Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060227 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 27, 2004 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #10, 2006 - Acknowledging Members of Aspen Global Warming Alliance b) c) Supporting APPA Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Program Minutes - February 6,13,2006 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #9,2006 - 410 S. West End Street Subdivision VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #8, 2006 - Supplemental Appropriation for Wheeler b) Ordinance #2,2006 - Blue Vic, 202 North Monarch Subdivision c) Ordinance #5, 2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot SplitJPUD d) Ordinance #7,2006 - Water and Electric Rate Increase IX. Action Items a) Resolution #11, 2006 - Contract - AABC Affordable Housing b) Red Brick Funding X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting March 13.2006 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. RESOLUTION NO.1') Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ACKNOWLEDGING THE MEMBERS OF THE ASPEN GLOBAL WARMING ALLIANCE. WHEREAS, climate change could be the most critical current threat to Aspen's way oflife, health, and economy; and WHEREAS, local actions can help to pave the way for national and international leadership; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that addressing the potentially adverse affects of global warming upon the health and economic well-being of its citizens and guests is, and should be, of the highest priority for the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that more should be done to address the potential risks associated with the phenomenon of global warming, including, but not necessarily limited to: greenhouse gas reduction activities, energy security and cost reduction; affordable housing; mobility and, transportation choices; solid waste reduction and recycling; reliable, affordable water supply; urban and rural forest protection; sustainable economic development; and, clean air; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved "The Canary Initiative," recognizing that there is a wealth of expertise in the area, thus calling on other non-profit organizations in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley for the establishment of the Aspen Global Warming Alliance; and WHEREAS, The Aspen Global Warming Alliance should be free to establish its own goals and objectives, but should initially attempt to guide the City of Aspen in the implementation of the Canary Initiative; and WHEREAS, the founding members involved in the creation of the Aspen Global Warming Alliance include the Aspen Institute, the Aspen Skiing Company, the Aspen Global Change Institute, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency; and WHEREAS, additional indiv.iduals and organizations have generously offered their time and effort to assist in guiding the Canary Initiative by becoming a member of the Aspen Global Warming Alliance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Membership in the Aspen Global Warming Alliance as of this date includes: City of Aspen Aspen Institute Aspen Skiing Company Aspen Global Change Institute Rocky Mountain Climate Organization Community Office for Resource Efficiency Susan Joy Hassol; Climate Change Author, Independent Scholar on Climate Change Rocky Mountain Institute New Century Transportation Foundation Holy Cross Energy Climate Mitigation Services Aspen Center for Environmental Studies INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, 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 ,2006. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk DJR- saved: 2/23/2006-G:\g1obalwarming\AGW A \AGW A Resolution.doc ,~~~ b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council ~""-"A Phil Overeynder, Utilities Dire~ FROM: CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager CC: John Worcester, City Attorney DATE: February 22, 2006 RE: APPA plug-in hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV's) SUMMARY: The proposed signing of the American Public Power Association (APPA) "Plug-In Partner" Participation Agreement will identify the city of Aspen as a Founding Plug-in Partner of a nationwide, grassroots campaign to encourage automobile manufacturers to develop Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs). While several auto manufacturers are now creating hybrid electric vehicles, most believe that there is not a significant PHEV market. The purpose of the Plug-In Partner campaign is to show auto manufacturers that there is a strong PHEV market. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A DISCUSSION: Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs), which are on the market today, combine an internal combustion engine with an electric motor. Their battery is charged primarily by a gasoline engine. In contrast, PHEV s have a large battery pack that can travel 30 or more miles (average American round-trip commute) before internal combustion engine takes over. The battery pack can be charged from any regular household outlet. Availability of PHEV s in the future will assist in driving down energy prices over time and show the city's commitment to creating a healthier environment for future generations. See attached "Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Fact Sheet" for additional information provided by APP A. CURRENT ISSUES: The national Plug-In Partner campaign is already underway and had its official kick-offlast month in Washington D.C. APPA, of which the city of 1 Aspen is a member, has already adopted a resolution in June of 2005 that supports efforts to promote PHEVs. Additionally, APPA has already agreed to participate as a Plug-In Partner. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There would be no cost to the city of Aspen. We will simply be identified as a founding Plug-In Partner and join the grassroots efforts to encourage the manufacturing ofPHEVs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: PHEVs will dramatically reduce automotive tail pipe emissions. If the electricity used to charge the PHEV batteries is generated from fossil fuel, some emissions will occur but it will be considerably less. Additionally, there will4fo emissions from electricity used to charge PHEVs ifthis electricity is produced from hydropower, solar, and/or wind. Recharging PHEV batteries from cleaner sources of power would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends signing the Plug-In Partner Participation Agreement so that city of Aspen becomes a Founding Plug-In Partner of this national campaIgn. ALTERNATIVES: Elect not to sign and participate in the national campaign that will encourage auto manufacturers to develop plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). PROPOSED MOTION: I move to allow staff to execute APPA's Plug-In Partner Participation Agreement. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2 . ~f'~. 11"")1 American PubUc Power Association December 7, 2005 2301 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037-1484 202/467-2900 202/467-2910 (1ax) www.APPAn't.org MEMORANDUM TO: APP A Members FROM: Alan H. Richardson President & CEO SUBJECT: Participatian in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) Plug-in Partners I am writing to. invite yau to jain a natianwide, public power-led grassraots campaign to. encaurage auto manufacturers to. develap plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The availability ofPHEVs will allaw yaur utility and community to. have more chaices in the future as it makes energy decisians, may help to. drive down energy prices over time, and will help to. fulfill public pawer's cammitment to. create a better environment for future generatians. This campaign, which will be launched with a press event in Washington, D.C. on January 24, 2006, is already gathering support fram public pawer systems, city and county gavernments, industries, enviranmental groups, palicy makers and others. Your participation would be at no cost to your utility or community. All that is required to join the campaign is to sign up as a "Plug-In Partner" on the attached form and return it to APPA, which is warking clasely with Austin Energy, the community-0wned electric utility in Texas that is spearheading this effart. Your utility will then be identified as a founding Plug-In Partner on a list that will be released to the press when the campaign is formally launched. After that, I hape you will take additional steps to help bring the promising benefits af plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reality by convincing auto. manufacturers to bring these vehicles to. the market. Far your benefit, APPA has established an area on our website that contains valuable infarmation far your use to. help convince au.ta manufacturers that there is a strang market far PHEVs. Please refer to our website at httn: / !\v\\,\v.APPAnet.org for further information on this issue. We hape that yaur utility will cansider signing an to this impartant effart as a Faunding Plug-in Partner. Shauld yau choase to. participate, we wauld like to. receive yaur responses no later than Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Please send yaur campleted Plug-in Participatian farms either by fax, email, ar standard delivery mail to.: Jeanine Arnett Grassroots Caordinatar American Public Pawer Associatian 2301 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Phane:202/467-2934 Fax: 202/467-2910 jarnett@appanet.arg .~\n Parr. ~ rcH:J Plug-lnPilrtners Nation..! Campaign Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Fact Sheet What are PHEVs? A Quick Overview Rybrid electric vehicles (REYs)on the market today, such as Toyota's Prius, combine an inter- nal combustion engine with an electric motor. vVhile these are more efficient than regular internal combustion engine vehicles, their bat- tery is charged primarily by the gasohne engine. By design, t,oe battery cannot be charged from the grid and in any case is too small to enable the vehicle to travel several miles in the electric-only mode. In contrast, PREYs have a larger battery pack that can trav- el 30 or more miles (the average round-trip commute for many Americans) before the internal combustion engine takes over. This battery pack can be charged from any regular household outlet so owners have the conven- ience of a refueling station at home. While several auto manufacturers are now embracing traditional hybrid electric vehicles, they have not widely embraced PREYs for a number of reasons, including their conviction that there is not a significant PREY market. The Plug-in Partner campaign is designed to show they are wrong-that in fact a strong PREY market does exist. As described in greater detail at the Plug.in Partner Web site, the pubhc policy and electric utility reasons for joining this effort are highly compelling. PHEVs Address Some of Our Most Serious Energy and Environmental Problems PREYs can help us address several of the most important issues facing America today-includ- ing national security, economic security, air pol- lution, and climate change. We all recognize that our national security is jeopardized by OUf reliance on foreign oil, par- ticularly oil from countries that are politically unstable. We can dramatically reduce this reliance if we can find alternatives to oil as the primary fuel for transportation. PREYs provide this alternative-electricity generated for the most part from domestic fuel sources. Our economic security is similarly jeopard- ized as bilhons of U.S. dollars flow overseas to pay for the oil we buy to fuel personal and commercial transportation vehicles. PHEVs can help reduce tJ.~e money sent overseas for foreign oil. In addition, internal combustion engines are a major source of air pollution. PHEVs will dra- matically reduce automotive tail pipe emissions. Obviously, if the electricity used to charge the PREY batteries is generated from fossil fuel, some emissions will occur, but these are likely to be considerably fewer, and easier to address, than the total emissions from millions of mobile sources. And there are no emissions from elec~ tricity produced by hydropower, solar, wind and nuclear facilities. Finally, recharging PHEV batteries from cleaner sources of power, including in particu- lar non-carbon emitting sources of electricity, and substituting clean "'electric" miles for gaso- line miles, would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and help address another serious issue-global chmate change-without federal mandates. PHEVs and the Electric Utility Industry APPA and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) co-sponsored a symposium on PREYs in Los Angeles in mid-November, 2005. The participants agreed that the factors above, among others, presented an almost overwhelm- ing case for a greater convergence of the trans- AFFII AmerIcan Public Power Association Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Fact Sheet portation and electric sectors of our economy. This convergence will occur as PREYs begin to replace our nation's fleet of internal combustion vehicles. In addition to the benefits described above, there are utihty benefits that would be reahzed if PHEVs can he brougbt to market. For exam- ple. PHEVs could help utihties balance their load by encouraging off-peak battery charging. This will help utilities make more efficient use of existing generation. In the future, if the proper infrastructure is in place to feed elec- tricity back into the grid, utihties could tap into ... the energy stored in the batteries of PHEVs to meet peak demand. Become a Plug-in Partner Consistent with a resolution adopted at Qur national conference in June that supports efforts to promote PREYs, APPA has already agreed to participate as a Plug-in Partner. I hope that you will discuss this important issue with your local pohcymakers and become a founding partner today. Plug.ln Partners National Campaign Plug-In Partner Participation Agreement The American Public Power Association (APPA), by a resolution adopted at its 2005 national conference in Anaheim, Calif., sup- ports efforts to promote the manufacture and sale of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PREVs). Among other activities to advance the goals of this resolution, APPA has signed on as a found- ing "Plug-in Partner", and is encouraging its members to join in the effort. Austin Energy, the community-owned elec- tric utility in Austin, Texas, is coordinating this Plug-in Partner grass roots campaign. The goal is to demonstrate to auto makers that a market for flexible-fuel PREYs exists today. Austin Energy, with the help of APPA and other organizations and individuals, is actively build- ing a coalition of utilities, local and state gov- emments, businesses, and environmental and other organizations that together will demon- strate the strength of this potential market to the automakers. This will be done by obtaining endorsements of the Plug-in Partner campaign, as well as through petitions, commitments to consider fleet orders of PREYs and through other means. The campaign, already ur,derway, will hold its official kick-off in Washington D.C. on January 24,2006 at the National Press Club. Please indicate your support for the important initiative by signing below. Your utility will be listed as a founding Plug-In,Partner. Please list the following utility as a Plug-In Partner at the January press event: Utility Name Address Contact Name and Title Phone anci e-majl Please complete the form and send it either by fax, e-mail. or standard delivery mail to: Jeanine Arnett Grassroots Coordinator American Public Power Association 2301 M Street, N.W. Washington, D,C, 20037 Phone: 202/467-2934 Fax: 202/467-2910 jamett@appanet.org AA~~. rr#i American Public Power Association Mayor Klanderud and City Council 1\ I.. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~VVl ~ James Lindt, Senior Planner~ L- Cooper Apartments Condominiums (410 S. West End Street) Subdivision - First Reading of Ordinance No. q, Series of2006, Public Hearing is scheduled for March 27[h I TO: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: February 27, 2006 ApPLICANT /OWNER: John R. Provine and Ronald E. Soldering, Trustee - Soldering Living Trust REPRESENTATIVE: Vann Associates, LLC LOCATION: 410 S. West End Street Lots A and B, Block I 18, of the City and Townsite. CURRENT ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District EXISTING LAND USE: Five (5) Unit Multi-Family Residential Building. PROPOSED LAND USE: Four (4) Unit Multi-Family Residential Building. MEMORANDUM VI\a PHOTO: Existing structure. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision and associated land use approvals to raze the existing five (5) unit multi-family residential complex and construct a new multi-family residential structure containing two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) affordable housing units. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions. LAND USE REOUESTS: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals to redevelop the site: . Subdivision for the construction of multiple dwelling units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision (City Council is final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). . A certificate of compliance from the Multi-family Replacement Program pursuant Land Use Code Section 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program (Review is by the Community Development Director in conjunction with a building permit review). . A growth management review for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Affordable Housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the requested growth management review for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.5, Series of2006 (attached as Exhibit "D"). . Condominiumization is a subdivision exemption that requires approval of the Community Development Director pursuant to the Land Use Code Section 26.480.090, Condominiumization. However, the attached ordiance acknowledges this approval for a future date (condominium plats are reviewed and approved bv the Communitv Development Director upon substantial completion of construction). REVIEW PROCEDURE: A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040, Subdivision. A development application for the development of affordable housing shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied after review and consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission under Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing. Once the project is substantially completed, the project will be condominiumized. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested approval to raze the existing five (5) unit multi-family building located at 410 S. West End Street and replace it with a new four (4) unit building containing two (2) free-market and two (2) deed-restricted residential unils. The property subject to the application contains approximately 6,000 square feet and is located in the R/MF Zone District. Each of the free market residential units is proposed to contain a little over 3,000 square feet of FAR. One of the affordable housing units is proposed to be constructed as a one-bedroom unit and is to contain approximately 789 square feet. The other affordable housing unit is proposed as a two-bedroom unit and is to contain approximately 930 square feet. The Applicant has proposed six (6) on-site parking spaces, four (4) garage spaces that are proposed for use of the free-market residential units and two (2) uncovered parking spaces for use of the affordable housing units. All of the parking spaces are to be accessed from the alleyway. The Applicant is also proposing to provide a fenced trash enclosure adjacent to the side property line and close to the alley. 2 The following chart compares the proposed development dimensions with the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family Zone District: Dimensional Proposed Underlying Residential Requirement Dimensional Multi.Family Zone District Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot Size 6,000 SF 6,000 SF Existin!! Minimum Lot Width 60 Feet 60 Feet Minimum Lot 1,500 SF No Requirement Area/Dwelling North Front Yard 6 Feet 5 Feet Setback West Front Yard 6 Feet 5 Feet Setback Minimum Side Yard 5 Feet 5 Feet Setback Minimum Rear Yard 5 Feet 5 Feet Setback Maximum Height 32 Feet 32 Feet (parcel density 2: one unit per 1,500 s.f. of lot area) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 7,500 s.f. 1.25:1 or 7,500 s.f. (parcel density 2: one unit per 1,500 s.f. oflot area) Minimum Off-Street 6 Spaces (4 One per unit or a total of 4 Parking for Free Parking Spaces Market Units, 2 for AH Units) STAFF COMMENTS: SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting subdivision approval, including condominiumization, because the development of multi-family dwelling units requires approval of subdivision pursuant to the definition of subdivision in the City's land use code. In reviewing the subdivision portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standards. Staff feels that the proposal is consistent with the infill development goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff further believes that the site subject to the proposal is suitable for development and contains no known geologic hazards and currently contains a residential building of similar size to the structure being proposed. MULTI-FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM: When demolishing existing multi-family residential dwelling units, if the units were ever lived in by local, working residents, replacement units are subject to the terms of the multi-family 3 replacement program provisions as are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.530, Resident Multi-family Replacement Program. In this situation the Applicant is not proposing to replace as many units as are being demolished, which means that 50% of the number of units, 50% of the number of bedrooms, and 50% of the square footage being demolished must be replaced in the new development as on-site affordable housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.040(B), Housing Replacement Requirements: Fifty Percent Replacement. Also, cash- in-lieu for a fraction of a unit is allowed pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.040(D), Housing Replacement Requirements: Cash-in-Lieu Payment. As was described earlier in this memorandum, the Applicant is proposing to construct two (2) affordable housing units, consisting of a total of three (3) bedrooms, in order to satisfy a portion of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program requirements as outlined above. The two (2) proposed affordable housing units would provide for two (2) out of the 2.5 units (five (5) existing units multiplied by 50%) that would be required for the demolition of the existing building. Additionally, the three (3) bedrooms of affordable housing being proposed would provide for all of the necessary replacement bedrooms and all but 299 square feet of the required replacement square footage. That being said, the Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu totaling $179,285.75 (calculated by taking 1.75 employees housed per I-bedroom unit and multiplying this by the Category 2 cash-in-Iieu fee of $204,898, then multiplying the total by .5 units; the square footage subject to cash-in-Iieu also coincidentally equals half of the square footage required for a I -bedroom unit) for the .5 of a unit and 299 square feet of replacement mitigation that is not going to be satisfied with the two (2) proposed affordable housing units. Staff believes that the two (2) proposed affordable housing units in combination with the cash-in-lieu fee of $179,285.75 for the fraction of a unit not being replaced on site satisfies the multi-family replacement program requirements for this property. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the growth management review for the development of affordable housing pursuant to Resolution No.5, Series of 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission found that there continues to be a need for the development of additional affordable units in that the overall development ceiling for affordable housing that is established in the growth management section of the land use code has not yet been reached. The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed affordable housing units meet the Employee Housing Guideline requirements. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance outlining the conditions that the Housing Board requested. SCHOOL LANDS DEDICA nONS FEE: Given that the proposed development constitutes a full subdivision review, Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedications, requires that the Applicant either dedicate lands for school function or pay a cash-in-lieu fee. The Applicant has proposed to pay a cash-in-lieu fee pursuant to the fee schedule established in Land Use Code Section 26.630. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that the Applicant pay the School Lands Dedications fee prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed development. 4 PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: The Applicant is required to pay a Park Development Impact Fee for additional bedrooms added to the site pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee. The Park Development Impact Fee for this project shall be assessed based on the following calculation: 2 Units multiplied by $3,634 (three-bedroom or larger fee) =$7,268.00 1 Unit multiplied by $2,725 (two-bedroom fee) = $2,725.00 I Unit multiplied by the $2,120 (I-bedroom fee) = $2,120.00 Credit for existing 5 I-bedroom units= $10,600.00 Park Development Impact Fee= $1,513.00 Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that a Park Development Impact Fee of $1,5 13.00 be paid at prior to building permit issuance. TRASH/UTILITY SERVICE AREA LOCATION: The Applicant has proposed to provide a trash service area adjacent to the side property line and offset from the alley so that two (2) off-street parking spaces can be provided adjacent to the alley. A dumpster cannot be accessed from this location, although trash barrels can. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance requiring that bear-proof trash cans be used rather than a dumpster due to the access problems. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Water Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Housing Department, and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their comments have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the growth management review for affordable housing and recommended that City Council approve the subdivision request with conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution related to this matter is attached as Exhibit "D". Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission's minutes will be included in the second reading packet since they are not complete as of this date. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached ordinance upon first reading, approving with conditions, the requested subdivision and condominiumization finding that the applicable review standards are satisfied by the proposal. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 5 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve upon first reading, Ordinance No. '1-, Series of 2006, approving with conditions, the Cooper Apartments Subdivision to develop a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units at 410 S. West End Street." A TT ACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B - Application EXHIBIT C - Referral Comments EXHIBIT 0 - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 6 ORDINANCE No.9 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE COOPER APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZA TION TO CONSTRUCT A MUTI-F AMIL Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWO FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND TWO DEED-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 S. WEST END STREET, LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 118, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-182-91-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John R. Provine and Ronald E. Soldering, Trustee - Soldering Living Trust, Inc, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of Subdivision, Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing, and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two free-market residential units and two deed-restricted affordable housing UI1its on the property located at 410 S. West End Street; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned RMF (Residential Multi-Family); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 7, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.5, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions, a growth management review for the development of affordable housing, and recommending that City COUl1cil approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property located at 410 S. West End Street, Lots A and B, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noted public hearing on March 27, 2006, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. _, Series of 2006, by a _ to _ L-~ vote, approving with conditions, the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property located at 410 S. West End Street, Lots A and B, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City COUl1cil has reviewed and considered the development proposal UI1der 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 ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen City Council hereby approves with conditions, the Cooper Apartments Subdivision and Condominiumization in order to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 410 S. West End Street, Lots A and B, Block I I 8, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: Plat and Al!reement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction. Section 3: Buildinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. c. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. d. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, construction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. f. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the Community Development Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building code requirements. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District. The structure shall meet all of the required Residential Design Standards applicable to a multi-family building. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash enclosure, located adjacent to the side property line and accessed from the alley, shall not use a dumpster style trash container. The trash containers shall be wildlife proof. Section 6: Sidewalks, Curb, and Gutter The sidewalks and crosswalk ramps adjacent to the property shall be upgraded to meet City Engineer's requirements and ADA requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any of the units within the development. Additionally, the sidewalk along South West End Street shall be reconstructed so that it is detached from the curb, creating a five (5) wide landscaping buffer. The Applicant shall also repair any curb and gutter adjacent to the property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any of the units within the development. Section 7: Relocation of Utility Pedestal The Applicant shall relocate the utility pedestal that currently exists in the Block 118 alleyway near its intersection with South West End Street. The utility pedestal shall be relocated further north in the South West End Street Right-of-Way since it serves multiple properties. Section 8: Affordable Housine: The affordable housing units shall be in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units at the time of recordation of the condominium plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the building, classifying the units as Category 2 units. Included in the governing documents shall be language reflecting the potential for the units to become ownership units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1110 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the affordable housing units. Section 9: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 10: Water Department Requirements 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. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 11: Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Section 12: Electrical Department Requirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the subject property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall review and approve the easement on the condominium plat. Section 13: Exterior Lil!:htinl!: All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $1,513.00 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: 2 Units multiplied by $3,634 (three bedroom or larger fee) = $7,268.00 I Unit multiplied by $2,725 (two-bedroom fee) = $2,725.00 I Unit multiplied by $2,120 (I-bedroom fee) = $2,120.00 Credit for existing 5 I-bedroom units= $10,600.00 Park Development Impact Fee= $1,513.00 Section 16: Landscapine: An approved tree removal permit and excavation under the drip line permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks Department approval will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit submittal and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site." No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for inspection of the fence before any construction activities commence. Specific excavation techniques to be approved by the Parks Department shall be required along the entire length of the Cooper A venue excavation and vertical excavation shall be required along the length of South West End Street excavation. No over digging is allowed on the South West End Street and Cooper Avenue excavations. After inspection and approval of the fence location, the fence cannot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Improvements to both of the adjacent City ROW's shall include irrigation, new sod and soil, and new street tree plantings along East Cooper Avenue and South West End Street meeting the approval of the Parks Department. Autumn Blaze Maple trees shall be planted along Cooper Avenue and Ussarian Pear trees shall be planted along South West End Street. All street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced at about fifteen (IS) to twenty (20) feet apart. The Parks Department will perform a diagnostic test on the tree located adjacent to the proposed northeast entry walk to determine if the tree should be removed prior to the commencement of construction activities. If the abovementioned tree is prohibited from removal by the Parks Department, the Applicant shall redesign or remove the walkway to Cooper Avenue. The Applicant shall also remove the stand of Aspen Trees located near the northwestern corner of the property because they are in declining health. Section 17: 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 18: 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 19: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 20: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of March, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) 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 27th day of February, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of March, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding The project satisfies the requirements of the resident multi-family replacement program and provides deed restricted affordable housing within the City of Aspen's municipal boundaries. Staff does not believe that this application conflicts with the goals and objectives of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed multi-family use is consistent with the land uses in the immediate vicinity which primarily include multi-family buildings. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding As the application indicates, the surrounding properties are close to fully developed. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed development is in compliance with the Residential Multi-Family zone district requirements and meets all other land use regulations. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of jlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. 7 Staff Finding Staff believes that the property is suitable for subdivision. The site contains no steep topography and no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, Staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicant has is providing to affordable housing units as required by the Replacement Housing Program and meets the affordable housing review standards of the growth management section of the land use code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards setforth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land, which will be paid prior to building permit issuance. Thus, Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to 8 development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, ~ 2) Staff Finding The proposed free-market residential units are exempt from growth management because they are replacement units. The Applicant has also concurrently applied for growth management review to construct the proposed affordable housing units. Please see Staff s responses to the review standards for a growth management review for the development of affordable housing. 9 &hlfJ/) t-' MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: January 4, 2006 Re: 410 S. West End Street Growth Management Review, MF Replacement Program Certificate of Compliance Attendees; Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Eng.; Nick Adeh, Engineering; Randy Mosby, Engineering; James Lindt, City Planning; Denis Murray, Building Dept.; Ed VanWalraven, Aspen Fire; Cindy Christensen, Housing; Brian Flynn, Parks; Rich Ryan, Parking; Sunny Vann, Owner Representative The Development Review Committee has reviewed the GMR and MF Replacement Program Review Request at their January 4, 2006 meeting and has compiled the following comments: Building Department - Denis Murray; . Common path of egress travel needs to be discussed. . All of the normal permit requirements will be met before a building permit application is accepted by the City. Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven; . The project must be sprinkled and have an alarm system. . A 4-inch service with four (4) separate service take offs is recommended for.fire protection. Engineering Department - Nick Adeh, Randy Mosby: . Grading appears appropriate and is reviewed at the time of submittal. . Snow storage issue might require detached sidewalk especially on S. West End. . If any damage occurs during to the existing sidewalk C&G it will be replaced before any CO issuance. . A second ramp on Cooper Street must be installed to meet current City / ADA standards. . Max grade into garage should not exceed 8% of 1/12. Housing Office - Cindy Christensen; . The project will be on the consent agenda for P&Z On Feb. 7, 2006. . The computational methods used has reviewed and agrees with the Housing office requirements. 'I Page 2 of 6 January 4, 2006 410 South West End Street Zoning Officer - No Attendance; Environmental Health - Jannette Murison, e-mail comments; . AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] 3.08] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control. prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation dema[lds that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". . The land use code states that the Growth manaaement criteria. residential: applications need to be consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan provision, Reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long- term livability and health of the Aspen area. The AACP envisions a time in the not-too-distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. The Aspen Area Community Plan seeks a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. . Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 8 additional trips per day, and 1 pound of PM- ] 0 per day. This development does have measures reducing the dependency on the automobile and is not consistent with the AACP. . In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the sucrounding area and the City of Aspen, fhe Environmental Health Department recommends the following measures be implemented: . Provide covered and secure bike storage for all residents, and that . The Homeowner's Association Joins and actively participates in The City of Aspen's Transportation Options Program. . The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. and has the following comments and reminders: . FIREPlACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or] of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. . FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. . A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed Page 3 of 6 January 4, 2006 410 South West End Street limits. or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater . ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel. expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building. including removal of drywall. carpet, tile. etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. If there is no asbestos. the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. . TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvclina containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the City of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06. . The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard. Co-mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. . NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-01 'The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well being of persons. thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community." . During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm, Monday thru Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sundays. . It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels. Parking - Rich Ryan; . The Construction Management Plan (CMP) needs to include, material staging, parking limitations, car pool options and use of intercept lot at Brush Creek. Parks - Bryan Flynn; . North East entrv walk: Redesign of this entry walk is required, no excavation of organic material will be allowed in this area. Parks will IJ Page 4 of 6 January 4,2006 4] 0 South West End Street perform a diagnostic of the tree and will determine if the tree is to be removed by the applicant due to hazard rating. . Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required for tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying ;rees for removal, sizes, scaled drip lines and a means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920- 5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an approved demo permit. . Tree Protection: 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 indicatina the location of the tree protection will be reauired for the blda 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 [920-5] 20) before any construction activities are to commence. . Excavation: an excavation under the drip line permit will need to be approved along with the tree permit. Specific excavation techniques will be required for the entire length of the Cooper Street excavation. Vertical excavation will be required in addition a minimum of 20ft along , the side yard excavation will be required. There will be no over digging allowed in this zone. . The applicant will need to contract with a tree service, and have them on call in order to address all roots greater than 2 inches in diameter. Root trenchina will be reauired around all trees with excavation under the drip line or next to the drip line. This can be accomplished by an experienced tree service company or trained member of the contractor's team. . Landscapina and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements and review and approval of a full ROW landscape plan. . The street tree planting shall be a continuation of the trees located in the ROW to the East. AI' trees will be evenly spaced a minimum of 15 to 20 foot off center. Parks recommend Autumn Blaze Maples on Cooper Street ROWand Ussurian Pear along the West End ROW. . ROW requirements require adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amendina the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase lonaevitv of the new plantinas). . A parkway strip should be a minimum of a 5-foot strip. Utility connections: Parks is concerned with the future connections made for the new development. These connections will need to be designed on the plan in a manner that does not encroach into the tree protection zones. Water/Electric - No attendance; Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz; Page 5 of 6 January 4, 2006 410 South West End Street . A current soils report and improvement survey is required as part of the building permits application. . All standard permit requirements must be met for issuance of building permits. . Excavation Stabilization looks like it will be required. Soil grouting is recommended near any City utility corridor. . Utility riser boxes existing and new that are serving this structure are required to be located on the owner's property and not in the City ROW. . Please coordinate the professionals working with the team to make the permit submittal a complete and consistent package. Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Tom Bracewell; . Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. . ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections [roof, foundation. perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. . On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. . Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. . The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. . Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. . One tap is allowed for each building. Only 4" service lines will be approved for this development. Applicant will have to submit utility plan for sanitary sewer service to the district for approval. . Shared service line agreements are required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. . Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. . All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. . Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. . Where additional development would produce flows that would overvvhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overvvhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve II Page 6 of 6 January 4, 2006 410 South West End Street capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for ;arger line). . ,he glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. . Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above or in close proximity below ASCD main sewer lines. . The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. MEMORANDUM TO: James Lindt, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager - Housing DATE: January 18, 2005 RE: 410 S. WEST END STREET SUBDIIVISION AND GMQS EXEMPTION Parcel ill No. 2735-124-71-008 ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing five-plex and replace with a four-plex to contain two free-market residential dwelling units and two deed-restricted employee-housing units. BACKGROUND: The Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program will apply for this proposal as there is history that this has housed working residents. Section 26.530.040.B states that the demolition of such units requires the construction of replacement employee housing consisting of no less than 50 percent of the number of units, 50 percent of the number of bedrooms and 50 percent of the net residential area demolished. The applicant has satisfied this Code section. The free market component is to consist of two units - both 4-bedroom,4 full baths, and two half baths. One will be 3,068 square feet and the other at 3,192 square feet. The employee-housing component is to consist of two units - on 2-bedroom, one-bath unit, approximately 930 square feet of net livable area and the other to contain one-bedroom, one-bath, and be approximately 789 square feet of net livable area. This unit's entry foyer and coat closet will be located on the ground floor while the living/dining area, kitchen and bathroom will be located in the basement. One surface parking space will be provided adjacent to the alley for each employee-housing unit. Total square footage for the free market is 6,260 and for the employee housing is 1,719. The existing floor plan contains five dwelling units, five bedrooms and approximately 4,035 square feet of net residential area. As a result, a minimum of2.5 units, 2.5 bedrooms and 2,018 square feet of net livable area must be replaced. Two of the required 2.5 dwelling units and all but 299 square feet of the required net livable area are being mitigated on-site. However, three bedrooms will be provided as opposed to the required 2.5 bedrooms. The remaining 0.5 fractional unit requirement and the remainder of the required net livable area is proposed to be mitigated via a cash-in-lieu payment. The applicant has calculated the cash-in-lieu payment for the fraction of a unit as follows (using Category 2): 1.75 employees/I-bedroom lmit X 204,898/Employee = $358,571.50 l.J $358,571.50 X 0.5 = The applicant has calculated the cash-in-lieu payment for the remaining net livable area, but dividing the minimum net livable area for a one-bedroom, Category 2 unit and then multiplying by the required cash-in-lieu fee for a one-bedroom, Category 2 unit and is as follows: 299 sq. ft. -;- 600 sq. fi.ll-bedroom Category 2 Unit = 0.5 1.75 employees/I-Bedroom Unit X $204,898/Employee = $358,517.50 $358 571.50 X 0.5 = $\i~~;J21~\~5 ' ""''''''''"~-"'''''''''';''''''''''"'''''''' The larger of the two cash-in-Iieu payments is the required additional mitigation fee required. Both calculations are the same, therefore, an additional $179,285.75 payment is required prior to building permit approval. Staff would prefer the units as ownership units, but the applicant is proposing the deed-restricted units as rental units. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: I. Under the current Land Use Regulations the two employee-housing units proposed, along with the $179,285.75 payment-in-lieu satisfy the mitigation requirements for the development. 2. Two parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the two employee-housing units. 3. The two employee housing units shall be classified as Category 2 units. 4. The one-bedroom unit where the living area, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen are located mostly below grade must meet or exceed the requirements for natural light as established in the lmernational Building Code. 5. The units will be deed-restricted as rental units but will allow for the units to become ownership units at such time the owners would request this change and/or at such time the APCl-JA deems the units out of compliance over a period of more than one year. At such time, the units will be listed for sale with the Housing Office as specified in the deed restriction at the Category 2 maximum sales price. 6. TIle governing documents shall be drafted to reflect the potential for the rental units to become ownership units. Since the project is a mixed free-market/deed-restricted project, the assessments shall be based on the value of the free-market wlit compared to the deed- restricted unit. This language shall be required in the approval and in the Covenants associated with the project. No changes to this restriction would be allowed without APCR'\'s approval. 2 7. The mitigation fee of $179,285.75 is due prior to building permit approval. 8. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 9. APCHA or the applicant shall structure .a deed restriction for the units such that 1/lOth of I percent of the property is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or until such time the units become ownership units; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. 3 IJ MEMORANDUM To: James Lindt, Community Development Department From: Jannette Murison, City Environmental Health Department Date: January 3, 2006 Re: 410 S. West End Street Subdivision, Growth Management Review Parcel ID #2737-182-91-001 --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- - The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments. AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08] to achieve the maximWll practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..."The Land Use Regulations (Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code) seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". The land use code states that the Growth management criteria, residential: applications need to be consistent with Aspen Area Community Plan provision, Reducing dependency on the automobile is vital for the long-term livability and health of the Aspen area. The AACP envisions a time in the not-too-distant future when the automobile is not the dominant means of moving people in and around the community. The Aspen Area Community Plan seeks a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors and commuters that reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 8 additional trips per day, and 1 pound of PM-I 0 per day. This development does have measures reducing the dependency on the automobile and is not consistent with the AAep. In order to comply with the provisions of the land use code, and ensure that the development does not have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City of Aspen, the Environmental Health Department recommends the following measures be implemented: I. Provide covered and secure bike storage for all residents, and that 2. The Homeowner's Associationjoins and actively participates in The City of Aspen's Transportation Options Program. The City of Aspen Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments and reminders: FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Building Department before the building permit will be issued. In the City of Aspen, buildings may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or I of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel. FUGITIVE DUST: Any development must implement adequate dust control measures. A fugitive dust control plan is required as part of the applicants erosion control plan. A fugitive dust control plan may include, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. A fugitive dust control plan must be submitted to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Division if this project will last greater than 6 months. ASBESTOS: Prior to remodel, expansion or demolition of any public or commercial building, including removal of drywall, carpet, tile, etc., the state must be notified and a person licensed by the state to do asbestos inspections must do an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until they get this report. Ifthere is no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvcling containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are located due to the Citv of Aspen's new Waste Reduction Ordinance, Chapter 12.06. The applicant is advised that with the new Waste Reduction Ordinance recycling services will be included with any trash hauling service contracted during construction. It is important that the applicant plan for adequate space for recycling during the construction of the project. Recycling services will include the following recyclable material: Cardboard, Co-mingled (plastic bottles, aluminum, steel cans and glass bottles), Newspaper and Office Paper. NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 18-04-0 I "The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present" and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and to its visitors. Noise has an adverse effect on the psychological and physiological well being of persons, thus constituting a present danger to the economic and aesthetic well-being of the community. " DRC 1-4-06 ACSD Requirements: 410 S. West End Street Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. The Applicant will have to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Only 4" service lines will be approved for this development. Applicant will have to submit utility plan for sanitary sewer service to the district for approval. Shared service line agreements are required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Where additional development would produce flows that would overwhelm the planned capacity of the existing collection system and or treatment facility, the development will be assessed fees to cover the costs of replacing the entire portion of the system that would be overwhelmed. The District would fund the costs of constructing reserve capacity in the area of concern (only for the material cost difference for larger line). The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above or in close proximity below ASCD main sewer lines. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. 0h:~J ''fY RESOLUTION NO.5 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, THE COOPER APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZA TION TO CONSTRUCT A MUTI-F AMIL Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWO FREE- MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND TWO DEED-RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 S. WEST END STREET, LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 118, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel/D: 2737-/82-9/-00/ WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John R. Provine and Ronald E. Soldering, Trustee - Soldering Living Trust, Inc, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of Subdivision, Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing, and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two free-market residential units and two deed-restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 410 S. West End Street; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned RMF (Residential Multi-Family); and, WHEREAS, upon review ofthe application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision and associated land use requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 7, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No.5, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, approving with conditions, a growth management review for the development of affordable housing, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the proposed subdivision and condominiumization to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units located on the property located at 410 S. West End Street, Lots A and B, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, Page I of6 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves with conditions, a growth management review for the development of affordable housing, and recommending that City Council approve the Cooper Apartments Subdivision and Condominiumization in order to construct a multi-family building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units on the property located at 410 S. West End Street, Lots A and B, Block 118, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: Plat and A!!reement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval. The final Condominium Plat may be approved and signed by the Community Development Director upon substantial completion of construction. Section 3: Buildin!! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. c. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a grOlmd recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. d. An excavation-stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes, constmction phasing, and a construction traffic and parking plan for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. The construction management plan shall also identify that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction. Page 2 of6 e. A fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. f. A detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques for review and approval by the Community Development Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall meet the building code requirements. Section 4: Dimensional Requirements The redevelopment of the building as presented complies with the dimensional requirements of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District. The structure shall meet all of the required Residential Design Standards applicable to a multi-family building. Compliance with these requirements will be verified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: Trash/Utility Service Area The trash enclosure, located adjacent to the side property line and accessed from the alley, shall not use a dumpster style trash container. The trash containers shall be wildlife proof. Section 6: Sidewalks. Curb. and Gutter The sidewalks and crosswalk ramps adjacent to the property shall be upgraded to meet City Engineer's requirements and ADA requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any of the units within the development. Additionally, the sidewalk along South West End Street shall be reconstructed so that it is detached from the curb, creating a five (5) wide landscaping buffer. The Applicant shall also repair any curb and gutter adjacent to the property that is deemed to be in disrepair by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any of the units within the development. Section 7: Relocation of Utility Pedestal The Applicant shall relocate the utility pedestal that currently exists in the Block 118 alleyway near its intersection with South West End Street. The utility pedestal shall be relocated further north in the South West End Street Right-of-Way since it serves multiple properties. Section 8: Affordable Housinl! The affordable housing units shall be in compliance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority's Employee Housing Guidelines. The Applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the affordable housing units at the time of recordation of the condominium plat and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for the building, classifying the units as Category 2 units. Included in the governing documents shall be language reflecting the potential for the units to become ownership units. If the Applicant chooses to deed restrict the affordable housing units as rental units, the Applicant shall convey a 1/10 of a percent, undivided interest in the units to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority prior to the issuance of a certificate of Page 3 of6 occupancy on any portion of the building. The units may be deed-restricted as rental Lmits, but the units shall become ownership units ,at such time as the owners would request a change to "for-sale" units or at such time as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority deems the units to be out of compliance with the rental occupancy requirements in the Affordable Housing Guidelines for a period of more than year. A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be allocated and reserved for the affordable housing units. Section 9: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Section 10: Water Department ReQuirements 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. Each of the units within the building shall have individual water meters. Section 11: Sanitation District ReQuirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements will be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. Section 12: Electrical Department ReQuirements The Applicant shall have an electric connect load summary conducted by a licensed electrician in order to determine if the existing transformer on the neighboring property has sufficient capacity for the redevelopment. If a new supplemental transformer is required to be installed on the subject property, the Applicant shall provide for a new transformer and its location shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall dedicate an easement to allow for City Utility Personnel to access the supplemental transformer for maintenance purposes, if a supplemental transformer is installed. If after the subdivision plat is recorded and in the event an easement is required, then the Community Development Director shall review and approve the easement on the condominium plat. Section 13: Exterior Lil!:htinl!: All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 14: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School/ands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Page 4 of6 Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of stmctures on the site. Section 15: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee in the amount of $1,513.00 prior to building permit issuance. The fee is assessed based on the following calculation: 2 Units multiplied by $3,634 (three bedroom or larger fee) = $7,268.00 I Unit multiplied by $2,725 (two-bedroom fee) = $2,725.00 I Unit multiplied by $2,120 (I-bedroom fee) = $2,120.00 Credit for existing 5 I-bedroom units= $10,600.00 Park Development Impact F ee= $1,513.00 Section 16: Landscapilll~ An approved tree removal permit and excavation under the drip line permit is required prior to submitting the building permit. The Parks Department approval will be contingent on the approved tree permit. A detailed tree protection plan is required as part of the building permit submittal and should include fence details and fence locations as well as the following language, "A construction fence shall be installed at the drip line of each individual or grouping of trees remaining on site." No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, and foot or vehicle traffic will be allowed within the tree protection fence. Contact the City of Aspen Parks Department for inspection of the fence before any construction activities commence. Specific excavation techniques to be approved by the Parks Department shall be required along the entire length of the Cooper Avenue excavation and vertical excavation shall be required along the length of South West End Street excavation. No over digging is allowed on the South West End Street and Cooper Avenue excavations. After inspection and approval of the fence location, the fence carroot be moved or removed without permission from the Parks Department or until the project receives the Certificate of Occupancy." Improvements to both of the adjacent City ROW's shall include irrigation, new sod and soil, and new street tree plantings along East Cooper Avenue and South West End Stret:! meeting the approval of the Parks Department. Autumn Blaze Maple trees shall be planted along Cooper Avenue and Ussarian Pear trees shall be planted along South West End Street. All street tree plantings shall be evenly spaced at about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet apart. The Parks Department will perform a diagnostic test on the tree located adjacent to the proposed northeast entry walk to determine if the tree should be removed prior to the commencement of construction activities. If the abovementioned tree is prohibited from removal by the Parks Department, the Applicant shall redesign or remove the walkway to Page 5 of 6 Cooper Avenue. The Applicant shall also remove the stand of Aspen Trees located near the northwestern corner of the property because they are in declining health. Section 17: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission 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 18: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 19: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of February, 2006. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 6 of6 VI"a. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: Paul Menter, Finance Director FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Analyst February yth, 2006 Adoption of Budget Supplemental - Ordinance NacB' (Series 2006) This item will be discussed on Monday, February 1 JU\ 2006 WI/ eEL E i<... () f'e- f? A HP'^S t- SI.{ fPl-C/'vl1C: In/} L DATE: SUMMARY: Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2006 budget that increases the city-wide total expenditure appropriation from $101.6 to $102.4 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority increases from $84.5 to $85.3 million. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. CITY OF ASPEN - 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL #1 AMENDED BUDGET Descrintion Amount Location 2006 Amended Budget: $84,501,115 See Attachment A Inter-Fund Transfers: $17.101.924 Total Ordinance: $101,603,039 Total Supplemental #1 Reauests: $832,650 See Attachment A Less Inter-Fund Transfers 1$17101 924\ NEW NET APPROPRIATIONS: $85,333,765 See Attachment A II All of the supplemental requests for the Wheeler Transfer Tax Fund have been approved in a previous work session. This is the formal reading of the appropriations from the work session. Below is a brief description of each item. Attached is the work session memorandums presented to council on the January 24th Here you will find detail descriptions of the Marketing Plan, the Co-Promotions Proposal, and the additional Capital projects approved on January 24th, 2006. New ReQuests: Wheeler Transfer Tax Fund- The Wheeler transfer tax fund is requesting $832,650 in total. $416,750 is for the Co-Promotional operations model at the Wheeler. This additional operating cost will be offset by an estimate of $491 ,000 in supplemental revenue generated from this model of operations. $215,000 is for the complete marketing plan. This request will be funded by the Wheeler cash reserves. This marketing plan has been approved in conjunction with a number of capital improvements to the physical plant and systems currently at the Wheeler Opera House. The total amount approved at the January 24th work session is $429,900 in additional capital improvement to the current capital plan appropriated in the 2006 budget. At this time the Wheeler staff is requesting that $200,900 of the $429,900 be appropriated. Staff will bring the additional requests in front of council when the costs associated with the projects are more concrete. The $200,900 of new capital requests will be funded by the Wheeler cash reserves. ~-..Q. ~ oJC?~<-1-I~O):~, ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES MEETING DATE: January 24, 2006 AGENDA TOPIC: Wheeler Co-Promotion, Marketing and Capital Improvement Proposals PRESENTED BY: Gram Slaton, Executive Director, Wheeler Opera House COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: WHEELER BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: All Cathy Markle, Brian O'Neil, Pam Cunningham SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Proposals and supplemental budget requests were submitted and discussed with council in the following Wheeler issue areas: . Co-promotions . Marketing . Systems and Capital Improvements (Attachment I) (Attachment 2) (Attachment 3) A proposed 2006 Presenting/Co-Promoting operating plan and revenue and expense budgets were presented. The budget would allow 27 relatively high-profile co-promotion opportunities throughout the year. The expenses and revenues per show are estimated averages. Total Programming and Co-promotion costs are expected to be $416,750, with offsetting Ticket Sales revenue coming back to the Wheeler of $491,000. Without specific Council direction to the contrary, under no circumstances would the co-promotion model continue unless it was at least breaking even. The proposed budget indicates an annual operating "profit" of about $75,000, with an average ticket price of $20 for low to moderate risk shows and up to $100 for the higher profile shows. Management is reasonably confident with the general predictability of these numbers; however, without clear knowledge of the co-promoted and self-promoted shows that might be considered and accepted during the 2006, it is impossible to better forecast what the final numbers, including percentage of house sold, might ultimately be. After discussion Council directed staff to proceed with appropriation of the requested $416,750 expense budget and the estimated $491,000 revenue budget. Council members further directed Wheeler staff to make sure that co-promotional opportunities were extended not only to private presenters, but also to local non-profits and groups such as the Wheeler Associates. Council wanted to ensure Wheeler programming by not just big name artists. Co-promotions need to provide an opportunity for locals to reconnect with the Wheeler as well. I Ii A three-tiered marketing proposal was then presented to council: Bare minimum marketing, which includes the current approach of traditional marketing via print, radio, cable TV, and Internet, is estimated to cost $140,000 for 2006, of which $15,000 is already in the base budget for this year, Augmented marketing, which includes the above, plus additional marketing monies for combined advertising with Aspen-advocate groups, wider Internet and Front Range presence, and additional ancillary advertising, is estimated to cost $190,000 for 2006. Complete marketing, which includes the above, plus marketing monies for focused cable and airline advertising, is estimated to cost $230,000. Individual marketing components and associated costs were presented and discussed. Council directed staff to proceed with appropriation of $230,000 for the complete marketing plan as presented, along with direction to evaluate the effectiveness of each marketing tool for the 2007 budget. In addition to the marketing packages outlined above, staff presented a list of proposed phvsical plant/svstems changes estimated to cost about $430,000. Council advised caution in proceeding too quickly with seating, signage and visual arts changes. Council also requested that the exterior lighting mock up be completed as soon as possible and that whatever changes are made to the pit cover allow dancing on top. Staff requested and received direction to proceed with supplemental budget authority on the new ticketing system, replacement telephone system, interior electronic marquee, and poster case on the elevator shaft. The total estimated cost of those four items is about $201,000. Staff will proceed with the procurement process and bring back contracts on those items. Staff will also continue the research and stakeholder discussion on the new seating, pit replacement and boiler replacement projects and come back to council at a later date with supplemental appropriation requests and contracts for approval. ACTION ITEMS: I. Prepare supplemental appropriation requests 2. Complete procurement process 3. Get contract approval on capital requests 4. Complete systems improvements 5, Implement co-promotion and marketing plans 6. Evaluate 2006 effectiveness and prepare new budget proposals for 2007 DUE DATE: February 2006 Feb-March 2006 March-April 2006 May 2006 and Sept 2006 Feb-Dec. 2006 Oct. 2006 Estimated Date for Follow-Up with City Council (if necessary): A supplemental appropriation ordinance in the amount of $832,650 for expenses and $491,000 in co-promotion revenue will be presented to Council in February. Council Member Comments: 2 ATT~~HMENT1' ----1 WHEELER OPERA HOUSE ----=~~____ ___=~~-==__ --PRESENTINc:;.I_~Op~6MQTIN(; RR_~AKOUT SHEET I -~------ =~~:;i~ated - -- _'n Cost Notes m ---"RESENTING/CO-PROMOTING ARTI::::::mbe,g Fee 1---$i500~~- _ _____~_===_____ _ Second~ilY Touring ~~()~pany FeeL- -- ---$5,-600.00 t- _n______ ---- 4 Ot~~~ w. _ 0 H Presented,at Moderate ~is:k ($.1,500 -- $15,000 FeeH __ $45,000.00 I ___u_ 4 Other W 0 H Presented at High Risk ($16.000 - $40,000 Fee) f $112,000.00 -. _ - _ Robert E-a!1 Keen (Copra), ----- - $12,000.00 Partner's Reimbursement and --PrOfit _________ ___n_ ___~~___ __~____ ____ Stardust (<;:o~EQ)_L $8,000.00- Partner's F3eimbursement and.f'rofit- ______ _____________~~()~s Canadi~D_Ragweed (Copra)I._ __ $6.QOQ.OO_ Partner's Reimbursement and Profit .___.--------Rail~9.ad Earth/HO. '.'Y. T.",. HOm_?SIi~~__(~oPro..ll-. ____~,ooo.oo~p~rt.ner'.' R.e. imbursementi~n.d. p. rofit __ __________. .~__ ___ _~()~boy Junkies 1<;'2er.9) !__ ___ $14,000.00 Partr1.er's Reimbursement an~ Profit ____ _ m------- 12 o~:~~:~o-pr:'~-!:r_~~:_tl~_ns at $15,000 avg~_______ _$180,qOq.OO I Partner's Reimbursef"!lent and Profit ___ ____ . n_ ___n_:~TOTALlP::ENTlN(;&_CO'P:OM~:"G-F~ES~- . _~95~OOOO ~-=~=-~~- .--______ PRFSFNTINt;lCO-pR0f'v10TINt; AR!T~Y ADDITIONAI_r.6sTS _ ~ iAddlliona(Cc;stSTnCiud~-traVl'!!,-.b2~Uooms, catering, backJine::- - - -- - - - - - ---I -- and other ~_rti~~-rider required_~xpe_l1ses__ ______ ___..9..?vid ~~9.!!.1.b~r9 Additionalj $750.00 Second CityTouring Companl',~dditionall _ -- -$500.00--1 ________ 4 OtherWQJil'resente~ at ~Od~i~~_~~~~~ft?!1alr-------$4,000JjO~~- 4 Other W 0 ri PresentedaLHigh Risk Addrtionai!_ _$6,qQO:00_, _________ '--=-:---RObei-tEarll<;~enAd~.it!9_~~____~ ________ ~~~9:q~[---- Cross CanadjanR~~~~sJ'~~:~;~~::~--~~~~~:~~--1 Railroad E<3rt~iHoriky Tonk Homesiice Additio-nall- ____on ------$3$0:[0-) _.. ~~~t~~i~~PIO'd. PCo;,C,tTo~~~::~j;~:rl';: :~g~~2~f:-:--==-.!~~~~~~f I I T6TALfPRESENTiNG'&-C6~PR6MOTING ADOrrlONALr- - - - -i2J,2Sifoo-r ---- ---------- ____n__ --------i-- -- - 1 --.-;~~L FOR PRESENTiNG AND CO-PROMOTING EXPENSE'i. ---- ~7~~:O~F*=u P_RESE,NTINt;/cn-F>_f30MOTI_NG, TI0KFT S~_I F~ REVFNlJF ,_____ ___ u--=-_~--- pavid Bromberg _ $15,000.99_1,_____ n___ __ Second Citx. TOl!ring Company ___H?2QQ._OOI" ___ 4 Other W 0 HPresented at Moderate-RiSk $60,000.00 i -- 4_0ther_-W c5J{Prese_~ted at High -R-iskT $140,000.00 --------=-----=----__ -- -- .-_F5_obertEarl Keen,-- $13,500.00 ___ _ Stardustl - $7;500.00 ____ - -----=~_(;rSl~S CClnac[@6RagweedL__ $7,500.00 ! Railroad Earth/Hanky Tonk Homeslicei ---$7:soo.obT --==-Cowboy Junkies;-------=-----$17,!?QO.OO 1_~ Other CoprO'dProductionsi - ___..B10,00o:6d~;__ --I I , ... __ .,___________n_ ___ __ _I TOTAl !~R'=':'?FN!H\lG &_ COP:R~~OTlNG TICKET_~A~f:SI_ -- -- ---~49;-O~_o~iJO---r NET St,JRPLUS FROM-PRF.c;ENTI~q AND CO--:PR:OMOTiNG': _ u__ . .. . .. I ~74 2~O ~Q__; 2005 Wheel?rPresents and CC Supplemental Budget_s: - ------- .Programmi~g'-MoniesSpent-in2005:: -, - RE-MAINING BALANCE:: $316,637.48-- ----------- $150,608.72 approxlmate-firlalfigure $166-02876-:---- --- I __co:;~;;~~;;~;et t - ---~-i-==-~J--=- ------,..,;;;Yiime2006 ----1-- i Paid Tickets/Box Office -----1---=-..:- -402t--::'==$12,05(60~==:-::'-=== ------- ----------------;---- ------T------ ------------- _______________..__ _1_ _....n____ _.. ... ----i.. _ __________ _ 1- - -P~id Rv CAC,=+ __n P8id By Partn.er Arlist/COfnpany.CostS:--------------r _ ~ _______~ Act Guarantee I ---- -------- -- ---- -- -- I -$-7,500.60 Cateflng ----------- . : $30000i. ------c- ---- ~~~:~)est@-9X$125)=-=--=-=f-- -- ==f=-- --- --~- ---- $1,12500 ASCAP/BMI (@ 1 ~% olgress) - -_ ____ !1:J2 56L -- -------~t=- _ -::- _ Outside Sound/Llghts/Add'l Spot I BackHne and-Ris-er.s:-- - - --- -=r===::.: ---i-::':---::- -- --,-------- :::~~:I:~:;~:~=~=-~-::--t=::.:._---=$2~O;:_ .....__.. .--~-___L .......~!2,0::~OO ~~~'e.w"""-----=~ ~-_.-_$;~_~.__::I-- -T1 .~..- House Costs: 1_ _~tillties~-'::l_~siqy to Asp~n Arts Groups__ $350.00 ! - -------------- Spotlig~~_______ _:=--=--='::: . _ ______ Insu..rance i@$.30/head) _. _ :l-_$1;cQJ5_1__ Tkts_@,06_5_ea. ,_____!24.1O g:~~_:: ::-=__-~-~=_+_ _ . _n _... __ CAC Share: ------------- Partner Share: 1 r , $1,412.17' . , , , $6,018.591 __ ------r- ---- 1 T..O. -TAL N~T TO--"PLITI________ _n _ _ on ___ _______________"_____ Partner Share:;' CAC Share,'-- $691 GROSSP()TENTIAI . 1 -I ..... I , 265 I --------- 240 . 505 ' ..-f---. # 01 Seats Price Section One -------------- Price Section Two , -----------, Fstim8ted Brer:lkev~n Attend8nce: - --- # 01 Seats Price Secticn One _________n_____ Price Secticn Two 239, 163 402 T-- i .---i-- $12,037.17 : .$10..6~5.00 ----------T---- :6.6.01859 - ._-_._--~-- , I _.!1]c~lL i---. .. ..-- 1 $6.91 .- -------.-r--------------- m--.u-----r--- ----- -------- 1-' n1_ I Net Tkt Price _____.130.00 -,-----$7.95if60 $30.00 $7,200.00 $15,150.00 Net Tkt Price $30.00 $30.00 .$7,155.00 ----------- $4,896.00 $12,051.00 :~E~i!';'_c-=- .~ ..~cmo-astt~d~!-T' - ___ - ------ BARE-MINIMUM MARK,ETfNG/20D6 YEAR P Notes- -- Print. ___:-- Indivldu~e~or~ance AdvertiSiii9f------=._j54,OOOOO IqBlJdgeted for-~~-~~rformances @$2.00()-"ach;:;~ririj--~-- _ ______ Rental Performance/ComJ!lunity_~vent AdvertiSi~l- $16,000.00 I i Budgeted for 20 performances/events @ $800 each for print "______ _ __ Monthly Trifold Brochures: ._ $.1,500.00' i B~~~_ted at $6251mo; figure includes printing and distribution Postcards And Mailers! $6,000.00 Bu-deleted for 12 pieces at an average of $500 each Concierge And Specialty Advertrsil'!9-L~___,_._ .Jli3.2000.00 lnclud~~ concierge guides, Aspen _t~~~i_st maps, etc.- ---- --~ __n _ Indivi~ial PerformaQ~~_~vertising I ___ Community Event Advertising:-- - TicketT alklKSPN: -----~---~- --~ $27.000-00 $2:500.00 $3,000_00 "Bu-age-ted for 27 performances @$1,000 each. for radiO---".-- Budgeted for 5 performances[evel]ts @ $S06each for ra~io Two sessions per week for 50 weeks @ $30 each Television. Plum TV $12,500.00+ Includes donut ad and on~air.~n.~erview spots for 2i.weeks-~~ I11Iilm1H: , ! Tb~~~he:~r:~~~~~~:=_~~s~_~_.~,a_intenance) I $~,SOO.OO i Budgeted at $291.66/mo~-based on historic aver~~ges ~--=-= --------- IQIALJ--~-S140ifOO 00++---------- -- --- -- -- I -- AUGMENTED MARKETING/200B YEAR I --- All of the above, plus I --1-- -.~~ Combination AdvertiSing WI:.DP&RlA~~~~~:.~oo.OIl..' i --t Website placements, FFf publications, etc.: $30,000.00 -- ~---- Ii - """~,.",." '.""""'''";'::I___m.::=1~ . :-::: -_.. f------ COMPLETE MARKETING/200B YEAR -- ! All 0; the above, plus: - - - I E'rin1: -----other' ' -f-- TelevisionNisual Media' ---.1--- I Mountai-ntop Ski & Snowboard Series-SponsorshiPi -- $40,OOO~o6T ...._ , . -- TOTAL MINIMAL AUGMENTED COMPLETI(MKTG' $23000000-- --- __u___n____ =~~~____" curr~ntlY~udgeted/2006 Year: I _n $,1_~.000.66:;___ __________:::______:::___---u-_ - u~ ~-----~~UPP:~~E.NTAL BUDGET REQUE~l $215000 00 -~-~ ---~:- __ "___u____--____ --- I __ 1-- _n___________________ ___ Supplemental Marketing Appropriation for 26og;:~----.--$151,200.00 ___~lTlou"liJ~d (/dee-Force Marl<etin9): I u___ $32.480.41 Ba/ance Remain/no: I $118,719,59 --+-----.-------- ,.---- WHEELER OPERA HOUSE MARKETING REPORT 3:0ST BREAKOUT SHEET =*. I _ PH~SICAI PI ANT/~Y~TI=MS REOlJlRFMI=NTS Estimated Cosl Ne~_1Jcke~n~ SVstem'Software $80,000_00 I Replacement Telephone System $40,000.00 I L_<;g/lED Electronic MarQueej!~lerior only)' S90,000..00_L Poster Case (exterior wall of elevator shaft only) I $1,000.00 i -. - Exterior Lighting for Wheeler Faqade r nol appilcable? _ ___ New Seat!ngJ~!ltire Auditoriumlr $199,900.00 Pit ReplacemElntl $80,000.00 __ Faux Finishesflntenor Painting I $10,000.00 , ... t -. T.CiTALlPHY P N , ':- M.J1Q I i i Budge/ed in I Fina/F;(lancial i 2006 AMP Im;'acl-----r- $0.001 $8~-,~~~_ $10,100.00! $29,900.00 L;" '$O.oot $90,000.00 ~panl3:js plus s_oflware pius structurals~Oft plus labor expense $0.00 "$1,000,00" t.edpos~case;wouldreQui~_electncalinstallalion ,__ $0.00 . not 8(1plicabfe? , Wheeler's understanding is thatlhe City may iniuate 8!!d_pfOvide $50,OO~0.00 1.._ $149,000.00 i~etedat500seatsX$39.8perseat,including. noorrepair,etc. $0.00 $80,000.00 ,:Not budgeted In Wheelet AMP; necessary as part of sealing replacement -$TO,ooo.OO, _,,_ _ - $0,00 iSeparatedfrom_~u"-tavailableforext~rp~ntingln2006Wheeler?MP_ "'., ORDINANCE No.8 (Series of 2006) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUND $832,650. 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 fund: WHEELER TRANSFER TAX 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: WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment 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 day of 2006. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor . FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the _ day of ,2006. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor Approved as to Form: John Worcestor, City Attorney A Total City of Aspen 2006 Appropriations bYfund.._~ppendix A ----r------ ------- - - ------ -- -I -- ---- ------r---- -r---- -----------------r--- Fund # Fund Name General Government Funds 000 ____I\sse.tManagement Plan 001 Genera! Fund Subtotal General Gov't Funds: - ---e-- - ---- Scecial Revenue Funds -.- 100 Parks and Open Space 120 - - Whe8ierOpe",House 130- LOdging-tax -Funa~- ___ -_ -.. 140 Paikmg~mprClv~ent ~ufld _ __ _ _ _ 150 Housing_Dev~IClpment Early -Childhood Educ_ Initiative- 151 AVCF 1-52--- Kids First / Yellow llrick --- Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: -- ---I 250 DeDt Service Funds -- DebfService Fund Subtotal~- DehfServlceFun-as-:---- 340 Parks Capital Improvement Fund 421 431 -- 444 450 471 491 492 Enterprise Funds Water Utility ElectricLJtility ___ Ruedl Hydroelectric Faciiity-- Transp-ortation Fund Muri}cipal _~()~f Cour~e Truscott Housing MaroTfHousing-- - Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: 501 Healfh Ins. Internal Service Fund 620 622 Trust & Agency Funds 620 Housing AuthOrity 622 Smuggler Mountain Fund Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: ALL FUNDS: Less Interfund TrafJs.fers_ __ EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS APPROPRIA TlONS: TOlaI Expenditures & Transfers Out $4,cJ~2.826 $20675692 2006 Supplemental #1 $0 __ ________u_ $24,728,5181 $0 $8,711,877 _ __$2,858,091 _$995,087 __ _____$1,743,583 __ _ $26,~3,025 __ $180,922 $1417 766 $42,880,351 - - - i $5 925 000 - -$5,925,-000 --- - ----- -- $1,946,088 - $6,890,064 $6,016,443 $283,453 $4,768,208 $1,123,759 $2,070\,264 $1 068099 $22,224,290 $2,875,000 - $942,832 $80 960 $1,023,792 1 $101,603,039 $17,101,924 $84,501,115 $0 $832,650 $0 $0 $0 ------------ $0 lQ - $832,-650 lQ U ---$0 2006 Amended Budget - $4c,052'B2_6 lQ n _ $20 675 692 $24,728,518 $8,711,877 $3,690,741 $995,087 $1,743,583 _u_$~,9!3,025 $180,922 $1 417 766 $43,713,001 $5 925000 -.---.- $5,925,000 --- 1- - $0 $1,946,088 $0 __ $6.8.90,064. $0 _ ----.!6,01B.,4.4:3 $0 $283,453 _ --- I _n --- $0 __$4,768,208 $0 $1,123,7~9 $0 $2,074,264 lQ $1068699 $0 $22,224,290 $0 $2,875,000 $0 $0 $942,832 $80.960 $0 $1,023,792 $832,650 $102,435,689 1 $0, $17,101,924 $832,6501 $85,333,765 MEMORANDUM V\' \ b TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ James Lindt, Senior Planner ~L- Second Reading of Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006,202 North Monarch Street Subdivision - Continued Public Hearln!!: THRU: FROM: RE: DATE: February 27, 2006 ApPLICANT fOWNER: Blu Vie, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: Lots K, L, M, N, and 0 of Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen; 202 N. Monarch Street. CURRENT ZONING: Lots K-M are zoned R-6 (Medium- Density Residential). Lots Nand 0 are zoned Mixed Use (MU). Photo Above: Property as seen from E. Bleeker Street. PROPOSED LAND USE REQUEST: Subdivision to split the existing parcel into two parcels ofland. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests subdivision approval to subdivide the existing parcel of land into a 9,000 square foot residential parcel and a 6,000 square foot mixed use parcel. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance, approving the proposed Photo Above: Property as seen from N. subdivision request with the conditions of Monarch Street. approval included therein. REVIEW PROCEDURE A development application for subdivision shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by City Council after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Community Development Director pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.040. Subdivision. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Blu Vie, LLC, requests subdivision approval to subdivide the existing 15,000 square foot parcel located at 202 N. Monarch Street into two (2) parcels; a residential parcel (Lot I of the proposed subdivision) of 9,000 square feet to contain the existing historically designated single-family residence and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision) for future development under the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant originally proposed to open a portion of the currently unopened but platted alley and improve it to the City's standards for public alleys to provide vehicular access to the proposed 6,000 square foot parcel for development under the Mixed Use Zone District's requirements. The existing 15,000 square foot parcel contains a single-family residence that is designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historically Designated Sites and Structures. The Historic Preservation Commission has approved the existing shed for demolition (resolution was attached as Exhibit "E" in the first reading packet). The parcel currently has a split zoning with the westernmost 9,000 square feet of land being zoned R-6 and the easternmost 6,000 square feet being zoned in the Mixed Use Zone District. The proposed subdivision places the new parcel boundary line where separation in zoning currently exists on the fathering parcel. PREVIOUS HEARING: At the last Council meeting, City Council considered a presentation by the Applicant, a presentation of the discussion issues by Staff, and heard and considered public comments. After the conclusion of the public comments section of the public hearing, City Council discussed the proposal and provided comments on the discussion items before continuing the public hearing. The majority of the discussion centered around the uncertainty about what would be constructed on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision and the vehicular access to the subdivision. 2 Other periphery issues included whether it was appropriate to require the establishment of a sidewalk along Monarch Street adjacent to the property. Staff has further addressed these discussion items below in the Staff Comments section of this memorandum. STAFF COMMENTS: Uncertainty ahout Develooment on Lot 2: Several City Council members expressed concern about the uncertainty of what is going to be developed on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, sets forth what needs to be included in an application for subdivision within the City of Aspen. The required contents in a subdivision application include the identification of proposed lot boundaries, public improvements, and vehicular access. However, the required application contents for subdivision do not require the Applicant to provide a specific development plan for each of the lots within the proposed subdivision. Several years ago, a past City Council discussed whether they wanted to have the subdivision section of the land use code amended to require architectural drawings and specific development programs when reviewing a subdivision proposal and Council decided not to amend the code in this manner. It should be noted that the design of any development that might occur on Lot 2 would be subject to the review and approval of the Historic Preservation Commission given that the fathering parcel is designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Additionally, any development that would occur on Lot 2 would be required to meet the allowable dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District (attached as Exhibit "S") and the Commercial Design Standards. Vehicular Access Ootions: Staff is still of the opinion that from a technical planning standpoint, it would be most appropriate to open the alleyway from Monarch Street to access both of the proposed lots within the subdivision. However, it appeared that the majority of City Council favored the option of providing vehicular access to Lot I from East Bleeker Street, but wanted more detail as to where the curb cut would be located. The Applicant has provided a site plan (attached as Exhibit "C") that shows in greater detail where the vehicular access would be taken from on East Sleeker Street to Lot I. Additionally, the attached site plan shows how far to the north that the driveway would be extended to allow for the Fire Department to access the back of the mixed use parcel (proposed Lot 2). The Fire Marshall has reviewed the access shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit "c" and has indicated that as long as tbe driveway extends to the north as far as is shown, the Fire Department could serve the northern extent of Lot 2. City Council also wanted more detail about the possibility of opening the alleyway from North Mill Street to access the proposed Lot 2. The Applicant has inventoried the existing utilities in the currently platted, but unopened alleyway and provided greater detail on the proposed improvements (inventory of utilities and an improvement plan is also shown on Exhibit "C") that would be needed to take access to the proposed Lot 2 from North Mill Street. Staff has included a proposed condition of approval requiring that the Applicant provide a plan for relocating above-grade electrical equipment that'~cceptable to the City's Public Works Director prior to filing the subdivision plat and agreement. 3 Since it appeared that providing vehicular access to Lot 1 from East Bleeker Street and providing vehicular access to Lot 2 by opening the alleyway from North Mill Street was favored by the majority of City Council at the last meeting, Staff has amended the proposed ordinance (attached as Exhibit "D") to reflect that vehicular access would be provided in this manner. lmvact of aveninz Mill Street Allevwav on Jerome Professional Buildinz: Councilwoman Richards requested more analysis about how opening the alleyway from North Mill Street might impact future redevelopment of the Jerome Professional Building. In response to this request for more analysis, Staff cannot say for certain what the impact of opening the alleyway would be on the future development potential of the Jerome Professional Building since the owners of the Jerome Professional Building do not currently have an active land use application to redevelop. However, currently the Jerome Professional Building has their vehicular access on their property rather than in the platted alleyway. By improving the platted alleyway, it would allow for the Jerome Professional Building to access their existing parking from the alleyway rather than using a portion of their property to accommodate their access. This would free up some of Jerome Professional Building's property for future development, so opening the alleyway would likely provide the owners of the Jerome Professional Building with more development flexibility than they currently have. That said, the overall dimensional allowances (setbacks, allowable FAR) for the Jerome Professional Building would not be impacted by opening the alleyway. The Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association has provided a letter (attached as Exhibit "E") supporting the opening of the alley from North Mill Street. Potential for Future Lot Svlit: Several Council members asked about whether there would be potential for further splitting the parcels that would be created by this subdivision. There would be a potential to further split the parcels created in this subdivision because the minimum lot size for historic landmark properties is only 3,000 square feet in both the Mixed Use and the R-6 Zone Districts. Sidewalk Alonz Monarch Street: In the ordinance considered at the last meeting, Staff had included a requirement that the Applicant provide a sidewalk along North Monarch Street and along East Bleeker Street because the property is located in a sidewalk zone pursuant to the City's sidewalk master plan. It was apparent that City Council felt that it was necessary to require sidewalk along East Bleeker Street but that it was not appropriate to have a sidewalk along Monarch Street that would dead end. Therefore, Staff has amended the proposed ordinance to remove the requirement for providing a sidewalk along Monarch Street. Instead, Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to sign a future sidewalk agreement that would bind the Applicant or a future owner of Lot 1 to install a sidewalk along Monarch Street if it is deemed appropriate by the City at sometime in the future. 4 VacatinlZ Unopened Allevwav: Staff would suggest that if City Council is not going to allow for the upper portion of the alley to be opened from Monarch Street to provide access to the properties in the proposed subdivision, it should be vacated. Vacating this portion of the alleyway would legalize 212 North Monarch Street's shed encroachment into the platted alleyway since they would get half the width of the alleyway upon vacation. Additionally, vacating this portion of the alleyway would eliminate any future questions about whether someone could rely on this platted alleyway for vehicular access. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve the proposed subdivision with vehicular access to the parcels being provided from East Bleeker Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff still believes that from a technical planning standpoint, it would make sense to provide vehicular access to the parcels in the subdivision by improving the platted alleyway from North Monarch Street. However, Staff understands the character discussion related to opening the alleyway from Monarch Street that was presented by the neighbors and was embraced by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. That said, providing access to Lot I from East Bleeker Street and opening and improving the alley from North Mill Street to access Lot 2 seems to be technically possible and is represented in the proposed ordinance attached as Exhibit "D". In total, Staff believes that the subdivision review standards are met by the proposal and recommends that City Council approve the proposed ordinance to split the property at 202 N. Monarch Street into a parcel of 9,000 square feet and a parcel of 6,000 square feet. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 'v ~ ~~ ~ ).u~~~ k~ ~ ~ <J ~ ,4-. '7ku..J~fL. . -e...; ~ ~ cY"~ ~ ''In (- ECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIYE):,.;~al''''';' 6)(b.... "I move to approve Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006, approving with con~tion~e-Lo~:1t;, N. Monarch Subdivision to divide the property described as Lots K-O, Block 78, of the City and Townsite of Aspen into a 9,000 square foot parcel and a 6,000 square foot parcel. " A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A --Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Mixed Use Zone District Requirements Exhibit C - Site Plan Showing the Bleeker and Mill Street Alley Details Exhibit D - Revised Ordinance Exhibit E - Letters trom the public received since the last meeting 5 Subdivision REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is consistent with many aspects of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The properties to be subdivided are located close to the core area of town, which should encourage the residents to use alternative means of transportation such as walking and riding their bicycles as is encouraged by the AACP. Staff also finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) in that this proposal would create a vacant parcel for infill development within the original Aspen townsite from a fathering parcel that was significantly underutilized. In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, the Applicant has also proposed to provide sidewalk adjacent to the Monarch and Bleeker Street right-of-ways, thereby filling in a missing sidewalk link on both streetscapes as is consistent with the expressed transportation goal of adding sidewalk connections within the City. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The Applicants have not proposed a specific plan for Lot 2 of the Subdivision, but have represented that development on the site will be constructed in compliance with the regulations established in the underlying Mixed Use Zone District. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding Staff does not feel that the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the future development of surrounding properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The Applicant at this time is not proposing any additional development on the proposed Lot 1 than what exists and the existing single-family residence is within the allowed dimensional requirements of the R-6 Zone District in which it is located. Additionally, the Applicant has not proposed a site-specific plan on the proposed Lot 2, but has made a representation in the application that all new development on Lot 2 will meet the Mixed Use Zone District's dimensional and use requirements. The Applicant has also represented that all development on Lot 2 will need to obtain necessary development allotments prior to being developed. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6 B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of jlooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudjlow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. b. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding Staff believes that the properties are suitable for subdivision. Only a small corner of the proposed Lot 2 contains steep slope and there are no known geologic hazards that may harm the health of any of the inhabitants of the proposed development. In addition, staff believes that there will not be a duplication or premature extension of public facilities because the property to be subdivided is already served by adequate public facilities. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. The improvements setforth at Chapter 26.580 shall be providedfor the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: J. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. Staff Finding The Applicant has consented in the application to meet the applicable required improvements pursuant to Section 26.580. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The Applicant has not proposed any new construction within the subdivision at this time. This application is simply to subdivide the existing parcel into two (2) parcels of land. Any future development on Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision will require the Applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary development allotments prior to commencing construction. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7 E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The proposed subdivision is required to meet the School Land Dedication Standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630. The Applicant has proposed to pay cash-in-lieu of providing land. In this instance, the amount of the required cash-in-lieu payment cannot be determined at this time because there is not a specific plan proposed on Lot 2 of the subdivision. Therefore, the dedication amount cannot be determined because it is calculated based on the number of bedrooms being proposed in the subdivision, which is still an uncertainty. The Applicant has consented to paying the applicable school land dedication fee at the time of building permit issuance for development within the subdivision. Thus, staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, ~ 2) Staff Finding The Applicant has not proposed a specific development plan for Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision at this time. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that requires all necessary growth management allotments to be applied for and obtained prior to developing Lot 2. Staff finds this criterion to be met if all applicable development allotments are obtained prior to developing Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. 8 fx~\'~\+ ~f 26.710.180 Mixed-Use (MU). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Mixed-Use (MU) Zone District is to provide for a variety oflodging, multi-family, single-family, and mixed-use buildings with commercial uses serving the daily or fre- quent needs of the surrounding neighborhood, provide a transition between the commercial core and surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to provide a variety of building sizes compatible with the character of the Main Street Historic District. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: I. On Historic Landmark Properties: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Neighborhood Commercial Uses. and Bed and breakfast. 2. Service Uses. 3. Office Uses. 4. Lodging, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing. 5. Arts, Cultural and Civic Uses. 6. Public Uses. 7. Recreational Uses. 8. Academic Uses. 9. Child care center. 10. Affordable Multi-Family Housing. II. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing. 12. Single Family Residence. 13. Duplex Residence. 14. Two Detached Single-Family Residences. 15. Home occupations. 16. Accessory uses and structures. 17. Storage accessory to a permitted use. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): 3,000. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a. Detached residential dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties. b. Duplex dwellings: 4,500. 3,000 for Historic Landmark properties. c. All other uses: Not applicable. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): 30. 4. Minimum front vard setback (feet): 10, which may be reduced to 5, pursuant to Special Review, Section 26.430. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005. Part 700, Page 39 5. Minimum side vard setback (feet): 5. 6. Minimum rear vard setback (feet): 5. 7. Maximum height: a. Commercial, Lodge, Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing, Multi-Family, and Mixed-Use Buildings: 32 feet. b. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings: 25 feet. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet): 10, 9. Pedestrian Amenitv Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): A. The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to a total maximum FAR of 2: 1. For properties within the Main Street Historic District, this maximum cumulative FAR shall be 1: 1, which may be increased to 1.25: 1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 1. Commercial; Lodge; Timeshare Lodge, Exempt Timesharing; Arts, Cultural and Civic uses; Public Uses; Recreational Uses; Academic Uses: .75:1, which may be increased to 1: 1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. 2. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation, other than the cumulative FAR limit stated above. 3. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: .75:1, which may be increased to 1:1 by Special Review, pursuant to Section 26.430. B. The following FAR schedule applies to single-family and duplex uses when devel- oped as the only use of the parcel: I. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established prior to the adoption of Ordinance 7, Series of2005: 100% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent- sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) Receipt of a Development Order shall constitute the date the use was established. Replace- ment after Demolition shall not effect a new establishment date for the purposes of this section. City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area. 2. Detached residential and Duplex dwellings established after the adoption of Or- dinance 7, Series of 2005: 80% of the allowable floor area of an equivalent- sized lot located in the R6 zone district. (See R6 Zone District.) City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Rights shall not be extinguished in this zone district and shall not permit additional floor area. (Ord. No. 56-2000, 9 7 (part); Ord. No. 25-2001, S 5 (part); Ord. 1-2002 S 20; Ord. No. 7-2005 S 1 (part), 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 700, Page 40 f!:'- iP:~ An'~ ijH hB ,111i ~ .~ . ~Pi~~ 55~~ .,~ t:z:l!':!3t'j !: ~ " '" P I >l,':Ijz li.~ gz> I' ...... ~ ~>tIj Ult"' "',. 5:Z z" " >< '" " NORTH MONARCH ".'" STREET "I 1 . I: ( ""'D '" 1 1 J I :.. 'Ill It'k --- 1 1 '" '" 0 l c: Ul '" if ------ f '", , ! ' ~ . . 0 'f? ! '" it ! ., ~~ ~ '" .., .'" it; '", ~ '" '" ;j ~ .., --- ~",........., --- ..~ ----- ,.. ----- , \ -----\ I I I ! l(' , , / / / ----- to c: t; 51 " t"'"to ~:;<.~ 'J..(l__, I Np. <: "~I /~F' , 0,", "h:e' ~----- '" I, , t ir/)I,.; ,', i 'j , i, '. ." ---....... ............_-, , , , , " if 1\ 1 \ , I I I ~-, I ----- '" '" ~ ----- ---- z'" ~ --- I 'I --! " Ul -<- r: n ----- ~~ .;:: ;;-s so ~:~ 00 ---- -------- 3;- >!-- 00 0 00. o. 0_ ~ttl ~ g'~ = ------- ~ ----- ------ ." .0 ----- ----- '" .' I. H 'I ill ~ : "!!Rl1, Ii!~ ! ~1'!I! ! 'I" , '1"111 . ~ ! .l! " I" I !Ii' 15 !~ ;l ~ Ul , ------ '" '" ------- NORTH MI" .... STREE ~ l\l >< :s- - , V -I- ~ (\ Gh I 0,)- llf} II ORDINANCE NO.2 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 202 N. MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION, DIVIDING THE PROPERTY AT 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS OF LAND, CREATING LOTS 1 AND 2, OF THE 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2737-073-17-005 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Blu Vie, LLC, represented by Stan Clauson and Associates, Inc, requesting to subdivide the property located at 202 N. Monarch Street (Lots K-O, Block 78, City and Townsite of Aspen), to create Lots I and 2 of the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the fathering parcel has a split zoning with the westernmost 9,000 square feet (Lots K-M) being zoned R-6 (Medium Density Residential) and the easternmost 6,000 square feet (Lots N-O) being zoned Mixed Use (MU); and, WHEREAS, the proposed Lot 1 is to contain 9,000 square feet and maintain the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) zoning designation that the land currently contains; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Lot 2 is to contain 6,000 square feet and maintain the Mixed Use (MU) zoning designation that the land currently contains; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed subdivision; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that City Council approve with conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision without allowing the opening and improvement of the alleyway pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 37, Series of2005; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed that they supported keeping the alleyway closed and providing for vehicular access from E. Bleeker Street to the new parcels to be created; 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, during a duly noted public hearing on February 13,2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision and continued the public hearing to February 27, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during a continued public hearing on February 27, 2006, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposed 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision and approved Ordinance No.2, Series of 2006,by a _ to _ (_-~ vote, approving with conditions, the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, and opening of the easternmost 145 feet of the Block 78 Alley to access Lot 2 of the subdivision; 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 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council hereby approves the 202 N. Monarch Street Subdivision, subdividing the parcel located at 202 N. Monarch Street into 9,000 square foot parcel (Lot I of the subdivision) and a 6,000 square foot parcel (Lot 2 of the subdivision), with the conditions contained herein. Section 2: Plat and A2reement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Suhdivision, within 180 days of approval. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements Development on Lot I of the Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements of the R-6 (Medium Density Residential) Zone District. Development on Lot 2 of the Subdivision shall conform to the dimensional requirements of the Mixed Use (MU) Zone District. Section 4: Growth Mana2ement Allotments Since the Applicant is not proposing any development on Lot I of the subdivision at this time and there is not a specific development plan proposed on Lot 2 of the subdivision, any future development within the subdivision shall require receipt of applicable growth management allocations prior to submitting for a building permit. Section 5: Historic Preservation Review on Both Lots Any development on either Lot I or Lot 2 of the subdivision shall be subject to review and approval pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Development Involving the A!>pen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Section 6: Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall have installed an attached sidewalk meeting the City Engineer's design requirements along the entire lot frontage abutting East Bleeker Street. The Applicant shall also enter into a sidewalk agreement to install a future sidewalk adjacent to North Monarch Street along the entire lot frontage if it is deemed appropriate by the City of Aspen to have a sidewalk in this location at some time in the future. The Applicant shall consult with the Parks Department in designing and installing the sidewalk along East Bleeker Street in order to preserve the significant lilacs that exist along East Bleeker Street. Additionally, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall upgrade the curb and gutter along the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street to meet the City Engineer's design requirements. Section 7: Vehicular Access and Allevwav Improvements Vehicular access to Lot I shall be provided from East Bleeker Street pursuant to the curb cut and driveway plan reviewed by City Council on February 27,2006. Vehicular access to Lot 2 shall be provided by opening and improving the easternmost 145 feet of the Block 78 alleyway. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any new development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall have opened and paved to the City Engineer's standards, a l45-foot long portion of the alley in Block 78 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, to provide vehicular access to Lot 2 of the subdivision from the alleyway to be accessed tfom North Mill Street. Prior to recording a subdivision plat and agreement, the Applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the City of Aspen's Public Works Director to relocate the existing above-grade utilities in the alleyway. Also, prior to improving the alleyway, the Applicant shall submit a detailed design plan to the Community Development Department for the alleyway improvements that addresses soil stability, erosion control, and drainage as well as a detailed site improvement survey. In designing the alleyway improvements, the Applicant shall consult with the City Engineer and Parks Department to determine an acceptable grade. Section 8: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication in conjunction with any residential development in the subdivision. Prior to building permit issuance on any residential development within the subdivision, the Applicant shall pay the school lands dedication fee associated with the subdivision as calculated by the City Zoning Officer using the dedication schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.630.030, School LandI' Dedication: Dcdication Schedule. Section 9: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee at the time of building permit issuance for any construction within the subdivision that adds new residential/lodge bedrooms and/or commercial/otlice square footage. The City Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submission as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.610.030, Park Development Impact Fee: Fee Schedule. _........._...,,~.....-.....,.- .., Section 10: Sewer Line Extension The Applicant shall be required to provide a main sewer line extension to serve Lot 2 of the subdivision, subject to the review and approval of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, prior to the development of Lot 2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed service plan for review and approval by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District prior to building permit submittal on Lot 2. Section 11: Fire Sprinklers Development on Lot 2 shall contain fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshall. Section 12: Landscapinl!: The Applicant shall submit a tree protection review plan and a tree permit for any new development within the subdivision. The Applicant shall also submit a landscape- planting plan for improvement of the City right-of-way for the entire lot frontage abutting both East Bleeker Street and North Monarch Street that will be reviewed by the Parks Department in conjunction with submitting a building permit application for new development in the subdivision. Section 13: 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 14: 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 15: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 13th day of February, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) 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 9th day of January, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 27th day of February, 2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney crl1J kJ,'ft? Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 -1557 February 9, 2006 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Application to Open Alley Ladies and Gentlemen: The Jerome Professional Building Condominium Association supports the application submitted by Blu Vie to open the alley behind our project at 201 N. Mill Street. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very Truly Yours, By: JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ~ B. Joseph Krabacher President Community Development Dept. City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 City Council: As I have been following the development at my prior residence at 202 N. Monarch Street, I would like to offer some historical information that may help fill in some gaps and may be relevant to the proposed development plans. I grew up in this house and it had belonged to our family since 1917. In regard to the different zoning designations on thc property, i.e. the R-6 and MU zones, this zoning first originated when the city dairy was relocated to where the Jerome Professional Building is currently located. Because the dairy was a commercial building and included additional commercial structures such as the storage refrigerators, this area including lots N and 0 of our property were rezoned commercial. Also, access to the dairy was set up from Bleeker Street. The dairy trucks and customers all came off of Bleeker Street. In regard to the access for our house, our parking has always been in the rear of the house, which was accessed from Bleeker. Currently there is a paved parking pad that was improved while the Jerome addition was built. Prior to that improvcment, we parkcd in the same location but it was dirt. There wa~ a garage of sorts that we used to park a car in. However, due to its poor condition, I personally disassembled it with my brother. Nonetheless, this historically was the parking for our house and continues to be today. I am aware that then, is contention regarding the access to the property and differing opinions about its historic conditions. I hope my comments will help alleviate any confusion and facilitate your decision making process. Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Thank you Regards, r, ~(" ,/ . \(/ {,('0V\L Robert Ryan (970) 928-8757 1 'd 2to91.-S26 O1.6 uos:lPOH '00'" " " ,~ B. Joseph Krabacher Susan Scott Krabacher 201 North Mill Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 -1557 February 9, 2006 Aspen/Pitkin Community Development 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Blu Vic Application to Open Alley Ladies and Gentlemen: We are owners of five condominiums in the Jerome Professional Building, located immediately adjacent to the alley that is proposed to be opened in the application submitted by Blu Vie. This letter is written in support of the opening of the alley. When development occurs on the lot being created in the proposed lot split (to be located on Bleeker) there will be an increase in traffic which needs to be routed to and from the new project along the alley, rather than adding to the already overloaded intersection at Bleeker and Mill Street. We are also authorized by Herb and Marsha Klein to represent their support for the project as well, as the Kleins also own five condominiums in the building. We are in support of opening the alley, which is an existing public access. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very TrulYr ~ B~h Krabacher James Lindt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nancy Elisha [nlelisha@hotmail.com] Monday, February 13, 2006 9:38 AM James Lindt wylyhodgeson@gmail.com; h_elisha@hotmail.com Aspen City Council 202 N Monarch (The following is to be submitted to the Aspen City Council for discussion Monday February 13, 2006 in regards to the property dispute at 202 N. Monarch) To: Aspen City Council Re: 202 N. Monarch I was born in Aspen in 1940, and lived part time with my grandparents, Ingrid and John Elder in the Victorian at 202 N Monarch. I used to help my grandmother get chickens from the coop located on the north side of the property. There was no alley or street behind the building and the drop down to the rail turn around was steep. The place where my uncle parked his 1955 Oldsmobile was located in a garage opening to Bleeker St. behind the Jerome. It was my job to park my uncle's car in the garage-which at 15 years old was a challenge. The building has since been removed and the space has been used for parking since the mid 60's. M.J. Elisha - Nephew Me1s Elder 1 Vltle MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development RE: PUD Amendment and Lot Split: 488 );astIe Creek Rd. 2nd" Reading of Ordinance No.5, Series of 2006. 1>V DATE: February 27, 2006 SUMMARY: Haas Land Planning, representing Steel Partners Ltd., owner of 488 Castle Creek Rd., is requesting approval of a PUD Amendment [26.445.100(8)] and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2] from the City Council. The proposal for a PUD Amendment is subject to final development plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(C) Steps 3 and 4. This requires the P&Z to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the PUD Amendment. On January 17, the P&Z voted 5-0 in favor of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment, with conditions. The request for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption goes directly to City Council. Applicant is also seeking an Administrative Growth Management Review [26.470.040(8)(1)] and an administrative review for Condominiumization [26.480.090]. City Council approval of this PUD Amendment and Lot Split would allow administrative Growth Management and Condominiumization reviews. If the PUD Amendment, Lot Split, Growth Management and Condominiumization requests are approved, the applicant would be entitled to the following: Two (2) detached single-family, free market units (3,335 square feet and 3,515 square feet) and one (1) detached single-family, deed-restricted (RO) unit (1,500 square feet). Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the deed-restricted unit be designated as Category 7. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff has reviewed this proposal and recommends that City Council find that the project complies with PUD Amendment Standards of Review [26.445.050 (A-J)] and qualifies tor a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption [26.480.030(A)2]. Staff believes that applicant's request meets the Standards of Review for a PUD Amendment, qualifies for a Lot Split Subdivision Exemption and is consistent with the purpose and intent of previous land-use decisions regarding this property. HISTORY: In 1980, this property was annexed into the City of Aspen and zoned R- 15A/PUD. A single-family home of about 2,000 square feet existed on the site prior to 1980, and there have been no improvements since that time. During deliberations in 1980, the City Council recognized that R-15A zoning without a PUD overlay made it possible for two free market units to be approved with no employee housing required (ADUs were not required at that time). The PUD overlay was added to require slope reductions, which reduced the density allowance and limited the potential of development to either one single family home (which existed at the time) or a duplex that included one employee housing unit. (Please see Exhibit B; Minutes; Ordinance #11 Series of 1980). In 1999, then-owner Paul Anderson applied for a Rezoning in order to remove the PUD overlay, which would have allowed for a subsequent lot split and the development of two, single-family homes, each with an ADU. The Community Development Department recommended denial of the Rezoning application, citing the 1980 annexation and zoning deliberations: "The PUD overlay was placed on the property... to ensure the existence of an employee unit on-site..." according to the staff summary. The staff summary acknowledged that two ADUs would be developed, or a cash-in- lieu payment would be made, subsequent to a lot split, but added that, "Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree of community benefit ..." The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the application. (Please see Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, 1999.) The applicant appealed the P&Z decision to City Council, but the appeal was withdrawn prior to 1" Reading. Staff believes that if a condition of approval requires a Category 7 Employee Housing Unit rather than an RO Unit as prescribed by an Administrative Growth Management Review, the project would be consistent with the PUD Amendment Standards of Review, as well as the purpose and intent of previous land-use decisions regarding this property. On January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council approve the PUD Amendment with the condition of a Category 7 designation. The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority has also reviewed this proposal and recommended a Category 7 designation. The applicant has agreed to this condition. ApPLICANT: Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Haas Land Planning. Owner is Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road; a metes and bounds parcel (.824 acres). ZONING: R-15A/PUD REVIEW PROCEDURE: A PUD Amendment is required to meet the Standards of Review in Section 26.445.050 (A-J). A Lot Split Subdivision Exemption is allowed under Section 26.480.030 (A)2. Administrative Growth Management Review occurs under Section 26.470.040(B)(I); and an administrative review for Condominiumization occurs under Section 26.480.090. KEY ISSUES: Slope reduction provIsIons of the Land Use Code in combination with the PUD overlay of this property reduce the effective lot size and allowable density for this property. While the actual size of the property is 35,895 square feet, these Code requirements reduce the effective Lot Area to 22,945 square feet. The use-by-right for this property allows for a single-family home of approximately 5,000 square feet, including an ADU as small as 300 square feet, or a cash-in-lieu payment. The request for a PUD Amendment proposes a decrease in the minimum lot area for Lot I, a decrease in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot I and Lot 2 and a decrease in the front yard setback for Lot I. Approval of the PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption would allow for two (2) single-family homes (3,335 square feet and 3,515 square feet), one (1) ADU, or a cash-in-lieu payment, and one (1) deed-restricted home (1,500 square feet). In other words, this PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption would allow for a net increase of 1,815 square feet of free market space compared to the use-by-right option, but would simultaneously provide 1,500 square feet of deed- restricted housing (at Category 7, according to the proposed staff condition). This trade-off is in keeping with the purpose and intent of previous land use decisions regarding this property. Furthermore, staff believes the proposal meets the PUD Amendment Standards of Review [26.445.050 (A-J)] through the mitigation of steep slopes with proven engineering methods, the community benefit of a Category 7 single-family home, the appropriate scale of three smaller homes rather than one large home in this neighborhood, close proximity to both transit and pedestrian trails, the removal of overhead utilities and the removal of a septic tank in the Castle Creek neighborhood. (Please see Exhibit A for detailed staff findings.) In addition to standard conditions for a Final PUD, additional conditions recommended by staff include the designation of Unit B on Lot 2 as a Category 7 unit; the submittal of professional engineered reports to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development; and the removal of overhead utility lines. Regarding environmental conditions, a proposed condition of approval is the development of a handling and disposal plan for the abandoned septic system; and permit requirements for transporting any contaminated soil away from the property (while the 12 feet of fill on-site is likely to originate from the construction of Castle Creek Road, it is unclear if other types of waste were disposed of at the site). Dimensional Reqnirements: Zone District Vs. PUD Amendment R-15A Zone District PUD Request Min. Lot Size 15,000 s.f. Lot 1: 11,225 s. f. Lot 2: 24,600 s.f. Min. Lot Area/ 15,000 s.f. for 6,300 s.f. (after Lot Area Dwelling Unit single-family; Slope Reductions) 7,500 for duo lex Minimum Lot 75 ft. Lot I: 75 ft. Width Lot 2: 75 ft. Minimum 25 ft. Lot 1: 10 ft. Front Yard Lot 2: 25 ft. Minimum Side 5 ft. Lot I: 5 ft. Yard Lot 2: 5 ft. Minimum Rear lOft. Lot 1: 10 ft. Yard Lot 2: 10 ft. Maximum 25 ft. 25 ft. Height Minimum lOft. 10 I' Distance between Principal & Accessory Buildings Minimum (%) No requirement No requirement Open Space Requirement Allowable 5,025 for single-family; Lot I: 3,344 s.f. FAR 5,445 for duplex or two Lot 2: 3,515 s.f. detached single-family + 1,500 (Cat 7) Minimum 01'1'- Lesser of one Lesser of one Street Parking space/bedroom or two space/bedroom or two Spaces spaces/unit. spaces/unit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.5, Series of2006, approving a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for property located at 488 Castle Creek Rd., with conditions, finding that the review criteria for the application have been met." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - PUD Amendment, Standards of Review Exhibit B: Minutes; Ordinance # I ] Series of 1980 Exhibit C: Staff Memo + P&Z minutes: Rezoning request, ] 999 Exhibit D: Application Exhibit E: Plannin~ and Zoning Commission Resolution and Minutes (to be provided prior to 2" Reading). ORDINANCE NO.5 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT AND LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION WITH CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 273512300024 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Steel Partners Ltd., represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption for 488 Castle Creek Road; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment and Lot Split Subdivision Exemption; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on January 17, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein and recommended by a vote of 5-0 that City Council approve the proposal; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Approval of the Development Plans Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the 488 Castle Creek Final PUD, which includes application for PUD, Subdivision (condominiumization), subject to the following conditions: 1. A PUD/Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council and shall include the following: a. The information required to be included in a PUD Agreement, pursuant to Section 26.445.070(C). 2. A Final PUD/Subdivision Plan shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval granted by City Council and shall include: a. A final plat meeting the requirements of the Community Development Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements and licenses with reception numbers for physical improvements, and the location of utility pedestals. Section 2: Dimensional Approvals The following dimensional requirements of the PUD are approved and shall be printed on the Final PUD Plan: Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area er Dwellin Unit Minimum Lot Width (west property Jin~ setback A roved PUD via this Ordinance Lot I: 11.225 Square Feet Lot 2: 24,600 S uare Feet 6,300 Square Feet (after Lot Area reductions) 75reet Maximum Rei ht Min. Distance between Buil on a lot Min. Percent of 0 en S ace Lot I: 10 feet along west property line Lot 2: 25 feet for buildings, and 0 feet for radin retainin r associated with drivewa Lot I: 5 feet along north and south property lines Lot 2: 5 feet along north property line; 55 feet alon south ro ert line Lot 1: 10 feet along east property line Lot 2: 10 feet along east property line and property lines adjoinin Lot 1 No Requirement 25 feet 10 feet No requirement Lot I: 3.344 Lot 2: 5,015. where the Jree market residence is allowed up to 3,515, and the Category 7 unit must be at least 1,500 s uare feet Lesser of one space/bedroom or two spaces/unit Minimum Front Yard Minimum Side Yard Setbacks Allowable External FAR Minimum Off-Street Parkin Section 3: Condominiumization Condominiumization of the development is hereby approved by the City of Aspen subject to recordation of a condominiumization plat in compliance with the current plat requirements in place at the time of filing. Each plat for condominiumization shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for evaluation and approval by the Community Development Engineer prior to recordation. The cost of recordation shall be borne by the applicant. Recordation is required prior to the transfer of ownership of the condominium. Section 4: BuildiDl! Permit Submittal The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed lap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of any removed trees. A fugitive dust control plan which includes proposed construction fencing, watering of haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads, construction speed limits, and other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line. The Applicant shall submit geotechnical and soil stability reports performed by a qualified, licensed engineer to the Community Development Department Engineer, demonstrating the land is suitable to handle the proposed development, and that required excavation may be performed without damaging the adjacent street. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. e. f. g. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap tees, impacts tees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 3. The Applicant shall complete (prior to any demolition) the Building Department's asbestos checklist, and if necessary, a person licensed by the State to do asbestos inspections must conduct an inspection. The Building Department cannot sign any building permits until submittal of this report. If there is a finding of no asbestos, the demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. 4. All development within the subdivision shall meet the Residential Design Standards as set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.4 I 0, unless variances from said standards are granted. Section 5: Utility and Service Conditions of Approval The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with 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. 2. The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) shall be allowed to ACSD lines. 3. The Applicant shall execute a shared sewer service line agreement prior to application for a building permit. 4. Lots I and 2 shall share a driveway meeting the City Engineering Department Design Standards to be accessed off of Castle Creek Road, and in the approximate location shown on the Final PUD plans. 5. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 6. All utility connections shall be buried. Section 6: Engineering Requirements and Conditions: The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. The Applicant and contractors are hereby notified that there will be no construction material or dumpsters stored on the public rights-of~way unless a temporary encroachment license is granted by the City Engineer. 2. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan as part of the building permit application, and the management plans shall include a noise, dust control, and construction traffic and construction parking management plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following issues: a. Defining the construction debris hauling routes and associated impacts on local streets; and b. Construction parking mitigation, except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The city encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. 3. The Applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 4. The Applicant shall submit financial assurance in an amount and form acceptable to the City Engineer and City Water Department Director for excavation in the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall also schedule the abandonment of the existing water tap prior to requesting a new water tap. 5. The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. Section 7: Environmental Health The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. To the extent that any contaminated soil or solid waste are found to exist on the site, no such contaminated soil or solid waste shall be removed, placed, stored, transported or disposed of outside the boundaries of the site without having first obtained any and all necessary State and/or Federal transportation and disposal permits. 2. The applicant shall provide a handling and disposal plan that complies with City Environmental Health Department requirements for the abandonment of existing septic system. 3. New residential buildings are limited to two gas log fireplaces and unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. The applicant must file a fireplace permit with the Building Department before a building permit will be issued. New homes may not have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device utilize coal as fuel. All outdoor trash and recycling storage enclosures shall meet with the City of Aspen's wildlife protection regulations that specify closures for dumpsters and other containers. Section 8: Lil!:htinl!: 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 9: Landscapinl!: Improvements The following conditions are applicable to this approval. I. All landscaping in the public right-of-way shall meet the requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 21.20, Trees and Landscaping on Public Right-of-Way. Any landscaping in the public right-of~way shall be approved by the City Parks Department prior to installation. The Applicant shall obtain a revocable encroachment license from the City Engineering Department prior to installation of any landscaping or improvements in the public right-of-way. 2. The Applicant shall install tree saving construction fences around the drip line of any trees to be saved or at other points associated with the limit of the foundation as approved by the Parks Department. a. The Parks Department must inspect and approve of the fence location before any construction activities commence. b. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the fenced drip line. Section 10: Emplovee Housine. The following conditions are applicable to this approval. 1 . Affordable Housing Unit B on Lot 2 shall be a deed-restricted, for-sale unit designated Category 7. Unit B will be sold through the Housing Office, either as a single-family lot with accompanying development right, or as a completed residential unit. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and City of Aspen from any claims, liability, fees or similar charges related to ownership in the deed restricted affordable housing units. 3. A deed-restriction shall be placed on Unit B, Lot 2 prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. The ADU on Lot] shall be deed-restricted prior to building permit approval; if the ADU is not constructed, the housing impact fee will also be due prior to building permit approval, pursuant to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. Section 11: Schoo] Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School/ands dedication, the Applicant shall pay a fee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to building permit issuance. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the market value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 12: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.6]0, Park Development Impact Fee, the Applicant shall pay a park development impact fee. The City of Aspen Zoning Officer shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 13: 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 Plmming and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if nllly set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: 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 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin county Clerk and Recorder. Section 16: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 27th day of February, 2006, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13th day of February, 2006. Attest: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Aspen City Conncil on this day, February 27, 2006. Approved as to form: City Attorney Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor , ' "0- ~a !!:J5 it,. !.g ; ~ ~I~ ~~~~ ~ OUl~ (II ~~~ ~ ~ 'ih ~ !ij m '" ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~I~ !l! "" CXl CXl , ~ ". ~I~~~~~~i ~ CIlUlcngJOOO ~ ."."." ~ ~ (1)(1) '" ...... ...... ,,"" "'T'I > '" - g r- ~ mOO Ch ~ 1) (Il Ul rn E ~ ' m fol l!i J: ;1. t:. m - z :j () )>. C/) .., I""- 111 () ::u 111 111 ::>;; ::u o )>. o E i . K K r .- = K ~ 5" i r r ~ < r m g . ~ i Ii I ~ !! l f ~ - t . ~ ~ ~ ~ } if a ~ .. f , g . ;;; H ~'.~ - ~I d~", ~ ~ !.~ ~~~ i~ ~g~~ · f ~'" .~~ ~.. ~ ~.-~ -- ..- .. I it~~ fij !ii i~~ ~~~ lie ~.. !~! i~i i~i I~~ ~CI ! Iii m II II I~! F ~l .;f ~ if I '" '" ~ "'~E .~~ K j-K 5" 5" K 3' i 5' ~ . < ! ." . SI il a !:.!;' L a a" ~ 1 ~ r a q~ i i - : = f ~ ! i K '" 5' f r . ~ ~ 9: i o ~ Ii < .. . . . ~ .t!Il ~r- f Ii .~ ~ if ~:..;. CI i -- . ~~ . : JfJf c: ~ U '" l ~." ~ III f 1 ~ ~ 'il - z~ ):>ex> rex> :-t'a c):> . (J) ~-I Qo~ ro 0;0 -1m (J)m -o^ C;o -10 -0):> ro ):> Z '" ~ S2~~ sil<e! !:2J:::1- o ... ~ . .. / "< Exhibit A Review Criteria & Staff Findings 26.445.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor pun. A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. 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. I. The proposed development shall he consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Managing Growth: The proposed development is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Transportation: The proposed development is across the street from a RFT A bus stop and adjacent to the Marolt Trail. Housing: The proposed development provides a deed-restricted, single-family lot/unit. Economic Sustainabilitv: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact regarding Economic Sustainability. Parks, Open Space & the Environment: The proposed development will replace overhead utility poles/lines, a septic system, and an above-ground propane tank with underground connections to public electric, sewer and natural gas. These changes eliminate negative visual impacts in an important travel corridor and remove a septic system located in relatively close proximity to Castle Creek. Historic Preservation: The existing building is not a historic resource. Design Oualitv: Instead of developing the property with one large single-family structure of some 5,035 square feet (plus garage), the proposal will result in a development that breaks up the available floor area into three separate structures, which is contextually more appropriate for this neighborhood. Arts, Culture & Education: The size of this modest proposal does not provide an impact regarding Arts, Culture & Education. 2. The proposed development shall he consistent with the character of exisling land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate use, located between institutional and high- density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The area to the north, east and west of this site is substantially built-out, and the area to the south is under the purview of Pitkin County. A review of this proposal by the Pitkin County Community Development Department resulted in no objections. 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 FindiDl~: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. As part of the concurrent request for a Lot Split, applicant will be eligible for an Administrative Growth Management Review 26.470.040B, which further provides that the one additional allotment would not be deducted from the Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceilings, 26.470.040(B)I. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: Thefinal PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements/or all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions/or 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 thef;illowing: I. The proposed dimensional requirementsfor the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character oj," and compatibility with, existing and expectedfuture land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and high-density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Findine:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Regarding wildfire hazard, the site was rated, "Low Hazard: Brush" by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services. In addition, the response time to this site for emergency services is short. Regarding geological hazard, the steep slopes at the north and east edges of the property were found to be well vegetated with no loose boulders, according to a Geologic Hazard Assessment by Geologic and Natural Resource Consultants. In addition, the potential hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. Regarding other hazards, the report notes that the property is not subject to rockfall; swelling or hydro-compactive soils or bedrock; alluvial fan; landslide; talus slope; near- surface bedrock; high ground water; or Mancos shale geologic hazards. A subsoil study by HP Geotech based on an analysis of existing conditions made several recommendations regarding foundation and retaining wall design, floor slabs, drainage systems and site grading. The site is covered by 12 feet of fill, presumably from the construction of the adjacent Castle Creek Road. However, there is the potential that other hazardous materials were dumped at the site. A condition of approval will make any clean-up and removal the responsibility of the applicant. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The potential hazard posed by the existing steep slopes can be mitigated by further soil testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. There are no significant waterways on this property, and vegetation consists largely of grass and brush. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. 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 Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The existing man-made characteristics of the property are represented by approximately 12 feet of fill. The proposal would excavate this layer and backfill where appropriate. The medium-density nature of this proposal will not have a significant impact regarding noise, traffic or parking. The site is located near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. There are no historical resources in the immediate area. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate andfavorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The PUD variations sought from the dimensional requirements of the underlying R-15A zoning are for minimum lot size (Lot 1 only), minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and front yard setback for Lot I. It is important to review the differences between the PUD proposal and the two use-by- right scenarios. One use-by-right option under R-15A/PUD zoning would allow for the development of one free-market home at 5,035 square feet, with an Accessory Dwelling Unit as small as 300 square feet or a cash-in-lieu payment. The second use-by-right option is a duplex at 5,455 square feet, with one free market unit at 3,955 square feet and one R.O. unit at 1,500 square feet. Clearly, the most favorable use-by-right option from an economic perspective is to build one single-family home and an ADU, which does not carry a significant deed restriction compared to the R.O. unit; the single-family use-by- right option would also provide 780 additional free market square footage. Comparing the use-by-right option of the single-family home/ADU to the current PUD proposal, it becomes clear that the current PUD proposal creates a clear community benefit. Free Market FAR Deed-Restricted FAR (includes minimum 300 s.f. ADD) Single-Family 4,735 300 Use-by-right Current proposal 6,550 1,800 Difference + 1,815 + 1,500 In addition, the current proposal would allow for two free market homes at 3,335 s.f. and 3,515 s.f. and one deed-restricted home at 1,500 s.f., rather than one free market home (including an ADU) at 5,035 s.L The current proposal would result in a more appropriate scale of home for this neighborhood, while also breaking up the massing that is allowed by right on this lot. 3. The appropriate number ofotf~street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number ofcar.\' used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. At least two spaces per residence will be provided. b) The varying time periods of use, wheneverjoint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no common parking proposed for this three-unit residential development. c) The availability ofjJuhlic transit and other transportation facilities, including thosefor pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centcrs in the city. ~,,~,,~,__-"H__. ,~"",_",_,,__~,,_,~~",_~,",.,,_,_____~~'_H"""~''''''''''''~'''' ,. Staff Finding: StafI finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development is near a transit stop and a pedestrian trail. 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 bc reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) There are not adequate roads to ensurefire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 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 reduccd if a) The land is not suitablefiJr the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff,' drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 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: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community f!,oal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surroundinf!, development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if.' a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal would meet a significant community goal by providing for a 1,500 s.f. deed-restricted R.O. unit as required by Section 26.4 760.040(b) I. In addition, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the unit be designated as Category 7 under the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, thereby establishing a greater community benefit. A condition of approval will require the net livable area to be a minimum of 2,000, as proposed by the applicant. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The steep slopes at the north and east edges on this site can be effectively mitigated by further soil testing, grading and/or the installation of engineered retaining structures. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with. and complimentary to, the surroundinf!, existinf!, and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The medium-density residential use is an appropriate intermediate density, located between institutional and high-density residential uses to the north, east and west, and low-density Pitkin County zone districts to the south. 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 thefhllowing: I. Existinf!, natural or man-madefeatures of'the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl!:: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. This site does not feature any existing natural or man-made features that provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have heen clustered to appropriately preserve significant open .\paces and vistas. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The proposed development preserves the vista from Castle Creek Road by locating structures at a substantially lower grade relative to the road. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contrihute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Findinl!: StafI finds this proposal complies with this standard. There is no existing development plan, but future development must comply with Residential Design Standards. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Existing conditions which consists of a single curb cut at the north edge of the site, close to the Marolt Trail crosswalk and RFTA bus stop. The proposal is an improvement upon existing conditions from a safety standpoint, featuring a single curb cut at the center of the property, allowing for improved sight lines and removing potential conflicts with the Marolt Trail crosswalk and RFT A bus stop. There are adequate internal roads to access the proposed structures. The proposal was reviewed by the Fire Marshall. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The site has easy access to the Marolt Trail, which leads to a RFT A bus stop. Handicapped access will be addressed via the Building Code. 6. Site drainage is accommodated/or the proposed development in a practical and reasonahle manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. An adequate drainage plan will be a condition of future development. 7. For non-residential land uses, .\paces between huildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic/imctions associated with the use. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. This is a residential proposal. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of"this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landl'cape with the visual character of"the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed filatures of" the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the filllowing: I. The landscape plan exhihits a well designated treatment of"exterior .Ipaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of"ornamental plant .Ipecies suitahlefor the A.lpen area climate. Staff Findinl!: A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as individual home designs have not yet been undertaken. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of~way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be mitigated according to City requirements. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Significant vegetation occurs in the Castle Creek Road right of way and in the far northeast corner of the property, outside of developable areas. Other vegetation consists of grasses and brush. There are no significant man-made site features. 3. The proposed method olprotecting existing vegetation and other landscapefi!atures is appropriate. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. A landscape plan has not been prepared to date as individual home designs have not yet been undertaken. The most significant vegetation resides in the Castle Creek Road right-of-way and in the very northeast corner of the property, outside of areas to be developed. The applicant accepts a condition of approval requiring submittal of individual landscape plans for review and approval of the Community Development Director with each residential building permit. Any removed trees will be mitigated according to City requirements. E. Architectural Character. /t is the purpose of" this standard is to encourage architectural interest, 'variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of" resources. Architectural character is hased upon the suitahility of" a huildingfor its purposes, legihility ()lthe huilding's use, the huilding's proposed massing. proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other huildings, use of" materials, and other attrihutes which may significantly represent the character olthe proposed development. There shall he approved as part ()lthefinal development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character ()f"the proposed development. The proposed architecture of" the development shall: 1. he compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitablefor, and indicative of, the intended use, and re.\pect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Complian~e with applicable provisions of the City of Aspen Residential Design Standards will be required and will guarantee consistency with this standard. 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.\ystems. Staff Findinl!: StafJtinds the proposal complies with this standard. Architectural and mechanical plans have not yet been prepared for the project. By using existing topography in accordance with the recommendations of the soils and geologic analyses, significant portions of the resulting residences will be located below grade. This will ensure natural cooling. The site plan also ensures adequate solar access/heating for each building site. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Findinl!: StafTfinds the proposal complies with this standard. The twenty-five foot setback area along the Castle Creek Road frontage will provide an area of approximately 9,700 square feet that can accommodate snow storage. There is currently no development plan, but the appropriate shedding of snow, ice and water, as well as water/drainage storage issues must be addressed in the Building Permit process. F. Lighting. The purpose oj'this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering hoth public safety and general aesthetic concerns. ThefiJllowing standardl shall he accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575. I 50(F), Residential Lighting Standards. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adj oining streets or lands. 2. All exterior lif!,hting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in thefinal PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings. landscape elements, and lif!,hting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited/or residential developmcnt. Staff Findine: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code, and specifically with Section 26.575.150(F), Residential Lighting Standards. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area/or the mutual hene/it olall development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall he met: I. The proposed amount, location, and desif!,n of the common park, open .\pace, 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/arm, and is available to the mutual ben4it of the various land uses and property users olthe PUD. Staff Findine: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering thise standard inapplicable. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (notfor a number o/years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Findine: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering this standards inapplicable. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance throuf!,h a legal instrumentfor the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and sharedfacilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial developmcnt. Staff Findine: There is no open space requirement in the R-15A Zone District. No designated parks, open spaces, or recreation areas are proposed as part of the PUD, rendering this standards inapplicable. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue hurden on the City '.I' infrastructure capahilities and that the public does not incur an unjustifiedfinancial hurden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the fallowing: 1. Adequate puhlic infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Findin!!:: StafI finds the proposal complies with this standard. The project site benefits from sufficient infrastructure capabilities to serve the proposed development. The existing home on the site is served with electric, telephone, cable and City water. The septic system will be removed and connection to Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) service will be made. The above-ground propane tank will be removed and underground connection with Kinder Morgan natural gas service will be made. The cost of all necessary utility upgrades and extensions will be borne by the applicant. Historic drainage rates wi II be maintained after development. The roads serving the project site are already plowed and maintained by the City of Aspen. The site is located on a public road, making it easily accessible for emergency medical services and fire protection. The development will not result in demands exceeding the capacity of any public facilities or services. 2. Advcrse impacts on public infrastructure hy the development will be mitigated hy the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. While no adverse impacts on public infrastructure are anticipated, the applicant will bear the costs of any necessary connections, upgrades, and line extensions. 3. Oversized utilities, publicfacilities. or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionatelyfor the additional improvement. Staff Findin!!:: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Applicant has consulted with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Aspen Water Department, and jointly determined that no over-sizing of utilities will be necessary. Applicant will fund extension of existing service lines in the area. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly hurden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trailfacilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure. or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Findinl1.: Stafftinds the proposal complies with this standard. The existing driveway to the site enters at the property's northwest corner, near the Marolt Trail crosswalk and the RFT A bus stop. The proposal involves a single point of access at the midpoint of the western property line, improving sight lines and removing potential conflicts with the crosswalk and bus stop. The shared access easement will be twenty (20) feet in width, allowing for driveway function and pedestrian or bicycle movement between the lots and Castle Creek Road. The shared driveway would split in three directions to serve each of the homes. 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 Findinl1.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The subject property can be developed as a use-by-right with a single-family unit and ADU or a duplex; the current proposal will allow for three single-family units. The surrounding roads can safely accommodate the additional traffic without any improvements. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of,' or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are propo.\'edf;Jr appropriate improvements and maintenance. . Staff Findinl1.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This site is not adjacent to any significant public lands and rivers. The adjacent Marolt Ranch Subdivision maintains Castle Creek frontage and easements for existing trails. This site benefits from but is not directly connected to any historic pedestrian, bicycle or recreational trails. Future residents at this site may reach the Marolt Trail via a public right of way along Castle Creek Road. 4. The recommendations of the Aopen Area Community Plan and adopted opec/fic plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and tramportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Findinl1.: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no recommended plans in the AACP or adopted specific plans regarding the implementation of recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths with regard to this property. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no streets in this PUD proposal, only a shared access easements, which allows access for emergency vehicles. 6. Security Rates. Ruard posts, or other entryway expressionsfor the PUD, orfor lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Findinl!: StafI finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions proposed. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary hurden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts olan individual phase are mitigated adequately. Ifphasing of the development plan is proposed. each phase shall be defined in the adoptedjinal PUD development plan The phasinR plan shall comply with thefiJllowing. 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall he designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Findinl!: StafI finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is not a phasing plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupanl.\' of initial phasesfi-om the construction of later phases. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. No phasing plan is proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to puhlicfacilities, payment of impact fees andfees-in-lieu, construction of anyfacilities to he usedjointly hy residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordahle housing, and any mitiRation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the re.\pective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no phasing plan proposed. A condition of approval requires for the deed restricted residence on Lot 2 to be developed simultaneously with or prior to development of the free market residence on the Lot. 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 will be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with those payments, improvements or construction work. 26.480.030(A)2 Exemptions / Lot Split The underlying R-l5A Zone District allows the development of two detached dwellings; the proposed lot split enables the development of an additional single-family dwelling. The split ofa 10tjiJr the purpose of the development of one additional detached single- family dwelling on a lotfilrmed hy a lot .\plit granted subsequent to Novemher 14, 1977, is exemptfromfull suhdivision review provided all ofthefollowing conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved hy either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and hounds parcel which has not been suhdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations hy the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1980 as a metes and bounds parcel. It is not located in a subdivision. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlyin" zone district. Any lot for which development is proposed will miti"atefor affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470. 040(Bj( 1)]. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposal would create two lots where only one currently exists. The resulting lots will conform to the dimensional requirements of the adopted Final PUD development plan for the site. Development on the resulting lots will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26.470.040(8)(1). Lot 1 will include an accessory dwelling unit or the applicable affordable housing impact fee (cash-in-lieu) will be paid. Development on Lot 2 will satisfy affordable housing mitigation requirements by virtue of providing one deed restricted single-family dwelling unit, designated as Category 7, with a minimum floor area of 1,500 square feet and a minimum net livable area of 2,000 square feet. c. The lot under wnsideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26. 470. 040(A}(4)]. Staff Findinl!: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property has never been the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this (26.480) chapter or a lot split exemption. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter, and confilrms to the requirements of this title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted filr these lots nor will additional units he huilt without receipt of applicahle approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.1 ao. Staff Findine: Staff finds this condition is met. A Plat will be reviewed by the Community Development and Engineering Departments for approval and recordation within 180 days of final land use approval. The Plat will include notes explaining that further subdivision is prohibited unless applicable approvals are obtained, and that any and all additional development must comply with the applicable provisions of the Code. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be requiredfor a showin" of "ood cause. Staff Findine: Staff finds this condition is met. The language of this criterion is a condition of approval. f Tn the case where an existin" single-family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible .lilY a lot split, the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot .\plit. Staff Findine: Staff finds this condition is met. The subject property contains an existing residence. The existing residence will be demolished prior to development of either resulting lot; however, the existing residence will remain through the lot split application review process and final platting pursuant to the rights afforded under this standard. g Maximum potential build-out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single~family home. Staff Findine: Staff finds this condition is met. The proposed lot split will create two lots; Lot I will be developed with a detached single-family home and Lot 2 will be developed with two detached single-family homes (sharing the allowable floor area for a duplex). A June 1998 formal code interpretation by the Community Development Director in association with the 920 West Hallam Street approvals allows a duplex to be expressed as two single-family homes. " " I'. il " " " i: " II il " I , All in favor, "motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1980 - Celia Marolt Annexation Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. G~'=b,f IS -~' Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE HI (Series of 1980) AN"ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE CELIA MAROLT PROPERTY LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 ~as read by the city clerk Joe Wells, planning office, told Council this parcel is 36,000 square feet and the origin a1 planning office recommendation was to zone it R-lSA. There was some concern that an R-lSA without a restriction against further subdivision would have the effect of elimin- ating possible employee units on the site. R-15A as a single lot, a duplex would be permitted with the second unit deed restricted; however, on a 36,000 square foot parcel, the creation of a second lot would be less than 20,000 square feet necessary to create two units. Only two free market single family units would be permitted in the event. a lot split had been accomplished. Wells pointed out the Opal Marolt property, which is being annexed, is recommended R-lSA mandatory pun, and the mandatory pun designation should apply to this site as well. Mandatory PUD triggers the slope reduction formula; this formula recognizes that steeply sloped !sites are less developable and should have less density potential. The PUD designation reduces the allowable density to 20,000 squa feet which would allow a duplex situation. The planning office feels the PUD designation should be added. . Councilman Behrendt said there is a claim that there might be a bandit unit in the build- ing at this. time and asked if staff had checked this Oll't. Wells answered this has not been checked out because the tenants are not in town. Lennie Oates, representing the applicant, told Council this has never been used as a duplex; it is not set up like that. ;ells told Council the PUD designation has been applied to the adjacent site for the same ~easons the planning office would like it applied to this site. Ms. Smith told Council 'he P & Z had recommended R-lsA with restriction against subdivision of the lot, so that ,he effect is basically the same. Oates said the applicant felt there were some advantage .f coming into the city at the R-IS designation. Their zoning request was R-ISA without ,he PUD. P & Z recorrunended zoning as long as there was a contract arrangement so that here was not a lot split. Oates said he would like to have the right to corne back and o through the subdivision process; however, he agreed not to avail Ordin~nce #3, which is utomatic lot split. Wells said the planning office would prefer to leave this unannexed f the city does not get the benefit of the employee unit. ity Attorney Stock said he felt it was inappropriate to apply to one site in a Zone some- hing which is unique and different to it and not apply to all sites within the zone. To "strict R-lSA would be subject to challenge. Stock recommended R-lSA/PUD. Councilman oaac said he felt the Council should go with planning office and attorneys recommendation JunCilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1980, as amended with PUD added 1 Section 2; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers COllins, ly; Parry; ayei Van Ness, aye; Isaac, ayei Behrendt, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion trried. MEMORANDUM e)(~ibit C TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Christopher Bendon, Planner ~ 488 Castle Creek Rezoning - Public Hearing FROM: RE: DATE: May 18, 1999 SUMMARY: The OWner of 488 Castle Creek Road, Paul Anderson, has applied to remove the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning designation from his .82 acre parcel ofland currently developed with a single-family residence. The City's POO overlay is intended to provide more zoning flexibility but also considers areas of steep slope and reduces the allowable density accordingly. This slope consideration is Unique to parcels with a PUD overlay and does 110t apply to other single-family properties. The slope reduction for this parcel eliminates the possibility of applying for a lot split, limiting the current development opportunities to a single-family residence or a duplex with one side deed restricted to affordable housing. Removing the PUD designation would allow the 'property oWner to apply for a Lot Split. In 1980, the already developed parcel was annexed~ into the City of Aspen and rezoned to the R15-A ZOne district. The PUD overlay was placed On the property, according to the Ordinance minutes, to specifically prohibit the ability to split the lot and to ensure the existence of an employee unit On-site if the property were redeveloped as a duplex. It is apparent that the 1980 City Council preferredthe community benefit of the parcel either remaining a single-family home or adding one affordable unit over the development of two free-market lots after a lot split. I There have been changes in the neighborhood which lend support for a higher density zone district. However, staff believes changing the zoning to al10w more development should only be considered when there is a favorable and significant benefit to the community _ such as affordable housing. Since 1980, changes in the land use code, such as requiring ADU's with lot split applications; have made progress towards that goal but do not represent a permanent benefit to the community. Staff believes any changes to the zoning of this parcel should be associated with a higher degree, of community benefit, as required by growth management review Or as provided for in the AHI-PUD ZOne District. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council for removing the PUD overlay from this parcel. 'APPLICANT: Paul Anderson. LOCATION: 488 Castle Creek Road. (See attached location map in application.) 1 MEMORANDUM VI\\d TO: Mayor and Council CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director' CC: John Worcester, City Attorney DATE: January 31,2006 RE: Proposed 2006 Revisions to Water and Electric Rates SUMMARY: The proposed ordinance will implement rate revisions for Water and Electric customers consistent with the recommendations of the Utility Business Plan. The rates contain provisions to increase revenue from the highest level of water and electric customers and will be used to fund conservation programs consistent with council direction, If adopted by council under the proposed schedule, the ordinance would become effective April I, 2006. The first bills reflecting these changes would be dated April 30, 2006. A copy of the 2006 updates to the Utility Business Plan, incorporating the direction of council, is attached to this memo. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council considered the Utility Business Plan for Water and Electric in late 2004. The plan included a series of rate revisions for the utilities spread over a two-year period for electric and over a four-year period for water. The plan recommendations were adopted through new rate structure and charges implemented in the spring of2005, Council held a work session in November 2005 to review actual results from the first year of operation and to fine tune the rate recommendations in view of actual revenue. New initiatives in the area of water and electric conservation were discussed. DISCUSSION: During the November 2005 Utility Business Plan work session, council identified a number of objectives to be incorporated in the plan and rate-setting process. No planned changes were identified for the electric rates other than those recommended in the November 2005 work session, The draft Business Plan included reducing the number of years for water rate increases from four years to two years, partially in response to higher than expected revenue. In addition, Council expressed a desire to further increase unit cost to the highest user groups of water customers ,with the increased revenue going towards a water conservation fund, In addition, Council believed it was desirable to increase the financial reserves in the water fund to deal with water rights challenges in the Upper Roaring Fork drainage. CURRENT ISSUES: The Water and Electric Utility Business Plan Study dated January 30, 2006, (2006 Study) presents two options to adjust rates. The additional revenue from either of these would be used to fund conservation programs. Two scenarios are presented beginning on page 4 of the 2006 Study, which is attached. Scenario I would generate approximately $150,000. The additional revenue would be generated by lowering the water consumption threshold for the top two blocks (blocks 3 and 4) and through increased rates for consumption in these two upper tiers. Details of potential conservation uses for these funds is also attached. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications of the proposed rates are detailed in the attached Long Range Financial Plans for the water and electric fund as part of the 2006 Study. A comparison of the existing 2005 and proposed 2006 rates is also included for both water and electric customers. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The expanded conservation program elements for both the water and electric funds will contribute to increased resource efficiency, and support the City's Canary Initiative. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends implementation of the 2006 water and electric recommendations contained in the 2006 Study. Scenario 1 is recommended for water rates. ALTERNATIVES: During the most recent work session council requested an increase in funding for the water conservation program, without specifying an amount to be generated. Scenario 2 would generate approximately $80,000 annually as opposed to Scenario I which would generate $150,000 additional revenue for this program. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt ordinance ~ 2006. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: rl~~~ 1 "'ff2~ (j t"Pc'fU.-W 0+t'..Q...~ = .w-.:.u:. C:ik;....y '0.1 :SC~<J.& ORDINANCE NO. '::f- Series of 2006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN WATER AND ELECTRIC SERVICE RATES. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring all users of the water and electric systems operated by the City of Aspen to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that rates charged for water and electric service should provide an incentive for conservation of natural resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDATh'ED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 25.04.040 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly electric service rates, is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.04.040 Electric service rates. (a) All retail customers of the Aspen Electric Department shall pay a monthly customer availability charge as follows: residential customers shall pay nine dollars ($9.00) per bill; small commercial customers shall pay nine dollars ($9.00) per bill; and, large commercial customers (those having a minimum usage of 30 kilowatts (kW) as well as a operable demand metering system) shall pay twenty-seven dollars ($27.00) per bill. In addition to the monthly customer availability charge, the customer shall pay the sum of the metered use of electric energy measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh) II during the department's monthly meter reading cycle multiplied by the appropriate retail service rate as follows. (i) The retail rate for residential customers shall be $0.0625 per kWh for first seven hundred (700) kWh of metered usage; $0.0781 per kWh for metered usage from seven hundred one (701) to two thousand (2,000) kWh; and, $0.1172 per kWh for metered usage in excess of two thousand (2,000) kWh. (ii) The retail rate for small commercial customers shall be $0.0850 per kWh for metered usage. (iii) The retail service rate for large commercial customers, with operable demand metering systems in place and measured usage of thirty (30) kW and greater, shall be $0.0625 per kWh for metered usage plus a demand charge of $5.00 per kW of metered peak usage for that meter reading cycle. (iv) Until such time as large commercial customers have operable demand metering systems in place, they shall be charged the retail service rate of small commercial customers as defined in section 25.04.040 (ii). (v) Payments for electric service charges shall be due twenty (20) days after the billed date. Any amount due, but not received by the city on or before the next billing date, shall be subject to a past due charge of one and one-half (1 \1,) percent of the total amount due; subject, however, to a minimum charge of three dollars ($3.00). Balances ofless than five dollars ($5.00) shall not be subj ect to this charge. Section 2. That Section 25.16.010 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth monthly rates for metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.16.01 0 Monthly rates for metered water service. (a) All metered customers except temporary construction accounts shall pay the sum of charges (1) through (7) that follow: (1) A demand charge of$4.35 per ECU per month for billing area I; $8.71 per ECU per month for billing area 2; $8.71 per ECU per month for billing area 3: $5.44 per ECU per month for billing area 4; $7.62 per ECU per month for billing area 5; $8.71 per ECU per month for billing area 6; and, $6.53 per ECU per month for billing area 7. (2) A variable charge of$1.61 per thousand (1,000) gallons offirst five thousand (5,000) gallons of metered usage per ECU. (3) A variable charge of$2.09 per thousand (1,000) gallons of metered usage from five thousand one (5,001) to fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per ECU. 2 (4) A variable charge of$2.97 per thousand (1,000) gallons for metered usage from fifteen thousand one (15,001) gallons to twenty thousand (20,000) gallons per ECU. (5) A variable charge of $4.46 per thousand (1,000) gallons for metered usage in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) gallons per ECU. (6) A pumping charge of$1.09 per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through one pump station; $2.18 per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through two pump stations; and, $3.27 per thousand (1,000) gallons pumped with service through three pump stations. (7) A fire protection charge of $1.24 per ECU per month with a billing area factor of 1.0, multiplied by the applicable billing factor set forth in section 25.08.070(b). Section 3. That Section 25.16.011 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth bulk rates for metered water service, is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.16.011 Bulk rates for metered water service. (a) The demand charge for filler hydrant bulk water sales pursuant to Section 25.08.020(e) shall be $10.00 per use. (b) The variable charge for filler hydrant bulk water sales pursuant to Section 25.08.020(e) shall be $4.46 per thousand gallons. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of , 2006, 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 ,2006. 3 II ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 4 Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ,2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor '~a. Memorandum To: Mayor Klanderud and City Council City of Aspen, Colorado From: Ed Sadler, Troy Rayburn and John Laatsch Date: 27 February 2006 RE: AABC * City of Aspen Employee Housing Summary: The purpose of the memorandum is to (a) ~ummarize the process for selecting the winning team and (b) to pass on the Evaluation Panel~ official recommendation to Council. Two final teams submitted proposals: Studio B with Scott Lindenau as lead and Willis Pember Architects with Willis Pember as lead. Steve Novy Architects was selected as one of the three finalists, but withdrew from competition in early 2006. Previous Council Action: In June 2005 staff was before Council requesting approval of a design contract with Steve Novy Architects. Council did not approve the contract and directed staff to under take a full developer model process. In late 2005 that process was undertaken and recently completed in early February 2006. Background Information: The Evaluation Panel's membership consisted of: Jessica King (AABC resident); James Lindt (Aspen Community Development Department); Tom McCabe (Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority); Troy Rayburn (City of Aspen Asset Department); Ed Sadler (City of Aspen Assistant City Manager); and Rob Snyder (Mr. John McBride's Representative / Architect). Staff received five qualification statements in late 2005. The Evaluation Panel convened and after careful review selected three finalists to compete for the project by submitting a proposal to design and build a select number of employee housing units for city employees. Once again, they were Studio B, Steve Novy Architects, and Willis Pember Architects with Steve Novy dropping out in early 2006. The Evaluation Panel convened on Monday, 6 February 2006 to hear the two remaining teams' project presentationi'. Both teams adequately addressed the defining points or criteria of the Request for Proposals (RFP). These points include such project aspects as: . I. consulting / working with the AABC Declarant, John McBride, and / or his official representative regarding compliance with the AABC Covenants; 2. density or number of proposed units; 3. site configuration including, but not limited to parking, common areas, private space, ADA compliantJ'{;ompatibility to neighborhood or surrounding area, landscaping, and access to and from the site; and 4. innovative efficient or green building techniques / standards. Aspen City Council Memo AABC · Employee Housing 27 February 2006 Page 2 of6 Discussion: Studio B - Studio B believes the site can accommodate four to eight units with six units consisting of (2) two-bedroom units and (4) one-bedroom units being a reasonable solution. Square footage for living and storage space meets or exceeds Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and City of Aspen guidelines. The proposed building structure is elevated to accommodate tuck-under parking for each unit. The site plan can also accommodate two @est parking spaces. The elevated structure also allows for more scenic views of the surrounding mountainscape as opposed to looking out onto the street and neighboring commercial buildings. Issues such as personal/private space and community space are addressed. Appropriate landscaping is used to not only provide green space around the site, but to buffer it from the neighboring commercial properties. Studio B's initial Efficient / Green Building points did not meet City guidelines for a minimum of 160 points. The original submittal totaled 130 points. Staff questioned this and the team came back with a revised total of259 points. The Evaluation Panel is concerned if this is a realistic target considering the initial submittal was well below the 160 point target and, then, how quic~ the totals changed and were resubmitted. Studio B and Fenton Construction's construction portion equals approximately $692,455. This cost is based on the following assumptions and exclusions: it does not include any significant blasting and rock removal; it does not include permits, REMP, Tap fees etc,; it does not include solar hot water, Photovoltaic or geo-thermal construction; does not include taxes; it does not include Builders Risk Insurance; it assumes a 10 month construction schedule; and it does not include demolition of existing structure (need to allow for an additional $48,000 for demolition and haul-oft). In addition, the $692,455 number does not include costs for design and planning. Willis Pember Architects - The Willis Pember team believes the best use of the site is five units consisting of (4) one- bedrooms and (1) studio. The income category mix ranges from category one to category 4, Specifically, there are (4) four, one bedroom units @ Cat.3-4 and (I) one studio unit @ Cat 1-2. Aspen City Council Memo AABC · Employee Housing 27 February 2006 Page3 of 6 Square footage for living space meets or exceeds Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and City of Aspen guidelines. The four, one bedroom units meet the minimum unit size requirements of750 SF for Cat 3-4, while exceeding the private outdoor space requirement of 60SF. In addition to each unit's 60SF private balcony, a 140 SF semi-private covered porch is provided at grade for all five units. More outdoor space could be made available to each unit for gardens, etc., depending on how private/ common property is apportioned. Storage areas, as currently presented, are at APCHA minimums, since they currently contribute to the total allowable FAR of3,738 SF, however FAR exemptions for storage areas appear negotiable. If Council approves staffs recommendation, Bob Snyder, John McBride's official representative, will work with Mr. McBride to exempt larger, more appropriate storage from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The proposed building structure is elevated to accommodate tuck-under parking for each unit, plus one guest parking space for each unit for a total of 10 parking spaces. The elevated structure also allows for more scenic views ofthe surrounding mountainscape as opposed to looking out onto the street and neighboring commercial buildings. Issues such as personal/private space and community space are included. The Evaluation Panel concluded that this project better addresses the issue of providing for more private space with staggered, tiered decks. The Evaluation Panel and Mr. McBride's representative believe the outdoor roof decks should be removed from the proposal due to the use of the roof for various mechanical equipment, photo voltaic collectors, and stormwater catch basin and downspouts. This proposal also provides for appropriate landscaping or green space around the site and buffers it from the neighboring commercial properties. The Evaluation Panel believes the Willis Pember proposal will include state-of-the-art efficient or green building components that could assist the City of Aspen in setting the bar for such environmentally friendly housing projects in the future. Specifically, an integrated geothermal, solar hot-water and photo-voltaic system would yield a 'zero-energy' or a no utility bill living situation, Performance of this system is equivalent to eliminating 32,000 lbs/ C02 per year and would provide domestic hot-water, space heating and electrical needs of the owners. Aspen City Council Memo AABC · Employee Housing 27 February 2006 Page 4 of6 Willis Pember Architects and Janckila Construction believe they can design, plan, and build the AABC Affordable Housing project for a total budget of $91 7,344 (Please see Exhibit "A" for more detail). Staff believes the high construction cost is the result of the use of new, cutting edge energy conservation measures that will provide for a zero net energy level from the project and I or used by the project residents. It was the Evaluation Panel's unanimous decision to select the Willis Pember proposal. The following are a few comments from the Evaluation Panel members: "I know John would want to see a smaller, higher quality project than a larger project that may have to compromise on quality. "I do believe ... that the Willis Pember Group listened to our issues and concerns in greater detail ... and made a better attempt to address those issues. "I can also share Ed's concern about getting an architect to design to a specific budget... "I will do what I can to get John to recognize that the storage areas in Willis Pember's plan need to be larger and it would help if he exempted the storage area and elevator from the FAR calculations. I think it would be a better project if he could do that. "I was very excited about the commitment from the Willis Pember plan to implement a lot of new cutting edge energy conservation measures and get the project to a zero net energy level. We have to start somewhere to get people to change how they build and live. If it is at all affordable in this project, this would be a great place to start. "Finally, I would delete the roof top garden areas. With the solar and the photo-voltaic things going on up there, the last thing you need is a bunch of people up there messing with things." Rob Snyder, 7 February 2006 John McBride's Representative "Ifelt that the WPA (Willis Pember Architects) team did their homework on what the AABC covenants allow... the WP A team closely considered and designed within the parameters of the covenants on most of their design options. "I also liked the fact that the WP A design options included private outdoor areas adjacent to each of the units rather than a common terrace ... Aspen City Council Memo AABC . Employee Housing 27 February 2006 Page 5 of6 "Additionally, I felt that the proposed lift in the WP A design was a nice touch to make the units more accessible and livable ..." James Lindt, 8 February 2006 City of Aspen Community Development Department "After reviewing the submissions and presentations ..., I decided that the design offered by Mr. Pember's team would be the better choice. I was intrigued by the team's use of materials and technologies that would keep energy usage down to what they claimed would be a 'net zero' amount. "..., I also found the Pember design team responded to the constraints established in the RFP ... The 'livability' of any design can be a difficult thing to quantifY or explain in precise terms when one is looking at plans and a model, yet... I have a strong 'gut' feeling that, again, Pember presents a more livable solution. "In particular, I like the accessibility, the privacy of the decks, the overall look, keeping within the zoning FAR requirements, the covered parking, and run-off water filtering and recovery system. "The one thing I thought could be much better was storage. The area devoted to storage is far too small. " Tom McCabe, 16 February 2006 Director, Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority Financial Implications: On the surface of things, it would appear that there is a large cost difference between the two projects, with the Evaluation Panel and staffs recommendation of Willis Pember Architects . being the more expensive of the two. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that Studio B / Fenton Construction's proposal has a number of assumptions and exclusions that Willis Pember does not appear to have. In addition, the Willis Pember team's proposal is probably the better ofthe two proposals submitted if the City of Aspen is serious about raising the bar or stetting the pace for environmentally friendly, efficient built employee housing projects. Aspen City Council Memo AABC . Employee Housing 27 February 2006 Page 6 0[6 Environmental: Mr. McBride's representative, Rob Synder, said it best, ",.. the commitment from the Willis Pember plan to implement a lot of new cutting edge energy conservation measures and get the project to a zero net energy level (is very exciting). We have to start somewhere to get people to change how they build and live. If it is at all affordable in this project, this would be a great place to start. " Recommendation: Staff recommends support of the Evaluation Panel's choice of Willis Pember Architects' design and that the City of Aspen enter into a contract for design, planning, and construction totaling $917,344.00. Alternatives: Alternative I - Reject staff and the Evaluation Panel's recommendation and chJse the Studio B proposal; or Alternative II - Reject staff and the Evaluation Panel's recommendation, table the issue, direct staff to go back and select the best aspects of both projects, and combine into one design proposal with the understanding that this extended process brings with it time delays and additional costs. Proposed Motion: "I move to approve the Evaluation Panel and staff's recommendation to select the Willis Pember Architects' design / proposal and enter into a contract for design, planning, and construction for $917,344.00." City Manager Comments: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION To: Troy Rayburn, City of Aspen, Asset Management Fr: Willis Pember, WPA RE: AABC City Employee Housing Competition 2.21.06 1. Overall Project Budget! per square foot costs The bottom line is $808,344 (see attached spread sheet abc!/PDF) Less $50.000 grant from CORE ~ $758,344 = $217/SF Note: the CORE grant sum was established in a tech review meeting between Gary Goodson of CORE, the builder, JCI Construction and the design team in January. 2. Planning, Architectural and Landscape Design Services - Professional Services Fee - Estimate A. Planning Services Fee a. County AH2/PUD Amendment $25,000 (Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc) B, Landscape Architect $30,000 (Dunnett Design) C. Architect $80,000 (Willis Pember Architects, Inc) D. Mechanical and Plumbing Engineering $15,000 (Resource Enginnering Group, Inc) E. Structural Engineering $15,000 (KL&A of Colorado) Sub-total Fees paid to date Total Professional Services Fee $165,000 <$6.000> $159,000 Note: Fees are full service. Do not include reimbursibles, or fees paid by owner for surveys, soils tests or permits. 3. Total Project Costs (#1 + 2 above) $758,344 $159.000 $917,344 RESOLUTION NO. it Series of 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A DESIGN PROPOSAL FROM WILLIS PEMBER ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a design proposal from Willis Pember Architects for design, planning, and construction of Aspen Airport Business Center Employee Housing Project, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that design proposal from Willis Pember Architects for design, planning and construction of Aspen Airport Business Center Employee Housing Project, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or 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 _ day of ,2006. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk TLO~ saved: 6/22/2004.254-G:\tara\Resos\aabc housing.dopc lXb To: City Council From: Ed Sadler, Asst. City Manager Date of Memo: February 10,2006 Meeting Date: February 27,2006 RE: Red Brick energy improvements SUMMARY: This is a request to provide the Red Brick with $40,000 from the General Fund to make energy saving improvements to the building as part of the City's Canary initiative and therefore reduce energy usage. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Red Brick building is an old school building that was purchased some years ago by the City for the purpose of providing reasonably priced rental space for arts and non profits groups in Aspen with the Recreation Department occupying the gymnasium area. After the purchase by the City, the City did put some money into the building to update some aspects of the building. BACKGROUND: The Red Brick is now managed by the Arts Council and the building is intended to be self sufficient by charging enough for rent to pay for its operation and repairs. To date, the building has accomplished this goal. As part of the initial approvals for the change in use, it was agreed that there would also be improvements to the west side of the building which is where the loading dock is. The Arts Council employed an architect to prepare these plans and it is the intent for the Arts Council to borrow the money from the City to pay for this work and then repay the City from the rent proceeds. When the project was to be bid out, there was concern expressed that the improvements may not have been as "green" as possible and this was indeed a City owned building despite how the management was set up. Dan Richardson has since worked with the architect to make additional improvements to the proposed plan for the west end improvements. DISCUSSION: The steps taken by the Arts Council regarding the improvements I believe are all well and good, but what it leaves the City with is a very energy efficient addition that is attached to a very inefficient building using a very inefficient heating system. I believe that the City should assist in upgrading some ofthe energy features in the building that will benefit the entire building and that the Arts Council can work with CORE and City staffto identify the best ways to use this money to improve the heating system, the hot water system and possibly other features. I also recommend that the Arts Council work with CORE to secure additional funds to make as many improvements as possible and leverage the City funds to get as much CORE money as possible for energy improvements. The arts and non profit groups that are in the building are doing well at covering the costs of the building and putting money away for needed repairs, but I believe that what is being suggested here is an improvement and that the City should pitch in to help with these aspects, especially when considering the City's and the public desire to reduce energy usage. 11___ FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This request will cost the General Fund $40,000 and should things progress as planned, there may be a request through CORE at a later date for additional funding for the Red Brick for energy improvements. The net from the project should be reduced energy bills for the Red Brick which over the long term should help keep rents affordable. ENVIRONMENT AL IMPLICATIONS: This project is another win-win for the City, not only will the remodel ofthe building be more energy efficient, the whole building would now be more energy efficient with the additional improvements made for the benefit of the entire building, and therefore not only save money but reduce C02 emiSSIOns. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that this request for funding be approved and that staff be directed to work with the Arts Council to identify the best solutions for energy savings with this money, AL TERNA TIVES: An alternative is to deny the funding for this proposal and let the Arts Council address this issue with their own funding as funds become available. CITY M,ANAGER'S COMMENTS: " .. 0 ~ ~- 7 l., . 6.:>. "/ u' ., f~::7J~ III ,~ m ~l:~:::b