspen Property Cr e t é Pr o p e r t y P165VII.a Overlap Area ExhibitA 250Aspen Property Crete Property P166 VII.a ExhibitB P167 VII.a P168 VII.a P169 VII.a P170 VII.a P171 VII.a  Ex h i b i t C P172 VII.a Ex h i b i t D P173VII.a ExhibitE P174 VII.a P175 VII.a P176 VII.a P177 VII.a P178 VII.a P179 VII.a P180 VII.a P181 VII.a P182 VII.a P183 VII.a P184 VII.a ExhibitF P185 VII.a P1 8 6 VI I . a P1 8 7 VI I . a 1 MemorandumMemorandumMemorandumMemorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: Juvenile jurisdiction in the municipal court ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ COUNCIL REQUEST: The attached ordinance is before the Council on first reading. Adoption of the ordinance will clarify the ongoing exercise of municipal court jurisdiction over juveniles who violate the City of Aspen Municipal Code. DISCUSSION: The practice in Aspen for years has been to prosecute juveniles in municipal court as appropriate. Exercising this jurisdiction allows police officers an option to charge juveniles with violation of the municipal code, rather than state law, and this option is often seen as a less onerous alternative to initiating a juvenile proceeding in district court. The City Police Department, through its school resource officer, Tina Thompson, and the City Attorney’s Office recently worked with the Residences at the Little Nell to proceed in municipal court against several juveniles who allegedly trespassed on the RNL premises, using restorative justice techniques to craft an informal resolution of the charges. During that process, however, a review of the Municipal Code indicated a potential conflict between two chapters addressing municipal court jurisdiction. Specifically, Aspen Municipal Code Section 1.04.080, initially added by Ordinance 15, Series of 1976, and amended to its current form by Ordinance 12, Series of 1996, currently provides: 1.04.080 (c) The Municipal Judge is empowered to order a child under the age of eighteen (18) years of age confined in a juvenile detention facility operated by the State Department of Human Services or a temporary holding facility operated by or under contract with the City for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court, including an order to pay a fine. Any confinement of a child for contempt of Municipal Court shall not exceed forty-eight (48) hours. (d) A child under the age of eighteen (18), arrested for an alleged violation of a municipal ordinance or provision of this Code, convicted of violating a municipal P189 VII.b 2 ordinance or provision of this Code or probation condition imposed by the Municipal Court or found in contempt of Court in connection with a violation or alleged violation of a municipal ordinance or provision of this Code shall not be confined in a jail, lockup or other place used for the confinement of adult offenders, but may be held in a juvenile detention facility operated by or under contract with the State Department of Human Services or a temporary holding facility operated or under contract with the City which shall receive and provide care for such child. The Municipal Court imposing penalties for violation of probation conditions imposed by such court or for contempt of court in connection with a violation or alleged violation of a municipal ordinance or provision of this Code may confine a juvenile pursuant to Section 19-2-204, C.R.S., for up to forty-eight (48) hours in a juvenile detention facility operated by or under contract with the State Department of Human Services. However, Section 15.04.020, initially enacted in 1971 and repealed and re-enacted by Ordinance 46, Series of 1974, was not updated with the changes in section 1.04.080, and currently provides: Sec. 15.04.020. Principals, parties subject to prosecution. Any person eighteen (18) or over is chargeable under and can be convicted of, a violation of any Section in this Chapter, for conduct violating such Section, as well as for violating such Section if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the violation, the person aids, abets or advises another in planning or committing the violation. (Code 1971, § 13-3; Ord. No. 46-1974, § 1) The requested changes will amend this section so that the municipal court clearly has jurisdiction over juveniles charged with violating any municipal ordinance, by adding the language in red: Sec. 15.04.020. Principals, parties subject to prosecution, juveniles. Any person eighteen (18) or over is chargeable under and can be convicted of, a violation of any Section in this Chapter, for conduct violating such Section, as well as for violating such Section if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the violation, the person aids, abets or advises another in planning or committing the violation. Any person under the age of eighteen is chargeable under and can be convicted of a violation of any municipal ordinance or provision of this code, including but not limited to violations of any Section in this Chapter; however, the penalties for juvenile offenders are limited by the provisions of Sections 1.04.080 (c) and (d) of this code. ACTION REQUESTED: A Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2013. CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ P190 VII.b ORDINANCE NO. 18 SERIES 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 15 SECTION 04.020 TO ADDRESS JUVENILE PROSECUTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Municipal Code, §§1.04.080(c) and (d), empowers the municipal court with certain jurisdiction over persons under the age of eighteen who commit violations of a municipal ordinance, with the limitation that such juveniles not be confined in a jail but may be held in a juvenile detention facility; and WHEREAS, certain language in Municipal Code §15.04.020 was not changed when City ordinances amended the above provision in the Code that intended to assure juveniles could be prosecuted for ordinance violations in the municipal court, and the failure of that section to specifically include juveniles creates some uncertainty as to the extent of the municipal court’s jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Aspen to eliminate any uncertainty as to the municipal court’s jurisdiction, by adding “juveniles” to the title of that section and by adding a sentence to the end that reads: “Any person under the age of eighteen is chargeable under and can be convicted of a violation of any municipal ordinance or provision of this code, including but not limited to violations of any Section in this Chapter; however, the penalties for juvenile offenders are limited by the provisions of Sections 1.04.080 (c) and (d) of this code.” NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1. Section 15.04.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15.04.020. Principals, parties subject to prosecution, juveniles. Any person eighteen (18) or over is chargeable under and can be convicted of, a violation of any Section in this Chapter, for conduct violating such Section, as well as for violating such Section if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the violation, the person aids, abets or advises another in planning or committing the violation. Any person under the age of eighteen is chargeable under and can be convicted of a violation of any municipal ordinance or provision of this code, including but not limited to violations of any Section in this Chapter; however, the penalties for juvenile offenders are limited by the provisions of Sections 1.04.080 (c) and (d) of this code. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under P191 VII.b such prior ordinances. SECTION 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 4 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of May, 2013 in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _______ day of ______, 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ James R. True, City Attorney FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of ______, 2013. P192 VII.b 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 4/22/13 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split – Subdivision – Other Amendment, PUD-Other Amendment, 2nd Reading Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2013, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 APPLICANT /OWNER: South Alps Road, LLC and Icie Jackson LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Planning Services LOCATION: 605 and 675 S. Alps Road, Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split CURRENT ZONING: Moderate-Density Residential (R-15), with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant seeks to amend the configuration of the two lots and amend the individual floor area permitted for each lot, while maintaining the overall floor area cap. Approval of PUD - Other Amendment and Subdivision – Other Amendment is required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance. Lot 2, Moses Lot Split P193 VIII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 4/22/13 Page 2 of 5 SPECIAL NOTE: At first reading, some questions arose as to why the Applicant is offering to extinguish an Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) as part of this approval. Although not necessary, the Applicant felt landing a TDR adds additional community benefit to the proposal. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Moses Lot Split Subdivision LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council: • PUD – Other Amendment – An application for PUD – Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B., Other Amendment, requires the City Council, at a public hearing, to approve, approve with conditions or deny the PUD Amendment. The City Council is the final decision-making body after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Subdivision – Other Amendment - An application for Subdivision – Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.080 B., Other Amendment requires approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the amendment. The City Council is the final decision-making body. On February 19, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an 8040 Greenline review to construct an addition to the residence located on Lot 2 and recommended City Council P194 VIII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 4/22/13 Page 3 of 5 approve the PUD – Other Amendment, allowing for a reallocation of floor area for the subdivision, via Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013). BACKGROUND/ PREVIOUS APPROVALS: The Moses Lot Split is a two lot subdivision that is located at the top of S. Alps Road, which is accessed off of Ute Avenue. The subdivision is adjacent to the 700 building of Aspen Alps South and backs up against Aspen Mountain and the boundary of the ski area. Both lots contain steep slopes. The Moses Lot Split contains a single family residence on Lot 2 (675 S. Alps Road), while Lot 1 is currently vacant. The subdivision has been through a number of changes over time as noted below: • Originally, the subdivision was approved in 1987. It created two lots and required that the existing houses on the site “become single-family residences,” provided a maximum floor area per lot of 3,800 sq. ft. and dedicated a 15 foot trail easement along part of Lot 1 for the Ajax Trail. • In 1992, the property owner of Lot 2 acquired land surrounding certain buildings of the Aspen Alps and negotiated an increase of the allowable floor area of Lot 2 (5,000 sq. ft) as well as an increase in the lot size. The balance of land that the owner of Lot 2 acquired surrounding the Aspen Alps was conveyed by the owner to the Aspen Alps. • In 2006, an 8040 Greenline review was approved for Lot 2 and the present house was constructed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant proposes to amend the maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 and 2 while maintaining the overall total for the lots as noted in the following table. Table 1: Proposed Changes in Floor Area Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 3,800 3,000 -800 Lot 2 5,000 5,800 +800 Total 8,800 8,800 0 The existing floor area allowances do not correspond with the floor area that is permitted by the underlying zone district for each lot, based upon lot area and factoring in a reduction of floor area due to the presence of steep slopes. Essentially, the existing numbers were negotiated during the subdivision process and the Applicant is asking to renegotiate the individual lot allowances. P195 VIII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 4/22/13 Page 4 of 5 In addition to requesting an amendment of the allowable floor area of each individual lot, the applicant is proposing to: 1) expand the width of the existing trail easement to twenty (20) feet per the request of the Parks Department for the Ajax Trail which traverses a portion of the subdivision; and 2) increase the overall lot size of Lot 2 with a corresponding reduction in Lot 1; and, 3) extinguish a Transferable Development Right on Lot 2. Additionally, a portion of Lot 1 sits outside the municipal boundary of the city and the applicant has agreed to correct this discrepancy by annexing that portion of the lot into the city. Table 3: Proposed Changes in Lot size Existing Proposed Difference Lot 1 26,223 15,072 -11,151 Lot 2 44,780 54,762 +9,982 Total 71,003 69,834 1,169* Note: * There was a discrepancy in the boundary of the property and the surveyor has used the more conservative land area. The ordinance requires the discrepancy to be rectified. STAFF COMMENTS: PUD – Other Amendment: The Applicant is requesting to amend the PUD in order to memorialize a reallocation of floor area between the two lots within the existing subdivision. The proposal is to develop an addition on Lot 2 and limit it to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence and locate it on existing hardscape areas of the property. Undisturbed areas on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area that will remain undisturbed. The mass and scale impacts of the addition are minimal and create some benefits for the area by reducing the developable floor area on Lot 1. Additionally, the reallocation of some of Lot 1’s land area to Lot 2 will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the subdivision’s steeper slopes and create further distance between potential development and the Ajax Trail, a recreational resource for the community. The proposal will provide a larger, standard trail easement for the Ajax Trail, also a benefit. Extinguishing a TDR encourages a program that reduces development pressures on historic resources and lands it on a lot that is part of a subdivision with an existing cap in floor area. Subdivision – Other Amendment: The Moses lot split subdivision was originally platted as a two lot subdivision in 1987. This application does not affect the number of lots within the subdivision as it will remain two. The subdivision amendment permits the reconfiguration of the lots by decreasing the size of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2. As the number of lots remains the same staff considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with the approved plat. P196 VIII.a 605 & 675 S. Alps Road, Moses Lot Split PUD and Subdivision Amendment City Council Memo, 4/22/13 Page 5 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as the reallocation of some of Lot 1’s land area to Lot 2 will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the subdivision’s steeper slopes and create further distance between potential development and the Ajax Trail, a recreational resource for the community. The proposal will provide a larger, standard trail easement for the Ajax Trail, also a benefit. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2013, approving PUD Other Amendment and Subdivision Other Amendment on first reading and setting second reading for April 22, 2013.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings, Subdivision – Other Amendment Exhibit B – Staff Findings, PUD – Other Amendment Exhibit C - P&Z Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013) Exhibit D – Renderings of the proposed Addition Exhibit E – Application Exhibit F – P&Z minutes, 2/19/13 P197 VIII.a City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series 2013 Page 1 of 5 ORDINANCE NO. 11 (SERIES OF 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD- OTHER AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 AND 675 S. ALPS ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 273718256003 and 273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline review from the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval for PUD-Other Amendment and Subdivision–Other Amendment by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests 8040 Greenline review to build an addition to the residence located on 675 S. Alps Road, PUD-Other Amendment to amend the individual floor area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split but not increase the total floor area granted to the two lots, and Subdivision-Other Amendment to adjust the lot lines between the two lots; and, WHEREAS, as part of the application, Applicant offers to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) on Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed 8040 Greenline review and PUD–Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved an 8040 Greenline review as well as a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment for City Council by a four to zero (4-0) vote, via Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013); and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed PUD–Other Amendment and Subdivision-Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on April 22, 2013 the City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved a PUD-Other Amendment and a Subdivision–Other Amendment by a ---to --- (__-___) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: P199 VIII.a City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series 2013 Page 2 of 5 Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves a PUD – Other Amendment to amend the allocation of the individual Floor Area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 as well as a Subdivision - Other Amendment to amend the size and boundaries of Lot 1 and 2. A. Floor Area and Lot Size. The City Council approves the change in the size of Lots 1 and 2 (as submitted with this application) and approves the amended Floor Area allowance for each lot as noted in the table below. A building envelope has been established for Lot 2. All other applicable dimensional standards shall meet the underlining zone district requirements. Lot 1 Lot 2 Maximum Floor Area 3,000 5,800 Minimum Lot Size 15,072 54,762 B. TDR Extinguishment. As part of the land use application, the Applicant has offered and the City has accepted the extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) as part of the PUD Amendment on Lot 2. The TDR shall be extinguished prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the residential addition approved through this ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013) for Lot 2; however, the extinguishment of the TDR shall not increase the maximum allowable floor area of Lot 2. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision/PUD plat that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.445.070, Recording a Final PUD Development Plan, within 180 days of approval by City Council. A subdivision agreement is not required. The plat shall be recorded prior to the submission of a building permit application. The building envelope for Lot 2 shall be amended to contain the existing footprint of the building, proposed addition, and existing hardscape improvements to the lot such as retaining walls, etc. so that the requirements of Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes, are met. The plat shall include the enlarged trail easement for the Ajax Trail as outlined in the pre- annexation agreement between the City and Applicant. As a result of minor and non-material discrepancies in survey boundaries for the area in and around the property of Applicant, there appears to be overlap between the Applicant’s property boundary and the adjacent property boundary of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The Applicant agrees to accept the the Aspen Chance plat. Thus, the final plat recorded pursuant to this development shall reflect the boundaries set forth in the Aspen Chance plat. A plat note shall reflect the basis of the change. P200 VIII.a City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series 2013 Page 3 of 5 Section 3: Engineering The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant’s design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The application shall meet the mitigation requirements of the Mud and Debris Flow Analysis prepared by Tetra Tec, Inc., dated August 29, 2012 and provided in Exhibit D of the staff memo reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 19, 2013. Additionally, Applicant shall meet the terms and conditions of the Indemnification and Land Use Process Agreement for Lot 2. Section 4: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 5: Utilities 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 6: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District’s rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 7: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City’s Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 8: Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 9: Building Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant’s General Contractor, the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements of this Ordinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of this Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2013). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. P201 VIII.a City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series 2013 Page 4 of 5 d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. A construction management plan (CMP) pursuant to the Building Department’s requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 10: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 5, Series of 2013 and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split Subdivision and commonly known as 605 and 675 S. Alps Road, City of Aspen, CO, by Ordinance No. -- Series of 2013, of the Aspen City Council. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: 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. P202 VIII.a City Council Ordinance No. 11, Series 2013 Page 5 of 5 The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of April, 2013, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 18th day of March, 2013. Attest: _________________________ ____________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ----- day of -------, 2013. Attest: _________________________ ____________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P203 VIII.a Exhibit A – Subdivision 4/22/2013 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Subdivision Review Criteria 26.480.080. Amendment to subdivision development order. B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the City Council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat. Staff Finding: The Moses lot split subdivision was originally platted as a two lot subdivision in 1987. This application does not affect the number of lots within the subdivision as it will remain two. The subdivision amendment permits the reconfiguration of the lots by decreasing the size of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2. As the number of lots remains the same staff considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with the approved plat. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P205 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 1 of 8 Exhibit B 26.445.050. Review standards: conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcels in terms of density, height, bulk, and architecture, as well as any adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Finding: The area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Adjacent residences are also located in the same zone district (R-15) so underlying dimensional requirement are the same as the subject parcel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: As mentioned above, the area close to the subject property is a mix of single family residences and multi-family development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area, as the area is substantially built out and appropriate utilities and access are in place if any development occurs. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Under the current proposal, the application is exempt from growth management review. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the P207 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 2 of 8 underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The underlying zone district permits a single-family residence on each lot and the sites are located next to multi-family buildings that are similar in mass and scale. The addition being proposed on Lot 2 is minimal and any natural hazards can be mitigated through appropriate construction techniques. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The Applicant is proposing to concentrate the addition to an area that is already developed with a single-family residence on Lot 2. The areas that are currently undisturbed on the lot are uphill, steeper slopes leading towards the ski area that will remain undisturbed. The reapportioning of some of Lot 1’s floor area to Lot 2, as well as some of the lot’s acreage will concentrate any future development on Lot 1 away from the site’s steeper slopes and permit less square footage than currently permitted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. P208 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 3 of 8 d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: The residence meets the minimum off-street parking requirement by providing a two stall garage and the vacant lot will meet the required parking standards if developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Sufficient infrastructure exists to service both lots and the maximum density, a single-family residence, is already constructed on the Lot 2. Staff finds that this standard is not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudflow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Staff Finding: Both lots have areas of steep slopes that may contain natural hazards; however, appropriate mitigation techniques can be instituted when construction commences as out lined in the technical report provided for the proposed addition to Lot 2. Staff finds the criterion not applicable. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more adopted goals of the community as expressed in an applicable adopted regulatory master plan. P209 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 4 of 8 b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a) Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b) The approved dimensional requirements for all lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing an increase in the permitted density on either lot; therefore this standard is not applicable. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. P210 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 5 of 8 Staff Finding: The subdivision contains two lots and is permitted a single-family residence on each lot. Development is located on the flatter sections of the lots. Both lots have existing access to the street system via S. Alps Road. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well-designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: As single-family residences, no landscape plan is required. As part of the annexation application for a portion of Lot, the existing Ajax Trail will be enhanced with a wider trail easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. 4. Emphasize quality construction and design characteristics, such as exterior materials, weathering, snow shedding and storage, and energy efficiency. Staff Finding: The addition proposed to the existing house is minimal and provides a mass and scale that is similar to other buildings in the neighborhood. Quality materials P211 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 6 of 8 are used on the existing house and the house exhibits typical architectural features of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Both sites are required to meet the outdoor lighting standards for residential development as adopted by the city which requires full-cut-off light fixtures for lighting over a certain height and requires glazed glass on lower fixtures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location and design of the common park, open space or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial or industrial development. Staff Finding: There is no specific common open space for the benefit of the development; however, one trail on the site is for the benefit of the public and is being provided an appropriate easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the P212 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 7 of 8 public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Both lots within the subdivision either contain or have previously contained a single-family residence. Utilities and infrastructure are available for each lot. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and circulation. (Only standards 1 & 2 apply to minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: S. Alps Road provides adequate access to the lots and each lot is required to provide a certain amount of off-street parking with the development of a residence. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of development plan. (does not apply to conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: P213 VIII.a Exhibit B - PUD 4/22/2013 Page 8 of 8 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: The development is not proposed to be phased. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable. P214 VIII.a RESOLUTION NO. 5 SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PUD-OTHER AMENDMENT FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 AND 675 S. ALPS ROAD,CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel IDs: 273718256003 and 273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from S. Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC (Applicant), represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning Services, requesting approval of a 8040 Greenline review and a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission and also requesting Subdivision — Other Amendment, which is only subject to review by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests 8040 Greenline review to build an addition to the residence located on 675 S. Alps Road, PUD-Other Amendment to amend the individual floor area allowances for Lot 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split but not increase the total floor area granted to the two lots, and Subdivision - Other Amendment to adjust the lot lines between the two lots; and, WHEREAS, as part of the application, Applicant offers to extinguish a Historic Transferable Development Right (TDR) on Lot 2; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed 8040 Greenline review and PUD—Other Amendment and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a meeting on February 19, 2013 the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposal and approved an 8040 Greenline review as well as a recommendation of approval for PUD-Other Amendment for City Council by a four to zero (4-0) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the 8040 Greenline review to build an addition onto the existing single family residence located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split (675 S. Alps Road) and recommends approval of the PUD — Other Amendment to amend the allocation of the individual Floor Area allowances for Lot 1 and 2. A. 8040 Greenline review. The 8040 Greenline review is approved as represented in Exhibit 1 of this resolution. The approval is subject to the terms and conditions of the Land Use Code RECEPTION#: 597478, 03/06/2013 at 10:09:48 AM, Planning and Zoning Commission 1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Resolution No. 5, Series 2013 Page 1 of 4 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P215 VIII.a unless outlined below. As part of the 8040 Greenline approval, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Building Envelope. The building envelope for Lot 2 shall be amended to contain the existing footprint of the building, proposed addition, and existing hardscape improvements to the lot such as retaining walls, etc. so that the requirements of Section 26.575.110, Building envelopes, are met. The amended envelope shall be depicted on the ls' amended lot line adjustment plat that is to be approved by City Council. 2. Residential Design. Recognizing the existing conditions of the site and residence, the 8040 Greenline approval permits the development of a site specific design that is compatible with the local terrain and mountain character; however, the new additions shall be subject to applicable residential design standards with the exception of secondary mass (section 26.410.040 B.1.). The addition shall replicate the design approved by the Planning Commission and incorporated as Exhibit 1 of this resolution. B. PUD-Other Amendment. The Commission recommends that the City Council approve the change in the size of Lots 1 and 2, amend the Floor Area allowance for each lot as noted in the table below, and require the extinguishment of one Historic Transferable Development Right as part of the amendment to the PUD. Lot 1 Lot 2 Floor Area 300 5,800 Lot Size 15,072 54,762 Section 2: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. The Applicant's design shall also be compliant with the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The application shall meet the mitigation requirements of the Mud and Debris Flow Analysis prepared by Tetra Tee, Inc., dated August 29, 2012 and provided in Exhibit D of the staff memo reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission dated February 19, 2013. Section 3: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met per building permit. Section 4: Utilities 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5,Series 2013 Page 2 of 4 P216 VIII.a Section 5• Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, at the time of construction, which are on file at the District office. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 6: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 7• Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication Fee-in-Lieu The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication fee-in-lieu assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 8• Building Permit Application The Applicant, the Applicant's General Contractor, the Architect that produced the construction drawings, and representatives from the Building Department, Community Development Department and any other person deemed necessary by the City shall attend a meeting prior to the submission of any type of Building Permit for the Subject Property. The purpose of the meeting shall be to ensure clarity relative to the submission requirements, the requirements ofthisOrdinance, timeframes for processing Building Permits, and any other issues raised by any party. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9 Series of 2012). b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which meets adopted City standards. e. A construction management plan (CMP) pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. f. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Sect= All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvalsandthesameshallbecompliedwithasiffullysetforthherein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5, Series 2013 Page 3 of 4 P217 VIII.a Section 10: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reasonheldinvalidorunconstitutionalinacourtofcompetentjurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of February, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMM ON: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney Ersparner, hair ATTEST: a Lothian,Deputy City Clerk Exhibit 1 —Exterior elevations and site plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 5,Series 2013 Page 4 of 4 P218 VIII.a 11111 , 111 „ 1 :111 ) Jlll W I L L I A M T. GEORGIS A R C H I T E C T I C TERING KITCHE ADDIT ON GE 1 5 SOFT. IR y PIT - i ii OFFICE/Y0 STUDIO ADDITION OVER I EXISTING TERRACE 0 Oa II 295 SOFT. oe I I TOTAL ADDED SOFT. = 630.00 MUDROOM ADDITION aoa O150SOFT. N L-ITTLE NELL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL PLAN-PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQ.FT. 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 7 NOVEMBER 2011 SCALE:1/8 P2 1 9 VI I I . a rr ® ® • ® ® r • • ® ® • • ® ® • 11i • i iiiiiiiii iiiiiii • GEORGIS 4 I I. PROPOSEDED YOGPOS A STUDIC OFFICE 7 E514 iPi PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDTION r h I I, .._..._ _{-'7' Fe c•v ?eel I I I I 1 , O (J EAST ELEVATION (FF ONT) i' J fill I T 7f I I r i': A I. 3 _ r PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDITION r 'F I I i I I n SOUTH ELEVATION I a 1J o a–100-0•.Lo74.67 .. .— - I/4'.P_O c I I LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P2 2 0 VI I I . a GEORGIS r— i1 li [Jf 7 r`= 1 `f" T q » i ` a• A ( + r•,` k a 41,P s ILL ION El- 1 I PROPOSED KITCHEN ENCLOSURE L a L_ l`! % d-O•I tkTF.6'! I.ni \ .1 C.LA1 G/ I _ r I PROPOSED YOGA STUDIO/OFFICE r J. 1 et•f r #h i .:._! L, t F li_._c L t r _.Q.;H-_ Fow11 II 1 J LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P2 2 1 VI I I . a P2 2 3 VI I I . a P2 2 4 VI I I . a P2 2 5 VI I I . a P2 2 6 VI I I . a RECEIVE DEC 6 2012 CITY OF ASPEtl OOMWUMTY WL0PWfff LOT 1 AND LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES P.O. BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 DECEMBER, 2012 P227 VIII.a TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. History of Prior Development Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. Summary of Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. Subdivision/PUD Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 V. 8040 Greenline Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VI. Vested Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 EXHIBITS 1. Title Insurance Policy for Lot 1 2. Title Insurance Policy for Lot 2 3. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application 4. Pre-Application Conference Summary 5. Recorded Statement of Subdivision Exception 6. City Council Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 7. P&Z Resolution 17, Series of 2006 8. P&Z Resolution 19, Series of 2008 9. City Council Resolution 47, Series of 2011 10. Proposed Annexation Petition for South Portion of Lot 1 11. 1992 Letter from Nicholas Lampiris 12. May 13, 2011 Letter from Hans Brucker, P.E. 13. May 13, 2011 Letter from Steve Pawlak, P.E. 14. May 23, 2012 Letter from Tricia Aragon, P.E. 15. June 18, 2012 Letter from Richard Johnson, P.E. 16. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Lot 2 17. Tetra Tech Mud Flow Analysis 18. Indemnification and Land Use Process Agreement DRAWINGS Vicinity Map Proposed Amended Subdivision Plat Proposed Floor Plans Existing and Proposed Elevations P228 VIII.a I.Introduction This is an application requesting amendments to the floor area limitations that apply to Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The Moses Lot Split is located near the top of Aspen Alps South Road, across from the Aspen Alps 700 Building. (see Drawing # 1, the vicinity map). Following is a summary of the ownership of the two parcels: Address Parcel ID Number Owner Lot 1 605 S. Alps Road 273718256003 South Alps Rd. LLC Lot 2 675 S. Alps Road 273718256001 Icie Jackson LLC Proof of the ownership of the properties is provided via title insurance policies issued for Lot 1 and Lot 2 (see Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #2). Both of the owners (hereinafter, "the applicants") have designated Alan Richman Planning Services as their representative for this application (see the letter attached hereto as Exhibit#3). The applicants propose to amend a condition that the City of Aspen previously applied to these lots which established the maximum allowed floor area for Lot 1 as 3,800 sq. ft. and Lot 2 as 5,000 sq. ft. Unlike most residential properties in Aspen, where maximum floor area is a direct function of the size of the lot, the floor area for these lots was the outcome of a negotiation that occurred during a previous land use review procedure. The applicant proposes to maintain the overall floor area limit between the two lots at 8,800 sq. ft. but to alter the total allowed for each lot, such that Lot 1 would be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. and Lot 2 would be permitted a maximum of 5,800 sq. ft. The purpose of this amendment is to allow some minor additions to be made to the existing house on Lot 2. Several pre-application discussions were held between the applicants and staff of the Community Development Department. A copy of the pre-application form staff provided to the applicants is attached hereto as Exhibit #4. According to the form, the applicants have been directed to respond to the following sections of the Land Use Code: 26.480.080: Amendment of Subdivision Development Order (Other Amendment); 26.445.100: Amendment of PUD Development Order (Other Amendment); and 26.435.030: 8040 Greenline Review. The applicants also request that vested rights be granted to the proposed development, pursuant to Sec. 26.308 of the Land Use Code. The following sections of this application are organized to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the applicable review standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. First however, some background information is presented describing the existing conditions of each of these lots and tracing the history of the prior land use approvals granted to these lots by which the current floor area limits were established. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Pagel P229 VIII.a II. History Of Prior Development Approvals The Moses Lot Split is a two lot subdivision that was originally approved by the City of Aspen in 1987. The original subdivision plat is recorded in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 of the Pitkin County Records. A Statement of Subdivision Exception is recorded in Book 540 at Page 186 of the Pitkin County records (see Exhibit#5). The plat divided the original 1 acre property into two lots. Lot 1 was approximately 0.602 acres in size (26,223 sq. ft.) while Lot 2 was approximately 0.398 acres (17,337 sq. ft.). Each lot contained an older residential structure. According to the staff report addressing that application, both of those structures were non-conforming uses under the zoning that was applied to the property at that time (Conservation) because each structure contained more than one kitchen and was therefore considered to be a duplex. As a condition of the approval of the lot split and the accompanying rezoning of the property to R-15 PUD, the then-owner agreed to convert each structure into a single family residence. The owner also agreed to a 3,800 sq. ft. floor area limitation that would apply to each of the houses as a condition of obtaining the lot split. This limitation is memorialized on the plat and in the statement of subdivision exception. In 1992 the Aspen Alps, together with the then-owner of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, applied for an amendment to the conditions of the lot split and for 8040 Greenline Review. The purpose of that application was to increase the floor area allowance for Lot 2 from 3,800 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. As part of that application the owner of Lot 2 obtained title to the land surrounding the 300, 400 and 500 buildings of the Aspen Alps, which up to that time had remained in the ownership of the original developers of the Aspen Alps, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bornefeld. These lands were conveyed to the Aspen Alps by the owner of Lot 2 and a restriction was placed on these lands that they would not be utilized to obtain additional floor area or density by the Aspen Alps. A small portion of this land area was retained by the owner of Lot 2, thereby increasing the size of Lot 2 to its present area of approximately 1.002 acres (43,662 sq. ft.). This additional lot area was meant to support the request for the increased floor area of Lot 2, although there was not a direct relationship between the increased lot area and the proposed increase in floor area. These amendments were approved by the City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance 31, Series of 1992, based on P&Z Resolution No. 92-6 (see Exhibit #6). The first amended plat for Lot 2 was recorded in Plat Book 29 at Page 65 of the Pitkin County Records. In 2006 an application was submitted to the City for 8040 Greenline Review to re-develop Lot 2 with a new residence. 8040 Greenline Review approval was obtained pursuant to P&Z Resolution 17, Series of 2006 (see Exhibit #7). An amended plat depicting the revised building envelope for the lot was recorded in Plat Book 80 at Page 5 of the Pitkin County Records. A residence that complies with the lot's maximum allowable floor area of 5,000 sq. ft. has since been built and a certificate of occupancy was issued for it. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 2 P230 VIII.a In 2008 an application was submitted for the re-development of Lot 1. 8040 Greenline Review approval was obtained pursuant to P&Z Resolution 19, Series of 2008 (see Exhibit 8). Re-development of the property has not yet commenced, although the house that previously existed on the property was torn down in 2011, leaving the property as vacant. Subsequently, in 2011, the new owner of Lot 1 applied for an extension of the vested rights associated with the 8040 approval. The City Council granted a 2 year extension of those vested rights pursuant to Resolution 47, Series of 2011 (see Exhibit #9). The extended vested rights for the re-development of Lot 1 remain in effect through June 22, 2013. More recently, in April, 2012 the applicant submitted an application for exemption from 8040 Greenline Review-for- some limited landscaping changes to the two lots. These plans included transplanting a number of existing trees from the boundary between the two lots to the edge of Lot 1 and installing a gate along the driveway to Lot 2. These plans received administrative approval from staff and the landscaping work was completed in June of 2012. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 3 P231 VIII.a III. Summary of Existing Conditions The vicinity map that has been prepared using the City's GIS depicts existing conditions on Lots 1 and 2 and on the properties immediately surrounding these lots. It shows that the immediately adjacent uses to the subject lots include the 300, 400, 500 and 700 buildings at the Aspen Alps (north of the subject property) and the single family residences of the Aspen Chance Subdivision (east of the subject property). The Aspen Mountain Gondola passes immediately to the west of, and looks down upon, these lots. The map shows that access is provided to Lot 1 and Lot 2 via South Alps Road, a private road that intersects with Ute Avenue just past the lower entrance to the Aspen Alps. Lot 1 and Lot 2 are situated at the top of this road, directly across from the Aspen Alps 700 Building. There are existing driveways in place to serve these two lots. The vicinity map shows the location of the City/County boundary line which cuts across the top of Lot 1. The area above this line is currently unincorporated. Therefore, the applicant has also submitted an annexation petition to accompany this land use application, requesting that the City annex this small area so the entire subdivision is within the City limits. A copy of that annexation petition is attached hereto as Exhibit# 10. The drawing shows topography on each of the lots. Generally, the portion of each lot that is immediately above Aspen Alps Road is relatively flat and suitable for development. Further above these flat areas the slopes rise steeply beyond the building areas and are densely covered with mature vegetation. Lot 2 also includes an extensive area below South Alps Road that is too steep to be suitable for development. Although not shown on the vicinity map, the zoning that applies to these lots is R-15 PUD). A PUD plan has never been processed for the two lots since each is a single family lot and a single family residence is exempt from PUD review. Surrounding zoning includes the Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR ) zoning of the Aspen Alps, R-15 zoning of Aspen Chance, and Conservation (C) zoning of lands on Aspen Mountain and lands above the 8040 Greenline. Lot 1 had previously been developed with a residence containing approximately 3,800 sq. ft. of floor area. That residence was demolished in the fall of 2011 and so the lot is vacant with the exception of a small shed/children's play structure that is located in the upper portion of the lot. Lot 2 is improved with a new residence that has a floor area of approximately 5,000 sq. ft. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 4 P232 VIII.a IV. Subdivision/PUD Amendment The applicant proposes two amendments to the Subdivision Plat/PUD Plan for these lots: 1. Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 and the resulting amended plat for Lot 2 that is recorded in Book 29 at Plat 65 limit the buildout of the residence on Lot 2 to 5,000 sq. ft. Prior land use approvals granted to Lot 1 limit its allowable floor area to 3,800 sq. ft. The applicant proposes that these limitations be amended to swap 800 sq. ft. of floor area between Lot 1 and Lot 2. This would increase the floor area allowed on Lot 2 to 5,800 sq. ft. and would decrease the floor area allowed on Lot 1 to 3,000 sq. ft. 2. The applicant also proposes to amend the lot lines between lots 1 and 2. The lot lines would be amended to reduce the size of Lot 1 to approximately 15,072 sq. ft. and to increase the size of Lot 2 by a corresponding amount, to approximately 54,762 sq. ft. (1.26 acres). The purpose of this amendment is to increase the land area of Lot 2, to make it more consistent with the increase in floor area that is proposed for that lot. The land area of Lot 1 would be decreased to a size that is consistent with the reduced floor area proposed for that lot. An amended subdivision plat showing the proposed new configuration of the lots is included in this application booklet. Section 26.480.080 of the Aspen Land Use Code authorizes amendments to approved subdivisions. It provides for what are identified as "insubstantial amendments" (Sub- section A) and 'other amendments" (Sub-section B). An insubstantial subdivision amendment is limited to "technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a plat that has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the original plat". An insubstantial amendment may be authorized administratively. Other subdivision amendments (that is, amendments which do not qualify as insubstantial amendments) require review and approval by the Aspen City Council, "provided the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat". The proposed amendments do not qualify as an insubstantial subdivision amendment because they are not technical or engineering considerations. Therefore, by definition the amendments are considered to be an "other amendment". This means that the amendments must be determined to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final plat in order for them to be approved. The PUD procedure addresses amendments in a similar manner. Section 26.445.100 provides for insubstantial PUD amendments and for other PUD amendments. Sub-section 26.445.100 A lists the types of activities that do not qualify as insubstantial PUD Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 5 P233 VIII.a amendments. One such activity is "Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements". The applicant's proposal to amend the applicable floor area limitations on the lots represents this type of change. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not qualify as an insubstantial PUD amendment and must instead be processed as an "other" PUD amendment. Sub-section 26.445.100 B. provides the standards for review of an "other" PUD amendment. It states that "An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan by the Community Development Director, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission". As explained above, there has never been an approved final PUD plan for the lots in the Moses Lot Split since each lot was separately developed as a single family residence which is exempt from review pursuant to Sec. 26.445.020 of the Code. Since there is not an adopted PUD Plan to amend, the Code considers existing conditions to be the approved plan for the property (see Sec. 26.445.100 C. of the Land Use Code). Therefore, the amendments must be found to be consistent with or an enhancement of existing conditions for them to be approved. In response to these standards, the applicant hereby states that the proposed amendments are consistent with the approved subdivision plat for the following reasons: 1. The Moses Lot Split will continue to be composed of just two single family residential lots. No change in the number of approved lots or the allowed uses is proposed. 2. The total floor area permitted on the two lots will not change. The previously- allowed floor area will simply be re-distributed between Lot 1 and Lot 2. 3. Although the configuration of the lots is proposed to be amended, the resulting building envelopes for the two lots will not change in any meaningful manner. The same area of the lots that has previously been developed with residences will remain the developed portion of the subdivision and the remainder of the lots will continue to be undeveloped open space. 4. The proposed additions have quite limited visibility to the public and represent quite minor extensions of the existing building mass and scale. Please see the responses to the 8040 Greenline Review standards in the next section of the application for a more complete description of the limited visual impacts of the proposed additions. 5. The square footage that is proposed to be added to the house on Lot 2 will cause no increase in community impacts since it will be used for a mud room, Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 6 P234 VIII.a study/exercise area and kitchen addition. There will be no new bedrooms or greater occupancy in the residence as a result of these additions. Furthermore, the applicant hereby states that the proposed amendments will be an enhancement of existing conditions and an enhancement of the recorded plat for the lots and are of benefit to the community for the following reasons: 1. As a condition of approval of the amendment, the applicant hereby agrees to purchase and retire one (1) Aspen historic preservation TDR. The Code authorizes the use of one historic preservation TDR in the R-15 zone district to increase the allowable floor area of a property by 250 sq. ft. While this is not exactly what is being proposed for Lot 2 (the applicant is instead proposing to trade some of the allowable floor area from Lot 1 to Lot 2), the result will nonetheless be an increase in the allowable floor area of this lot. Therefore, the applicant has decided to propose to retire a TDR as a way of acknowledging and mitigating for this increased floor area. The applicant recognizes that the City may have concerns about an increase in the allowable house size of Lot 2 and that retiring a historic preservation TDR is one accepted way for an applicant in the City to mitigate the impacts from this activity. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to voluntarily agree to retire one such TDR even though there is no provision in the City Code that would require this to be done as a precursor to approving the proposed amendment. 2. As part of this application the portion of Lot 1 that is currently under the jurisdiction of Pitkin County will be annexed to the City of Aspen. This will eliminate the dual jurisdiction over the property and will simplify the City's administration of its land use controls over this property. Staff has recommended that the applicant pursue this annexation as part of this application and the applicant has agreed to do so. 3. The portion of Lot 1 that is suitable for development and within the building envelope is a relatively limited area that contains only approximately 4,500 sq. ft. While this area is large enough to support the proposed house size of 3,000 sq. ft. in fact, this envelope contained the prior house that was 3,800 sq. ft. in size), reducing the allowable floor area of Lot 1 to 3,000 sq. ft. will result in a more compatible development on this property and better preserve the open character of this lot. Moreover, two geo-technical analyses conducted for Lot 1 and Lot 2 in the summer of 2012 demonstrate that Lot 2 is the least constrained of the two lots, while Lot 1 appears to have a greater potential to be impacted by a mud flow hazard (see response to 8040 Greenline review standards in Section V of this application for more detail on this issue). Therefore, reducing the size of the house allowed on Lot 1 will provide more open area on that lot to properly mitigate the potential mud flow hazard, while transferring the floor area to Lot 2 is reasonable and appropriate since it is subject to a much lesser degree of this geologic hazard. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 7 P235 VIII.a One additional issue that the staff has asked the applicants to address as part of the PUD amendment is whether the amended size of Lot 1 and Lot 2 is sufficient to justify the proposed floor area of 3,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1 and 5,800 sq. ft. for Lot 2. This analysis is shown in the table below then is explained in the text which follows. Proposed Gross floor 25% reduction Net floor area lot size area allowed for steep allowed after b zonin 9 slopes 25% reduction Lot 1 15,072 sq. ft.4,085 sq. ft. 1,021 sq. ft. 3,064 sq. ft. Lot 2 54,762 sq. ft.6,695 sq. ft. 1,674 sq. ft. 5,021 sq. ft. Lot 1 Floor Area Analysis Following the annexation of the unincorporated land to Lot 1 and the subsequent transfer of land to Lot 2, Lot 1 would have a gross lot area of approximately 15,072 sq. ft. A 15,072 sq. ft. lot has an allowable floor area of 4,085 sq. ft. in the R-15 zone district. However, Lot 1 contains areas with steep slopes. Code Section 26.575.020 C. provides that the maximum deduction for steep slopes is 25% of the allowable floor area (1,021 sq. ft.). Therefore, the allowable floor area on Lot 1 after the maximum possible slope reduction is 3,064 sq. ft. This exceeds the proposed 3,000 sq. ft. floor area for this lot. Therefore, if the City were to set a maximum allowable floor area for Lot 1 of 3,000 sq. ft. as is proposed in this application, the development that would occur on that lot would conform to what is allowed by underlying zoning. Lot 2 Floor Area Analysis Following the transfer of land from Lot 1, Lot 2 would have a gross lot area of approximately 54,762 sq. ft. A 54,762 sq. ft. lot has an allowable floor area of 6,695 sq. ft. in the R-15 zone district, which is considerably larger than the 5,800 sq. ft. of floor area proposed for this lot. However, Lot 2 contains areas with steep slopes. Code Section 26.575.020 C. provides that the maximum deduction for steep slopes is 25% of the allowable floor area (1,674 sq. ft.). Therefore, if the City were to set a maximum allowable floor area for Lot 2 of 5,800 sq. ft. as is proposed in this application, the development that would occur on that lot would exceed what is allowed by underlying zoning. This non-conformity would be the result of the deduction for steep slopes on the lot, a deduction which was not taken into account when the floor areas were originally set for these lots in the 1987 and 1992 applications. To address the technical inconsistency in floor area limitations that is caused by the presence of the steep slopes on this lot, the applicant requests that a floor area PUD variation be granted to Lot 2. This variation is appropriate and consistent for this lot for the reasons specified above responding to the standards for the PUD amendment. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 8 P236 VIII.a V. 8040 Greenline Review The applicant proposes three relatively minor additions to the existing residence on Lot 2. These additions are shown on the floor plans and elevations that are included in this application booklet. The additions are as follows: An office/yoga studio (approximately 295 sq. ft.) would be built by covering and enclosing an existing side deck/terrace; A kitchen addition (approximately 185 sq. ft.) would be made by enclosing a small outdoor cooking area on the existing rear terrace; and A mudroom (approximately 150 sq. ft.) would be added to the front of the residence. Since Lot 2 is located at an elevation of 8,080' above mean sea level, the proposed development is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The standards for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section 26.440.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The applicants' responses to these standards are as follows: 1.The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. Response: Lot 2 has previously been found to be physically suitable for development during 8040 Greenline Reviews conducted in 1987, 1992, and 2006. Detailed studies prepared by geologists and engineers accompanied each of those applications. The proposed minor additions to the existing residence will not alter or affect the conclusions reached as part of those studies. Condition 9 (f) of Resolution 17, Series of 2006 provides the most recent determination of the City with regard to the geologic suitability of Lot 2 for development. It requires that as part of the building permit application for the development of Lot 2, the applicant was required to submit: A letter from a registered professional engineer addressing the applicable geotechnical concerns of the letter by consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris submitted as Exhibit C and referenced in Condition 2 of the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-6. This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer." The 1992 letter from Nicholas Lampiris is attached hereto as Exhibit#11. When Icie Jackson LLC purchased the house on Lot 2 in June, 2011 the applicant sought evidence that the letter from a registered professional engineer required in Condition 9 (f) Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 9 P237 VIII.a had in fact been submitted to the City as part of the building permit application for the house and that the City Engineer had accepted the letter. This seller was unable to provide this evidence. Therefore, on May 13, 2011, Hans Brucker, a registered professional engineer working on behalf of the seller, submitted a letter to the City Engineer addressing each of the mitigation requirements described in the Lampiris letter. Mr. Brucker's letter is attached as Exhibit#12. Mr. Brucker concluded that the residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address the debris flow and seismic issues identified in the Lampiris letter. He also found that the design and construction of the residence took into account the slope instability concerns soil nails were used) and the limitations of building on hydrocompactive soils (an engineered foundation was constructed) that Mr. Lampiris had identified. At the same time that Mr. Brucker's analysis was being prepared, the purchaser of the property had an analysis of the geotechnical issues prepared by Steve Pawlak, P.E. of HP Geotech. His analysis is attached as Exhibit#13. Mr. Pawlak reaches essentially identical conclusions to those reached by Mr. Brucker. His report concludes that "The potential impacts to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris have been adequately mitigated by the current development". In May of 2012, the City Engineer sent a letter to the applicant stating that "it is the position of the City that neither letter provided to the City Engineer adequately addresses the concerns set forth in Condition 91 (see Exhibit #14). Therefore, the applicant engaged Richard Johnson, P.E. of Yeh and Associates to provide a response to the City Engineer see Exhibit #15). Mr. Johnson conducted field work, reviewed the building plans and supporting documents for the existing residence, reviewed the Brucker and Pawlak reports and conducted his own independent analysis. Mr. Johnson concluded that "the debris flow hazard for Lot 2 is negligible and mitigation is not required". He reached similar satisfactory conclusions with respect to the seismicity, slope instability and hydrocompactive soils issues that were first brought up in the Lampiris letter. On July 10, 2012 the City Engineer responded to the Johnson letter (see Exhibit#16). Ms. Aragon indicated that the letter had adequately addressed the seismic concerns, slope instability concerns and hydrocompactive soils concerns that the City had raised. However, she concluded that his report did not address the debris flow concerns in the manner specified by the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan and that yet another study would be needed. The applicant engaged Tetra Tech, a firm that specializes in this kind of analysis, to complete the mud and debris flow analysis. Their report is attached as Exhibit #17. The report finds that based on the design storm specified in the City's guidelines, a mud flow event with mud depths of 1.5 feet could occur. The report then recommends that the walls at the rear of the residence have 3 feet of freeboard above this mud depth, with no breakable openings below this depth. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 10 P238 VIII.a Two possible mitigation options are then outlined in the report. The first option would be to increase the height of the existing retaining wall behind the residence or to construct a second wall above the existing retaining wall, to capture and divert the mud and debris. The second option would be to reinforce the windows and doors along the rear face of the residence (including the use of impact resistant glass) to withstand mud and debris impact loads. The applicant has reviewed these options and concurs with the engineer's recommendations.The applicant hereby agrees to implement the reinforcement option as part of the development planned for the property. To further ensure that the engineer's recommendations are implemented, the applicant agreed to the City's request that an indemnity agreement be provided to the City (see Exhibit #18). This document ensures that the engineer's recommendations will be implemented in 2013, regardless of whether this 8040 Greenline Review application is approved by the City. The City Attorney and the City Engineer have therefore agreed that this land use application can be submitted at this time. In conclusion, the most recent geotechnical investigation has quantified the potential debris flow hazard posed to the existing residence on Lot 2 and has identified the appropriate mitigation strategy for that hazard. The applicant has provided legal assurances that the required mitigation will be implemented. Other studies the applicant has performed have determined that the re-development of Lot 2 adequately addressed the other geotechnical concerns that could pose hazards to the residence. Finally, the Tetra Tech reports finds that the proposed additions to the house, which involve enclosure of two existing paved deck areas and construction of a mud room at the front of the house, will not alter any of these conclusions and do not require any additional mitigation to be accomplished. 2.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. Since two of the additions are proposed to occur on an existing paved deck or terrace while the third will be an enclosure of the existing entrance, there will not be a change to the amount of impervious surface on the site and so there should not be any measurable change to drainage either. Furthermore, drainage on the site was fully addressed in a 2007 report regarding grading, drainage, and erosion control prepared by Hans Brucker, P.E. of Pinnacle Design Consulting Group (see Exhibit #16). Nevertheless, if the City so requires the applicant will submit an update to this drainage report at the time of building permit review to ensure that the additions comply with all applicable City drainage standards. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 11 P239 VIII.a 3.The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. Response: The proposed minor expansion of the existing residence will not have any impact on air quality in the City. No new bedrooms are planned so the occupancy of the residence will not change. No special equipment that would create air quality emissions is planned as part of the expansion project. 4.The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Response: The proposed additions all occur within or directly-adjacent to the approved building envelope which was previously determined to be the compatible location on the property within which development should be permitted to occur. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural features. Response: There will be no impacts on the terrain, vegetation and natural features since one addition will enclose an existing paved deck, another will enclose an area on a paved terrace and the third will enclose the entry area to the house. 6.The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The proposed additions will have no effect on roads, trails or open space. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Response: Elevations have been provided showing the existing conditions and the proposed additions to the residence. The elevations show that the three additions all fit within the existing mass of the structure. The mudroom addition and the office/studio enclosure both fit within existing decking/roof overhangs and essentially fill in areas that are currently open. The catering kitchen addition is at the rear of the structure and is not visible to the public. Overall, the public will perceive no more than a minimal change to the appearance of the existing residence. 8.Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Response: The existing house is served by City of Aspen water service, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewage disposal service, and other basic utilities. These facilities are all adequate. No changes to the existing level of service is needed to accommodate the proposed minor additions to the residence. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 12 P240 VIII.a 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Response: Ingress and egress is provided from Aspen Alps Road. This private road, which also serves the multi-family units at the Aspen Alps, is more than adequate to provide access for fire protection and snow removal purposes. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Response: It is the applicants' understanding that the referenced Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan map has been superseded by the pedestrian and bikeway maps in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Those maps show a trail in the vicinity of the subject property. An easement for this trail was granted to the City as part of the 1987 application for this property. No additional trails recommendations apply to this property. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 13 P241 VIII.a VI. VESTED RIGHTS The proposed additions to the house on Lot 2 represent a site specific development plan. Therefore, the approvals requested herein are eligible for vested rights, pursuant to Sec. 26.308 of the Land Use Code. Therefore the applicants request that if the planned addition to the house on Lot 2 is approved, then that approval be granted vested rights. The applicants also request vested rights for Lot 1. The vested rights that are currently in place for Lot 1 were extended by City Council Resolution 47, Series of 2011. These vested rights are due to expire on June 22, 2013. When this extension was granted in 2011, the applicants had just purchased Lot 1 and needed time to evaluate the approvals so an appropriate course of action could be determined. That evaluation led to the preparation of this land use application, in which the applicants propose to trade some of the floor area from Lot 1 to Lot 2 and to make some minor additions to Lot 2. It also led to the demolition of the house on Lot 1 in 2011, leaving that lot vacant for the time being. The applicants had anticipated submitting this application early in 2012 so action could be taken on it sufficiently in advance of the June, 2013 expiration date to give the applicants the time needed to move forward with a development plan for Lot 1. In fact, the applicants' initial pre-application meeting with staff for this land use application took place on January 10, 2012. However, just as the application was being completed the applicants received written notice from the City Engineer that an application would not be accepted by the City until the potential geo-hazard issues that the City felt could affect the property were fully addressed. Although this decision seemed to the applicants to be unduly harsh, given the fact that the house was built pursuant to all required building permits and received a certificate of occupancy from the City, they nonetheless agreed to cooperate with staff on that request. This required the applicants to hire a series of engineering consultants to provide the information the City has requested. However, fully satisfying the City's concerns required the applicants to go through several iterations of technical study and took from May through December, significantly delaying the submission of this application. Considering the extensive delays that have resulted, the applicants will not have the time once this land use application is decided to prepare a building permit or other application for Lot 1 before the vested rights expire. Therefore, the applicants would request an extension of the vested rights granted to Lot 1 regardless of whether or not this application is approved. The applicants would request an extension of no less than 1 year and would prefer the full three years of vested rights that are authorized by state statutes. VII. Conclusion The above responses and the attached exhibits and drawings provide the information that the City has requested to process this application. The materials submitted demonstrate that the application complies with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Land Use Code. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is anything else that is needed during the review process. Subdivision/PUD Amendment and 8040 Greenline Review: Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Page 14 P242 VIII.a EXHIBITS P243 VIII.a EXHIBIT#1 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE A Name and Address of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Title Insurance Company: P.O. Box 2029, Houston, TX 77252 Prepared by: Colorado Regional Production Center Title Officer: Linda Williams File No.: 01330-1426 Policy No.: 0-9301-001840979 Address Reference: 605 South Alps Road,Aspen, CO 81611 For Company Reference Purposes Only) Amount of Insurance: Premium: Date of Policy: June 06, 2011 at 12:01 pm 1. Name of Insured: South Alps Road LLC 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is insured by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested in: South Alps Road LLC 4. The Land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT according to the plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 1 of 1 + 5 CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch A P244 VIII.a ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE B File No.: 01330-1426 Policy No.: 0-9301-001840979 EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys'fees or expenses)that arise by reason of: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 6. Water rights, claims or title to water. 7. All taxes for 2011 and subsequent years,which are a lien not yet payable. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 8. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patents recorded in Book 136 at Page 173 and recorded in Book 175 at Page 213 as follows: "That the premises hereby granted, with the exception of the surface may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside of the boundary, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge. 9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patents recorded Book 136 at Page 173 and in Book 175 at Pam 9. 10. Reservation of all the minerals, mineral deposits, mineral oils and natural gases of every kind and nature,together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of mining, drilling and exploring said land for minerals as reserved in Deed recorded April 28, 1961 in Book 193 at Page 595 as Reception No. 111295. 11. Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Moses Property as set forth in instrument recorded June 26, 1987 in Book 540 at Page 186 as Reception No. 290476. Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 1 oft _.stew CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch B SE eg—°M^y -=Pwy P245 VIII.a ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(6/17/06) SCHEDULE B 12. Terms, conditions,provisions and obligations contained in the Restated Easement Agreement recorded September 3, 1992 in Book 687 at Page 915 as Reception No. 348321. 13. All matters shown on the plat of Moses Lot Split recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474. 14. All matters shown on the Little Nell Residence Site Plan Lot 1 Moses Lot Split recorded January 28, 2009 in Book 90 at Page 34 as Reception No. 556039. 15. Easement Agreement by and between LNR, LLC and Gerald Grayson recorded August 7, 2007 as Reception-No. 540749. 16. Resolution by City Of Aspen Planning and Zoning recorded June 25, 2008 as Reception No. 550520. 17. Administrative Decision by Community Development Pitkin County recorded December 9, 2008 as Reception No. 554912. 18. Amended Resolution recorded July 8, 2010 as Reception No. 571868 19. Any rights, easements, interests or claims which may exist by reason of or reflected by the following facts shown on the survey dated 5-4-11 by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group Inc.: encroachments of gravel drive, lawn fence, woven wire fence gate, gravel foot path, foot bridge and wall onto adjoining property known as The Aspen Chance Subdivision; wall, cone. walk, steps, concrete drive eaves, gravel drive sitting outside of building envelope; wood rail fence going onto adjoining property to the north Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. era 11W All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. File No.01330-1426 Page 2 of 2 CO STG ALTA Owner's Policy Sch B SE nom Burn ,, P246 VIII.a EXHIBIT#2 AMERIe.4N American Land Title Association Owner's Policy Attorneys iA vtari4ir. (6-17-06) Title Guaranty Msdiiars<v Fund,Inc. r= OWNER'S POLICY NO. OP201105004319 SCHEDULE A Effective Date : 5/18/2011 at exact time of recording Amount of Insurance: 1. Name of Insured: Icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 2. The estate or interest in the Land that is covered by this policy is: Fee Simple 3. Title is vested in: Icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: See Schedule C attached hereto. For informational purposes only, the property address is: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611. Gary A. Wright Authorized cer or Agent 2622 Member Number Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association.All rights reserved.The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.All other uses are prohibited.Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. P247 VIII.a SCHEDULE B Exceptions from Coverage This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Taxes for 2011, not yet due or payable. 7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent dated April 22, 1896, and recorded May 20, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 213, as Reception No. 096377 as follows: "That the premises hereby granted,with the exception of the surface may be entered by the proprietor of any other vein or ledge, the top or apex of which lies outside the boundary, should the same in its dip be found to penetrate, intersect or extend into said premises, for the purpose of extracting and removing the ore from such other vein, lode or ledge." 8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, and right of way thereon for ditches and canals as constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patents dated July 3, 1911, and recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 299, as Reception No. 096828, and dated November 4, 1899, and recorded August 26, 1949, in Book 175 at Page 299, as Reception No. 096829. 9. Reservation of all the minerals,mineral deposits, mineral oils and natural gases of every kind and nature,together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of mining, drilling, and exploring said lands for minerals as reserved in the Quit Claim Deed dated April 13, 1961, and recorded April 28, 1961, in Book 193 at Page 595,as Reception No. 111295. 10. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Pitkin County, Colorado and George P. Mitchell and H.A.Bornefeld,Jr., dated December 9, 1965, and recorded December 20, 1965, in Book 217 at Page 593, as Reception No. 122970, and recorded August 1, 1968, in Book 235 at Page 722, as Reception No. 131762. 11. An easement for ingress and egress, city water lines and sewer line as reserved in the Special Warranty Deed dated June 18, 1973, and recorded July 2, 1974, in Book 288 at Page 899, as Reception No. 168549. 12. Grant of Easement as specified in the Special Warranty Deed dated May 16, 1977, and recorded June 24, 1977, in Book 330 at Page 946, as Reception No. 195389, and Agreement of Amendment Concerning that Certain Grant of Easement Recorded in Book 330 at Page 946,Pitkin County Colorado, dated December 26, 1986, and recorded January 27, 1987, in Book 528 at Page 684, as Reception No. 285628, and Second Agreement of Amendment Concerning that Certain Grant of Easement Recorded in Book 300 at Page 946, Pitkin County, Colorado, dated July 9, 1987, and recorded August 27, 1987, in Book 544 at Page 652, as Reception No. 292313. 13. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and Cynthia Mitchell, H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., and Mary Bornefeld and Aspen Chance, Inc., a Texas corporation and The Aspen Alps Condominium Copyright 2006-2009 American Land Title Association.All rights reserved.The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use.All other uses are prohibited.Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. P248 VIII.a Association dated July 23, 1984, and recorded July 27, 1984, in Book 470 at Page 780, as Reception No. 261361. 14. Terms, conditions,provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Statement of Exception for the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Moses Property, City of Aspen, Colorado dated April 23, 1987, and recorded June 26, 1987, in Book 540 at Page 186, as Reception No. 290476. 15. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Restated Easement Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., Gaard Hopkins Moses and Mary Lynn Patton, Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-profit corporation and Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation, dated September 3, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, as Reception No. 348321. 16. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Subdivision Agreement for the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and The George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr.Property by and between Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation and George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr., and The City of Aspen, dated August 25, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, in Book 687 at Page 895, as Reception No. 348316, 17. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Granting Subdivision for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split,A Lot Line Adjustment Between the Mitchell Parcel and the Mitchell/Bornfeld Parcel, and Vested Rights for 8040 Greenline Review, Subdivision, and the Lot Line Adjustment All Located on Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, (Ordinance No. 31 -Series of 1992) dated June 8, 1992, and recorded September 3, 1992, in Book 687 at Page 901, as Reception No. 348316, and recorded December 18, 1992, in Book 698 at Page 141, as Reception No. 352013. 18. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Shared Sewer Service Line Agreement by and between Aspen Alps Condominium Association, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation and Moses Aspen View Homesite,Inc., a Colorado corporation dated September 4, 1992, and recorded January 15, 1993, in Book 700 at Page 676, as Reception No. 352949. 19. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the License Agreement by and between George P. Mitchell and Cynthia W. Mitchell and the Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation dated September 4, 1992, and recorded January 19, 1993, in Book 701 at Page 40, as Reception No. 353059. 20. Any and all notes, easements and recitals as disclosed on the recorded Moses Lot Split Plat recorded June 26, 1987, in Plat Book 19 at Page 83, as Reception No. 290474, and the Replat of Lot 2,Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision Plat of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld Jr. Property Plat recorded September 9, 1992, in Plat Book 29 at Page 65, as Reception No. 348317, and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2nd Amendment, City of Aspen,Pitkin County, Colorado Plat recorded July 14, 2005, in Plat Book 80 at Page 5, as Reception No. 526459. 21. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Skier Access License Agreement dated May 31, 2005, and recorded June 20, 2005, as Reception No. 511438. 22. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under A Resolution of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Approving an 8040 Greenline Review for a Single-Family Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Resolution No. 017 -Series of 2006) dated May 16, 2006, and recorded June 16, 2006, as Reception No. 525351. 23. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations specified under the Easement Agreement dated August 6, 2007, and recorded August 7, 2007, as Reception No. 540749. P249 VIII.a SCHEDULE C File#: PC11002837 Lot 2, as shown on the Replat of Moses Lot Split (A Lot Line Adjustment) and Final Subdivision of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld,Jr. Property according to the Plat thereof recorded September 3, 1992 in Plat Book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No. 348317 and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2nd Amendment recorded July 14, 2006 in Plat Book 80 at Page 5 as Reception No. 526459. Excepting any portion thereof lying within Lot 1, Moses Lot Split as shown on the Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as Reception No. 290474, Pitkin County, Colorado. P250 VIII.a EXHIBIT#3 Ms. Jessica Garrow, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION FOR LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT Dear Amy and Sara, South Alps Road LLC is the owner of the Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split, located at 605 South Alps Road. Icie Jackson LLC is the owner of the Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, located at 675 South Alps Road. I am the authorized representative of both of these property owners. I hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services to submit an application for Subdivision/PUD amendment and 8040 Greenline Review for these properties. Mr. Richman is authorized to submit this application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with staff and the applicable decision-making bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application please do so by calling Mr. Richman at the phone number he has provided in the land use application. Sincerely, Neil Karbank, Authorized Representative 604 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 920-2899 P251 VIII.a EXHIBIT#4 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan—970.429.2759 DATE: 1.17.12 PROJECT: 605/675 South Alps Road, Subdivision Amendment REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision, Other Amendment DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to amend the size of lots 1 and 2 of the Moses Lot Split by increasing the area of Lot 2 as well as the allowable floor area. Lot 2 would like to be permitted to increase its floor area to 6,000 square feet (where 5,000 square feet is permitted) and reduce the allowable floor area of Lot 1 to 2,800 square feet where 3,800 square feet is permitted). The Moses Lot Split (Bk.19, Pg. 83) was approved in 1987, allowing the development of two lots each with a maximum floor area allowance of 3,800 square feet for each lot (Bk. 540, Pg. 186). Subsequently in 1992, a Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split (Bk. 29, Pg. 65) was approved. It increased the lot size of Lot 2 as well as the allowable floor area allowance for the lot to 5,000 square feet (Ordinance No 31, of 1992). The Applicant will be required to submit a slope reduction analysis to determine the allowable floor area associated with each lot, and determine whether a land trade with associated floor area is feasible between the lots. A second option is to amend the PUD if 1,000 square feet of floor area cannot feasibly be added to Lot 2 with the addition of land area from Lot 1. Additionally, staff believes that a portion of Lot 1 may not be located within the municipal boundaries and believes the entire subdivision should be located within the municipal boundaries. The Applicant will need to submit a Land Use Application requesting an Amendment to the Subdivision Development Order. This type of amendment, an Other amendment, is a two step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then City Council. The applicant may need to amend the PUD. 8040 Greenline Review is also required. Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience. Land Use Application Form: Land Use application Land Use Code: Land Use Code Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.480 Subdivision 26.480.080 Amendment to subdivision development order 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map 26.435.030 8040 Greenline Review 26.445 Planned Unit Development—Other Amendment Review by: Planning Staff for compliance/completeness P&Z City Council Public Hearing: Required Planning Fees: 7,560.00 Deposit for 24 hours of staff time. Additional staff time required is billed at 315/hour Referral Fees: Parks Referral - $1,260.00 (flat fee) Engineering — $265.00 (per hour) with 1 hour deposit P252 VIII.a Total Deposit: 9,085.00 Total Number of Application Copies: Twelve (12) for P&Z Ten (10) for Council To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Signed fee agreement. 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Proposed amended subdivision plat. 10.A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. P253 VIII.a EXHIBIT#5 Recorded at M k pp6 No ' '' PQUl4 PAG O Reception SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY RECORDER STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVIDING THE MOSES PROPERTY CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS , GAARD HOPKINS MOSES (hereinafter referred to as Moses" ) is the owner of a parcel of real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Moses has requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on Exhibit "A" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on March 23 , 1987 , determined that Moses ' request for such subdivision was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions described hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the application for exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on the attached Exhibit "A" is proper and hereby approves said subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing approval is expressly conditioned upon: 1 . Recording, by Moses, of a lot split plat designating the two lots formed prior to the issuance of any building permits . Said plat shall conform to Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 2 . Conversion of each of the existing duplex structures to single-family dwelling units by removing kitchens from each building within eighteen months of recording the Lot Split Plat or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first. Removal of kitchens shall be verified by the City zoning officer. 3 . Removal of the existing shed on Lot 1 which encroaches over the building setback lines and verification thereof by the City zoning officer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4 . Restriction of the floor area in each of the single-family residences to 3 , 800 square feet and to submit all plans for demolition and reconstruction, or additions to 8040 greenline review. Notification of the Aspen Alps of any 8040 greenline review date. P254 VIII.a J8 i 5 . Implementation of the water connection plan shown on the final plat within eighteen months of its recording orpriortotheissuanceofaCertificateofOccupancyforthe remodeled or reconstructed single-family dwelling units , whichever comes first. DATED this day of April, 1987 . GAARD HOPKINS MOSES CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation B : a,J I L B GIDEON I . KAUFMAN, WILLIAM L. STIRLING as akttorney-in-fact Mayor I . KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for It A?3jrpose of Subdividing the Moses Property, Aspen, Co'I'Ora ;; was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council• aid that the Mayor, William L. Stirling, was ized'. to execute the same on behalf of the City of CQj DR KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk / A D AS TO RM: PAUL J. TAD UNE, City Attorney STATE OF COLORADO Ss . COUNTY OF The forego ' in rumen1987s by IDEON edl . before this day of KAUFMAN as attorney-in-fac on behalf of GAARD HOPKINS MOSES . WITNESS my hand and official seal. 1ARY My commission expires : NY Commcss on xp res etiruary 19a :1989 art Y •'' ary u li ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE) 2 - P255 VIII.a BOOK 540 PAr;1188 STATE OF COLORADO ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this J day of 1987 , by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, and Kath yn S . Koch as City Clerk of the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal1 My commission expires: N j ary Publ c moses ex stmt/RLEST5 3 - P256 VIII.a n k ` i s EXHIBIT#6 y 35+fi r T'-.,.. 332013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 Bill 698 PG 14fiiSilviaDavis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 n€' ORDINANCE NO. 31 SERIES OF 1942) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISIOU FOR a LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BBT*EEN THEJZ:.. s;. MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL/BORN$FELD PARCEL, AND VESTEDxi5RIaLx`PS FOR 8040 (3R3SNLINE RBVIEw, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINEADJUSTMENTALLLOCATEDONASPENALPSSOUTHROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITEOFASPEN WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-503 and 24-7-1004 C of theMunicipalCodetheapplicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., theAspenAlpsCondominiumAssociationandGeorgeMitchellhavesubmittedanapplicationforsubdivisionofLot2oftheMosesLotatSplitandalotlineadjustmentfortheMitchellparcelandtheMitchell/Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road,y City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, theEapplicanthasalsorequestedVestedRightsofthesubdivisionandlotlineadjustmentand8040Greenline; and7 WHERE", at a duly noticed g p ,Public hearing held April 7 1992 theS.`Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline andrSubdivisionproposal; and r WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (seez incorporated herein) Commission Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto andX' and WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City CouncilsubdivisionapprovalforLot2MosesLotSplit; and a WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of t 3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the1987MosesLotSplit; and WHEREAS, the applicants have offered to voluntarily prohibit allzfuturedevelopmentonLots2Aand2Bofthenawsubdivisionascreatedherein, consisting of approximately three acres of valuableopenspaceandanexistingtenniscourtarea, in exchange for theh City granting permanent vesting for the development of a 5,000squarefoot (allowable floor area) residence upon Lot 2 within thesubdivision; and WHEREAS, the existing underlying Zoning for the subdivision allowsfortheconstructionofasinglefamilyresidenceof5,000 squarefeet (allowable floor area) on Lot 2; and a 1 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the neighborhood andrcommunityatlargewillderiveasignificantbenefitfromthe d. is r,y ..4S i + _'4 1 r I§N P257 VIII.a ia 2 i YS4C 1}_ t 1{e a ``Mx x'}1'l F`t"y(-J .' y,t n t]y TMv i ''¢' t a, ss, hs iry.s_ ` 3 s: - rF.d' tr,,;.,,. •, ^vi'• i_-;•.r v'^' 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BY, 69a pr, 142SilviaDavis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $•00 Permanent preservation of r g o and emainin space within w P en P n the Cit :SEAS, the City Council Y madevelopmentplansfor p grant vesting Of site specificwarrantedinlightofallrelevantcircumstancesesinaccordancewith FC.R.S. Section 24-68-104{2); and F`r fnWHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by theCityCouncil. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 0RDAINED 8YiASPEN,COLORADO: THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY OF k 8®at{oa 1 J That it does hereby approve the MoserecommendedbytheAspenPla s Lot 2 Subdivision as s Lots 2, 2A Aspen Alps South Road,CCitpsand nTownsite1ofAspensubjecttotheollowingconditions: Simultaneous with theandBshallbeconveyedtorthe Aspen Alps CondaminiumlAssociation at, Lots 2A subject to deed restrictions in favor and for the bens€it of theCityofAspenpermanent)said lots. Further developme ti Shall future application orcreditingofthelotstowardadditionallotareaforfloorarea,bedrooms and density Purposes for all existing or future Aspen AlpsCondominiumAssociationbuildings. For Lots 2A and 2B,z development shall include additional furtherfloorarea,density or major new recreational facilities such as tennis courtsFrandswimmingedroomsand g Pools. The deed restrictions shall be reviewed andapprovedbytheCityAttorney, 2. r: t, 7= A final plat and18odaysoffinal subdivision agreement shall be filed within E 18 land use approvalrPitkinCountClerkandRecordsOffice, the City Council in the v reviewed and m The final plat shall beapprovedbytheThe and Planning Departments,3. The final plat shall depict the following: a. Lots z, 2A and 2B; r b. ithatLots2Aand2BarerestrictedagainstanyfurtherdevelopmentoradditionalItareaforfloorarea, bedroomsxanddensitypurposesforallexistingandfutureAspenAlpscondominiumAssociationbuildings. The documents restrictingLots2Aand2Bshallhp n number, referenced by the Book and Page t•:ziU C. the new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split; d. graphic descri `ion ofP the zoning designations for Lot 2• tai r i t 1. P258 VIII.a x TWit+` 1 l` 1-g Lis 7 p?'+ r'` may. i"3' e; jL• LT j) ufii..t .. s ss 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK 698 PG 143 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 e. no parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless approved by the Fire Marshal;1 i f. an easement indicating Lot 2 access off of the Aspen Alps N South Road. x - g. all improvements on Lot 2 including the entire length of the actual access road and the revised access easement as including the roadway surface; c h. the contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7- 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the Municipal Code. There must be a 4 statement by the surveyor, either in a riurveyor's certificate or in a general note, that all easements of record have been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12 months; ft 1. in the event. any of the applicants obtain title to the IUSFS Tract as depicted on the plat they shall deed restrict I said tract against all development. Said deed restriction i- st•.all be in favor and for the benefit cf the City of Aspen and shall be approved by the City Attorney. 4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split across Lot 2 shall meet code requirements (201). r egjotian 2 a: That it does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the Mi.tchali parcel and the Mitchell/Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed i to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association) on Aspen Alps South Road y, yt. with the following conditions: KS 2. 9'::e lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and theR Mitchell/Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps 1 Condominium Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision n= plat for Moses Lot 2. 2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional i'floor area shall be granted due to the increase in lot size of the Mitchell parcel.k Section 31 That it does hereby grant Veste Rights in perpetuity for this Subdivision, Lot line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline including aX 5,000 square foot single family residence (allowable floor area which includes exemptions allowed for in, Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code) as approved by the Commission on April 7, 1992, Kit 4. please see Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein) with conditions as follows: r ` i 3 r R,F l P259 VIII.a k {. r&fir"' r. Y r F.E l at '- cT `.fi f 'I a ia'i"°_'1°, •a 1?t r-t-1.;,.s:<tS Kyn'c'v ', t b x-,.s , .. yt Y,v ,.,,fi s, _"+ L r Y y:yi h a 7r w '•,. x s ate' .., .•'' tii•' rF i i a+ '' k 352013 12/18!42 14:23 Rea $45.00 8K 698 PG 144 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 r F i. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions r,: attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested rights. Failure t.j timely and properlyNt' record all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the t , A orfeiture of vested rights. z 2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rightsJ of referendum and judicial review. 1 3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall a exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent yams reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not a , inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 4. The establishment herein of the vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical ra codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom ;s granted in writing. F faction 4g 4 The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be publishes. in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspeu no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof. n Such notice shall be given in the following form: j Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, t Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-xr described property: The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said 4 notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval. s'Asa saction 5._ 3 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such F holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions a Y amt., 4 I: V 3 OHIO- i 1n '. P260 VIII.a Kam M- 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Re, $45.00 BK6 o Silvia Davis, Pit PG I4S kin Cnty Clerk, L thereof. This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abateaent of any action or proceeding now pending Are under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein w provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Q( A public hearing on the Ordinance shall it Chambe se Aspen City day of at 5:04 P.l4• in the City s prior to which hearing air Hall, A. Colorado, fifteen (15) daY p public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of tapen. u provided by law, by 28iTRODIICSD,A O$D ALD PEfaLYS Sm as p day of th City Council of the City of Aspen on the2992. r dsf John Bennett, mayor tj city Clark 11=. boob V, y e ors 35, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1992. 3 John Bennett, mayor ooh, city Clerk s rah•A Aao k h ` v 52 ` 4 t`-00_i t i 1 ` "'1 I`j y-,„,.-f S. '.:.`+R`-• :of ry .,•f W I,w,'- ° F `-\i`nsr 2 A- *•.,..,"mss' , R`r, I v, a4 r'r i i . + P261 VIII.a 1 3' s 1s', S 1 a`u tt l:-'-*' ry_f C ,a C• -Kf i " a }Y ::1 z x s+° i°`"`.: 35201 12/18/92 14;23 Rec $45.00 Bf' 69e PG 146 City Count 1 4xhibit Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Approved (L By Ordinance 5 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION L' APPROVING 4040 GREENLINE AND RECOMMENDING TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, ASPEN COLORADO r `r Resolution No. 92 WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission";. on April y applic ation 7, 1992 to consider the 8040 Greenline and Subdivision for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot split; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to demolish an existing home t on Lot 2 and redevelop a single family residence;and C - WHEREAS, a 1987 Lot split created.Moses Lots 1 & 2 with a condition upon the size of the home not to exceed 3,800 square feet f of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the appli:—r,c proposed to increase the size of Lot 2 to encompass the open land area between four of the Aspen Alpsibuildings, the Mitchell House and the Aspen Alps tennis courts; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to retain enough land area required for a 5,000 square foot home in the R-15 Zone District and conve the rest of the lard area (approximately 3 acres) to the AspenyAlps to be deeded against further development; and WHEREAS, in exchange for conveying the open space to the Aspen Alps and deeding it against further development, the applicant hasrequestedanincreaseinthelimitedfloorareaofLot2upto 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area; and WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of Lot 2 and the conveyance of the rest of the parcel to the Aspen Alps requires subdivision review; and WHEREAS, the development of the new home is above the 8040 elevation thus requiring 8040 Greenline review; and r WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline for the new single family residence; and 7 a NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it i does hereby approve the 8040 Greenline for a new single family residence with the following conditions;F f S I. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 5,OOG sq. ft. The height shall be 25 feet. ft L 2. prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall p'ovide 1 a letter from a registered professional engineer that all u applicable geotechnical concerns of the Lampiris letter Submitted 1 1 a-. P262 VIII.a f >35 x ._.. y "`t' S _ .o.`.,, .cif' r '' t. iY• s s t r z Jz.•. 1_Y.IC LA jg I'{'' r 1 ; k,,. •rl' i'' 4d 1,-3-:! 352013 12/16/92 14:23 Rec $45.00 BK pG 147SilviaDavis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 with the application have been complied with during construction. h This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer. 3. The development shall meet on-site drainage retention requirements of Section 24-7-1OO4.C.4.f. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City regulations addressing wood burning devices in th- new residential unit. s 5. All requirements for the R-15 (PDD) zone district shall apply. 6. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. E` 7. The applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and redevelopment of the single-family home.19 8. No 'further development shall. occur on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split outside of this approved building envelope. 9. No vegetation shall be removed from the slope except as required by conditions 13 and 14. 10. Tree removal permits shall be required for those trees over 6" in caliper that are removed. Pursuant to representations made by the applicant 16 trees shall be preserved which include all of the Spruce trees. The applicant shall replace the seven Aspen trees which must be removed. 11. Any construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any trees greater than 611 in diameter must be approved by the Parks Department. 5 12. Mr. Moses shall work with the Parks Department to ensure that the two large pine trees on either side of the new drive will not be endangered by the new drive.l' r 13. Brush shall be trimmed.within 30' of the structure. This does Y not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly a transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure. f 14. Any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any chimney shall be removed and any tree that is adjacent zo or overh-inging the roof shall remain free of dead wood. The roof shall be free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetation. u 15. The applicant shall work with the public agencies to ensure r`- that proper utilities are supplied to the new home ' and a I proportionate share of the public improvements to serve the project tits will be borne by the applicant. s q I : 4 2 L III oil I MIN1,1111110 H lC R a b:` P263 VIII.a e ws F)° 1FS'w ,L r l' . `,, u il F+3,- L - ' ' i°. s i,r,'=•! 'u k,:,, . ysF .E"v j N a _i, '_' 4 ry "' S^^?kF R. - o- & 1. .. l"Yt -u C:lYi3'd'yrl'y.' g3520I3 12/18/92 14:23 Rec ^45.00 BY 699 PG 148 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cler4 , Doc 3•+)O 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission recommends to the City Council subdivision approval of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with the following conditions: 1. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the City Council. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. r 2. The final plat shall depict the following: a. the tennis courts (Lot 2B) and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot split that is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association (Lot 2A).T b. Notes shall refer to Deed Book Page 1' indicating the restrictions against any further development e on Lots 2A and 2B, or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes on existing Alps buildings for the tennis courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Mosey Lot Split. c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split. d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2 e Moses Lot Split. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire Marshal. f. An easement indicating Lot.2 Moses Lot Split access off of the Aspen Alps South Road. g. All improvements on the site including tlae entire length of the actual. access road and the revised access easement including the roadway surface. h. Tha contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7- 1 ti: + 1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal cede. There must be a YS statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate y t or in a general note, that all easements of record as u indicated on Title Policy No. __, dated have r been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12 months. i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell/Bornefeld, or heirs and assigns shall be deed restricted against further 1 6evelopment. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across of 2 shall 4 code requirements ( 201) . bS 4 3 i .......... . 1 2 ate,,: P264 VIII.a H,J' 4 'T'. y x a 1r#}+ N 44'P'rt't i+S. 4.w3sc..f §': y ke11 S S 1 "c'{'•f(t1' TiT` 7r7 5 \2{`'l.:.F'"x'AC :: i ti4, 352013 12/18/92 14:23 Rec 545.00 3F; 698 PG 149 h, Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 of•, APPROVED by the Commission at their reqular meeting on April 21,r 1992. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND t' ll' ZONING COMASISSION h...'t.i.c.0 Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair erson Y. rT.' 4 r 5 E P J I 4 1 F- S f R 1 Of yyy 11 4 i s a 1 V. 7 u'v zw 1+Yf 4 r r 3 M n yR. P265 VIII.a EXHIBIT#7 RESOLUTION NO. 017 SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN WO GREENLINE RE-vUW FOR A SIN GLE- FAN11LY RESIDENCE ON LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT,CITY OF ASPEN,PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No.273718256001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Little Nell House 2, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc._, requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 1.02 acres and is located in the R-15 (PI D)Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,080 feet: above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020,EnvirownentallySensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the re,6ew criteria established in Land Ljse Code Section 26.435.030(C),8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Grectiline Review, and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on May 2,2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a 5-0 vote, the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development0 proposal meet-, or exceed-, all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and 'Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution1 furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO.NINIISSION as follows: Section 1, Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in"Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,the Lot 2, Mc)scsLot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 2,Moses Lot Split,is hereby approved-Mth the following conditions; 111 1111111111111 II III II1I11I1I I 525351 1 06g/ 16/2006 02:Z JANICE K v05 CPAJOILL PITKIN COUNTY -_ R 31-00 D 0.00 P266 VIII.a 1. A final plat shall be filed within 180 days of final land use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Community Development Departments, 2. The final plat shall depict the following: a) A reference to the Replat of Lot 2, Moses .Lot Split and Final Subdivision Plat of Mitchell-Bornefield Property, recorded on Book 29, Page 6_5 at the Pitkin County Clerk and.Recorder's Office, incorporating and carrying forward Dedications, including Section 1 (A-D) and Section 2 (A-D), b) The access onto Lot 1,Moses Lot Split. c) An easement indicating Lot 2 access off of Aspen Alps South Road, d) <A statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general note,that all easements of record have been shown on the plat. 3. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 5,000 square feet.The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 4. No further development shall occur on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. 017, Series of 2006. 5. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. There shall be no parking on Aspen:Alps Road. 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (B)1. 7. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit_ 8. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load-bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 9. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be 525351 0 5/16 200fi 02:21 0.0011yyI I co 31.t COUNTY R 3PSdICE K V45 CAUDSLL PITKIN COU P267 VIII.a stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code(IRC—R401.3 and IBC-- 180-53.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details or erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A letter from a registered professional engineer addressing the applicable geotechnical concerns of the letter by consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris submitted as Exhibit C, and referenced in Condition 2 of the Planning Zoning Commission Resolution No. 92-6. This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer. g) The soils and foundation report submitted as part of the land use application, from CTLIThompson, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. h) A detailed landscaping;plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department, The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to, the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed witnin the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence.. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required anti over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. 52b 35I III I ICI Mi 06/15/2006 Z2.2:Itil II IIill 00v1.00 RNICE K `105 GP.UDILL GITKItd CUNT. CO R 3 P268 VIII.a A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials,project access, construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native duality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. The landscape plan shall include four(4)blue spruce at a height of approximately 20 feet, to be located on Aspen Alps property to the north of Lot 2; four to six(4-5)Engelmann spruce to be located to the north of the building envelope on Lot 2; and the preservation of aspen trees to the north of the building envelope to the greatest extent possible, as per the agreement between the applicant and Aspen Alps. i) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. j) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. k) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. 1) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking,which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. m) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. n) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 10. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 525351 Iflllf 11II I I II II illl4 II {06/16/2006 02:2: JPNICE K VOS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CO R 31.00 D 0.00 P269 VIII.a 1, All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbirg Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 12, All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26,575.150, as may be amended from time to tirnc Section 2: The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three(3)years from the date of issuance of a developirient order, No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following forni: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land. Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, by Resolution No. 017, Series of 2006, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 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 ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall ll 525351 Page: 5 Cr 6IlllllleG/15/2006 02--Z:ICJPNE K VOS CAUDILL PTTKIN COUNTY CO R 31.0@ D 0.00 P270 VIII.a be deemed a separate,distinct and independent pro-vision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the l6th day of May,2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM. : PLANNING AND ZONING CE. MJVHSSION: Ci;'Attorney C air ATTEST: c k i e I.othi• ,Deputy City Clerk 525351 02:2: JANICE K VCS CAUDILL PITKIN COUNTY CC R 31.00 0 0.00 P271 VIII.a EXHIBIT#8 AMENDED RESOLUTION N0. 19 SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,COMMONLY KNOWN AS 800 SOUTH ASPEN ALPS ROAD. Parcel No.2737-182-56-003 WHEREAS, this resolution amends the resolution fled at reception no, 550520 by setting forth the actual resolution number and correcting typographical errors within the original resolution, including the resolution no. cited in Section 2 and correcting the approval date of the resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Gerald Grayson, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting approval of an 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 0.6 acre and is located in the R- 15 (PUD)Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,056 - 8,130 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development at, or above, or within 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline in conformance with the review criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.435.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has reviewed the proposal and recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2008,the Planning and Zoning Commission approved with conditions, by a 3 - 2 vote, the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: RECEPTION#: 571868, 07/0812010 at 02:10:49 PM, 1 OF 6, R $38.00 Doc Code RESOLUTIONPage106of120JaniceK. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO P272 VIII.a Section I Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Tide 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code,the Lot 1, Moses Lot Split 8040 Greenline Review to construct a new single-family residence on Lot 1,Moses Lot Split,is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall be no greater than 3,800 square feet. The maximum height shall be 25 feet. 2. No further development shall occur on Lot 1, Moses Lot Split outside of the building envelope approved by Resolution No. 019, Series of 2008. 3. All the required parking shall be provided on-site. There shall be no parking on Aspen Alps Road. 4. An approved tree permit from the Parks Department will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for removals will be paid cash in lieu or adjacent to the site. Any excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. 5. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall submit an engineering assessment of S. Alps Road, specifically regarding the load-bearing capability of the road in relation to the use of heavy construction equipment and emergency response apparatus, to be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer. 6. The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) An Excavation Stabilization Plan that will. show the extent of the excavation, the location of constriction fences around the excavation, erosion control measures, spot elevations at the top and bottom of cuts, and site-specific construction drawings of the excavation and stabilization measures. The Excavation Stabilization Plan must be stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. For all excavation, the Contractor must comply with neighbor notification requirements stated in Section 3307 of the 2003 International Building Code. d) A Site Grading Plan stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer, to ensure that the grading plan agrees with the drainage plan. Plans must demonstrate positive drainage away from structures as required by the Building Code(IRC—R401.3 and IBC — 1805.3.4). e) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards, IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the Page 107 of 120 P273 VIII.a location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. f) A soils and foundation report, shall be reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer with the Building Permit. g) A detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department. The landscaping plan shall include but not be limited to,the following: A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the building permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. Root trenching will be required around all trees with excavation next to and/or under the drip line. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the excavation along the back of the property. Vertical excavation will be required and over digging is prohibited in this zone. This note must be represented on the building permit set. A vegetation fence shall be installed along the edge of disturbance on the hillside. This protection fence must be maintained at all times; storage of materials,project access, and construction foot traffic is prohibited beyond this fence. Restoration of the area along the fence line will be of native quality and approved by the Parks Department. Supplemental planting in the native area is prohibited unless first approved. Utility connections shall be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. h) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal. i) A wildfire mitigation plan shall be submitted. This plan shall be accepted by the Fire Marshall. Page 108 of 120 P274 VIII.a j) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. k) A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks,no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site.' The management of the Aspen Alps Condominium Association shall be consulted in the preparation of the Construction Management Plan, 1) A letter from.the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. m) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable city regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit. 8. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, as may be amended from time to time. Section 2• The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three(3)years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this resolution, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, Page 109 of 120 P275 VIII.a by Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008, of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 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 ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 3rd day of June,2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True,Assistan 4rian Spe A Chair ATTEST: J ekie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 110 of 120 P276 VIII.a EXHIBIT#9 RESOLUTION NO.47 Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A REINSTATEMENT OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 19,SERIES OF 2008 FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT,COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 605 S. ASPEN ALPS ROAD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS 800 S.ASPEN ALPS ROAD),CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 273718256003 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Alan Richman Planning Services representing South Alps Road, LLC, requesting approval of a reinstatement of the vested rights granted for the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted Resolution No. 19 (Series of 2008),which approved an 8040 Greenline review to develop a single family residence; and WHEREAS,the applicant's vesting period expired on June 22,2011; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may grant an extension or reinstatement of vested rights after a public hearing is held and a resolution is adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval of an reinstatement of vested rights for a period of approximately 3 years until June 22,2014; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the request under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing;and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the reinstatement of vested rights proposal for a period of two years meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan;and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health,safety,and welfare. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Resolution No.47,Series of 2011 Page ] of 2 P277 VIII.a Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a reinstatement of vested rights as approved by Resolution No. 19, Series of 2008 for a two (2) year period through June 22, 2013, conditioned on the following: A. That the establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit,unless an exemption is granted in writing. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council,are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein,unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: 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 4: 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. Section 5: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 11 th day of July,2011 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen,Colorado. FINALLY,adopted, passed,and approved by a +Vf-gone t4-Ovote on this 11 th day of July,2011. Approved as to form:Approved as to content: John orcester,City Attorney Michael C.Ireland,May Attest: A&' V ) V*,,— Kathryn S. c ,City Clerk Resolution No.47,Series of 2011 Page 2 of 2 P278 VIII.a EXHIBIT#10 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY,OF ASPEN THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petitions the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split Annexation, to the City of Aspen. Said area, consisting of approximately 9,254 sq. ft. (0.21 acres) of land is more particularly described on Attachment A, attached hereto. The Petitioners allege: 1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen. 2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108 Colorado Revised Statutes exist or have been met. 3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen. 4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen. 5. That the area proposed to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future. 6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen, Colorado. 7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the landowners in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen. WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the City Council of the City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on Attachment A, legal description of the annexation area. The petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of the annexation ordinance. Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area described on Attachment A. P279 VIII.a Sr- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Petition for Annexation this7 day of 2012. Petitio er/Owner's Signature Petitioner/Owner's Printed Name d 4- A, Address City, State,Zip P280 VIII.a EXHIBIT#11 Nicholas hampiris, PhD- CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE z SILT,COLORADO 81652 303)963.3600(24 HOURS) January 20, 1992 Alan M. Richman. AI CFA u. Box 3613 Aspen CO. 81612 RE: Aspen Alps Lot Dear Mr. Richman: I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed building site on the maps which accompany this report. The building .site lies -al-ong the east. slope of the -lobe containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute quadrangle, Ritkin County, Colorado. gentle east slope near a small The building site lies on a g native grasses. debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by other Aspen 1ps It is between the home of Gaard Moses an with the building buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped envelope as shown. The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands, gravels and boulders of colluvial and some lmaterialstareal deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago.generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate orsandstoneunitsfracturedbyfaultingcommontothisarea.This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and" there is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic of the UniformZoneII Building Code. The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern,resent problems to the but can be mitigated and should not p the home site becausofothe the f1ows- The building and sitehis away relative low energy but instability from the base of the steep slope to the re. west , in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west? wall of the home should be at least s f of e to abD pounds s per Grade and designed to accept forces o p Square foot. There should be no doors or. windows in this interval within the six foot level . If the steep slope in cut , he rear the toe of the slope. wall shoi:l d also act as a retas ning__wal l to e material of the site is suitable for the development of a 31 P281 VIII.a single family home, but soils engineering studies should be performed at the site specific level to insure proper k foundation design, especially in view of the possibility of t hydrocompactive soils on the fan. Final landscapino should include positive drainage away from the home in all directions, particularly because flowltolreach possible near the sote. of the mud slurry from a debris Dater for domestic use and waste disposal will be through municipal sources. The access already exists to the site. This is generally a qood site from a geologic standpoint, but the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally, the home should be designed. to preclude the accumulation of radon+ big gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. If {here are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist t s 3 P282 VIII.a A Ma j 12 11 O6: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 P. 1 EXHIBIT #12 May 13, 2011 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Ms. Trish Aragon 805 SUCK POINT ROAD City Engineer CARBONDALE, Co 81623 130 South Galena 970-963-2170 OFFICE#970-704.0215 FAX Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Aragon: This letter is written to satisfy your concern with regard to condition no. "f' of Resolution No. 17 of 2006, as it relates to the residence constructed at 675 South Alps Road under Building Permit No. 007212 W&ARBU. My opinions are in part based on my review of the following documents that were submitted as part of the Building Permit Application for 675 South Alps Road: Lot 2, -Alfoses Lot Split qradingIg Arainagre, arn&Erosion Cqnprol,,,Iitigarion Plan, .141,ip en, 'A;107 ack;, by Hans E. Brucker, PE, dated and revised as of April 4, 2007; the Soils and FoupVJation 1;7vesligation Single-1,'amily Residence, prepared by-. CTL Thompson Incorporated, dated September 8. 2005-1 and the Permanent Ground Nail Walls report by Yea and Associates, Inc., dated August 9, 2007 With regard to those items in Dr. Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992, 1 have the followingZD responses: 1. Debris Flow According to Dr. Lampiris, the subject building site"lies on a gentle east slope near a small debris fan", Dr. Lampiris, makes no mention that the building site is actually in the debris fan and therefore, any debris flows in his opinion, if experienced, will be the"low energy" variety. The closest portion of the building on Lot 2, is located more than 150 feet from the ce:nter of the debris flow known as Guard's Gulch" based on a recent ground survey. In addition, the structure is separated via another single- family dwelling, located on Lot 1. I have also reviewed the City of Aspen"Maximurn,Flow Depth, 100-Year Event, Mudflow through City" and based on this map, the nearest mudflow depth of 2 feet occurs near the bottom of Aspen Alps Road approximately 275 feet from the project From a practical standpoint,the approved grading and drainage plan was designed to provide positive drainage away from the residential structure, in accordance with standard design practices_ In addition, the back retaining wall was constructed in a curvilinear shape and is approximately twelve (12) inches above the natural grade with substantial separation from the main residential structwe. The design, therefore, will tend to divert mud and debris around the structure more so than a segmented, angular designed retaining wall. P283 VIII.a Mai 12 11 06: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 p• 2 May 13, 2411 PINNACLE DESIGN Ms. Trish Aragon CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Page 2 of 3 Based on my experience with the design and construction techniques used on the site, the residence has been substantially mitigated against a low probability, low energy debris flow.tp It should be noted that a portion of the structure originally on the site was constructed in the 1880's and there is no evidence of any previous mudflow, or debris flow events. Furthermore, mature trees in the area that existed prior to construction, showed no sign being within a similar type event. The residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address known debris issues notwithstanding Dr. Lampris' letter from almost twenty years ago. 1 Seismic Concerns With regard to Dr. Lampiris' concerns for seismic activity, according to the State of Colorado "Seismic Hazard Map", the City of Aspen currently experiences low seismic a,,,-tivity. In fact, the Peak Acceleration (%g)with 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years is approximately 18. In most cases -elated to residential construction, this would not warrant special design attention. And in all cases, consideration for,the type of structure (residential or commercial), geometry including size, shape, and height would play a more critical role in ascertaining whether or not to employ seismic design techniques. Dr. Lampiris states in his letter that the"faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago, and there is no evidence of recent activity." Furthermore, the site-specific soils and foundation investigation prepared by CTL Thompson made no mention of the need to employ special considerations with regard to seismic activity, Therefore, in my professional opinion, Dr. Lampiris is being overly cautious with regard to suggesting that it would be "prudent to design the home to conform to Seismic Zone 11 of the Uniform Building Code (which no Icnper exists). This is especially true considering that Dr. Lampiris he had no idea on the final house design parameters. The City reviewed and approved a site specific—construction document specific structural plan that was stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer who has, with his stamp, taken on the liability of the structure. Tae residence as constructed is more than sufficient to address known seismic concerns and issues notwithstanding Dr. Lampris' letter from almost twenty years ago. P284 VIII.a May 12 11 06: 56P PINNACLE DESIGN 970-704-0215 p• 3 May 13, 2011 PINNACLE DESIGN Ms. Trish Aragon CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Page, 3 of Slope Instability The slope was soil nailed based on a design provided by Yea and Associates. Based on my review, their design took into consideration all of the site-specific soils and foundation investigation prepared by CJL Thompson. Yea and Associates, also based on my review, took into account issues with slope stability by the virtue of the fact that they employed a soil nail wall, which is contemporary and often a preferred alternative to the wall design offered up by Dr. Lampiris in 1992. Again, the City reviewed and approved a site specific--construction document specific stamped structural engineering plan for the walls, which should alleviate any concerns with regard to the retaining wall structural integrity and slope stability issues. The residence as constructed using the soil nail design provided by Yea and Associates sufficiently address known site specific soil conditions. 4. Hvdrocomvactive Soils A site specific soils investigation was conducted for the site by CTL Thompson Incorporated, arid based on their independent investigation, hydrocornpactive soils were not encountered in the localized area. The final foundation design, to the best of my knowledge, was based on the site-specific soils report as was suggested by Dr. Lampiris. The City reviewed and approved a site specific—construction document specific foundation based on the report from CTL Thompson Incorporated that confirmed that there were no issues as a,result of hydrocompactive soils, Sincerely, Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. By: 44IP7' I IVP Hans E. Brucker, P.E. P285 VIII.a EXHIBIT#13 May 1 tl,2011 Icie Jackson, LLC Attn: Sant Carmody 390 Park Avenue New Fork, New York 10022 Job No. III 114A Subject: Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2,Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen; Colorado Dear ,\/1r. Carmody: As requested, the undersigned representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geoteclulical, Inc. met with Gary Krill and Scott Scherer of Schlumberger Construction at the subject site on May 12, 2011 to evaluate the potential geologic impacts to the residence on the lot. The findings of our evaluation are presented in this report. We were provided a subsoil study report conducted for design of foundations at the site by CTL/Thompson(2005) and a set of architectural drawings by Charles Cunniffe Architects dated between March 2006 and February 20011 that have been considered in our evaluation. The evaluation was conducted according to our agreement for professional services with Sang Carmody dated May 12, 2011. Background 'Information: The subject site was originally occupied by a single story log residence that had an address of 900 South Alps Road. The current residence on the same lot has the address of 675 South Alps Road_ In 1992, a geologic assessment was performed by Nicholas Larnpiris (1992) apparently for the subdivision of the property that became known as Tots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split of which the original cabin residence was located on what became Lot 2. 'hhe proposers building area was described by Mr. Larnpiris as being surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses, indicating it was vacant. Subsequently, the cabin residence was razed as part of the development for the current residence on Lot 2. Mr. Larnpiris identified several geologic conditions that should be considered in the property(Lot 1) development, generally consisting of seismic risk, potential debris flow impacts, steep slope instability potential, and potential hydrocornpactive soils impacts to the nets building. An email fi-om Tricia r'uragon, PE of the City of Aspen, dated May 12, 2011, requested that the potential impacts identified by Mr. Lampiris be evaluated to show that they have been adequately addressed or mitigated by the current property=development. P286 VIII.a Icie Jackson, LLC May 16, 2011 Page 2 Geotechnical Evaluation: My evaluation of the site has shown that the potential impacts to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris have been adequately mitigated by the current development. The following discussion is presented for each of the concern. SEISMIC RISK Mr. Lampiris stated that the home design should conform to Seismic Risk Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. The seismic risk at the property is the same as that for the Aspen area and consists of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our understanding of the earthquake potential in this part of Colorado,we see no reason to increase this accepted seismic risk zone for the region. The structural engineer on the project could be contacted to verify that the structure foundation has been designed for this seismic risk level. DEBRIS FLOW POTENTIAL The potential for debris flow impact to the property identified by Mr. Lampiris is from the ephemeral drainage located south of Lot 2. The property described by Mr. Lampiris indicates the potential impact is mainly to Lot I located south of the original cabin residence on Lot 2. The discussion by Mr. Lampiris does not appear to include the original cabin residence site(Lot 2)that is now occupied by the new residence. Based on our review of the property, the new residence is located outside of the primary area of potential impact described by Mr. Lampiris and mitigation_requiring no window or door openings for the first 6 feet above ground level to protect the new residence from debris flow would not be needed. There appears to be a remote possibility that if debris flow was to impact the residence on Lot 1 there could be flow diverted north away from the natural drainage channel. The breakout flows could go around to the north side of the Lot 1 structure. The drainage swales between these two residences are graded to take the potential flow or site runoff to the east away from the buildings. If the flow potential to Lot 2 needs to be quantified, a flow model study could be performed. STEEP SLOPE INSTABILITY POTENTIAL The new residence on Lot 2 was developed by cutting into the steep slope in the west part of the lot and constructing a retaining wall separate from the residence. We understand that this wall was constructed using soil nails by Yenter Companies but we have not been provided their design drawings. The top of the retaining wall corresponds to the ground surface of the steep slope where a foot trail about 5 feet wide is located the entire wall length. Recommendations for retaining wall design were provided by CTL/Thompson 2005) for this wall condition. No indications of wall movement, such as wall rotation or ground cracks, were observed during our recent site visit. Based on our observations and the information provided, the retaining wall appears adequate to maintain the original Job No. 111 114A P287 VIII.a lcie Jackson, LL.0 May 16, 2011 Page stability ofthe hillside and the cut for the wall should not adversely impact the residence. The structural engineer on the project for the wall could be contacted to verify that the retaining wall has been designed for the recommended.values. POTENTIAL 1-1YDRO0ONIPAC`I'IVE SOILS The alluvial fan deposit of the drainage located to the south of Lot 2 could tend to settle when wetted (hydrocompact) under load. The natural soils encountered on Lot 2 by CTLThompson (2005) were described as being relatively dense, gravel, cobbles and boulders and the risk of(slab) movement to be low. No settlement risk to foundations was discussed in the CTL/Thompson report. Lot 2 is located well to the north of the drainage and may be off of the alluvial fan soils described by Mr. Lampiris as being potentially hydrocompactivc. Based on our observations of the site, the information provided in the C'TL,'Thompson report and our experience in the area, the hydrocompactive soils, if present, should have been adequately mitigated by the foundation design of the new residence. The structural engineer for the residence could be contacted to verify that the foundation has been designed for the recommended values and conditions. The findings submitted in this report are based on our observation ofthe site, the information provided and our experience in the area. Our services did not include observation of the interior of the residence. Variations in the site, building conditions or subsurface conditions not identified by this review could change the findings contained in this report. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - 1'AWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1, 1L5222StevenL. Pawlak, P.E' Rev. by: DEI-1T A Uil Y4 i fh©nnasoe4• t]P SLP;ks,,v OF COLS cc: ScIllumberger Construction -- Attn: Gary Krill Mason & Karbank - Attn: Neil Karbank ( ei,lk nihr ' ulc c5t,11e;t) Alan Richman i Job No. 111 114A GecPteclh P288 VIII.a Icie Jackson, LLC May 16, 2011 Page 4 References: CTL/Thompson, 2005, Soils and Foundation Investigation, Single-Family Residence, 900 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado, prepared for John Olson Builder, dated September 8, 2005, Project No. GS04603-120(without map attachments). Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., 1992,RE:Aspen Alps Lot, prepared for Alan M. Richman, AICP, dated January 20, 1992. Job No. 111 114A GegteCfh P289 VIII.a EXHIBIT#14 May 23, 2012 Alan Richmond Ti i F,CITY OFAsPEN 675 South Alps Road Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 675 South Alps Road (AKA 900 South Alps Road) - Permit#0195.2006.ARBK After reviewing the building permit file on 675 Aspen Alps Road, the City has determined that the property has not satisfied condition No. 9 (f) of Resolution No. 17- 2006. (attached) As a result, the City will need a letter from a registered professional engineer, that addresses the applicable geotechnical concerns as listed in Dr. Nick Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992. attached) These concerns include mitigating the following: Debris Flow Seismic Concerns Slope Instability Hydrocompactive Soils If the concerns have not been mitigated, then the appropriate analysis must be completed, which complies with the City's Urban Runoff Management Plan requirements and applicable City Standards. If this analysis shows that mitigation of the concerns listed above is not necessary,the City will accept that analysis as satisfying condition No. 9 (f) of Resolution No. 17. Please note that it is the position of the City that neither letter previously provided to the City Engineer adequately addresses the concerns set forth above. We will need this information within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Sincerely, Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer Attachments: Resolution No. 17—2006 Dr. Nick Lampiris' letter dated January 20, 1992 P290 VIII.a EXHIBIT #15 AYeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers&Scientists June 15, 2012 Project No. 212-100 Mr. Sam Carmody Icie Jackson LLC 390 Park Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10022 Subject:Geotechnical Consultation 605 and 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split Dear Mr. Carmody: This report presents Yeh and Associates, Inc. (YA)geotechnical consultation to address condition No. 9.f of Resolution No. 17 - 2006 for the residence at 675 South Alps Road (fka 900 S. Alps Road) in Aspen, Colorado. At the request of the client, our investigation also included the adjacent lot at 605 South Alps Road. We were requested to visit the sites and conduct a debris flow hazard evaluation for both sites. We were also requested to provide our opinions related seismicity, slope stability and hydrocompactive soils in response to comments provided by the City Engineer in recent emails to the client. Our scope consisted of site reconnaissance and review of previous reports and the building plans for the residence. We were provided with the following documents: RE: Aspen Alps Lot" by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. Consulting Geologist, January 20, 1992. Soils and Foundation Investigation, Single-Family Residence, 900 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by CTL/Thompsons, Inc., Project No. GSO4603-120, September 8, 2005. Permit set of plans that included grading, architectural and structural drawings. Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control, Mitigation Plan, Aspen, Colorado" by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc., April 4, 2007. Re: 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc., May 13, 2011. Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado" by HP Geotech, Job No. 111 114A, May 16, 2011. Re: 675 South Alps Road (AKA 900 South Alps Road) — Permit#0195.2006.ARBK" by City of Aspen, May 23, 2012. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our site observations and experience regarding geotechnical issues only and our review of previous reports and plans. Our findings, conclusions, and opinions should not be considered applicable if the site was altered after our site visit without Yeh and Associates' prior review to determine if these opinions remain valid. SITE CONDITIONS: YA personnel visited the sites on June 6, 2012. The sites are located near the upper end of South Alps Road. A residence is located at 675 South Alps Road (Lot 2). 1 700 Fast Evans Avenue, Denver. CO 80222. ( 303 ) 751 -9590. Fat (303) 781 -9583 1525 Blake Avenue. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 . (970) 384- 150(1, Fax (970) 384- 1501 570 Turner Dri % e. Sure D. DnlanLO, Co 8 1303. (970) 382-9590. Fax (970) 382-9583 P291 VIII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road 605 South Alps Road (Lot 1) is vacant and landscape operations were in progress to re- vegetate the area where the cabin was previously located (it was demolished in 2011). The lower portion of Lot 1 (south of the residence) consisted of relatively gentle slopes. The slopes above both lots are moderately to very steep with grades up to 1 H:1 V and steeper. The slopes are heavily vegetated. A trail is located about halfway up the slope and traverses behind both lots. A gondola line is located near the top of the slope. Photo 1 shows the current configuration of Lot 1 looking towards Lot 2. The topography presented in Figure 1 for Lot 1 does not appear to be consistent with site observations. The topography was likely altered during demolition of the cabin that was located on Lot 1. The surveyor informed us that the topography provided to us was not updated since before demolition of the cabin. Also, conversations with the surveyor indicated that the topography for the slopes above the lots was performed with aerial photography and that the heavy vegetation may account for inaccuracies. Figure 1 presents the location and facing direction for photos presented in the report. C: 1 Photo 1 —Lot 1 looking towards Lot 2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our reconnaissance and review of previous reports and plans, we are providing our opinions and conclusions relating to debris flow hazards, seismicity, slope stability and hydrocompactive soils. Debris Flow Hazard Figure 1 presents our field mapping of the drainage channels in and above Lots 1 and 2. Our observations suggest that the topography presented in Figure 1 has inconsistencies as compared to what was observed in the field. As explained above, this is due to the fact that aerial photography rather than field surveying was used to determine topography in this area. The heavy vegetation likely made accurate surveying of the slopes difficult. The foot bridges and culverts presented on Figure 1 were located by YA personnel. The locations of these structures should be considered approximate. For Lot 2, the existing channels are insignificant and slopes above the residence are heavily vegetated. We observed a single channel capable of concentrating flow. This channel is located at the north end of the lot (Figure 1). Based on our observations, the channel does not have a defined source area to generate potential debris flows (see photo 2). The upper portion of the channel widens and terminates at the ski slope where the grades drain away from the subject site. Without a sufficient source area, we believe this drainage would not produce a debris flow event and would likely produce clear water flows. A storm water inlet is located below the drainage to accommodate these flows. In summary, we believe the debris flow hazard for Lot 2 is negligible and that mitigation is not required. Since there is a negligible 2 P292 VIII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road debris flow hazard for Lot 2, a quantitative debris flow analysis is not necessary for this lot. Therefore, we conclude that the recommendation in the 1992 Lampiris letter requiring that there should be no doors or windows in the rear wall of the residence within the lower 6 feet of the structure does not apply to Lot 2. f L F s Photo 2—Area above Lot 2 channel For Lot 1, the existing channels are more defined and are capable of debris flow events. Several small ephemeral drainages were observed in the south and west portions of Lot 1. Our observations indicated that these drainages are located within a single large channel as shown on Figure 1. Photos 3 and 4 present typical ephemeral drainages above Lot 1. The source areas for these drainages appear to be located to the south and west of the subject site beyond the project limits. Observations suggest that the source areas and channel sizes are adequate to produce a debris flow event. As shown on Figure 1, two potential debris channels are presented. The primary channel would likely carry minor to large events. The secondary channel mapped would likely carry very large to extreme events. The secondary channel or area would carry flows from large events that exceed the capacity of the primary channel. Generally, the secondary channel is an "overflow" area in the case where a large to extreme event occurs and fills the primary channel or if the primary channel was to become blocked. Based on our observations and experience, we believe the risk that an event large enough to exceed the capacity of the primary channel is low. 7 . Photos 3 and 4- Ephemeral drainages in Lot 1 3 P293 VIII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No.212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road Considering the well developed vegetation and previous channel scour observed, we estimate that typical debris flows would be minor to moderate events with flow depths of 3 feet or less. Flows of less than 3 feet would likely be confined to the primary channel, while flows greater than 3 feet could also spread to the secondary channel. In summary, our investigation indicated that a portion of Lot 1 is within a debris flow hazard area. Design requirements and/or debris flow mitigation would likely be necessary for structures planned on Lot 1. Specific recommendations would depend on type and location of proposed structures and would be based on a quantitative flow analysis that should be performed prior to the development of Lot 1. Seismicity In his 1992 letter, Dr. Lampiris recommended the residence be designed to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform Building Code. At the time the structural design was completed in 2007, the governing design document would have been the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). The 2003 IBC does not contain seismic zones as did the UBC. Therefore, Dr. Lampiris' recommendation was not applicable at the time the design was performed. Our review of the structural plans prepared by Redwine Engineers indicated that the residence on Lot 2 was designed based on the 2003 IBC for Site Class C. The report by CTL/Thompson CTL) made no mention of site specific seismic design requirements. Based on review of the test pit logs by CTL, we believe Site Class C would be appropriate for design of the residence. We conclude that potential seismic concerns were properly accounted for in the design from a geotechnical standpoint. Slope Stability For Lot 2, YA prepared a permanent soil nail wall design for the residence at 675 South Alps Road (fka 900 South Alps Road) under Project No. 27-255, plans dated August 9, 2007. The soil nail wall was designed to provide a minimum global factor of safety of 1.5 for the excavation and wall at the back of the residence. Observations of the soil nail wall behind the residence suggest the system is performing well. We did not observe evidence of slope instability within the wall or on the slope above the wall. In summary, the soil nail wall was designed to provide appropriate global stability of the system and observations suggest the system is performing well. For Lot 1, if structures are planned near the base of the existing slope, we recommend a global stability analysis be performed. The site specific analysis would depend on type, location and depth of the proposed structure(s). Hydrocompactive Soils For Lot 2, the soils investigation prepared by CTL did not encounter hydrocompactive soils. The report indicated that dense gravels were encountered at depths of 7 feet or less. CTL recommended that foundations be placed on these gravels. Review of the plans, indicates that foundation levels were significantly greater than 7 feet below grade, suggesting that foundations were constructed on the gravels as recommended by CTL. In summary, the site specific investigation did not encounter hydrocompactive soils and therefore no specific design requirements for foundations placed on hydrocompactive soils are necessary. For Lot 1, a site specific geotechnical investigation should be performed prior to design of structures at this site. Hydrocompactive soils could be encountered within the buildable portions of Lot 1. Ground modification and/or deep foundations may be required to mitigate hydrocompactive soils if encountered on Lot 1. 4 P294 VIII.a Geotechnical Consultation Project No 212-100 605 and 675 South Alps Road LIMITATIONS: The recommendations in this report are based on our field observations.. experience and review of the documents provided. Our opinions and conclusions related to debris flow events are based on anticipated natural processes such as precipitation events. Our recommendations do not account for manmade flows due to collection and/or diversion of surface or ground water If modification of the source areas or diversion of flows is performed. please notify YA immediately so that we can review our report in light of those conditions and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary Yeh and Associates has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Icie Jackson LLC for 605 and 675 South Alps Road. Aspen.. Colorado. This report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No warranty is expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted YEH AND ASSOCIATES,4NC. Richard D. Johnson. P E. r Project Manager u P295 VIII.a PAOto 3 JAL an o econ C anne Pboto trtl In--— or xi P' a ebri s n b. ob OBOE K 1-1C lPlv99oG) LOT 1 RomneMa or Woof Feet BAUye DRAVN BY, RDJ —^ AT 6/7/2012 PROJECT. NOTES'. CHECKED BY RDJ DATE 6/7/2012 605 and 675 South Alps Road I. STRUCTURE LOCATIONS WERE NOT SURVEYED AND DESIGNED FOR- IdI,J.k—LLC ARE APPROXIMATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INDICATES PHOTO LOCATION AND FIGURE CABIN AND STRUCTURES PRESENTED ON LOT 2. Photo 3 ARROW SHOWS DIRECTION FACING. PROJECT NUNBER, 212-,DD 2. TOPOGRAPHY AND SURVEYED STRUCTURES SCALE Approximate Extents of 1 PROVIDED BY PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING Yeh and Associates,Inc. HGRI2 1'=30' CONTOUR INTERVALS 2' GROUP, INC D IF De Debris Flow Channels Consulting Engineers&Scientists P2 9 6 VI I I . a EXHIBIT #16 p m-m- fj F s-1 n'm2 970-963-2-Hrj . 970-704-62iii FAX LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL MITIGATION PLAN ASPEN,, COLORADO Prepared For: Gerald Grayson 800 Aspen Alps Road South Aspen, Colorado 81611 Prepared By: Hans E. Brucker, PE Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. 0805 Buck Point Road CarboTp i 71 -f-' W.4' do 81623 Revised April 4, 2007 EXHIBIT D 0 P297 VIII.a f PINNACLE 0E-51CN- CONSULTING GROOPi INC. LOT 2,MOSES LOT SPLIT ASPEN, COLORADO GRADING, DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL MITIGATION PLAN INTRODUCTION This drainage evaluation is concerned with mitigating increased storm water impacts on surrounding drainage patterns,resulting-from construction of a new-residence located at 900 Aspen Alps Road South in Aspen, Colorado. A site visit was performed as part of this evaluation to verify, to the extent possible, the existing flow regimes and to provide the necessary input data required to model storm water runoff quantities. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The current residence is located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split in Aspen, Colorado and is bordered on the north and west by the Aspen Alps, on the east by the Aspen Chance Subdivision and on the south by Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. The current lot has a gross land area of one (1) acre and includes vegetation consisting of mostly native grasses, Aspen Trees, Serviceberry, and Spruce Trees. The lot is considered steep, with natural grades of around 42 percent sloping from southwest to northeast. There are no known major drainage basins directly on the property, however, a drainage known as Guard's Gulch is located approximately 130 feet to the east from the easterly edge of the building envelope. This particular drainage collects storm water and snowmelt from the easterly portion of Aspen Mountain and conveys it down to Ute Avenue. A soils report has been conducted on the site and indicates a fill of silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders overlying a layer of silty sandy topsoil. Approximately seven feet below the surface, the soil matrix is silty sandy gravel with cobbles and boulders. Ground water was not encountered during the soil exploration, however, during the spring months when snowmelt is at is peak a perched water table can exist in the area. Currently, no subsurface storm drainage or curb and gutter exists within the Aspen Alps South access road. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS AND DESIGN Per the City of Aspen Design and Construction Standards, latest addition, mitigation of the on-site storm water runoff should be based on a 2-year return period storm, in part because the developed portion of the parcel (approximately 8,791 square feet) is less than 33% of the total open space of 43,665 square feet on the lot. 2 P298 VIII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. The Rational Method has been recommended by the City of Aspen as the basis for determining the on-site storm water detention required in this particular case and can be formulated by the following equation: Q= CIA Where: Q=Peak Discharge, cfs for the return period C=Runoff Coefficient I =Rainfall Intensity, inches/hour A=Drainage Area, acres EXISTING CONDITIONS Runoff Coefficient, "C" The runoff coefficient is selected according to the drainage basin characteristics including the effects of infiltration, evaporation, retention, flow routing andinterception, which affect both the time distribution and peak runoff rate. Many references are available for selection of runoff coefficients. Calculating a composite coefficient produces more accurate results when applicable. For a 2- year storm, the historic, recommended runoff coefficient, from the City of Aspen Design and Construction Standards is 0.20 for sandy soils with grades in excess of 7% grade. Rainfall intensity, "I" The rainfall intensity is the average rainfall rate in inches per hour for the period of maximum rainfall of given frequency, and a duration equal to the time of concentration. Our experience with the conducting drainage evaluations in the Aspen area, has shown time of concentration values on smaller lots, to be less that 10-minutes. We will therefore use a minimum time of concentration value of 10-minutes for use in selecting both the historic and developed storm intensities. Based on the time-intensity frequency curve for the Aspen area, the intensity for a 10-minute time of concentration, is approximately 1.7 inches per hour for a 2-year return period storm. 3 P299 VIII.a i PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Drainage Area: The total drainage area of 23,743 square feet selected for the project includes only that portion of the lot above the eastern edge of the access drive to Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split. The area includes 0.545 acres calculated as follows 23,743/43,560) and shown on the drainage mitigation plan. Calculations: Using the information developed previously,the peak historic runoff rate for the 2-year return frequency, is calculated as follows: Qh= CIA I = 1.7 in/hr. Or: Qh= (0.20)(1.7)(0.545) = 0.18 cfs DEVELOPED CONDITIONS For the fully developed conditions, the runoff coefficient "C" is modified to reflect the addition of impervious areas, landscaping, and other features resulting from new project improvements. The difference is excess runoff that must be stored on-site to minimise damage to down-gradient facilities. Due to the limited land area, we are proposing the use of drywells for storing storm water in this case. Based on the City of Aspen, Design and Construction Standards, a developed runoff coefficient for all hardened surfaces of 0.95 is recommended. The fully developed composite runoff coefficient for the residential addition can be calculated as follows: Given: Roofs, Driveway, Walks = 8,791 sf = 0.202 acres; C2= 0.95 Landscaping/Greenbelt = 14,952 sf = 0.343 acres, C2= 0.20 Total area= 23,743 sf = 0.545 acres; C2 = [0.95(8,791) + 0.20(14,952)]/(23,743) C2=0.48 (fully developed conditions for new construction only) 4 P300 VIII.a 1-_ PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. i r Since the developed time of concentration will be shorter in duration than the i historic condition, use a minimum 10-minute time of concentration for the fully developed conditions. Based on the time-intensity-frequency-curve for the Aspen area, the intensity for a 10-minute time of concentration is 1.7 inches per hour for a 2-year storm frequency. Calculations: Using the information developed previously, the peak rate of runoff for the 2-year storm event, for the fully developed conditions is as follows: Qd=CIA Qd=(0.48)(1.7)(0.545) = 0.44 cfs The increase in peak runoff associated with the development is therefore: Qd—Qh= 0.44—0.18 =0.26 cfs The volume of excess runoff that requires mitigation can be estimated using the 60-minutes standard storm duration as required by the City of Aspen, Design and Construction Standards. VA,ge = [(60 min)(60 sec/min)x Qd—Qb] Vmge= [60(60)x 0.26] =936 fft3 Drywell infiltration per USDA, Soil Survey of Aspen-Gypsum Area, Colorado, Table 15 Soil # 107, Permeability= 6-20 in/hr. Use (6+20)/2 in/hr for study or 13 in/hr. Assume a 60-inch diameter drywell with bottom 4 feet having active percolation. A=7011+ (7r/4)D2 A=Drywell Area, sq ft H=Percolation Height, ft D =Diameter of Drywell, ft For each drywell(D = 5') the percolation area is as follows: A= (3.14)(5)(4) + (3.14/4)(52) 5 P301 VIII.a i 4. PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. A= 82.4 ft' Therefore the Infiltration rate "I"per for a single drywell is as follows: f I= ((13 in/hr)/(12 in/ft))(82.4 ft2)/(60 min/hr) = 1.49 ft3/min/drywell 1 i Therefore: F Vdrywell Infiltration=I x 60 min =60(1.49)(1) = 89.4 ft3 F I 3 Check drywell volume, assuming usable storage height is 10.0 feet with a 60" diameter. Assume no percolation is included in final drywell volume calculations. F f s Vdrywell = (7c/4)D2H r Where: H=Total storage height, feet D= Diameter of drywell, feet Vdrywell= (3.14/4)(5)2(10.0) Vdrywell = 196.3 ft3 Assume a minimum of 24" of washed rock around the bottom 4 feet and under the base, the drywell storage volume will be increased accordingly and can be calculated as follows (assuming a 40% void ratio): 2Vscreenedrock = [(,n/4)DH (7r/4)Dd,,w'. 2 H] (0.4) Vscreened rock =[(3.14/4)(9)2(6)—(3.14/4)(52)(4)](0.4) Vscreened rock = 121.2 ft3 Therefore, the total storage volume for one drywell not including infiltration is as follows: Vdrywell total= 196.3 ft3 + 121.2 ft3 = 317.5 ft3 Calculate total number of drywells required: drywells=Vstorage/Vdrywen drywells= 936 ft3/317.5 ft3 per drywell 6 P302 VIII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. d,yH,ejj, =2.95 =3 drywells total Use three (3) drywells having a minimum storage height of 10 feet (12' overall), with 24" of 1-1/2" washed rock on the bottom and sides. (See Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Details). A separate drywell should be installed for perimeter drain as required by the City of Aspen. EROSION CONTROL Due to the disturbance proposed on the lot, special care should be taken to minimize the impact of storm water runoff on down-gradient receiving areas. Existing slopes should be retained to the extent possible with mechanical retaining walls if required, and should not be constructed steeper in gradient than a 1.5:1 horizontal to vertical unless retained. In addition, all excavations should be planned to minimize, to the extent possible, damage to surrounding vegetation. Slopes steeper than 2:1 horizontal to vertical should be revegetated with erosion control blankets as soon as possible after excavations have occurred. In addition, silt fence should be erected on the down-gradient side of all disturbed areas (See Grading and Erosion Control Plan and Details). MAINTENANCE Catch-basins should be checked for debris buildup on an annual basis. Any encountered debris should be removed as required to ensure that facilities are working properly. Drywells should be checked annually during construction and on an every other year basis after construction, to ensure that they are functioning as designed and to check for debris buildup. If debris and silt are encountered, they should be removed via pumping or other mechanical means. Temporary silt fence should remain in place until all areas on the lot are completely revegetated. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Positive drainage should be constructed away from the building foundation in accordance with the minimum requirements of the soils report. 2. Three (3) 60-inch diameter drywells should be installed as shown on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan(see Sheet C 1 of 3 for location). 7 P303 VIII.a PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 3. The foundation perimeter drains, based on City of Aspen requirements, cannot be routed to the same drywell as the surface drainage system and therefore an additional 60-inch diameter, 18 foot deep drywell should be installed. The drywell should be installed in accordance with the soils report dated September 8, 2005 or as specified on the plans prepared by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. 4. An additional 60-inch diameter drywell should be installed to mitigate water from the under slab drain piping specified in the soils report. 5. New improvements shall maintain historic offsite flow patterns. 6. Erosion control measures recommended above should be strictly followed. 7. Seed mixtures and fertilizer shall be applied by spraying them on 3:1 or steeper gradient slopes in the form of an aqueous mixture. Seeding mixtures and application rates shall be in accordance with the final specifications on the landscape plan. 8. All seeded areas shall be mulched, as a separate process, with straw at a rate of 1.5 tons/acre. Straw will be applied in a uniform manner using standard straw blowing equipment. Areas not accessible will be mulched by hand. Mulched areas, not covered by an erosion control blanket, shall be secured by an approved tackifier. 9. Maintenance for drainage facilities should be in accordance with the aforementioned maintenance section. 10. A separate 12' x 50' vehicle tracking area should be constructed with 1-1/2" screened rock on the construction access area to prevent mud tracking on Aspen Alps Road South. 8 P304 VIII.a EXHIBIT #17 675 South Alps Mud and Debris Flow Analysis rIwlrl') F Prepared for: Sam Carmody 390 Park Avenue, 18th Floor New York, NY 10022 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc 130 Ski Hill Rd, Suite 130 p ';;>>, P.O. Box 1659 M'°` . Breckenridge, CO 80424 August 29, 2012 xt• °•° `' j'srr us t tniul'•'``• P305 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation INTRODUCTION The owners of the residence located at 675 South Alps are currently requesting a permit for an addition to an existing home. As part of the review process,the City of Aspen has required the owner to address potential mud and debris flow. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the mud and debris flow at the residence and provide recommendations for mitigation, if necessary. 675 South Alps (project site) is located on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split in Aspen Colorado, near the base of the Aspen Mountain (Figure 1). Ym try, i at 675 South Alps k` Figure 1.Vicinity Map. The property was previously occupied by several smaller cabins. In 1992 the property was subdivided into Lots 1 and 2. Approximately 5 years ago a new residence was constructed on Lot 2. In addition, structures on Lot 1 were removed and the area landscaped. Several previous analyses completed for this property and utilized in this mud and debris flow evaluation are summarized below: 1. Letter from Nicholas Lampiris Ph.D. Consulting Geologist to Alan Richman, AICP, January 20, 1992, RE Aspen Alps Lot. 2. Letter from HP Geotech to Icie Jackson, LLC, May 16, 2011, Subject: Geotechnical Site Evaluation, Residence on Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, 675 South Alps Road, Aspen, Colorado. 3. Letter from Yeh and Associates, Inc., June 15, 2012, Subject Geotechnical Consultation, 605 and 675 South Alps Road, Aspen Colorado, Lots 1 and 2 Moses Lot Split. 4. Report for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Mitigation Plan, Aspen, Colorado, prepared by Pinnacle Design Consulting Group, Inc. for Gerald Grayson. Tetra Tech Page 1 P306 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation PROJECT DESCRIPTION The owners of Lot 2 are proposing three modifications to the existing structure: the addition of a front entry mud room, an enclosure above the deck for an office/yoga studio and enclosure at the rear for the outdoor cooking area. A copy of the 2007 architectural site plan is appended to this report as well as building elevations for the current(2012) proposed modifications. Previous reports indicate the project site consists of silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders. The slopes uphill of the residence are steep, sloping at approximately 40 to 50%. The area surrounding the home site is landscaped and slope gently from west to east. A drainage system has been designed and installed including roof drain drywells located in the front of the residence. A site visit was conducted on August 7, 2012 by Peggy Bailey and Alaina Smith of Tetra Tech to assess existing conditions at the residence as well as the uphill contributing watershed. The existing residence was constructed in 2007. The building foot print is somewhat irregular,generally spanning an area that is 85 feet from side to side and 50 feet front to back. The house is located with the front to back perpendicular to the slope of the lot,which generally runs uniformly toward the westerly(back side) of the house (Photo 1). i i Photo 1. 675 South Alps looking at east face of residence. A retaining wall of varying height separates the back side of the house from the hill with a porch approximately 10 feet in width. The tributary drainage area and land uphill from the wall is densely populated with a mix of shrubs and aspen trees with some intermixed conifer trees.The top of the wall is flush with the ground on the uphill side (Photos 2 and 3). Tetra Tech Page 2 P307 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation 6 rte E ii Photo 2. Patio and retaining wall located at the rear of the residence. I Trr n Photo 3. Retaining wall at the rear of the house near the driveway. S Tetra Tech Page 3 P308 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation STUDY APPROACH The City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan 2010 (URMP) sets the guidelines for mud and debris flow analyses within the city limits. From Section 7.1 Mudflow Analysis in Storm Drainage Master Plan (URMP), This chapter applies to all new development and redevelopment within the City of Aspen that lies in blue or yellow mudflow zones. The blue mudflow zone includes areas on or within 200 of a slope greater than 30% defined on the City of Aspen slope map(can be located in the City GIS or Engineering department. The shallow mudflow zone are those areas south of Durant that are located within the 2-ft mudflow depth on the 100-year mudplain map in the Master Plan as shown on Figure 2. Blue mudflow zones—For development projects that will modify existing grades or create additional obstructions buildings, roads, etc.)in blue mudflow zones, the applicant must perform an analysis of the 100-year mudflow event to demonstrate that the proposed development will manage mudflow impacts to his/her site and neighboring site to the maximum extent practicable,providing appropriate safety from mudflow impacts that are physically and economically feasible. From Section 7.4 Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment; Mudflow analysis for new development and redevelopment shall be conducted by a Professional Engineer with past experience with mudflow analysis, preferably with post experience using FLO-21). FLO-2D is the preferred method for mudflow analysis. However, the City is willing to accept other models or analyses that ore based on the following factors: Type and quality of soils Evidence of groundwater or surface water problems Depth and quality of any fill Slope of the site and adjacent sites Weight that proposed structure will impose on slopes For areas falling within the delineated mudflow plain, as established in the Surface Drainage Master Plan, where mudflow depths are greater than 2 foot, modeling analysis should follow the steps below. Mudflow analysis using modeling methods may also be required for other mudflow hazard areas not shown in the Master Plan at the discretion of the City Engineering Department. The property at 675 South Alps lies outside of both the blue and yellow zones, however,the property is within the tributary basin that could potentially generate mud flow, creating the mud depths depicted in the yellow and blue zones. Thus the City 'requested an analysis to demonstrate that the proposed development will manage mudflow impacts to his/her site and neighboring site to the maximum extent practicable, providing appropriate safety from mudflow impacts that are physically and economically feasible.' Tetra Tech Page 4 P309 VIII.a fir. f '' , r, P310 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation The residence of 675 South Alps is somewhat unique in that the original FLO-2D study did not extend far enough up the hillside to include the residences. Specifically this means that the property is located uphill from the inflow nodes used in the FLO-2D model (Figure 3). Approximate location of project site, uphill and outside of FLO-2D model limits r sus ' ,.`.' lt'7 j , S • j4 ` Y . . Filth. F' J1 3..Z•. Figure 3. Location of 675 South Alps residence relative to the FLO-21D model boundaries Prior to the URMP,the City of Aspen completed the Surface Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) for the City of Aspen in 2000. This plan delineates the subbasins which contribute flow to the town in the form of both clear water and mud and debris flows. Figure 4 notes the location of the residence within the basin boundaries.The estimated contributing watershed for the project site is approximately 0.5 acres, subdivided between subbasins 14 and 15 as identified in the SDMP. Tetra Tech Page 6 P311 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation 1\: -__=-' iV l _ i t4-. It` . _ 1 1`'4/rf- i '7,1 1 o`_- _ 'i:i.:._ .O 1\?`l tb I,/ .-` max.\ S: - --. 1; z. .; 1• t ti.aY D6 675 South Alps an gt,4 • d contributing watershed I./ rte `.?ISt'•'--=` C;•\```:"` ':^ __ 1 •L/-.. '- k?- _ _`^•'^ .^:yam_.. 1•:`1':.1:-•J`-- •b`:'. L7a 1 ter_=-y SV_= _ -;11r='i a; .- •. ,\\.__.? \.`::. -._ . J.`1`\?•w'Y C/v J/':/'/=! / i ids •' ` i+\. '` )` t ,V ,_____ _` iJ 1,// a/'.\C Y y^`,\:" `'-•` l '• - _. .'h i ..• ate..-.`\ r.- -_Z. `;,t_`'_ / ,} Irs.vim (l,', J+ '-. ti•'.. Figure 4. Drainage basins per the SDMP. The goal of this analysis is to estimate the volume of mud that could be generated in the 0.5 acre watershed immediately above the residence. Given the relatively small basin area above the residence and the proximity of the residence above or outside of the FLO 2D study area,an approximate estimate of mud is developed for use in preparing mitigation recommendations. EVALUATION The SMDP indicates that for a 100-year rainfall the precipitation is 1.89 inches for a 2-hour storm. Spread out over the 0.5 acres, reduced for losses,and bulked for sediment, it is estimated that approximately 2,020 cubic feet of mud could be generated in a 100-year event. This estimate is based on the 2-hour storm distribution presented in the SDMP,and conservatively assumes a saturated condition such that there are no depression losses and initial infiltration losses are negligible. Infiltration and depression loss values are based on guidance from the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 1,2007. The overall storm is then bulked to 20%average sediment concentration. Mud flow concentrations can vary depending on the amount and intensity of rainfall watershed conditions. Typically a lesser event,such as a 25-year rainfall,will produce higher concentrations of mud,say 30%, due to lower volumes of water as compared to the 100-year, but the overall volume of the 100-year rain and mud flow event will be greater than the 25-year rain and mud flow event. Thus the 100-year event is modeled with a 20%mud concentration. Table 1 presents a summary of the 100-year 2 hour storm as described and is based on values presented in Table 2 of the SDMP, including the rainfall distribution for a 2-hour storm and total precipitation values. Tetra Tech Page 7 P312 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation Table 1.Storm distribution and mud flow estimate. Time Rainfall 100-yr, 2-hr Infiltration Rainfall less Distribution Rainfall Losses Infiltration min percent in/hr in/hr in/hr 5 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 10 4.0% 0.065 0.05 0.02 15 8.4% 0.137 0.05 0.09 20 16.0% 0.261 0.05 0.21 25 25.0% 0.408 0.05 0.36 30 14.0% 0.228 0.05 0.18 35 6.3% 0.103 0.05 0.05 40 5.0% 0.082 0.05 0.03 45 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 50 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 55 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 60 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 65 3.0% 0.049 0.05 0.00 70 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 75 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 80 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 85 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 90 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 95 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 100 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 105 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 110 2.0% 0.033 0.05 0.00 115 1.0% 0.016 0.05 0.00 120 1.0% 0.016 0.05 0.00 Subtotal 1.89 1.2 0.93 Bulk 20%for mud, inches 1.11 Tributary area, ac 0.50 Total mud flow,ft3 2020 The uphill watershed generally slopes uniformly toward the residence and the rear retaining wall. Observations of the wall indicate that it is generally flush with the uphill ground and will therefore divert very little mud around the wall. Thus should a mud flow event occur,the mud will likely move over the top of wall and drop onto the patio and parking area immediately to the rear of the home. The wall spanning the home and driveway is approximately 140 feet long. Assuming a somewhat uniform interception along the length of the wall it is estimated that the mud volume will be 15 cubic feet per linear feet of wall, deposited over the 10 foot wide patio, with mud depths of 1.5 feet. This is an average. Mud depths will likely be deeper near the toe of the wall and shallower near the house. RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION A minimum of three feet of freeboard is recommended for all walls that will have direct impact forces from mudflow and debris. Freeboard is defined as additional height from the top of mud to account for additional protection in the event tree and rock debris is mobilized with the mud flow. Freeboard also provides protection for unpredictable and unforeseen mud flow movement and irregular deposition. Ideally a structure would be constructed with no breakable openings (windows or glass doors) below the Tetra Tech Page 8 P313 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation recommended mud depth plus freeboard. Walls and solid doors would be designed to withstand the mud flow loading and an impact load from the debris. In the case of 675 South Alps,the flow depths along the rear of the residence are estimated to be 1.5 feet. With three feet of freeboard the windows would be placed at a minimum of 4.5 feet above the patio level. However,the existing structure, constructed in 2007,was built with windows and doors along the rear face, some of which extend below the 4.5 foot level (Photo 4). Photo 4. Windows and doors along the rear face of residence. S Several options are possible for providing mitigation for the residence. The first option would be to elevate the existing retaining wall, or construct a second wall up-hill of the first, approximately 4.5 feet above the uphill grade to capture and divert the mud and debris. The wall would be orientated so as to split the flows around the north and south ends of the wall and residence. A second option would be to reinforce the windows and doors along the rear face of the home (including the use of impact-resistant glass)to withstand mud and debris impact loads. Note that doors along the rear face will become obstructed and egress may not be possible if an event were to occur as evaluated herein. Mud and debris could also reach and impact the east and west sides of the home. However because most of the flow will likely be intercepted on the rear patio,the depth of mud will likely be minimal with minimal ability to transport debris. Therefore one-foot of freeboard should be sufficient on top of an estimated one foot of mud for a total of two (2)feet from the ground to the bottom of any window openings on the east and west sides of the home. Doors will likely be obstructed but not likely to have significant mud and debris loading. Tetra Tech Page 9 P314 VIII.a 675 South Alps,Aspen Colorado Mud and Debris Flow Evaluation With either mitigation option,the mud volume is relatively minor and will likely be deposited within the boundaries of the property either on the patio or within the landscaped area surrounding the house. Thus it is unlikely the home site and mitigation will alter offsite mud flow depths and flow patterns. Note that this estimate is based on current watershed conditions. Should conditions change, particularly conditions that might change the conditions of the vegetation such as a fire, mud and debris flows may exceed those determined in this evaluation. In addition, it is possible that large rock and boulders could mobilize uphill of the project site without mud flow. LOADING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS There are three types of loading conditions that should be considered relative to mud and debris flows: impact loading from debris (primarily rocks and trees) in the frontal wave of the mud, flow momentum loading and post flow loading. These loading conditions apply to the extension of the existing retaining wall or the addition of a second retaining wall. These loading conditions also apply to the rear of the existing residence (where it is important to verify that the existing walls are designed to handle these loads), use of impact resistant glass and design of the proposed outdoor cooking area. Tetra Tech recommends that a qualified structural engineer registered in the State of Colorado design these walls. Tetra Tech Page 10 P315 VIII.a EXHIBIT #18 INDEMNIFICATION AND LAND USE PROCESS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of December 5, 2012 (this "Agreement"), by and between ICIE JACKSON LLC, a Colorado limited liability company having an address c/o Manson Karbank Burke, 604 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Home Rule Municipality, W-1-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H: WHEREAS, Owner owns real property legally described as: Lot 2 as shown the Replat of Moses Lot Split(a lot line adjustment) and Final Subdivision of the George P. Mitchell and H.A. Bornefeld, Jr. Property according to the Plat thereof recorded in the Pitkin County, Colorado Clerk and recorder's office on September 3, 1992 in Plat book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No. 348317 and the Lot 2, Moses Lot Split 2"d Amendment recorded July 14, 2006 in Plat book 80 at Page 5 as reception No. 526459 (and excepting any portion thereof lying within Lot 1, Moses Lot Split, as shown the Plat recorded June 26, 1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page 83 as reception No. 290474)— also known as 675 South Alps Road (and formerly known as 900 South Alps Road), Aspen, Colorado (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, a home (the "Home") was constructed on and is located on the Property, and the City issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the Home on January 7, 2010; and WHEREAS, Owner wishes to submit, to the City, a land use application seeking the City's permission so that Owner may (among other things) modify the Home and adjust the lot line between the Property and adjacent lands owned by an affiliate of Owner(the "Land Use Application"); and WHEREAS, in the 1992 subdivision approval, a geologic assessment performed by Nicholas Lampiris identified several geologic conditions concerning mud and debris flow, down the lower slopes of Aspen Mountain, onto the Property that were to be mitigated by the property owner (the "Geotech Matter"); and 1/.19.12 mkb P316 VIII.a WHEREAS, Owner engaged Tetra Tech, Inc., ("Tetra Tech") to investigate the Geotech Matter and its potential impact on the Home, and Tetra Tech performed that certain and issued a report titled "Mud and Debris Flow Analysis", dated August 29, 2012 (the "Tetra Tech Analysis"), attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Tetra Tech Analysis made recommendations for mitigating the Geotech Matter (collectively, the "Tetra Tech Recommendation") ; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to receive and review and process the Land Use Application provided that Owner agrees to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Owner and the City hereby agree as follows: 1. Owner's Acknowledgment. Owner acknowledges that the City has raised the Geotech Matter and that Owner owns, uses and operates the Home and the Property subject to the Geotech Matter and to such consequences as may arise from the Geotech Matter, and that Owner, and not the City, is responsible for any such consequences. 2 Indemnity. Owner hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all liability, losses, damages, claims, demands and costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the City arising from damage to the Home or the Property or from injuries or deaths in the Home or otherwise on the Property, in each case, as a result of the failure to follow or the delay in following the Tetra Tech Recommendation. 3. Tetra Tech Recommendation. Owner agrees to follow through completion, at its expense and within one (1) year from the date of this Agreement, the Tetra Tech Recommendation. 4. Land Use Application. The City agrees to accept Owner's covenant to follow (through completion) the Tetra Tech Recommendation as satisfaction of the Geotech Matter, and the City agrees to process the Land Use Application according to its normal policies and practices but subject to and in accordance with this Agreement. Owner agrees that the Land Use Application shall contain Owner's covenant to follow, through completion, the Tetra Tech Recommendation as and in the time period provided herein. P317 VIII.a 5. Term; Covenant Running With The Property; Successors and Assign . The indemnity contained herein shall be perpetual and such indemnity, together with the other terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be deemed a covenant running with the Property and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and assigns, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above-written. ICIE JACKSON LLC By: Neil d. Karbank, an authorized agent Approved as to Form By: James R. True, City Attorney THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By:__ Date: City Manager P318 VIII.a STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN On this 5th day of December, 2012, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared NEIL D. KARBANK and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his-capacity as an authorized agent of icie Jackson LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, as the act and deed of such company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.ki day and year in Aesl ertificate first above written. v i Notary Public within and for said County and State My comm ss ton-etc pieis w..«...........W........ r st k sk*eri[Yryct*tixp[9c YC:kt 9rksk*fit*+t r P319 VIII.a DRAWINGS P320 VIII.a w it LIN awk awe SRI N BROW loot MOSES LOT SPLIT TICIAITTITIAP Feet of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2012 Aspen/Pitkin GIS TueApr 17,2012 C:%GISktempXApr112VAoSesLotSpIft P321 VIII.a OF QWNERSHIP LOT 1CERTIFICATE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that South Alps Road LLC, a Colorado LLC,being the sole owner of Lot 1,Moses Lot Split as shown on the Plat recorded June 26,1987 in Plat Book 19 at Page a3 as Reception No.290474,Firkin County,Colorado does hereby Plat sold real property under the ra and style of Moses Lot Spilt let Amendment being a r.Plot of a portion of the City of Aspen replotted In C- __ aee°rdan a with the Plat oe shown hereon. sRTFICATE OF OWNERSHIP LOT 2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 61- N9hfh R` Or Amended Lot 1 Moses Lot Split 605 Aspen Alps South Road) d KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Ibis Jackson LLC, K,^ ; ,co v-h ` ED pe 'P \'P Mt o a Colorado LLC,being the sale owner of Lot 2 The northerly portion of that certain real properly beling within the southerly 9 0 w lD a F 's°,Nil n Or oy\P iz Ral let of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split(A Lot Line Adjustment)and Final s Lot Split a aid Lot 1 s shown upon that certain and H.A. ornefdd Jr.Property Paton o/Lot 1 Maine s P orh slo„ Sf o;' 9 ito d± G'A\••Q:-_ 5ubdIA.on Plat of the Georg,P Mitchell y Plat entitled'Moses Lot Split"fled n the off..of the clerk and recorder 0. R R o f,y according to the plat Hereof recorded SeptemDV 3.1992 In yonofPitk'n Count Jun°26 1987'n Plat Book 19 al Page B3 aid real property Rd h 69 Hosea Lot 5 lit O/,S s Bunn PI _.. Mt^ Plat Book m of Page 65 are Receptor No. lot Bo and the Lot 2 p being more particularly described are follows Bunny n q R: 2nd Amendment a offs a July 14,2006 d Plot Book f at Page 5 are Reception 1 L1V No.526459 m the office of the Clerk and Recorder o1 Pitkn County,Colorado Comm en.In at a ant whence a BtN Brass Cap bang Corner No.1,Aspen Townsite 1r `Ce„ 1e TTIF CERTIFICATE LOT 1 Face to ton ther-f wthn Lot 1,Hosea Lot Split as shown on the boors South 85'24'12'East 92028 feet,thence South 43'14 52"West 2370 feet u G' P .any lure rn9oP\ , 3 A ^WJ 9h C - 4 Plat recorded June 26,1987 Plat Book 19 al Poge 83 as Reception No 290474, thence Sou lh 06'06'14'East 51.26(eet to the point of beginning Thence South T z o.. ¢ t t dl a ?FlLhle ssN Stewar[TUe of Aspen.Inc does hereby earl fy that f hoe m. ,a°0.o1!S d \.-Y".... ;a: examined the title to all lands shown upon the Lot Une Adjustment Pitkin County,Colorado doe.hereby Plot old real property under the name 70'6J 51'East 60.59 feet along the Westerly boundary Ina of sad Lot 1 thence r R''Plat and ih at South AI LLC,a Colorado LLC Is the o of and stye of Maass Lot Spit 1st Amendment being a replai of a Portion of South 1fi'21 25"Eoet 120.99 feel Th ence South 44'43'3]'Went along Easterlym f p,a a< ps saner the City of Aa r i ttad in accordance with the Plat as ahown here.,. v y o M p K S,yOw J° Lot 1 In fee male free and clear of all Ilan.and encumbrance. Y Pen eP o Sountlary Ibou of sold Lot 1 thence North OS' Point 27'West 20890 feet along the T.rt Gip p 5 1 oc D L • In Polley No n0I9301 b0018409]9 tlatetlaJunea6 20d' sdo.ed cc...m re or lless nd together with tLotth2 taining e03469able.lonng 02548 o oar a` Cf N PROPERTY OESCRIPTION acres more or an w can v^-sae Sm SI \ Vlne 5 Sp °p 5f Amended Lot 2,Moses Lot Split 675 Aspen Alp°South Road 9Ql F at Stewart Title of Aspen,Inc. County of Pitkn 9 a A Lot 2 as shown on the Replat of Lot 2.Moses Lot Split(A Lot Line State of Colorado Adjustment)and Final SubdiW,ion Plat of the Georgia P.Mitchell and C ek.Rd"a car)' JM I(c ` r7,P H.A.Bomefeld,Jr Property according to the Plat thereof recorded Mpr0 -_ 6 file RC S( •.asp u1 g k Title Examiner September 5 1992 In Plat Book 29 at Page 65 as Reception No.348317 4N'tlE@ 2 Rkeh l+I IJ Pk f r3f a k On 4 W nfepRO ongExcSing rd.d thereof within Lot 1 Moses Lot e 5 as shown South Alps Road LLC,o Colorado LLC c h; oYt+ v.State of Colorado on the Plat dad June 26 1987'n Flat Book 19 at Page B]o. H R° A E B1`s 4d\ ` Reception Na.zsoa7a e a i{^ y-FQi S County Of Pltkn ) o Ss : Iy R,tnl m 991 r Aj-^ 3 ee Together with the.outherly portion of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split being nn re particularly BY. BI IUb r1A ly. \ a Sf yc f Rd. This Title Certificate hereon was acknowledged before me de.cr bed as follow.. D o ttle:' 0¢q C I - 10 Rd this day of 2012, That certain real property bang wthn the sauthedy port an of Lot 1 Moses Lot AGKNGWLEOGMENT OF OWNERSHIP Larksou'JuonSpRRj Sf ^" A1. 9 an Split oe said Lot 1 la ahown upon that certain Plat entitled"Moses Lot Spl t" RR / k State of Colorado) sSt '-D to k S by author zed signatory, filed in the offce of the clerk and recorder of Pitk n County on June 26.1987 SCilotc' tor the purposes thereof)and Title Examiner for In Plat Book 19 at Page 83,sold real property bang more particularly d—HI s. mrAlt SL fora A Grove County of Pltkln p Stewart Title of Aspen,Inc. as follows 4s \U p11 y ^ 1 w MI^ o Commencing t a port hence a BLM Brae.Cap bong Corner No.1 Aspen Tow'ste The foregoing owners certlficata was acknowledgetl before me Alp Pl IN WITNESS WHEREOF, hereunto ofl'x my hand and offmvl aeol. boor.South B5'24'12 East 920.26 feet thence South 43'14 52'West 2J.70 feet this day of 2012 bys. osf xork then.°South 06'06 14 East 51.26 feet to the true Pont of Beginning; Thence South pCr" r" I_ My commission expire,: 70'43'51°East 60.59 leaf along the Westerly boundary Iine of saki Lot 1 thence as owner of Lot 1,Moss,Lot Split for the therein contalred. fe, Boggle t0k° South 76' in. 25"East 120.99 feet Thence South 44'43'37'Weat along Easterly oe p purposes qv'\ORk RIVER boundary line of.oil Lot 1 thence North 05'31'27'West 208.90 feet along the IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto affix my hand and offlclal seal. Z -o Southerly boundary line of veld Lot 1 to the Point of Beginning,containing 0.2548 Notary Publico more or les.and together with Lot 2,containing 1.257 acres more or leas. M Iaura. y<amm..la,exp ra.. oil ASPEN a County Pltkln, State £Colorado. That a Id real property 1°°object to plot dedication note,1 (A through D) Notary Public TI CERTIFICATEFFICATE IOT 2 nd 2(A through D)as ahown an the Rabat of Lot 2,Moaea Lot Split A Lot Line Adjlstm ant)and Final SubdiM.lon Plat of the George P.Mltchell Stewart This of Aspen.Inc.does hereby certify that It has nd H.A.Bornelaid,Jr.Property recorded September 3,1992 in red the title to.II land,shown upon this Lot Line Plot Book 29 at Page 65 0,Reception No.290474. Notes: Adjustment Plat and that Icie Jackson LLC, Callrado LLC VICINITY MAP o C owner of 2 11 tae,l.Plc free one dear Notice According to Calarado tae you must Te men'°any legalVP \O T of all liens and encumbrances a cept for any Il.ted bNaw, OWNER action based upm any defect In this a rosy within three years subject to all matters disclosed sin Policy No.OP201105004139 otter you n any defeatat such defeat, surn, Inn a ern moynone-L-PROJECT LOCATION dated May 11,2011 a Jockaon LLC,a Colorotla LLC booed pan y defect In Ihi. y be c aad than ten Stewart Title of Aspen,In. year.from the data of the cetifieation.how,hereon. o 2. Posted addrea...: Lot 1:605 South Aspen Alps Road BY: Lot 2: 675 South A.p,n Alp.Road Title Examiner 3. BASIS OF BEARINGS: The southeasterly,line of Lot 1,Moses"I SpIIt CKNDWLEOGMENT OF OWNERSHIP anted a!each antl In the field shown hereon Is a mad Slate of Calarado ) ss State of Colorado) s to have a aring of t 44"43'37'W with all other bearings shown Y y hereon being relative thereto. County of Pltkln County of Pitkln a 4. Property description and r...inch far easement,of record for the property Thi.Title Certificate hereon so.acknowledged before me The foregoing owner,certificate was acknowledged before me located at 605 South Alp,Road were provided by Stewart Title Policy No 0-9301-001840979 doted June 6,2011, Property description and r...drph far this do f 2012,by ante of record for the property located at 675 South Alps Road w e this day of 2012,y o of the Idle Jackson LLC provided by Stewart Title Policy Na.OP201105004319 dated May 18,2011. ar b an outhorizad signatory as owner of Lot 2,Replot of Lot 2,Mo.'.Lot Split for the purposes thereof)and lifts Examiner for A Lot Line Adjl tmart)and Final SubdM,l.r Plat of the George P,Mitchell Staworl Title of Aspen,Inc. and H.A.BornefeldI Jr.Property for the purpo.e.th...In contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.I hereunto affix my hand and official seal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto affix my hand and ofnclal seal. My commieelon expire.: My commission expires:CEPTANCE FOR RECORDING This Plat as shown hereon was accepted for filing In the office of Notary Public Notary Public the Clark and Recorder of Pitkin County,Colorado on the_day CITY N IN R'c APPRpVAI: of A.D.2012 and was duly filed In Plat Book of THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Page_under Recaptlon Number THIS DAY OF 20 TRICIA ARAGON,CITY ENGINEER Clark and Recorder SURVEYOR'S RnFI AT Robert C.Hutton,being a duly registered and licensed COMMUNITYCITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'e APPROVAL- Prof...land Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado,do hereby certify to South Alps Road LLC a THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Slantant Jackson LLC,a and Stewart Title that the Lot Line Adjustment Plat ahown hereon ores prepared THIS DAY OF 20. under my direct responsibility,supervi.ion and checking and is true antl correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief. This Plot campus.with applicable saction.of C.R.S.38-51-101,at eaq. CHRIS BENOON,CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I hereunto amx my hand and Official seal this_day of_A.D.2012. Robert C.Hutton,PLS Riglstratlon No.24312 P3 2 2 VI I I . a MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 16129 l I fOUµ NAO g 5 µ SY 5066 exdl C2 0 9111?IS 01 5 9`l%:h I oStj. pµ0 OpP Fes$0 e4 FP`S . e / n 4 al oA a a J aiy oIP 6 LINE 4-5 M.S.3881 AM T _ -N UO yi. PPC,y'' D p I PGC yro9 QP° 920 d ry p43 Jg.?i y y / 2 p QWgo//TO R.L.M.BRASS / m4J= L Q FOUND PIN PAND CAP V VG'// ASPEN OWNSITE FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED HEREON O SET 5/8"REBAR W PLASTIC CAP PLS 24312 0 SET 5/B"OIA.REBAR W1TH ALUMINUM CAP P N$/ LOT 2 ILP.L.S.25954 o` ' ``cyd, h o1•/ MOSES LOT SPLIT j I 1 o zo• SET P.N.NAIL AND WASHER STAMPED O,yJ¢P O S O, o .c . !' : 'c;y/ 54,761.69 sq. ft. / I .tenP.L.S.25954 ryry' 4 J y. C) m r v 2¢ Y 1.257 acres± FEET 20 0 20 FEET N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE P 4 e/ J 1t I I I Sim 675 S. ALPS ROAD / T GRAPHIC SCALE x LAMP POST 04QJ' y 0, / P.O.L. Polar ON LINE 00 SCALE: 1 INCH =20 FEET JP tl, V0. I O, ly // U 4 .' qQ AC1H FOUND PIN AND CAP N 49'44'55"E(R) <I '>N- IIr// D 0' PLS,is,9 N 49'20'30'E(M) L - a` -/ / III N N v Ln h 54.87'(R) S°Z 54.87 I SPRING AND HOLDING 4 o 7 7 o NTANKEASEMENT1 l]/ PLAT BOOK 19,PAGE 8324 I N O r I 4 y / / LPT 2A mm m C REPIAT OF LOT 2 MOSES L T SPLIT(A LOT LINE AOJUSMENYI AND PORTION OF LOT 1 .k, FINAL 9UBOINSDN PLAT OF THE GEORGE P.MITCHELL AND U6 ADDED TO L01',2 ,2 iC. J ` o (I BoFIYEFFID.JR PRGPERTY y D m w I AOk.( Ce 0 A. 0 s \ h P y ry" LOT 1 i y 6 I2gib¢ 117 Wiz,,, w o ro MOSES LOT SPLIT 15,071.73 sq. ft. 0.346 acres± I 25. CS YEAR RWNO.PEO(:SIRIAN,BICYCLE AND 605 S. ALPS ROAD I NORDIC SKI TRAIL ON OCFTIOMNASTHEEP€ARCS NO NOE SAME' TRAIL. y t ALL MOTOR VEHICLE'S WITH THE EXCEPTION PF THE NORDIC COUNCIL'S GROOMING BUILDING SETBACK(TTI - -- - - - . I FOUND P.O.L. 6. k, EOUIPMENT SHALL BE PRECLUDED. L PIN AND CAP 9 g WLAT BOOK 19,PACE,83 o PLS 593! SEE DETAIL-D FOUND PIN AND CAP a 5 80'11'S3 1101.12' (M) 195.89'(M) N N 44'46• 36" E(M) 69.87 (M) SHEET 3 OF 3 L H.C.E.PLS 19598 S 44'43'3T W(M) 287.01'(R-M)UNE 4=1 Ms-1830 30.05' 11x.93' N 44 42'S4'E(M) 150.01' M) 7 N aa•43'2T E E S 45'00' 00' W(R) BASIS OF BEARINGS) so.25' 17.82 LINE 2-3 M.S.JB81 AM S 44'15'32"E N 44'43'27"E 158.73' SEE DETAIL-C 4.84' SHEET 3 OF 3 MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1ST AMENDMENT- CURVE TABLE PORTIONS of LOT 2,REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT EXTENDING INTO LOT 7,ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION CURVE N0. CENTRAL ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD BEARING CHORD DIRT 21.20'DO'(R) 250.64'(R) 93.32'(R) N 15.10'00"E(R) 92.78'(R) Cl 1'17'24" M 249.60' M 92.75' M N 14' 5'14'E M 92.21' M N J7'00'00'E(R) C2 85'00' " R-M 30. R-M 34.0.3' R-M N 38'48 J" M 32.4'(R-Ml S 65'30'00"E(R) C3 90'00'00'(R-M) 58.00'(R-M) 91.11'(R-M) S 65'43 28 E M .02' R-M NOTE FOR ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ACROSS LOT 1 AND LOT 2 S 36'52'30°E(R) LINE TABLE SEE SHEET 3 OF 3, C4 32.44'59° R-M 36.37' R-M 20.79' R- 37'D5' M 20.51' R-M N 66.21'01"E(R) LINE BEARING DISTANCE C5 120.46'01'(R-M) 40.00' R-M 84.33' R-M N 6'07'32'E M 69.56'(R-M)51 S 43'29'DO"W(R)S 43.14'52"W(M) 24.00'(R) 23.70'(M) N 07'44'00'W(R) L2 S 20.30'00'E(R)S 20'43'28'E(M) 31.21 (R) 31.21'(M) C6 15' 2'00'(R-M) 76.00'(R-M) 1 20.36' R-M N 01'57'28'W 20.32'[R-M) N O5'57'00"E(R)N 05'43'32"E(M) 39.80'(R) 39.80 (M) N 2T 46'00°W(R) L4 LJ N 38'07'00'W(R N 38'20'28"W(M) 26.70' R) 26.70'(M) uQ C7 4 - 1 .00 - .1 -M N 26'18'30'W(R) R L5 N 14'30'00"W(R)N 14'43'28"W(M) 20.18'(R) 20.18'(M) C) SET 5/8"REBAR W/PLASTIC CAP PLS 024312 N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE C8 23'57'GO" R-M 70.00 R-M 12.54'(R-M) N 6'21'50'W M 12.45'(R-M)L6 N 84'13'00"E R)N 93'59'32"E(M) 8.54'(R) 8.54'(M) El FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED HEREON P.O.L. POINT ON UNE S 14'44'27'E(R) L] 545'00'00"W(R)S 44.46'32'W(M) 17.14'(R) 17.14'(M) C9 16' 4' R- 1 - 5 -M 4' 7' "13' - FND 5/5"DIA REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT OF S 21'S9'00"E(R) LB S 43.46'00"E(R)N 40.38'10'W(M) 5.00'(R) 4.46'(M) P.L.S.25954 CIO 50'34'00" R-M 71.36' R-M 62.98' R-M 5 22'12'28' M 80.95' R-M L9 S 43'28'44"E(R)N 43'42'32"W(M) 60.00'(RJ 59.94'(M) FIND P.K.NAIL AND WASHER STAMPED MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT S 71'31 30'E(R)S 43'4fi'00'E(R) 64.29'(R) P.L.S.25954 C11 ' 1' - 45,11' -M 36. -M 71' 37.T 5='d L10 N 61'15'00"E(R)IS 61'01'20"W(M) 56.06'(R) 56.06'(M) 1ST AMENDMENT N fiT 46'S8'E(R) L7/ N 85'15'00"E(R)N 84'SB'37°E(M) 40.00'(RJ 40.00'(M) CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADOC12118,60* N S 7 CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO N.T.S.DATE: SEPTEMBER, 2012 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 805 BUCK POINT ROAD CARBONDALE,COLORADO 81623 970)963-2170 SHEET 2 OF 3 P3 2 3 VI I I . a MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO FOUND PIN AND FOUND PIN AND CAP THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO ADJUST THE LOT LINES 9e AS CAP PLS 9175 PLS 25954 Asp BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLITENA[p 4 ya 3 FOUND PIN ANO FOUND PIN A CAP 20'µ70E A' S ,SQV TH MSS 1 °/ CAP PLS 9184 4R-219.00' PLS29030 SURVEYS Sy PLAT BOOkCE EA ROAD y0 L=15,66' k 8'7 29 BSNi 1- 1 t !, Z\ x$7pN OF N1Ti, E CB=S 14' CD=45.85' 1' 5DEEETAILF O 0 a FOUND PIN AND CAP II U v5_,P,t y, Pp K` P PpGESgy FOUND PIN AND CAP S pM KKBNA PLS 19598 WI \ NAIL t yJR'P 0.0Pe ocl 2}S p RIVER Cltt SURVEYS y t 0 MP. O°'" PLS 29030 t Or DETAIL -D C13 P Z( O N.T.S. 25'36'03.. 21.09'21A9' I M C8_IN 58'24'27'E NO^ Di20.92' moo`( n S. LI2 N 44'46'32"E 17.14' s (<, SET PK NAIL AND Cq N rj FOUND PIN AND WASHER PLS 25954 CAP PLS 2376 W // I 12' J9• DETAIL-F Q xNlBiT9j0 EgSF. 4 OS/ E N.T.S. OpPgGpfNr 40 W 5s ACF>>BO JS. Tf SS \04 9 O p'7 90 BO BOOk SELF l UTILITY EASEMENT FOR L9 4 R= 01'47' o pM e8 03 Eq 0l ACCESS EASEMENT AND 45 4? 01'4]' LOT 1,MOSES LOT SPLIT M 2B ST FOUND PIN ANO CAP CB=S OB29' NT/ PLS 2594] C°29.55' MO ` PM Byp 0S COPJt44, 58e PM( e' BPEG4P` yee FP MS' o. 0 EPSME9p8 eh Ary s` s NcP.9' BOULDER WALL ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT 2 89S 6 1 3 0 S q PLAT BOOK 29,PAGE 65 APPROXIMATE SKIER f.'CP-'0 NIPB MhEP P 11 i ' 99'41• / 00 9iJ1 O2yq,f' ROUTE SKI RS AC CE LICENSE / 503 c pEpSF.eOpp'/• ye ' •gym.+\ 4Z CT pgCf6T AGREEMENT RECORDED JUNE 20, AS RECEPTION2# 511438) 5B g E O Z / q5/ 0 L2 FEET 10 0 10 FEET I EASEMENT O mrP ip Sc GRAPHIC SCALE 65 UNDERGROPLpTU800K 29 PAGE 65 ISy GRAVEL DRIVE e/FOR LOT 1BOOK PAGE 915 4 687, Z OtC 88 AND 95 2Z Ep5 92'00 101 I55 U PCCEg00V' y 4/ 03.0C3p52°'43'2- - - - - - - 0 — - - I LOT 1 605 S. ALPS ROAD S se•13•E y u..]070 FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 9175 s LOT 2 Ie 675 S. ALPS ROAD sEF DETAIL-B BUILDING ENVELOPE I 5619 SO. FT. 3I C2 N2P43'@6..W o L - - 43-2-5 - 44 a N 20' "W 42.34 FOUND PIN AND CAP PLS 33645 SEE DETAIL-A SET PIN AND Z CAP PLS 25954 N 35'15'02'E 0.80' s\ DETAIL ST B FOUND 3/4"DIA.BRA55 TAG N 26'45'56"E 3W PLS 33645 AFFlXED TO 3LllUn(! 0.75' offW B B0 2Y fq\ 3'DIA.ROCK ZS>2,gMENT SET PIN AND timPALFAJ>6s \ OAP PLS 25954 3> LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT OF MOSES LOT SPLIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT\ NTS 1ST AMENDMENT CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO N.T.S.DATE: SEPTEMBER, 2012 PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 805 BUCK POINT ROAD CARBONDALE.COLORADO 81623 970)963-2170 SHEET 3 OF 3 P3 2 4 VI I I . a W I L L I A M T. 0EOROIS A R C H I T E C T C TERING KITCHEN AUDIT ON 1 15 SOFT. m I TPIS... _ IO -oO i a I EI 1.61 I I 7 a OFFICE/YOGA STUDIO ADDITION OVER e e EXISTING TERRACE 295 SO FL 1 i TOTAL ADDFO SO FT - 630.00 O CMUDROOM ADDITION 1 SC SOFT. lI I I N I L LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL PLAN—PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQ.FT. 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 7 NOVEMBER 2011 SCALE.1/8 P3 2 5 VI I I . a n __-..- II'- __ $ o U ---s E " f ;C] Ll C L] C_i Cl _ -__ _--_ I I 1 I 1t) O > .ivy Iq a c i UII ry ji-- ll-•Ty, lia s- s-'T"`. Ljj i, 1 a.'W('E.E7 i¢i.CE.I I I7 IT I s . J I C 0 '0 O EAST ELEVATION (ERQNT)U W a 4 E 100'-0' 8074b7 I I r T z z ono UJ o S PT. ,F:N6 EI Pour s w Jw a S W Q o Ik- I I J J II i'v _;•r FU`AJE; Jih.5 oJ«i k=r"M>_F I.I . _ r cev ws 4 e WPf M - YlP TOI...YFIFEIiEO PAT J 6 DFY VE R sra+ARrM J z,(,w'n'=S Q i:_AJV Tiry?Fn i N Az,v- ArHAw2+tiPU—cam W FE 9k'JAIi'PL Nd I: , i lA rare_ 1" . mcY n.`=+io.rc rASr v s[ ou LTEh k o,1. m I i L • ., -__ se.f A:"'E'+...1 x:il ie AAP-_.__.__ -43 GLFAe J.F w3Fa HEAh Q r._. VY TfFYSLE NEAV GAT6 W/Pli-PATiIi I r i i 4arJPY Pl 11 Ell U 2 uErJ„ Er LAJ6A E -A O IRS P4, I J!z-S ACK 5TOW— 1 I—El urr 2 50UT{f ELEVATION P nS E vim.s ns5 Q' 80-146? V4'.I'-0' q SrchE iwRCS rvn L rse..AI.xAP 43.1 0 J EXISTING ELEVATIONS P3 2 6 VI I I . a SNOIIVA313ONIISIX3 OZr•eYasvll'IcC(JOUni4di.vYH 1 :- NOLLVD1.2H-LaION! vr Qram«F, PI Cdad, tla cx_ . ddlM NO a d I nauNlmvxn diI - - I _ S I In axaaNxa:MS.Nod Iyr-t..- 1I117u cf-- r zo vua3vndd mTaamo:ao'm.sa.woI - ` y F II ' JwTtGbuNAl'rTa B,d""=- ao- ! 4`7,,'`T' I .. ..(T Ike_. I- i 1 - _-._._ _ _ _.__.._.___ _..__._ 7-.- - - N:D -M1.L1.Wd'S`tl ] 03nx'aaNi,,.]c • ,Sinod913 ' E. / fiL!m9fqh.LN953tl1J. n3W- 3,9JVi.1a DR11V •3ntiNlivd4lrva]aV'19/@rv•G-vl9/13Y6 I _. IT ..._ 4 ' lam o n•=+.Ntlrr>,aasax>dxdar; Ir _. — -- _- r, IIK-i f n mr. L dd aze PnNI, Y NY°= Gu O I- I- I 11 Ed s 01=all X21d21) NOUVAD131SJM zWar arn s V~jw.lonsaYeyvit FI I 14 LL ItI 9 I iyl. 0 P3 2 7 VI I I . a G E 0 P G IS a 4 I i OFFICEitq I 11 a_ . .. PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDTION i 1 ., C a ow _E c U (Do O O _O O EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)C I PROPOSED MUD ROOM ADDITION I Z i I I SOUTH ELEVATION Eli 100'-0's gpTi bT I/4 . -O" I 1 LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS POAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P3 2 8 VI I I . a G E 0 P G I S Y M II i a F M PROPOSED KITCHEN ENCLOSURE j n I t i PROPOSED YOGA STUDIO/OF FICE II I I I fy q NORTH --ELEVATION LITTLE NELL RESIDENCE 675 SOUTH ALPS ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 27APPIL 2011 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS P3 2 9 VI I I . a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 1 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 3 605/675 S Alps Rd – 8040 Greenline and other PUD Amendments 3 605 S Alps Rd – Zone District for annexation petition 6 P331 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 2 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 19, 2013 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia, Cliff Weiss, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith Goode were not in attendance. Staff present were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Reed Paterson, Municipal City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin thanked everyone on City Council for attending the City Council meeting on code amendments; he passed out a memo from staff to City Council and P&Z. Bert asked to schedule code amendments on parking and Growth Management. LJ said they were doing a parking study and we can prepare for that parking study. Jennifer said she didn’t know what he was talking about but there was traffic generation study that was going on right now. LJ said that was it. Jennifer said it was looking at vehicle trips so not parking per se but vehicle trips for different uses. Jasmine said it would be nice to have more than 34 people here so we could wait until our next meeting. Bert said that makes sense. Jennifer said that they have received a number of applications for Growth Management so they are going to start filling up some meetings. Bert said he did not want this to slip off for another year. Bert said that the Mountain House was in the newspaper about being sold and it is yet another lodge may be lost; we should start to address the problems. Jasmine said this is really hard because we have already established a work priority and then the next crisis pops up and what can we do about that. Bert said that we spent a year getting to the 2; Council is working on the lodging in a different way; they are not working on the zoning they are working on it in different methods. Jasmine said that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t work on it informally to send some information to Council is one of the things they might consider is a way to attack this is through zoning without being very specific. Jennifer said that Jessica has added an agenda item on the regular meeting to discuss code amendments. Jennifer said that Jessica would like you to think about your priority changes or concerns related to environmentally sensitive areas, the PUD chapter and the SPA chapter and Jessica is meeting with staff and outside planners. Minutes P332 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 3 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from January 8th, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of January 15th, Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest LJ Erspamer stated that his wife had notarized a document in the packet but he didn’t have any conflicts with the public hearings. Public Hearing: 605/675 S Alps Rd – 8040 Greenline and other PUD Amendments LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan presented the notices to Debbie Quinn and Debbie said they apply to both and they are appropriate and adequate. Jennifer Phelan said 605 S Alps Rd is Lot 1 & 2 of the Moses lot split and the applicant is South Alps Road LLC and Icie Jackson LLC. The applicant is being represented by Alan Richman of Alan Richman Planning. The public notice is Exhibit E in the record. Jennifer said the applicant is proposing building an addition to this property on Lot 2, 675 S Alps Rd. The addition requires 8040 Greenline to build the addition and the applicant is proposing to amend the size of the lots for 1 & 2 and to amend more importantly the floor area allotted for each lot; with this amendment in floor area that triggers other PUD Amendments. Jennifer provided background on this that in 1987 the lot split was approved in that plat and permitted 2 single family homes, one on each lot and capped floor area for each lot at 3800 square feet. In 1992 the owner of Lot 2 acquired land surrounding some of that Aspen Alps Buildings and through some negotiations and in conjunction with the Aspen Alps they were able to increase the lot size of Lot 2 so it became a bigger lot and were able to increase the floor area of Lot 2 to 5,000 square feet. In 2006 there was an 8040 Greenline was approved for Lot 2 and the current house that is sitting there today is what was built. Jennifer said currently the maximum floor area for the 2 lots is 8800 square feet total. Jennifer said the applicant was asking to do is increase the Lot 2 cap from 5000 to 5800 square feet in floor area and reduce the cap on Lot 1 from 3800 to 3000 therefore they would still be maintaining that overall total of floor area allotted for the subdivision. As part of the whole package the applicant is requesting to make Lot 2 bigger; they; some of the lot sits outside the municipal boundaries so it is in the county. There was an initial application to switch the P333 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 4 floor area it was brought out that some of the lot was in the city and some was in the county so they are proposing to clean that up and also requesting to restore a historical development right on Lot 2 but they aren’t asking for an increase in floor area; they are just asking to switch the floor area around. The request was to build a small addition on the back of the building; they are asking for 800 square feet in floor area even though they are using less. Jennifer said they are asking to enclose the existing porch area to include a mudroom on the front of the house. The application can be built without any hazards that may happen in the area. Jennifer said the other review is final at P&Z for the 8040 Greenline; the other part of this review is the recommendation to city council on the Planned Unit Development. Staff believes that reallocating the floor is okay and will be memorialized through City Council. With Lot 2 getting bigger it will push any development on Lot 2 away from the steep slope; they will be providing a larger trail easement which is a community benefit. Staff recommends approval with the outlining conditions. Stan said that neither lot area was provided by the lot size, in this table 2 it says the lot size is 3880; isn’t that bigger than the approval. Jennifer replied that it wasn’t really bigger than the lot size. Bert said on page 3 he was trying to understand the floor area; are the numbers that are provided in table 1 and do they disregard any reduction for slopes; is that just the agreement. Jennifer replied that table 1 is outlining just what is permitted now; it doesn’t reflect lot area or anything like that but the overall cap will be the same for the overall subdivision. Jennifer said that table 2 talks about the actual lot sizes that shows the amount of lot area that is there. Jennifer said that Lot 1 was capped at 3800 square feet in 1987. Jennifer said they were applying today’s regulations; the 1992 approval is what is approved for Lot 2 has been built at 5000 square feet. Alan Richman said they were negotiated floor areas and that what they have always been. Stan asked the TDR allowance when it lands on this kind of property. Jennifer replied it was 250 square feet. Alan Richman said he was representing the owners of Lot 1 and Lot2 of the Moses lot split; Alan introduced Neil Karbank who manages the 2 LLCs and Sam Carmedy who is the owner’s representative. Alan said the basic PUD amendment for this project was to swap floor area between these 2 lots. Alan said when Gaard Moses came in 1987 there were numerous bandit units on this property and the P334 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 5 Planning Zoning Commission at that time said they would allow 2 units and not let you replace all of these units that are on the property and Garrd was assigned the floor area of 3800 square feet. Alan said in 1992 when the owner of Lot 2 was able to purchase some property around the Alps; he increased his lot to work with a 5,000 square foot with permanent vested rights. Alan said they were just trying to change in the distribution of 8800 square for Lot 1 to be 3800 square feet and engineering made specific recommendations regarding reinforcing the door and window openings. Alan said there hasn’t been a study for Lot1 but based on everything that we have seen so far; it seems to realize obvious to him that the best solution for these properties is less of a development of Lot 1 and more development on Lot 2. Alan said they are taking 800 feet off of lot 1 and this is compatible. Alan said they have agreed to purchase a TDR, this doesn’t require a TDR and are looking for a public benefit and to increase the land and to have one set of land use regulations instead of one with the city and one with the county. The third thing is Parks and Engineering have asked that the trail in this portion and was deeded in 1987 and was restricted and deeded only on the plat; today the city requires 20 feet for an easement and has a document that accompanies the easement that makes it clear of who is responsible for what and how is it done. Alan said they have been asked to increase the size of the easement and have been prepared to do that. Stan asked where the land would be swapped is. Alan utilized a plat to show the area that move between the two; it is the steep portion of the lot; there is no real reason because the floor areas aren’t based on lot size despite that fact Alan thought it made sense to reduce that size of Lot 1 down and Lot 2 down to a 15,000 square foot conforming lot and we are increasing Lot 2 as much as we can. Jasmine asked if the TDR on lot 2 is going to be extinguished. Alan replied we will buy it and extinguish it, correct. Jasmine said so then with the TDR are they going to ask for more square footage on Lot 1. Jennifer replied that it was a PUD so they would have to amend the PUD to do that. Bert reiterated his question from page 3. Alan said before the city imposed that 25% there used to be plenty of land to justify that floor area assigned to these spots and now that has been overlaid retroactively there isn’t enough land to do that. Alan said the 8800 is assigned by the PUDs that are for the property so technically you are granting a PUD variance. P335 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 6 LJ asked there was a discrepancy in the survey. Alan showed the overlap so the survey shows an overlap between Lot 2 and Lot 7 of the Aspen Chance Subdivision; the legal description has common property between the two lots. LJ asked what the county says about this annexation. Debbie Quinn replied that notice has to be given to the county before the hearing to Council. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jasmine said this was a classic PUD where you are just moving around square footage on a particular site in order to achieve a better solution to building houses there. Jasmine said this was a very reasonable situation and basically what a PUD lot is. Stan said it was a reasonable proposal and the community benefits were more than offsetting any concern. Bert agreed with Jasmine and his concern was the 400 square feet. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre move is approve Resolution 5, series 2013 approving and 8040 Greenline Review and recommending City Council approve the PUD Other Amendments with condition for 605 and 675 S Alps Rd; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll Call: LJ Erspamer, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Bert Myrin, yes. APPROVED 4-0 Public Hearing: Lot 1 Moses lot split – 605 S Alps Rd. LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Notice was provided in the first hearing for both lots. Jennifer Phelan stated it was the same applicant South Alps Road LLC that also owns Lot 1 and part of Lot 1 sits outside the Aspen boundaries. Jennifer said there were some state requirements with annexation for meeting the continuity requirement and the property needs to be rezoned. Staff is recommending that this balance of the lot that is proposed to be zoned the same as the same zoning that the area within the city limits is zoned which is R-15 PUD. Bert asked how do you decide if something gets annexed into the city or the county. Alan replied they would have to de-annex from the city to the county. Alan said this should have been annexed into the city in the beginning. P336 VIII.a Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting – Minutes February 19, 2013 7 Public comments. Cliff Weiss and said this application was before P&Z a long time ago but he would like P&Z to ask the information about the amount of subgrade space. Cliff said if they are building multilevel subgrade space and giving you an FAR of 3,000; is it 10,000 or 3,000. Alan said this is not the same owner as in 2007 and this house has to go through 8040 Greenline. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve Resolution #6, 2013 recommending approval of a portion of Lot 2 Moses lot split subdivision, 605 Alps Rd. Roll call: LJ Erspamer, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Bert Myrin, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Other Business: Jennifer Phelan noted that May 7th was the city election and that will be cancelled and would reschedule on the 14th of May or the 4th Tuesday which would be May 28th. June 4th maybe a runoff. Adjounned.6:pm. Jackie Lothian transcribed. P337 VIII.a MEMORANDUM    TO:    Mayor and City Council    FROM:    Don Pergande, Budget Officer    THRU:    Don Taylor, Finance Director    DATE OF MEMO:  April 15, 2013    DATE OF MEETING:  April 22, 2013    RE:   2013 Supplemental Budget Ordinance No. 15 (Series 2013)   ____________________________________________________________________________________  Staff is requesting an amendment to the City’s 2013 budget that increases total expenditure  appropriations from $106.5 to $128.2 million (Exhibit A).  Of this $21.7 million increase, $18.3 million is  related to 2012 capital and specific operational projects already approved but not yet completed, $2.8  million is related to budgetary savings achieved during 2012, and $510,100 is related to new requests.    The projected 2013 ending balance for all city funds is $71.1 million, $5.6 million higher than estimated  when the 2013 Budget was adopted.  This is due to greater than anticipated 2012 revenues and not all  unspent operational and capital authority being carried forward.       Net of interfund transfers, the requested budget authority increases from $89.6 to $110.7 million.   Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds, but do not reflect the true cost of  operations.  Exhibit G provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2013 interfund transfers.    The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City’s overall appropriation  authority.      Description Amount Location 2013 Adopted Budget:$106,459,270See Exhibit A First Reading ‐ Total New Requests:$51,100See Exhibit B Second Reading ‐ Total New Requests:$459,000See Exhibit B Total Central Savings:$420,510See Exhibit C Total Departmental  Savings:$2,411,810See Exhibit C Total Operational Carry Forward:$1,548,060See Exhibit D Total Capital Carry Forward:$16,699,420See Exhibit E Technical  Adjustments:$127,780See Exhibit F Total Budget  Requests:$21,717,680See Exhibit A TOTAL ORDINANCE:$128,176,950See Exhibit A Less Interfund Transfers$17,520,790See Exhibit G NET APPROPRIATIONS:$110,656,160See Exhibit A 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ORIDNANCE P339 VIII.b As noted previously, this supplemental request is mostly comprised of capital carry forward  appropriations ‐ requests for projects previously appropriated and for which cash reserves exist.  A  complete description of categories within the request includes:    • Exhibit B: “New Requests” of $51,100 in first reading and additional requests of $459,000 in  second reading totaling $510,100.  These are requests for formal appropriation, and have  either been previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year or are completely new  requests for Council approval.  Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of  this memorandum, as well as in the memorandums at the end of this packet provided by  departmental staff.  • Exhibit C: “Central Savings” of $420,510 represents 10% of operating budget savings from all  City departments in previous years. These one‐time appropriations are allocated to the City  Manager’s office for use in addressing mid‐year issues with citywide implications.  • Exhibit C: “Departmental Savings” of $2,411,810 represents 50% of previous years operating  budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these amounts as a  reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals  while spending less than their total appropriations. These one‐time appropriations can be  spent on items related to departments’ missions.  • Exhibit D: “Operational Carry Forward Requests” of $1,548,060 are for operating items  budgeted in 2012 that require completion in 2013. These funds also include unspent resources  for City equipment, maintenance, personal computer and workstation replacement programs.    • Exhibit E: “Capital Carry Forward Requests” of $16,669,420 are for capital improvement  projects budgeted in 2012 that require completion in 2013.   • Exhibit F: This Exhibit details all of the technical adjustments in 2013, totaling $127,780.  Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made  by City Council or City policy, formal appropriations of previously approved projects and  oversights in budget entry.  • Exhibit G: This Exhibit details interfund transfers for 2013, totaling $17,520,790. Interfund  transfers are required appropriations that do not reflect the cost of operations.    New Requests ‐ Second Reading  General Fund; Contributions Department ‐ The Contributions Department request totals  $104,000.  $30,000 is for the Aspen Historical Society 50 year celebration.  A placeholder was discussed  in October 2012; no formal action was taken.  $74,000 is requested to meet 2013 funding goals for HHS  organizations.  City County joint discussions over the past several months have resulted in an agreed  upon amount for Health and Human Services (HHS) totaling $333,900.  The new authority will be  funded from the General Fund cash reserve.      General Fund; Special Events Department ‐ The Special Events Department request totals  $355,000.  Included in this request is $260,000 to account for the Pro Cycle Challenge fundraising  revenue which had been deposited into a special Aspen Silver Cycling account in years past – for 2013,  all revenues and expenses will be realized through the City for accurate accounting.  All additional  expenditure authority will be 100% offset by fundraising revenue.  $90,000 is an additional  P340 VIII.b contribution to the Pro Cycle Challenge, raising the City’s contribution from $125,000 to $215,000.   Council agreed conceptually to this increase on November 12, 2012 in an executive session.  The new  authority will be funded from the General Fund cash reserve.  See the memo for additional details on  this request.    Smuggler Housing Fund ‐ The Smuggler Housing Fund request totals $5,000.  This is the formal  request to appropriate funding for emergency electrical repairs at Smuggler Mountain Apartments,  Unit #5.  Funding was approved by the APCHA Board of Directors on March 6, 2013 by resolution No. 1.   The new authority will be funded from the Smuggler Housing Fund cash reserve.  See the memo for  additional details on this request.    Capital Carry Forward; Exhibit E increased $168,190 from first to second reading.  These  changes are due to timing of accounting postings closing out the 2012 fiscal year and budget authority,  technical in nature, necessary to administer accounting entries needed to tie the Information  Technology Fund (510) to the IT projects in other City Funds.      New Requests – First Reading  General Fund; Planning Department ‐ The Planning Department request totals $15,000.  This  funding request is to implement a Business Assistance Web Project. The initial project costs total  $25,000; $10,000 funded from departmental savings, $15,000 in new authority.  The new authority will  be funded from the General Fund cash reserve.  See the memo for additional details on this request.    Transportation Fund ‐ The Transportation Fund request totals $16,100.  This funding request is  for formal appropriation of additional FASTER grant awards.  These additional funds would be  combined with existing 2012 authority requested to be carried forward, for the purchase of two  shuttles in 2013.  The new authority accounts for additional grant dollars and 20% local match.      Golf Course Fund ‐ The Golf Course Fund request totals $20,000.  This additional spending  authority will be utilized when customers request special orders, especially hard goods that are not  stocked in depth.  Expenses will only be incurred when a special order is placed, and return on  expenses will be anywhere from 115% to 150%.  See the memo for additional details on this request.    Future Item  Renewable Energy Fund ‐ One prospective carry‐forward request that is not included in this  supplemental budget ordinance is for completion of the Outfall Drain Line to connect the Thomas  Reservoir Drain Line with its end point at Castle Creek.  Staff is finalizing bid documents on that project  and bids will be received this summer.  Once bids are received and analyzed and a successful bidder  has been identified, staff will return to Council with a construction contract and a “new” supplemental  appropriation request for approval at that time.    Technical Adjustment  Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made by  City Council or City policy, formal appropriations of previously approved projects and oversights in  budget entry.  The technical adjustments total $127,780.  The details related to these adjustments can  be found on Exhibit F of this packet.   P341 VIII.b ORDINANCE NO.15  (Series of 2013)    AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN  FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,839,090, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF  $3,240,570 AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $1,202,460, AN  INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $393,060, AN INCREASE IN THE  CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND OF $66,870, AN INCREASE IN THE  TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $633,460, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT  FUND OF $5,358,600,  AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $241,390, AN  INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $799,960, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER  FUND OF $1,690,390, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $1,476,380, AN  INCREASE IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND OF $39,300, AN INCREASE IN THE  PARKING FUND OF $1,219,760, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF $42,370,  AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $579,240, AN INCREASE IN THE MAROLT  FUND OF $226,920, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $141,710, AN  INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OF $1,490,010, AN INCREASE IN  THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $31,140, AN INCREASE IN THE SMUGGLER  HOUSING FUND OF $5,000.    WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may  make supplemental appropriations; and    WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year  revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in  the following funds:  ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND  OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND,  TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND,  STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, RENEWABLE  ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND,  MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY  FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND, AND SMUGGLER HOUSING FUND.    WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers  must be approved.    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,  COLORADO:    Section 1  Upon the City Manager’s certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior  year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND,  GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY  TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT  FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY  FUND, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT  P342 VIII.b HOUSING FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION  TECHNOLOGY FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND, AND SMUGGLER HOUSING  FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the  Exhibit A.    Section 2  If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for  any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such  portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such  holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.    INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR POSTED ON  FIRST READING on the 8th day of April, 2013.    A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22th day of April, 2013, in the  City Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.    ATTEST:      ________________________   ________________________     Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk       Michael C. Ireland, Mayor        FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 22nd day of April, 2013.                 _________________________            ATTEST:      ________________________   ________________________     Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk         Michael C. Ireland, Mayor              Approved as to Form:        ________________________     Jim True, City Attorney          P343 VIII.b 20 1 3 S p r i n g S u p p l e m e n t a l Fu n d B a l a n c e S u m m a r y Exhibit A TO T A L  CI T Y  OF  AS P E N  20 1 3  AP P R O P R I A T I O N S  BY  FU N D Fu n d  Na m e Am e n d e d   Op e n i n g   Ba l a n c e   Ad o p t e d   Re v e n u e          Bu d g e t Re v e n u e   Su p p l e m e n t a l Am e n d e d   Re v e n u e  Bu d g e t Ad o p t e d   Ex p e n d i t u r e   Bu d g e t Ex p e n s e   Su p p l e m e n t a l Am e n d e d   Ex p e n d i t u r e   Bu d g e t E n d i n g  Balance Ge n e r a l  Go v e r n m e n t a l  Fu n d              Ge n e r a l  Fu n d $1 2 , 7 2 4 , 7 8 0 $ 2 3 , 0 6 5 , 3 0 0 $ 2 8 7 , 9 1 0 $ 2 3 , 3 5 3 , 2 1 0 $ 2 2 , 3 3 5 , 2 0 0 $ 3 , 2 4 0 , 5 7 0 $ 2 5 , 5 7 5 , 7 7 0 $ 1 0 , 5 0 2 , 2 2 0 Su b t o t a l  Ge n e r a l  Go v ' t  Fu n d s $1 2 , 7 2 4 , 7 8 0 $ 2 3 , 0 6 5 , 3 0 0 $ 2 8 7 , 9 1 0 $ 2 3 , 3 5 3 , 2 1 0 $ 2 2 , 3 3 5 , 2 0 0 $ 3 , 2 4 0 , 5 7 0 $ 2 5 , 5 7 5 , 7 7 0 $ 1 0 , 5 0 2 , 2 2 0 Sp e c i a l  Re v e n u e  Go v e r n m e n t a l  Fu n d s Pa r k s  an d  Op e n  Sp a c e  Fu n d $7 , 2 0 2 , 5 7 2 $ 9 , 5 3 3 , 6 3 0 $0 $ 9 , 5 3 3 , 6 3 0 $ 1 1 , 5 1 7 , 7 7 0 $ 1 , 2 0 2 , 4 6 0 $ 1 2 , 7 2 0 , 2 3 0 $ 4 , 0 1 5 , 9 7 2 Wh e e l e r  Op e r a  Ho u s e  Fu n d  * $2 8 , 4 5 7 , 1 6 7 $ 3 , 9 9 9 , 9 7 5 $0 $ 3 , 9 9 9 , 9 7 5 $ 6 , 3 9 1 , 8 0 0 $ 3 9 3 , 0 6 0 $ 6 , 7 8 4 , 8 6 0 $ 2 5 , 6 7 2 , 2 8 2 Ci t y  To u r i s m  Pr o m o t i o n  Fu n d $2 6 8 , 9 0 0 $ 2 , 3 6 8 , 8 0 0 $0 $ 2 , 3 6 8 , 8 0 0 $ 2 , 5 6 7 , 0 1 0 $ 6 6 , 8 7 0 $ 2 , 6 3 3 , 8 8 0 $3,820 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n  Fu n d $3 , 6 6 2 , 2 7 5 $ 2 , 0 9 9 , 5 0 0 $ 3 4 9 , 4 2 0 $ 2 , 4 4 8 , 9 2 0 $ 2 , 1 7 0 , 4 8 0 $ 6 3 3 , 4 6 0 $ 2 , 8 0 3 , 9 4 0 $ 3 , 3 0 7 , 2 5 5 Ho u s i n g  De v e l o p m e n t  Fu n d $1 4 , 1 6 2 , 1 9 8 $ 1 1 , 7 6 0 , 9 0 0 $0 $ 1 1 , 7 6 0 , 9 0 0 $ 1 9 , 3 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 3 5 8 , 6 0 0 $ 2 4 , 6 8 0 , 6 0 0 $ 1 , 2 4 2 , 4 9 8 Ki d s  Fi r s t  Fu n d $4 , 1 1 6 , 3 4 8 $ 1 , 6 3 9 , 0 5 0 $7 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 6 4 6 , 5 5 0 $ 1 , 6 6 3 , 4 5 0 $ 2 4 1 , 3 9 0 $ 1 , 9 0 4 , 8 4 0 $ 3 , 8 5 8 , 0 5 8 St o r m w a t e r  Fu n d   $3 , 1 2 0 , 8 8 2 $1 , 2 2 1 , 8 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 2 2 1 , 8 0 0 $ 1 , 2 1 2 , 0 1 0 $ 7 9 9 , 9 6 0 $ 2 , 0 1 1 , 9 7 0 $ 2 , 3 3 0 , 7 1 2 Su b t o t a l  Sp e c i a l  Re v e n u e  Fu n d s $ 6 0 , 9 9 0 , 3 4 1 $ 3 2 , 6 2 3 , 6 5 5 $ 3 5 6 , 9 2 0 $ 3 2 , 9 8 0 , 5 7 5 $ 4 4 , 8 4 4 , 5 2 0 $ 8 , 6 9 5 , 8 0 0 $ 5 3 , 5 4 0 , 3 2 0 $ 4 0 , 4 3 0 , 5 9 6 De b t  Se r v i c e  Go v e r n m e n t a l  Fu n d De b t  Se r v i c e  Fu n d $2 6 8 , 2 0 9 $ 3 , 4 5 1 , 1 7 0 $0 $ 3 , 4 5 1 , 1 7 0 $ 3 , 4 5 6 , 0 8 0 $0 $ 3 , 4 5 6 , 0 8 0 $ 2 6 3 , 2 9 9 Su b t o t a l  De b t  Se r v i c e  Fu n d $2 6 8 , 2 0 9 $ 3 , 4 5 1 , 1 7 0 $0 $ 3 , 4 5 1 , 1 7 0 $ 3 , 4 5 6 , 0 8 0 $0 $ 3 , 4 5 6 , 0 8 0 $ 2 6 3 , 2 9 9 Ca p i t a l  Pr o j e c t s  Go v e r n m e n t a l  Fu n d s As s e t  Ma n a g e m e n t  Pl a n  Fu n d $5 , 8 2 4 , 3 2 3 $ 4 , 0 7 7 , 7 0 0 $0 $ 4 , 0 7 7 , 7 0 0 $ 3 , 0 5 1 , 2 0 0 $ 2 , 8 3 9 , 0 9 0 $ 5 , 8 9 0 , 2 9 0 $ 4 , 0 1 1 , 7 3 3 Su b t o t a l  Ca p i t a l  Fu n d $5 , 8 2 4 , 3 2 3 $ 4 , 0 7 7 , 7 0 0 $0 $ 4 , 0 7 7 , 7 0 0 $ 3 , 0 5 1 , 2 0 0 $ 2 , 8 3 9 , 0 9 0 $ 5 , 8 9 0 , 2 9 0 $ 4 , 0 1 1 , 7 3 3 En t e r p r i s e  Pr o p r i e t a r y  Fu n d s Wa t e r  Ut i l i t y  Fu n d $5 , 4 4 2 , 7 6 6 $ 6 , 2 5 9 , 0 0 0 $0 $ 6 , 2 5 9 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 1 5 7 , 3 3 0 $ 1 , 6 9 0 , 3 9 0 $ 8 , 8 4 7 , 7 2 0 $ 2 , 8 5 4 , 0 4 6 El e c t r i c  Ut i l i t y  Fu n d $2 , 8 9 4 , 6 5 2 $ 7 , 4 6 5 , 9 0 0 $0 $ 7 , 4 6 5 , 9 0 0 $ 7 , 2 4 7 , 8 8 0 $ 1 , 4 7 6 , 3 8 0 $ 8 , 7 2 4 , 2 6 0 $ 1 , 6 3 6 , 2 9 2 Re n e w a b l e  En e r g y  Fu n d $3 , 1 9 6 , 8 6 0 $7 , 4 0 0 $0 $7 , 4 0 0 $ 3 8 0 , 6 0 0 $ 3 9 , 3 0 0 $ 4 1 9 , 9 0 0 $ 2 , 7 8 4 , 3 6 0 Pa r k i n g  Fu n d $2 , 8 8 4 , 9 5 7 $ 3 , 1 7 4 , 4 0 0 $0 $ 3 , 1 7 4 , 4 0 0 $ 4 , 3 3 7 , 8 9 0 $ 1 , 2 1 9 , 7 6 0 $ 5 , 5 5 7 , 6 5 0 $ 5 0 1 , 7 0 7 Go l f  Co u r s e  Fu n d $5 8 , 8 9 0 $ 1 , 8 8 5 , 2 0 0 $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 1 4 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 7 7 8 , 5 0 0 $ 4 2 , 3 7 0 $ 1 , 8 2 0 , 8 7 0 $ 1 5 2 , 2 2 0 Tr u s c o t t  Ho u s i n g  Fu n d $2 , 0 5 9 , 3 8 1 $ 1 , 0 9 6 , 5 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 0 9 6 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 7 0 2 , 4 6 0 $ 5 7 9 , 2 4 0 $ 2 , 2 8 1 , 7 0 0 $ 8 7 4 , 1 8 1 Ma r o l t  Ho u s i n g  Fu n d $4 4 2 , 3 0 2 $ 1 , 0 6 9 , 5 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 0 6 9 , 5 0 0 $ 1 , 1 1 6 , 2 2 0 $ 2 2 6 , 9 2 0 $ 1 , 3 4 3 , 1 4 0 $ 1 6 8 , 6 6 2 Su b t o t a l  En t e r p r i s e  Fu n d s $1 6 , 9 7 9 , 8 0 7 $ 2 0 , 9 5 7 , 9 0 0 $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 $ 2 0 , 9 8 6 , 9 0 0 $ 2 3 , 7 2 0 , 8 8 0 $ 5 , 2 7 4 , 3 6 0 $ 2 8 , 9 9 5 , 2 4 0 $ 8 , 9 7 1 , 4 6 7 In t e r n a l  Pr o p r i e t a r y  Fu n d s Em p l o y e e  He a l t h  In s u r a n c e  Fu n d $ 1 , 5 7 7 , 3 6 3 $ 4 , 5 6 2 , 9 0 0 $ 1 2 , 2 6 0 $ 4 , 5 7 5 , 1 6 0 $ 4 , 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $ 4 , 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 $ 1 , 6 1 7 , 5 2 3 Em p l o y e e  Ho u s i n g  Fu n d $2 , 3 5 3 , 7 9 2 $ 1 , 2 8 2 , 9 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 2 8 2 , 9 0 0 $ 2 2 1 , 1 2 0 $ 1 4 1 , 7 1 0 $ 3 6 2 , 8 3 0 $ 3 , 2 7 3 , 8 6 2 In f o r m a t i o n  Te c h n o l o g y  Fu n d $8 8 0 , 4 8 5 $ 2 , 5 6 3 , 3 0 0 $ 8 4 7 , 1 6 0 $ 3 , 4 1 0 , 4 6 0 $ 2 , 6 6 0 , 2 0 0 $ 1 , 4 9 0 , 0 1 0 $ 4 , 1 5 0 , 2 1 0 $ 1 4 0 , 7 3 5 Su b t o t a l  In t e r n a l  Se r v i c e  Fu n d s $4 , 8 1 1 , 6 4 1 $ 8 , 4 0 9 , 1 0 0 $ 8 5 9 , 4 2 0 $ 9 , 2 6 8 , 5 2 0 $ 7 , 4 1 6 , 3 2 0 $ 1 , 6 3 1 , 7 2 0 $ 9 , 0 4 8 , 0 4 0 $ 5 , 0 3 2 , 1 2 1 Tr u s t  Fi d u c i a r y  Fu n d s Ho u s i n g  Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n  Fu n d $1 , 2 7 9 , 4 8 6 $ 1 , 9 4 8 , 9 0 0 $0 $ 1 , 9 4 8 , 9 0 0 $ 1 , 5 9 6 , 6 0 0 $ 3 1 , 1 4 0 $ 1 , 6 2 7 , 7 4 0 $ 1 , 6 0 0 , 6 4 6 Sm u g g l e r  Ho u s i n g  Fu n d $2 7 9 , 8 8 9 $ 6 0 , 5 0 0 $0 $ 6 0 , 5 0 0 $3 8 , 4 7 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $4 3 , 4 7 0 $ 2 9 6 , 9 1 9 Su b t o t a l  Tr u s t  an d  Ag e n c y  Fu n d s $ 1 , 5 5 9 , 3 7 5 $ 2 , 0 0 9 , 4 0 0 $0 $ 2 , 0 0 9 , 4 0 0 $ 1 , 6 3 5 , 0 7 0 $ 3 6 , 1 4 0 $ 1 , 6 7 1 , 2 1 0 $ 1 , 8 9 7 , 5 6 5 AL L  FU N D S $1 0 3 , 1 5 8 , 4 7 6 $ 9 4 , 5 9 4 , 2 2 5 $ 1 , 5 3 3 , 2 5 0 $ 9 6 , 1 2 7 , 4 7 5 $ 1 0 6 , 4 5 9 , 2 7 0 $ 2 1 , 7 1 7 , 6 8 0 $ 1 2 8 , 1 7 6 , 9 5 0 $ 7 1 , 1 0 9 , 0 0 1 Le s s  In t e r f u n d  Tr a n s f e r s $1 6 , 8 4 4 , 5 1 0 $ 6 7 6 , 2 8 0 $ 1 7 , 5 2 0 , 7 9 0 $ 1 6 , 8 4 4 , 5 1 0 $ 6 7 6 , 2 8 0 $ 1 7 , 5 2 0 , 7 9 0 NE T  AP P R O P R I A T I O N S $1 0 3 , 1 5 8 , 4 7 6 $ 7 7 , 7 4 9 , 7 1 5 $ 8 5 6 , 9 7 0 $ 7 8 , 6 0 6 , 6 8 5 $ 8 9 , 6 1 4 , 7 6 0 $ 2 1 , 0 4 1 , 4 0 0 $ 1 1 0 , 6 5 6 , 1 6 0 $ 7 1 , 1 0 9 , 0 0 1 * Wh e e l e r  ba l a n c e s  ar e  sh o w n  on  an  ad j u s t e d  GA A P  ba s i s P344VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental New Requests Exhibit B Account Number Request Title Request Description First Reading 001 ‐ General Fund; Planning 001.13.13200.82000Business Assistance Web Project$15,000 The Community Development Department is requesting $25,000 to  implement a Business Assistance Web Project. Funding for the request  is as follows: $10,000 from departmental savings, $15,000 in new  authority. $15,000 141 ‐ Transportation Fund 141.94.94129.86300Shuttle Replacement Funding$16,100 City received additional FASTER grant funding (original budget was in  2012, requested to be rolled forward to 2013).  This increase of $16,100  will account for additional grant dollars and 20% local match.  Funds are  for the purchase of two shuttles in 2013. $16,100$16,100 471 ‐ Golf Course Fund 471.73.73400.83810Special Order Merchandise$20,000 This additional spending authority will be utilize when customers  request special orders (especially hard goods that are not stocked in  depth).  Expenses will only be incurred when a special order is placed,  and return on expenses will be anywhere from 115% to 150%. $20,000 $TOTAL NEW REQUESTS ‐ FIRST READING $51,100 Second Reading 001 ‐ General Fund; Special Events 001.02.04322.84200Health and Human Services Grant  Organizations Funding $74,000 $74,000 is requested to meet 2013 funding goals for HHS organizations.   City County joint discussions over the past several months have resulted  in an agreed upon amount for Health and Human Services (HHS) totaling  $333,900. 001.02.04323.84009Aspen Historical Society 50 Year  Celebration $30,000 This is the formal request for the Aspen Historical Society 50 year  celebration.  A placeholder was discussed in the October 23, 2012 work  session. 001.70.71724.82999Pro Cycle Challenge Fund Raising  Pass Through $260,000 In prior years private contributions were deposited into a special Aspen  Silver Cycling account and the Special Events staff spent these funds as  they came in.  In 2013 all expenses will be spent through the City for  accounting and simplicity reasons.  See memo for additional details. l hll ddl $hh fl hf'b001.70.71724.82900Pro Cycle Challenge Additional  Contribution from the City of  Aspen $90,000 This is the formal request to increase the City of Aspen's contribution  from $125,000 to $215,000.  Council agreed conceptually to this  increase November 12, 2012 in an executive session.  See memo for  additional details. $454,000 622 ‐ Smuggler Housing Fund 622.83.45043.82999Smuggler Electrical Repairs$5,000 This is the formal request to appropriate funding for emergency  electrical repairs at Smuggler Mountain Apartments, Unit #5.  Funding  was approved by the APCHA Board of Directors on March 6, 2013 by  resolution No. 1.  See memo for additional details. $5,000 TOTAL NEW REQUESTS ‐ SECOND READING $459,000 1 of 1 P345 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Central and Departmental Savings Exhibit C Fund/Department Central Savings "10%" Operating Budget Savings  "50%"   City Manager$344,480$86,890 Human Resources $5,180$107,140 City Clerk$6,610$106,050 City Attorney$4,370$21,850 Finance $9,970$256,460 Planning$8,330$66,620 Engineering $4,020$89,920 Building $960 $6,620 Environmental Health$2,310$20,000 Police $370 $284,400 Streets $4,220$362,270 Special Events$0$2,660 Recreation / ARC / AIG$1,780$8,910 Asset Management $0$7,120 001 ‐ General Fund $392,600$1,426,910 100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund$0$32,670 120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund$16,870$277,100 141 ‐ Transportation Fund$0$26,600 152 ‐ Kids First Fund$140$107,690 160 ‐ Stormwater Fund$280$87,740 421 ‐ Water Utility Fund$0$27,960 431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund$0$3,180 451 ‐ Parking Fund$4,330$271,980 471 ‐ Golf Fund$0$0 510 ‐ Information Technology Fund$6,290$149,980 TOTAL SAVINGS$420,510$2,411,810 1 of 1 P346 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Operational Carry Forwards Exhibit D Account NumberDepartment / ProjectRequest 001 ‐ General Fund; Planning Department 001.13.47501.82900Aspen Area Community Plan$169,300 001.13.94379.81999Permitting Software Implementation And Training$85,100 $254,400 001 ‐ General Fund; Building Department 001.21.21000.82999Aspen Valley Hospital Contracted Plans Review$8,610 001.21.21000.82900Consultant Plans Review Due To Activity$75,000 $83,610 100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund 100.56.82004Pedestrian Trail Development$2,270 100.56.82008Miscellaneous Trails Overlays$40,000 100.56.94114Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management$13,790 100.56.94272Playground Equipment Replacement$2,300 100.56.94357Smuggler Open Space Forest Management$10,770 $69,130 141 ‐ Transportation Fund 141.34.34000.82105Transportation Impacts Study ‐ Mitigate Development$99,890 $99,890 150 ‐ Housing Development Fund 150.23.23010Centennial Investigation$29,640 $29,640 152 ‐ Kids First Fund 152.24.24100.82911Aspen Valley Foundation ‐ Grants$20,000 152.24.24100.84714Quality Improvement Activities$90,000 152.24.24000.81999Colorado Children's Campaign ‐ Colorado Trust Grants$1,390 $111,390 SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $648,060 Aggregate Equipment/Maintenance/Repair Carry Forwards$337,530 Aggregate PC Replacement Carry Forwards$261,810 Aggregate Workstation Replacement Carry Forwards$300,660 OTHER OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS *$900,000 TOTAL OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS$1,548,060 *Detail by Department shown on the following page. 1 of 1 P347 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Operational Carry Forwards Details Account NumberFund/Department ProgramRequest Equipment/Maintenance/Repair  001.31.31000.83635Police Equipment/Maintenance/Repair$66,570 001.41.41000.83635StreetsEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$150,250 120.93.93000.83635Wheeler Opera House FundEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$7,360 141.34.34000.83635Transportation FundEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$8,620 421.43.43000.83635Water Utility FundEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$6,840 451.32.54000.83635Parking FundEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$90,100 491.01.45044.83635Truscott Housing FundEquipment/Maintenance/Repair$7,790 Aggregate Equipment/Maintenance/Repair $337,530 PC Replacement 001.05.05000.83655City MangerPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$14,190 001.06.06000.83655Human ResourcesPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$5,420 001.07.07000.83655City ClerkPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$24,210 001.09.09000.83655City AttorneyPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$4,040 001.11.11000.83655FinancePc Replacement 100% Carry forward$11,440 001.13.13200.83655PlanningPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$5,690 001.15.15000.83655EngineeringPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$5,090 001.21.21000.83655BuildingPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$11,770 001.25.25500.83655Environmental HealthPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$4,180 001.31.31000.83655Police Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward$52,520 001.41.41000.83655StreetsPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$7,160 001.70.71000.83655Special EventsPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$2,790 001.71.71000.83655RecreationPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$2,880 001.72.72000.83655Aspen Recreation CenterPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$1,740 001.72.72700.83655Aspen Recreation CenterPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$1,600 001.74.74000.83655Aspen Ice GardenPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$3,290 001.91.05000.83655Asset ManagementPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$12,600 120.93.93000.83655Wheeler Opera House FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$27,860 141.34.34000.83655Transportation FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$12,320 150.23.23000.83655Housing Development FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$1,830 152.24.24000.83655Kid First FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$5,970 160.42.16300.83655Stormwater FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$370 431.45.45000.83655Electric Utility FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$800 451.32.32000.83655Parking FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$18,500 471.73.73000.83655Golf Course Fund Pc Replacement 100% Carry forward$1,810 491.01.45044.83655Truscott Housing FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$7,570 492.01.45043.83655Marolt Housing FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$4,080 510.60.60000.83655Information Technology FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$4,540 510.61.61000.83655Information Technology FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$2,620 620.23.45002.83655Housing Administration FundPc Replacement 100% Carry forward$2,930 Aggregate PC Replacement$261,810 Workstation Replacement 001.05.05000.83625City MangerWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$3,180 001.06.06000.83625Human ResourcesWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$14,220 001.07.07000.83625City ClerkWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$6,310 001.09.09000.83625City AttorneyWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$3,000 001.11.11000.83625FinanceWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$26,520 001.13.13200.83625PlanningWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$18,550 001.15.15000.83625EngineeringWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$10,420 001.21.21000.83625BuildingWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$11,270 001.25.25500.83625Environmental HealthWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$9,360 001.31.31000.83625Police Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$44,500 001.41.41000.83625StreetsWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$11,390 1 of 2 P348 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Operational Carry Forwards Details Account NumberFund/Department ProgramRequest 001.70.71000.83625Special EventsWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$3,560 001.71.71000.83625RecreationWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$7,970 001.72.72700.83625Aspen Recreation CenterWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$160 001.74.74000.83625Aspen Ice GardenWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$3,480 001.91.05000.83625Asset ManagementWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$8,320 100.55.55000.83625Parks and Open Space FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$4,870 120.93.93000.83625Wheeler Opera House FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$6,300 141.34.34000.83625Transportation FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$15,970 150.23.23000.83625Housing Development FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$540 152.24.24000.83625Kid First FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$7,200 160.42.16300.83625Stormwater FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$720 421.43.43000.83625Water Utility FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$15,460 431.45.45000.83625Electric Utility FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$440 451.32.32000.83625Parking FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$22,970 471.73.73000.83625Golf Course Fund Work Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$1,220 491.01.45044.83625Truscott Housing FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$7,560 492.01.45043.83625Marolt Housing FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$2,170 510.60.60000.83625Information Technology FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$5,720 510.61.61000.83625Information Technology FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$15,550 620.23.45002.83625Housing Administration FundWork Station Replacement 100% Carry forward$11,760 Aggregate Workstation Replacement$300,660 OTHER OPERATIONAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS$900,000 2 of 2 P349 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Capital Carry‐Forward Requests Exhibit E Account NumberDepartment / ProjectRequest 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Clerks 000.07.94657Agenda Management Software $32,620 $32,620 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Finance 000.11.94476Sales Tax And Business License Software$46,890 $46,890 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Planning 000.13.94379Community Development Permitting$263,860 $263,860 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Engineering 000.90.82076City Sidewalk ‐ ADA ‐ Improvements$361,090 000.15.94077Mill Street Pedestrian Improvements$295,330 000.15.94118Gondola Plaza Pedestrian Crossings$239,860 000.15.94332Curb And Gutter Replacement$152,540 000.15.94111Main St Alternative Material Crosswalk$88,890 000.15.94061Park Ave/Midland Ave Pedestrian Improve$49,000 000.90.94341Gibson Ave Sidewalk Installation$42,140 000.15.94102Bridge Maintenance$33,730 000.15.94052Spring Street Improvements$31,000 000.15.94236Capital Payroll ‐ AMP$26,900 000.15.94507Pedestrian Improvements At 5th & Hopkins$25,000 000.15.94512Neale Ave Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Improvements$19,750 $1,365,230 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Environmental Health 000.25.94013Teom (Air Quality) & Enclosure$51,000 $51,000 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Streets 000.41.93917Street Improvement Project 2012$634,810 000.41.83005Fleet $157,050 $791,860 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Information Technology 000.61.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City $69,150 000.61.94156Core Network (City)$12,000 000.61.94149Workgroup Applications (City)$6,000 000.61.94159Phone System (City)$21,640 $108,790 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Recreation 000.71.93951Gymnastics Mats$3,390 $3,390 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Aspen Recreation Center 000.72.94962Cell Tower $38,130 000.72.93936Snow Louver Installation$36,150 000.72.72106Building Controls$3,690 $77,970 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Aspen Ice Garden 000.74.94297Sound System $24,750 000.74.94516Replacement Of Electrical Board$15,000 000.74.93978Renovations ‐ AIG$9,050 000.74.94283Facility Exterior Maintenance$8,170 000.74.94119Compressor Replacement$7,260 $64,230 1 of 4 P350 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Capital Carry‐Forward Requests Exhibit E Account NumberDepartment / ProjectRequest 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund; Asset Management 000.91.93993Rio Grande Remodel$33,250 $33,250 100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund 100.94.94438   Rio Grande Park Improvements$935,490 100.94.94605   Hunter Creek Trail Extension$36,110 100.94.81155   Deer Hill Interpretation Trail$32,760 100.94.94055   Newbury Park  Wall Replacement$25,000 100.94.82099   Smuggler Mountain Reclaim And Restore$24,440 100.94.94159   Phone System (City)$16,410 100.94.94089   Marolt Nordic Trail Improvements$9,120 100.94.94049   Bob Helm Bridge Improvements$7,540 100.94.94197   Computer Peripherals ‐ City$4,500 100.94.94279   Ball Field Fertigation System$4,420 $1,095,790 120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund 120.94.94050Ticketing System$30,000 120.94.94486Lobby/Stage Video Upgrade ‐ New$27,570 $57,570 141 ‐ Transportation Fund 141.94.94663Bike Kiosk And Equipment ‐ We Cycle$233,980 141.94.94129Shuttle Replacement$133,900 141.94.83005Fleet $58,580 141.94.83055Ruby Park Facility Improvements$22,700 141.94.94159Phone System (City)$3,300 141.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$1,500 $453,960 150 ‐ Housing Development Fund 150.94.94626Burlingame Phase II Construction$4,611,830 150.23.23150Burlingame Delivery SF Lot Subsidies$400,220 150.23.23121Housing ‐ Burlingame AH$276,770 150.94.94633312 W Hyman Remodel$21,380 150.94.94353BMC West $16,390 $5,326,590 152 ‐ Kids First Fund 152.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$1,500 $1,500 160 ‐ Stormwater Fund 160.94.94112Stormwater Master Plan ‐ Smuggler & Hunter Creek$126,760 160.94.94120Mud Flow Study$125,000 160.94.94505Neale Ave Stormwater Improvements$120,000 160.94.94619Corrugated Metal to Reinforced Concrete Pipe$120,000 160.94.94113Stormwater Master Planning$99,580 160.94.94124City Water Quality Improvements$69,530 160.94.94115Francis Street Stormwater Improvements$26,840 160.94.94654Capital Payroll ‐ Stormwater$11,600 160.94.81115Rio Grande Design Project$11,540 $710,850 421 ‐ Water Utility Fund 421.94.44614Burlingame/AABC Tie In$578,980 421.94.44408Reclamation Project$411,560 2 of 4 P351 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Capital Carry‐Forward Requests Exhibit E Account NumberDepartment / ProjectRequest 421.94.94556Ground Water Facilities 2012$237,470 421.94.44105Administration Building$157,250 421.94.83005Fleet $50,000 421.94.94520Castle Creek Pipeline 2012$24,070 421.94.94596Backwash Pond 2012$17,300 421.94.94639Affordable Rental Housing Retrofits$11,800 421.94.94658Pre‐Project Engineering Services$8,960 421.94.94527Meter Program 2012$7,610 421.94.94578Water Utility AMP & Infrastructure Analysis$5,140 421.94.94149Workgroup Applications (City)$102,490 421.94.94159Phone System (City)$22,080 421.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$5,420 $1,640,130 431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund 431.94.94182Second Feed $931,740 431.94.43504Ruedi Maintenance$137,830 431.94.94164Koch Park To City Market Distribution System$127,720 431.94.94884Water Plant Switch To City Electric$81,200 431.94.43576Geothermal Project$60,900 431.94.93904Plug‐In Hybrid Program$50,000 431.94.94584Substation Upgrade$29,500 431.94.94469Energy Conservation 2012$25,000 431.94.94483Maroon Creek Hydro Facility 2012$13,350 431.94.94473Meter Replacement Program 2012$7,800 431.94.94482Ruedi Facility Improvements 2012$2,820 431.94.94159Phone System (City)$3,300 431.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$800 $1,471,960 444 ‐ Renewable Energy Fund 444.94.94429CCEC Project Support Services$39,300 $39,300 451 ‐ Parking Fund 451.94.81153Plaza Replacement$796,330 451.94.94159Phone System (City)$11,050 451.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$4,500 $811,880 471 ‐ Golf Course Fund 471.94.94911Practice Area Improvement Project$3,570 471.94.94159Phone System (City)$5,270 471.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City$1,500 $10,340 491 ‐ Truscott Housing Fund 491.94.94393Truscott Housing Site Improvements 2A$262,300 491.94.94221Truscott Cement Stair Renovations$151,500 491.94.94533Truscott Exterior Painting 2012$40,000 491.94.94219Truscott 100 Deck Support$30,000 491.94.94537Office And West Building Renovation$24,060 491.94.94220Truscott 400‐ 1000 Plumbing Repairs$9,500 491.94.94381Truscott Unit Renovations$9,270 491.94.94231Fleet‐ Truscott/Smuggler/Marolt$8,200 491.94.94536Chip & Seal Truscott Parking Lot$7,500 3 of 4 P352 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Capital Carry‐Forward Requests Exhibit E Account NumberDepartment / ProjectRequest 491.94.94392Truscott Building Repairs/Upgrades$6,550 491.94.82112Appliance Replacement$6,520 491.94.94380Housing Property Management Software$920 $556,320 492 ‐ Marolt Housing Fund 492.94.94384Marolt Roof Replacement$212,470 492.94.94231Fleet‐ Truscott/Smuggler/Marolt$8,200 $220,670 505 ‐ Employee Housing Fund 505.94.94413Water Place ER Renovations$141,710 $141,710 510 ‐ Information Technology Fund 510.94.61000Information Systems Administration$619,610 510.94.94108IT Closet Upgrade (City)$219,330 510.94.94622Galena Plaza Fiber (City)$125,000 510.94.94160Phone System (County 100% Reimbursable)$115,470 510.94.94281Data Archival And Backup (City)$62,500 510.94.94282Data Archival /Backup (County 100% Reimbursable)$62,500 510.94.94143Website Development (County 100% Reimbursable)$49,580 510.94.94139Website Development (City)$44,320 510.94.94152GIS Aerial Photography (City)$7,000 $1,305,310 620 ‐ Housing Administration Fund 620.94.94159Phone System (City)$12,450 620.94.94197Computer Peripherals ‐ City $4,000 $16,450 TOTAL CAPITAL CARRY FORWARD REQUESTS $16,699,420 4 of 4 P353 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Technical Adjustments Exhibit F Account Number Department / DescriptionAmount 001 ‐ General Fund 001.95.73400.95471Transfer from Central Savings to the Golf Course Fund for the installation and  marketing of the golf simulator. $9,000 001.95.73400.95471Transfer from Central Savings to fund Kids First strech goal to enhance quality in the  class rooms. $7,500 $16,500 120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund 120.93.93000.88901Transfer to Central Savings $16,870 $16,870 130 ‐ City Tourism Promotion Fund 130.00.19010.82000Appropriation of fund balance for transportation expenses in 2012.  This fund  balance was created by the lodging tax collection coming in higher than the  budgeted expense amount in prior years.   $66,870 $66,870 152 ‐ Kids First Fund 152.24.24100.84714Kids First strech goal is to enhance quality in the class rooms. This goal is funded from  Central Savings. $7,500 152.24.24000.88901Transfer to Central Savings $140 $7,640 160 ‐ Stormwater Fund 160.42.16300.88901Transfer to Central Savings $280 $280 451 ‐ Parking Fund 451.32.32000.88901Transfer to Central Savings $4,330 $4,330 471 ‐ Golf Course Fund 471.73.73400.82999Installation and marketing of the golf simulator, funded from Central Savings.$9,000 $9,000 510 ‐ Information Technology Fund 510.61.61000.88901Transfer to Central Savings $6,290 $6,290 Total Technical Adjustment$127,780 1 of 1 P354 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Interfund Transfers Exhibit G Transfer From Transfer To Transfer AmountPurpose of interfund Transfer 000 ‐ Asset Management Plan Fund Parking Fund$100,000 Joint Project ‐ Galena Plaza Redevelopment Information Technology Fund$95,000 IT Closet Project ‐ City Hall Debt Service Fund$93,300 Series 2005 ‐ STRR ‐ AMP's Portion  Wheeler Opera House Fund$88,500 Red Brick West End Project 10 Yr IF Loan Subtotal, Transfers $376,800 001 ‐ General Fund Information Technology Fund$685,600 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $544,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Golf Course Fund$55,800 Retiree Payout Loan Parks and Open Space Fund$60,900 Partial Subsidy of Food Tax Refund Parks and Open Space Fund$43,400 Expanded Downtown Core Services ‐ Summer Parks and Open Space Fund$52,400 Expanded Downtown Core Services ‐ Winter Golf Course Fund$9,000 Golf Simulator Installation and Marketing Kids First$7,500 Strech Goal  Subtotal, Transfers $1,458,600 100 ‐ Parks and Open Space Fund Debt Service Fund$950,750 Series 2005 ‐ STRR ‐ Park's Portion  General Fund$902,000 Overhead Payment Debt Service Fund$167,610 Parks 2005 Open Space Bonds ‐ Refunding Debt Service Fund$191,920 Parks 2012 ‐ New Issuance Debt Service Fund$819,290 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Refunding '01) Debt Service Fund$628,630 2005 Open Space Bonds Debt Service Fund$4,810 Trustee Fees Golf Course Fund$135,700 Series 2005 ‐ STRR ‐ Golf's Portion  Golf Course Fund$158,000 Open Space Maintenance Employee Housing Fund $139,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$83,900 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $4,181,610 120 ‐ Wheeler Opera House Fund General Fund$337,000 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $77,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$51,600 IT Overhead Payment General Fund$16,870 Central Savings Subtotal, Transfers $482,470 141 ‐ Transportation Fund General Fund$249,000 Overhead Payment General Fund$84,000 Use Tax Positions  Information Technology Fund$18,400 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $21,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Parks and Open Space Fund$7,100 Percentage of Food Tax Refund Subtotal, Transfers $379,500 150 ‐ Housing Development Fund Marolt Fund$400,000 Marolt Subsidy Funding General Fund$582,000 Overhead Payment Housing Administration Fund$196,500 Operations Subsidy (50% of total) Parks and Open Space Fund$9,500 Percentage of Food Tax Refund Information Technology Fund$3,500 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $1,191,500 152 ‐ Kids First Fund General Fund$117,000 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $31,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$19,300 IT Overhead Payment Parks and Open Space Fund$11,700 Percentage of Food Tax Refund General Fund$140 Central Savings Subtotal, Transfers $179,140 160 ‐ Stormwater Fund General Fund$160,000 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $23,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$3,500 IT Overhead Payment General Fund$280 Central Savings Subtotal, Transfers $186,780 1 of 2 P355 VIII.b 2013 Spring Supplemental Interfund Transfers Exhibit G Transfer From Transfer To Transfer AmountPurpose of interfund Transfer 421 ‐ Water Utility Fund General Fund$1,000,000 Operations Facilities Land General Fund$598,000 Overhead Payment Parks and Open Space Fund$150,000 Water Usage Conservation Program Information Technology Fund$112,900 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $139,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Parks and Open Space Fund$75,600 Raw Water Ditch Management  Subtotal, Transfers $2,075,500 431 ‐ Electric Utility Fund General Fund$274,000 Overhead Payment General Fund$280,000 Franchise Fee  Water Utility Fund$198,000 Electric Utility portion of Utility Billing Services Water Utility Fund$131,000 50% Environmental Initiatives Employee Housing Fund $40,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$9,800 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $932,800 451 ‐ Parking Fund General Fund$363,000 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund$49,500 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $69,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing General Fund$4,330 Central Savings Subtotal, Transfers $485,830 471 ‐ Golf Course Fund General Fund$185,000 Overhead Payment General Fund$89,100 Repayment of Golf Cart and Equipment Information Technology Fund$25,000 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $23,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Parks and Open Space Fund$13,100 Repayment of Golf Start Up Funding ‐ IF loan General Fund$14,700 Retiree Payout Loan Payment Subtotal, Transfers $349,900 491 ‐ Truscott Housing Fund General Fund$57,000 Overhead Payment Housing Administration Fund$52,700 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $13,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers $122,700 492 ‐ Marolt Housing Fund General Fund$49,000 Overhead Payment Housing Administration Fund$30,400 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $10,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Information Technology Fund$3,200 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $92,600 501 ‐ Health Insurance Fund  Employee Health Insurance Fund$3,680,400 Employee Health Insurance Premiums Employee Health Insurance Fund$12,260 Technical Adjustment  Subtotal, Transfers $3,692,660 510 ‐ Information Technology Fund Funds$877,510 Capital Projects ‐ Double Budgeted General Fund$244,000 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $63,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing General Fund$6,290 Central Savings Subtotal, Transfers $1,190,800 620 ‐ Housing Administration Fund General Fund$91,000 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $38,700 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $129,700 622 ‐ Smuggler Housing Fund General Fund$9,000 Overhead Payment Housing Administration Fund$2,900 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $11,900 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS$17,520,790 2 of 2 P356 VIII.b (Informational Only) Revenue Details DepartmentDescriptionAmount Subtotal by  Department General Fund Special Events Pro Cycle Challenge Fund Raising Pass Through$260,000 Subtotal, Special Events:$260,000 Transfers to General Fund 001.05.05000.69000Transfer in from all funds outside the General Fund for Central Savings.$27,910 Subtotal, Transfers$27,910 Subtotal, General Fund $287,910 Transportation Fund 141.34.00000.62200State FASTER reimbursement grant for two shuttle replacements scheduled in  2013.  Local match is $30,000. $120,000 141.34.94663.62200City of Aspen ‐ State CMAQ grant for bike share equipment of $28,977 and  local match of City of Aspen is $6,023.  State CMAQ grant turned over to the  City by the County is $165,580.  The County agreed to contribute $34,420 to  the project that will be used by the City of Aspen to pay the local match  portion of this project. $195,000 141.94.94663.67500County ‐ commitment for the bike share equipment $34,420 Subtotal, Transportation Fund $349,420 Kids First Fund 152.96.24100.96001Transfer from General Fund's Central Savings funding Kids First's strech goal.$7,500 Subtotal, Kids First Day Care Fund $7,500 Golf Course Fund 471.00.73400.64115Golf shop special order revenue$20,000 471.96.00000.95001Transfer from General Fund Central Savings funding the Golf Simulator  installation and marketing. $9,000 Subtotal, Golf Course Fund $29,000 Employee Health Insurance Fund 501.51.50151.65309Adjustment so the employer premium revenue and expense match.$12,260 Subtotal, Employee Health Insurance Fund $12,260 Information Technology Fund 510.94.00000.67501County Reimbursements for carry forward projects from 2012$227,550 510.94.61000.67500Carry forward projects from 2012 budgeted in other funds $619,610 Subtotal, Information Technology Fund $847,160 Total Revenue Changes $1,533,250 P357 VIII.b City of Aspen  Departmental Memos  Second Reading  P358 VIII.b Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Nancy Lesley, Director of Special Events THRU: Jeff Woods, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: April 10, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: Pro Cycle Challenge; Aspen Silver Cycling and Contribution Adjustment REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting a budget adjustment for the Pro Cycling Challenge as part of the Special Events Department to reflect the total budget of $475,000. The new budget amount will reflect the city’s portion as well as the amount offset by fundraising efforts. The total budget will be increased by $350,000 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council previously approved a contribution of $125,000 during the 2013 Budget Approval. This amount reflects the City’s initial contribution to the event. On November 12, 2012 the Special Events team met with council in an executive session where council agreed to in concept funding the stage of 190,000 to $215,000. DISCUSSION: There are two issues as part of staff’s request: 1.) increasing budget authority in the amount that staff will recover via fundraising 2.) increasing the amount the city will contribute to the event. 1.) Increasing budget authority in the amount that staff will recover via fundraising In prior years private contributions were deposited into a special Aspen Silver Cycling account and the Special Events staff spent these funds as they came in. In 2013 all expenses will be spent through the City for accounting and simplicity reasons. Staff plans to raise $260,000 this year through sponsorships, VIP ticket sales, and other donations. Thus, staffs request for part one is increasing the budget authority by $260,000 that will be offset by revenues. 2.) Increasing the amount the city will contribute to the event Over the past two years Aspen has hosted stage(s) of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge and Council has approved funding a portion of the cost to host the stage(s). Staff is requesting additional funds because two stages will be hosted in Aspen/Snowmass and the nature of hosting the opening stage. P359 VIII.b Page 2 of 2 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Below is the breakdown of the Pro Cycling Challenge: Original Contribution $125,000 Fundraising $260,000 Additional City Contribution $90,000 Total $475,000 This additional funding will require a budget adjustment for supplemental funding. If additional revenues are raised beyond $260,000 the City’s subsidized portion the stages will be reduced. In future years it is unclear what, if any, stages will be held in Aspen; therefore, it is difficult to predict how this will impact future budgets. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Environmental impacts of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge have been detailed in prior memos. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is staff’s recommendation that council approve a budget adjustment increasing budget authority for the Pro Cycling Challenge to $475,000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: None P360 VIII.b Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kai Ramsey THRU: Tom McCabe DATE OF MEMO: April 10, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: Appropriation of Funding for Smuggler Repairs REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Management is requesting that council approve the appropriation of $5,000 for emergency electrical repairs at Smuggler Mountain Apartments. BACKGROUND: A unit at Smuggler Mountain Apartments had been experiencing problems with the electrical system and management and maintenance had deemed the problem to be a potential life safety issue after inspection. The apartment in question had no fault protections which nearly lead to a fire after the circuit was overloaded. Other deficiencies include aluminum wire throughout, out dated breaker panel, and illegally installed light fixtures. DISCUSSION: A City of Aspen Building Inspector was contacted to determine the extent of the problems within the unit. The inspector gave a report which was forwarded to the Housing Board with recommended repairs. Management was instructed to contact an electrical service contractor and obtain preliminary budget figures. Management solicited proposals from two local electric contractors and presented them to the Housing Board. The Housing Board selected Durgin Electric to perform the necessary emergency repairs and approved the appropriation of funds on March 6th. Durgin Electric began the repairs after obtaining the necessary permits. The repairs commenced on March 25th and were completed three days later. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The cost of the project to date is $3,660. This figure could rise if additional work is deemed necessary, but is not to exceed $5000. The Smuggler fund is operating with a positive balance and can support the funding in full. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that Council approve this funding request to pay for services already rendered. ALTERNATIVES: No alternatives are available at this time. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance # . . .” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution is on the following page. P361 VIII.b City of Aspen  Departmental Memos  First Reading  P362 VIII.b 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Pomeroy, Code Enforcement Officer THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Johannah Richards, Community Development Administrative Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 5, 2013 RE: Supplemental Request: Business Assistance Web Project REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Community Development Department is requesting $25,000 to implement a Business Assistance Web Project. Funds for the request will be broken down as follows: $10,000 is available from departmental savings, and Staff is asking for an additional $15,000 to be appropriated for a total of $25,000. DISCUSSION: One of the goals of City Council formulated at their last retreat was to: Complete a Small Business Initiative that focuses on the “speed and simplicity” of business start-up with a focus on:  Definition of a process for approval of internet/home occupation businesses  Information and guidance for those seeking to start a new business  And conduct a review of regulations and the way we administer those regulations to understand the things that make doing business in Aspen difficult (licensing and permits, review bodies, SCI zone, sign code, and mitigation) In order to implement bullet number two, staff proposes to create a Business Assistance website that will be integrated with existing, as well as planned, City websites. The estimated cost to implement this project is $25,000. P363 VIII.b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Aitken CGCS, Director of Golf THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE: March 8, 2013 RE: Additional Funds For Special Order Retail Buy REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests an additional $20,000 in expense for Special Order Retail Merchandise. DISCUSSION: Budget for the Golf Retail Buy in 2013 is $114,000.00. This allows the City to stock the golf shop adequately for the season. Special orders for specific golf merchandise are often requested but budget is often times not available to meet the needs of the customer. With the additional approved expense for special orders, the Golf Department will have the ability to meet the needs of customers and provide an additional revenue source. Expenses to this account will only be incurred if an order is placed insuring that the Golf Department will receive approximately 115 to 150% return for every expense incurred. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Based on the invested return on each order of merchandise at an average of 130% and spending $20,000, the City would realize a net profit of $6,000.00. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the additional $20,000 in expense to increase profits for the Golf Department and improve customer service. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve City of Aspen Golf Department 2013 Supplemental Ordinance. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ P364 VIII.b 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Perl, Senior Environmental Health Specialist Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director Chris Bendon, Community Development Director RE: Code Amendments: Trash, Utility, Recycle Areas Ordinance 13, Series of 2013, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance outlines Council policy direction for code amendments related to the trash, utility, and recycle area provisions in the Land Use Code and Chapter 12 of the municipal code. The objective of the proposed code amendment is to better coordinate the trash and recycling requirements in the Land Use Code (Title 26 of the Municipal Code) with known best practices and requirements in the Solid Waste Code (Title 12 of the Municipal Code). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the public hearing and second reading of proposed code amendments to update the trash, utility, and recycling area provisions of the Land Use Code. 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 third 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. QUESTIONS FROM FIRST READING: 1. City Council asked staff to clarify the City’s recycling goals. The City of Aspen has long focused on the importance of recycling, as evidenced by the existing Recycling Ordinance and community outreach efforts such as electronic waste recycling drop-off days. The Aspen Area Community Plan includes a number of policies focused on increasing recycling, including stating that Aspen should “maximize recycling, implement waste reduction… and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill.” In P365 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 2 of 8 addition, City staff are currently working on the creation of a ‘Sustainability Dashboard’ that will be presented to Council this summer, detailing a definition of sustainable Aspen in relation to waste, among other environmental topics. This work supports Council’s Top Ten Goal that “City Council will review and approve a “dashboard” of metrics that define sustainable Aspen. Move forward on a broad array of environmental initiatives that moves the community towards the ideal of a sustainable Aspen (reduces resource consumption, reuses materials, consider adoption of the IGCC, etc).” 2. City Council asked for examples of how the proposed size requirements will affect individual businesses and development proposals. This proposal is intended to create minimal financial and operational impacts to existing businesses. In fact, for existing businesses there will be no change, as they are not affected by the ordinance. If an existing business is in a building being redeveloped (and the redevelopment triggers the ordinance by demolishing more than 40% of the building), the individual business will see increased space for trash and recycling storage and increased options for waste reduction when the redevelopment is complete. If an existing business expands the total net leasable space in the building by more than 250 sq ft, then they would need to bring the trash and recycling area into compliance if it’s not in compliance already. The business could request special review if they needed to vary or reduce the size requirements. The proposed code amendments could potentially create an additional design consideration for developers. However, developers can always request special review to decrease or vary the size requirements. One example of a potential project that might need to vary the requirements through special review would be a high-density lodge with a restaurant on a small lot of less than 6,000 sq ft. In all likelihood, this type of project would need to request a variation through special review under today’s code as well. Staff recognizes that smaller lots can have difficulty meeting the competing needs for utilities, trash and recycling, and parking when they only have 30 to 60 feet of alley frontage. The Land Use Code and this code amendment create flexibility for developers in these situations by enabling variations based on specific site constraints. 3. Council asked for more information on how the proposed code amendments will impact businesses and developers, particularly related to cost. Existing businesses will not trigger this code language and will not see any additional costs related to trash and recycling storage or pickup. All businesses in the City of Aspen are currently required to pay for recycling pickup in the base rate of trash service, so there will not be a new cost for additional recycling services. The special review process to vary the size of a trash and recycling area exists in the Land Use Code today through a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This code amendment makes this process easier on a business or developer by changing it to an administrative review with Environmental Health without a public P366 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 3 of 8 hearing or a land use review fee, potentially saving the applicant both time and money. In addition, the code amendment outlines more options on how an applicant could meet the requirement, such as shared spaces, working with haulers, and utilizing interior spaces. New commercial and lodging developments are currently required to include exterior trash and recycling areas on site, and have been since the 1970s. The cost to those new developments will be the same that it is now; when a new building is designed, a trash and recycling area must be included in the plans. If an existing building is being remodeled and is demolishing more than 40% of the building or adding space beyond exempt limits, it is possible that building will need to bring the existing trash and recycling area up to code. However, the code amendment is designed so that there is flexibility. Applicants can go through the administrative special review process to show the requirement is being met in other ways. There are not currently any standards for trash and recycling storage for multi-family housing developments. Under the new code, these developments will need to include trash and recycling storage as a design consideration for new development. Those developments that are remodeling or demolishing more than 40% of the building may need to bring their trash and recycling areas up to code, but always have the special review process as an option to reduce the dimensions. 4. Council requested that staff address the role trash compactors will have in the proposed language. The proposed amendments do not specifically address the use of trash compactors. The ordinance allows neighboring buildings to share trash and recycling services as long as an agreement exists between the two parties and is on-file with the City. The proposed requirements allow for each building to have adequate space to store trash and recycling containers, avoiding the need for shared space. Because shared trash compactors have been known to cause numerous issues in the downtown area of Aspen, the proposed language is designed to encourage businesses and residents to take responsibility for the waste generated onsite instead of relying on shared spaces for disposal of waste. 5. Council asked for more information regarding the comments staff received during public outreach. Staff received a number of comments from the development community about the changes in this code amendment. Understandably, there was concern that this code amendment would create additional burdens on development and could create site constraints. There are only four (4) scenarios that trigger a requirement that is different than exists today. • Creating a new multi-family residential building, • Creating more than 5 residential units in a mixed-use building, • Adding a restaurant space as part of new commercial development or redevelopment, and P367 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 4 of 8 • Creating a lodge of more than 60 rooms with a restaurant. Most development and redevelopment in Aspen does not fall into these categories and will be subject to the same rules that are in effect today. This code amendment also exempts certain development that is not explicitly exempt today, including minor additions of commercial space (250 sq ft or less) and lodge rooms (1 or 2). Staff believes this code amendment creates a balance between enabling design flexibility and ensuring that new spaces have adequate trash and recycling areas. In addition, the public comments from actual building users were overwhelmingly positive because the changes will ensure they have adequate and operational trash and recycling spaces. BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW: This code amendment is twofold – it includes the reauthorization of the Recycle Ordinance and an update to the trash and recycling requirements outlined in the land use code. The Recycling Ordinance sunsets in July, and must be readopted by City Council if it is to remain in effect. Environmental Health and Community Development staff began working together a few months ago to coordinate the re-adoption of the Recycling Ordinance with minor amendments to the trash and recycling requirements. The main change is moving the size and location requirements from the Land Use Code to the Solid Waste Code. Each portion of the code amendment is discussed in more detail below. RECYCLING ORDINANCE REAUTHORIZATION: The Waste Reduction Ordinance was first enacted in 2005 and has since undergone one (1) major revision at the time of the 2008 sunset discussion and minor changes since then. The Ordinance has not only led to increased recycling from Aspen’s residents and businesses, but has also served as a model ordinance for other cities and towns across the United States. Because the Waste Reduction Ordinance requires that haulers include the cost of recycling in the base rate for trash, all residents and businesses in the City of Aspen have access to recycling, eliminating a barrier to reducing waste. Since the adoption of the Waste Reduction Ordinance, the City of Aspen recycling rate has increased from a low 14% to 32%. The Waste Reduction Ordinance goes a long way toward forwarding Council’s goals of creating a sustainable Aspen. Staff recommends the Waste Reduction Ordinance be reauthorized with small proposed changes listed below. - Improve the audit card procedure so that customers are notified if recycling is thrown away due to contamination. - Require bins be clearly marked to show what type of waste belongs in each bin - Require more documentation with bi-annual reports from waste haulers to increase confidence in reported numbers and data TRASH AND RECYCLING SERVICE AREA CHANGES: The Land Use Code includes requirements related to trash, utility, and recycling areas for all commercial and lodging development. The code currently requires “A minimum of twenty (20) linear feet of the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be reserved for box storage, utility P368 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 5 of 8 transformers or equipment, building access and trash and recycling facilities. … The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. The required area shall not be used for required parking or as vehicular access to a parking area.” Properties without an alley are currently not required to provide an area for trash and recycling. The Environmental Health Department reviews all land use applications for compliance with the trash and recycling standards outlined in the Land Use Code. Staff believes moving these requirements into the Solid Waste Code will enable a more efficient review of applications, and will ensure that the requirements are up to date with the latest best practices. Community Development staff are not the experts in this area, and staff believes the requirements are better placed with the Environmental Health Department’s code. The language from Chapter 26 remains similar with the addition of space requirements for multi- family projects. No change in the size requirement is proposed for commercial properties unless the commercial property or lodge is adding a commercial kitchen, as current waste generation rates show that properties with restaurants produce significantly more waste than those without a restaurant. Staff is proposing that all commercial and lodging properties, even if they do not have alley access, provide an area on the site or in the building for trash and recycling storage. Aside from those changes, the requirements for commercial and lodging properties will be similar to those that currently exist. In addition, staff proposes adding space requirements for multi-family housing complexes to allow for adequate trash and recycling storage. This requirement does not currently exist in the Land Use Code. The Environmental Health Department regularly receives requests from tenants of multi-family buildings for more recycling options. The most common reason why these tenants are not able to recycle is because there is not enough space for recycling storage at the multi-family complex and recycling is not offered to tenants. The proposed changes require multi-family projects to provide space for trash and recycling dependent on how many units are in the project. Storage space at single family homes and duplexes is not currently addressed in the code and staff is not proposing adding any requirements for that particular sector of buildings. In all cases, a property owner would be required to comply with the trash and recycling requirements only if they are proposing a new development, or they trigger demolition of the existing structure. A detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the proposed size changes is attached as Exhibit E. Currently most redevelopment applications use the size requirements in the Land Use Code to meet the trash and recycling needs of the building and accommodate the utility box needs in a different area. Staff proposes updating the utility standards to recognize the current practice by adding a requirement for utility areas. The table on the following page outlines the size requirements for Residential, Commercial, and Lodging uses. P369 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 6 of 8 Exempt Same Requirements as today (200 sq ft) New Requirement Residential Single Family / Duplex Development N/A Multi-family Project with 10 or fewer units = 120 sq ft 1 new residential unit (free- market or affordable) Multi-family Project with 11 to 29 units = 120 sq ft plus 1.5 sq ft for each dwelling unit over 10 Does not trigger demolition (destruction of 40% or more of structure) Multi-family Project with 30 or more units = 150 sq ft, plus 150 sq ft for each increment of 30 units over 60 Commercial 250 sq ft or less of new commercial space Any new commercial space not anticipated to be used as a restaurant Any new commercial space anticipated to be used as a restaurant = 300 sq ft Change in use between commercial categories (i.e. office to retail) Any mixed-use building with more than 5 dwelling units = an additional 1.5 sq ft per unit Does not trigger demolition (destruction of 40% or more of structure) Lodging 2 or fewer new lodge units Any lodge that does not have a Retail Food Service License Any lodge with 60 or more rooms that will also have a Retail Food Service License = 400 sq ft Does not trigger demolition (destruction of 40% or more of structure) Any lodge with 60 or fewer rooms that will have a Retail Food Service License Any mixed-use building with more than 5 dwelling units = an additional 1.5 sq ft per unit Commercial Design Considerations: Currently, the design of trash and recycling areas are addressed in the Commercial Design Standards. The standards include requirements for areas to be accessed off an alley where one exists, and screening of the area. These design standards remain important to ensure the trash and recycling areas are designed in a manner consistent with the entire building. Staff is deleting the general trash/recycling code section and moving all of the design related criteria into the Commercial Design Standards. In addition, the Commercial Design Standards are updated to reflect the fact that size requirements are outlined in the Solid P370 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 7 of 8 Waste Code and that the process to vary those requirements is in that code, rather than the Land Use Code. UTILITY AND DELIVERY SERVICE AREA CHANGES: As part of these code changes, staff proposes updating the utility standards. Community Development staff has worked with staff from the Utilities Department to ensure all the proposed changes are coordinated with their standards. The Utilities Department uses Electric Distribution Standards and the National Electric Code to determine the size and services required for all new projects. Staff has incorporated references to these sections in the Commercial Design Standards. The ability to vary those requirements remains through Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Delivery service area requirements are not changed in this code amendment. No size requirements are in place, but an applicant must prove that deliveries can be accommodated based on the proposed uses in the building. The ability to vary the delivery area remains through Special Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission. PUBLIC OUTREACH: Community Development and Environmental Health staff conducted outreach with private planners and architects to get their feedback on moving the trash and recycling requirements into the Solid Waste Code and changing the size requirements for lodge projects and multi-family residential projects. Overall, the group was comfortable moving the requirements into the Solid Waste Code. There were a number of comments and concerns regarding the changed size requirements. Some felt that having any size requirements, despite their existence today, would not be conducive to a successful design process. While staff understands this point of view, eliminating standards creates a more confusing and unpredictable process for both applicants and staff. Without a minimum standard, there is no benchmark to review an application by, creating a potentially unfair and burdensome review process. One of the City’s Top Ten goals this year is to simplify the many-step process for applicants, and eliminating requirements is contradictory to that goal. Others felt that the size requirements should not be expanded from the existing 20 ft by 10 ft requirement because it could create more constraints on the lot. As mentioned in the staff response to Question 5 from First Reading, this code amendment establishes a special review system to allow variations to the size requirements to accommodate creative solutions on a case-by-case basis. One specific concern expressed by a number of planners was the impact the increased size requirements could have on lodge development. They expressed concern that the city is trying to incentivize lodge development, but that increasing the trash and recycling size requirements could hamper those efforts. The code amendment is written to maintain the same size requirement that exists today for any lodge that does not have a Retail Food Service License regardless of the number of lodge rooms. The only lodges with an increased requirement (of 400 sq ft as opposed to the current 200 sq ft), are those lodges with more than 60 rooms that will also contain a Retail Food Service License. Staff believes this distinction created the fairest system, while striking a balance between different community values. P371 VIII.c 4.22.2013 – Public Hearing Trash, Utility, Recycling Area Code Amendment Page 8 of 8 In addition, Environmental Health staff conducted outreach with property managers related to the multi-family requirements. Responses to the proposed language were positive and property managers felt that current trash enclosures are too small, leading to wildlife and contamination issues. They also highlighted the fact that visitors to Aspen expect to have recycling containers available and are disappointed when they don’t exist due to lack of space. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed code amendment will have a number of important environmental impacts. It is focused on making recycling easier for residents and tenants. It may also have the added benefit of extending the life of the landfill by making recycling easier, thus diverting those items from the landfill, which is a goal of the AACP. Finally, this code amendment supports the AACP’s Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1, which states, “Maximize recycling, implement waste reduction and environmentally responsible purchasing programs, and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill.” FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No financial impacts are anticipated with this code change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinances. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2013, approving code amendments related to the trash, utility, and recycling provisions in the Land Use Code and Solid Waste Code.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Proposed Land Use Code Amendment Language Exhibit C – Proposed Solid Waste Code Amendment Language Exhibit D – Approved Policy Resolution 26, Series 2013 Exhibit E – Reasoning for specific space requirements P372 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 1 of 18 ORDINANCE No. 13 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMNETS TO THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE AND WASTE REDUCTION CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: 12.06.010, 020, 030, 050, 060, AND 080 – WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING; 12.010 – SPACE ALLOTMENT FOR TRASH AND REYCLCING STORAGE; 26.100.104 - DEFINITIONS; 26.412.060(B) – COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS, UTILITY, DELIVERY, AND TRASH SERVICE PROVISION; 26.430.030, 040(E), 060(C), 080, AND 090(A) - SPECIAL REVIEW; 26.575.060 – UTILITY/TRASH/RECYCLE SERVICE AREAS; AND 25.575.180 – REQUIRED DELIVERY AREA AND VESTIBULES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to explore code amendments related to the space requirements for trash, recycling and utility equipment storage; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and considering the recommendation from the Community Development Department; 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 trash and recycling storage requirements; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 18, 2013, the City Council approved a Policy Resolution, Resolution 26, Series of 2013, directing staff to process code amendments related to trash, utility and recycling area sections of the land use code, by a four - zero (4 - 0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments ad finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310.050; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Health Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to further the City’s goal of recycling and waste reduction; and P373 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 2 of 18 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Sections 12.06.010, 020, 030, 050, 060, and 080 – Waste Reduction and Recycling, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 12.06.010. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: Ashes. The term ashes shall mean the solid residue left when material is burned. Audit Card shall mean a card that waste Haulers give to customers who have included banned Yard Waste in their garbage or who have failed to properly sort their Recyclable Materials. Commercial Customer shall mean any premises utilizing collection service where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on, including, without limitation, retail establishments, restaurants, hospitals, schools, day care centers, offices, nursing homes, clubs, churches and public facilities. Compostable material or compostables shall mean any organic material that will naturally degrade and that has been designated as compostable by City Manager regulation in the “Compostable Materials List” which may include, but is not limited to, 1) Animal or vegetable based food scraps resulting from the preparation, cooking and serving of food; 2 Organic materials, including paper products and products designed to completely break down in a commercial composting facility; 3) Organic material that has been completely segregated from trash by the generator for the purpose of being composted or otherwise processed through natural degradation into soil amendment, fertilizer or mulch. Garbage The term garbage shall mean all wastes from the preparation and consumption of food, condemned food products and all refuse and waste from the handling, storage, preparation and sale of produce. The term garbage shall include compostable material and compostables. Hauler means any person in the business of collecting, transporting or disposing of garbage or trash for another, for a fee, in the City. Multi-Family Customer means the occupants, taken together, of a residential building or set of residential buildings that use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. P374 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 3 of 18 Recyclable Materials means any materials that are designated by the City Manager in the "Recyclable Materials List" which may include, but are not limited to, newspaper, magazines, office paper, cardboard, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans and aluminum cans. Residential Customer means every occupant of a residential building or set of residential buildings who receives periodic garbage collection service, and who does not use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. Trash. The term trash shall mean all substances, which are neither ashes nor garbage, discarded from dwellings, rooming houses, hotels, clubs, restaurants, boardinghouses, eating places, shops, stores or other places of business. Yard Waste shall mean materials generated from the maintenance of the vegetation on a property that have been designated by the City Manager in the "Banned Yard Waste List" which may include, but are not limited to, grass clippings, leaves, weeds, holiday trees and other plant materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.020. Exemptions. The following persons are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: (A) Any person or agent thereof who transports to the landfill only the garbage that person generates. (B) Any person who transports only liquid wastes (such as restaurant grease), discarded or abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home or industrial appliances, household hazardous wastes or hazardous materials as defined in the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq. Sec. 12.06.030. Hauler requirements. (A) No person shall operate as a solid waste Hauler within the city limits without first obtaining a business license from the City. In order to receive a City business license, a solid waste Hauler must comply with the requirements of this Chapter. (B) Haulers providing trash service in the City shall include in the base rate for trash pickup service the pickup of Recyclable Materials as designated by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List. (i) For residential customers the Recyclable Materials list shall include, at the minimum, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans, aluminum cans and newspapers. (ii) For commercial and multi-family customers the Recyclable Materials list shall include, at the minimum, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans, aluminum, newspapers, cardboard and office paper. (C) It shall be unlawful for Haulers to provide a separate line item for the cost of recycling services on any invoice, contract, or other document that is delivered to the customer, or to deduct any amount from a customer's rate if the recycling services are not used. P375 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 4 of 18 (D) The collection of recyclable materials for residential customers shall be provided on the same day and upon the same frequency as trash pickup. (E) Haulers shall provide collection of recyclable materials for multi-family and commercial customers as often as necessary to prevent the overflow of the recycling containers and to permit the customer to use the recycling containers without causing an overflow. (F) Any person licensed to operate as a solid waste Hauler within the City shall charge all Residential Customers on the basis of volume of trash collected, which shall be measured by the volume capacity of the container used by the customer. All charges shall be based upon units of volume no greater than thirty-two (32) gallons. The charge for the second unit shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. The charge for each subsequent unit of volume shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. (G) In offering or arranging for services, a Hauler shall provide reasonable notice of the full range of container sizes or levels of services offered by the Hauler, and shall provide to each customer that customer's requested container size or level of service. (H) Each Hauler shall submit a bi-annual report to the city manager of the weight in tons of garbage, trash, Recyclable Materials (as determined by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List pursuant to 12.06.040), Compostables and Yard Waste materials collected within the limits of the City. For loads that contain garbage or Recyclable Materials originating in part from within the limits of the City, and in part from outside the limits of the City, the reported quantity may be estimated by the Hauler but must use the standardized formula provided by the City of Aspen which shall include the use of both the scale tickets and customer route sheets, and reported as an estimate. Bi-annual reports shall be submitted by January 31 and July 31 using a form or forms provided by the Environmental Health Director. Included in this form shall be a standardized formula for volume estimations, a description of the approved data collection methods and a section for the hauler to describe any assumptions used in the data collection process. All reports shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. Haulers shall include the following with the bi-annual report when submitted: - One (1) example of the base rate monthly charge for an average residential customer and one (1) example of the base rate cost for a commercial customer that would be considered an average customer with no special considerations. - Schedule of pick up for customers located within the City of Aspen. This requirement may be met by providing route sheets detailing the different daily hauling routes within City limits. (I) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting any Hauler from providing separate pricing for special collection of bulky items, Compostables, Yard Waste, contaminated recyclables, unscheduled pick-up of trash, extra volumes of trash, such as bags, boxes or bundles, or more than what was subscribed with a Hauler for trash. (J) Except for materials that customers have not properly prepared for recycling and so are grossly contaminated (fifteen percent [15%] or more of trash), Haulers may not dispose of Recyclable P376 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 5 of 18 Materials set out by recycling customers by any means other than at a recycling facility that sorts, packages and otherwise prepares Recyclable Materials for sale. (i) Haulers must notify customers of any grossly contaminated Recyclable Material with an Audit Card or with a phone call, email or written letter with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. (ii) Haulers must notify the Environmental Health Department via email or phone if grossly contaminated Recyclable Materials are deposited into the trash instead of properly recycled, due to contamination, at the same address more than once in the period of one (1) month. (K) Haulers shall notify customers of the provisions of this Chapter by a letter reasonably acceptable by the City of Aspen: (i) Upon the initial provision of solid waste collection services to new customers, (ii) Ninety days prior to any deadline such as the date for existing customers to notify the hauler if they wish to opt out, and (iii) On or before December 31 of each year for existing customers Haulers will also provide within the above reference letter information on the materials designated for recycling collection pursuant to 12.06.040 and such rules and regulations as established by the Hauler for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials as authorized pursuant to 12.06.050(b). Such notice shall further include for Residential Customers the notification of the variable rate system employed by the Hauler, and shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City to ensure that customers are fully informed of the availability of recycling and level of service options. For group accounts, the notices required herein may be sent to the group representative for said account, provided that such notice shall further notify said representative of its obligation to notify all individual customers or users of the service within the group of the availability of recycling services. On or before January 31 of each year, the Hauler shall deliver to the Environmental Health Director a true and correct copy of the notification sent to each customer type, i.e. Residential, Multi-family or Commercial, on or before December 31 of the previous year. (L) Haulers shall not pick up trash that contains banned Yard Waste materials. Haulers shall notify customers of the ban with an Audit Card or with a phone call, email or written letter with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (M) A hauler that exclusively hauls compostable material, no trash or recycling, that has been prepared by the generator for the purpose of separate collection and that is collected in a separate vehicle or compartment of a vehicle than that used for trash collection, is exempt from the above provisions of Section 12.06.030, except that all compost haulers shall comply with subsections (A), (G) and (H) of this Section 12.06.030. P377 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 6 of 18 Sec. 12.06.040. Designation of Recyclable Materials, Banned Yard Waste Materials and Compostable Materials List. (A) The Recyclable Materials that haulers are required to pick up shall be set forth in the City's "Recyclable Materials List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Recyclable Materials List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Director/Manager, the Environmental Health Director and representatives of the licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (B) The Yard Waste material that is required to be separated from trash shall be set forth in the City's "Banned Yard Waste List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Banned Yard Waste List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) The “Compostable Material List” shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. Sec. 12.06.050. Placement of Recyclable Materials, Compost and Yard Waste for pickup. (A) All recyclables, compostables and Yard Waste accumulated on any premises shall be placed in a container separate from trash, or in a suitable manner such as cardboard broken down and placed on a shelf. (B) Recycling containers for storing and setting out Recyclable Materials may be of any color or design as long as they do not interfere with industry-accepted requirements for the preparation of materials for recycling that are necessary to provide for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) Composting containers for storing and setting out Compostable Materials may be of any color or design so long as the container complies with all other requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 12.08, Wildlife Protection. (D) Yard Waste may be included for pick up with Compostable material in the Compostable Material bin or placed next to the Compostable Material bin in preparation for pick up by a hauler. (E) Containers provided by a waste hauler to a customer must be clearly marked to show the type of waste or recycling permitted in the bin. Sec. 12.06.060. Educational materials. (A) The Environmental Health Department shall provide an annual summary of waste and recycled material totals collected in the City, and shall report on other measures of success and aspects of this Chapter. (B) The City will provide wording for Audit Cards and letters and talking points for phone calls that the Haulers must use to notify their customers of contamination of Yard Waste in trash and P378 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 7 of 18 contamination of trash in recyclables. In addition, the City will produce an educational flyer, not to exceed one (1) sheet of paper in length. Haulers shall distribute this educational flyer at least once a year to all their customers, which may be at the same time as materials sent out under Subsection 12.06.030(j) above. The City will consult with the Haulers about the educational flyer prior to distributing it to the Haulers. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.070. Audits and violations. (A) Each Hauler licensed pursuant to this Chapter shall maintain accurate and complete records of the services provided to all customers, the charges to such customers and payments received, the form and recipients of any notice required pursuant to this Chapter, and any underlying records, including any books, accounts, contracts for services, written records of individual level of service requests, invoices, route sheets or other records necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of such records. It shall be the duty of each Hauler to keep and preserve all such documents and records, including any electronic information, for a period of three (3) years from the end of the calendar year of such records, except for paper records of route sheets, which may be discarded one (1) year after the end of the calendar year of such route sheets. (B) If requested, each Hauler shall make its records available for audit by the City Manager during regular business hours in order for the City to verify Hauler compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. All such information shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. (C) Violation of any provision of this Chapter by any person, firm or corporation, whether as Hauler, owner or occupant, shall be unlawful and subject to the penalty provisions in Section 1.04.080 of this Code. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Section 2: Section 12.10 – Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended as follows: Chapter 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Sec.12.10.010. Definitions The definitions and terms used in this Chapter are defined as follows: Commercial Building. Any premises utilizing trash collection service where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on, including, without limitation, retail establishments, restaurants, hospitals, schools, day care centers, offices, nursing homes, clubs, churches and public facilities. The definition of a Commercial Building shall also include mixed-use buildings where residential space exists in the same building where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on. Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. P379 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 8 of 18 Hotel (a.k.a. Lodge). A building or parcel containing individual units used for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or without kitchens within individual units, with or without meals provided and which has common reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities and on-site management and reception services. Timeshare (a.k.a. fractional) units and timeshare developments are considered Hotels for the purposes of this Chapter. For hotels with flexible unit configurations, also known as “lock-off units,” each rentable division or “key” shall constitute a lodge unit for the purposes of this Chapter. Multi-family Development or Project. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Dwelling Units in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with common unpierced demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. Terms not defined in this Section shall have the meaning ascribed to them as set forth in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.104.100 or in the International Green Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Otherwise the common definition applies. Sec. 12.10.020. Applicability This Chapter shall be applicable to: a) All new Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development within the City of Aspen b) All existing Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development that adds two (2) or more residential units, three (3) or more lodge units, or more than 250 square feet of commercial net leasable space. c) All existing Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development that meets the definition of Demolition. Prior to issuance of a building permit applicant shall obtain approval from the Environmental Health Department pursuant to this Chapter. Sec. 12.10.030. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Commercial Buildings. All Commercial development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Commercial Buildings is defined as follows: a. For Commercial Buildings that will not contain nor will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and P380 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 9 of 18 recycling facilities. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. b. For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground level. c. For Commercial Buildings that contain residential dwelling units, one and a half (1.5) square feet of space for trash and recycling storage shall be added to the minimum requirement listed in 12.10.020.C subsections a and b for each additional dwelling unit over five (5) units. (B) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the trash and recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. (C) For properties with no alleyway access, Special Review is required from the Environmental Health Department. Applicant may apply for Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. (D) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. (E) The required area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (F) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (G) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.040. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Lodges All Lodge development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Lodges is defined as follows: a. Lodges with more than sixty (60) guest rooms that will possess or have the capacity to possess a Retail Food Service License as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical P381 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 10 of 18 clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet at ground level. b. Lodges with more than sixty (60) guest rooms that will not possess nor have the capacity to possess a Retail Food Service License as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulation must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. c. Lodges with sixty (60) or fewer guest rooms must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. (B) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the trash and recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. (C) For properties with no alley access, Special Review is required from the Environmental Health Department. Applicant may apply for Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. (D) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. (E) The required area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (F) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (G) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.050 . Space required for trash and recycling storage for Multi-Family Developments All Multi-Family development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Multi-Family Developments is defined as follows: a. Multi-Family Developments including ten (10) or fewer dwelling units shall provide a minimum of twelve (12) linear feet for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. P382 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 11 of 18 b. Multi-Family Developments including more than ten (10) and fewer than thirty (30) dwelling units shall provide an additional one and a half (1.5) square feet for each additional dwelling unit over ten (10), in addition to the required one hundred and twenty (120) square feet described in Section 12.10.050.A subsection (a) above. c. Multi-Family Developments that include thirty (30) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum of one hundred fifty (150 ) square feet of space for trash and recycling storage plus an additional one hundred fifty (150) square feet for every increment of thirty (30) additional units over fifty nine (59). This space may be located in a central collection area or may be divided into smaller collection areas located in different locations throughout the property. If smaller, separate collection areas are planned, no single area may measure fewer than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet. (B) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. (C) The area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (D) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the development in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (E) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.060 . Change of Use All requests to change the designated use of a property between the development categories, as described in Section 26.470.070, are required to meet the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 12.10.070 . Shared space and shared waste contracts (A) If a dumpster, trash compactor, recycling bin or storage area for trash or recycling is intended to be used by occupants or tenants of two (2) or more separate Commercial Buildings, Lodges, or Multi-Family developments a recorded agreement burdening both properties must be submitted as an attachment to the permit. This agreement must show that both properties will have adequate storage space for trash and recycling and these designated storage areas must comply with the standards set forth in this Chapter. (B) If shared space is part of the permit approval the applicant must indicate how the requirements from the Chapter will be met if the agreement between parties or properties becomes null and void or is otherwise terminated. P383 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 12 of 18 Sec. 12.10.080 . Special Review (A) The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of the trash and recycling area or may approve a trash and recycling area with a different configuration by Special Review and in accordance with the standards set forth below in Subsection 12.10.080.C (B) An applicant may request an exemption from some or all of the provisions of this Chapter by applying for Special Review from the Environmental Health Department. (C) Applicants are eligible for Special Review consideration if: a. The property does not adjoin an alleyway b. The applicant wishes to separate the trash and recycling areas c. The applicant is proposing a reduced size for the trash and recycling area d. The applicant feels the requirements of this Chapter cannot be met given the nature of the property. (D) Applicants requiring or requesting Special Review shall submit a written explanation of the reasoning behind applying for Special Review. The applicant must show how trash and recycling will be properly disposed of and stored. (E) The Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of a trash and recycling service area if: (i) There is demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the trash and recycling area proposed will be adequate; a. For the purposes of approvals, adequate will be defined as follows: i. For a Commercial, Lodge or Multi-Family building the space must accommodate and provide access to the following types of bins, at the minimum: One (1) garbage collection bin One (1) comingled container recycling collection bin One (1) office paper recycling collection bin One (1) newspaper/magazine recycling collection bin One (1) cardboard recycling collection bin or collection area where boxes can be stacked and contained in an enclosed space; and ii. Access by both the tenants and the waste hauling companies to the trash and recycling service area is adequate; and P384 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 13 of 18 iii. Measures are provided for locating and enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel; and iv. The proposed area meets the requirements to the greatest extent practicable given physical constraints of the property or existing improvements. (F) The Environmental Health Department shall consider the Special Review within thirty (30) days of the date of permit submittal. The Environmental Health Department shall issue a written decision to the applicant. Sec. 12.10.090 . Appeal Procedures (A) An applicant may appeal the decision of the Environmental Health Department by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Administrative Hearing Officer as defined in and pursuant to Chapter 26.222 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Administrative Hearing Officer within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Chapter to appeal any decision or determination. (B) The Administrative Hearing Officer authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. (C) Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Chapter, the Administrative Hearing Officer authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the written decision and record established by the Environmental Health Department. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. (D) The Administrative Hearing Officer may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination appealed from and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the Environmental Health Department, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The Administrative Hearing Officer may also elect to remand an appeal to the Environmental Health Department for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. The Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision shall be submitted to both the Environmental Health Department and the applicant in writing. Section 3: Section 26.104.100, Definitions, Utility/trash service area, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: P385 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 14 of 18 Utility/trash service area. An area approved or designated for the placement of garbage or trash containers or mechanical equipment, accessory to a principal structure or use. Section 4: Section 26.412.060(B), Commercial Design Review, Commercial Design Standards, Utility, deliver and trash service provision, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: B. Utility, delivery, trash and recycle service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. P386 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 15 of 18 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of- way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Section 5: Section 26.430.030, Special Review, Applicability, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: 26.430.030. Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City designated for special review by the following chapters or sections of this Title: Dimensional requirements (Chapter 26.710 — Zone Districts) Replacement of nonconforming structures (Chapter 26.312) Reduction of open space requirements in CC Zone District (Subsection 26.575.030.B) Off-street parking requirements (Section 26.515.040) Reductions in the dimensions of utility and delivery service area provisions (Section 26.412.060.B) Subdivision standards (Section 26.480.050) Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards (Chapter 26.520) Wireless telecommunications facilities and/or equipment (Section 26.575.130) Affordable housing unit standards (Section 26.470.070.4) P387 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 16 of 18 Section 6: Section 26.430.040(E), Special Review, Review standards for special review, Utility/trash service area, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. E. Utility and delivery service area provisions. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in any utility and delivery service area requirements, the following criteria shall be met: 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility service area and delivery area proposed will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility and delivery service area is adequate to accommodate all necessary users. 3. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. Section 7: Section 26.430.060(C), Special Review, Application, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: 26.430.060(C) Application. C. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off- street parking or utility and delivery service area requirement which is subject to special review. Section 8: Section 26.430.080, Special Review, Modification of requirements, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: 26.430.080. Modification of requirements. If the dimensional requirements, off-street parking, signage or reduction in access to utility or delivery service areas for a proposed development are expressly modified by a valid conditional use or other valid development permit or approval, the proposed development must comply with such modified requirements. Section 9: Section 26.430.090(A), Special Review, Amendment of development order, Insubstantial amendment, of the Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: 26.430.090(A) Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review may be authorized by the Community Development Department Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved P388 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 17 of 18 off-street parking or to the configuration of a utility or delivery service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not include: 1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review. 2. Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established by special review. 3. Any decrease in the size of a utility or delivery service area established by special review. Section 10: Section 26.575.060, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Utility/trash/recycle service areas, of the Land Use Code, shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 11: Section 26.575.180, Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations, Required Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings, of the Land Use Code, shall be deleted in its entirety. Section 12: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 14: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 15: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of April, 2013, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of April, 2013. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___day of _______, 2013. P389 VIII.c Ordinance ___, Series of 2013 – Trash and Recycle code changes Page 18 of 18 Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ City Attorney P390 VIII.c Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption. In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed code amendment is consistent with the Land Use Code. It moves code provisions between sections in the Land Use Code, and moves some requirements to the Solid Waste Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives. Staff Findings: Earlier this year, City Council identified a number of goals, including one related to implementing programs that support a sustainable Aspen. This code amendment will ensure that all commercial, lodging, and multi-family buildings have adequate trash and recycling spaces, which will make it easier for tenants to recycle. This will also support the AACP goal of extending the life of the landfill by making recycling easier, thus diverting those items from the landfill. Finally, this code amendment supports the AACP’s Environmental Stewardship Policy IV.1, which states, “Maximize recycling, implement waste reduction and environmentally responsible purchasing programs, and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill.” 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 amendment is to ensure a predictable and fair review of land use applications. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P391 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 1 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" Exhibit B – Proposed Land Use Code Changes 26.104.100. Definitions. As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined as follows: Utility/trash service area. An area approved or designated for the placement of garbage or trash containers or mechanical equipment, accessory to a principal structure or use. (See Supplementary Regulations — Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash service areas.) Chapter 26.412: COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections: Sec. 26.412.060 Commercial design standards 26.412.060. Commercial design standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public amenity space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. P393 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 2 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" B. Utility, delivery, and trash and recycle service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A utility, trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated along the alley meetingon all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Section 26.575.060, Utility/trash/recycle service areasTitle 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said SectionChapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities, of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review. 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 72. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property and along the alley. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 83. Delivery service areas shall be incorporated along the alley. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet P394 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 3 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 104. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 115. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste, of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions). Chapter 26.430: SPECIAL REVIEW Sections: Sec. 26.430.030. Applicability. Sec. 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. Sec. 26.430.060. Application. Sec. 26.430.080. Modification of requirements. Sec. 26.430.090. Amendment of development order. 26.430.030. Applicability. Special review shall apply to all development in the City designated for special review by the following chapters or sections of this Title:  Reductions in the dimensions of utility/trash and delivery service areas provisions (Section 26.575.060 26.412.060.B) 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. E. Utility/trash and delivery service area provisions. Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in any utility/trash and delivery service area requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth at Section 26.575.060 the following criteria shall be met:. 1. There is a demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the utility service area and delivery area proposed will be adequate. 2. Access to the utility and delivery service area is adequate to accommodate all necessary users. 3. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of utilities. 26.430.060. Application. P395 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 4 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" The development application for special review shall include the following: A. The general application information required under Section 26.304.030. B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those features of the site which are relevant to the special review application. C. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same Zone District and of neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking or trash/utility and delivery service area requirement which is subject to special review. 26.430.080. Modification of requirements. If the dimensional requirements, off-street parking, signage or reduction in access to utility or delivery/trash service areas for a proposed development are expressly modified by a valid conditional use or other valid development permit or approval, the proposed development must comply with such modified requirements. 26.430.090. Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review may be authorized by the Community Development Department Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved off-street parking or to the configuration of a trash/utility or delivery service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not include: 1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review. 2. Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established by special review. 3. Any decrease in the size of a utility or delivery /trash service area established by special review. 4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash compactor or the number of trash bins, which was approved by special review. B. Other amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of this Chapter. Chapter 26.575: MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 26.575.060 Utility/trash/recycle service areas 26.575.060 Utility/trash/recycle service areas A. General. The following provisions shall apply to all utility/trash/recycle service areas: 1. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. Unless entirely located on an alleyway, all utility/trash/recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, and such fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade. All fences shall be of sound construction and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque. Comment [LA1]: Section is moved to Commercial Design Review and Solid Waste Code P396 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 5 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" 2. Whenever this Title shall require that a utility/trash/recycle service area be provided abutting an alley, buildings may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that an open area is provided which shall be accessible to the alley and which meets the dimensional requirements of this Section. 3. A minimum of twenty (20) linear feet of the utility/trash/recycle service area shall be reserved for box storage, utility transformers or equipment, building access and trash and recycling facilities. For properties with thirty (30) feet or less of alley frontage, this requirement shall be fifteen (15) linear feet. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. The required area shall not be used for required parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. For properties with no alley access, a utility/trash/recycle service area shall be accommodated on the site or in the building meeting the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11, and Title 12 of the Municipal Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. 4. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth below at Subsection 26.575.060.B. 5. Trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. B. Review standards for reduction of dimensions. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the dimensions of a utility/trash/recycle service area by following special review procedures set forth at Chapter 26.430 if: 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. (Ord. No. 5-2005, §3; Ord. No. 12, 2007, §36) Chapter 26.575: MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 26.575.180 Required Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings 26.575.180 Required Delivery Area and Vestibules for Commercial Buildings All commercial buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant Comment [jmg2]: Moved to CDS portion of our code Comment [jmg3]: Moved to EH Code Comment [jmg4]: Moved to EH Code Comment [jmg5]: Incorporated into Special Review for Utility and Delivery Areas. All variations for trash/recycling is moved to the EH Code Comment [jmg6]: Section is moved to Commercial Design Review P397 VIII.c Exhibit B: Proposed Land Use Code Changes, Redlines  Page 6 of 6  Formatted: Right, Right: 0.25" spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. All commercial buildings shall provide a Utility/Trash/Recycle area meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.060. The Planning and Zoning Commission may reduce the required dimensions of this area by special review (see Chapter 26.430) and in accordance with the standards set forth in Subsection 26.575.060.B. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. P398 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 1 of 12 Exhibit 3: Proposed Solid Waste Code changes and additions Sec. 12.06.010. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: Ashes. The term ashes shall mean the solid residue left when material is burned. Audit Card shall mean a card that waste Haulers give to customers who have included banned Yard Waste in their garbage or who have failed to properly sort their Recyclable Materials. Commercial Customer shall mean any premises utilizing collection service where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on, including, without limitation, retail establishments, restaurants, hospitals, schools, day care centers, offices, nursing homes, clubs, churches and public facilities. Compostable material or compostables shall mean any organic material that will naturally degrade and that has been designated as compostable by City Manager regulation in the “Compostable Materials List” which may include, but is not limited to, 1) Animal or vegetable based food scraps resulting from the preparation, cooking and serving of food; 2 Organic materials, including paper products and products designed to completely break down in a commercial composting facility; 3) Organic material that has been completely segregated from trash by the generator for the purpose of being composted or otherwise processed through natural degradation into soil amendment, fertilizer or mulch. Garbage The term garbage shall mean all wastes from the preparation and consumption of food, condemned food products and all refuse and waste from the handling, storage, preparation and sale of produce. The term garbage shall include compostable material and compostables. Hauler means any person in the business of collecting, transporting or disposing of garbage or trash for another, for a fee, in the City. Multi-Family Customer means the occupants, taken together, of a residential building or set of residential buildings that use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. Recyclable Materials means any materials that are designated by the City Manager in the "Recyclable Materials List" which may include, but are not limited to, newspaper, magazines, office paper, cardboard, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans and aluminum cans. Residential Customer means every occupant of a residential building or set of residential buildings who receives periodic garbage collection service, and who does not use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. Trash. The term trash shall mean all substances, which are neither ashes nor garbage, discarded from dwellings, rooming houses, hotels, clubs, restaurants, boardinghouses, eating places, shops, stores or other places of business. P399 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 2 of 12 Yard Waste shall mean materials generated from the maintenance of the vegetation on a property that have been designated by the City Manager in the "Banned Yard Waste List" which may include, but are not limited to, grass clippings, leaves, weeds, holiday trees and other plant materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.020. Exemptions. The following persons are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: (A) Any person or agent thereof who transports to the landfill only the garbage that person generates. (B) Any person who transports only liquid wastes (such as restaurant grease), discarded or abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home or industrial appliances, household hazardous wastes or hazardous materials as defined in the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq. (C) Any Commercial Customer who has received an exemption pursuant of this chapter may continue to be exempt provided he or she proves he or she transports his or her cardboard recycling to the Rio Grande Recycling Center or Pitkin County Materials Recovery Facility. Such exemption shall be granted upon satisfactory demonstration to the Environmental Health Department that said customer: (i) Is taking his or her recyclable cardboard to the Rio Grande Recycling Center or Pitkin County Materials Recovery Facility; (ii) Is not allowing recyclable cardboard to be placed in trash containers; and (iii) Complying with the requirements of section 12.06.030 would be unduly burdensome to the applicant. Sec. 12.06.030. Hauler requirements. (A) No person shall operate as a solid waste Hauler within the city limits without first obtaining a business license from the City. In order to receive a City business license, a solid waste Hauler must comply with the requirements of this Chapter. (B) Except for customers exempt from the provision pursuant to Section 12.06.020 above, Haulers providing trash service in the City shall include in the base rate for trash pickup service the pickup of Recyclable Materials as designated by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List. (i) For residential customers the Recyclable Materials list shall include, at the minimum, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans, aluminum cans and newspapers. (ii) For commercial and multi-family customers the Recyclable Materials list shall include, at the minimum, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans, aluminum, newspapers, cardboard and office paper. (C) It shall be unlawful for Haulers to provide a separate line item for the cost of recycling services on any invoice, contract, or other document that is delivered to the customer, or to deduct any amount from a customer's rate if the recycling services are not used unless the customer has received an exemption from the Environmental Health Department. (D) The collection of recyclable materials for residential customers shall be provided on the same day and upon the same frequency as trash pickup. P400 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 3 of 12 (E) Haulers shall provide collection of recyclable materials for multi-family and commercial customers as often as necessary to prevent the overflow of the recycling containers and to permit the customer to use the recycling containers without causing an overflow. (F) Any person licensed to operate as a solid waste Hauler within the City shall charge all Residential Customers on the basis of volume of trash collected, which shall be measured by the volume capacity of the container used by the customer. All charges shall be based upon units of volume no greater than thirty-two (32) gallons. The charge for the second unit shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. The charge for each subsequent unit of volume shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. (G) In offering or arranging for services, a Hauler shall provide reasonable notice of the full range of container sizes or levels of services offered by the Hauler, and shall provide to each customer that customer's requested container size or level of service. (H) Each Hauler shall submit a bi-annual report to the city manager of the weight in tons of garbage, trash, Recyclable Materials (as determined by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List pursuant to 12.06.040), Compostables and Yard Waste materials collected within the limits of the City. For loads that contain garbage or Recyclable Materials originating in part from within the limits of the City, and in part from outside the limits of the City, the reported quantity may be estimated by the Hauler but must use the standardized formula provided by the City of Aspen which shall include the use of both the scale tickets and customer route sheets, and reported as an estimate. Bi-annual reports shall be submitted by January 31 and July 31 using a form or forms provided by the Environmental Health Director. Included in this form shall be a standardized formula for volume estimations, a description of the approved data collection methods and a section for the hauler to describe any assumptions used in the data collection process. All reports shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. Haulers shall include the following with the bi-annual report when submitted: - One (1) example of the base rate monthly charge for an average residential customer and one (1) example of the base rate cost for a commercial customer that would be considered an average customer with no special considerations. - Schedule of pick up for customers located within the City of Aspen. This requirement may be met by providing route sheets detailing the different daily hauling routes within City limits. (I) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting any Hauler from providing separate pricing for special collection of bulky items, Compostables, Yard Waste, contaminated recyclables, unscheduled pick-up of trash, extra volumes of trash, such as bags, boxes or bundles, or more than what was subscribed with a Hauler for trash. (J) Except for materials that customers have not properly prepared for recycling and so are grossly contaminated (fifteen percent [15%] or more of trash), Haulers may not dispose of Recyclable Materials set out by recycling customers by any means other than at a recycling facility that sorts, packages and otherwise prepares Recyclable Materials for sale. (i) Haulers must notify customers of any grossly contaminated Recyclable Material with an Audit Card or with a phone call, email or written letter with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. The Environmental Health Department, once notified by the customer, will determine if recyclable material may be cleaned and picked up as recycling, or determined to be P401 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 4 of 12 trash, and then contact the Hauler to approve the collection, which the Hauler may choose to pick up at the next scheduled pickup and which may incur a charge for an extra trash pickup. (ii) Haulers must notify the Environmental Health Department via email or phone if grossly contaminated Recyclable Materials are deposited into the trash instead of properly recycled, due to contamination, at the same address more than once in the period of one (1) month. (K) Haulers shall notify customers of the provisions of this Chapter by a letter reasonably acceptable by the City of Aspen: (i) Upon the initial provision of solid waste collection services to new customers, (ii) Ninety days prior to any deadline such as the date for existing customers to notify the hauler if they wish to opt out, and (iii) On or before December 31 of each year for existing customers Haulers will also provide within the above reference letter information on the materials designated for recycling collection pursuant to 12.06.040 and such rules and regulations as established by the Hauler for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials as authorized pursuant to 12.06.050(b). Such notice shall further include for Residential Customers the notification of the variable rate system employed by the Hauler, and shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City to ensure that customers are fully informed of the availability of recycling and level of service options. For group accounts, the notices required herein may be sent to the group representative for said account, provided that such notice shall further notify said representative of its obligation to notify all individual customers or users of the service within the group of the availability of recycling services. On or before January 31 of each year, the Hauler shall deliver to the Environmental Health Director a true and correct copy of the notification sent to each customer type, i.e. Residential, Multi-family or Commercial, on or before December 31 of the previous year. (L) Haulers shall not pick up trash that contains banned Yard Waste materials. Haulers shall notify customers of the ban with an Audit Card or with a phone call, email or written letter with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. The Environmental Health Department, once notified by the customer, will determine when the customer has removed the contaminating materials and then contact the Hauler to approve the collection of the trash, which the Hauler may choose to pick up at the next scheduled pickup or which may incur a charge for an extra pickup. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (M) A hauler that exclusively hauls compostable material, no trash or recycling, that has been prepared by the generator for the purpose of separate collection and that is collected in a separate vehicle or compartment of a vehicle than that used for trash collection, is exempt from the above provisions of Section 12.06.030, except that all compost haulers shall comply with subsections (A), (G) and (H) of this Section 12.06.030. Sec. 12.06.040. Designation of Recyclable Materials, Banned Yard Waste Materials and Compostable Materials List. (A) The Recyclable Materials that haulers are required to pick up shall be set forth in the City's "Recyclable Materials List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Recyclable Materials List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Director/Manager, the Environmental Health Director and representatives of the licensed Haulers operating P402 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 5 of 12 within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (B) The Yard Waste material that is required to be separated from trash shall be set forth in the City's "Banned Yard Waste List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Banned Yard Waste List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) The “Compostable Material List” shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. Sec. 12.06.050. Placement of Recyclable Materials, Compost and Yard Waste for pickup. (A) All recyclables, compostables and Yard Waste accumulated on any premises shall be placed in a container separate from garbage trash, or in a suitable manner such as cardboard broken down and placed on a shelf. (B) Recycling containers for storing and setting out Recyclable Materials may be of any color or design as long as they do not interfere with industry-accepted requirements for the preparation of materials for recycling that are necessary to provide for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) Composting containers for storing and setting out Compostable Materials may be of any color or design so long as the container complies with all other requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 12.08, Wildlife Protection. (D) Yard Waste may be included for pick up with Compostable material in the Compostable Material bin or placed next to the Compostable Material bin in preparation for pick up by a hauler. (E) Containers provided by a waste hauler to a customer must be clearly marked to show the type of waste or recycling permitted in the bin. Sec. 12.06.060. Educational materials. (A) The Environmental Health Department shall provide an annual summary of waste and recycled material totals collected in the City, and shall report on other measures of success and aspects of this Chapter. This annual summary shall be provided to the City Council and the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. (B) The City will provide wording for Audit Cards and letters and talking points for phone calls that the Haulers must use to notify their customers of contamination of Yard Waste in trash and contamination of trash in recyclables. In addition, the City will produce an educational flyer, not to exceed one (1) sheet of paper in length. Haulers shall distribute this educational flyer at least once a year to all their customers, which may be at the same time as materials sent out under Subsection 12.06.030(j) above. The City will consult with the Haulers about the educational flyer prior to distributing it to the Haulers. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.070. Audits and violations. (A) Each Hauler licensed pursuant to this Chapter shall maintain accurate and complete records of the services provided to all customers, the charges to such customers and payments received, the form and recipients of any notice required pursuant to this Chapter, and any underlying records, including any books, P403 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 6 of 12 accounts, contracts for services, written records of individual level of service requests, invoices, route sheets or other records necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of such records. It shall be the duty of each Hauler to keep and preserve all such documents and records, including any electronic information, for a period of three (3) years from the end of the calendar year of such records, except for paper records of route sheets, which may be discarded one (1) year after the end of the calendar year of such route sheets. (B) If requested, each Hauler shall make its records available for audit by the City Manager during regular business hours in order for the City to verify Hauler compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. All such information shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. (C) Violation of any provision of this Chapter by any person, firm or corporation, whether as Hauler, owner or occupant, shall be unlawful and subject to the penalty provisions in Section 1.04.080 of this Code. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.080. Sunset provision This Chapter shall remain in effect until five (5) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance codified herein, at which time the City Council shall amend, expand or repeal this Chapter. . (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1; Ord. No. 17-2008) Chapter 12.10 Space Allotment for Trash and Recycling Storage Sec.12.10.010. Definitions The definitions and terms used in this Chapter are defined as follows: Commercial Building. Any premises utilizing trash collection service where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on, including, without limitation, retail establishments, restaurants, hospitals, schools, day care centers, offices, nursing homes, clubs, churches and public facilities. The definition of a Commercial Building shall also include mixed-use buildings where residential space exists in the same building where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on. Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. Hotel (a.k.a. Lodge). A building or parcel containing individual units used for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or without kitchens within individual units, with or without meals provided and which has common reservation and cleaning services, combined utilities and on-site management and reception services. Timeshare (a.k.a. fractional) units and timeshare developments are considered Hotels for the purposes of this Chapter. For hotels with flexible unit configurations, also known as “lock-off units,” each rentable division or “key” shall constitute a lodge unit for the purposes of this Chapter. Multi-family Development or Project. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Dwelling Units in either an over-and-under or side-by-side configuration with common unpierced P404 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 7 of 12 demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. Terms not defined in this Section shall have the meaning ascribed to them as set forth in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.104.100 or in the International Green Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Otherwise the common definition applies. Sec. 12.10.020 Applicability This Chapter shall be applicable to: a) All new Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development within the City of Aspen b) All existing Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development that adds two (2) or more residential units, three (3) or more lodge units, or more than 250 square feet of commercial net leasable space. c) All existing Commercial, Multi-family and Lodge development that meets the definition of Demolition. Prior to issuance of a building permit applicant shall obtain approval from the Environmental Health Department pursuant to this Chapter. Sec. 12.10.030. Space required for trash and recycling storage for Commercial Buildings. All Commercial development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Commercial Buildings is defined as follows: a. For Commercial Buildings that will not contain nor will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling facilities. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. b. For Commercial Buildings that will contain or that will have the capacity to contain an establishment with a Retail Food Service License, as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway must be reserved for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of fifteen (15) feet at ground level. c. For Commercial Buildings that contain residential dwelling units, one and a half (1.5) square feet of space for trash and recycling storage shall be added to the minimum requirement listed in 12.10.020.C subsections a and b for each additional dwelling unit over five (5) units. P405 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 8 of 12 (B) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the trash and recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. (C) For properties with no alleyway access, Special Review is required from the Environmental Health Department. Applicant may apply for Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. (D) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. (E) The required area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (F) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (G) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.040 Space required for trash and recycling storage for Lodges All Lodge development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Lodges is defined as follows: a. Lodges with more than sixty (60) guest rooms that will possess or have the capacity to possess a Retail Food Service License as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of twenty (20) feet at ground level. b. Lodges with more than sixty (60) guest rooms that will not possess nor have the capacity to possess a Retail Food Service License as defined by the State of Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulation must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. c. Lodges with sixty (60) or fewer guest rooms must provide a minimum of twenty (20) linear feet adjacent to the alleyway for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. (B) If the property adjoins an alleyway, the trash and recycle service area shall be along and accessed from the alleyway. (C) For properties with no alley access, Special Review is required from the Environmental Health Department. Applicant may apply for Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. (D) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. P406 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 9 of 12 (E) The required area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (F) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (G) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.050 Space required for trash and recycling storage for Multi-Family Developments All Multi-Family development within the Applicability Section 12.10.020 must provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage by meeting the following standards. (A) Adequate space for Multi-Family Developments is defined as follows: a. Multi-Family Developments including ten (10) or fewer dwelling units shall provide a minimum of twelve (12) linear feet for trash and recycling storage. The required area shall have a minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) feet and a minimum depth of ten (10) feet at ground level. b. Multi-Family Developments including more than ten (10) and fewer than thirty (30) dwelling units shall provide an additional one and a half (1.5) square feet for each additional dwelling unit over ten (10), in addition to the required one hundred and twenty (120) square feet described in Section 12.10.050.A subsection (a) above. c. Multi-Family Developments that include thirty (30) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum of one hundred fifty (150 ) square feet of space for trash and recycling storage plus an additional one hundred fifty (150) square feet for every increment of thirty (30) additional units over fifty nine (59). This space may be located in a central collection area or may be divided into smaller collection areas located in different locations throughout the property. If smaller, separate collection areas are planned, no single area may measure fewer than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet. (B) The required area shall not be used for parking or as vehicular access to a parking area. (C) The area may be used for utility equipment storage if approved by both the City of Aspen Utility Department and Environmental Health Department. (D) The trash and recycling areas shall be accessible to all tenants within the development in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be used as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. (E) If a separate storage area for recyclable materials is provided it shall be located adjacent to the trash collection area and must be approved by Special Review pursuant Section P407 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 10 of 12 12.10.080. The storage and collection of waste and recyclables should be designed to complement each other and to operate as one (1) system. Sec. 12.10.060 Change of Use All requests to change the designated use of a property between the development categories, as described in Section 26.470.070, are required to meet the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 12.10.070 Shared space and shared waste contracts (A) If a dumpster, trash compactor, recycling bin or storage area for trash or recycling is intended to be used by occupants or tenants of two (2) or more separate Commercial Buildings, Lodges, or Multi-Family developments a recorded agreement burdening both properties must be submitted as an attachment to the permit. This agreement must show that both properties will have adequate storage space for trash and recycling and these designated storage areas must comply with the standards set forth in this Chapter. (B) If shared space is part of the permit approval the applicant must indicate how the requirements from the Chapter will be met if the agreement between parties or properties becomes null and void or is otherwise terminated. Sec. 12.10.080 Special Review (A) The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of the trash and recycling area or may approve a trash and recycling area with a different configuration by Special Review and in accordance with the standards set forth below in Subsection 12.10.080.C (B) An applicant may request an exemption from some or all of the provisions of this Chapter by applying for Special Review from the Environmental Health Department. (C) Applicants are eligible for Special Review consideration if: a. The property does not adjoin an alleyway b. The applicant wishes to separate the trash and recycling areas c. The applicant is proposing a reduced size for the trash and recycling area d. The applicant feels the requirements of this Chapter cannot be met given the nature of the property. (D) Applicants requiring or requesting Special Review shall submit a written explanation of the reasoning behind applying for Special Review. The applicant must show how trash and recycling will be properly disposed of and stored. (E) The Environmental Health Department may reduce the required dimensions of a trash and recycling service area if: (i) There is demonstration that, given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total square footage, the trash and recycling area proposed will be adequate; P408 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 11 of 12 a. For the purposes of approvals, adequate will be defined as follows: i. For a Commercial, Lodge or Multi-Family building the space must accommodate and provide access to the following types of bins, at the minimum: One (1) garbage collection bin One (1) comingled container recycling collection bin One (1) office paper recycling collection bin One (1) newspaper/magazine recycling collection bin One (1) cardboard recycling collection bin or collection area where boxes can be stacked and contained in an enclosed space; and ii. Access by both the tenants and the waste hauling companies to the trash and recycling service area is adequate; and iii. Measures are provided for locating and enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel; and iv. The proposed area meets the requirements to the greatest extent practicable given physical constraints of the property or existing improvements. (F) The Environmental Health Department shall consider the Special Review within thirty (30) days of the date of permit submittal. The Environmental Health Department shall issue a written decision to the applicant. Sec. 12.10.090 Appeal Procedures (A) An applicant may appeal the decision of the Environmental Health Department by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Administrative Hearing Officer as defined in and pursuant to Chapter 26.222 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Administrative Hearing Officer within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Chapter to appeal any decision or determination. (B) The Administrative Hearing Officer authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. (C) Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Chapter, the Administrative Hearing Officer authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the written decision and record established by the Environmental Health Department. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. P409 VIII.c Exhibit C: Proposed Waste Code Changes, Redlines Page 12 of 12 (D) The Administrative Hearing Officer may reverse, affirm or modify the decision or determination appealed from and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the Environmental Health Department, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The Administrative Hearing Officer may also elect to remand an appeal to the Environmental Health Department for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the Administrative Hearing Officer. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. The Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision shall be submitted to both the Environmental Health Department and the applicant in writing. P410 VIII.c RESOLUTION N0. 26, SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO THE TRASH, UTILITY, AND RECYCLE AREA SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A), the Community Development Department received direction from City Council to explore code amendments related to the Master Plan process; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with City Council regarding the code amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended changes to the trash,utility, and recycle area sections of the land use code; 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 March 18, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 26, Series of 2013, by a four to zero (4— 0) vote, requesting code amendments to the trash, utility, and recycle requirements in the Land Use Code; 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: Section 1: Code Amendment Objective The objective of the proposed code amendments is to update the trash, utility, and recycle provisions in the Land Use Code. Section 2• 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. Resolution No 26, Series 2013—Trash/Utility/Recycle Area Code Amendment Page 1 of 2 P411 VIII.c Section 3• 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. FINALLY, adopted this 18th day of March 2013. Michael . Ireland,Nfayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: athryn S. och, City Cler ames R True, City Attorney Resolution No 26, Series 2013—Trash/Utility/Recycle Area Code Amendment Page 2 of 2 P412 VIII.c Exhibit E Page 1 of 2 Exhibit E: Explanation for specific recycling and trash storage requirements The proposed requirements for trash and recycling storage are based on existing requirements in the Land Use Code and have been expanded or changed using best practice research from other towns and cities. The proposed changes are also influenced by staff experiences and documented time spent working with Aspen’s businesses and residents to overcome barriers related to waste reduction. The most common complaint received from businesses and residents is that there is not enough space at homes and commercial buildings to accommodate both recycling and trash cans, thus requiring residents and business owners to transport recycling to the Rio Grande drop-off center or to not recycle at all. With this reasoning and purpose in mind, staff recommends the following space requirements for trash and recycling storage: Commercial building with no restaurant and fewer than 5 residential units: 200 square feet - Consistent with current Land Use Code requirements - Minimal space to accommodate basic recycling and trash for tenants or users - Would be required to add 1.5 square feet per unit for additional residential units over 5 to allow space to collect additional residential waste including compost or more recycling. Commercial building with restaurant and fewer than 5 residential units: 300 square feet - Allows for the addition of a food waste/compost collection bin - Allows for more comingled container collection bins to collect recycling associated with food and alcohol service common in restaurants - Would be required to add 1.5 square feet per unit for additional residential units over 5 to allow space to collect additional residential waste Lodge or Hotel without a restaurant: 200 square feet - Consistent with current Land Use Code requirements - Minimal space to accommodate basic recycling and trash for this type of use Lodge or Hotel with a restaurant and more than 60 guest rooms: 400 square feet - 20ft. x 20ft. area allows space for a trash compactor measuring 20ft. x 9ft. All existing lodges in the City of this size currently use a trash compactor. - Allows space for a trash compactor, compost bin and multiple recycling containers. - A lodge with a restaurant is the largest trash generator in the City due to the mixed nature of the use that includes office waste, guest waste, and restaurant waste. Small multi-family development (fewer than 10 units): 120 square feet - Smallest space possible to accommodate trash, recycling and compost bins for residents P413 VIII.c Exhibit E Page 2 of 2 - Based on a recent project Environmental Health sponsored at a local multi-family development where a new 120 sq. ft. enclosure was built to store waste. Multi-family development with 30-60 units: 121.5 sq. ft. – 148.5 sq. ft. - Requires more space for each additional unit to avoid overflowing bins or increased pick-up costs Large multi-family development with more than 60 units: 150 sq. ft. + 150 sq. ft./30 units - Instead of adding 1.5 square feet for each additional unit, staff recommends that large developments add space for each block of 30 additional units over 59. This approach guarantees that trash and recycling space increases at the same rate as waste generation. - As a development grows in size, each group of 30 units is accounted for with 150 sq. ft. of storage space. - 150 square feet for 30 units allows enough room for trash, recycling and compost. In addition, it provides space for a cardboard collection bin. P414 VIII.c 1 MemorandumMemorandumMemorandumMemorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney DATE: April 22, 2013 RE: Annexation of South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ COUNCIL REQUEST: The attached ordinance is before the Council on second reading. Adoption of the ordinance is Council’s last step in the annexation proceedings for the South Portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split. DISCUSSION: The Petitioner, South Alps Road, LLC, filed its annexation petition with the City Clerk on December 6, 2012. The Moses Lot Split includes two properties, Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 currently has split jurisdiction between the City and the County. Annexation would allow the entire parcel to be within the City’s jurisdiction. The Petitioner has a land use application pending. As set forth in the attached Ordinance, Council previous determined that the annexation petition contained required statutory information and held its public hearing determining that the petition met statutory requirements. First reading of the Ordinance occurred on March 25, 2013. Zoning of the annexed parcel must be established within ninety days of the effective date of the annexation. The initial zoning is being considered by council in connection with the pending land use matter. ACTION REQUESTED: A Motion to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2013. CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ P415 VIII.d ORDINANCE NO. 8 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH PORTION OF LOT 1, MOSES LOT SPLIT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel ID #273718256003 WHEREAS, on December 6, 2012, Neil D. Karbank on behalf of South Alps Road, LLC, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the area proposed to be annexed, exclusive of streets and alleys, have consented in writing to the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 7, Series of 2013) at its regular meeting on January 14, 2013, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31-12-107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 19, Series of 2013) at its regular meeting on February 25, 2013, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the “South portion of Lot 1, Moses Lot Split”, and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. P417 VIII.d Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22 day of April, 2013, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. 2 P418 VIII.d INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _______ day of _______________________________, 2013. _______________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 P419 VIII.d Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Aspen Valley Hospital – Master Facilities Plan (401 Castle Creek Road) –Final Planned Unit Development, Phases III & IV – Ordinance No. 6, Series 2013 – 2nd Reading, Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 STAFF NOTE: With the issues that came up at the April 8th hearing, the Applicant and staff require additional time to provide information to the City Council. The Applicant requests that the agenda item be continued to the May 13th agenda. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to continue the hearing to May 13th. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the hearing on Ordinance No. 6 (Series 2013), for Phases III and IV of the hospital’s master facilities plan to May 13th.” P421 VIII.e 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tricia Aragon, P.E. – Engineering Department THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director RE: Second Reading Ordinance #12 -- City Wide 20 mph Ordinance DATE: April 11, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This is the second reading to amend the City’s model traffic code (Sec. 24.04.020) to allow for a city wide speed limit of 20 mph PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION During the January 29th work session, Council directed staff to investigate the impacts of reducing the city wide speed limit to 20 mph. These impacts were presented at the March 19th work session. From this work session Council directed staff to revise the municipal code to allow for a city wide speed limit of 20 mph. DISCUSSION With the adoption of this ordinance the City will adopt a City wide speed limit of 20 mph (unless otherwise posted). P423 VIII.f 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Changing out “unless otherwise posted” signs to 20 mph would cost approximately $300 PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the second reading of Ordinance # 12 amending the municipal code of the City of Aspen to adopt a city wide speed limit of 20 mph.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Model Traffic Code Ordinance P424 VIII.f 3 ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. 12 Series of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADOPT A CITY WIDE SPEED LIMIT OF 20 MPH WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is more appropriate to have a city wide speed limit at 20 mph. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That Title 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended as follows: TITLE 24 TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES1, 2 Chapter 24.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 24.04.020. Model Traffic Code. (a) Adoption. Pursuant to Parts 1 and 2 of Article 16 of Title 31 and Part 4 of Article 15 of Title 30, C.R.S., there is hereby adopted by reference Articles I and II, inclusive, of the 2003 edition of the "Model Traffic Code" promulgated and published as such by the Colorado Department of Transportation, Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, EP 700, Denver, Colorado 80222. The subject matter of the Model Traffic Code relates primarily to comprehensive traffic control regulations for the City. The purpose of the Ordinance and the Code adopted herein is to provide a system of traffic regulations consistent with state law and generally conforming to similar regulations throughout the State and nation. Three (3) copies of the Model Traffic Code adopted herein are now filed in the office of the City Clerk, and may be inspected during regular business hours. (b) Deletions. The 2003 edition of the Model Traffic Code is adopted as if set out at length save and except the following articles and/or sections which are declared to be inapplicable to this municipality and are therefore expressly deleted: Please see the Section on additions and modifications immediately following. (c) Additions or modifications. The said adopted Code is subject to the following additions or modifications: (1) Article I. P425 VIII.f 4 (D) Model Traffic Code Section 1101(2) is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: "Twenty-five miles per hour in any residence district, as defined in Section 42-1-102(80), C.R.S." (2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires a lower speed, the following speeds shall be lawful: (a.) Twenty (20) miles per hour throughout the City of Aspen unless otherwise posted; (b.) Any speed not in excess of a speed limit designated by an official traffic control device. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of . _________________________ Mick Ireland, Mayor Attest: __________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk P426 VIII.f 5 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of . _________________________ Mick Ireland, Mayor Attest: P427 VIII.f 1 Memorandum TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: James R. True DATE: April 1, 2013 RE: Campaign Contributions of less than $20.00/Ordinance 9, Series of 2013 ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ COUNCIL REQUEST: The attached ordinance is before the Council on second reading. The ordinance proposes a change to the campaign finance laws regarding the reporting requirements for donations to political campaigns in amounts of less than $20.00. DISCUSSION: Chapter 9.04 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code sets forth the campaign finance laws for the City of Aspen elections. This chapter adopts the State of Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act, 1-45- 101, et seq., C.R.S., (the “Act”) except as otherwise modified within the Chapter. The Act states that the names and addresses of donors of less than $20 need not be reported. Specifically, Section 1-45-108 of the Act states: (1) (a) (I) All candidate committees, political committees, issue committees, small donor committees, and political parties shall report to the appropriate officer their contributions received, including the name and address of each person who has contributed twenty dollars or more; expenditures made, and obligations entered into by the committee or party. The Act only requires that the total amount of all of the smaller donations be reported. The names of the individual donors under $20.00 are not reported. However, Section 1-45-116, of the Act, states: P429 VIII.g 2 Any home rule county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect to its local elections that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this act. In recent elections, parties have collected money in individual amounts of less than $20 in concerted efforts to promote undisclosed donations. Some have argued that obtaining these undisclosed donations, even in such small amounts, are harmful to the election process. It has been argued that this effort promotes a lack of civility in the election process and is unnecessarily and inappropriately divisive in a small community such as Aspen. In addition, the accuracy of the reporting of small donations is very difficult to monitor, as it would never be known whether the reported total of all that was collected were actually received in increments of less than $20. The attached ordinance, as adopted at first reading, proposes an amendment to Section 9.04.020 of the Aspen Municipal Code, requiring that a donor’s name and address be reported regardless of the amount of the donation. It would take effect after the upcoming 2013 election. It should be noted that the proposed amendment does not address anonymous donations. Anonymous donations are donations from an individual who is not known to the recipient. Pursuant to Section 9.04.040 of the Aspen Municipal Code, anonymous donations are prohibited. If a recipient receives a donation from an unknown source, the recipient is required to turn that donation into the Clerk. That donation is then placed into the general fund. Under the current law, all campaigns should know and keep a record of the names of all donors. ACTION REQUESTED: A Motion to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 2013. CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS: _________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ cc: City Manager P430 VIII.g AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 9.04 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9.04.020 RELATING TO DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO CITY CANDIDATES, POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ISSUE COMMITTEES ORDINANCE NO. 9 (Series of 2013) WHEREAS, the electors and governing boards of home rule cities are vested by article XX, §6 of the Colorado Constitution, and the Municipal Home Rule Act of 1971, §§ 31-2-201 to 225 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”), as amended, with the constitutional and statutory authority to adopt home rule charters and enact ordinances, establishing the organization and structure of City government; WHEREAS, §1-45-116, C.R.S., of the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act, states, in pertinent part: Any home rule county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect to its local elections that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this act. WHEREAS, the manner of electing City officers and of financing political campaigns supporting or opposing candidates for City office and ballot issues and ballot questions referred to or initiated by City electors for a vote of the entire City electorate, are matters affecting the organization and structure of City government and are matters affecting the elective franchise and potential abuses of the elective franchise; and, therefore are within the constitutional and statutory authority of City electors and the governing board to regulate by duly adopted home rule charter or ordinance; WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has been organized and operating as a home rule city by virtue of the adoption of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter (the “Charter”) on June 16, 1970; WHEREAS, as a result of its status as a home rule city, the City of Aspen has a forty-two year tradition and culture acknowledging the value and importance of transparency and disclosure in the financing of campaigns in local elections; WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to require that the names of all campaign donors be reported regardless of the amount of donation. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows:  Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks like this.  Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this.  Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and P431 VIII.g WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That Title 9, Section 9.04.020 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended by adding the following: The campaign treasurer, shall prepare, maintain, keep and file records of contributions and expenditures as required by the Act. Notwithstanding any provision within the Act to the contrary, the record of contributions filed pursuant to the Act shall include the names and addresses of all contributors regardless of amount. In the event that the provisions of this Chapter are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the more stringent shall apply. Section 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3: Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of April, 2013, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. Section 5: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective commencing on the 1st day of July, 2013. INTRODUCED, READ AND PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of March, 2013. Attest: _________________________ ____________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor P432 VIII.g FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _______________ 2013. Attest: _________________________ ____________________________________ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ City Attorney P433 VIII.g Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director CC: Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks & Open Space RE: Council Check-in on Theatre Aspen SPA Amendment (Tent Framing) Resolution 47, Series of 2013 MEETING DATE: April 22, 2013 ____________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Theatre Aspen, Emily Zeck Executive Director OWNER: City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Emily Zeck, Theatre Aspen LOCATION: Rio Grande Park 505 Rio Grande Place CURRENT ZONING & USE Public (PUB) with an SPA overlay PROPOSED LAND USE: Theatre Use (Theatre Aspen) SUMMARY: The Applicant was required as part of their 2012 approval to return to City Council for review of the tent framing and walls that are left up in the park during the winter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the original conditions outlined in the approval Ordinance. The picture above shows the performance tent framing with the stage and seating under protective cover (from 2011). BACKGROUND AND LAND USE REQUESTS: The Applicant received approval from City Council to build a new lobby structure and new performance tent structure in January 2012 via Ordinance 38, Series of 2011. That approval granted Theatre Aspen the ability to leave the tent frame up without a roof and with protective walls during the winter months (October – April). P435 VIII.h Page 2 of 3 The approval also required a check-in with City Council after one-year of operation to evaluate the design of the tent and screening during these winter months. The Ordinance stated, “Theatre Aspen shall return to City Council one year from the date of approval, or as soon thereafter as can be scheduled with City Council, to review the design of the tent framing with temporary walls. City Council shall have the ability to amend the SPA approval as necessary to ensure the visual impacts of the tent framing are sufficiently minimized from October to April.” If City Council wishes to amend the conditions, an SPA Amendment, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.100, is required. This is reviewed by City Council during a public hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: Theatre Aspen received approval for a new permanent lobby structure and a new performance tent in January of 2012. The approval allowed the tent to be up, covered with a roof, from April through October of each year. In the intervening months, the approval allowed the tent structure to remain up in the park without a roof and with side screening. This significantly decreased the number of truck trips in the park. Previously, the Theatre Aspen tent was erected each year in mid-May and removed each year in mid-September, generating approximately 48 truck trips a year on the trails in Rio Grande Park. At the time, City Council supported leaving the tent frame up because of the elimination of truck trips that created wear and tear on the park. Council was concerned, however, with the aesthetics of how the tent frame would fit into the park. This lead to adding a condition in the approval requiring a Council check-in to review the tent frame design. Since the approval, Theatre Aspen has worked with the Parks Department to ensure the screening of the tent fits in with the park and creates a secure site. Attached as Exhibit B are pictures of the tent framing from the winter 2012-2013 season. The tent frame with screening walls is currently up in the park to enable Council to review in person if they desire. No site visit is scheduled for this review. STAFF COMMENTS: SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA If Council desires to amend the conditions related to the tent framing, an SPA Amendment is required. The current conditions include: • The tent framing shall be covered with a roof, as weather allows, from April to October of each calendar year. • From October to April of each calendar year, the tent framing shall not be covered with a roof. Temporary sides shall be installed to shield the stage and seating from view. • The stage and seating shall be under protective cover and located on the existing concrete pad. • Theatre Aspen shall provide a security check of the site at least three times per week to ensure the site remains safe and secure. Staff believes these conditions should not be amended. Theatre Aspen has worked with the Parks Department to ensure the tent walls properly screen the site. The walls, in conjunction with the new lobby structure create a clean, well maintained site that provides some interest of will occur P436 VIII.h Page 3 of 3 in the park in the summer. Both Parks and Planning staff are supportive of the current design conditions because they result in less wear and tear on the Rio Grande Park. In addition, with the addition of the new restrooms in the Park, the tent will be even further screened from view. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff reviewed the request with the Parks Department, and they are supportive of the request. Theatre Aspen has worked closely with the Parks Department to ensure screening of the tent frame is adequate and ensures the safety of the site. The Parks Department has indicated they do not support taking the tent frame down during the winter, as it is resource intensive and would require closing of the trail through the park and would create additional wear and tear issues in the park. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Theatre Aspen has requested a waiver of the Land Use Review fees associated with this application. Their fee waiver request is attached as Exhibit E. Staff anticipates 2.5 to 3 hours will be spent on the application, which will total $812.50 to $975. A Parks Department Referral fee of $975 is also required. This fee waiver request is at the discretion of City Council. The Resolution has been written to include the request (see section 2), but can be amended at the hearing based on Council’s decision. The fee waiver request is attached as Exhibit D RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of maintaining the existing conditions placed on the tent, as outlined in Ordinance 38, Series of 2011. This includes: • The tent framing shall be covered with a roof, as weather allows, from April to October of each calendar year. • From October to April of each calendar year, the tent framing shall not be covered with a roof. Temporary sides shall be installed to shield the stage and seating from view. • The stage and seating shall be under protective cover and located on the existing concrete pad. • Theatre Aspen shall provide a security check of the site at least three times per week to ensure the site remains safe and secure. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution 47, Series of 2013, accepting the design conditions regarding the Theatre Aspen Tent as outlined in Section 2 of Ordinance 38, Series of 2011.” ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A – Ordinance 38, Series of 2011 EXHIBIT B – Photos of tent during 2012-2013 winter from Applicant EXHIBIT C – Application EXHIBIT D – Request for Fee Waiver P437 VIII.h Resolution No __, Series 2013 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION N0. 47, (SERIES OF 2013) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING DESIGN CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 38, SERIES OF 2011, FOR THE THEATRE ASPEN TENT FRAMING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT RIO GRANDE PARK, 505 RIO GRANDE PLACE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 1 OF THE RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION. Parcel ID 2737-073-06-851 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2012, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2010, by a four to one (4 – 1) vote, approving an SPA amendment and an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review to allow the construction of a new lobby structure and a new tent structure for Theatre Aspen in the Rio Grande Park; and, WHEREAS, Section 2 of Ordinance 38, Series of 2013 required Theatre Aspen to check-in with City Council after a year, or as soon thereafter as possible, to review the conditions related to the winter design of the tent structure ; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Theatre Aspen, represented by Emily Zeck, Executive Director, requesting continued approval of the conditions outlined in Section 2 of Ordinance 38, Series of 2013; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440, the City Council may approve an amendment to an approved SPA, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 22, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. ___, Series of 20013, by a ___ to ___ (_ – _) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. P439 VIII.h Resolution No __, Series 2013 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The original conditions regarding the design of the tent framing, as outlined in Section 2 of Ordinance 38, Series of 2011, remain in effect. The applicant has satisfied the requirement to check-in with City Council, and no further action is required to meet that condition. The applicant shall continue to work with the Parks Department, as necessary, to ensure the site remains well kept and secure. Section 2: Fee Waiver City Council hereby waives all Planning and Parks fees related to this Land Use Review. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22nd day of April, 2013. APPROVED: ATTEST: _______________________________ _______________________________ Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ James R True, City Attorney P440 VIII.h RECEPTION #: 586032, 01/20/2012 at 09:39:04 AM, 1 OF 8, R $46.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO ORDINANCE NO. 38, SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) AMENDMENT, AND AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, FOR THEATRE ASPEN TO CONSTRUCT A PERMANENT LOBBY STRUCTURE AND TO ALLOW THEATRE ASPEN TO MAINTAIN THEIR TENT FRAME, STAGE, AND SEATING ON -SITE DURING THE WINTER AT RIO GRANDE PARK, 505 RIO GRANDE PLACE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 1 OF THE RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION. Parcel ID 2737 - 073 -06 -851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Theatre Aspen, represented by Charles Cunniffe Architects, requesting approval of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, and an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review, to construct a permanent lobby structure and to permit the theatre tent framing, stage, and seating to remain on -site year round; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment, and Essential Public Facility Growth Lodge Management Review; and, r WHEREAS, the property is located in the Rio Grande Park and is zoned Public (PUB) with an SPA Overlay; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended the Applicant amend the proposal to better comply with the requirements of a Specially Planned Area (SPA); and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on November 1, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 20, Series of 2011, by a four to zero (4 — 0) vote, recommending city Council approve an amendment to the Rio Grande SPA and an Essential Pubic Facilities Growth Management Review for Theatre Aspen; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440, the City Council may approve a SPA Amendment, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.470, the City Council may approve an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly Ordinance 38, Series 2011 Page 1 of 5 P441 VIII.h noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 9, 2012, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 38, Series of 2010, by a four to one (4 — 1) vote, approving an SPA amendment and an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment to the Rio Grande SPA, and an Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review. Section 2: Design The permanent lobby structure shall comply with the plan shown at the November 1 2011 P &Z meeting, and attached as Exhibit A. Theatre Aspen's commemorative brick shall be re- incorporated into the permanent lobby and/or associated patio. The tent framing shall be covered with a roof, as weather allows, from April to October of each calendar year. From October to April of each calendar year, the tent framing shall not be covered with a roof. Temporary sides shall be installed to shield the stage and seating from view. The stage and seating shall be under protective cover and located on the existing concrete pad. This is attached as Exhibit B. Theatre Aspen shall return to City Council one year from the date of approval, or as soon thereafter as can be scheduled with City Council, to review the design of the tent framing with temporary walls. City Council shall have the ability to amend the SPA approval as necessary to ensure the visual impacts of the tent framing are sufficiently minimized from October to April. Ordinance 38, Series 2011 Page 2 of 5 P442 VIII.h Theatre Aspen shall provide a security check of the site at least three times per week to ensure the site remains safe and secure. Section 3: Signage A revised signage plan reflecting changes discussed with staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be submitted to staff prior to City Council review. This shall include replacing a proposed marquee sign with a less imposing sign on a low -lying rock, as outlined in the P &Z meeting on November 1, 2011 and the staff memo for said meeting. Section 4: Temporary Fencing The temporary fencing shown in Exhibit C shall be temporary, and shall only be erected during the theatre season when theatre performances are conducted and when required by the Actors' Equity Association Small Professional Theatre Rulebook, Sec. 48.A.2 -4. The fencing shall be constructed in a manner that does not prevent or limit the use of the trash enclosure for trash storage. Section 5: Essential Public Facility Growth Management Review - Affordable Housing Mitigation Theatre Aspen shall conduct an employee audit one year after final City Council approval for the permanent lobby structure. Volunteer hours shall not be included in the audit. Any additional employees that are not a result of the Rio Grande improvements shall be indicated in the report. However, only those employees that are a result of the improvements shall be subject to future mitigation. The Housing Authority shall request the audit from Theatre Aspen. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid. Theatre Aspen shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community Development Department with the audit report. The Housing Authority and Community Development shall forward the audit to the Housing Board, P &Z and/or City Council for review, as applicable. Section 6: Parks Theatre Aspen shall coordinate all improvements with the Parks Department to ensure they comply with the Parks Department's Master Plan for Rio Grande Park. Theatre Aspen shall comply with Parks Department regulations related to the prohibition of pesticide and herbicide use. The applicant shall ensure the site is clean and secure at all times. The applicant shall work with the Parks Department to ensure compliance during the fall and winter months when the tent is taken down each year. Section 7: Environmental Health Theatre Aspen shall undertake a noise monitoring program for its productions to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance, as amended from time to time. The current noise limits are 55 dBA from 7am — 9pm, and 50 from 9pm — 7am. The noise monitoring program shall verify compliance with the noise ordinance, by Theatre Aspen staff, before opening night of each production. It shall also include continued monitoring throughout the summer theatre season given background noise levels may vary. Noise level readings shall be taken at multiple locations along the property line of r i.. Ordinance 38, Series 2011 Page 3 of 5 P443 VIII.h the Rio Grande Park. The noise monitoring program shall be filed with the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, who may require it to be updated as needed. Concessions at the tent historically have only been pre - packaged, non - potentially hazardous foods, and beverages without ice, due to the fact that Theatre Aspen does not hold a food service license nor have permanent plumbing. For special events serving food held at Theatre Aspen a temporary food permit must be submitted for approval to the Aspen Environmental Health Department prior to the event to ensure the protection of public health. Section 8: Engineering The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. A construction management plan should be submitted as part of building permit. Section 9: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. No lighting shall be permitted in the stream margin area (fifteen (15) foot setback area from top of slope) or in any area below the top of slope line (toward the river) unless it is in the exact location of the existing lighting and requires no additional disturbance to the stream margin area. Section 10: Theatre Aspen Lease Within 180 days of City Council approval, Theatre Aspen shall re- execute their long -term lease on the Rio Grande Park to reflect this approval. Section 11: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 12: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Ordinance 38, Series 2011 Page 4 of 5 P444 VIII.h The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 14: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9 day of January, 2012, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12 day of December, 2011. Attest: At/A—Het kisi Kathryn S. och, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, May r FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 1G1; Attest: 1KathrynKoch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: orney EXHIBITS: Exhibit A: Plans for the permanent lobby structure Exhibit B: Rendering of tent framing and screening Exhibit C: site plan indicating location of proposed actor's privacy fence. Ordinance 38, Series 2011 Page 5 of 5 P445 VIII.h Pr rm.-.kw 411iI 1 st / i V v 1r r . i a 4 yap{ li g ar, :/ a' Irra 1 vie fir 1 , ; ; 1 :i I! 44 riiiI,litt;P ilk 7 e ,,(7/ i ti I, j.• ®rte 1 ,,,.. r p J i t il ,„0. - --- ; .,- -- -_-_- - ,,,, 4, ,,- 11 tJ#IVt:(in i et l 4. Hi lip 4, e K Ui I'lljfl9 1111!is n I D a is THEATRE ASPEN CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS N p DCISMI IMAMSAWNW I .M IgIY• P446 VIII.h J S. 4t l 4••. h • t 1 ir F 4 ifs' 1 ' 1 / l • y • } 1 1 s t i X 1 1 1 ! r. " 4 y Q' 1 1 e t, • a 1 ' 1.. V ' ' ' itak.. Q l t , ii 6,-.- . 4 , 4. 4.,, i.•:., ..,,.., . ...., • 1 4,,,.,.., i , fSI r '' i wt t Y! r; t i t. }" f f . , 1 ilfifik i 1 1 ‘ c ,,,, r I 76t c .. F i. II' r f4- f. f ' k. R N f Yin i 4 . I wt. r 4. i , T • 1. 4 i ' \ Pit; W ,, , 4,,.• 1 1 I. , . 4: i it 4 ,. ' , 1 Irk p, g r. e y r i 1 • . 1 t illy, f. hi se I. • 10, P4 4 7 VI I I . h 6 oPuoloa ' ilea sy 4111111111010111110 41 Til in; NVid U3IVArt lAIIJOIS 1)! IIII 1 t L! u- rz r" I : :;-_"' r,: i U.; 1 N3dSV 3h11V3H. I. 1 i7) i;;,, i i lik1111111 2 I ) 111Vd 3ONVZ: 10 01U lilt') 1 1- 11' 11111 II; Ff. 1 0 t_ 0 4 I -- 1 d 9 865p.- .. 1 0mu, z 1' A , ;•,- ••• v .. e).—,---- 7-. I ri t" --- i7 : . .--. . - ' i • 0 fr 0 7 ''':'.. . •• ' Woo r c,... 7-- •• \ - L... Y cY _. n ... t .,:.2.. ......, 77..., c...... ft,. N-- 7. L 4. 4.. 4. x.. 15 c.) • . . , ..' • . .) . • . : e • . . 1h. 4 V 6 4 clej celliffir Q/ . . 11 ,, c... j 0 1 r Zit IP ' 11 93.,-„ cc >- 0 , ili g4 . t • , 4% a ir A g ., t ! . 1 (..\ 4 z. o, 1/ 4,.. s t r• . N, c2 L9 C5 I ' ' " 11 I 4 1 r" NA' ‘ i 4 - 0 . ` t 1 : ; " I-/ 3 t% 1,, r.'-'" Jo ' v 7 , { 1 g• i - 1 i- sil . 1 l f I. garN 1 1: . • . \ L. I 11 1 , v... N,,, y . i 5; ..,///;\;\\\ 1 r, _ I. ‘• 1_, i__ . ,„....,,-,-, .... .,.. ._. j‘ ... ..;. : !..; : 1 ,- f 1 ''':•.---.: 7 - -- -',.•,:.. l-- allrIS' ' X .. 1 th kV 1, 1 b 44 ..!._ -- •••;,-- _ _ 4- 4,...... 3, t.. • V. - il i 0 1". .. '' \ '. i . t\ - V ' t - • 1 ., C.. f 4 ' 4 , 7 j .,•:-. A.113, 7, e, I. i 1 4. .--, .;:., V" i r ., ... s N. • 4 ...? j , , ,, L . 4. ' t . N'' !‘ c •-•;,.... - - ti •,. - A 7 7 . n L. 1 7, 41c,,./..,j t 1, 4 a' . - 4. '-;-, 6 0 1,,.(...,,.:.: 1 ..\-::-..... ( N., : -. 91 .: ' \ ‘; c11 ` 4cl ' ‘ ' ,. .\\ :...';‘,.'`..,.: 7 • t- Lp'-''' q .. ti ) - LI.---,:,_\,-... v k\' t ( o-\ , . - 0, 4. '. .., ar. sq- 1 7 4, N ' . . "."'''' . tK \ ic '?, d"- n••-• i - i' '.. V 4;_ 1 . 4 :;?- --,--- v X . C— L 7„.., t 11 ' \ 1" i"--. " ' > . i ) 1‘..§ . 1 • ' ' . I 0,_ 4 P4 4 8 VI I I . h LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THEATRE ASPEN THIS LEASE AGREEMENT entered into at Aspen, Colorado, this day of 2011, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation and home -rule city ( "hereinafter "City "), and THEATRE ASPEN a Colorado non - profit corporation (hereinafter "Tenant "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the Rio Grande Park in Aspen, Colorado and desires to lease to Tenant certain space within the Rio Grande Park, as further described herein; and WHEREAS, Tenant desires to lease that certain space within the Rio Grande Park for the purposes set forth below and upon the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council on January 9, 2012 approved Ordinance 38, Series 2011, approving an amendment to the Rio Grande SPA Final Development Plan and a Growth Management Exemption as an Essential Public Facility to allow for the construction of a permanent lobby structure, and allowing the tent framing with temporary walls to remain erected for a one -year test period; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 38, Series 2011, required that Theatre Aspen's lease of the property be re- executed and updated within 180 days of the approval; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto understand that this Lease Agreement is specifically conditioned upon the Aspen City Council granting the requisite land use approvals for the proposed uses within the Rio Grande Park. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1.Term. The initial term of this Lease Agreement shall be for a period of ten (10) years and nine (9) months, effective January 1, 2011, and terminating at the conclusion of Tenant's 2021 season on October 1, 2021. An additional term of ten (10) years (terminating on October 1, 2031) shall automatically be added to the initial term provided that Tenant provides the City with written notice at least 6 months prior to the end of the initial term that it intends to renew the term of this Lease Agreement for an additional ten years. The parties hereto agree to discuss the continuation of the Lease Agreement no less than six (6) months before its termination. Negotiations for the continuation of this Lease Agreement shall be subject to review by the City, and shall proceed upon good faith by both parties. Page 1 P449 VIII.h 2.Premises. The Premises subject to this Lease Agreement shall be the area outlined within the Rio Grande park as shown on Exhibit 1 appended hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as if fully set forth here. 3.Use. The Premises may be used by Tenant solely for the purpose of placing a tent in substantially the area shown on Exhibit 1, and constructing or placing a ticketing and concessionaire's structure to remain on the Premises during the duration of this Lease Agreement. Tenant may use the Premises for the presentation of theatrical productions and related operations. Tenant may occasionally rent out the Premises to third parties who may use the Premises for similar purposes. The uses permitted on the Leased Premises shall comply in all respects with any and all conditions required by the City in any approvals that may be granted to the Tenant by the Aspen City Council pursuant to the Aspen Municipal Code. Prompt clean -up of the Premises after each summer season shall be conducted by Tenant. Materials kept within the Premises should be contained to the tent and structure layout as shown on Exhibit 1 under protective cover and within existing enclosed structures on property which total approximately 250 sq ft. Any improvements or replacements planned to these existing structures should not cause total enclosed sq footage to exceed 500 sq ft total or maximum height for any enclosed structure to exceed 15 ft. Any unenclosed structures that remain onsite of the Premises year- round, including but not limited to framework for theatre's lobby structure, shall be subject to the prior approval of the City Council by the review of a Specially Planned Area amendment process or the Community Development through administrative review, as appli cabl e. Tenant shall not use the Premises for any other purposes without the City's written consent. Tenant's use and occupancy of the above - described Premises shall comply with the rules, regulations and ordinances of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Premises or the activities performed thereon. Additionally, Tenant shall not use the Premises in any manner that will create an increase in the rate of insurance or a cancellation of any insurance policy, even if such use may be in furtherance of Tenant's operations. In the event that Tenant proposes to use the Premises in a manner that would increase the City's insurance premiums, the City and Tenant agree to discuss such plans to determine if there is a way to minimize the costs to the City and still permit the proposed activity to take place. Tenant shall not keep, use or sell anything prohibited by any policy of fire insurance covering the Premises. Tenant shall return to City Council one year from the date of approval in Ordinance 38, Series 2011 (January 9, 2013), or as soon thereafter as can be scheduled with City Council, to review the design of the tent framing with temporary walls. City Council shall have the ability to amend the SPA approval as necessary to ensure the visual impacts of the tent framing are sufficiently minimized, including an order to remove the structure if deemed by City Council as the appropriate solution. Tenant shall undertake a noise monitoring program for its productions to ensure compliance with the City's noise ordinance, as amended from time to time. The noise monitoring program shall Page 2 P450 VIII.h verify compliance with the noise ordinance, by Tenant, before opening night of each production. It shall also include continued monitoring throughout the summer theatre season given background noise levels may vary. Noise level readings shall be taken at multiple locations along the property line of the Rio Grande Park. The noise monitoring program shall be filed with the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department, who may require it to be updated as needed. 4.Time of Occupancy, Acceptance, Surrender of Premises and Abandonment. Tenant shall be entitled to use and occupy the Premises during all times as set forth in the land use approvals granted by the City. At all other times Tenant may use the Premises only with the prior approval of the City. If the Tenant abandons the Premises for a period of more than 30 days (excepting the off - season) then this Lease Agreement shall automatically terminate and shall be considered a breach by Tenant. Tenant shall be responsible for landscape restoration of the Premises to a park condition of turf grass sod. 5.Rent. Tenant agrees to pay a total of $10.00 per year to the City as rent for the Premises, payable on the first day of each calendar year. 6.Access to Premises. City shall be entitled to enter upon the Premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting the same, preventing waste or loss, or enforcing any of City's rights hereunder. Vehicular access to the Premises shall be restricted. Except for sanitation service vehicles and trash removal vehicles intended to service the Premises, vehicular access to the tent site shall be restricted to deliveries of theatre property or tools weighing over 50 pounds. All deliveries must be accompanied by a person on foot in front of the vehicle to warn pedestrians and park users for safety reasons. 7.Maintenance and Repairs. Tenant, at its sole expense, shall keep the Premises in a good, clean and safe condition. Tenant shall be responsible for all maintenance inside the Premises as shown on Exhibit 1, including pathways, entrance landscaping, structures and infrastructure. This list may not be inclusive. Tenant shall not be responsible for snow removal inside the Premises unless required for access to theatre property. The City shall be responsible for irrigation maintenance on the Premises and adjacent park area and be responsible for grounds maintenance in the park area outside of the Premises, including pathways and any lighting outside of the Premises. Tenant shall be responsible for any electrical infrastructure and lighting inside the Premises. 8.Utilities and Security System. Tenant shall be responsible for all utilities used on the Premises. Theatre Aspen shall provide a security check of the site either in person or via a remote monitoring system at least three times per week to ensure the site remains safe and secure. 9.Personal Property. All personal property and trade fixtures placed on the Premises shall be at Tenant's sole risk and City shall not be liable for damage to or loss of such personal property or trade fixtures arising from the acts or neglect of Tenant, its agents or employees. Any personal property or trade fixtures of Tenant or anyone claiming under Tenant, which shall remain on the Premises after the date upon which the Premises shall be Page 3 P451 VIII.h surrendered shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be retained by City as its property or disposed of by City in such a manner as City sees fit. 10. Taxes. In the event any taxes are levied and assessed upon the Premises or upon the improvements, fixtures or personal property of the Tenant during the term of Tenant's occupancy of the Premises or arising therefrom, or upon the leasehold or possessory interests as created through this lease, Tenant shall be solely responsible to satisfy and pay all such taxes in a timely fashion. Tenant shall not allow any liens for taxes or assessments to exist with respect to the Premises, except that Tenant may permit such taxes or assessment to remain unpaid while pursuing any good faith contest or appeal of same. 11. Indemnification. Unless caused by the negligence of the City, Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other similar loss, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with Tenant's occupancy of the Premises pursuant to this Agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, the omission, error, or negligence of the Tenant, any subcontractor of the Tenant, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Tenant or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Tenant. 12. Public Liability Insurance. Tenant agrees to furnish City with certificate(s) of insurance as proof that it has secured and paid for a policy of public liability insurance covering all standard risks related to the leasing, use, or occupancy, of the Premises. The insurance shall be procured from a company authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and be satisfactory to City. The amount of this insurance, shall not be less than the maximum liability that can be imposed upon the City of Aspen under the laws of the State of Colorado found at C.R.S. 24 -10 -101 et seq., as amended. At present, such amounts shall be as follows: 150,000.00 for any injury to one person in any single occurrence; 600,000.00 for any injury to two or more persons in any single occurrence. In no event shall such insurance amounts fall below those maximum liability limits as set forth at C.R.S. 24 -10 -114, as amended. 13. Premises Insurance. During the full term of this Agreement, Tenant, at its sole cost and expense, and at Tenant's discretion, may also cause all of the furniture, fixtures, and equipment in the premises to be kept insured, without co- insurance clauses, to the full insurable value against the perils of wind, storm, hail, lightning, explosion, fire and like perils. Full insurance value" means the cost, as of the date of loss, for replacement of the damaged or destroyed property in a new condition with materials of like size, kind and quality. The insurance shall stand as primary insurance for the furniture, fixtures, and equipment in the Premises to be procured from a company authorized to do business in the Page 4 P452 VIII.h State of Colorado and be satisfactory to the City. All policies as required herein shall contain a waiver of subrogation by the insurer against City. 14. Termination Due to Fire or Similar Catastrophe. If, absent negligence or fault on the part of Tenant, the Premises shall be damaged by fire or other catastrophe so as to render said Premises wholly untenantable, and if such damage is so great that a competent licensed architect in good standing in Pitkin County, Colorado, as selected by the City within fourteen (14) days from the date of loss, shall certify in writing to the City and Tenant that the Premises, with reasonable diligence, cannot be made fit for occupancy within ninety (90) days from the happening of the occurrence of the damage, then Tenant shall have thirty (30) days from date of official notification of this decision to decide whether to maintain this Lease Agreement and be solely responsible for restoring the Premises to working condition or whether to terminate this Lease Agreement and vacate the Premises. Such a termination of the Lease Agreement shall not forgive Tenant's obligation to restore the landscape of the Premises to a park condition of turf grass sod as outlined in Section 3. If, however, the damage is not such as to prevent reoccupation and use of the Premises within ninety (90) days, then repairs thereto shall be undertaken by Tenant with all reasonable speed to restore the Premises to its former condition and the Lease Agreement shall remain in effect. All insurance proceeds resulting from Tenant's insurance policies and coverage shall remain property of Tenant, regardless of official decision regarding the condition of Premises or Tenant's decision whether to terminate Agreement and restore the Premises. 15. City to be Named a Co- Insured or Additional Insurance. Tenant shall name City as co- insured or additional insured on all insurance policies and such policies shall include a provision that written notice of any non - renewal, cancellation or material change in a policy by the insurer shall be delivered to City thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date. 16. Repairs and Alterations by Tenant. Tenant, pursuant to any land use approvals received from the city, or upon City's written consent, may, at its own expense, make reasonable and necessary alterations or improvements to the Premises. All alterations, additions and improvements shall be performed in a workmanlike manner, in accordance with all applicable building and safety codes, and shall not weaken or impair the structural strength or lessen the value of the Premises. All alterations, additions and improvements made in or to the Premises shall be the property of Tenant and remain the property of Tenant upon termination of this Lease Agreement. Tenant agrees that prior to any construction or installation of alternations, additions or improvements, Tenant shall post on the Premises in a conspicuous place a notice of non - liability for mechanic's lien as specified at C.R.S. Section 38 -22 -105 on behalf of the City and shall notify City of such posting and the exact location of same. Perfection of a mechanic's lien against the Premises as a result of Tenant's acts or omissions may be treated as a material breach of this Lease Agreement. 17. Repairs and Alterations by City. City reserves the right, from time to time, at its own expense and by its officials, employees and contractors, to make such alterations, maintenance activities, renovations or repairs in and about the Rio Grande Park, other than those noted above as required by Tenant, as City deems necessary or desirable and Tenant Page 5 P453 VIII.h covenants to make no claim against City for any interference with its interest as herein provided in the Premises. Any such activity within the Premises may only take place upon Tenant's consent. City shall provide reasonable notice to Tenant in advance of any intent to undertake any work in the Rio Grande Park as authorized in this paragraph and all work shall be performed at such times as may be mutually agreed to between the parties so as to eliminate or minimize any disruption of Tenant's business. The City shall, however, have the final decision making authority as to what time is reasonable under the circumstances. 18. Condemnation. If during the term of this Lease Agreement, or any renewal of it, the whole or part of the Premises, or such portion as will make the Premises unusable for the purpose leased, or the leasehold interest, be condemned by public authority, including City, for public use, then this Agreement shall cease as of the date of the vesting of title in the Premises in such condemning authority, or when possession is given to such authority, whichever event occurs first. Tenant shall not be entitled to any part of any condemnation award for the value of the unexpired term of this Agreement or for any other estate or interest in the Premises, such amount belonging entirely to City. 19. Assignment of Agreement. Tenant shall not assign, pledge, sublease or otherwise dispose of or encumber this lease, or the leased Premises, without the prior written consent of the City, except as allowed in section 3 above. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Tenant shall, likewise, not permit any third party to occupy or use the Premises absent the prior written consent of the City except as allowed in Section 3. 20. Signs. Tenant shall not place any signs upon the Premises or upon the Rio Grande Park except of such design and construction as may be permitted by City. It is understood by the parties that placement of an identification sign or signs is important and necessary to Tenant's business. Accordingly, the City hereby consents to allowing Tenant to place banners of Tenant's choosing within the Premises as shown on Exhibit 1 provided they comply with the City's sign code. Additional banners or signs outside of the Premises within Rio Grande Park may only be placed with the approval of Parks staff. Any sign permitted by City shall at all times comply with applicable ordinances, rules and regulations. 21. Breach by Tenant Defined. If Tenant shall fail to timely comply with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, any term or condition of the land use approvals granted by the City, or any notice given under it, or shall become insolvent, or shall have or attempt to make an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if any of its property be attached and such attachment is not promptly released, or if an execution be issued against it, or, if a petition be filed by or against it, to have it adjudicated a bankrupt, or if a trustee or receiver shall be created or appointed to take charge of its assets, or if it shall abandon the Premises for a period of more than thirty (30) days (not including seasonal closures) then at any time afterwards City may treat such act or omission as a breach of this Lease Agreement and, at its option, enter into the Premises and remove all persons and take and retain possession thereof either with or without process of law. Page 6 P454 VIII.h 22. City's Remedy for Breach. Any breach, default or failure by Tenant to perform any of the duties or obligations assumed by Tenant under this Lease Agreement shall be cause for termination of the Lease Agreement by City in the manner set forth in this paragraph. City shall deliver to Tenant thirty (30) days' prior written notice of its intention to terminate this Lease Agreement, including in the notice a reasonable description of the breach, default or failure. If within that thirty (30) days Tenant shall fail or refuse to cure, adjust or correct the breach, default or failure to the reasonable satisfaction of City, the City shall have the right to declare this Lease Agreement terminated and all rights, powers and privileges of Tenant as provided through the Lease Agreement shall cease, and Tenant shall immediately vacate the entire Premises and shall make no claim of any kind against City by reason of the termination. The thirty (30) days' prior written notice shall be conclusively determined to have been delivered to Tenant by the hand delivery of same upon the Tenant's primary address set forth herein, or at the time it is deposited in the U.S. Mail, certified, postage prepaid, addressed to the address set forth herein. 23. Non - Waiver of Rights. Any failure by City to so terminate this Lease Agreement as herein provided after the breach, default or failure by Tenant to adhere to the terms of the Lease Agreement shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver or continuing waiver by City of any rights to terminate the Lease Agreement for any present or subsequent breach, default or failure. 24. Non - Discrimination. Tenant agrees to comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that may pertain or apply to the Premises and its use. In performing under the Lease Agreement, Tenant shall not discriminate against any worker, employee or job applicant, or any member of the public, because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital status, physical handicap, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility or political affiliation, nor otherwise commit an unfair employment practice. 25. Notice. Whenever this Agreement calls for or provides for notice and notice is not otherwise specified, the same shall be provided in writing and shall be served on the person(s) as designated by the parties below, either in person or by certified mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested. For City:Aspen City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 For Tenant: Managing Director Theatre Aspen 110 E. Hallam St., Ste 103 Aspen, CO 81611 The parties may change or add such designated person(s) or addresses as may be necessary from time to time in writing. Page 7 P455 VIII.h 26. Binding Effect. All of the terms and conditions as contained in this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and a ssigns of the parties. 27. Controlling Law. This Lease Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Any action brought to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be brought in the District Court in and for Pitkin County, Colorado. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Agreement or matters arising therefrom, the prevailing party shall be awarded its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 28. Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire Lease Agreement by the parties concerning the Premises and shall supplant and supersede any previous agreements between the parties pertinent to the Premises. Any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreement that purports to vary from the terms as set forth herein shall be void and of no effect. 29. Amendments. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease Agreement and all of its terms and conditions may not be amended or modified absent a written agreement duly executed by the parties. 30. Condition Precedent. This Lease Agreement is specifically conditioned upon the Aspen City Council granting the requisite land use approvals to Tenant for the proposed uses on the Leased Premises and Tenant's acceptance of same, including any conditional terms related to approvals. Furthermore, this Lease Agreement is hereby subject to all the terms and conditions that may be required by the Aspen City Council in any land use approvals granted to Tenant for the proposed uses described herein. WHEREFORE, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement upon the dates as forth herein. THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO By: Stev arwick, City Manager ATTEST: athryn S. h, Cit Clerk Page 8 P456 VIII.h TENANT: Theatre Aspen By:Cl Emily Zeckanaging Director Page 9 P457 VIII.h M CdtOL• M v°342z2m - : o cal 7.7 wm o mcm_am ;Eo3mm oe0m :::.-1 LLQ 1 --n = 2 gip A 9SpU3. oy ¢ m R 0 am Z :`m Ac w m -c z0 . i mo`0 0Q c. Gc°[Vu o o L°lgamNs j d o 4 nIO I I I % "' 4 0 ril its 0 0 p u .4.w b Cil v Uoa . a 5, v u a' W Al u r,2111 k y •O , . O O awl L G• ^O rr pa0 Mai n'a 0 u y VD Lin F. ' A i 1,I O. w H a N h a N a N ao a,a , L r H z a a 3 c ro'o n v n 3U a c ti o a,toU O m G k E c a '" w0 a L'r u.C u. F4 U T B G ., u,.. ' O — ON E u p.," a s7 C5 v a N v v° F.tn v v a°Imo v w0 O _i E C o C u c .W n. ai u U 0, • o - i 5' " b cd L N E4 O i .a' ° n OA > >ca.'Y E8 0 W ro a ° a 3° 3 a o 3U u 0 vym• c a ° vc . a a G flt v va up 0 3 " . . L i t 2 LLen + -' a u C u°u 79 71 5 G'y ' N cd L v y N V1 H vVi c U z t v o °.0 O h N C O p m R I-a. o4 u E M u.N 0 dM P4 5 8 VI I I . h P4 5 9 VI I I . h P4 6 0 VI I I . h P4 6 1 VI I I . h P4 6 2 VI I I . h