The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20180212 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 12, 2018 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Award presentation from the Colorado Communities Symposium for the GHG Reduction Toolkit IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #22, Series of 2018 - Approving an acceptance of Partnership Interest in Truscott Phase II LLLP b) Resolution #18, Series of 2018 and Resolution #19, Series of 2018 - Development Inspection Services c) Minutes - January 22, 2018 d) Board Appointments VII. Notice of Call-Up VIII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #5, Series 2018 - Annual updates to Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu IX. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #4, Series of 2018 - amending Section 23.32.150 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code Pertaining to Food Sales Tax Refunds b) Ordinance #1, Series of 2018 - 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Building c) Resolution #179, Series of 2017 - Appeal of an Interpretation of the Land Use Code - regarding the removal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 910 E. Cooper Ave. - TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26, 2018 X. Action Items XI. Executive Session a) C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest. (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations P1 and instructing negotiators. (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions related to 17CV20 Kronberg v City of Aspen. XII. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 26, 2018 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES · Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision · Tone and Tenor Matter · Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P2 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Finance Director THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 5th, 2018 MEETING DATE: February 12th, 2018 RE: Resolution #22, Series of 2018 - Update for City Council on Option to buy Truscott II REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to request that the City Council accept the assignment of the limited partners interest in the Truscott II rental project. The assignment will transfer to each of the City and APCHA a 49.995% limited partner interest. APCHA currently has a .01% general partner interest. There will no longer be a private equity interest. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2002 the City worked with APCHA and private equity partners to build 87 units utilizing Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). In 2017, the 15- year minimum holding period for the amortization of the tax credits was complete and the City or APCHA has an option to buy out the private equity interest. In September of 2017 City Council was advised of the negotiation of the buyout. BACKGROUND: Truscott II, LLP was formed in 2002 to use tax credit financing to construct the 87 units. Private equity partners were a part of the Truscott II partnership and paid for the tax credits that created part of the financing necessary to construct the project. HUD regulations require that the partnership must remain in existence for at least 15 years. The fifteen years has passed and APCHA, as the general partner, has the option to buy out the private equity interest. DISCUSSION: Staff negotiated a price for the interest of the private equity based on market and reflecting the deed restriction. After taking the outstanding debt into account the interest of the private equity partners was determined to be $350,000 plus $18,000 as final settlement of management fees and cash flow allocations for 2016. City Council approved that amount in September 2017. The acquisition price will utilize the reserves that currently exist within the Truscott II enterprise fund to pay for the acquisition of the interest. If the partnership is re-syndicated, the reserves will be replenished. P3 VI.a Page 2 of 2 Staff is in the preliminary stages of determining how it will refurbish and repair Truscott II. There are some serious issues that need to be addressed and with 87 units, the logistics of moving tenants will be formidable. There is also an evaluation of additional units as part of the analysis although providing for additional parking will be a problem. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Truscott II enterprise fund will use $368,000 of its reserves to buy out the private equity interest and pay the settlement on partnership distributions for 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution accepting an assignment of an equity interest in the Truscott II housing project ALTERNATIVES: No viable alternatives. PROPOSED MOTION: I move approval of Resolution #22, a resolution approving the acceptance of the transfer of an equity interest in Truscott Phase II LLLP to the City of Aspen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Transfer Agreement. P4 VI.a RESOLUTION NO. 22 SERIES OF 2018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AN ASSIGNMENT OF A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE TRUSCOTT PHASE II, LLLP WHEREAS, The City has been an active partner with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority in the development of affordable housing for its residents; and WHEREAS, To accommodate Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority’s acquisition of the Limited Partners interest in Truscott Phase II, LLLP housing project the City needs to accept the assignment of a 49.9995% interest in the Truscott Phase II, LLLP; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Assignment of partnership interest and second Amendment of the Partnership agreement a copy of which shall be in substantially in the form provided and is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of February, 2018. ________________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, February 12th 2018 Linda Manning, City Clerk P5 VI.a P6 VI.a P7 VI.a P8 VI.a P9 VI.a P10 VI.a P11 VI.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ryan Loebach P.E., Senior Project Manager THRU: Tyler Christoff P.E., Deputy Director of Utilities Trish Aragon P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: February 5th , 2018 MEETING DATE: February 12th, 2018 RE: Resolution #18 &19, Series of 2018 - Development Inspection Services Contract Request for Change Order Approval, REQUEST: Staff requests Council approval for increased contract authority for two existing Development Inspection Services contracts. Currently the City is under contract until June 1st, 2018 with both Roaring Fork Engineering and Merrick and Company. Both companies have spent their allotted contract authority on developer-driven and municipal projects within the City. Increased contract authority for these existing contracts ensures that the current level of service and continuity is maintained for on-going projects and any future development projects requiring third-party inspection. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the original contract scope/amount and the increased budget and contract authority during consent agenda at the following meetings: · Original Contract: Resolution #78, Series of 2016 - Development Inspection Services - Contract for Professional Services. · Change Order Request: Resolution #92, Series of 2017 - Development Inspection Services Change Order. BACKGROUND: To maintain and operate a water and electric system at a high-quality level it is imperative to have rigorous design review and field inspection services. These services ensure that Utility and Right-of-Way improvements, which the City may take ownership and responsibility of, are installed in accordance with the most up to date Federal, State, and Local requirements. The Development Inspection Services contracts allow the City to supplement staffing on an hourly basis during times of increased fieldwork. In 2016, the City selected two separate engineering firms through a competitive bid process, both of which are intimately familiar with the City of Aspen’s Utility and Right-of-Way standards. To remove any potential conflict of interest, any consultant engineer will not be allowed to perform P12 VI.b Page 2 of 2 design review and inspection of their own design and submitted projects. Instead, consultants contracted through this Contract will provide a third-party review of developer-driven projects within the City. Services provided under these contracts will be delivered on a revolving basis with the expectation that both firms would have the opportunity to work with City staff as- needed. Staff will bid and award after City Council approval a new contract in June 2018 to replace these existing contracts. Due to unanticipated expenses on large development projects within the City incurred in the final half of 2017, both contracts require additional budget and contract authority. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff intends to use Utilities and Engineering funding dedicated and approved for this Project by City Council. 2018 Anticipated Expenditures 2017 Overage, Total $ 34,096.56 Merrick & Co, anticipated work scope, January - June 2018 $ 7,903.44 Roaring Fork Engr., anticipated work scope, January - June 2018 $ 68,000.00 Total $110,000.00 2018 Funding Budgeted Utilities 2018 Funding Inspection Services (Acct # 421.322.31520.52199) $ 50,000.00 Engineering 2018 Funding Right-of-Way Inspection Services (Acct # 001.327.12210.54930) $ 60,000.00 Total $ 110,000.00 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council approval for increased contract authority for two existing Development Inspection Services contracts. Staff recommends increased contract authority to both Merrick and Company and Roaring Fork Engineering. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A – Resolution #018, Series 2018 – Roaring Fork Engineering Contract Change B – Resolution #019, Series 2018 – Merrick Engineering Contract Change C – Change order forms Merrick and Company and Roaring Fork Engineering P13 VI.b RESOLUTION #018 (Series of 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ROARING FORK ENGINEERING AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order for Development Inspection Services, between the City of Aspen and Roaring Fork Engineering, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Change Order for Development Inspection Services, between the City of Aspen and Roaring Fork Engineering, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of February 2018. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, February 12, 2018. Linda Manning, City Clerk P14 VI.b RESOLUTION #019 (Series of 2018) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND MERRICK AND COMPANY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order for Development Inspection Services, between the City of Aspen and Merrick and Company, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Change Order for Development Inspection Services, between the City of Aspen and Merrick and Company, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of February 2018. Steven Skadron, Mayor I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, February 12, 2018. Linda Manning, City Clerk P15 VI.b P16 VI.b Ryan LoebachRyan Loebach02/05/2018P17VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3  Resolution #3, Series of 2018 – Intermountain Transportation Planning Region IGA ........................ 4  Resolution #11 Series of 2018 – Lighting system replacement for ARC ............................................. 4  Resolution #16, Series of 2018 – Contract modification with Cherry Road Technologies Inc for support services related to Oracle ERP Financial and Human Resource management system .................... 4  Resolution #9, Series of 2018 – Contract with USGS for O&M of Maroon Creek Gaging Station ..... 4  Resolution #13, Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvement Consultant contract .......................................................................................................................................................... 4  Resolution #2 Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvements Construction Contract ......................................................................................................................................................... 4  Resolution #12, Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvements Construction Manager Contract .......................................................................................................................................... 4  Resolution #15, Series of 2018 – Parks Fleet – Compact Street Sweeper ............................................ 4  Minutes – January 8, 2018 .................................................................................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2018 ............................................................................................................ 4 ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PD Amendment ...... 5 P18 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Myrin, Hauenstein and Mullins present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Bob Morris said he is reporting back on the dog bag issue. He passed out dog bags for council to consider. Driving up Mill close to the Jerome he doesn’t understand why the man hole covers are so recessed into the street. They are more like potholes. Trish Aragon, city engineer, said they are recessed for plowing purposes. Over time the recess will be less. He also suggested the first 10 minutes of parking be free. 2. Dick Butera spoke about the 488 Castle Creek Road affordable housing project. He hopes council is concerned why he is sad. The numbers presented to council are wrong and off by millions. Now it is losing the 9% tax credit and means another 5 million is missing from the total. The developer is being paid 2.7 million dollars in fees. He still gets the fees even though we don’t get the tax credits. He volunteered to take over Mr. Bradshaw’s role with zero fee. The density is too much for the property. It is by far the worst small real estate project I’ve ever seen. 3. Michelle Schindler, Attorney with Matthew Ferguson law firm. She represents citizens concerned with 488 Castle Creek. They received the memo dated December 5th and are concerned council passed the ordinance based on inaccurate information related to the tax credit funding. They submitted a CORA request and asked council to expedite it. Jim True. City attorney, said we received the letter from Matthew Fergusson and staff will address the CORA request based on state law. The request is quite extensive and involves numerous documents. 4. Toni Kronberg spoke about the Lift 1A study and talked about aerial connection. She said council should look at the big picture and have the study be more detailed. 5. Lee Mulcahy said he does not know why an APCHA board member refused to answer his questions. He asked the Mayor and Adam to be recuse from his interview for the HPC. He said the Aspen art museum has come after him and Adam was a previous board member so he should recuse himself. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein said it feels like winter outside. Councilman Frisch gave a kudos to AVSC for the bonfire last Friday. He attended the hall of fame dinner and gave kudos to Lester Crown, Bobby Mason and Bob and Tee Child. He tanked Bob Morris for bringing up the 5 to10 minute parking option. To Dick, I’m not sure what finances we were hoodwinked on but would love to know the incorrections. To Barry and Chris, a few people have contacted me about a 2.5 million fee. It would be helpful to have some clarity on that. The plan was it was going to cost the city the same as a private developer but save some staff time. Councilman Myrin asked about the dog bags again. Matt Kuhn, parks, said we have a stock of the green bags we need to exhaust. We usually go through half a million bags a year or 10,000 dollars worth. We will be purchasing a new stock for the summer. Councilman Myrin said he was sincere when he said he did not know what 488 Castle Creek would cost. They are big numbers. I didn’t realize what they were. He is not sure what the best way to receive the numbers from Dick is, but I think we should and if there is a possibility to involve him with a zero fee, we should. Mayor Skadron suggested Bert, Barry and the team take some time to understand the numbers. We are hearing from a neighbor who doesn’t want to see the project. If you believe there is an alternative perhaps we can discuss it. Steve Barwick, city manager, said it was laid out in the January 9th packet. We are happy to go over it with anyone. Councilman Myrin asked on the CORA if we can release information sooner that would be great. Councilwoman Mullins said she likes Bob’s idea on the 10 minute free parking. She thinks Dick is off base on his numbers. He needs to put his concerns in writing. She talked about the number of bids on the recent South Aspen affordable housing units. Clearly there is a demand and we need to get the housing. P19 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 3 There is going to be a census in 2020. The data is essential for funding and decision making in the private sector. She asked what can we do to support the census and suggested a letter or additional funding. Mr. Barwick replied we are working on that. In the past we have asked for additional money to go around. This year we are working with other CAST members to see if there is something we can do regionally. Mayor Skadron congratulated the organizers and attendees of the 41st annual gay ski week. It is a vibrant and fun event. He recognized the hall of fame and wished good luck to Bobby Mason and to Lester Crown and Bob and Tee child. Thanks to Jeanette Darnour and the board for a great evening. BOARD REPORTS Mayor Skadron attended the RFTA meeting last week. They adopted mandated changes to drug and alcohol policies for drivers. The big issue me and Jim have been working on is ensuring we have proper language in the access control plan. This is what is used to preserve the bike trail. There were some desires from down valley communities to have more flexibility in the trail. We have a plan to preserve the corridor for years to come. He also attended the CAST meeting in Mountain Village last week. There is a focus on transportation this year CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution #3 – Intermountain transportation planning IGA. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the representative from Aspen. John Kruger, transportation, replied the representatives vary. Some elected and some staff. It can be anyone. Currently he attends. Councilwoman Mullins asked if there has been no previous council action. Mr. Kruger said we had and IGA in the past. CDOT likes a check in every once in a while to continue to be a voting member. Resolution #2 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge construction contract Councilman Hauenstein thanked staff for reviewing the project. This is difficult. It is a lot of money. He emailed 40 to 50 people seeking comments from community members. He sees the value of the project but the number scares me. It had positives and negatives. He can support it but would like to see the 400,000 contingency contain the Cobra fence back in the project. He understands it was removed due to the cost. He agrees that widening the bike path is good. It has community benefit. He wants to make sure we are increasing pedestrian and bicycle ease of use but don’t lose sight of controlling traffic. As we focus on that I don’t want to lose focus on keeping the west end traffic under control. He will support this but would like to see the Cobra fence back. Ms. Aragon said the rough cost estimate for the fence is one million dollars. Mr. Barwick said we will bring this back with a better cost estimate and how much is actually gained for the biker. Ms. Aragon said we can come back and go through the full analysis. Councilwoman Mullins said the discussion was price and was the benefit worth the cost. Pete Rice, engineering, said the final discussion was what worked for the living lab worked and we are matching that. To put the fence on would also mean construction issues. Mayor Skadron said it is the improvements the 4.6 million is buying and the cost benefit of the rail. Councilman Hauenstein said if we are spending 4.6 million he wants to make sure we are doing the best we can. He wants to see if the Cobra fence is possible and worth it. Councilman Myrin said he thinks it would be a big improvement on the space. He supported it when Ward was not here. Mayor Skadron said he is interested in a project with the appropriate amount of safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Unless the Cobra fence has additional safety for the users and a reasonable amount of money I’m not supportive. Councilwoman Mullins said she is also not supportive. We studied it extensively and we were satisfied we did not need the fence. She thinks we should move ahead with the design as is. Mr. True said resolution 9 says the contract is for 90,000 when it is 90,724. It can be changed through an amendment. P20 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 4 Mayor Skadron said resolution #2 will be included to support. Should council desire a change do we include resolution 2 in the vote. Mr. Barwick said you would approve this and if you want to make changes it can be adjusted in the future · Resolution #3, Series of 2018 – Intermountain Transportation Planning Region IGA · Resolution #11 Series of 2018 – Lighting system replacement for ARC · Resolution #16, Series of 2018 – Contract modification with Cherry Road Technologies Inc for support services related to Oracle ERP Financial and Human Resource management system · Resolution #9, Series of 2018 – Contract with USGS for O&M of Maroon Creek Gaging Station · Resolution #13, Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvement Consultant contract · Resolution #2 Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvements Construction Contract · Resolution #12, Series of 2018 – Hallam Street and Castle Creek Bridge Improvements Construction Manager Contract · Resolution #15, Series of 2018 – Parks Fleet – Compact Street Sweeper · Minutes – January 8, 2018 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the Consent Calendar without Resolution #2 and with the correction to the dollar amount for resolution #9; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2018 – Amendment to Sales Tax Ordinance Regarding Refund for Tax paid on Food Don Taylor, finance, told the Council at the December meeting council discussed options related to the sales tax refund of the existing tax code. Currently it is 50 dollars to city residents with evidence of being registered to vote. The discussion was to raise that to 55. We are also updating a provision that has been in place before I came here to refund an additional 50 to seniors. Councilman Hauenstein said he will support this. He would like to leave the options open to relook at the amount. There has been public feedback that it was an insult to only increase it 5 dollars. Councilwoman Mullins said seniors get $15 more. It costs the city $170,000 to do the refunds. She asked about staff time. Mr. Taylor said he estimates that staff time is 30 to 40,000 dollars. Councilman Myrin said he would like to see this on auto pilot and increase to reflect so it zero’s out the impact of food tax for the community. A 20 year cycle between adjustments and only 5 dollars makes no sense. He suggested we use the increase in the city managers compensation over the same time period as a gauge for the increase. Mr. Barwick reminded council that the fee ordinance adjusts fees as well. Councilman Myrin said he thinks the amount given should be based on a formula and zero out the amount of tax paid. Councilman Frisch said this increase was a good will gesture. To honor the inflation of the original tax, in theory it should be 120 dollars. Good will and honoring inflation are different. There is also zeroing out the tax. I think it would be bad to peg anything to one salary. There are a lot of reasons why wages get set. It would be a disservice to the community to peg it on any one person. He is still fine using the inflation adjuster. The bigger discussion is do we want to continue a good will gesture or go off of P21 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 5 inflation. He is happy to do this now and study it later. Is there any more cost to the city if the amount is increased. Mr. Taylor replied no. Mr. Taylor said the 55 equates to a little over 210 dollars per person per month or just over 900 for a family of four. By my math most people get more money back in the refund then they spend in sales tax. Mayor Skadron said he will not support this. It is going in the wrong direction. It makes more sense to give a food tax credit to the low income families. He does not support indexing. This is paid out of the general fund which is used for recreation, HHS, arts and amenities we like in town. This is not an inconsequential thing. Keep Aspen exceptional and be careful with playing with these things. He would keep it at 50 but it needs rethought entirely. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO 4 SERIES OF 2018 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.32.150 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FOOD SALES TAX REFUNDS Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2018 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes, Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave. (Boomerang Lodge), PD Amendment Jennifer Phelan, community development, stated tonight was to be the continued public meeting with changes the applicant has made. Staff received a letter requesting withdrawal of the application today. Chris Bendon is here to say a few things. At this point the applicant is withdrawing. Mr. Bendon stated Jennifer is correct. Marshall and Eric did put a lot of energy into the project and changes. The numbers were very thin and there is a long list of issues still remaining. They felt it best to withdrawal the application. We spent serious energy on wanting to make this work. The property will come back in some other form, likely not a lodge. Mayor Skadron asked what happened between now and the time the info made it in to the memo. What was there was an interesting proposal. Mr. Bendon said there was lots of conversation with the applicant team and consideration of how this meeting would play out. Several of the issue would have dug in to the substance of the project that would not be recoverable. Councilman Hauenstein asked are you just withdrawing the amendment with the 2006 approval remaining in place. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Councilman Frisch said it is very disappointing and heart breaking to get the letter. He thinks your clients were trying to negotiate in good faith. He asked about the reasoning for the withdrawal. He is concerned where a lodge will ever show up in Aspen with more than 5 or 10 rooms. This is one of the only places left to see some type of lodging. If there is any way that something might work I was excited when I got the project and thought we could move forward. Mr. Bendon said if it were a simple and clear discussion the issue the community has been struggling would have been answered by now. There are a lot of fixed costs that are tough to deal with. There were a lot of ingredients in to that conversation. Withdrawing this application does not preclude us from coming back with another lodging application. Councilman Frisch said we have got in to the discussion of what’s the alternative. Affordable housing or free market. P22 VI.c Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22, 2018 6 He appreciates we can only do so much. If there was a way to make sure we have tilted the table to get lodging over free market homes. Councilwoman Mullins said she is disappointed. The team worked hard reducing the height. She still had some objections with the character and the loss of the common space. To be realistic she does not want to demand something that will not pencil out. She is afraid this property will sit vacant for a while longer. She worries about demolition by neglect. We may need to have a conversation on how to protect the property. She asked Chris to thank his team for the effort. Steve Goldenberg asked what was rescinded and what was not. Ms. Phelan said the application that is before council tonight to modify the programming. That is what is being withdrawn. What is still active is the 2006 approval. Ms. Garrow said the current owner of that permit or a contract purchaser has 8 weeks from today to pick that permit up. Councilman Hauenstein said at the end of 8 weeks if not pulled the 2006 project is void. Ms. Garrow replied essentially. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 6:40 pm; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P23 VI.c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council From: Linda Manning, City Clerk RE: Board Appointment Date: February 8, 2018 Meeting Date: February 12, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________ By adopting the consent calendar, Council is making the following board appointments: Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors: Richard Stettner Regular Member APCHA Rick Head Regular Member John Ward Joint Alternate Open Space and Trails Erik Skarvan Regular Member Local Licensing Authority Bill Murphy Regular Member P24 VI.d Cash-in-Lieu Rate Increase 1st Reading – 2/12/2018 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu rate increase First Reading, Ordinance 5, Series of 2018 PH: February 26, 2018 DATE: February 12, 2018 SUMMARY: The attached Ordinance would amend the City’s Affordable Housing fee-in-lieu rates. These rates have not been updated since 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance, on First Reading. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: This is the first reading of a proposed amendment to the fee-in-lieu rate for affordable housing mitigation. The current rates are established in Part 470 of the land use code, which allows periodic increases to the rate based on the Engineering News Record Index. This change is at the sole discretion of City Council, and City Council is the final review authority. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen updated the fee-in-lieu fee amounts in 2015, following a detailed study about construction costs for the creation of affordable housing. At that time, a provision was added to the land use code that allows periodic increases based on the Engineering New Record. The code also requires a more detailed study of cash-in-lieu rates in 2020. OVERVIEW: Council indicated at a January 30th work session an interest in updating the fee-in-lieu number now, and exploring options to remove or greatly reduce the opportunity for fee-in-lieu payments in the near future. The proposal in this memo and attached ordinance only addresses the increase to fee-in-lieu, and other policy discussions will occur later this spring on potential changes to the opportunities for fee-in-lieu. The Engineering New Record includes a Construction Cost Index (CCI) that provides inflation information for construction costs in major cities, as well as a national average. Using the current available data (see Exhibit B), the increase to fee-in-lieu rates if the Denver Rate is used would be approximately 4.5%, and the increase when using the national average would be 7%. P25 VIII.a Cash-in-Lieu Rate Increase 1st Reading – 2/12/2018 Page 2 of 3 Table 1 – Cash-in-lieu rate changes, based on CCI Current 4.5% 7% Category 1 $356,433 $372,472.49 $381,383.31 Category 2 $320,186 $334,594.37 $342,599.02 Category 3 $286,495 $299,387.28 $306,549.65 Category 4 $223,072 $233,110.24 $238,687.04 Category 5 $157,280 $164,357.60 $168,289.60 Category 6 $132,817 $138,793.77 $142,114.19 Category 7 $104,148 $108,834.66 $111,438.36 Staff recommends the national average (7%) be used, as this rate considers the varying construction types and costs, which may be more applicable to Aspen, than using a discreet metro-area. The current available data goes through December 2017, and staff will update the calculation for second reading if additional data is available at that time. Outreach: Staff conducted outreach with both the Planning and Zoning Commission (not heard due to a quorum issue) and the Housing Board. The Housing Board strongly supported an update to the fee-in-lieu rates. Additionally, a work session on January 30th provided an opportunity for participants in the affordable housing program an opportunity to comment. Additional information on potential changes has been communicated through the Community Development Newsletter, And this outreach through the department’s newsletter reached more than 600 subscribers. In addition, staff conducted direct outreach with Matt Brown, Peter Fornell, and Bill Boehringer, the main developers of Affordable Housing Credit projects. Comments received were all supportive of increasing the current fee-in-lieu rate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance on First Reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2018, approving a code amendment increasing affordable housing cash-in-lieu rates, on First Reading.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Growth Management Cash in Lieu code section Exhibit B – Copy of Engineering New Record Construction Cost Index P26 VIII.a Cash-in-Lieu Rate Increase 1st Reading – 2/12/2018 Page 3 of 3 P27 VIII.a Ordinance 5, Series of 2018 Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu Increase Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 2018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.470.050 – CALCULATIONS TO ADOPT A REVISED AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIAGTION FEE-IN-LIEU RATE SCHEDULE. WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, applicants may, under conditions specified by the Chapter, pay fees to satisfy requirements to provide affordable or employee housing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the City of Aspen conducted Public Outreach through various fee-in-lieu work sessions with Council, the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority Board of Directors, and the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, pursuant to prior resolutions and ordinances of the City, the City Council has historically established these fees, referred to in Chapter 26.470 as an affordable housing impact fee, affordable housing mitigation fees, and cash-in-lieu payments; and WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 26.470.050(E), Calculations - Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment, prescribes that the Fee-In-Lieu rates shall be updated every five years and adopted by city council ordinance, and that during intermediate years, the City may choose to update the fee-in-lieu schedule, by ordinance, based on the change in the engineering news record inflation index; and WHEREAS, The City is electing to update the fee-in-lieu schedule based on the change in the Engineering News Record, Construction Cost Index, which shows a 7% increase from the time of the fee-in-lieu adoption in December 2015 and December 2017; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Adoption of Fee-in-Lieu rates. Section 26.470.050(E), Calculations - Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment, of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, which section prescribes the method of calculating employee housing impacts and mitigation requirements, shall be amended to read as follows: 26.470.050 Calculations. E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment. Whenever a project provides employee housing via a fee-in-lieu payment, in part or in total, the amount of the payment shall be based upon the P28 VIII.a Ordinance 5, Series of 2018 Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu Increase Page 2 of 3 following (fee-in-lieu is only allowed for Categories 1-4, Categories 5-7 is calculated only for use in the Housing Certificates Program): Fee-In-Lieu (per FTE): Category 1: $381,383.31 Category 2: $342,599.02 Category 3: $306,549.65 Category 4: $238,687.04 Category 5: $168,289.60 Category 6: $142,114.19 Category 7: $111,438.36 Payment shall be calculated on a full-time-equivalent employee (FTE) basis according to the Affordable Housing Category designation required by this Title. Unless otherwise stated in this Title or in a Development Order, Fee-in-Lieu payments shall be collected by the City of Aspen Building Department upon and as a condition of Building Permit issuance. The Fee-In-Lieu rates shall be updated every five years and adopted by city council ordinance. During intermediate years, The City may choose to update the fee-in-lieu schedule, by ordinance, based on the change in the engineering news record inflation index. The following methodology was used to determine the above fee-in-lieu schedule: The subsidy per FTE was calculated by subtracting unit sales revenue per FTE from the total development costs per FTE. Total development cost per FTE was determined by using an average of recent City of Aspen projects and foreseeable future City of Aspen projects for which land has already been acquired and program/density has been deliberated, where in each case actual land costs were used in the calculation. The Program/Density projections for future projects were based upon assumptions suitable for the respective neighborhood, public outreach, and program/density review by City Council. Development cost calculations included all “hard” and “soft” costs associated with development. Section 3: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a P29 VIII.a Ordinance 5, Series of 2018 Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu Increase Page 3 of 3 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on the __ day of ______, 2018, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of February 2018. ______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of __________, 2018. _______________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk James R True, City Attorney P30 VIII.a City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400 – GMQS Page 9 requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. D. Employees housed. Whenever a project provides residential units on or off site the schedule in Table 4 shall be used to determine the number of employees housed by such units: Table 4, FTEs Housed Unit Type Employees Housed Studio 1.25 One-bedroom 1.75 Two-bedroom 2.25 Three-bedroom or larger 3.00, plus .5 per each additional bedroom Dormitory 1.00 employee per 150 square feet of net livable space E. Employee housing fee-in-lieu payment. Whenever a project provides employee housing via a fee-in-lieu payment, in part or in total, the amount of the payment shall be based upon the following (fee-in-lieu is only allowed for Categories 1-4, Categories 5-7 is calculated only for use in the Housing Certificates Program): Fee-In-Lieu (per FTE): Category 1: $ 356,433 Category 2: $ 320,186 Category 3: $ 286,495 Category 4: $ 223,072 Category 5: $ 157,280 Category 6: $ 132,817 Category 7: $ 104,148 Payment shall be calculated on a full-time-equivalent employee (FTE) basis according to the Affordable Housing Category designation required by this Title. Unless otherwise stated in this Title or in a Development Order, Fee-in-Lieu payments shall be collected by the City of Aspen Building Department upon and as a condition of Building Permit issuance. The Fee-In-Lieu rates shall be updated every five years and adopted by city council ordinance. During intermediate years, The City may choose to update the fee-in-lieu schedule, by ordinance, based on the change in the engineering news record inflation index. The following methodology was used to determine the above fee-in-lieu schedule: The subsidy per FTE was calculated by subtracting unit sales revenue per FTE from the total development costs per FTE. Total development cost per FTE was determined by using an average of recent City of Aspen projects and foreseeable future City of Aspen projects for which land has already been acquired and program/density has been deliberated, where in each case actual land costs were used in the calculation. The Program/Density projections for future projects were based upon assumptions suitable for the respective neighborhood, public outreach, and program/density review by City Council. Development cost calculations included all “hard” and “soft” costs associated with development. P31 VIII.a Like 0 SendSend Tweet 0ShareShare Share 149 Construction Cost Index History - As of December 2017 https://www.enr.com/economics/historical_indices/construction_cost_in... 1 of 29 2/5/2018, 9:06 AM P32 VIII.a Construction Cost Index History - As of December 2017 https://www.enr.com/economics/historical_indices/construction_cost_in... 2 of 29 2/5/2018, 9:06 AM P33 VIII.a Construction Cost Index History - As of December 2017 https://www.enr.com/economics/historical_indices/construction_cost_in... 3 of 29 2/5/2018, 9:06 AM P34 VIII.a Construction Cost Index History - As of December 2017 https://www.enr.com/economics/historical_indices/construction_cost_in... 4 of 29 2/5/2018, 9:06 AM P35 VIII.a Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 6, 2018 MEETING DATE: February 12, 2018 RE: Ordinance #4, Series of 2018 - Amendment to Sales Tax Ordinance Regarding Refund for Tax paid on Food. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This is to amend the Municipal Code regarding Sales Tax paid on food to provide for a higher flat amount to be refunded to each approved applicant for the refund based on criteria that the Council establishes. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION; The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters) have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale tax on food however and apparently this was an issue when the city increased its sales tax by 1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still able to collect sales tax on the food purchases of visitors, which is most of the food purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund given at that time was $7.00. In 1972 the City raised its sales tax by an additional 1% and the City stayed with the same methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to $39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100, the blind an additional $50. Interestingly, only $50 of the senior additional 100.00 was ever codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This proposed amendment corrects that. BACKGROUND: The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of administration. It is required that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12 months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been voter registration for the city of Aspen. This occasionally creates conflict with those who do not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel that they are entitled puts the city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow, giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of determining residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued to be increased. P36 IX.a Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: The ordinance proposes to increase the flat amount refunded to citizens that meet the criteria established by Council for Sales tax on food from $50.00 to $55.00. It also increases the additional amount given to seniors from $100.00 to $110.00 and those that are legally blind, an increase in the additional amount given from $50.00 to $55.00. The cost of these changes would be approximately $17,000. ALTERNATIVES: The amount given is not based on any formula and the Council can choose any amount, smaller or larger. PROPOSED MOTION: I move adoption of Ordinance #4, Series of 2018 - an ordinance amending section 23.32.150 of the Municipal Code pertaining to food sales tax refunds. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: P37 IX.a ORDINANCE No 4 SERIES OF 2018 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.32.150 OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FOOD SALES TAX REFUNDS. WHEREAS, City Council has determined that it is in the interest of the City of Aspen, Colorado to refund to its year-round citizens a flat amount per individual in recognition of sales tax paid on the purchase of food over the previous year, and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that special relief is appropriate for senior and Citizens that are blind, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Sec. 23.32.150 is repealed and readopted to read as follows. Food sales tax returns. (a) For purposes of this Chapter, and the refund of food sales tax collected, the term resident of the City shall mean any person who is over the age of sixteen (16) years and who has resided in the City for the entire calendar year for which a food sales tax refund is sought. (b) Any resident of the City, as herein defined, may, not later than April 15th of every year and so long as this Code shall be in force, apply, on such forms as provided by the Director of Finance, for an annual food sales tax refund from the City in the amount of fifty-five dollars ($55.00) for their self and, in addition, for every person who is a member of their household and for whom he or she is entitled to claim a personal exemption under and pursuant to the federal income tax laws. Any resident who is over the age of sixty-five (65) years shall be entitled to receive an additional food tax refund in the amount of fifty dollars ($110.00), and any resident who is blind shall be entitled to receive an additional food tax refund in the amount of fifty dollars ($55.00). (c) No person who may be claimed as a personal exemption on another resident's application for refund shall be entitled to a food tax refund. If a food tax refund is claimed on more than one (1) application for the same person, the Director of Finance is authorized to determine the person entitled to claim the refund provided for in this Section. (d) The application for refund shall be reviewed or examined by the Director of Finance. All applicants may prove their resident status by evidence that they were registered voters of the City for the full calendar year for which the refund applies. Any resident who is barred from registering to vote due to non-citizenship or due to a felony conviction shall provide alternative proof of residency, as may be required by the Finance Director for the full calendar year. If the Finance Director is satisfied that the information provided on the refund application entitles the applicant to a food tax refund, either in the amount claimed or in any amount determined by the Director of Finance, the refund shall be paid. P38 IX.a Otherwise the application for refund shall be denied and a notice of denial sent to the applicant at the address furnished by the applicant. Section 2: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 3: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 66: Public Notice A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of February 2018, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of seven 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 22nd day of January , 2018. P39 IX.a Attest: _______________________________ ______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 12th day of February, 2018. Attest: _____________________________ _____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: _____________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P40 IX.a 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Building Second Reading of Ordinance #1, Series of 2018, amending Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 DATE: February 12, 2018 ____________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Aspen Institute REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis LOCATION: 845 Meadows Road CURRENT ZONING: Academic, PD SUMMARY: The Applicant recently received approval for a one story addition to the Aspen Meadows Reception Building. The addition is currently under construction. The Applicant requests Council amend a condition of the land use approval having to do with the number of employees serving the building prior to the addition. This number will be the baseline against which employees serving the building after the remodel will be compared. Any increase could result in a requirement for affordable housing mitigation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Amendment to Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 to change the pre-development FTEs (Full-Time Equivalent employees) stated from 16.58 to 17.80. BACKGROUND: During the 2015/2016 review process for the expansion to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center, the Aspen Institute, an Essential Public Facility, received Growth Management approval from City Council. The approval allowed deferral of any affordable housing mitigation unless an audit, to be conducted three years after Certificate of Occupancy indicates that mitigation is appropriate. Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 P41 IX.b 2 Sec. 26.470.090.4. Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. c. The applicant has made a reasonable good-faith effort in pursuit of providing the required affordable housing through the purchase and extinguishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. d. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals, and the fee-in-lieu payment will result in the near-term production of affordable housing units. The City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through a fee- in-lieu payment, including all or none. Unless otherwise required by this Title, the provision of affordable housing mitigation via a fee-in-lieu payment for 0.25 FTEs or less shall not require City Council approval. Staff Response: Staff and HPC recommend Council adopt APCHA’s conditions for a three year audit, with mitigation for any new employees to be provided at a rate proportionate to the new square footage above and beyond the 1991 approval. stated the number of Full Time Equivalent Employees associated with the structure prior to remodel was 16.58 FTE’s. That figure was based on the Institute’s documentation of the time of land use application submittal in December 2015. The applicant would like to amend the Ordinance to reflect the FTE’s staffing the Reception Center at permit issuance in August 2017. This requires a review by City Council, including First and Second Reading of the amended Ordinance. STAFF EVALUATION: The Aspen Meadows was deemed an Essential Public Facility in the 1991 Specially Planned Area approval granted by City Council. The SPA included a vision for anticipated expansions to the facility which would unfold over approximately 20 years. The approval exempted all of that development from Growth Management competition and scoring and from any affordable housing mitigation. The Reception Center project was determined to exceed the 1991 approval by 781 to 1,250 square feet depending on the final size of a basement being constructed below the entire Reception Center. The applicant represented that the project was not an expansion of operations, but rather relocating their guests from multiple informal dining areas into one venue. APCHA recommended an audit three years after Certificate of Occupancy as the best way to evaluate employee increases. During land use review, the Institute provided documentation of employee hours logged for food service and translated that into FTEs by dividing the total hours by 2,080 hours, the standard for full-time employment. Additional hours and therefore additional employees were recorded in 2016, leading up to the start of construction. The GMQS criteria and staff response provided in the Council memo on July 25, 2017 was as follows: P42 IX.b 3 Staff finds that the applicant’s request to accurately reflect employment just before construction commenced is acceptable, meets the review criteria for evaluation of an essential public facility, and is consistent with the initial staff recommendation. The applicant’s proposed wording change to the 2016 condition to state, “17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the 2016 Calendar year operations shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit to be conducted three (3) years after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued fir the projects. The three (3) year audit shall be based on the first full calendar year of operation after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the project. The 17.80 FTEs shall be approved by APCHA.” Staff believes this introduces language that might change the original intent, and therefore recommends alternative wording to simply clarify the condition to read: 6.2 Prior to building permit issuance, backup documentation shall be provided to APCHA relating to the current 16.58 FTE level for the food service. 17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the 2016 Calendar Year operations shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit. Ordinance Amendments are at the sole discretion of Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to amend Ordinance #17, Series of 2016, increasing the FTE’s prior to construction of the approved project from 16.58 to 17.08. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2018 on Second Reading.” EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 B. Council minutes from July 25, 2016 C. Application P43 IX.b Ordinance #1, Series 2018 Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE #1 (SERIES OF 2018) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016, RELATED TO 845 MEADOWS ROAD, ASPEN MEADOWS RECEPTION CENTER, LOT 1-A, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-121-29-008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from The Aspen Institute, represented by Curtis and Associates, requesting approval of an amendment to Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; and, WHEREAS, the application relates to the Aspen Meadows Reception Center, which is zoned Academic/PD and which is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended in favor of the proposed amendment; and, WHEREAS, City Council may, at its sole discretion, amend an ordinance during a duly noticed public hearing after considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; 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 Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, the Aspen City Council passed this Ordinance on First Reading by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2018, the City Council approved this Ordinance, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, adopting an amendment to Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards; 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 AS FOLLOWS: P44 IX.b Ordinance #1, Series 2018 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Ordinance Amendment (Ordinance #17, Series of 2016) Section 6.2 of Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 is hereby amended and shall read as follows. Section 6.1 is restated, but unchanged. Section 6: Growth Management, Essential Public Facility Growth Management approval for expansion of this Essential Public Facility is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Three years after Certificate of Occupancy, an employee audit shall be conducted showing the current FTE food service employee count at that time. The auditor and audit will be reviewed and approved by APCHA. Any costs associated with the audit will be at the expense of the applicant. If additional FTE food service employees are shown at that time, related only to the floor area square footage of the expansion that exceeds the floor area permitted in the Aspen Meadows SPA as described in Section 4 above, then mitigation may be required. If additional FTE food service employees are generated and mitigation is required, the mitigation shall be calculated at 60% of the additional FTE food service employees and then the pro rata share based on the square footage floor area of the expansion that exceeds the floor area permitted in the SPA divided by the total square footage of the floor area of the expansion as described in Section 4 above. Said square footage floor areas shall be determined at the time of Building Permit submittal and depicted on the approved Building Permit plans as required in Section 4 above. Only those employees that are a result of the improvements shall be subject to future mitigation. The Housing Authority shall request the audit from the Aspen Institute. Failure to request the audit shall not render any of the approvals invalid. The Institute shall provide the Housing Authority and the Community Development Department with the audit report. The Housing Authority and Community Development shall forward the audit to the Housing Board, P&Z and/or City Council for review, as applicable. 2. 17.80 FTEs for food service employees based on the 2016 Calendar Year operations shall be the FTE baseline for the Employee Audit. Section 2: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. P45 IX.b Ordinance #1, Series 2018 Page 3 of 3 Section 3: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Approvals All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 12th day of February, 2018, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of January, 2018. Attest: __________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of _____________, 2018. Attest: __________________________ ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: ___________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P46 IX.b P47 IX.b P48 IX.b P49 IX.b P50 IX.b P51 IX.b P52 IX.b P53 IX.b P54 IX.b P55 IX.b P56 IX.b P57 IX.b P58 IX.b P59 IX.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 6 Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 19 SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW ALLOWING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 300 BUILDING OF THE ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A TO THIS ORDINANCE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 700 UTE AVENUE, BUILDING 300 OF THE ASPEN ALPS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2016 – Amending Chapter 26.222 Administrative Hearing Officer Section of the Land Use Code Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 18 SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.222 – ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review, and Call Up of HPC Conceptual Design Review Amy Simon, community development, said this is for planned development review and growth management review for an essential public facility. The main goal is to expand the dining and reception areas. Currently there is one seat for each lodge room and they would like to double that. When fully booked they need to use a number of facilities on the campus. The 1991 SPA approval allowed the expansion for the institute and music associates. Since 1991 most of the ideas in the plan have been realized. Looking back on the property records it was determined they were 780 square feet short for this proposal. Is that appropriate and what mitigation is required. The amended ordinance Section 4 – dimensional requirements includes revised language. The architects are worried the basement expansion is too expensive and would reduce it but due to the calculations it would actually increase the floor area. The proposed revision in the ordinance change the approved expansion from 781 to 1,250 square feet. The range is only for the basement. The ordinance also talks about parking. The garage was required for approval and currently there are more spaces than required. Section 5 architectural design. Most of the addition is on top of the existing patio. HPC was in favor of the patio. They had some concerns of how it would be connected and the mechanical but those were worked out. They are concerned with the pedestrian bridge. They want it reviewed at final. The applicant wants Council to make that decision. Staff recommends Council let HPC make that decision. For growth management the entire 83,140 square feet of development rights were approved exempt from growth management mitigation for affordable housing in 1991. This goes a little above those rights. APCHA recommends an audit. They said they have never required mitigation as a result of an audit. Section 7- engineering, needs to be sensitively designed as it encroaches into very steep slopes on the back of the project. The applicant has worked with parks and engineering on traffic calming and trails. They are also looking at the overflow parking for P60 IX.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 7 Meadows Road. Section 10 – environmental health. The applicant is going to start to voluntarily do compositing. Staff recommendation is that Council approves and lets HPC make the final decision on the pedestrian bridge. Councilwoman Mullins said she is out at the institute every other week giving tours of the grounds but it will not influence her decision. Jim Curtis, representing the institute along with Jeff Berkus, Cindy Buniski, Becky Ward and Judd Hawk. Mr. Curtis said they are fine with the ordinance as written and are not seeking Council to grant an approval on the bridge. They don’t want to create a tug of war with HPC. They are fine with the employee audit and the mitigation language. When the reception center was built in 1958 there were 48 lodging units with a capacity of about 100 people. There was a dining facility that could handle around 100 people. Lodging and dining was in balance. Since then the lodging has increased to 98 units. At two people per room, the need to feed has increased from 100 to 200 people. The need to keep the dining and lodging in balance is still the same. On the pedestrian bridge, at the May 11th HPC meeting I don’t think I did a very good job explaining why it is important to the institute. We do have a modified design we are comfortable with that maintains the integrity of the concrete “Ts”. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the 781 square feet will all be in the basement. Mr. Curtis said no. Including the basement it is what is over the 1991 approvals. They would prefer to do a full basement to maximize the subgrade storage space. It is very expensive space. If they only excavate under the new pavilion and make a connecting tunnel it would change the subgrade FAR. Depending where budget comes we are trying to figure out what we can afford subgrade. Jeff Berkus stated this needs to be a subordinate element to the historic asset. It is light, airy and of concrete construction. He showed illustrations of the proposed addition. The bridge will allow the removal of the stair. He showed images of the original bridge proposed to HPC and the modified design they will propose back to HPC. Councilwoman Mullins asked what are we weighing in on. Ms. Simon replied the planned development, growth management and the call up question. Councilman Daily said he very much likes the design. It makes sense for HPC to make the final call on the bridge. He is supportive of the application. Councilman Frisch said he agrees with Councilman Daily. It is a thoughtful design. He is happy to let the bridge be worked out at HPC. It will be a great addition to the institute and the community. Councilman Myrin thanked them for the model. He asked if there is a math problem on the parking. Ms. Simon said there is one space per 1,000 square feet of new commercial are. They are not generating a round number. They should round up to a whole number. Councilman Myrin asked is there space in the garage for it. Ms. Simon said they have converted some of the spaces to storage over the years but have undone it. Now they have more parking then they need. Councilman Myrin asked if there is a math problem on the housing if they were not a public facility. Ms. Simon said it will be complicated. Normally we will figure out how many employees will be generated for the new square footage and take 60 percent of that. In this case we need to isolate any mitigation that is caused only by the new addition. It is only for food service employment. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports what you are doing on the parking and the design is great. They are setting a precedent with the audit. It is appropriate with this building. She would support the 44 inch wide bridge but would leave that up to HPC to decide. P61 IX.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 8 Mayor Skadron said there is concurrence to let HPC approve the bridge. For essential public facility, the 781 square feet is in excess of the 1991 approvals. Ms. Simon replied yes. Mayor Skadron asked do the 1991 approvals take into account sub grade space. Ms. Simon stated they do not. Mayor Skadron asked when the red line ordinance was worked out. Ms. Simon said mid-week last week. Mayor Skadron asked what is the Staff recommendation. Ms. Simon stated to adopt the ordinance. Councilman Myrin said the red line happened mid-week, why. Ms. Simon said there was concern over the increased construction costs and the audit. Councilman Myrin asked how does this provide less costs. Ms. Simon said in Section 4 the 781 square foot could expand up to 1,250. This allows the basement to be smaller. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Cindy Buniski said on the lower level storage they would like to proceed if at all possible. The goal is to keep the storage. They appreciate consideration on this. It is an important building that has not had a major revamp. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said it seems odd we have a code with a math problem for parking. We have a housing system in place that eliminates the need for it. Labeling it an essential public facility or by doing an audit we have multiple mechanisms to do away with it. We treat parking so highly. He said it bothers him and he would like to see for the 781 the typical applied for housing. He is not sure there is anything important enough to not have housing at the 60 percent. Councilwoman Mullins said the housing is targeting the employer and the parking is requiring the user. The number of employees is staying the same. I don’t see there is something actually wrong with the code. Councilman Frisch said the whole reason we have the number is so we don’t get in to the value judgement. Councilman’s Myrin point is we put a hierarchy needs over a category of buildings of essential public facilities of measuring a different way. Those have superseded some community values. What benefit does an essential public facility get. Councilwoman Mullins said she understands the need for affordable housing. She does not think we are way off the track by approving this. Councilman Myrin said we may not be way off the track by approving this but we are by approving one after another after another. All I’m asking is just because it is labeled an essential public facility doesn’t mean the employees go away. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the ordinance staying as written. Under the moratorium we are looking at double counting and maybe we can look at this. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the redlined version of Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. Councilman Myrin said he will vote against this because of his concern of the housing. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this is a variance request submitted by Leslie Curly for her property at 108 Maple Lane. It is a 450 square foot lot part of the Smuggler subdivision and zoned R3 with a PD overlay. There is an existing residence on the lot and the proposal is to replace it with a new development. The request is for a set back variance. Light wells are only permitted if two P62 IX.b P63IX.b P64IX.b P65IX.b P66IX.b P67IX.b P68IX.b P69IX.b P70IX.b P71IX.b P72IX.b P73IX.b P74IX.b P75IX.b P76IX.b P77IX.b P78IX.b P79IX.b P80IX.b P81IX.b P82IX.b P83IX.b P84IX.b P85IX.b P86IX.b P87IX.b P88IX.b P89IX.b P90IX.b P91IX.b a s CD ;;0 rD 1 } Ln .1 r it �/ N s � i�`I�• •' _ CD ° Ii v S a s CD ;;0 rD 1 } Ln .1 r it �/ N s � i�`I�• •' _ CD ° Ii v S s va a, p '�► ' ,if � iar 1� i U 1 .t �I V O D r 0 0 v rt CL v D D O v Qj 0 v m CL (D _0 v. 70 N r) < F Q o v z O <' Za O ro o' rD - U) r N �^ o 7 v � n ro W � � N m v rD - -• CL rD a) � �' � n CL mv, O C FQ n o r m O r r-I- cD rr' rr rr p rt O _• C =r -i, m^ N m /�^� n LA .y 3• L m Cl a r rF cr oe r+ "� � (D Re �' ti � CL 0 fD = e-t 1 • � • • • • • • D 3 CD • • Ln 3 7D Eo 5n o —M 0Nin mD _aN+ gE onv � 3 (D m n 'm' c c nso N Fe n,s, �aw F o-n79a9 C. 'o W D KSN i 3 DA S ' s O ° 0 0 4 (1 n c n yi O b f1 »9 b V1 I m a C J O J p W m c J m m C m < Y O O o.O 'O < a o s ono ' m �` N NvV (D ip o tYii � c ' JQ `OmTo. 3m < a `comm u. n � DW Nc m Q'p ¢�• `+ m �� 0 = . bnm m na0 ¢ b0 o•. »v ?R. ¢ (D � N o � O N r. N » =9 ^ � A n '�4N =' 9Dp C » iF Z Q.. .Ni. ?, o 3 Da d G S c m o,3 d m m v m m J 3 N < N Oma_ w S N m q ' J < m N Ip W woos 5 FNc3 Tm � ° .0, ° v n al Q b I J N. IY w N 3 �. m —N N Q q» :^ C L 1 Q 3 N m �- e��yf. an d ow V = 3 d• 1 N O m m .Z O w N 9 n j A ¢ of m < 6 b n = 0,N ° N D' N 0CL n -°.. H > 0.ao C Y 00 m a io .J. 3 n_ =nX w a n0 N S m as v c G C J .� l/1 O ^ 3 a z < d 0 d m J n < a I ` 1 1 • • 1 C aF ( Qrci � `—' rp (D v' (D O C N N fD tn- n 2 7 rD A N r"p, (D 0 ZJ au < m n m s to O n O O ` 3 N O 2 •G flJ rl' 3 N Z Oi. C rD 'O O _ rD rD rD I rD o rD o (D C•) Q Q ¢ n .�. K A n' rrtt 3 < 0010 = rn D Ln( ((D ai ° rD (D q T V rD 3 v v K ° CD c ° r v d 3 v n 3 O M I S I Q v I v O C G rro < i 11 DO 1 D i I � Q Q 1 1 r-F { Q V) Q • D rF • • • • (D • • N • ' n ni CL O rr+ (74 Qp N z n o c a D v to. ro m C 3 .�—. m S < c .�2 —1 1 Q � CD o n rt rD C ° < O p () zi O O 6 n a D n S (D D In O M q� N, N aqq Y ti. p7j u N a_ N m m Q ❑. J 0 (D (D — n N O S (l O � O W m C m (D Z5 ° S o 7 c- 0- .. `� z+ 3 c o ' . ^. °c mo- c m a J- � mora 3 o ry mz 00 m OCI- n A Z N ;73 3 , (D (D O n �. fJ 3 (D J N. O N -° ° 0 J O c S rr (D J d N N N O` N (D S N O O O CD O Q Dl — C N N C U' �" f�i N M 0 � C oJq T oma' S •• m �. D m 3 Q Cm Ul W ,. 3 in 7 d rb N� SD (7OD- O7 N C W 7 OO :303 '� aaC3 �. C -11 r-t.(D 3o � < F 7 m 7 v N m o o (D ID o c o 3 w n < 0 O 7 n. C ql 0 N ID -w ^ O 7 M J pS qq C 7 3 3 , 7. N 0 ^ N < ° .t O CD n fl' n rD r-+ < r+ rD n _. rD O O -% O O rt3 rD O� O O Ln n --+, QrD O cr r+ r+ 0 p O rD N � 0Z3 o rD o �' ° 3 D rD O r N M — O n I a O N Z3O O r ) Ln L OW rD 0 a) W cn, �• rD < r+ Ln rD r-r r. O D rD .��1 ., 1. .• , .• • Summary W V err Pads,with the Mountain Oialet in the bwkgtind. As pan ofits focus on the area north of Main Street,thes��a - Imagine ifinstead ofthe Mountain Chalet,or instead of CMPAG ewnmed two public open spaces:Rio Grande ,may r.;`�Se�l thepedestrian malls,there was a puking lot net to Wag. Park and Galena Plea. 'av ner Pak.Qs would signiMmly alta the ide tityof the _ Park Today.this is the case for Rn Grande Pak.xfiac a Ike is a fundamental difficnce between rural open City-owned parking lot forces one of the important and space and urban open spew.Urban parks or plaices are note:}`-;;::! prominent boundaries ofthe park just about the open space duel(but about the Borden that EeM then-including quality strews,and the buildings d. - THIS SECTION REMEAS and uses surrounding the open space :r. THE FOLLOW NG TOP]CS: fflepubtie open apex contributes to the identity ofthe os �,,, [ I:.7r '�''`1i s-:4.- t.. 2' r "r•, L'+ +Improved edges around Rio Grande buildings around it,and the warowdng buildings run- g`.+'-rctt _.: ? k' .1� Park&Galena Plaza tribute to the identity of the public open space For both Rio Grande Park and Galena Plaz%the Inthepictureabeo,the Mountain Chaldaeatesa +Future uses surrounding Galena CMPAG made dings and recommendations intended bode,or built edge,that helps dem Wagner Park, Plaza 8Rio Grande Park to better de&tiuse anportant public open spaces by while creating a varied and interesting visual experience + creating stronger edges�t could mean improved bear- for pelestrianswalldng on Duran[.Pedestrianpahways Grande Park improvements to Rin dering stred;pedestrian ways and/or built edge and buildings also create an edge for Wagner Park at its Qarlde northeast coma,as shown d right. The no ummettt comer Of Yvggle Park a ASPEN,AREA COM MUNITYPLANi , "There Is twdespread agreement thatbpen;space Is vital to�Aspen s sense of itself •..The natu2l; - 'envlronmerit is one of the;dommundys greatest assets antl the reason tna_ny,people cfl_ifose td_ -visit or make the Aspen area their.home: �' ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Rio Grande Park Urban Edges c , A beautiful picture deserves an attractive frame Southwest Edge rl�eCMPAG found that,"In the downtown uea moth �'as„ M CMPAG raommmded variorupotential uses for the of y City.owned parking lots that would establish ademarmted f Main Street,both urban blocks and public parks have clearly deMed edges and are easily recogrumble....Creat- southwest edge for Rio Grande Park,creating a visually ing a clear edge and demarcation between urban blocks compelling and inviting pedestrian esperience in this anus- and public parks is a widely recognizes and sound urban Potential uses include an Ams Center(Sun Section II}or design concept." Neighborhood Commercial uses with aOadable housing on G upper Mrs(See Sectio i). W hen the Civic Master Plan process began in 2000,the se- ries ofbuddingsat what is new Obermeyer Place reNIsd an unraveled southeast edge for Rio Grande Place and Rio ) )� (AncapNal roddng of N.Mill 3 redesign. Grande Park.ffla buildings and parking C on the site in a haphazard m nnet,with no domed interior / 'tJ r jI! _✓.J space and little relationship to the street or the park At the southwe4 die afRio Grande Pak,CKlcCM- g ' r 1: I f(.ff ��'• PAC found that,-the City-owned puking lots along Rio ,Y ✓ A`}•' //J �; Grande Place are an unraveled edge that do not clearly � �f.•�i a !.• 41 demarcate Ne end of an urban black and the begirmnng of a tl--" r� X;:af: /� public park"Would the Aspen community tolerate a park- ing lot nest to Wagner Park? Southeast Edge The VAkst Edge Finally,the west edge cfRio Grande Park is bordered by a Fill-design and placement ofthe new buddngsa 0bermeyer An urban-park edge does not have to be a budding For ex- relatively thin sidewalk along N.Mill Streit,with a mini- Plsccreateastrangerandmore defflndsaaheastedgeto Rio ample,the hard-scapd pedestrian ualkwayjua to the wet mal buM between pedestrians and the bury trat5l along Grande Parke:park contributes to the identity ofthe build- of Wagner Park creates an interning and detged edge l the strut.Again,this does net represent a strong edge or ngs,and the curving building fivas respect the street and park Ma CMPAG found that a redesign of N.Mill Street could border for the park. a*and contribute to theidentityofthe park-much hike include"...a larger buses between pedestrians and uaC9 thefmme around a picture In addition,the interior pedestrian that will increase safety and improve the pedestrian esQeri. 016 CMPAG made a series ofClings and mcommenda- routes and desomdmg stairs at Obermayer Place lead directly ance andv%.]aesthetic oflha."A wider sidewalk tions that would better de&these three dges of Rio tothePadc. area treated with landscaping would form a more visually Gmnde Park. interning border to the west edge of Rio Grande Pak 14 T sdounmtlsdwo ll lemlinetlxwx.e pi%tln.mn, aty or Ascan fmmunily h cxrnai Detainment I Long Range planning rioi3 Vii` LAND USE. 1) project Name ASPEN PARKING FACILITY . RIO GRANDE PROPL_'RTY.,... _lie s .between the- alley (blk 86) 2) Project location �_.==.::u.- LIBRARY SITE CAPS AUTO Tt1E RIO GRANDE PLAYING' ;ESLD HE _COUNTY JAIL ubere {indicate street add.-^^^, lot & block re�ber, legal ip appropriate) PUBLIC (SPA) 4) Lot Size 4 AC ± of the total 3) Present Zoning 15.5 Ac Rio Grande " CITY OF ASPEN, 130 S. GALENA Parcel 5) Applicant ,... ,s Name, Addracs & PtKN1E _. . . ASPEN, CO 81611 925-2020 t ` ' 6) pA5resentative & p $ RNL DESIGN c/o DAVID GIBSON Is Name, Address t 418 E. COOPER AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 925-5968 7) ZYPe of Application (Please dieck all that apply): _ Conditional.Use — SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special gaview X Final SPA Final. Historic Dev. ' tual FOD Minor Historic Dev. . __ "8040'i`riPanl im . POD Historic Demolition r Stream Margin. _ Fina — i_� — .. . Historic gesignation Mountain View plane_ 'Subdivision — .. mUuun;=ticn. P X Allotment jot Split,/ Lane Adjusbnent g� p ipti� :-of • Edstisg Uses (M*w and type of existing structuress appy oodmat a sq. ft.s 'ember of bedrooms; any previous apps granted to the . EXISTING USES ARE OPEN SPACE, SURFACE PARKING, STABLE FOR HORSES, BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PATH, AND PLAYING FIELD. n .9) - r{ei3i�t; n of Develo(m nt Application .a CONSTRUCTION OF 420.,- CAR, 4 LEVEL SUBSURFACE PARKING FACILITY WITH 4,600SF t SPACE FOR AIRLINE BAGGAGE & TICKETING, POSSIBLE REGIONAL BUS, AND A SURFACE LANDSCAPED PUBI1IC PARK/PLAZA WITH GALENA USE BY SHUTTLE. SHUTTLE PICK-UP. BIKE PATH WILL REMAIN & BE EXPANDED FOR 10) Have you attached the following?' s+ Minim Moir Cmtentr _� Response to Attadmhent 3, SPeca fic Syihm;�ciDii O x6mlti; X R�� to Attadm� 4, ILevlew standards for Yan- Application MRS AW ! mom , T_ WWw77 �+�+ LJ L .' u• 1 p S ' LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN 1 (® RIO GRANDE PARKING FACILITY