The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20070723 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 23, 2007 5:00 P.M. NOON - BarlX site visit - Meet in alley behind City Hall 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) 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 #56, 2007 - Contract to Purchase 802 West Main b) Resolution #57,2007 - Contract to Purchase Remaining Wilkinson Parcels c) Resolution #58, 2007 - Contract Water Department Vehicle d) Resolution #59,2007 - Contract Resurface Iselin Tennis Courts e) Resolution #50,2007 - Cinema Services Contract f) Resolution #60, 2007 - Burlingame Housing Subsidies g) Minutes - July 9, 2007 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #31,2007 - Open Space & Trails Board P.H. 8/13 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #5, 2007 - Lodge At Aspen Mountain b) Ordinance #24,2007 - Vacation of Dean Street c) Resolution #53, 2007 - Smuggler Affordable Housing conceptual Review IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting AUQust 13. 2007 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. Vla.. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bentley Henderson DATE OF MEMO: July 17,2007 MEETING DATE: July 23,2007 RE: Property purchase SUMMARY: In order to memorialize previous action, the staff is providing a resolution of approval for the purchase of the property located at 802 West Main Street. BACKGROUND: Earlier this year staff presented to the City Council three different properties that we were seeking direction on with regard to purchasing to build our affordable housing inventory. The first two purchases, 488 Castle Creek Road, and 517 Park Circle have been completed. The property located on West Main is the last of the original three properties that we had asked you to consider. DISCUSSION: Over the course of the past few months we have been in discussions with the Aspen School District to enter into a partnership for the development of this particular property. A significant part of our interest in this parcel was borne by our desire to work with the School District on an affordable housing project. To that end, the purchase contract was written jointly obligating both entities. Unfortunately, the School District recently informed us that following discussions with one of their advisory boards that they did not feel that they were in a position to move forward in the development ofthe property. At this point, contractual obligations dictate that the City either acquire the property or terminate the contract. Either course requires action by the City Council due to the fact that one of the components of our property purchase contracts is the clause that states that final purchase approval is conditioned upon approval by the City Council. Should the Council choose to purchase the property individually; a contract amendment will be required. Action (either way) on the enclosed resolution fulfills our contractual requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Considering the nature of the real estate market in the upper valley, staff feels that the property is a worthwhile acquisition and would recommend approval of the purchase. At Council's direction we can continue to pursue a development partner. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed resolution. A suggested motion would be, "I move to approve Resolution # ~--;0 Series 2007, for $3,690,000 for the purchase of real property located at 802 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado." RESOLUTION NO. .fSt:, Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 802 WEST MAIN STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for between the City of Aspen and 802 West Main Landowner LLC for the sale of property with a legal description of Block 12; Lots Q, R & S, City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, after due deliberation and consideration the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to approve said Contract. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Aspen the proposed Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate.. between the City of Aspen and 802 West Main Landowner LLC for the sale of property with a legal description of Block 12; Lots Q, R & S, City of Aspen, and all other documents required to consummate the proposed transaction. Dated: ,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk G:\john\word\resos\mainstreetprop.doc Morris & Fyrwald Real Estate 415 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 970-925-6060, Fax: 970-920-9993 I The printed portions of this fonn, except differentiated additions, have been approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission. 2 (CP40-10-06) (Mandatory 1-07) 3 4 TIDS FORM HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE PARTIES SHOULD CONSULT LEGAL AND TAX 5 OR OTHER COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING. 6 7 8 COUNTERPROPOSAL 9 IODate: June 28. 2007 II 12 1. This Counterproposal shall supersede and replace any previous counterproposal. This Counterproposal amends the proposed 13 contract dated June 22. 2007 (Contract) between 802 West. Main Landowner LLC 14 15 (Seller), and ci. ty of Aspen Aspen School District RE-l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3] 32 33 34 (Buyer), relating to the sale and purchase of the following legally described real estate in the County of Pitkin Block 12; Lots a.a & S: City of Aspen. Colorado: Aspen City colorado State , (Property). 81611 known as No. 902 West Main St. Street Address Zip [NOTE: If any item is left blank or the term "No Change" is inserted, it means no change. The abbrevIation "N/A" or the word "Deleted" means not applicable and when inserted on any line in Dates and Deadlines (~ 2c) means that the corresponding provision oftbe Contract to which reference is made is deleted.) 2. ~ 2c. DATES AND DEADLINES. [Omitted - Not Applicable.[ [NOTE: This table may be deleted If inapplicable. I 3. ~ 4 PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. [Note: This table may be deleted iIinapplicable.[ The Purchase Price set forth below shall be payable in U. S. Dollars by Buyer as follows: Item Purchase Price Earnest Mone New First Loan New Second Loan Assum tion Balance Seller or Private Financin Amount $ 3,690,000.00 if#Ji~!{;t;jWg~1fJ!.lfl41~mtW,t-5j}Nt~i:i;! Amount '~iI11~lfJ~N~f}E~~m:~{~W]lJEtt~Jfili i~ii'~flififH}L~~wrr~~~~bM11*lfilli $ 500,000.00 Item No. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cash at Closin TOTAL j,mltlii1}FYr~%!!~mI~!1~mN8~lmr~1 3,190,000.00 $ 3,690,000.00 $ 3,690,000.00 35 36 The terms of any loan, such as interest rate, monthly payment, etc., shall remain the same as set forth in the proposed contract 37 unless modified in this Counterproposal. 38 PREPARED BY: Eric R. Cohen, Broker COUNTERPROPOSAL. Colorado Real Estate Commission CP40.1O-06 ReaIFA$T~ Software,@2007, Version 6.16. Software Reglslered 10: Craig Morris. Morris & Fyrwald Re;;il Estate 06/28/0712:21:16 Page 1 of2 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 4. ATTACHMENTS. The following are apart of thIs Counterproposal: Note: The following disclosure forms arc attached but are not a part of this Counterproposal: 5. OTHER CHANGES. 6. ACCEPTANCE DEADLINE. This Counterproposal shall expire unless accepted in writing by Seller and Buyer as evidenced by their signatures below and the offering patty to this document receives notice of such acceptance on oc before Julv 2. 2007 6:00 pm mtn Date Time Jf accepted, the proposed contract, as amen other temlS and conditions of the prop: CI con by this Counterproposal. shall become a contract between Seller and Buyer. All el, described in ~ 1. shall remain the same. DATE t:J2JJ- 07 802 West Main Landowner LLC SELLER By: Dan Coleman BU::Y of Aspen ~~ (I/~/ By: steve Barwick !" c(- :;J-<( - c; ? DATE Aspen Sehool District RE-l BOYEa By: Laura Kornasiewicz and/or assigns DATE 56 57 Note: When this Counterproposal fonn is used. the proposed contract is not to be signed by lhe party initiating this Counterproposal. PREPARED BY: Eric R. Cohen, Broker COUNTERPROPOSAL. Colorado Real Estate Commission CP40.10.06 ReaIFA$Tl!l Software,@2oo7, Version 6.16. Software Registered to; Craig Morris. Morris & Fyrwald Real Estate 06/2810712:21:16 Page2of2 \I\b A$.~cEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Department Manager DATE OF MEMO: July 10, 2007 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2007 RE: Approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels for Open Space CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Acquisition ofthe remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels will further strengthen the goal and success of protecting Smuggler Mountain. In a partnership between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County an additional 8-acres of open space will be acquired and protected for a total purchase of $500,000 dollars, split evenly between both open space programs. This successful purchase will leave one remaining private parcel, which the County is actively pursuing, for acquisition. The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the May 22nd executive session, City Council discussed a $250,000 dollar allocation from Open Space Funds for the purpose of purchasing the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels. BACKGROUND: Since the successful purchase in 2005 of the majority of the Wilkinson Estate, the City and County Open Space and Trails Boards have been focusing on acquiring the remaining 1 undeveloped parcels in the Smuggler Mountain Area. The final priority to complete the total acquisition of Smuggler Mountain is the remaining interests held by Wilk Wilkinson's Estate. The estate has a 1/9 interest in the Robert Emmit, owns the Rainstorm and Snowstorm mining claims as well as some other fractional interests shared with the USFS up Hunter Creek (Exhibit - A). In March, the City Open Space Board discussed and proposed an offer of $300,000 for the acquisition of the Robert Emmit interest only. Debra Goldstein, a local real estate agent representing the Estate, informed the Board that the estate would sell all of the remaining interest as a single offer only. At the joint open space meeting held on April 26th, both Boards authorized staff to offer $400,000 for the entire estate. The Estate countered this offer at $500,000. At the May 3rd joint open space meeting the Boards decided it was important to remove this potential development threat by making a final offer at $500,000. The offer includes the estate providing the City and County a quitclaim deed to any remaining interests that are unknown at this time. DISCUSSION: Staff has been orchestrating the potential acquisition of the remaining interests held by Wilk Wilkinson's Estate. The City and County have an option to purchase the remaining parcels for $500,000 contributing to an equal split of $250,000 each. One of the most important parts of this offer is the Robert Emmit. The 1/9th interest in the Robert Emmit held by Wilk's Estate is an immediate threat to the successful 2005 acquisition. The City and County acquired the other portion of the Robert Emmit during the original acquisition. At the time the City purchased the Wilkinson Estate the 1/9th interest was owned by others. Since that time the estate reacquired the 1/9th interest in the Robert Emmit for $200,000. The estates interest in the Robert Emmit could generate a partition action that could result in a piece of land subject to a development proposal and potentially a new single family home. Without knowing how such litigation would turn out, it seems clear that the owner of this interest is at least entitled to realize the value of their interest. The Estate has also included in the sale offer the acquisition of the Rainstorm and Snowstorm mining claims and several fractional interests up Hunter Creek. Although some of these parcels have questionable claims or deeds, both Open Space Boards feel that removing any future impediments and/or development potential is worth the investment of $500,000. If the two Open Space Boards are successful in their offer to purchase the estate's interest, the City and County will prevent another potential development scenario while acquiring an additional eight-acres. This will require an allocation of $250,000 dollars out of the City Open Space Fund. John Worcester, City Attorney, received and reviewed the title and purchase contract on July 11, 2007. (Exhibit - B) Mr. Worcester suggested approval of the purchase subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents. The BOCC approved, in first reading, the County's portion of the purchase during a regular meeting held on July 11, 2007. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The long-term financial condition of the Parks and Open Space Fund is excellent; however, as discussed in the recent May 22nd executive session, the current cash position is tight because of early payoff of financing for the Lewis Ice Arena which saves the Parks and Open Space fund over $250,000 in interest over the next three years. The Finance Department and the Parks Department have been working on a combined strategy that uses short-term financing if necessary to cover any possible year-end fund balance shortage. (It is possible that this will not be necessary depending upon revenue collections and how the Parks Department budget finishes the year). 2 Staff recommends that City Council provide authorization for this important acquisition. If approved, staff will move forward with the acquisition now and formally request funding in the next supplemental budget. Finance and Parks staff will monitor the condition of this fund through the remainder of the year and, if necessary, recommend short-term financing to cover any year-end fund balance shortfall. As discussed, the long-term fund condition is excellent. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Successful acquisition will incorporate an additional4-acres into the protection and management of the City and County Open Space programs. This acquisition also fulfills the goals of the City of Aspen Environmental Bill of Rights that guarantees to its citizens "the right to dedicated open space protected from urbanization and development" and the Aspen City Council's Resolution #108 in 2001 stating that it is the City's desire to acquire, maintain and manage open space properties for recreational, wildlife, agricultural, scenic, access, and related purposes; and to acquire, preserve, develop, maintain and manage trails for similar purposes." RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is requesting City Council's support, and approval of the contract to purchase the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. ALTERNATIVES: There are no immediate alternatives for not supporting the request. Delaying the acquisition could result in a future acquisition with an increased sales price or the need to argue against any development applications. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the purchase contract, subject to the City and County Attorneys approving the title documents, and funding for the acquisition of the remaining Wilkinson Estate Parcels as open space for $250,000. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Map of Property Exhibit B - Purchase Contract 3 RESOLUTION NO. ~ Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE FOR CERTAIN REAL ESTATE INTERESTS ON SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE ESTATE OF WILK WILKINSON, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for the purchase of the Wilkinson Estate Parcels, Pitkin County, Colorado, between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estate of Wilk Wilkinson, 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 Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate for the purchase of the Smuggler Mountain Wilkinson Estate Parcels, between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and the Estate of Wilk Wilkinson, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to execute said contract and all other requisite documents, on behalf of the City of Aspen, to consummate said purchase. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the _ day of ,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk C:\Documents and Settingslbrianf.ASPENPITKIN\LocaJ SettingslTemporary Internet FiJeslOLKFAIWilkinsonEstate openspace.doc '\, r, "<,\ ) { ~ u ~ f ".,-~!I ~_J ( ~/r '/"' c (J) TI (J) OJ r :s::: ~ \ / I , / I \ J I \ I I \ \ ........_-, ) J , / '....---.;-----.... .II ........\( ...., , \ \ \ .....,.\ ~ 1 ' , ,( \ I "~\~~, A ',(\,', \ 1\ ' ).~J '> t /~ \\1 \ !;Xl \ \ \ ~ ).:, \ ' -- \ ", J ~ I \ \ ; ::l), ~ I , \ ( ,^ J \'::t , ,\..l ' WI ' I 12/" ......, il-+'OJ. \ J m _....,......... \,' ' \ l " /~_ , I -.', . I ~o /, \ , f 3.\\ \\. . '\'::" .. ..../.....,' \\ : ---(J) '\ ( \', _--,___ \ \ /' ( /'" ~--\ \ ,I' -"'; . /1 ..... .' ,~ /// - v \~ 0 \ I f l~/\f ". '.~__.._ I :E \ \ J ~ . .... _~\ \ en "-I t". ~~ >~)\ \ ......, FOUA'COANERs-A-O~~'" \ ........ \. ~\, .\....... .. ) 'I \ \. I}..: \ '~. '-~,.;,;-\ \ .\ " ...... r, \ \ . / '-... / I \ \ i..... 't.- ..._'- / , ,:\ l .'11- '\...." .... ; ) -Io-ll /--~ 0 <, I I '1-,0 / :::) "', J ~"''''-l' ~ " (f ~ ) \ j I).. ..... I I S; r \ "'-". ... ...' ^<I Z'~'l://\o^1 \ ~.' '~ ~,/ \ ,..,.. /.... \' \IJ,/ \ """" J \ ~. I \ 3 ,,_-...... I . l " .', Q) .......... "- l 0.... ""1 J A // , I s: ( \ / () I , ~/ '. I "- , \ '\, t \....\ ' ) , I { , ,/ \ \ / ....-. \ / " I / \ I ...'" I I f \ I \ I , I \ ,/ \ / , I , f \ \ \ I , I f , \ I / ,- ( \ , , , / I I I I , , , "T1 o .., CD U) - (') ~ o -0 <b ::l (J) Z-g (") <b -I .... ~" C/l ~ (") ..0 c: 00" a: o ::l "'0 Ql n ~ '-. I ,- Exhibit: A \ , The printed portions of this fonn, except differentiated additions, have been approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission. (CBS 3-7-04) THIS FORM HAS IMPORTANT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE PARTIES SHOULD CONSULT LEGAL AND TAX OR OTHER COUNSEL BEFORE SIGNING. CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND- FARM - RANCH) Date: Purchase Price: $ 1. AGREEMENT. Buyer agrees to buy, and the undersigned Seller agrees to sell, the Property defined below on the terms and conditions set forth in this contract. 2. DEFINED TERMS. a. Buyer. Buyer, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO and the CITY OF ASPEN. will take title to the real property described below. b. Property. All interest in the following legally described real estate being located in the Roaring Fork Mining District Robert Emmett Mining Claim, V.S.M.s. #6044 an undivided 1/91h interest in plus any and all other interests Rainstorm and Snowstorm Mining Claim, U.S.M.S. #6270 100% of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, sbaft and sbaft rights. Rainstorm #2 Mining Claim U.S.M.S.# 6318 ]00% of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Snowstorm #2 (pt of the Nortb Ih) Mining Claim V.S.M.S. #6318 100% of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Ute Mining Claim. U.S.M.S. #5847 5/961h interest of all surface, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rIghts Iron Mining Claim V.S.M.S. # 5847 5/96111 interest of all surface, mineral rights. tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights Merimac Mining Claim, U.S.M.S. #4327 1/121h interest of all surface, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights Merimac Consolidate Mining Claim V.S.M.S. #4515 J/l tl1 interest of all surface, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights Alma M Mining Claim U.S.M.S.#3944 Yz interest in all of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 feet below the surface Arkansas (N) Mining Claim U.8.M.S. #8394 'h interest in all of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 feet below the surface Last Chance Mining Claim V.S.M.S. #6926 - 100% of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Alpine Mining Claim U.S.M.S. #6642 Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights. tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Bushwacker Mining Claim D.S.M.S. #6842 Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights. tunnel rights, CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND-FARM-RANCH) Page I of Initials Exhibit B shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Della S. U.S.M.S. 3939 Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Ballarat U.S.M.S.4438 Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Chatfield U.S,M.S. 1462 (southern portion) Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Pt of Chatfield (SOUTHERN PORTION) U.S.M.s. 1462 y, interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Fossil Fraction Y1 D.S.M.S. 6910 Y2 interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Fossil Y:z US.M.S.6910 YJ interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface General Jackson U.S.M.S. 3941 Y1 interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights, shaft and shaft rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface Glendale V.S.M.S. 6859 Y:z interest of the minerals, mineral rights, tunnel rights. shaft and shaft: rights, beginning at 500 ft below the surface in the County of Pitkin. Colorado, together with the interests, easements, rights, benefits, improvements and attached fixtures appurtenant thereto, all interest of Seller in vacated streets and alleys adjacent thereto, except as herein excluded. c. Dates and Deadlines Item No. Reference Event Date or - +--- ~5a Loan Application Deadline .---- 2 --- ~b Loan Commitment Deadline .---- 3 ~5e ---- Buyer's Credit Information De~ 4 ~5e I val of B .redit Deadline 5 ~5d Exi~an ents Deadline 6 ~5d ---- Objection to Existing Loan ~ents Deadline 7 ~ Approval of Loan Transfer Deadline --- 8.____ ~ 6a(4) Appraisal Deadline ---- 9 ~ 5a Title Deadline June 21, 2007 10 ~ .Ie Survey Deadline June 28, 2007 11 ~ 6e Survey Objection Deadline Joly 5, 2007 12 pb Document Request Deadline June 21, 2007 13 ~ 6. Title Objection Deadline July 5, 2007 14 ~ 6b Off-Record Matters Deadline June 21, 2007 15 ~ 6b Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline July 5, 2007 16 ~ 8 Seller's Property Disclosure Deadline June 21, 2007 17 ~ 8a lnspection Objection Deadline July 5, 2007 18 ~ 8b Resolution Deadline July 12, 2007 19 ~9 Closing Date July 27, 2007 20 ~ 14 Possession Date At time of closing 21 ~ 14 Possession Time At time of closing CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 2 of Initials 22 23 p5 P5 Acceptance Deadline Date Acceptance Deadline Time June 14, 2007 5:00 P.M. MST d. Attachments. The following are a part of this contract: Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Addendum e. Applicability of Terms. A check or similar mark in a box means that such provision is applicable. The abbreviation "N/A" means not applicable, The abbreviation "MEC" (mutual execution of this contract) means the late~t date upon which both parties have signed ,this contract. 3. INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. The Purchase Price includes the following items (Inclusions): a. Fixtures. If attached to the Property on the date of this contract, lighting, heating. plumbing, ventilating. and air conditioning fixtures, inside telephone wiring and connecting blocks/jacks, plants, mirrors, floor coverings, intercom systems, sprinkler systems and controls; and N/A b. Exclusions. The following attached fixtures are excluded from this sale: N/A c. Transfer of Real Property. The inclusions are to be conveyed at Closing shall be conveyed, by Seller, free and clear of all taxes, liens and encumbrances, except as provided in ~ 12. Conveyance shall be by bill of sale or other applicable legal instrument(s). Any water rights shall be conveyed by Quit Claim deed or other applicable legal instrument(s). d. Trade Fixtures. With respect to trade fixtures, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: N/A e. Water Rights. The following legally described water rights: All appurtenant water rights associated with the subject property. g. Growing Crops. With respect to growing crops, Seller and Buyer agree as follows: N/A 4. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS. The Purchase Price set forth below shall be payable in U. S. Dollars by Buyer as follows: Item No. Reference I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 4b Cash at Closin 10 TOTAL $ 500,00.00 $500.000.00 Note: If there is an inconsistency between the Purchase Price on the first page and this ~ 4, the amount in ~ 4 shall control a. Earnest Money. The Earnest Money set forth in this section, in the fonn of is part payment of the Purchase Price and shall be payable to and held by Stewart Title, in its trust account, on behalf of both Seller and Buyer. The Earnest Money deposit shall be tendered with this contract unless the parties mutually agree and set forth a different deadline in writing for its payment. The parties authorize delivery of the Earnest Money deposit to the closing company, if any, at or before Closing. In the event Earnest Money Holder has agreed to have interest on earnest money deposits transferred to a fund established for the purpose of providing affordable housing to Colorado residents, Seller and Buyer acknowledge and agree that any interest accruing on the Eamest Money deposited with the Earnest Money Holder in this transaction shall be transferred to such fund. b. Cash at Closing. All amounts paid by Buyer at Closing including Cash at Closing, plus Buyer's closing costs, shall be in funds which comply with all applicable Colorado laws, which include cash, electronic transfers funds, certified check, savings and loan teller's check and cashiers' check (Good Funds). 5. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. 8. Evidence of Title. On or before Title Deadline (~ 2c), Seller shall cause to be furnished to Buyer, at Seller's expense, a current commitment for owner's title insurance policy (Title Commitment) in an amount equal to the Purchase Price, or if this box is checked, 0 An i 4 j4a Item Purchase Price Ernest Mane New First Loan New Second Loan Assumption Balance Seller or Private Financing CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH)hPage 3 of Initials Abstract of title certified to a current date. At Seller's expense, Seller shall cause the title insurance policy to be issued and delivered to Buyer as soon as practicable at or after Closing. If a title insurance commitment is furnished, it . Shall 0 Shall Not commit to delete or insure over the standard exceptions which relate to: (1) parties in possession, (2) unrecorded easements, (3) survey matters, (4) any unrecorded mechanic's liens, (5) gap period (effective date of commitment to date deed is recorded), and (6) unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales prior to the year of Closing. Any additional premium expense to obtain this additional coverage shall be paid by 0 Buyer D Seller. b. Copies of Exceptions. On or before Title Deadline (~ 2c), Seller, at Seller's expense, shall furnish to Buyer (1) a copy of any plats, declarations, covenants, conditions and restrictions burdening the Property, and (2) if a title insurance commitment is required to be furnished, and ifthis box is checked .Copies of any Other Documents (or, if illegible, summaries of such documents) listed in the schedule of exceptions (Exceptions). Even if the box is not checked, Seller shall have the obligation to famish these documents pursuant to this subsection if requested by Buyer any time on or before Document Request Deadline (~ 2c). This requirement shall pertain only to documents as shown of record in the offices of the clerk and recorder. The abstract or title insurance commitment, together with any copies or summaries of such documents famished pursuant to this section, constitute the title documents (Title Documents). c. Survey. On or before Survey Deadline (9 2c) .Seller DBuyer shall cause Buyer and the issuer of the Title commitment or the provider of the opinion of title if an abstract, to receive a current .Improvement Survey Plat 0 Improvement Location Certificate D . (the description checked is known as Survey). Survey shall be paid by D Buyer .Seller. 6. TITLE AND SURVEY REVIEW. a. Title Review. Buyer shall have the right to inspect the Title Documents. Written notice by Buyer of unmerchantabiHty of title, form or content of Title Commitment or of any other unsatisfactory title condition shown by the Title Documents, notwithstanding ~ 10, shall be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before Title Objection Deadline (~2c), or within five (5) calendar days after receipt by Buyer of any change to the Title Documents or endorsement to the Title Commitment together with a copy of the document adding any new Exception to title. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by the date specified above, Buyer accepts the condition oftide as disclosed by the Title Documents as satisfactory, b. Matters not Shown by the Public Records. Seller shall deliver to Buyer, on or before Off-Record Matters Deadline (~ 2c) true copies of all leases and surveys in Seller's possession pertaining to the Property and shall disclose to Buyer all easements, liens (including, without limitation, governmental improvements approved, but not yet installed) or other title matters (including, without limitation, rights of first refusal, and options) not shown by the public records of which Seller has actual knowledge. Buyer shall have the right to inspect the Property to determine if any third party has any right in the Property not shown by the public records (such as an unrecorded easement, unrecorded lease, or boundary line discrepancy). Written notice of. any unsatisfactory condition disclosed by Seller or revealed by such inspection, notwithstanding ~ 10, shall be signed by or on behalf of Buyer and given to Seller on or before Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline (~ 2c). If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by said date, Buyer accepts title subject to such rights, ifany, of third parties of which Buyer has actual knowledge. c. Survey Review. Buyer shall have the right to inspect Survey. If written notice by or on behalf of Buyer of any unsatisfactory condition shown by Survey, notwithstanding ~ 6b or 9 10, is received by Seller on or before Survey Objection Deadline (~ 2c) then such objection shall be deemed an unsatisfactory title condition. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by Survey Objection Deadline (~2c), Buyer accepts Survey as satisfactory. d. Special Taxing Districts. SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS THAT IS PAID BY REVENUES PRODUCED FROM ANNUAL TAX LEVIES ON THE TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS. PROPERTY OWNERS IN SUCH DISTRICTS MAYBE PLACED AT RISK FOR INCREASED MILL LEVIES AND EXCESSIVE TAX BURDENS TO SUPPORT THE SERVICING OF SUCH DEBT WHERE CmCUMSTANCES ARISE RESULTING IN THE INABILITY OF SUCH A DISTRICT TO DISCHARGE SUCH INDEBTEDNESS WITHOUT SUCH AN INCREASE IN MILL LEVIES. BUYER SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE DEBT FINANCING REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS OF SUCH DISTRICTS, EXISTING MILL LEVIES OF SUCH DISTRICT SERVICING SUCH INDEBTEDNESS, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR AN INCREASE IN SUCH MILL LEVIES. In the event the Property is located within a special taxing district and Buyer desires to terminate this contract as a result, if written notice is received by Seller on or before Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline (~ 2c), this contract shall then terminate. If Seller does not receive Buyer's notice by such date, Buyer accepts the effect of the Property's inclusion in such special taxing district and waives the right to terminate. e. Right to Object, Cure. Buyer's right to object shall include, but not be limited to those matters listed in S 10. If Seller receives notice of unrnerchantability of title or any other unsatisfactory title condition or commitment tenns as provided in subsections 6 a, b, c and d above. Seller shall use reasonable efforts to correct said items and bear any nominal expense to correct the same prior to Closing. If such unsatisfactory title condition is not corrected to Buyer's satisfaction on or before Closing, this contract shall then terminate; provided, however, CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 4 of Initials Buyer may, by written notice received by SeUer on or before Closing, waive objection to such items. f. Title Advisory. The Title Documents affect the title, ownership and use of the Property and should be reviewed carefully. Additionally, other matters not reflected in the Title Documents may affect the title, ownership and use of the Property, including without limitation boundary lines and encroachments, area, zoning, unrecorded easements and claims of easements, leases and other unrecorded agreements, and various laws and governmental regulations concerning land use, development and environmental matters. The surface estate may be owned separately from the underlying mineral estate, and transfer of the surface estate does Dot necessarily include transfer of the mineral rights. Third parties may hold interests in oil, gas, other minerals, geothermal energy or water on or under the Property, which interests may give them rights to enter and use the Property. Such matters may be excluded from the title insurance policy. Buyer is advised to timely consult legal counsel with respect to all such matters as there are strict time limits provided in this contract (e.g.. Title Objection Deadline [~2c] and Off-Record Matters Objection Deadline [~2c]). 7. LEAD-BASED PAINT. Unless exempt, if the improvements on the Property include one or more residential dwellings for which a building pennit was issued prior to January I, 1978, this contract shall be void unless a completed Lead-Based Paint Disclosure (Sales) form is signed by Seller and the required real estate licensees, which must occur prior to the parties signing this contract. 8. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE, INSPECTION AND INSURABILITY; BUYER DISCLOSURE. On or before Seller's Property Disclosure Deadline (* 2c), Seller agrees to provide Buyer with a Sellds Property Disclosure (Vacant Land) form completed by Seller to the best of Selle(s current actual knowledge. a. Inspection Objection Deadline. Buyer shall have the right to have inspections of the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions, at Buyer's expense. If the physical condition of the Property or Inclusions is unsatisfactory in Buyer's subjective discretion. Buyer shall, on or before Inspection Objection Deadline (* 2c): (1) notify Seller in writing that this contract is tenninated, or (2) provide Seller with a written description of any unsatisfactory physical condition which Buyer requires Seller to correct (Notice to Correct). If written notice is not received by Seller on or before Inspection Objection Deadline (9 2c), the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions shall be deemed to be satisfactory to Buyer. b. Resolution Deadline. If a Notice to Correct is received by Seller and if Buyer and Seller have not agreed in writing to a settlement thereof on or before Resolution Deadline (~ 2c), this contract shall tenninate one calendar day following the Resolution Deadline (~ 2c), unless before such termination Seller receives Buyer's written withdrawal of the Notice to Correct. c. Insurability. This contract is conditioned upon Buyer's satisfaction, in Buyer's subjective discretion, with the availability, terms, conditions and premium for property insurance. This contract shall terminate upon Seller's receipt, on or before Property Insurance Objection Deadline (~2c) of Buyer's written notice that such insurance was not satisfactory to Buyer. If said notice is not timely received, Buyer shall have waived any right to terminate under this provision. d. Damage, Liens and Indemnity. Buyer is responsible for payment for all inspections, surveys, engineering reports or for any other work perfonned at Buyer's request and shall pay for any damage which occurs to the Property and Inclusions as a result of such activities. Buyer shall not pennit claims or liens of any kind against the Property for inspections, surveys, engineering reports and for any other work performed on the Property at Buyer's request. Buyer agrees to indemnify, protect and hold Seller harmless from and against any liability, damage, cost or expense incurred by Seller in connection with any such inspection, claim, or lien. This indemnity includes Seller's right to recover all costs and expenses incurred by Seller to enforce this subsection, including Seller's reasonable attorney and legal fees. The provisions of this subsection shall survive the tennination ofthis contract. 9. CLOSING. Delivery of deed from Seller to Buyer shall be at closing (Closing). Closing shall be on the date specified as Closing Date (9 2c) or by mutual agreement at an earlier date. The hour and place of Closing shall be as designated by 10. TRANSFER OF TITLE. Subject to tender or payment at Closing as required herein and compliance by Buyer with the other tenns and provisions hereof. Seller shall execute and deliver a good and sufficient deed to Buyer, at Closing, conveying the Property free and clear of all taxes except the general taxes for the year of Closing. Except as provided herein, title shall be conveyed free and clear of all liens, including any governmental liens for special improvements installed as of the date of Buyer's signature hereon, whether assessed or not. Title shall be conveyed subject to: a. those specific Exceptions described by reference to recorded documents as reflected in the Title Documents accepted by Buyer in accordance with ~ 6a (Title Review), b. distribution utility easements, c. those specifically described rights of third parties not shown by the public records of which Buyer has actual knowledge and which were accepted by Buyer in accordance with 9 6b (Matters not Shown by the Public Records) and ~ 6c (Survey Review), d. inclusion of the Property within any special taxing district, e. the benefits and burdens of any declaration and party wall agreements, if any, and CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND- FARM - RANCH) Page 5 of Initials f. other 11. PAYMENT OF ENCUMBRANCES. Any encumbrance required to be paid shall be paid at or before Closing from the proceeds of this transaction or from any other source. 12. CLOSING COSTS, DOCUMENTS AND SERVICES. Buyer and Seller shall pay, in Good Funds, their respective Closing costs and all other items required to be paid at Closing, except as othelWise provided herein. Buyer and Seller shall sign and complete all customary or reasonably required documents at or before Closing, Fees for real estate Closing services shall be paid at Ctosing by 0 One-half by Buyer and One-half by Seller 0 Buyer 0 Seller 0 Other The local transfer tax of_%ofthe Purchase Price shall be paid at Closing by 0 One-half by Buyer and One- haIr by Seller 0 Buyer 0 Seller 0 Other . Any sales and use tax that may accrue because ofthis transaction shall be paid when due by DBuyer DSeller. 13. PRORATIONS. The following shall be prorated to Closing Date (~2c), except as otherwise provided: a. Taxes. Personal property taxes, if any, and general real estate taxes for the year of Closing, based on 0 Taxes for the Calendar Year Immediately Preceding Closing 0 Most Recent Mill Levy and Most Recent Assessment DOther b. Rents. Rents based on 0 Rents Actually Received 0 Accrued. Security deposits held by Seller shall be credited to Buyer. Seller shall assign all leases to Buyer and Buyer shall assume such leases. c. Other Prorations. Water and sewer charges; interest on any continuing loan, and d. Final Settlement. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, these prorations shall be finaL 14. POSSESSION. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer on Possession Date and Possession Time (g 2c), subject to the following leases or tenancies: If Seller, after Closing, fails to deliver possession as specified, Seller shall be subject to eviction and shall be additionally liable to Buyer for payment of $_ per day from the Possession Date (9 2c) until possession is delivered. 15, NOT ASSIGNABLE. This contract shall not be assignable by Buyer without Seller's prior written consent. Except as so restricted, this contract shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties, 16. INSURANCE; CONDITION OF, DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND INCLUSIONS. Except as otherwise provided in this contract, the Property, Inclusions or both shall be delivered in the condition existing as of the date of this contract, ordinary wear and tear excepted, a. Casualty Insurance. In the event the Property or Inclusions shall be damaged by fire or other casualty prior to Closing, in an amount of not more than ten percent of the total Purchase Price, Seller shall be obligated to repair the same before the Closing Date (g 2c), In the event such damage is not repaired within said time or if the damages exceed such sum, this contract may be terminated at the option of Buyer by delivering to Seller written notice of termination. Should buyer elect to carry out this contract despite such damage, Buyer shall be entitled to a credit, at Closing, for all the insurance proceeds resulting from such damage to the Property and Inclusions payable to Seller but not the owners' association. if any, plus the amount of any deductible provided for in such insurance policy, such credit not to exceed the total Purchase Price, b. Damage, Inclusions and Services. Should any Inclusion or service (including systems and components of the Property, e.g. heating, plumbing, etc.) fail or be damaged bet\veen the date of this contract and Closing or possession, whichever shall be earlier, then Seller shall be liable for the repair or replacement of such Inclusion or service with a unit of similar size, age and quality, or an equivalent credit, hut only to the extent that the maintenance or replacement of such Inclusion, service or fixture is not the responsibility of the owners' association, if any, less any insurance proceeds received by Buyer covering such repair or replacement. The risk of loss for any damage to growing crops, by fire or other casualty, shall be borne by the party entitled to the growing crops, if any, as provided in 9 3 and such party shall be entitled to such insurance proceeds or benefits for the growing crops, if any. c. WalkwThrough and Verification of Condition. Buyer, upon reasonable notice, shall have the right to walk through the Property prior to Closing to verify that the physical condition of the Property and Inclusions complies with this contract. 17. RECOMMENDATION OF LEGAL AND TAX COUNSEL. By signing this document. Buyer and Seller acknowledge that the respective broker has advised that this document has important legal consequences and has recommended the examination of title and consultation with legal and tax or other counsel before signing this contract. 18. TIME OF ESSENCE, DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. Time is of the essence hereof. If any note or check received as Earnest Money hereunder or any other payment due hereunder is not paid, honored or tendered when due, or if any other obligation hereunder is not perfonned or waived as herein provided, there shall be the following remedies: CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BIN AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 6 of Initials a. If Buyer is in Default: o (1) Specific Performance. Seller may elect to treat this contract as canceled, in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited and retained on behalf of Seller, and Seller may recover such damages as may be proper, or Seller may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Seller shall have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. o (2) Liquidated Damages. All payments and things of value received hereunder shall be forfeited by Buyer and retained on behalf of Seller and both parties shall thereafter be released from all obligations hereunder. It is agreed that such payments and things of vaiue are LIQUIDATED DAMAGES and (except as provided in subsection cj are SELLER'S SOLE AND ONLY REMEDY for Buyer's failure to perform the obligations of this contract. Seller expressly waives the remedies of specific performance and additional damages, b. If Seller is in Default: Buyer may elect to treat this contract as canceled, in which case all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and Buyer may recover such damages as may be proper, or Buyer may elect to treat this contract as being in full force and effect and Buyer shall have the right to specific performance or damages, or both. c. Costs and Expenses. In the event of any arbitration or litigation relating to this contract, the arbitrator or court shall award to the prevailing party all reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and legal fees. 19. MEDIATION. If a dispute arises relating to this contract, prior to or after closing, and is not resolved, the parties shall first proceed in good faith to submit the matter to mediation, Mediation is a process in which the parties meet with an impartial person who helps to resolve the dispute informally and confidentially, Mediators cannot impose binding decisions, The parties to the dispute must agree before any settlement is binding. The parties will jointly appoint an acceptable mediator and will share equally in the cost of such mediation. The mediation, unless otherwise agreed, shall terminate in the event the entire dispute is not resolved within 30 calendar days of the date written notice requesting mediation is sent by one party to the other at the party's last known address. This section shall not alter any date in this contract, unless otherwise agreed. 20. EARNEST MONEY DISPUTE. In the event of any controversy regarding the Earnest Money and things of value (notwithstanding any termination of this contract or mutual written instructions), Earnest Money Holder shall not be required to take any action. Eamest Money Holder may await any proceeding, or at its option and sole discretion, interplead all parties and deposit any money or things of value into a court of competent jurisdiction and shall recover court costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees. 21. TERMINATION. In the event this contract is terminated, all payments and things of value received hereunder shall be returned and the parties shall be relieved of all obligations hereunder, subject to ~~ 8d, 19 and 20. 22. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. (The following additional provisions have not been approved by the Colorado Real Estate Commission.) 23. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, MODIFICATION, SURVIVAL. This agreement constitutes the entire contract between the parties relating to the subject hereof, and any prior agreements pertaining thereto, whether oral or written, have been merged and integrated into this contract. No subsequent modification of any of the terms of this contract shall be valid, binding upon the parties, or enforceable unless made in writing and signed by the parties, Any obligation in this contract that, by its terms, is intended to be performed after termination or Closing shall survive the same. 24. NOTICE, DELIVERY AND CHOICE OF LAW. a. Physical Delivery. Except for the notice requesting mediation described in ~ 19, and except as provided in 9 24b below, all notices must be in writing. Any notice to Buyer shall be effective when received by Buyer or by Selling Brokerage Finn. and any notice to Seller shall be effective when received by Seller or Listing Brokerage Firm. b. Electronic Delivery. As an alternative to physical delivery, any signed document and written notice may be delivered in electronic form by the following indicated methods only: 0 Facsimile 0 E.mail 0 None. Documents with original signatures shall be provided upon request of any party. c. Choice of Law. This contract and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado that would be applicable to Colorado residents who sign a contract in this state for property located in Colorado. 25. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE, COUNTERPARTS. This proposal shall expire unless accepted In writing, by Buyer and Seller, as evidenced by their signatures below, and the offering party receives notice of acceptance pursuant to ~ 24 on or before Acceptance Deadline Date (~2c) and Acceptance Deadline Time (~ 2c). If accepted, this document shall become a contract between Seller and Buyer. A copy of this document may be executed by each party, separately, and when each party has executed a copy thereof, such copies taken together shall be deemed to be a full and complete contract between the parties. Date: Date: CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 7 of Initials Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County Buyer Address: Citv of Asnen Buyer Address: Phone No.: Fax No.: Phone No.: Fax No.: (NOTE: If this offer is being countered or rejected, do not sign this document. Refer to ~ 261 Date: Date: New Consolidated Minin!! et al. Seller Address: Fidelitv Trust Buildine Inc. Seller Address: Phone No.: Fax No.: Phone No.: Fax No.: Date: Date: Nvoho Entemrises Seller Address: Seller Address: Phone No.: Fax No.: Phone No.: Fax No.: 26. COUNTER; REJECTION. This offer is 0 Countered 0 Rejected. Initial only of party (Buyer of Seller) who countered or rejected offer Initials END OF CONTRACT Note: Closing Instructions and Ernest Money Receipt should be signed on or before Title Deadline (g2c). CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 8 of Initials EXHIBIT "B" ADDENDUM This Addendum is made a part of that certain Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate (Vacant Land) dated ("Contract") between . as buyer ("Buyer") and as seller ("Seller"), with respect to property known , ("Property"). In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Addendum and the Contract, the provisions of this Addendum shall govern and control. 1. County Anoroval. Notwithstanding the signature hereto by the County Manager on behalf of Seller, the obligation of Seller to perform hereunder is expressly conditiooed upon the adoption by Seller of an ordinance authorizing the sale of the Property to Buyer pursuant to this Contract. In the event such ordinance is not duly adopted by Seller within sixty (60) days following the date of this Contract or any extension thereof as the parties may, in writing, agree, either Seller or Buyer may, upon written notice to the other, terminate this Contract whereupon Buyer shall be entitled to a prompt return of all Earnest Money paid. In the event such ordinance is timely adopted. Seller shall, at the request of Buyer, re-execute this Contract by the sigoature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Reference is made to certain of the Dates and Deadlines appearing in Paragraph 2c. of the Contract as Item Nos. 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14, which Dates and Deadlines shall commence to run from the effective date of the ordinance as follows: (a) The Date or Deadlines for Item Nos. 9, II and 13 shall be tweoty (20) days following the effective date of the ordinance. (b) The Date or Deadlines for Item Nos. 12 and 14 shall be thirty (30) days following the effective date oftbe ordinance. 2. Standard Schedule B-2 Excentions. Seller shall furnish to Buyer at his sole expense, an endorsement to delete standard exceptions 1-6 on Schedule B-2 of the Title Insurance Commitment. ONLY IF NOT IN CONTRACT 6(a) 3. Additional Documents. At Closing, Seller shall execute and deliver such documents as shall be necessary to transfer and convey to Buyer, free and dear of all liens and encumbrances, all right, title and interest of Seller in and to the following: 4. Brokeraee. Each of Seller and Buyer represent and warrant that said party has dealt with no other brokers or salespersons in connection with this transaction and each party agrees that in the event of any claim by any broker or salesperson who may have rendered services in connection with this transaction at the request of such party or with the knowledge or consent of such party, then such party shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party against such claims and all costs and expenses (Including reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs), liabilities and judgments resulting therefrom. 5. Interest on Earnest Monev. Any and all monies paid by Buyer prior to closing shall be placed in an insured, interest bearing money market-type account with a local commercial bank with all interest thereon to accrue for the benefit of Buyer. Whether or not Buyer shall ever be in default under this Contract resulting in a forfeiture of its earnest money, Buyer shall nevertheless be entitled to retain, as its sole and separate property, all interest earned on said earnest money. 6. Notices. Any notice, demand or document which either party is required or may desire to give, deliver or make to the other party shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered or given by facsimile transmission or given by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 9 of Initials To Buyer: Pitkin County, Colorado 530 East Main Street, 3'" Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Facsimile Nn.: (970) 920-5198 ADD CITY With copy to: John Ely, County Attorney Pitkin County, Colorado 530 East Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, CO 81611 Facsimile No.: (970) 920-5198 City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 816 II Facsimile No.:(970) 920-5119 With copy to: John Worcester. City Attorney City of Aspen \30 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Facsimile No.:(970) 920-5119 To Seller: GET ADDRESS & WHO With copy to: ADDRESS & WHO Any notice, demand or document so given, delivered or made by United States mail shall be deemed to have been given three (3) days after the same is deposited in the United States mail as certified matter, addressed as above provided, with postage thereon fully prepaid. Notice by facsimile transmission shall be deemed given upon receipt of a confmnation by sender and notice by personal delivery shall be deemed given when received. 7. Miscellaneous. (a) Saturdav. Sundav or Holidav. If any time period referred to in this Contract shall end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, such time period shall automatically be extended to the first regular business day thereafter. (b) Controlling Law. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. The parties hereto agree and intend that the proper and exclusive forum for any litigation of any disputes or controversies arising out of or related to this Contract shall be the District Court for Pitkin County, Colorado. For pwposes of any litigation, the parties consent to the chosen forum for pwposes of jurisdiction and venue. (c) Counteroarts. This Contract (or any amendments, modifications or extensions hereof) may be executed in several counterparts and, after execution and as executed, shall constitute an agreement binding on all of the parties, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page 10 of Initials (d) Further Assurances. Each of the parties agree to execute, acknowledge, deliver, file and record, or cause to be executed, acknowledged, delivered, filed and recorded such further instruments and documents and such certificates, and to do all things and acts as the other party may reasonably require in order to carry out the intentions of this Contract and the transaction contemplated hereby. (e) Survival. All of the warranties and representations contained in this Contract of an ongoing nature or intended to survive shall survive the actual closing of the transaction contemplated thereby. (f) Construction. No provision of this Contract shall be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any party by reason of such party having or being deemed to have requested, drafted, required or structured such provision. It is the intention of the parties that the party who employed the scrivener to prepare this Contract not be prejudiced by virtue of such act, nor shall tilts Contract be construed against such party by virtue of its actions in retaining the scrivener. (g) Attornevs' Fees. In the event of any action for breach of, to enforce the provisions of, or otherwise involving this Contract, the court in such action shall award a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees to the party who, in light of the issues litigated and the court's decision on those issues, was the prevailing party in the action. If a party voluntarily dismisses an action, a reasonable sum as attorneys' fees shall be awarded to the other party. CBS 3-7-04 CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE (VACANT LAND - FARM - RANCH) Page I1 of Initials VI~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THRU: Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager THRU: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director DATE: July 13,2007 RE: Contract Approval 2007-18 FM for the purchase of One (1) Toyota Highlander Hybrid for the Water Department. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends the approval for the contract 2007-18FM for the fleet purchase of One (I) Toyota Highlander Hybrid small SUV for the Water Department. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Asset Management Plan contains the funds for this purchase. City Council approved the 2007 Asset Management Plan in the 2007 Budget. BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of Sole Source from Bighorn Toyota in Glenwood Springs. Toyota is the only manufacturer that offers 3rd row seating in a hybrid 4 wheel drive vehicle that can haul up to 7 passengers. DISCUSSION: The water department is currently using a ford explorer with the 3rd row seating for their commuter vehicle. With the increase in the water department's staff and operations the current vehicle will be used by administration and this vehicle will be replacing it as their main commuter vehicle. This vehicle needs to have 4 wheel drive and can haul up to 7 passengers. The Toyota Highlander is currently the only vehicle that has these capabilities in a Hybrid vehicle. The Ford Escape Hybrid has the 4 wheel drive but can only haul 4-5 passengers. With the purchase of the Highlander the fuel economy will increase compared to the Ford explorer that is currently being used. This vehicle will be put on a 5yr 70,000 mile replacement cycle. FINANCIALIBUDGET IMPACTS: Staffhad in the 2007 Asset Management plan $35,000.00 for the New Purchase of a Plug-in Hybrid vehicle. This purchase price came in at $34,294.00. In addition Bighorn is offering a $1,500.00 cash back incentive on the Highlander that is good Page 1 of2 through the end of July which would bring the purchase price down to 32,794.00 if purchased before the end of July. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Toyota Highlander fuel rating is 31 city and 27 Highway. Compared to the Ford explorer of 15 city and 20 highway. Based only on the highway ratings at increase of 7 MPG, would be a savings of 196 gallons of fuel based on 15,000 miles per year. Along with this being a SULEV. (Super ultra low emission vehicle). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the contract approval for 2007-18FM for the purchase of the Toyota Highlander Hybrid for the Water Department. ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: . "I move to approve Resolution # 5 g of2007 On the consent calendar of Monday ~~.{A_ d 3 (J CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 2007 ATTACHMENTS: Page 20f2 RESOLUTION NO. :575 Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND Bighorn Tovota , AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado and Bighorn Toyota a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Bighorn Tovota a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: ,2007. Michael C.Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duIy 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 , 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk N r- <H 0 0 0 N ~ ~ <l.l 0 ~ eo ~ oj r- il< r- rf o ~ 00 W rfrf'O .......... .. 0 r-",U Orf -" .. .. 0 ., fiI W E<:>:'<: ":HU o E< E< I< o 0. f:;1 >< I< H D 01 Z H ., H U H :I: ~ ~ .~ oj - <l.l Ci Q o - 0: <l.l ;> 0: ~ ~ W 1l ~ rf W 0'0 '" N 0 COOl:>: :;;(j rfO 'C) it \ \f' - '" " o "' Or- '''' 00 "'"' t!JrfO r-r- 00 " r-NO "'N<'1 0" ",rfrf 000 <'1 '" " <'1 " o o r- ~ W ~ ~ rf W W t1l rf rl W t1l t1l 0 W W 0 o W ~ +J ~ ~ o !:: Ul 0 tJl (]J Q)..-l (l) I-l...-l :> +J I-l 0 CD t1l ~ .<: ~ UU~p.. "' W Ul "' W ~ <<l +J.r-{ o QI rd ~ "' 0 '" W t1l"" 0 o Q r-i 0 Ql t:ll 'M 'M bl-IJ o j:4 rtl Q) U rtl Ql +J :>'r-! +J -IJ ,:( a H Ql J...I ~'<:Wt1lI<t1l0rlO Hl'/.IP:;OE-lQlll~1ll .. ~ H I< ., '" 5 '" '" :> ~ " "M I <'1~~ OH" ~~ '" :> ..: " '" Ol '" o H 1<r-<'1 rQoo ><0": :I:Nr.. o H 01< "rQ 0>< O:I:'" ~ o "M "' 0.. "M ~ o Ul W o ~ W ~ ~ 1l o 0 . r-i ::l J...I J...I rlrl >'zww 88 U ~-91l ~ tt-l 0 ~ ::l <<l ~ ~ 0 "M Z Z Z o 0 "' -r-! .r-! H rd ...-l J...I J...I OJ () ~~~~~~~ ~~~~cil~~ E< ., ., H r.. I "'z oor:qoo zz><zz t!J ~ o W Ul D N Ol rf :> Ol co Ol Ol N", N" rfO N rf:I: '" NU Wrlrl ~ W W ...-1 Ul UI C1 Ul Ul ~ W W .,:>:> W "' W rl ~ o U <'1 '" " <'1 " o o r- " ..: rf f;:!co "<'1 .,r- E<co '0", >. W .:: ~ o "M "' "M Z ~ H C1 :> H ~ f:tJ Ul W "M ~ Ul o W Ul "M Ul ~ W 0 o Ul o Ul ..: W o '0 0 w,,: rl rl'O t1l W ",rl Ul rl ~ t1l H "' Ul ~~ o "'"' o ~ t1l 0 r..P< 00 rlOO "M t1l 0 Ol ",<'1" W,,"' I<"rf <'1 <fl- <fl- rl W Ul '0 W o 'M :>: ~ o W Ul Ul Ul t1l W rQ 0 o W..: rl Orl "M t1l ~~ Ul'<: Ul i:: CD +J !:: 0 ~ 'M fll .r-! n:l ~ J...I Ul J..I Ql E-l r:: III Ul I-l W rl t1l Ql j:4 0 OJ III ,....J m tIl Ul OJ en .Q ~ ~ "M .<: t1l "' '" 0 :;: W .... (I) N ~ >. '0 rl >."M S <<l CIl r:: .a 0 Cf.l rz1 C1l :> Ol H ~,....j I it: ~r::r-i~~~ U ~"Mal~~,w& I ~ C1l I (I) ~ OW~OQl""'I-lO'O r..> ~""t1l0..~ f):j.r-! r:: CIl Q.l m en n1 r:<l H..........r-! 0 p.. 0 ~ +J J..I r:: I-l I Ul (l) ~WWW",WC1 ~>'WO~C1N ~t1l bl r:: U 0 -rot 'r-! +J 'r-! ~ J..I.r-! PI r-I ...-l .r-l E-I 0 W C1 ~ rl"rl rl t1l 6~~",oW.Q0..r-o. >t ril r:: ...-1 +J rtl 00 ..--I '" O~~"' 1<0.. H 1.0 U 0 ..-j en .a U1 Ql ~"Cl> 1-1......... 0\0 J..I>t ...-1 +J..j.J) H r::......... p.. E-l J..I H 0 0 P::; .rll!) ~ U.Q<'1WWO'" N~ fiI>"rlrl:;:~r-NO ~::r::(T)rilr:<l""'I%!MIllE-lcn o '0 1Il- s:: [IJ rz:I U} N Ul I-l r-i /l:i trl OJ .. I-l...e CI.I '"" nJ +J Ul .j.J .0 .r-! QJ U.J,..l H I-l a '0 Ul Ul r.. "rl "M ::l s::..... 0'l.........lCX; H rl 0 [IJ fd OJ o .r-! 0) .0 '0 r:: OJ a +J ,:( H .r-! .ri 0 HO -rienroH t1l W..: "' 0 :>: ~ -" '0 ~ r.. H E< t1l ~ W ~ O.........I-l~+Ju > ~ rQ ~ ......... .........."'O::l III r:: ~rl~wo'Oo ~ 0:>: "rl "rl S +J 00 r:: CIl (I) W U W t1l +J ~ +J .!o!:> nl 0'1 Ql Ul>'t1l'O(IJ~", ~ +J H ~ en .ri W tf.I'rilXl (/) I-l l"""i (I) lJl C III >t'r-! r!< UI rtl QJ "' .Q 0 t1l t1l '" "' OJ -nj 0 p.. p.. ] ,....j 4-l+JH .-1..0 t1l""~~rl+J CIl 'r-! ~ ~ 0 ro .<: "' I< W ~~~,""...,)cn +J H J...l 0 I-l 001 IOOP::;~ Ul +J .<: C1 ,r-J Ul H ~ o ~ "M ~ "' I< "M Ul >. 0 t1l 0.. o rl ""rl Ul t1l a t1l ~ W"M rQ Ul ~"' Orl o W Of! "' t1l o W t1l '" 0.. a +J H ~ I "rl W 0 '00. "M "'<'1 ~ 0\ ~ ~ ..;- ~ '-0 00 V"\ II o Z Q o <= <l.l ;> 0: ~ <l.l U :.a <l.l >- o<J o II o ~ @ Co' P. on j '@ - <U Ci Q o <= <l.l ;> 0: ~ <l.l U :.a <l.l C Q o ~ 0: <l.l 6 ~ <l.l U :.a <l.l ~ <l.l ~ S <l.l ~ on >. C/l <l.l U :.a <l.l C S o <J od ~ o >. o ~ ...; <l.l '" <l.l "0 =:::; # ..c 01 '- o 01 " OIl oj 0.. - 01 - " J i':' o - <= " ;= - m H o .<: o ~ m '"d Ul ......... O'l .. I-l Q.l ~ f-I t1l ro - +J ~ CIJ U) 0 ~~ O'l ~'rl.rl +J.........O 'M tiI..c:: I-l .rl r-I r-I tn III I-l Cl OJ "O'Ornll'JQJ i-lroP40 i::Gl Ql Ul rl::!'rlOOP4 Ql-I.JCf.lQ)........r-lOOm-I.Jt.aQltTlr-l o~~ro.rl +J~ ~-I.J+J !-lID r-I~ro ~ Hrl~ r-IroO.........roror-lQ.l~Ul~.rl+J .. ro C!) .,-j U o:::l' Ql rl (lJ r-I ~ ~ Q) i-l 'r-! Q.lO'l~ +J ~ .......'"d~~roroHO~Wtil 'd OJ >0 ~ ~ 0 'M I OJ OJ 'd OJ 'M 'r-!r-1<DtJl.1l H~\Cr-I'Oi-li-liJ.!~S::Ql-I.JCl en "d +J ro +J ~ 'r-! .. en r-I <<J 0 ('j) 0 'r-! +J C1l....... S ~~~~O <m~'oOJ~ ~~O m~ >0 ~ rl 'M 'M ~ m m ~ ~ ~ \0 a ~ p., ~ 'd~~~a~~~~~~ 'm'~~OJrla~ o ~ I-l U Cll PI 'n rl ...:;: +J ~ ~ :;: P:; .r! ftl ~HQ.l Q.l~ZW 'O~+J Ul .......Pl.......8,..,H "ClUlI-l-iJO~r-In<ICJ-I.JQlCl:3: .-1........'00 {I) .. s:: ro s:: 0 H U '0 '0 s:: n:I i-l U ....... 0 H nl .,., I-l Ul <D <LlHp:;Z.......n:l-I.Jri::! QJ'O........oo ~H Ql <D I-l OlJ...lO,:x; .........~:;: ..c:O~CIlro(l)Qlro-I.J>::r:Ql P4a.,; HR1 s::tJl~ Q.lmtJlr-lS::O +J a ~ H ,~~ ~,~ 'M , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p., 0 u ~ ~ ::!H........ S::OQ.l~Q.l:;:'r-IO UroUlU ~H ~:rlQ.lUl~Q.lUs::........::r: 1p:;+J........~.r-I ::30 :ErlP4 +J 01-1 +J~ ((J~ ClWrol1-l 'd rl a OJ ~ ~ 'M lOl H n1 rl 'd ~ ~ ~ mOJO OJ Q.l I-l 'r-! i'd rl r::z:: +J Cl al rtl H .n........ H 0 .., s:: -I.J :> >O~~rl.Q 'M~'CJ)~M'd~ ~~~~rl OJ~0rln1m 'd~~ <<~~~O<'M ~ 'r-l'rlUl8S::~ :3:"OWI OHU8 CIl I"OWR1HroP:;O UlOS::S::+.JQ.lH ................................ H Q.l S E-l ro r-I 0 U ..c: I-l P:; l'll .,..j ..c: >< +J .,.,j Ul :>1 r-I ~ o +J 0 :> tJl ~ +J..-I ::r: r-I tn ::! 'r-! +J ~ k Q.I 0 rlltll-lQ 1;:EI-lOrd"OIO'r-!ri-I.Jritl4JI.IIO OOJ'<:~~~OMrl'<:~~OJOJOJp.,~O~'<:rl U~UH~HU<UUN~~~lOlO~H~~U ~ OJ .<: ~ OJ ~ p., o ~ '" ~ OJ ~ o H CJ) ~ U ~ ~ 0 o H ~~ ~ 'd~ ~ X N~ ..) I:r" c--i "- ' -' ~ ~ rl 0 0 0 n1 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 01 " ~ 1"1 " N " 10 \0 " rl \0 1"1 1"1 <Il- <Il- <Il- rlO 'M 0 n1 ~o OJM ~" " 1"1 <Il- o o o 10 1"1 .... OJ 'd m ~ ~ g- III s:: l"O 0 m s:: H .r! H ~ ~ ~ .~~H~ ~ ~ 'r-! 00 0 IZl Q f..l (U - 4-l Q) cr; 00 "d o I..O...!< rl s:: 0.......... ro >t 0 ro f..l (U OJ +J f..l ~ ~ p.,'M ~ o .+J en U) ~ f...r .. 0 Q) f..l 0 Q) . ,....j ~ U) CD Q) U ,....j .* U) :> 'r-! Q) ro ..c: .r-! 0 0 +J OJ 'd u ~ lOl 'M p., OJ rl U) t1l...-l...........r-! "0 en Cf.I ~ B~;;j~ ~~~ ~~ o .r-! 0 .......... H ro .~ ~ m n1'd~ OJ'<:rl OJ;;; U) J:4 ~ < t1l +J (U cr; .r-! ro ~'r-! lD 0 aOJ an1~'<:'dO> rz:l ::J +J ::J..c: :3= Q) H ,....j r-I .r-! U U) . >t ro OJ n1 'M a ~ 0> Ql U +J :> E-t lD ~ 0 s:: llt::.......... ro f..l U'r-!'r-! I +J +J ro f..l J:4 +J f..l ""' lD Cf.I ""' (U ..c: ro Q) 0 0- +J ~ H U) 0 OJ r-I f...r HOllln10~0n1 rz:l~t:j~Henuu OJ m n1 III OJ rl o 'M .<: OJO :>10 o o 01 01 .... 00 00 OlIO "" 10\0 rl <Il-<Il- OJ m 0> OJ H 'M n1 ~ .<: o u m m ~ OJ 0 O'M o ~ < n1 ~ .... 'M n1 ~ ~ m o OJ ~ Q OJ ~ ~ OJ m OJ ~ ~rl o n1 n1 'M {j 2 rl n1 o ~ OJ::I: .r-! ~ ~ 'M ~ rl OJ Orlrl < U) ro U) lOl n1 OJ'<: E-lC!l~:3= rl n1 ~ o ~ r--- o o 01 ~ o ~ ~ r--- o \0 ~ 0, ~ ~ 7 ~ \D 00 V'l II 0 Z i':' 0 E " :> " - <l.l ~ U :.a " ;> o(l 0 II 0 ~ ~ "', 0, '" "l '01 ... " CI i':' 0 E <l.l "'10 :> "1"1 <= r-" - " 01 0 U .... :.a <l.l N .... ~ N rl i':' N 01 0 "" ... ........ <= " :> "'N <= 001 - " IOrl U 0001 :.a .... .... " 00 ~ 10 " N ~ rl N " ... lOl ~ '" >- ~ [/) CJ) H " U :.a " ~ S 0 u oj ... 0 >- 0 ... ,..; " 03 " "d ::;::; 0, ~ 00 " \0 1"1 " N OJ ~ rl n1 :> rl n1 .g 'M m OJ ~ SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2007 -18FM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 6th day in Julv of 2007, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Bia Horn Tovota hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor." WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase~ One (1) Tovota Hiahlander Hvbrid Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of Thirty Four Thousand. Two Hundred Ninety Four and no cents dollars ($34.294.00 ). 2. Deliverv. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.) 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall accompany this contract document. 5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 7-PURCH.DOC 8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Reaardina Debarment. Suspension. Ineliaibilitv. and Voluntarv Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Aaainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. 7-PURCH.DOC In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or sub-contractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Intearation and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that helshe is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. 7-PURCH.DOC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: By: City Manager ATTEST: City Clerk VENDOR: f),r (, I+n/Z.J '/0,/ &' P, ~ ~(~ 1t=(J By: Title. 7-PURCH.DOC Vld MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR THRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: JULY 10,2007 MEETING DATE: JULY 23, 2007 RE: CONTRACT FOR RE-SURFACING OF ISELIN PARK TENNIS COURTS Request of Council: Staff is requesting of Council the approval of the attached contract for the purpose of re-surfacing the Iselin Park Tennis Courts. Funding has been allocated in 200i through the Asset Management Plan for this project. These courts are in need of re-surfacing for the playability and enjoyment of the public. This contract includes: re- surfacing, filling of cracks, and patching of the damage to the surface by the growth of the tree along one side of the courts. Background: When the City re-developed the Iselin Park site with two new ball fields and the ARC, the neighbors insisted and entered into an agreement with the City to retain two of the Iselin Tennis Courts. These courts remain free to the public, but require such maintenance as identified in the scope of work to keep them in playable condition. Discussion: The two tennis courts at Iselin Park as identified in this contract, require re-surfacing every 5 to 6 years. Cracks develop and the freeze thaw affect wears on them in the winter. The re-surfacing will provide filler for the small cracks, patching for failures in the asphalt base, and a new surface which keeps the courts playable. Financial Impacts: The only financial impacts are the cost of the contract attached. Funding has been allocated in the 20~f AMP for this project. There is little or no maintenance of these courts other than having staff set up and remove nets and wind screens each season. These courts are free to the public so there is no cost for operations nor are there any revenues returned. Environmental Impacts: N/A Recommended Action: Staff is recommending the approval of this contract for the purpose of keeping the Iselin Park Tennis Courts playable to the public and as agreed in the covenants with the neighbors; attachment "B". Alternatives: Alternatives would include a new type of surface which would cost more than the attached contract, such as clay courts or a pre-stressed concrete base with a new surface. This is essentially re-constructing the courts at a substantially higher cost. Also, tennis players have been requesting research into outdoor courts which this location could host. This too would be at a substantial capital and operational cost. Manager's Comments: Attachments: "A" Scope of Work HB" Covenants by and between the City of Aspen and the Maroon Creek Homeowners Association. Section 10 addresses the tennis courts. RESOLUTION #69 (Series of 2007) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND LE RENNER SPORT SURFACES SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING RESURFACING THE ISELIN PARK TENNIS COURTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and LE Renner Sport Surfaces, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and LE Renner Sport Surfaces regarding resurfacing the Iselin Park Tennis Courts, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. bated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held July 23, 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement made and entered on the date hereinafter stated, between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, ("City") and LE Renner SDort Surfaces , ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: I. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than September 30, 2007. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional a rate unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $28,840.00 (Twentv Eie:ht Thousand Eie:ht hundred and Forty Dollars). Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignabilitv. Both parties recognize that this contract is one for personal services and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to payor be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub-contractor. 5. Termination. The Professional or the City may terminate this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, PSl-971.doc Page 1 drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 6. Covenant Against Contingent Fees. The Professional warrants that s/he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Professional, to solicit or secure this contract, that s/he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this contract. 7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of 1:\1e City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is PSI-971.doc Page 2 determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 9. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FNE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minirnwn combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contrach)al and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,00- 0.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the PSl-971.doc Page 3 requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the mmrmum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, condi- tions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certifi- cate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Govemmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et seq., c.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. PSI-971.doc Page 4 City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 1 I. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested, to: City: Steve Barwick City Manager City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Professional: LE Renner Sports Surfaces Neal DePooter Tennis Division Manager 775 Canosa Court Denver, Colorado 80204 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pert;lining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement bv City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwith- standing anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. PSl-97J.doc Page 5 16. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provIsIon. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be govemed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date hereinafter written. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: By: Title: PSI-971.doc Page 6 Date: WITNESSED BY: LJ4~ftf)& By: Date:.. PROFESSIONAL: iL~^-'.r ~r13 ~{~ PSl-971.doc Page 7 ~~,\ \\ t\" 06/18/2007 10:21 3038253439 RENNER SPORTS SURFAE PAGE 02 -I:i5Renner 775 CanoG<J Court Demler, CO 80204 303-825-3435 tl 800~ 73a~81 06 fax ~i03~8?5-3439 W'W'l>'.rennGrsports,com SPORTS SUAF.CES design/build June 15, 2007 tennis courts Aspen Recreation Department Ann: Susan ArancUa 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 PRorOSAL running tl'~oks posHensioncd canc'rete Job Name: Tennis Court Resurface at Aspen Recreation CeRter We hereby submit specifications and csti.mate fur crack filling and rcsurf3ci~goftwo courts to include: HarTru 1. Remove and replace chain link fence sections in QTde( to gain workl ng access, 2. Saw cut edges ofhcaved asphalt and haul material off site. 3. Remove l~ tree stump and haul offsite. 4. Replace void in ground from stump rcmovaI with compacttld road base to form a smooth and unifurm paving surf.lcc. 5, Fumish and place 3 inches of asphalt to cover area approximately 375 sq. ft. 6. Ocan surface. . 7. Fill all cracla; full-dcpth with acrylic/cement pa1I:hing compound. 8. Apply acrylic rcsurfucer. 9. Resurface tennis coutts using two applications of'World Oass Acrylic color designed for slow play. Qw1)i:f to select color: PlayinJ!: area Perimeter HydroCourts- resurfacing 10. Re-stripe lines per U.sTA regulations. PIC3Se note that cxacks may return, although in diminished form, due to thermal cxpansioniCOlltlaCtions. Your court may not have adequate positive slope alld may have some standing water afIDr suri3cing. Future peeling ordelaminatiQlt may occur ifth<:re is inadequate slope. This proposal docs not include sterilization or p""",ntion offuturc tn:c root growth. flccr:l$sories in-line hockey We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials - cozpplete in accordance with tbc above . specifications, fu1: the sum of: T......tv-F,i"ht- ThOOSAncl-Eiebt-Hundred-l'ortv and 00/100 ($ 28.840.001. . Th.;s proposal excludes any permits or fees which may be requirod in your jtuisdiction. If permits or plan fees arc required, they will be billed to the owner at cost in e"cess oftbis proposal. lighting ALTERNATES: None p;:mmned concrete ~_.~ ..............- ~,~00j liD ...t..."N''"'''.... Lee Renner. P r~ic:lent Serving the Roc:::l~ MOlllltMl R~ion since 1964 Post TenaiOl'1 Ter:ni!': Court Plr:mccr sjn~ 1 B82 05/18/2007 10:21 3038253439 RENNER SPORTS SURFAE PAGE 03 Whc:npot:bing.~ orrcsurfis.--ingcourtswilh ending. wegnaranle<: the c:ndswiII "'"l'::>ear, ""d thlltthoy can ""'PP"'"" withm 24 boars, ~ upoo k..."",db.Oc fi....u..tiuu... _ Fortomiscomt~ WIrl iDvolving ospbaItpm"1l many form. pkase be """"" thai "" have exper:ien<:e<l C<mtmninati011 is asphalt mixeo doting r=nt y.,....and "" cannoi -_tee sgoil1Sl t!liil COIItamimrti"". AU 1llOlCrial is gtI1I[lIIllecd II> be OS "l""'ified. AU _10 becomp1ded in. ~ m'rma: aooording 10 standmd practiecs. Any alle<stion or okviation from above opccificotiom in."lving ""'"' ""'~ will be execlIt<d only upon written oidcn; and will becoo>e lID CXlnl charge CJVeI' and abooe the estimate. Al1,.greetnarts me COlItinj!<:nt upon strike<;. aceidc::nls or delay> beyond 0IIr aJIIlmI. Thi. proposal is ...~ccllD ,cceptanoe within ~30_ days JItld is void tlxteofter IIltbeoplionoftbeunder.<igned. All wmt will be ~.......u&cd fur labor and mall:rials for a period of one y<:ar ftnm chl!r; of substantial completion escan: for c:nc:kiJn! or bcmll2. SboPld the:mall:rials JlI'M' 10 be de1ectivl: or the workmansbip is fuulty, the problems will be remedied wilhin a n:asonable time froM =ipt of notice of the prnbIem, -detet:mining factors to be .......lhcr and ctew schedule. The paym<lll !lChedule will be J<qUin:d lIS followll: I)oolm payIIl<ibl>'depollit of 3lI"f. Is reqoired ,Horto orderiag materl... ,"d odled1l611g"'ork I'rog!=Jl'IYIIlOl1!s will be =JUired following col!lPlction of work i""'" os follows; 30%_ 40% Upoa OOIIIpIedaII oflb<: plITIDg 30% UI"'" oompledoR Po.y request. -.rill bebRecl.. _;or _b Grllle __.re OOIIIpIetM .nd an: t... 'Il'ithin 10 doyt of d.le ofhnooloo. Work III"Y be deloyoed ifp........ poym...u ""' lOOt 1Iepl...<noat Accounts ,baD be conoid"""- ooerduc ond dclimjueot JO days lIIIer dale of lnwioe. Dl::Iitiqueot ace<JOIlls shall tear interest at a ~e of 1 Y,%F mOlllh.(I8% aaooaIly) aod will be mljectlD all. c:lwp llOOOllS8lY/i:Jt ooUa:tion, including but not limiledlD, all a!lomey', fees. Final paymad sball bocome duenpm aanplelioa. of COI11raclnt'. VII>IL Liens will be filed "" delinqne<1lllCCOUlltJ. 0paIing or use of m inslalIlIIiOll by owner 8haIl be consid..ed ocC<:pllmce. In the ovc:nl of1ctmination by ........, IDe ~ sball bepoid fo< the WIrl pe<fmmed ID dan, and for roalfo:i$ls on hend. The OOlrtIllctor is not liable fer del..,." cauoc:d by SIrib:s, by inability In oecure sdeqnate mot.:rial.s. by 1001 shortage, by weoIlt..- conditions, by!ll<:dlanioallililu=, by Ad$ of Clod, or 0I1Y olhot cause beyond om: conlml. L.E.R.., lIlc. is.. nro-uniOll entity and i. __ by any org&lli=! Labor ~=aents. If digging i. required, L.E.R, Jnc. sbaIl_the UtiliIy Notilic:atioo Cenll:rofColorado fur nti1it;y lo<:at= The owner wiD be=pon,,;bk farropaiBt<> any wo<L5'.....d I..... ifdamogocl, altbough eon: will betaken 'Idton we ~ odvi!1ed of their Ill"""""- The ~ is pnodiaded upon tioJmal diB&iDll ooIlditiona, ODd ifroc1cs are ",c<>UI1I=d,.1he c:xtra ~ and tq1lipn1eIIt oosIs ne=;sitatod 10 complete the ""D/l( will be po.sed on 10 the owner. Owner shaI1 c:ItabIish suilBble == lD the c"'..,."....rion """. PolllbIc _ wiD be amiable witItin fif\y feet (SO') oftl.. site (wo US<: sbmdaId y." g/IIden """""l- It is understood tba\ if a ooil staiJoot is llPJlIied, it i.;,. ... e1l"ort to ll'Iard w<:<d growtb and DC' ~ i. expn:ssed or implied tba\ its """ will be dIi!<:Ii= ev..."""" i. not """""",'blo> for Ol'llcl<s due to Jxa.ving. soil , <:JqlllIISion. ftnlrt, dr., or other A~ of God. Warning -Ibis proposoI i. ~ npm ~c:onsIr1>2iOl1 pocticcl;desclop::d overili, post twl:nly-five years. It is inborent: of an aspluIl\ oocl- ~ 10 ad:.' We _ be =PODSible for gf01lII<l movanart, heaving, or scttIing oflbe .oils. Oolt proposal docs not iDclude soil inveoligation ar ~llUY drailIllge costs. Because ofthepossibiJjly o[~ llOils problems, theowna-is strongly "u""w,"l!;td to p:ocure. soils i.nves1igauOll by aqtmlified.oilsengineer. L.E.R..,Jnc. disoIBimsany liebility for SOIl h~l~ bul will modify lhisproposa! 10 includelhe~oftbe_..oo en;in<=. 2 06/18/2007 10:21 3038253439 RENNER SPORTS SURFAE PAGE 04 If the COl\u.ct 0lllI00I be pelfortn<:d daring the CItttalt oonstru::tiOll ......,., due to del.ay> tam ed by the """CT, his agonls, 0< emplOJ"'OS, this lXlI1In>c( sball be valid f... (be subseqner<: constn>ction "'"""", ...~ oct to po='b1e in.C!l'lISal in labor "".cl mataials. Ovmer may accept thi.!'ropo9aI cithe< ~ sigDamn: or by making Mty P"'Y"""'''' to Contlaotcr in consid=tiort of ~""s, ondeithe>: oftb:a.bo.., modes of.................:iIaII bedecned to incorporate all oftl;e WIns of this lTopo..l inhl the contnlet ~ the portics the:reby f<><:m<<l. If this proposaI is accepted, please sign one copy and return it to onr offi.ce as soon as po"ible. Authorized Sjgnarnre (~}A ;? -" jJ d)A,f 4- Title: Neal DePooIEr- 'fennis Division Manager L.ER, lnc. db.. Renner Sports Suri8<x:s ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL . . The above prices specifications and conditions on hcr=by accepted. You an: authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. . ACCEPTED: Date: SigoaIure: . rme: 3 [~~.\ ~~.. that are consistent with park uses; provided, however, that any other proposed use or uses shall have no greater on-site or off-site impacts than the proposed ice rink. 4. There shall not be any additional building(s) or .structures constructed, erected or otherwise located on the Property, which is not identified in the Iselin Park Master Plan in effect as of the date hereof. The parties hereto understand that the Iselin Park Master Plan contemplates the construction of space for the Aspen Youth Center and employee unit(s) to accommodate two bedrooms. 5. There shall not be any expansion or construction of additional playing or practice field( s) on the Property that is not identified in the Iselin Park Master Plan in effect as of the date hereof. 6. Food service shall be limited to the area defined for such use in the Iselin Park pool/Ice Drawings. Any such food service shall be an ancillary service to both the park and pool/ice facility. Any such food service operator shall be limited by the lease agreement with the City to prohibit marketing the food service to patrons outside of the park and pool/ice facility. The existing food service facility ("The Last Stand") shall be removed upon or before the opening of the new facility within the Iselin Pool/Ice facility. 7. The City shall ensure that sponsors of any events at the Property shall be responsible for ensuring that sufficient parking and appropriate transportation options are made available for the number of participants and spectators expected to attend such event. Sponsors of such events shall also be responsible for coordinating multiple events that may be scheduled at the Property at any given time. If a special event permit is required for any particular event at the Property, the City shall ensure that adequate parking and transportation is provided by the sponsor of the event prior to issuing a special events permit. 8. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to enforce parking regulations within its jurisdiction and to encourage the County to enforce parking regulations within its jurisdictional limits. 9. Any and all rules and regulations, which govern the use of the Property shall be posted in conspicuous locations on the Property and shall be written in both English and Spanish in a and conspicuous manner. 10. T City of Aspen agrees to keep at Iselin Park a minimum of (2) two tennis courts, which sh II be maintained in good playing conditions throughout the term of this Declaration 'ncludi any extensions, renewals or modifications hereto. II. This Declaration shall be effective for a period of ten (10) years beginning on the date that the facility receives a certificate of occupancy, and thereafter shall automatically renew for successive 1 year terms unless modified or terminated after public hearing and by appropriate authority of the City of Aspen having jurisdiction over this Declaration. 11111111111111111111111I1111111\ 1\\\111 III 11111\\\\ \11\ 457605 ....___. '::J. ....f 4 Vie MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director THRU: ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors DATE OF MEMO: 9 July 2007 MEETING DATE: 23 July 2007 RE: Cinema Services Contract, As Amended Mayor and Council Members: At the June 25th meeting of the Aspen City Council, the service contract for the Wheeler Film Society was presented for Council approval. After full discussion, it was decided that the terms of the first clause of that contract as submitted were not in keeping with Council's philosophy towards freedom of expression. Mayor Ireland made a motion to continue the contract and have it calendered again for Council approval, with all language about Wheeler management approval of film titles stricken from the contract. That amendment to the contract language has now been made, and Wheeler staff and Board ask that this amended contract be approved by City Council at its July 23rd meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director THRU: ACM Randy Ready; Wheeler Board of Directors DATE OF MEMO: 18 June 2007 MEETING DATE: 25 June 2007 RE: Wheeler Cinema Services Contract SUMMARY: Contract approval is sought for a cinema services agreement between the Wheeler Opera House and Jon Busch and Don Swales, collectively doing business as Wheeler Film Society. Wheeler staff and the Wheeler Board of Directors recommend approval of the request. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION AND BACKGROUND: A number of cinema services agreements between the Wheeler and Wheeler Film Society has existed since 1990. The Wheeler Film Society has been exhibiting art-house and foreign movies at the Wheeler through a formal agreement since August 1990. In the intervening seventeen years, there have been periodic reviews of the cinema services needs at the Wheeler, and subsequent formal requests for proposals that resulted in new agreements with Wheeler Film Society. These subsequent Agreements have incorporated changes found necessary by both the Wheeler and Wheeler Film Society. Upon arrival in October 2005, Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton collected data regarding the cinema services program at the Wheeler and realized that it had not gone out for proposal since the early part of this decade. Upon further review and discussion with the Wheeler Board of Directors, it was decided that a Request for Proposals for the cinema services program should go out during the spring of2007. DISCUSSION: While artistically viable and important to creating a broad palette of arts selections for Aspen residents and guests, a cinema program is not without its drawbacks. In fact, the 2005 organizational audit conducted by Genovese Vanderhoof & Associates concluded that the Wheeler is "an expensive facility for the presentation of film, especially when compared to modern purpose-built multi-plex cinemas that spread employee activity over multiple screens." The report also noted, "However, the decision of management or stakeholders to present film, for historic reasons, the special ambiance, the desire to have visible activity in the theater, and perhaps the lack of alternate screening venues should be made with the acknowledgement that this [the Wheeler] is not an efficient place to exhibit films." Despite the challenges, the staff and Board of the Wheeler Opera House have thoroughly discussed and firmly support including a non-mainstream and regular cinema presence as part of its programming mix. Since the 2005 report, Aspen has lost four of its eight regular screens for movies, and live event activity at the Wheeler has significantly increased, thereby creating a net loss of film exhibition opportunities for city residents and guests, and further underscoring a need for a cinema program where scheduling vacancies permit. In response to the request for proposal process, the Wheeler received two proposals from outside entities, plus submitted its own in-house proposal as a back-up plan should the other two proposals not be deemed workable. At its June 13th meeting, the Wheeler Board of Directors discussed and weighed the merits of the two outside proposals. Wheeler staff and Board have requested certain changes in the Wheeler Film Society (WFS) proposal outlined below. With WFS acceptance of those changes we are comfortable accepting Wheeler Film Society as the cinema services provider for the assigned annual term with options to renew for up to three years total. It is staff s intention to request proposals every three years. The terms of the agreement require the contractor to provide a regular cinema program that would be offered on available open nights from late August through early June on an annual basis that would exhibit films not typically available through commercial exhibitors. In exchange for these services the Wheeler would provide utilities, staffing and other administrative support, and would receive a surcharge of $0.50 for each ticket sold, credit card surcharges to recoup expenses, and a per-screening fee of $25. The most significant differences between this agreement and the previous one with WFS include the following: . Programming will be subject to review and approval by Wheeler management (consistent with live and special event review and approval); . The Wheeler will have the right to work with other not-for-profit and for-profit entities on individual film bookings and series, as appropriate; . Wheeler Film Society will be expected to aggressively promote its bookings through all appropriate media sources; . Wheeler Film Society will work cooperatively and non-competitively with other Aspen-area not-for-profits; . Wheeler Film Society may not enter into any co-promotion or other third-party venture as regards film exhibition at the Wheeler; . Wheeler Film Society will pay back to the Wheeler $7,500, which represents an outstanding loan of$5,000 and seed money of$2,500. . Financial reporting will adjust to a report matrix jointly created by Wheeler Film Society and the Wheeler Opera House. These changes have been discussed and found to be acceptable by Wheeler Film Society. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cinema program at the Wheeler has always relied on "soft cost" support that has been approximated at $90,000 per year, primarily for building usage, house and box office management, housekeeping and administrative overhead (financial accounting, webpage, in-house publicity, etc). A breakdown of revenues and expenses for a "typical" year with about 160 days of screenings is as follows: EXPENSES . Building usage (including utilities) @ $300/day = $48,000 . House and box office management@ $100/day = $16,000 . Housekeeping@ $50/day = $8,000 . Administrative overhead@ $JOO/day = $16,000 . Miscellaneous materials and services = $2,000 TOTAL: $90,000 REVENUES . Screening Fees @ $25= $4,000 . Ticket Surcharges @ $0.50 (assuming 60 patrons/screening) =$4,800 TOTAL: $8,800 Wheeler staff and board expect no further negative financial impact under the new Agreement, and in fact expect a better overall performance and less dependence on a "soft" subsidy, given the reduction in the overall number of screens in town and the more aggressive marketing called for in this agreement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Board recommend approval ofthe attached Agreement. The Board finds that film is an important component of the overall programming mission of the Wheeler and provides a valued cultural amenity and entertainment opportunity to the community on nights when the Wheeler would otherwise be "dark." The Board further finds the changes to the proposed Agreement with the Wheeler Film Society acceptable and recommends City Council approval. ALTERNATIVES: The Wheeler received an additional proposal that would be satisfactory to staff and Board assuming overall costs could be reduced. Additionally, the Wheeler could take the cinema program in-house, but in doing so would be taking on significantly more programming responsibility without further additions to staff. Finally, the Wheeler could abandon a regular cinema program as it has existed and recognize only rental cinema events as its cmema program. PROPOSED MOTION: Council moves to approve Resolution #Sl), to contract with Wheeler Film Society, for the purposes of securing inema programming at the Wheeler Opera House. RESOLUTION # 5CD (Series of2007) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND WHEELER FILM SOCIETY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING A CINEMA PROGRAM FOR THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Wheeler Film Society, a copy of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Wheeler Film Society, regarding provision of a regular cinema program for the Wheeler Opera House, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager ofthe City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held June 25, 2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk SERVICES AGREEMENT WHEELER FILM SOCIETY THIS AGREEMENT made this Ji day of June, 2007, by and between the City of Aspen ("City") and Jon Busch and Don Swales d/b/a the Wheeler Film Society ("Contractor"), provides as follows: WHEREAS the City wishes to make available to the public a broad range of community entertainment, artistic and cultural programs and events: and WHEREAS the Contractor possesses knowledge, skill, and experience in the arts related to the exhibition of commercially-available cinema product; and WHEREAS the City desires to make available to the public with the cooperation and assistance of the Contractor a specialty film program to be presented at the Wheeler Opera House; and WHEREAS the parties entered into a Service Agreement dated August 13, 1990, and the parties desire to make a successor Agreement with the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following covenants, the parties agree as follows: I. The City does hereby retain Contractor and Contractor does hereby agree to deliver, implement and manage a cinema exhibition program to be presented through the Wheeler Opera House. Pursuant thereto, aRE! with the ~iRal arpraval af Wheeler OreFa Hallse R1aRageRleRt as regards titles aRE! sereeRiRg tiRles, Contractor shall select, secure, and exhibit films using available open calendar dates in the Wheeler schedule. 2. Contractor has the exclusive rights to self-promoted and non-partnered film exhibition at the Wheeler: however, Contractor acknowledges and accepts that the Wheeler Opera House may choose to present film in partnership with other entities or as rental engagements, either as individual bookings or as a formal series. The Wheeler Opera House shall not engage in the booking or exhibition of cinema product in a manner that will directly compete philosophically in or practice with the Contractor. 3. Neither the City nor the Wheeler board of directors ("Board") warrant or guarantee to Contractor the availability of the Wheeler Opera House to Contractor on any given date or dates, nor is Contractor guaranteed any minimum number of dates upon which to exhibit film. Exhibition dates selected and entered on any calendar may be canceled by the City and/or Board in order to accommodate live or alternative income-generating bookings, as selected by the City or Board. Dates that have been given as available for film booking but then withdrawn prior to commitment to a published calendar will incur no penalty fee. Dates that are withdrawn after commitment to such calendar will incur a penalty fee of $100 per affected date. Penalty fees will be paid to Contractor. 4. Contractor shall bear all costs associated with the film program, including (but not limited to) film rental or payment percentage, incoming and outgoing freight expense, advertising, press materials, projectionists, program management, and accounting services. The City shall provide liability insurance coverage, as well as provide house management, box office management, and clean-up of the theatre's public spaces. 5. Contractor shall be solely responsible to maintain in good working order all projection equipment and supplies utilized in Contractor's film exhibition. Should contractor require use of the Wheeler's digital projector(s), Contractor will be wholly responsible for the equipment's proper set-up and tear-down before and after the scheduled screening(s), as well as responsibility for any damage that the equipment may incur during the exhibition period. 6. Contractor shall be expected to fully promote all bookings committed under this Agreement, using all appropriate media and advertising resources. Contractor shall aggressively promote and advertise the film offerings during the film's running period through media other than those available from the Wheeler Opera House. The Wheeler will include for Contractor's publicity purposes an appropriate presence on its website and timely passive hard-copy materials. 7. The City, through Wheeler management, shall have the right to approve or reject any image or verbiage used for the promotion of any individual film offering or for any other maller associated with the Contractor's presence within the Wheeler Opera House. 8. Contractor agrees to work cooperatively and non-competitively with all other Aspen-based not-for-profits, particularly as regards the booking of film product. 9. Contractor will not enter into any co-promotion or other third-party venture as regards film exhibition at the Wheeler Opera House, and will refer all such inquiries for same to Wheeler management. 10. Admission prices for all film exhibitions shall be wholly at the discretion of the Contractor. As an addition to the ticket price, Contractor shall assess, collect, and pay to the City a surcharge of fifty cents ($.50) for each ticket sold. The City shall assess a surcharge of 3% for Mastercard or Visa charges, and 4% for American Express charges, for all such credit card purchases associated with Contractor's tickets. Further, the City reserves the right to adjust these surcharge amounts either up or down at any time, based on increases or reductions in its direct cost for such charges. Finally, Contractor shall pay to the City a per-screening fee of $25.00 for box office services. The City shall be the sole supplier of box office and ticketing services for the Contractor. II. All fees associated with Paragraph 10 above shall be deducted from gross ticket revenue and paid out to Contractor within ten business days by the City. 12. The City, through Wheeler Opera House management, will receive detailed performance reports from Contractor upon the completion of each film booking within five business days of the final screening of the booking. This report will be supplied through a template created mutually by the Wheeler Opera House and Contractor. Further, the Contractor will supply the City on a monthly basis a fully-detailed financial summary with year-to-date figures for all Wheeler Film Society operations conducted onsite at the Wheeler Opera House. This report will be expected not later than the 20'h day of the month, or the first regular business day thereafter, for the previous month. Responsibility for the delivery of this report to City will rest solely with the Contractor. 13. The City, through the Board, may at any time seek and obtain access to all accounts, records, or books maintained by or on behalf of the Contractor in the administration and operation of the cinema services program. 14. The Wheeler Opera House concessions bar may be opened and staffed prior to screenings, at the sole discretion of the City. All concessions revenue shall be and remain the property of the City. 15. The term of the Agreement shall be from August I, 2007 through July 31, 2008, unless terminated earlier at the option of either party by giving sixty (60) days' written notice of such intent to terminate. Upon the termination of the Agreement, Contractor shall promptly prepare and submit a full accounting of all sums advanced to it by the City and all costs and receipts as generated by the cinema program. Contractor shall additionally be expected to remove any and all property owned by the Contractor from Wheeler Opera House premises within five business days. Upon satisfactory annual review, the term of the Agreement may be extended for up to two additional one-year terms, for a maximum of three years total. 16. Contractor expressly agrees to refrain from and prohibit any fundraising and/or solicitation of memberships or contributions, whether for itself or an outside party, during the term of this contract, or until such time as Contractor can provide evidence of recognition as a bona fide 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. 17. Contractor, its agents and employees, shall be bonded through a surety licensed to do business in the State of Colorado. A copy of such fidelity bond shall be presented to the City upon execution of this Agreement, and such bond shall remain in full force throughout the term hereof. 18. Contractor shall maintain, and provide annual evidence thereof, a valid license for the purpose of conducting business within the City of Aspen. Failure to maintain such license will result in immediate suspension of payments to the Contractor, and may result in termination of the Agreement. 19. The parties intend that the relationship created by this document is that of employerlindependent contractor. No agent, employee, or servant of Contractor shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee, agent, or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Contractor. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees, including, but not limited to, compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents, or servants of Contractor. Contractor will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Contractor's agents, employees, servants, and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 20. Contractor shall indemnify City and Board against all liability or loss, and against all claims or actions based upon or arising out of damage or injury (including death) to persons or property caused by or sustained in connection with the Contractor's negligent performance of the contract or by conditions created thereby, or based upon any violation of any statute, ordinance, building code or regulation, and the defense of any such claims or actions. Contractor shall also indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for, payment of all federal, state, and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with 21. In any event, the appropriate utilization and timely payment of all funds provided by the City shall be and is hereby personally warranted and guaranteed by Jon Busch and Don Swales, jointly and severally. Jon Busch and Don Swales further agree and covenant to hold the City and Board harmless from any financial claims or losses arising from the administration and operation of the film program. 22. It is expressly agreed that this Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the subject matter hereof next expressly incorporated in writing. 23. It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superceded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the City and Contractor. 24. If any of the provisions of the Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality, or enforceability of any other provision. 25. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand-delivered to the respective persons and/or addresses listed below or mailed by classified mail, return receipt requested, to: City of Aspen c/o City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Board of Directors Wheeler Opera House 320 East Hyman Avenue Aspen CO 81611 Wheeler Film Society PO Box 1884 Aspen CO 81612 Jon Busch 548 Race Street Aspen CO 81611 Don Swales PO Box 1884 Aspen CO 81612 26. Contractor and City acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change, or modification shall be made except by a document signed by Contractor and City. 27. Failure to comply with the individual or collective terms of this Agreement will result in the immediate termination of this Agreement. Having agreed to the above and foregoing. the parties hereto do affix their signatures. CITY OF ASPEN By: Steve Barwick, City Manager ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk WHEELER FILM SOCIETY BY~ \S~ n usch By: Don Swales Addendum to Cinema Services Agreement AGREEMENT, made this fi-th day of 2007, by and between WHEELER FILM SOCIETY (hereinafter referred to as Contractor) and the CITY OF ASPEN - THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE (hereinafter referred to as City) whose address is 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen CO 8161 I. I. This Addendum document, dated _ June 2007, is accepted by both City and Contractor as a part of the Cinema Services Agreement. 2. Contractor, as part of the acceptance of the Cinema Services Agreement offer, shall reimburse the City for all past monies loaned or otherwise provided by the City over the course of its contractual arrangement to provide cinema services for the Wbeeler Opera House over the period from 1990 - 2007. These monies include a $5,000 loan, and $2,500 in seed money, for $7,500 total. 3. Contractor shall not be allowed to execute in any manner the duties and assigns associated with its 2007-2008 Cinema Services Agreement until such time that such past monies have been reimbursed to the City. 4. Failure on the part of Contractor to provide payment for such past monies within six months from signature date below will result in the 2007-2008 Cinema Services Agreement being rendered null and void. In Witness Wbereof, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date first written above. for The City of Aspen date ~TI~, '/I~ (01- J date Vir MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Tom McCabe, Housing Executive Director THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager DATE: July 23, 2007 RE: APPROVING THE CATEGORY MIX FOR DELIVERY 2 AND DELIVERY 3 FOR BURLINGAME RANCH I CONDOMINIUMS SUMMARY: The Housing Office will be selling the last 53 multifamily units in Phase I, at Burlingame Ranch, before the end of the year and have recommended specific category allocations. An early determination of these categories will allow interested community members to prepare for lotteries in a timely manner. City Council discussed and recommended approval of the attached category mix. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council directed staff to provide category assignment recommendations for the remainder of first phase deliveries. BACKGROUND: The second, and next, delivery is for 22 units and the remaining 31 units will be the final multifamily housing offering of the first phase. Initially, the 53 units created a subsidy of$8,289,716.36. The estimated net change on the balance ofthe 53 units under the new category scenario adds an additional subsidy of $3,166,000, for a total subsidy of $11,455,716.36, based on 2005 sales prices. City Council gave direction to Housing to utilize the 2007 prices, decreasing the subsidy amount by approximately $500,000. A separate attachment lists the specific category recommendation of each unit, the square footage, unit type and storage location for the 2nd delivery of 22 units. DISCUSSION: The categories were reviewed and recommendations were based on, unit square footage, the location of each unit compared with the other units in the building and complex, the proximity and size of the storage unit, whether the parking is covered or not, the relative expandability of each unit, and the views associated with the unit. The first 22 units are ready to be marketed and staff would like to begin the process with the open house on July 18 and closing of the units scheduled for the first week in September. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: By shifting category assignments and utilizing 2007 pricing, to create additional lower category units, the cost to the city is estimated to increase by $2,668,000 ($22,233.33 per bedroom). Additionally, the revenue stream for the APCHA Operations Budget (620 fund) will be reduced by $53,360. The 620 fund obligation is split between the city and county in equal shares, and decreases in earned revenue through sales commissions will mean an earlier utilization of carry forward cash balances to make up the shortfall thus accelerate the occurrence of a negative fund balance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no environmental implications with the change in categories. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve this category mix for the balance of the multifamily units Burlingame Ranch I Condominiums. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. &(J, Series of 2007, approving the category mix for Delivery 2 and Delivery 3 for Burlingame Ranch I Condominiums. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: A - Resolution No. /d2, Series of 2007 B - Attachment 1, Burlingame Ranch I Delivery 2 & 3 I Next 53 Units. RESOLUTION NO. (pc) Series of 2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE CATEGORY MIX FOR DELNERY 2 AND DELNERY 3 FOR BURLINGAME RANCH 1 CONDOMINIUMS WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council at a work session held July 16, 2007, a request for categorization of the last fifty-three (53) units at Burlingame Ranch 1 Condominium. WHEREAS, the City Council recommended approval of said category mix stated on Attachment 1. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section One That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves the category mix stated in Attachment 1 for the lottery process as stipulated in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Employee Housing Guidelines. Dated: July 23,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held July 23,2007. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 BURLINGAME RANCH I DELIVERY 2 & 3 I NEXT 53 UNITS ------- Balance of Units: 10 One-bedrooms; 19 Two-bedrooms; 24Three-bedrooms I BUILDING/ADDRESS J(-1-:061 MOLLY COURT . I I 1 t "ilT'" argil> &xpan"a II...,. i;-~~i01'70 FORGE ROAD . . I ';'i g exoanoabilitv eXlianoabilitv 1'-1 - 0163 FORGE ROAD. I . f.,. . .. ~ORGEROAO . 2 levels - 1-1/2 baths ~ ~ Delivery 1 - 31 units / SOLD 1-Bedroom ~~e~~(l1l1 ._ 3-Bedroom --. - No. Of Dependents o Dependents 1 Dependent 2 Dependents 3 or More Dependents Max. Net Assets Unit TVDe 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom -- UNIT NO. .... -SiZE STORAGE LOCATION UNIT TYPE l!lIiM!lili~i~Hr 170FR-#7 2.bedi'OOlli '. 170FR -#6 1 OFR'~ #3 ~M~h#1 . !l9M$H,.~ I TOTAL MIX FOR BALANCE OF 53 UNITS Delivery 2 - 22 units/Proposed I-Bedroom 1 - Category 2 ___ _ ___ 2 . Ca~egory 3 2-Bedroom 7 - Category 3 ______ 3-Bedroom 1 - Category 2 4 - Category 3 3 - Category 4 __ .... ____ 2.: c:atego.')' 5 .. 2 - Category 6 Maximum Sales Prices from 2007 Guidelines Cat. 2 $97,000 $119,000 $146,000 iCat.3 'Cat. 4 $147,000 $243,000 $175,000 $271,000 $202,000 $298,000 Cat. 5 $345,000 $372,000 $398,000 CATEGORY .' - - - - Catego~ Summary - - Min. Sq. Fl 1 1400-Cat. 1&2 2/850 - Cat. 1&2 3/1,000-Cat.l&2 1 I 700 - Cat. 3&4 2 I 950 - Cat. 3&4 3 11,200 - Cat 3&4 1 / 800 - Cat 5&6 2/1,000 - Cat. 5&6 3/1,300 - Cat. 5&6 1/900-Cat. 7 2/1,100-Cat. 7 3/1,400-Cat. 7 - -- __ ~~~~~ 3 - 31LJni~!'p!~posed I-Bedroom 3 - Category 2 2 - Category 3 __.._...__ 2_ - Category 4 2-Bedroom 8 -Category 2 3 - Category 4 1 - Category 5 3:Bedroom 1: Category 2 5 - Category 3 5 - Category 4 1 - Category 7 Cat 7 $162,000 169,500 ..---- : 4 - Category 2 1 - Category 4 - ------------- 3 - Category 2 . a:: Category 1__ ___ 2:_C~t~_oi}' 4 2 - Category 5 _. 1 - Category 6 4 - Category 3 2 - Category 4 4 - Category 5 2 - Category 6 i 3 - Category 7 1 2007 Maximum Incomes for SALES/OWNERSHIP Units Only Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6 $48,000 $77,000 $125,000 $134,000 $147,000 ,55,500 84,500 132,500 141,500 154,500 -.... _.,,------~-- 63,000 92,000 140,000 1149,000 162,000 177,000 70,500 99,500 147,500 156,500 169,500 184,500 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000- 250,000 Cat. 6 Cat. 7 .--.----.--.- $381,000 $424,000 - ---- ... $409,000 $452,000 $434,000$478,000 v,'~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2007 RE: Ordinance #31, Series of 2007 - Creating an Open Space and Trails Board REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends Council adopt on first reading the attached Ordinance #31, which creates the Open Space and Trails board as a permanent board. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a work session June 26, Council directed staff to write an ordinance creating the Open Space and Trails Board as a permanent board. BACKGROUND: In 2001, Council adopted Resolution #108 (attached) which created the Open Space Acquisition Board and set a sunset date of December 2005. Also attached are the minutes of November 26,2001, discussing the adoption of Resolution #108 and the Open Space Board. In November 2000, the voters passed a .5% sales tax for open space. This board was created to make recommendations on how that money should be spent. DISCUSSION: Over the past six years the Open Space board has negotiated and recommended purchases such as: Aspen Mass Cozy Point South Hunter Valley Way Little Ajax Smuggler - Wilkinson SRA on Smuggler Last Chance on Smuggler Ute Mesa 35 acres 129 acres 10 acres 1 acre 170 acres 24 acres 4 acres 4 acres 2006 2005 2005 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 The Board was instrumental in acquiring easements for trails, such as West Hopkins Trail Phase I; Extension of the Midland Trail through Little Ajax; Highlands Trail; Burlingame Village Trail; Deer Hill trail to AABC negotiations; Post Office Trails Phase I & II; Castle Creek Trail to MAA; trail alignments through Little Cloud open space. The .5% open space sales tax does not expire until 2025 and staff feels a citizen board would be helpful to Council in prioritizing purchases for this fund as well as negotiating Page I of2 purchases and/or trades.. One of the duties of the Board as outlined in the ordinance is to "establish relationships with local and regional land trusts to more effectively discharge Board responsibilities". One of the members should be both a city and a county open space board member. This will further conversations with Pitkin County and allow the Board to meet with organizations like Aspen Valley Land Trust. Council has also indicated that the Aspen Area Community Plan should be reviewed and updated in the next several years. The Open Space Board would be important in aiding in that review. Staff believes Council's preference for a temporary board in 2001 was that the Open Space Board not have the authority to spend the open space tax monies without Council approval. Ordinance #31 does not give the Board that authority. Council is still final authority on spending of open space tax revenues. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt on first reading the attached ordinance and set the public hearing for August 13, 2007. Council could choose to have the public hearing scheduled for August 2i\ which would be after the joint work session with the Open Space Board August 14th. ALTERNATIVES: Council could prefer to keep the Open Space Board temporary and adopt a Resolution giving a sunset date as in Resolution #108,2001. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance #31, Series of 2007" and "I move to adopt on first reading Ordinance #31, Series of 2001". CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachments: Resolution #108, 2001 City Council Minutes - November 26,2001 Current Open Space Board Members Page 2 of2 ORDINANCE #3 I (Series of 2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CREATING AN OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD, DESCRIBING THE COMPOSITION, TERM AND QUALIFICATIONS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES WHEREAS, the City Council created an initial Open Space Acquisition Board by Resolution No. 108, Series of2001, and WHEREAS, the Open Space Acquisition Board has been meeting and making recommendations to City Council about open space purchases and trails for the past six years, and WHEREAS, to better reflect the mission, the Board was renamed the Open Space and Trails Board WHEREAS, staff and the Board recommend making this a permanent board. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That the City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board is hereby established as follows: A. Qualifications: Five (5) members and one (1) alternate shall be appointed by the City Council. The Board appointments shall be as follows: 1. One (1) shall be a member of the Pitkin County Open Space Board and shall be a qualified elector of the City for at least one (1) year prior to the time of appointment. Ifno member of the Pitkin County Open Space board is a qualified elector of the City of Aspen for at least one year, or no such person desires to serve on the Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board, then this member shall be qualified as set forth below at subsection 2. 2. Four (4) members and one (1) alternate shall be qualified electors of the City for at least one (1) year prior to the time of appointments. B. Term of Office. Each member shall be appointed for a term offour (4) years. C. Meetings. Meetings of the Open Space Acquisition Board shall take place at least four (4) times per annum. Meeting dates shall be set and schedule by the Board and publicly posted. Section 2: That the City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board shall have the following powers and duties: A. Establish priorities and criteria for Council acquisition of open space. B. Review open space elements of comprehensive master and area plans including the most recently adopted Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the City of Aspen Greenfrastructure Plan, making recommendations to the council concerning any open space related changes to plans. C. Make recommendations to the City Council for the acquisition of specific fee interests, options, easements or other interest in real property by expenditures from the Open Space Fund. D. Establish relationships with local and regional land trusts to more effectively discharge Board responsibilities. E. Conduct all meetings of the Board in an open and public setting, except that executive sessions may be convened in accordance with state law and the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause phrase, or portion of this Ordinance isJor any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the day of 2007, at a meeting of the Aspen City council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 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 23rd dayofJuly, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 108 (Series of2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO CREATE AN OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION BOARD. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to create an Open Space Acquisition Board composed of community members to advise. the City Council in all future open space acquisitions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section I That the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board is hereby established as follows: A. Qualifications. Five (5) members shall be appointed by the City Council. The Board appointments shall be as follows: 1. One (I) shall be a member of the Pitkin County Open Space Board and shall be a qualified elector of the City for at least one (1) year prior to the time of appointment. Ifno member of the Pitkin County Open Space board is a qualified elector of the City of Aspen for at least one year, or no such person desires to serve on the Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board, then this member shall be qualified as set forth below at subsection 2. 2. Four (4) shall be qualified electors of the City for at least one (1) year prior to the time ofappointment. B. Term of Office. Each member shall be appointed for a term offour years. The Open Space Acquisition Board shall operate beginning in January, 2002 and sunset in December 2005. C. Meetings of the Open Space Acquisition Board shall take place four times per annum. Meetings dates shall be set and scheduled by the Board and posted publicly. Section 2 That the City of Aspen Open Space Acquisition Board shall have the following functions and duties: A. Establish priorities and criteria for Council adoption for the acquisition of Open Space. B. Review open space elements of comprehensive master and areas plans including the 1999 Aspen Area Community Plan and the City of Aspen Greenfrastructure Plan, making recommendations to the Council concerning any open space related changes to plans. C. Make recommendations to the City Council for the acquisition of specific fee interests, options, easements or other interest in real property by expenditures from the Open Space Fund. D. Establish relationships with local and regional land trusts to more effectively discharge Board responsibilities E. Conduct all meetings of the Board in an open and public setting, except that executive sessions may be convened in accordance with state law and the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 3 That the City Manager shall designate staff to carry out the following responsibilities: A. Implement the decisions and directives and carry out the administrative functions of the Open Space Acquisition Board as approved by the City Council. B. Oversee the management and the maintenance of open space lands acquired with Open Space Funds as defined in this Chapter C. Provide technical information on all proposed Open Space acquisitions including physical, biological, social and other aspects of property value. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 26th day of November, 2001. Mayor 2 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. ~2~ Kathryn S. K City Clerk JPW-12!03/01-G:\john\wOrd\resos\openspace.dOc 3 Rel!Ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council November 26. 2001 f', Councilman Hershey said this is a difficult situation. HPC is a volunteer board that does a lot of hard work.. Councilman Hershey said, however, in this case the process seems shocking. Councilman Hershey moved to adopt Resolution #111, Series of2001, reversing the decision made by HPC on August 8th and to grant conceptual and partial demolition approval for the property located at 629 West Smuggler and to return the matter to HPC for final review; seconded by Councilman McCabe. Councilman McCabe said it appears the property owners tried diligently to address the concerns of the HPC and in keeping with owner's rights to develop the property within the allowable floor area and to make the structure work. Councilman McCabe said the application appears to meet the criteria and the actions ofHPC appear to be capricious. Councilman Paulson said he hopes the new HPC process will eliminate this type of situation and by the second appearance in front ofHPC specific issues are laid out to be met. 0. Mayor Klanderud said this appeal without knowing which standards the project did not meet is very difficult. Councilman Semrau agreed this is difficult because the nature of HPC is inherently a judgment call. Councilman Semrau said the BPC seemed to be consistent in that judgment and that the connector did not serve the goal of the guidelines. Councilman Semrau said he does not think the applicant understood how to execute the guidelines, which was HPC's determination. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Semrau. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #108. SERIES OF 2001 - Creation of Open Space Board c\ Jeff Woods, parks department, told Council this Board has been created to give recommendations to Council rather than as a legal decision making board. This board is to concern themselves with the new 1/2 cent sales tax for purchase of open space and to choose the priorities of the greenfrastructure as outlined in the AACP. Woods said there is a bigger wish list than there are resources to purchase open space. This is set up to have one member who is a city resident as well as a member ofthe county open space board and 4 city residents. This will be a recommending board only. This board is set up to sunset in December 2005. 14 '""'.':"",.--,<"""" .J Re2Ular Meetine: Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 n Councilman McCabe said he is not interested in making government any bigger or adding to the bureaucracy. Councilman Hershey agreed he is not interested in more task forces or committees, Councilman McCabe said it is the Council's purview to make decisions on purchasing property, and Council makes these decisions on presentation of the facts from staff. Steve Barwick, city manager, noted the alternative to having a board is Council making the open space plan, prioritizing the properties and working out financing. Councilman Hershey agreed he does not think a buffer is needed between staff and Council on open space. Mayor Klanderud said she fees additional citizen input is a positive thing. Councilman Semrau said citizens with real estate expertise may bring that to the Board. Councilman Semrau said there is very little downside to having an open space board. Councilman Semrau said Council does not have the time to work on the priorities and the purchases. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Resolution # 1 08, Series of 200 I, with a change to A(I) if no one from the Pitkin County Open Space Board is interested in serving on this board, a city elector will be appointed; seconded 0, by Councilman Paulson. Councilman Semrau, Paulson and Mayor Klanderud in favor; Councilmembers Hershey and McCabe opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Hershey moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman McCabe. Motion carried. Councilman Hershey moved to go into executive session at 9 p.rn. to discuss property acquisition of Hunter Creek park, per C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) and persormel issues, per C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f); seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried, Councilman Hershey moved to come out of executive session at 10: 15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried. Council scheduled a Burlingame work session for December 5 at 3 p.m. o Councilman Hershey moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, motion carried. 15 i "~ .. .-,' ,-.~,.,~.,' ...-_..._,.";.,.,.,',.,';',:,,,....'~~:;...~~,..,.. '. ;".itt' OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD Howie Mallory Fred Peirce Jesse Boyce Arthur Ferguson vacant vacant, alternate appointed 4/2002 4/2002 9/2004 7/2006 term 10/2010 10/2010 9/2008 7/2010 MEMORANDUM VI'\~ TO: FROM: THRU: RE: Mayor and City Council Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director Chris Bendon, Director of Community Development The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final PUD, Timeshare, Subdivision, Growth Management Reviews, 2nd Reading of Ordinance No.5, Series of 2007- Public Hearinl! June 15,2007 July 23,2007 (Hearing Continued from June 25,2007) DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: PROJECT: The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final pun REQUEST The Council is being asked to review and approve a Final POO, Timeshare SUMMARY: Development Plan, Subdivision, Multi-Year Growth Management Allotment and Affordable Housing Outside the City Limits. The proposal would demolish the existing Mine Dump Apartments and one single-family residence, and redevelop the two properties with a 121 unit, 175,000 square foot, multi-story structure for 80 hotel rooms, 21 fractional units, 4 free- market condominium units, 16 affordable housing units, commercial space and 264 parking spaces in two sub-grade parking garages. SPECIAL NOTE RE. This development application has been in the planning review process with THE STATUS OF THIS both the P&Z and City Council for several years. Most recently, the APPLICATION: application has been before the City Council for its final review for this major timeshare POO development. The final review hearing process began under the previous City Council and was continued to June 25th, where we now have a new mayor and two new members. Staff feels that it is important to begin the final review again and start fresh in order to allow for a full presentation by the applicant, a comprehensive review and evaluation of the project, and most importantly, to allow the council to have an opportunity to see the whole picture of what this development is about. Staff has provided previously submitted letters from the public, P&Z minutes, and other submissions for you to read so that these may be factored into your deliberations. ApPLICANT: Centurion Partners, LLC on behalf of Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates LEGAL Block 6 of the Eames Addition and Lots 7-20, Block II of the Eames DESCRIPTION: Addition (and a small triangular shaped lot described by metes and bounds) STAFF Staff recommends approval of the development with conditions as put forth in RECOMMENDATION: Ordinance No.5, Series 2007. -1- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: On February 6, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission took action on this application and recommended in favor by a unanimous vote of 4-0 to recommend final approval of the development proposal. The P&Z conducted 3 public hearings to discuss and deliberate on the final application. There were five key areas of focus and reevaluation in the final PUD review process for the P&Z, as follows: · The structural massing, height, and scale changes since conceptual review, · The site plan changes, including access, street facing walls and setback changes along South Aspen Street, · The provisions for making the development exceptionally energy efficient, . The Construction Management Plan, and · The public infrastructure and landscaping associated with the project to ensure that public improvements were comprehensive, created a sense of place, and complemented the needs of the neighborhood (especially on-street parking, sidewalk location and design, and landscaping in the public areas). The P&Z's approval is reflected in the proposed City Council ordinance included in this report. Minutes of the P&Z hearings are contained in Exhibit F. The conditions of approval are those which the P&Z adopted in its Resolution No.3, Series of 2007, after its deliberations. (Additional conditions have been added by the City Council during the final review public hearings.) Overall, the P&Z felt that the evolution of the project through conceptual and final has yielded an excellent project for the site. They felt that it is a development that takes advantage of a key site that is highly appropriate for lodging and tourist and ski area related uses. They found the development to be exceptional in terms of achieving affordable housing and energy efficiency goals, and the project solves some outstanding issues of parking and the safety of South Aspen Street. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The subject property presently holds vested property rights for what is known as the "South Aspen Street Subdivision and Planned Unit Development". This project gained full approvals in July of 2003 for the development of fourteen (14) free market town homes and seventeen (17) affordable housing units. The vesting for this development was recently extended by the Council to end on July 28, 2008. The Applicants have submitted for building permits to develop this project and according to the Applicants are poised to do so should the lodge project not proceed through approvals. Exhibit I is a site plan that reflects the approved development. The current Lodge at Aspen Mountain project received conceptual approval through City Council Resolution No. 69, Series of2005, on November 28,2005. Conceptual PUD and timeshare approval was granted for a hotel containing eighty (80) hotel units, twenty-one (21) timeshare units, four (4) free-market residential units, and sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units after more than fifteen (15) public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that spanned over approximately two (2) years. In unanimously granting the conceptual approval, City Council called for work to be done on the overall scale of the proiect, the interaction of the proiect with South Aspen Street, - 2- and the preservation of views of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street before the project should be considered for final approval. Staffs evaluation of the Final PUD application shows that the Applicants have significantly amended the development plan to address the concerns of Council. Numerous significant changes have been made to the building elevations, massing and height, access points, relationship of the building to the street and energy efficiency. REVIEW PROCESS: The City's land use code establishes that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority on several of the Growth Management requests, 8040 Greenline, and Conditional Use requests. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending body to City Council on the Final PUD, Final Timeshare, Growth Management for multi-year allotments and subdivision requests. ApPLICABLE LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: The following land use approvals are required in conjunction with this final application and the purview of final approval is also noted. 1) FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A PUD is requested by the Applicant to 1.) establish the allowable floor area, building height, open space, parking and setback requirements for the proposed lodge, and 2.) to allow timeshare lodge development. (Staff has prepared specific findings for the Final PUD in Exhibit "A"). Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) FINAL TIMESHARE: The Applicant proposes to sell I/8th undivided fractional interests in the twenty-one (21) fractional units. To qualify as a timeshare, the proposal must comply with the Review Standards for Timeshare Lodge Development pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.590, Timeshare. Final Review Authority: City Council. 3) SUBDNISION: Subdivision review is required for land which is to be used for condominiums, apartments, or any other multi-family dwellings and to sell the lodge's fractional units pursuant to a timeshare use plan. Final Review Authority: City Council. 4) GROWTII MANAGEMENT OUOTA SYSTEM REVIEWS: The following GMQS reviews are requested: · Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Tourist Accommodation Units: The Applicant proposes to use this exemption to convert fifteen (15) of the nineteen (19) residential reconstruction credits (from the demolition of existing units at the Mine Dump Apartments and the existing single-family residence) into forty-five (45) of the eighty (80) proposed hotel units (utilizing a multiplier of 3, as allowed in the Code - additional explanation on this process is provided later in the report) pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(4), Growth Management Review: Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units. Final Review Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission Granted by P&Z. - 3- · Expansion/New Commercial. Lodge. or Mixed Use Development: In order to construct the remaining fifty-six (56) hotel/timeshare lodge units that are not accounted for by the residential reconstruction credits that are requested above, the Applicant has requested growth management review for new lodge rooms pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review: Expansion/New Commercial. Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. Final Review Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted hv P&Z. · Affordable Housing: This review is requested in order to construct the sixteen (16) proposed affordable housing units pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.04(C)(7), Growth Management Review: Affordable Housing. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted hv P&Z. · Affordable Housing Outside of Citv Limits: In order to provide affordable mitigation outside of the city limits as has been proposed in this application, the proposal must satisfy the review criteria set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(2), Growth Management Review: Provision of Required Affordable Housing Units Outside City Limits. Final Review Authority: City Council. · GMOS-Multi- Y ear Allotments: The Applicant requires approval of multi-year allotments for the commercial component of the hotel because the 2006 growth management allocation for commercial square footage has already been applied for and assigned to other development applications. The application must meet the criteria established in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(D)(1), Growth Management Review: Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment. Final Review Authority: City Council. · Replacement of Demolished Units through the Resident Multi-Familv Replacement Program: In order to utilize the residential reconstruction credits from the demolished units of the Mine Dump Apartments, the Applicant must replace fifty percent of its units and bedrooms as deed-restricted affordable housing on the site. If the Applicant complies with the applicable criteria, they may receive approval for this pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530, Resident Multi-family Replacement Program. Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 5) CONDOMINIUMIZATION: Approval of a condominium plat is required in order to sell the free-market residential units and timeshare estates individually. Final Review Authority: City Council. 6) CONDmONAL USE REVIEW: A conditional use review is required for the restaurant and commercial parking that is proposed pursuant to the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.425, Conditional Uses. Final Review Authority: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted hv P&Z. - 4- 7) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: All development within 150' above or below the 8040 foot elevation above sea level is subject to specific environmental impacts review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030, 8040 Greenline Review. Final Review Authoritv: Planning and Zoning Commission. Granted bv P&Z. 8) PARTIAL VACATION OF DEAN SlREET: The development proposed that a small section of the Dean Street right of way to be vacated. This action is handled by the City Council and while it has been initiated and discussed as part of this development will need to be addressed in a separate action and ordinance. Staff is intending that this will follow soon after the Council handles the PUD. The PUD ordinance references the approval of the right of way vacation. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The Applicant is proposing 101 unit hotel/timeshare project containing eighty (80) hotel and twenty-one (21) timeshare lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, sixteen (16) affordable housing units, a spa, and a restaurant in a building of 175,000 square feet. The project site consists of two parcels - known for these planning purposes as Parcel I and Parcel 2 (see the application for the boundaries of Parcels I and 2). Parcel I includes the lower portion of the site, north of Juan Street and west of South Aspen Street, where a small existing single-family residence and a vacant field is located. Parcel I is proposed to be the site for the majority of the fractional units, the spa and fitness center, the affordable housing units, the outdoor pool and terrace, two (2) of the free-market residential units, and the majority of the sub grade parking area. Parcel 2 comprises the upper portion of the site, south of Juan Street and west of South Aspen Street, where the Mine Dumps Apartments and Aspen Skiing Company employee parking lot are presently located. The uses that were proposed on Parcel 2 in the application include the majority of the hotel rooms, the remainder of the fractional units, the other two (2) free market units, the apres ski/dining terrace, ballroom, meeting rooms, lobby, restaurantlbar, sundries shop, and remainder of the sub grade parking. H01EL UNITS: The eighty (80) hotel rooms are proposed in five (5) different room configurations. These are broken down in Exhibit B, Addendum. Basically, the size of rooms varies from between approximately 519 sq. ft. to 1,721 sq. ft. The average size of a standard room is 527 sq. ft and the number of this type of room has risen from 39 to 56 from earlier submittals. FRACTIONAL UNITS: Twenty-one (21) fractional units of varying size are proposed (see table below) to be sold in 1/8th interests. These are to be located primarily in the structure located on the north end of the site on Parcel I, with (9) of the twenty-one (21) units located on the third and fourth floors of the structure on Parcel 2. Each purchaser of an interest in the units are to be guaranteed a maximum of four (4) weeks of occupancy (two (2) weeks in the summer and two (2) weeks in the winter) in a specific unit type, which accounts to a total of thirty-two (32) weeks a year (4 weeks x 8 shares/unit). Seventy (70) days per year in each unit are to be considered "float time" which owners could reserve (at least 30 days in advance and whatever time was left over was to be - 5- available to the public at large to rent on a nightly basis). No lock-off of the fractional units is contemplated (for a full review of the proposed timeshare program, see Timeshare review later in the report). I Fractional Units: I No.. of Units Unit Size . Lock-Off Capabilitv I 3-BR Units I 6 2,106 - 2,259 Sq. Ft. No Lock-Off I 4-BR Units l 15 2,388- 3,484 So. Ft No Lock-Off Total Fractional Units I 21 I -------------------- -------------------- FREE MARKET CONDOMINIUM UNITS: Four (4) free market condominiums are proposed to be located on the top of each of the lodge structures. The application requests that the developer have the option to place these units in the timeshare pool if they wish to. Free Market Units: No. of Units Unit Size II Lock-Off Capability I I 4-BR Units 4 I 3,8230-4,492 Sq.Ft. II No Lock-Off I Total Free Market Units 4 I -------------------- II -------------------- I AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS: In order to meet a portion of the affordable housing requirements (those related to the Multi-Family Replacement Program), sixteen (16) affordable housing units are proposed to be provided on-site. In total, there are ten (14) studio units and two (2) I-bedroom units. The following table describes the distribution of affordable housing units proposed on the site: I Affordable Units: I No. of Units Unit Size I Studio Units I 14 416- 471 Sq. Ft. I I-BR Units II 2 I 604-751 Sq. Ft. I Total Affordable Housing II 16 I --------------------- The affordable housing units being provided on-site exceeds the resident multi-family replacement program requirements for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. To satisfy the remainder of the employee housing mitigation requirements for the hotel, the Applicant has proposed off-site units to be constructed in both the City and in the County within the Urban Growth Boundary. During the conceptual review of the application, the Applicant proposed to provide 60% of the employees to be housed within the city limits and 40% of the employees to be housed in Pitkin County. City Council found this as an acceptable distribution of the necessary employee mitigation at the time of conceptual PUD review. Related to this project, the Applicant has submitted a separate PUD land use application and received conceptual P&Z to construct twenty-eight (28) units of affordable housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club property, which would house 60 of the employees that are - 6- required to be mitigated for. Additionally, the Applicant is currently constructing seventeen (17) units of affordable housing at the AABC, eight of which they would like to use as employee housing mitigation for the lodge project. (The other nine (9) units are to be used to partially mitigate the employee housing requirements of the Residences at Little Nell.) Please see Staff's discussion about the proposed employee housing mitigation under "Staff Comments". DIMENSIONAL REOUIREMENTS: The following table outlines the proposed dimensions of the project and compares them to the underlying L/TR Zone District regulations that were in affect at the time the Conceptual PUD application was originally submitted in October of 2003 (dimensional requirements to be established through the PUD process are shaded): Minimum Lot Size 39,249 Sq. Ft. represents the smallest of the two existing parcels Minimum Lot Areal Dwelling Multi-Family- I bedroom per 1,000 square feet oflot area. Lodge- No Requirement fla 39,249 Sq. Ft. represents the smallest ofthe two existing parcels Multi-Family- I bedroom per I ,000 square feet oflot area. Lodge- No Requirement 6,000 Sq. Ft. Multi-Family- I bedroom per 1,000 square feet oflot area. Lodge- No Re uirement - 7- 231 S aces *Represents closest distance of building to property line VEHICULAR ACCESS: Guests and residents of the facility are to arrive by one of two entrances off of South Aspen Street, depending on what portion of the structure they want to access (although all uses in the structure are accessible from inside). It was planned that those guests/residents that wished to access the majority of the fractional units, the spa and fitness center, and the affordable housing units on Parcel 1 would enter into the underground parking garage from the northernmost entryway. Guests/residents desiring to access the main entry to the hotel, the remainder of the fractional units, the free market units on Parcel 2, the restaurant and bar, ballroom and the other accessory uses on Parcel 2 were to arrive into the southernmost entrance from South Aspen Street. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Several off-site improvements of note are included in the proposal. In addition to widening Juan Street to city standards and dedicating additional right-of-way to accommodate it and installing curb, gutter, sidewalks, planting strip and street trees, the Applicant also proposed to make some significant improvements to the base of this side of the ski area (in cooperation with the Aspen Skiing Company). Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to completely reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street south of Durant Avenue in conjunction with the Lift One Lodge project that is proposed on the east side of South Aspen Street. The reconstruction of the street would terminate in a cul-de-sac at the southern terminus of the street. Finally, the Applicant proposes funding the replacement of the existing Lift lA with a high speed double lift. It is proposed that the Applicant would contribute $4 million dollars so that the Aspen Skiing Company could construct the new lift. The Applicant has provided a letter from the Aspen Skiing Company that identifies that the new lift would be proposed to be up and running the first ski season that the Lodge at Aspen Mountain would be operational. STAFF COMMENTS: Consistencv with Conceptual Approvals: The Applicant received conceptual PUD and timeshare approval for the proposed development on November 28,2005. The conceptual approvals that were granted by City Council were for a hotel/timeshare lodge containing eighty (SO) lodge units, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, and sixteen (16) affordable housing units. City Council approved the conceptual proposal with direction to the Applicant to further scale back the massing of the project. Council also directed the Applicant to enhance the relationship of the structure with South Aspen Street to provide for a more pedestrian friendly feel. Finally, Council also discussed that the building should frame the view of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street better than was represented in the conceptual design. - 8- The Applicant has revised the design of the lodge since the conceptual approvals to try and address the comments that they heard from City Council during the conceptual review. Staff finds that the overall use program is similar to what was approved during conceptual. The timeshare plan that is proposed is also identical to the conceptual timeshare use plan. The dimensions proposed are also similar to the dimensions that were approved during the conceptual review as is evident by the dimensional requirement chart included above. In the following paragraphs, Staff addresses the direction that Council provided to the Applicant during the conceptual review and analyzes the Applicant's response. Scale and Massinf!: The application explains that the overall height of the structure in most places has been reduced from the plan that was conceptually approved. The conceptual design contained ridge heights that were around 60 feet, which have been reduced, with an overall maximum ridge height on the final PUD plan topping out at 55 feet. Related to the ridge height reduction, the amount of the roofline that exceeds 42 feet as measured by the land use code height methodology has been reduced from about 60% of the roof to around 50% of the roof. Staffs most significant massing concern with the original conceptual design was the perceived massing of the building module that was proposed directly to the south of Juan Street that extends to the corner of Juan Street and South Aspen Street. Staff believed this portion of the building to be the most visible portion of the building from the corner of South Aspen Street and Durant A venue, a very public vantage point. Throughout the conceptual review of the proposal, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the Applicant reduce the massing of this element of the building. The Applicant did so to satisfy Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern over the massing of this element prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission issuing a recommendation on the conceptual design. During City Council's review of the conceptual design, Council appeared to be focused on the overall massing of the central portion of the building located on Parcel 2. Since the conceptual review, the Applicant has removed the two (2) significant east to west running ridges, one each in the narrow parts of the building that were proposed to the north and the south of the main entrance to the lodge on South Aspen Street. The removal ofthe ridges can be viewed in the photo below: - 9- Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission felt this central portion of the building was significant in scale, but chose to focus more on the other portion of the building described above because it will be more visible outside the immediate neighborhood than the central portion of the building. Nonetheless, Staff believes that the Applicant has responded to the concerns expressed by City Council about the central part of the building by removing the major rooflines. Staff feels that the removal of the significant chimneys that were illustrated in the conceptual design is also a considerable improvement to the central massing of the structure. Relationship with South Aspen Street: Council expressed a need for the building to have a stronger relationship with South Aspen Street than it did during the conceptual review. In response, the Applicant has made the previously recessed main entrance to the lodge on South Aspen Street a more prominent feature of the fayade by bringing it closer to the street. The Applicant has also provided a covered porte-cochere at the lobby entrance to provide more of a presence on South Aspen Street. Courtyards have also been provided on both sides of the porte- cochere to provide a space that the pedestrian can use. Staff believes that the design now interacts better with the streetscape, but Staff does feel that some further improvement can be made by providing additional benches and other landscaping features adjacent to the right-of-way to draw the pedestrian's attention to the property. A significant change is the relocation of the outdoor restaurant/apre ski area from just below Shadow Mtn. to amore central street-side location mid-way up Aspen Street. View of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street: There was discussion by City Council about the building framing the view of Shadow Mountain better from the Dean Street corridor area. The Applicant has provided several renderings from the perspective of South Aspen Street that are included in the application. Staff feels that the view of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street would be framed better if the Applicant were to remove the covered walkway over Juan Street. However, Staff does understand the Applicant's argument for needing the covered - 10- walkway that was made in the conceptual reviews. During the conceptual review, the Applicant expressed that they needed to maintain the covered walkway in the design for the purpose of connecting the main hotel with the fractional ownership component so that the housekeeping staff would not have to exit the structure and cross Juan Street to service both portions of the lodge. That said, the covered walkway over Juan Street has been lowered since the conceptual review concluded. The Applicant did pull the northern portion of the structure on Parcell back further to the south in order to provide a greater view corridor towards Shadow Mountain between the Lift One Condominiums and the proposed building. Growth Manaflement Ouota Svstem (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the majority of the lodge's units, several different GMQS reviews are requested. The GMQS-Multi-Year Allotments is contemplated in Exhibit H that indicates the 2006 tally of allotments and show the need for drawing from 2007. The recent May/June 2007 code amendments acknowledges the request from this lodge project. Staff has separated each review out below with a further explanation and staff position on their compliance with the review criteria: CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL RECONSlRUCTION CREDITS TO LODGING UNITS: The conversion of nineteen (19) residential reconstruction credits derived from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments (eighteen (18) existing units) and the single-family (one unit) into lodge units requires growth management approval subject to compliance with the review standards set for in Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(4), Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units. The Applicant proposes to convert fifteen (15) of the site's nineteen (19) residential reconstruction credits, at a rate of 3 lodge units per residential unit, into forty-five (45) lodge development rights (3 x 15 = 45). The remaining four (4) residential credits will be used for the project's four (4) free market residential units. Mitigation for 60% of the employees that would be generated by these forty-five (45) lodge units is included in the Applicant's overall mitigation plan. REPLACEMENT OF DEMOLISHED UNITS TIIROUGH 1BE RESIDENT MULTI-FAMU.Y REPLACEMENT PROGRAM: Pursuant to the Section 26.530 of the regulations, fifty percent of the bedrooms and fifty percent of the square footage of any multi-family residential units must be replaced on-site in the event they are demolished. The reconstruction of such units is exempt from GMQS if the reconstructed units meet the requirements of the Housing Replacement Program. Sixteen (16) of the nineteen (19) existing units on the site qualify as residential multi-family housing (the Code defines this as a dwelling unit which has in its history ever housed a working resident and which is located in a multi- family residential building) and are therefore subject to the replacement requirements. Building C of the Mine Dump Apartments is considered to be a duplex for regulatory purposes so, along with the single-family, is exempt from the requirements of Housing Replacement Program. See the chart below for a breakdown of the existing units, the replacement requirements per the Code, and the Applicant's proposal to satisfy the requirements: -11- Dwelling Units.. ............. Bedrooms..... ................ Net Residential Area (sq. ft.) 16 On-site on Parcel 1 16 On-site on Parcell 16,050 Sq. Ft.1 On-site on Parcell Yes Yes Yes GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW-NEW LODGE UNITS AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT: MINE DUMP APARTMENTS EXISTING MINIMUM REQUIRED UN1TSI PROPOSED TO BE UNlTsl HOUSING SQ. FT.: DEMOLiSHED: SQFT.: REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS: Building A Dwelling Units................. 11........... . No Requirement. .. . .. N/A Bedrooms.................... ... 16............ 50% of Bedrooms..... 8 (16 x 50% = 8) Net Residential Area (Sq. ft.) 6,009........ 50% of Net Sq. Ft... 3,005 (6,009 x 50%) Building B Dwelling Units.... ............ 5............. No Requirement. . . . .. N/A Bedrooms.................... .. 7........... .. 50% of Bedrooms..... 4 (7 x 50% = 3.5) Net Residential Area (Sq. ft.) 1,713....... 50% of Net Sq. Ft.... 856 (1,713 x.5 = 856) Building C None: Duplex's are I I Dwelling Units................ 2............. exempt from Housing Bedrooms.................... .. 3............. Replacement Net Residential Area (sq. ft.) 1,872....... Requirements Total Requirement: D Units.................. 8 proposed: 16 Bedrooms............ 12 16 Net Sa. Ft. 3,861 6,000 sa. ft. The third type of growth management approval necessary for the proposed lodge is a growth management review for the construction of the remaining fifty-seven (57) lodge/timeshare lodge units that were not included in the lodge units that are to be derived from the forty-five (45) reconstruction credits as is discussed above. These fifty- seven (57) lodge units are required to be mitigated for at a rate of 60% of the employees that are anticipated to be generated by these units. Additionally, the accessory commercial space in the lodge is also required to be mitigated for at a rate of 60% of the employees that are anticipated to be generated by the commercial space pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2), Growth Management Review: ExpansionlNew Commercial. Lodge. or Mixed Use Development. The mitigation calculations for the new lodge units and the commercial space are as follows: - 12- Lodge Development- 160 Lodge Bedrooms multiplied by .5 FTEs per bedroom equals 80 FTEs, 80 FTEs multiplied by 60% mitigation requirement equals 48 FTEs Accessory Commercial Space- 20,088 square feet minus 4,540 square feet located in the basement of the development equals 15,548 square feet on the main level, 15,548 square feet divided by 1,000 square feet equals 15.548, 15.548 multiplied by 4.1 FTEs equals 63.6 total FTEs 4,540 square feet located in the basement divided by 1,000 square feet equals 4.54, 4.54 multiplied by 3.075 FTEs (4.1 FTE rate discounted by 25% for basement square footage) equals 13.9 total FTEs 63.6 FTEs for at grade commercial space plus 13.9 FTEs for below grade commercial space equals 77.5 FTEs, 77.5 FTEs multiplied by 60% mitigate rate equals 46.5 FTEs to be mitigated. Therefore, in total the Applicant would be responsible for mitigating for 94.5 FfEs, and the Applicant is exceeding this requirement by housing 108 employees, or 13 more employees. PROPOSED MmGATION: As was discussed above, the sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units satisfy the multi-family housing replacement program requirements and will provide employee housing credit for twenty-one (2 I) FTEs. Additionally, sixty (60) FTEs are proposed to be housed off-site in a twenty eight (28) unit project that is proposed to be constructed on the Smuggler Racquet Club property, which is within the City limits. Finally, twenty-seven (27) FTEs are proposed to be housed within nine (9) units that are to be approved and to be constructed at the AABC. The proposed methods of mitigation are outlined in the following chart: . Lijtllti(j1l6cMiHllltfiijll i'Nlilllber(jflJllltSi i.....'... ii lEllIiiI6"eliSl\Iiti!iatiidi...' .. On-Site 16 Units 21 FTEs 14 Cat. 2 Studios 10 x 1.25 FTEs= 17.5 FTEs 2 Cat. 3 I-Bedroom 2 x 1.75 FTEs= 3.5 FTEs Smuggler Racquet Club 28 Units 60 FTEs I Studio I x 1.25 = 1.25 FTEs 13 1 -Bedroom 13 x I.75FTEs= 22.75 FTEs 8 2-Bedroom 8 x 2.25 FTEs= 18 FTEs 6 3-Bedroom 6 x 3 FTEs= 18 FTEs AABC 9 Units 27 FTEs 9 3-Bedroom 9 x 3 FTEs= 27 FTEs Total 53 Units 108 FfEs -13- The proposed mitigation exceeds the % spelled out in the conceptual approval--requiring 60 percent of the affordable housing mitigation be provided within the city limits and allowing for 40 percent of the required mitigation to be provided outside of the city but within the Urban Growth Boundary-by providing 75% of the employee housing within the city. Staff has included a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance reinforcing that 60 percent of the mitigation be provided within the City and that all of the affordable housing mitigation shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy prior to the lodge obtaining a certificate of occupancy. Required Off-Street Parkinf!: The parking requirement will be established through this PUD. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.515, Off-street Parking, the Lodge zone district requires a certain amount of parking spaces based on the type of uses requested. In terms of this project, the required amount of parking is provided for all of the lodge rooms, the fractional units, affordable housing units (through Special Review), and the condominiums. Additionally, they are replacing the 30 parking spaces that the Aspen Skiing Company leases out under an agreement made with a prior owner of the property. Finally, the Applicant is proposing to sell or lease 143 of the parking spaces to the general public as is discussed below. The one area where the Applicant proposes to establish a different parking requirement is with respect to those accessory uses referred to as "other uses" by the Code (see the table below for different parking requirements): Tvne of Use Code Requirement jEffiR'S Required I Proposed l Lodge Rooms 0.5 spaceslbedroom rooms 40 spaces 40 spaces I Fractional Units l 0.5 spaces/unit I 21 units ces II spaces Other Uses 1 space/l,OOO sq. ft. of net 20,088 sq. ft. 20 spaces 20 spaces leasable area of net leasable area Residential Units I space/dwelling unit 4 units 4 spaces 4 spaces Afford. Housing By Special Review' 16 units 16 soaces 16 spaces Aspen Skiing Co. Ex. spaces to be replaced' N/A 30 spaces 30 spaces Neighbors/General No Requirement. N/A N/A 143 spaces Public I Total: II -------------------------------- 11------------------- I 121 snaces 264 snaces I Pursuant to Section 26.590.070.E.l, parking for timeshare units is based on the total number of proposed lockout rooms in the development, not the number of bedrooms 2 Although the exact requirement is determined through Special Review, the generally held formula for affordable housing units of this size is 1 space/unit. For more information, see the Special Review section later in the report. , The Aspen Skiing Company currently utilizes a portion of Parcel 2 for employee parking purposes, which is secured by a 99-year lease with the previous owner of the property-which the applicant must maintain (See Exhibit 6, Appendix B of the Application). The agreement, though, allows for the replacement of the parking in a sub-grade parking garage subject to the approval of the Skiing Company. Their consent has been provided (see Exhibit 5, Appendix B). - 14- In reviewing the proposed parking, the project complies with the specific code requirements for parking for the hotel, fractional, condominium, and affordable housing units and, consequently, no variations are being requested. Commercial Parkinf! F acilitv: As noted above, the Applicant has proposed to sell or lease 143 of the 264 parking spaces. Specifically, thirty (30) of these 143 parking spaces are proposed to be sold to the Lift I Condominiums in order to help alleviate their on-site parking deficit. According to the application, the remaining 109 parking spaces are proposed to be sold or leased to members of the general public to help defray the costs of the development. In order to sell or lease parking spaces to the general public with no association to the project, a conditional use approval is necessary because a commercial parking facility is a conditional use in the L/TR Zone District that was in place when the conceptual PUD application was originally submitted. The P&Z has approved the conditional use as part of the project. Related to providing the commercial parking facility, the Applicant has proposed to reconstruct South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant Avenue to be able to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by the Commercial Parking portion of the development as is discussed below. In evaluating whether a commercial parking facility is appropriate in this location, Staff has considered comments that we have heard from Planning and Zoning Commission members and residents in the immediate neighborhood. Many of these comments that were provided to Staff during the conceptual application review expressed that the on- street parking situation in the neighborhood is very congested since several of the condominium complexes in the area that were built in the 1970s do not have the necessary on-site parking to accommodate their needs. South Asoen Street Reconstruction and Snowmelt: During the conceptual application review, one of the considerable technical issues that needed to be addressed was the safety of South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant A venue. There was concern that the existing road could not handle the increased traffic that would be generated by the development given the steep grade and the build-up of ice and snow that is typical of the street. At the conclusion of the conceptual review, it was required in City Council Resolution No. 69, Series of 2005, that the Applicant would come back as part of the final PUD development review with a plan to make South Aspen Street safe for the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed lodge. This resolution also required the Applicant to consult with other property owners along South Aspen Street that may be looking to redevelop their properties in the near future to ensure that any updated road design would safely accommodate their traffic generation needs as well. In response to these conditions, the application indicates that the Applicant is proposing to reconstruct South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant Avenue and snowmelt it to safely accommodate the additional traffic that the would be generated by the proposed development and the development application for the Lift One Lodge that has been submitted on the east side of South Aspen Street. According to the application, the idea -15- is that The Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the developers of the Lift One Lodge would share the costs of snowmelting and reconstructing the road if they both receive approval through the formation of a an improvement district. However, the application states that the Lodge at Aspen is prepared to take on the entire costs of improving South Aspen Street in this manner in the case that the Lift One Lodge does not move forward. The design of the street is proposed such that it would remove the on-street parking that currently exists to narrow the overall pavement width of the street, providing for less pavement to heat. At the same time, the loss of the on-street parking would allow for the actual travel lanes to be widened to fourteen (I4) feet each. At the top of South Aspen Street, a cul-de-sac is proposed for skier drop-off and for fire truck turn around purposes. The loss of on-street parking is proposed to be mitigated in the Lift One Lodge development through the construction of a public parking garage under Willoughby Park. The Applicant has proposed to snowmelt the street by using a traditional snowmelt system that incorporates gas fired boilers to heat the street and adjacent sidewalks. The application indicates that the Applicant explored the use of a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) to heat the road using heat from the earth. However, several consultants including CORE and RMI recommended that it would be considerably more efficient to heat and cool the Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the Lift One Lodge by using the GSHP rather than using it to heat the road itself. Therefore, to conserve energy in order to mitigate for snowmelting South Aspen Street, the Applicant has proposed to use the GSHP to reduce the energy usage of the lodge itself. In analyzing the Applicant's proposed solution to making South Aspen Street safe for the additional traffic that would be generated by the Lodge Aspen Mountain and the Lift One Lodge on the east side of South Aspen Street, Staff believes that snowmelting the street is certainly the safest way to ensure that the street can handle the increased traffic. Staff does believe that some assurance is necessary that the on-street parking that would be removed from South Aspen Street in the new design is mitigated for even if the Lift One Lodge does not pan out. Therefore, Staff has recommended a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance that would require that fifty (50) of the parking spaces in the Lodge at Aspen Mountain be available to the general public for short-term parking until such time as the Lift One Lodge is up and running. Staff feels that a condition of this nature will ensure that the current fifty (50) on-street parking spaces that would be lost in the reconstruction of the street will be mitigated for and available to the general public as has always been the case. In evaluating the energy consumption related to snowmelting South Aspen Street, the City's global warming expert, Dan Richardson, has recommended that the Applicant be required to design the Lodge at Aspen Mountain so that it uses 30% less energy than the average energy use of comparable type properties in Aspen. The methodology is put forth in Section 14 of the proposed ordinance that will set the base and provide for audit of such a goal. Dan Richardson worked with Staff to create the energy conservation conditions of the ordinance and finds them acceptable and outstanding for a project of - 16- this nature, likely the highest level of conservation effort III design and operation proposed in the city. Replacement of Lift lA: As was discussed in the conceptual review of the application, the Applicant has proposed to fund a new lift to replace Lift IA. Specifically, the new lift would be a high speed double chair that would serve the west side of Aspen Mountain. The Applicant has proposed to pay $4,000,000 towards the replacement of the ski lift that would open more of the western portion of Aspen Mountain up to easily accessible skiing. The application proposes that the new lift would be replaced and up and running prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy being issued on the lodge. Staff has reinforced this timing by providing a condition of approval in the proposed ordinance that would require the lift be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on any part of the lodge. Community Benefits: The application argues that the proposal provides numerous community benefits. Specifically, the Applicant suggests that project would provide a significant number of new lodge rooms at the base of Aspen Mountain, a place where lodging is supposed to be located in a ski resort to provide easy access for guests to the ski mountain and the downtown core. Additionally, the application highlights the improvements to South Aspen Street as a community benefit and suggests that they will make it safer for all of the property owners and skiers that use South Aspen Street on a regular basis. Parking is a substandard situation on South Aspen Street, with ill-defined spaces-some parallel, some head-in and some morphing between the two types depending on road conditions, in addition to the steepness of the street that cause safety problems in the winter. The street is currently not pedestrian friendly, lacking sidewalks and the confusion of parking. Finally, the application suggests that the new lift will be a community benefit that will open up the west side of Aspen Mountain and enhance the skiing experience as was previously discussed above. The additional employees housed beyond the requirement with 75% of the units being located within the City of Aspen should also be seen as moving the city closer to its goals and as benefits of the project. The "Community Benefit Program" shown as Exhibit G was put forth to enhance community benefits. Finally, the infrastructure improvements, both with the ski area lift and the sidewalk, snowmelt, public landscaping and the enhancements to anchor this area as part of the Dean Street walkway, will all serve to create a sense of place in this part of Aspen. Staff finds that all of these items mentioned above are benefits. Timeshare: Sale of multiple interests in the 21 fractional units is proposed and each purchaser of a fractional interest in the timeshare lodge will own an undivided 1/8th interest in a specific unit, which will result in 168 timeshare owners, or estates (21 units x 8 estates/unit=168 estates). None of the rooms are proposed to have lock-off capability. The proposed use plan will guarantee each timeshare estate owner use of a unit for a maximum of four weeks a year - two weeks in the winter and two weeks in the summer, with winter being defined as November I - April 30 and summer being May I to October 31. The maximum number of days a unit can be reserved per season by owners is 112 days and, as - 17- each season contains approximately 182 days, a minimum of70 days in each season will remain and will constitute the float time. The float time will be made available to the public for nightly rental and to the owners, subject to certain limitations, such as the owners needing to reserve a unit at least 30 days in advance, only being able to reserve in increments up to 7 days, and for no more than 30 consecutive calendar days. These limitations on owners should permit a reasonable amount of available time for the public to use the units. A full complement of amenities will be contained within the facility, including an outdoor pool, spa and fitness center, a business center, ski concierge area, a logo shop, children's recreation area, and a bar and restaurant. The spa, restaurant, and bar will also be available to the public. In addition, the lodge will contain a fully staffed, on-site front desk to provide guest registration and reservation services for the lodge's hotel guests and the fractional owners, guests, and will include late check in and other off hour owner and guest needs. Staff has reviewed the timeshare management plan against the review criteria for timeshare and finds that it complies with all of applicable requirements. Technical Considerations: The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposal and provided comments, which Staff has included as conditions of approval as deemed appropriate. Some of the specific requirements are discussed in this paragraph. In reviewing the proposal, the Community Development Engineer has recommended some mitigation techniques be provided to enhance slope stability above the proposed development since there would be a significant excavation needed to construct the project. Specifically, the Community Development Engineer has recommended that the Applicant be required to install several inclinometers above the development on Aspen Mountain and provide bimonthly data to the City for one seasonal cycle to identify whether there is any historic rate of slope movement. If slope movement is identified, the construction techniques to be used in constructing the project must be designed in a manner that does not increase the historic slope movement during and after construction. These specific design techniques have been included in the conditions of approval in the proposed ordinance. The Construction Management Plan (CMP) takes major steps to ameliorate the impacts of construction on neighbors, traffic, and environmental impacts. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and finds it to be acceptable and one of the best examples of a CMP for a setting such as Aspen's. STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff believes that this project would provide important lodging at the base of Aspen Mountain in a location where lodging should be located in our resort community-close to the mountain, near the retail/restaurant and entertainment core, near transit and within a cluster of lodging/timeshare and condominium development. Staff also feels that the lodging proposal would provide significantly more community benefit than the residential townhome project that has vested rights on the subject property. The project would help - 18- replenish part of the lodging bed base that was lost of the past decade in addition to providing for a new high speed ski lift in place of the existing Lift I A. Staff finds that the project represents an exemplary project primarily for its energy conservation plan, its attainment of over the required employee housing mitigation, its CMP, its enhancements to the streetscape & infrastructure, and its compatibility with the character of the uses in the area. The Applicant has also made a considerable plan changes to address the City Council's concerns that were expressed at the conceptual review of the project related to giving the project more interaction with the adjacent South Aspen Street by bring a significant portion of the building east to relate better with the street. In total, Staff believes that the application satisfies the applicable review standards and recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (All motions are made in the affirmative) "I move to approve Ordinance No.5, Series of 2007, second reading, "The Lodge at Aspen Mountain" Final PUD and associated land use actions." A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B: Application/Addendum narrative (dated 3/21/07),CMP Documents Exhibit C: Project Revisions Plan Set (dated 3/21/07) Exhibit D: Letters from public Exhibit E: Construction Management Plan (CMP) Summary Exhibit F: P&Z minutes Exhibit G: Community Benefit Program Summary Exhibit H: Growth Management Summary Exhibit I: Site Plan of Vested South Aspen Street Subdivision Exhibt J: Holland and Hart letter, dated May 10,2007 (re. deed restriction proposal) Exhibit K: Letter from Anne and Clarence Blackwell, dated July 19, 2007 - 19- EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General reclUirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows all of Parcel I (the area north of Juan St.) and the majority of Parcel 2 (south of Juan St.) as "Lodging". The northern most part of Parcel 2 is shown as "Residential" on the map; however, this portion was rezoned by from R-15 to LrrR in 2003 as part of the South Aspen St. project approval. Therefore, the lodge proposal is clearly in compliance with the direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP, such as providing "a compact, mixed use development that enable travel by foot, bicycle, and public transportation for all types of trips", the provision of on and off-site affordable housing within the city limits and within the UGB, enhancement of pedestrian corridors, and the promotion of eclectic design styles within the city in order to maintain and enhance the character of the community. The AACP also promotes economic sustainability, the enhancement of "wealth generating capacity", and stemming the loss of the area's bed base by redeveloping Aspen's ski base area. In addition, the Action Plan of the AACP speaks directly to the importance of increasing density through infill in Aspen's original town-site, especially for affordable housin ,in order to rotect 0 en s ace surroundin the communit . 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLV? I YES. The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of 1950's era ski lodges, the preserved, original ski chairlift and ski club building, a modem, second-homeowner oriented condominium, a small affordable housing development, one older single-family home, several larger and newer single-family homes, and three 1970's era condominium structures housing a mix of locals and second homeowners. The subject site contains an eighteen unit apartment complex that is geared towards local residents, a parking lot, open space and one single-family home. While there has been some recent new development in the vicinity, the area largely represents the Aspen of another era of twenty, thirty and even fifty years ago. In terms of land uses, the proposed lodge conforms well to the character of the surrounding development. The lodge proposes short term accommodations located towards the ski mountain side, adjacent to the two lodges across South Aspen Street, and residential-in-character, fractional units oriented on the lower end of the site adjacent to the residential condominiums and single familv residences. - 20- Staff finds that the revised development plan is generally consistent with the character of the existing land uses in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Given the relatively large size of the proposed structure, there will no doubt be a change to the immediate neighborhood, as most of the existing structures are smaller in size and height comparisons. Most of the surrounding structures are smaller, however, because they are situated on much smaller lots. The Lodge site is over 104,000 sq. ft., while the Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums sit on approximately 28,000 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots, respectively. Although the proposed lodge is large, it essentially consists of two smaller buildings connected by a bridge, but physically separated by a street. When considering the proposed lodge in comparison to the other condominium projects to the north, the footprint for the portion of the structure on Parcel I is not greatly out of character with these structures (the difference in size between the two is more in terms of height). Furthermore, if you consider the "surrounding area" to also be the larger base area of the ski mountain in general, the project is generally consistent in mass, scale, and height with the St. Regis Hotel, the Grand Hyatt, the Residences at Little Nell that is under construction, and the Little Nell Hotel. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area and will actually enhance the opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the appearance and vitalitv of this area of town. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FiNDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The majority of the development, including the residential component is to be derived from using reconstruction credits from the existing Mine Dump apartments that are to be demolished. Additionally, there is no annual cap on the number of lodge units that can be built. The Applicant has requested multi-year allotments for the commercial square footage that is proposed. If all of the requested growth management actions are approved, this criterion would be met. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. Staff finds the dimension requests to be acceptable to achieve multiple goals of the community. - 21 - I. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Generally, Staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics, as follows: a.) See discussion from l.A. above; b.) Assuming precautions recommended by the soils and structural engineers and the city engineer are adhered to, there will be no natural or man-made hazards (final details related to this will be determined with the final POO); c.) Most of the proposed building pad has already been impacted by existing buildings or parking lots, so Staff does not find that there will be any additional significant impacts to existing natural characteristics; d.) Any development on this property would likely increase the above impacts; however, Staff is comfortable that all of these impacts can be adequately mitigated. Noise is regulated by city ordinance; traffic may increase, however, most visitors will likely arrive to town by airplane and be brought to the lodge by shuttle where the convenient location will allow walking to downtown and to the ski area; if guests do drive, all parking is internal to the site and underground; regarding impacts to historical resources, the Skiers Chalet across the street is listed as an historic property - Staff believes that the chances for the preservation of the Chalet will be enhanced by the development of additional lodging in the vicinity because the presence of the new lodge will likely create better visibility for the Skiers Chalet's lodge rooms and oossiblv, result in soill-over business. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDlNG:T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff does believe that the scale and massing of the proposed lodge is generally consistent with that of the other larger hotels (St. Regis, Grand Hyatt, Little Nell) that are located on the south side of Durant A venue. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. - 22- b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? 1 YES Staff finds the proposed parking amount to be adequate to serve the needs of the development. The proposal satisfies the underlying zone district's parking requirements and actually provides 140 additional parking spaces that are to be for sell or lease to help alleviate some of the parking problems in the immediate vicinity. Given the proximity of the site to the commercial core, the ski area and transit connections and considering that the majority of guests of facilities such as this arrive without a car, Staff believes that the parking will be more than sufficient to meet the demand. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no dens it reductions are necess 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. - 23- 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: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that would have to occur to acconunodate the development. Staff has required significant soil stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are proposed in the attached ordinance. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES While the Applicant does propose an increase in the allowable floor area, no increase in the amount of densit is ro osed. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: I. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. I STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES - 24- There are no unique natural or man-made features on the site. The site is located at the base of Shadow Mountain, but is not proposing to impact it in any significant way. There are also unique old ski lodge buildings across the street that are within the sphere of influence of this project; however, Staff feels that the redevelopment of the subject site with hotel rooms, restaurants, bars, and the upgrading of the ski lift and ski base facilities will be an enhancement to the overall nei hborhood, includin to the business of the existin lod es. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES To the extent possible, the two structures connected by the bridge have been clustered on the site. Given the large size of the overall project, though, Staff feels that the separation provided by the Juan Street right-of-way in breaking up the mass into two distinct structures is more beneficial than clustering the entire mass on one site. If the entire proposed mass were to be clustered on one site, the resulting height and bulk, while creating additional open space, would further si ificantl im act vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. The structures are primarily oriented towards South Aspen Street, the main street in the vicinity, by focusing the main entrance of the hotel towards this street. The building is very urban in character with its orientation close to the sidewalk and the street providing a nice edge to and engagement of the street. The Applicant has also included several courtyards in the design to help blend the private and public realms to create a better pedestrian relationship between the building and South Aspen Street that was portrayed with the design that was approved at the conceotual PUD review. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The structure on Parcel I will be accessible by fire truck to almost all of the four sides via city streets or alleys, while the remainder of the structure on Parcel 2 will have fire truck access on three sides with fire department connections located on all exteriors. All structures will be fire sprinkled for further safety. Service vehicles will access the structure from loading dock off of Juan Street, so that the do not have to ne otiate the stee er art of South As en Street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the application, the project will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. Adequate pedestrian access is being provided with the addition of detached sidewalks along all streets that the property fronts. This should greatly increase the safety of nedestrians in the area who currentlv walk in the street. - 25- 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled by directing drainage into an extension of the existing storm drain facilities located in Durant Avenue. One extension will run on the west side of South Aspen St. to catch drainage from the eastern portion of the site, while the other will come up Garmisch St. to Dean Avenue to pick up drainage from the western portion of the site. Such improvements to drainage should be a vast improvement over the existing conditions. A more detailed drainage plan will be submitted and reviewed with the building permit application. A condition of approval has been included that requires that there not be an increase in off-site drainage as a result of the proposed development. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The space between the two structures is taken up with a city street, so it is not a good location for any uses related to the lodge. However, the design does incorporate an outdoor dining/apres ski terrace on the west side of the building closest to the base of the ski area to take maximum advantage of views and solar access. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: I. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the landscape plan, the proposed lodge will be extensively landscaped with vegetation appropriate to the climate and several key trees identified by the City Parks Department will be preserved. Outside of these significant trees, Staff does not believe that there are an existin uni ue man-made or natural features on-site worth reservin . E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard 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 based upon the suitability of a - 26- building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff finds that the proposed architectural character will be an enhancement to the visual character of the neighborhood by dramatically updating the design quality and is an appropriate style given the climate and the resort nature of the conununity. The design clearly represents the lodge use. Furthermore, Staff believes that the proposed development has been altered significantly in the conceptual PUD review process to better mitigate the overall scale of the development. According to the Applicant, they will use the Ground Source Heat Pump technology to naturally heat and cool the lodge. Snow fences will be added to roof areas over pedestrian and landscaped areas to protect them from snow and ice fall. Snow storage areas will be shown on the final PUD olano F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. - 27- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPL V? I YES The Applicant states that all lighting will be in compliance with the adopted lighting standards and designed to minimize adverse impacts on neighboring properties and public streets. Additionally, lighting will not illuminate the structure, only areas of pedestrian and vehicular access. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the Applicant submit a lighting ulan at the time of final PUD submittal. G. Common Park. Open Space. or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: I. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: I. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL v? YES According to the preliminary engineering report supplied by the project engineer, public infrastructure exists in the area and with improvements made to the infrastructure by the A licant, ade uate facilities will be available to acconunodate the develo ment. - 28- I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: I. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPL v? I YES Both structures and all of the units and associated uses have access from entry drives off of a nublic street. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLV? IYES The Applicant had a transportation study completed for this application. The study indicates that the area's streets and intersections are currently operating below capacity and will continue to do so even after the lodge has been built and is open for business. Staff has included a condition of approval that requires a fleet of 10 bicycles to be provided to the lodge/fracational ownership guests. This will help keep more people out of cars and use and enjoy the city's trail network instead. All parking will be below the buildings and there will be two separate vehicular entryways to help lessen any possibility of vehicles backed-up into the city street. Nonetheless, the Applicant has proposed to reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street on the south side of Durant Avenue to make it safer for the increase traffic volumes that would result from the nronosed lod~e. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. - 29- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPL V? YES There are no historic trails through the subject property which would require dedication or improvement and the AACP does not recommend any additional trails on the property. The development does not contain any private streets, so no easements are necessary for public access. No securit ates, ard osts are ro osed. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: I. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. - 30- EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: TIMESHARE LODGE DEVELOPMENT An applicant for timeshare lodge development shall demonstrate compliance with each of the following standards, as applicable to the proposed development. These standards are in addition to those standards applicable to the review of the PUD and Subdivision applications. A. Fiscal Impact Analvsis and Mitigation. Any applicant proposing to convert an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge development shall be required to demonstrate that the proposed conversion will not have a negative tax consequence for the City. In order to demonstrate the tax consequences of the proposed conversion, the applicant shall prepare a detailed fiscal impact study as part of the final PUD application. The fiscal impact study shall contain at least the following comparisons between the existing lodge operation and the proposed timeshare lodge development: 1. A summary of the sales taxes paid to the City for rental oflodge rooms during the prior five years of its operation. If the lodge has stopped renting rooms prior to the time of submission of the application, then the summary shall reflect the final five years the lodge was in operation. The summary of past taxes paid shall be compared to a projection of the sales taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. As part of this projection, the applicant shall specifY the number of nights the applicant anticipates each timeshare lodge unit will be available for daily rental to visitors (that is, the annual number of nights when the unit will not be occupied by the owner or the owner's guests), the expected visitor occupancy rate for these units, the expected average daily cost to rent the unit, and the resulting amount of sales tax that will be paid to the City. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge development. 2. An estimation of the real estate transfer taxes that would be paid to the City if the existing lodge were to be sold. If an actual sale of the property has occurred within the last 12 months, then the real estate taxes paid for that sale shall be used. This estimation shall be compared to a projection of the real estate transfer taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected sales prices for the timeshare estates, and the applicable tax rate that will be applied to each sale. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge development. - 31- 3. A summary of the City-portion of the property taxes paid for the lodge for the prior five years of its operation, and a projection of the property taxes the proposed timeshare lodge development will pay to the City over the first five years of its operation. This projection shall include a statement of the expected value that will be assigned to the property by the Tax Assessor, and the applicable tax rate. The fiscal impact study may also contain such other information that the applicant believes is relevant to understanding the tax consequences of the proposed development. For example, the applicant may provide information demonstrating there will be "secondary", or "indirect" tax benefits to the City from the occupancy of the timeshare units, in terms of increased retail sales and other economic activity in the community as compared to the existing lodge development. The applicant shall be expected to prove definitively why the timeshare units would cause such economic advantages that would not be achieved by a traditional lodge development. Any such additional information provided shall compare the taxes paid during the prior five years of the lodge's operation to the first five years ofthe proposed timeshare lodge's operation. If the fiscal impact study demonstrates there will be an annual tax loss to the City from the conversion of an existing lodge to a timeshare lodge, then the applicant shall be required to propose a mitigation program that resolves the problem, to the satisfaction of the Aspen City Council. The accepted mitigation program shall be documented in the PUD Agreement for the project that is entered into between the applicant and the Aspen City Council. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The proposal does not include any conversion of an existing lodge into a timeshare lodge development. B. Upgrading of Existing Projects. Any existing project that is proposed to be converted to a timeshare lodge development shall be physically upgraded and modernized. The extent of the upgrading that is to be accomplished shall be determined as part of the PUD review, considering the condition of the existing facilities, with the intent being to make the development compatible in character with surrounding properties and to extend the useful life of the building. I. To the extent that it would be practical and reasonable, existing structures shall be brought into compliance with the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a timeshare lodge development. The new development shall be required to meet the City's adopted fire, health, and building codes. - 32- 2. No sale of any interest in a timeshare lodge development shall be closed until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the upgrading. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a timeshare lodge development. C. Preservation of Existing Lodging Inventorv. An express purpose of these regulations is to preserve and enhance Aspen's existing lodging inventory. Therefore, any proposal to convert an existing lodge or other property that provides short term accommodations to a timeshare lodge should, at a minimum, replace the existing number of units on the property in the planned timeshare lodge. If the applicant is unable to replace the existing number of units, then the timeshare lodge development shall replace the existing number of bedrooms on the property, or the applicant shall demonstrate how the proposal complies with the purposes of these regulations, even though the planned timeshare lodge will not replace either the existing number of units or bedrooms. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE The Applicant is proposing an entirely new project - not a conversion of an existing project to a timeshare lodge development. The project does, however, propose to add additional beds and rooms which will add to the City's todging stock. D. Affordable Housing ReQuirements. I. Whenever a timeshare lodge development is required to provide affordable housing, mitigation for the development shall be calculated by applying the standards of the City's housing designee for lodge uses. The affordable housing requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development, and shall also take into account any retail, restaurant, conference, or other functions proposed in the lodge. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has proposed to exceed the employee housing mitigation requirements through a mix of on-site, off-site housing in the City limits, and off-site housing within the UGB. If the method of miti ation is ace ted b Cit Council, this criterion is met. 2. The conversion of any multi-family dwelling unit that meets the definition of residential multi-family housing to timesharing shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, even when there is no demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling unit. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant commits to complying with the requirements of Section 26.530. Staff finds that the Applicant's proposed method of satisfying the Resident Multi-family Replacement Program is in compliance with the code requirements. -33- E. Parking Requirements. I. The parking requirement for timeshare lodge development shall be calculated by applying the parking standard for the underlying zone district for lodge uses. The parking requirement shall be calculated based on the maximum number of proposed lock out rooms in the development. 2. The timeshare lodge development shall also provide an appropriate level of guest transportation services, such as vans or other shuttle vehicles, to offer an altemative to having owners and guests using their own vehicles in Aspen. 3. The owner of a timeshare estate shall be prohibited from storing a vehicle in a parking space on-site when the owner is not using that estate. STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? T YES The PUD Agreement and the timeshare instruments will prohibit the owners from storing vehicles on site when not in-residence. The PUD Agreement will also require the service of a shuttle for the benefit of guests and owners. F. Appropriateness of Marketing and Sales Practices. The marketing and sale of timeshare estates shall be governed by the real estate laws set forth in Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S., as may be amended from time to time. The applicant and licensed marketing entity shall present to the City a plan for marketing the timeshare development. I. The following marketing and sales practices for a timeshare development shall not be permitted: a. The solicitation of prospective purchasers of timeshare units on any street, rnall, or other public property or facility; and b. Any unethical sales and marketing practices which would tend to mislead potential purchasers. 2. Giving of gifts to encourage potential purchasers to attend a sales presentation or to visit a timeshare development is permitted, provided the gift reflects the local Aspen economy. For example, gifts for travel to or accommodations in Aspen, restaurants in Aspen, and local attractions (ski passes, concert tickets, rafting trips, etc.) are permitted. Gifts that have no relationship to the local Aspen economy are not permitted. The following gifts are also not permitted: a. Any gift for which an accurate description is not given; - 34- b. Any gift package for which notice is not given to the prospective purchaser that the purchaser will be required to attend a sales presentation as a condition of receiving the gifts; and c. Any gift package for which the printed announcement of the requirement to attend a sales presentation is in smaller type face than the information on the gift being offered. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant has represented that they will incorporate all of the above requirements into the PUD agreement and the timeshare instruments G. AdeQuacy of Maintenance and Management Plan. The applicant shall provide documentation and guarantees that the tirneshare lodge development will be appropriately managed and maintained in an manner that will be both stable and continuous. This shall include an identification of when and how maintenance will be provided, and shall also address the following requirements: I. A fair procedure shall be established for the estate owners to review and approve any fee increases which may be made throughout the life of the timeshare developrnent, to provide assurance and protection to tirneshare owners that management/assessment fees will be applied and used appropriately. 2. The applicant shall also demonstrate that there will be a reserve fund to ensure that the proposed timeshare development will be properly maintained throughout its lifetime. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant states in the application that the above requirements (1 and 2) will be incorporated in the PUD Agreement timeshare instruments to be submitted with the Final PUD application. H. Compliance with State Statutes. The applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed timeshare lodge development will comply with all applicable requirements of Title 12, Article 61, C.R.S.; Title 38, Article 33, C.R.S.; and Title 38, Article 33.3, C.R.S.; including the requirements concerning the five (5) day period for rescission of a sales contract, and the procedures for holding deposits or down payments in escrow. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant states in the application that the above statutory requirements will be incorporated in the PUD Agreement timeshare instruments to be submitted with the Final PUD application. I. Approval Bv Condominium Owners. If the development that is proposed to be timeshared is a condominium, the applicant shall submit written proof that the condominium declaration allows timesharing, that one hundred (100) percent of the owners of the condominium units have approved the timeshare development, including -35- any improvements to the common elements that the applicant may propose, that all mortgagees of the condominium have approved the proposed timeshare development, and that all condominium units in the timeshare development will be included in the same sales and marketing program. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE This review standard does not apply to the proposed lodge, as the conversion of existing condominiums to timeshare develo ment is not ro osed. J. Prohibited Practices and Uses. Without in any way limiting any requirement contained in this Chapter, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in any of the following practices: 1. The creation, operation or sale of a right-to-use interest or any other timeshare concept which is not specifically allowed and approyed pursuant to the requirements of this section. Right-to-use timeshare concepts (e.g. lease-holds and vacation clubs) are considered inappropriate in Aspen and are not permitted. 2. Misrepresentation of the facts contained in any application for timeshare approval, timeshare development instruments, or disclosure statement. 3. Failure to comply with any representations contained in any application for timesharing or misrepresenting the substance of any such application to another who may be a prospective purchaser of a timeshare interest. 4. Manage, operate, use, offer for sale or sell a timeshare estate or interest therein in violation of any requirement of this Chapter or any approval granted pursuant hereto, or cause or aid and abet another to violate any requirement of this Chapter, or an approval granted pursuant to this Chapter. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant commits to not engaging in any marketing practices which are prohibited above, or b local or State re lations. - 36- Exhibit" A" Staff Findings: Subdivision Section 26.480 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. I. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's res onse to PUD Review Standard A I . 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Please see Staff's res onse to PUD review standard A I . 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area and will actually enhance the opportunities for redevelopment by dramatically improving the a earance and vitalit of this area of town. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be In compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the proposed development is in conformance with all of the provisions of the land use code if the dimensional requirements are approved through the PUD and the proposed method of miti atin for affordable housin is acce ted b Cit Council. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision a. Land suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare ofthe 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. - 37- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that would have to occur to accommodate the development. Staff has required significant soil stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are proposed in the attached ordinance. There is also not a need for premature extension of utilities. C. Improyements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) ifthe 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. 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 26.530, 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: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has proposed to meet the Resident Multi-family Replacement Program requirements for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments by providing 13 units of affordable housing on the site that is comprised of 50 percent of the units, bedrooms, and square footage that is in the multi-family complex to torn down. Additionally, the Applicant has requested the necessary growth management allotments to construct the proposed development. If the method of miti ation is acce ted b Cit Council, this criterion will be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. - 38- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant shall be required to pay the applicable school land dedication fee for the residential units within the development. Staff has included a condition of approval that re uires the school land dedication fees be aid rior to buildin ermit issuance. 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, S 2) STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has requested the necessary growth management approvals to construct the proposed development. If these growth management requests are approved then the subdivision can be a roved b Cit Council. - 39- Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: GM Review -Conversion of Residential Reconstruction Credits to Lodging Units Section 26.470.040(C)(4) of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for reconstruction credits must comply with the following standards and requirements. a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The residential units within the development are to be constructed from reconstruction credits gained from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. Some of the lodge rooms are also proposed to be developed from reconstruction credits. The development rights for the lodge units not to be constructed from reconstruction credits shall be obtained pursuant to the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2). There is no cap on lodge allotments that can be given in anyone year. The commercial allotment being requested requires a multi- year allotment. The Applicant's compliance with the multi-year allotment standards are addressed elsewhere in the Staff memorandum. If City Council grants the multi-year allotments, this criterion is met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staffs res onse to PUD review standard A(1 ). c) Residential dwelling unit construction credits shall be converted to lodge units at a rate of three (3) lodge units per each one residential unit; STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant is requesting reconstruction credits for fifteen (15) of the residential units to be demolished in the Mine Dump Apartments. The fifteen (15) residential units translate into forty-five (45) lodge units when using the ratio of three (3) lodge units per one residential unit being demolished. d Develo ment shall com I with Section 26.470.070, Reconstruction Limitations. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES - 40- The proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 26.470.070, Reconstruction Limitations, if the building permit for the lodge is submitted within one year of demolition of the units. The replacement units are proposed on the same parcel and on non-contiguous parcels within the same PUD as is permitted by Land Use Code Section 26.470.070. Staff finds this criterion to be met. e) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the lodge units, according Section 26.470.050.A. Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. If the project qualifies as an Incentive Lodge project, pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.3, then thirty (30) percent of the employees generated by the lodge units shall be mitigated. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant has proposed to mitigate for 60% of the employees generated by lodge rooms that are to be derived from reconstruction credits. Please see the mitigation section of the staff memo for an explanation on the employee housing mitigation breakdown. Staff finds this criterion to be met. f) The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Please see Staff's res onse to PUD review standard A I . g) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no 'Hensit reductions are necessa . Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: GM Review - Expansion/New Commercial, Lodge, or Mixed Use Development. The expansion of an eXlstmg commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial, lodge, or mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growt\J management allotments are available to accommodate the expansion, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.D, Annual Development Allotments. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The residential units within the development are to be constructed from reconstruction credits gained from the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments. Some of the lodge rooms are also proposed to be developed from reconstruction credits. The development rights for the lodge units not to be constructed from reconstruction credits shall be obtained pursuant to the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.470.040(C)(2). There is no cap on lodge allotments that can be given in anyone year. The commercial allotment being requested requires a multi- year allotment. The Applicant's compliance with the multi-year allotment standards are addressed elsewhere in the Staff memorandum. If City Council grants the multi-year allotments, this criterion is met. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's res onse to PUD review standard A( I). c) Sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge development, according Section 26.470.050.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing or cash-in-lieu thereof. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.7, Affordable Housing, and be restricted to Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Mitigation for Free- Market residential units within a mixed-use project shall be pursuant to Section 26.470.040.C.6 - Free-Market Residential Units within a Mixed-Use Project. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant has proposed to mitigate for 60% of the employees generated by the lodge rooms and the commercial space that is proposed. Please see the mitigation section of the staff memo for an explanation on the employee housing mitigation breakdown. Staff finds this criterion to be met. - 42- d) The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Adequate public facilities either already exist or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. While South Aspen Street is a steeply pitched street with potential wintertime dangers, the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall are confident that there will be adequate access to serve this project and for fire protection if South Aspen Street is reconstructed and snowmelted. To enhance fire protection, the structure will contain a complete fire sprinkler system. Staff believes that if the snowmelt plan is proposed by the A licant for South As en Street is enacted, no density reductions are necessa . - 43- Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: GM Review - Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on the following criteria: a) Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the new units, pursuant to Section 26.470.030.C, Development Ceiling Levels. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES There is not an annual cap on the number of allotments available for affordable housing units. Additionally, the number of affordable housing units in the community after the construction of the affordable housing associated with this development will not come close to exceeding the overall ceiling for affordable housing units set forth in the growth management section of the land use code. b) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's res onse to PUD review standard AI. c) The proposed units comply with the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be required for this standard. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority may choose to hold a public hearing with the Board of Directors. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES There is not an annual cap on the number of allotments available for affordable housing units. Additionally, the number of affordable housing units in the community after the construction of the affordable housing associated with this development will not come close to exceeding the overall ceiling for affordable housing units set forth in the growth management section of the land use code. d) Affordable Housing required for mitigation purposes shall be in the form of actual newly built units or buy-down units. Each unit provided shall be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (50) percent or more of the unit's net livable square footage is at or above Natural or Finished Grade, whichever is higher. Off-site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city limits. Units outside the city limits may be accepted as mitigation by the City Council, pursuant to 26.470.040.D.2. Provision of affordable housing through a cash-in-lieu payment shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a recommendation from - 44- the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Required affordable housing may be provided through a mix of these methods. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES As is described in the mitigation section of the staff memorandum, the Applicant is proposing to provide the sixteen (16) affordable housing units on the site to satisfy the multi-family replacement program requirements for demolishing the Mine Dump Apartments. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed to mitigate for the remainder of the mitigation requirements by constructing 28 units within the City limits on the Smuggler Racquet Club parcel and nine (9) units at the AABC. During the conceptual PUD review, City Council placed a condition requiring that 60% of the required mitigation be provided within the City limits and 40% be allowed to be provided outside the City limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Housing Board has recommended that the P&Z and City Council accept the mitigation plan that is proposed. Staff believes that the proposed mitigation plan is consistent with the condition of approval that was requested by City Council at conceptual review and in compliance with this criterion. e) The proposed units shall be deed restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to qualified purchasers according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. The owner may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority. The deed restriction shall authorize the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority or the City of Aspen to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the AspenlPitkin County Housing Authority, as amended. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or its Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may authorize affordable housing units owned and associated with a lodging or commercial operation to be rental units if a legal instrument, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, ensures permanent affordability of the units. Units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, or other similar governmental or quasi-municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for-sale" provision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant has proposed to convey an undivided 1/10'" of one percent ownership interest in the sixteen (16) affordable housing units that are to be built on the site to the Housing Authority. This method of ensuring that the deed restrictions are enforceable has been accepted by the City on many occasions and the City Attorney believes that it is an appropriate practice. Staff finds this criterion to be met. - 45- Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: GM Review - AH Outside City Limits The proVIsIOn of affordable housing, as required by Chapter 26.470, Growth Management, with units to be located outside the City of Aspen boundary, 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 proposal promotes the Goals and Objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Please see Staff's response to PUD review standard A(1 ). b) The off-site housing is within the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The affordable housing units that are proposed outside of the City limits are proposed to be located at the AABC, which is located within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c) The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g., singles, seniors and families). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Housing Board has reviewed the proposed development and has indicated that the sixteen (16) affordable housing units that are proposed for the site meet the Housing Guideline requirements. Additionally, the Housing Board felt that the overall mitigation concept, including the proposed units on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and the AABC property is acceptable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d) The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the governing body with jurisdiction of the off-site parcel. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has applied for the necessary approvals to construct the proposed affordable housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and is currently in the City's review process. Pitkin County has already granted approval for the units to be constructed at the AABC. Staff finds this criterion to be met if the Applicant receives approval of the Smuggler Racquet Club a lication rior to Cit Council review ofthe lod e a lication. - 46- Note: City Council may accept any percentage of a project's total affordable housing mitigation to be provided through units outside the city's jurisdictional limits, including all or none. - 47- Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: GM Review - Exceptional Project or Multi-Year Development Allotment. The City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an exceptional project or a multi-year development allotment request based on the following criteria: a) The proposed multi-year or exceptional development is considered "exceptional" considering the following criteria: (Note - A project need not meet all of the following criteria, only enough to be sufficiently considered "exceptiona1.") I. The proposed project advances the visions, goals or specific action items of the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Please see Staff's res onse to PUD review standard A I . 2. The proposal exceeds the mmlmum affordable housing required for a standard project. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed affordable housing in total exceeds the required mitigation as was described in the mitigation section of the staff memorandum (108 employees mitigated for where 94.5 is required.) 3. The proposed project represents an excellent historic preservation accomplishment. A recommendation from the Historic Preservation Officer shall be considered for this standard. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The project is not proposed on any properties that are designated to the Aspen Inventory of Historically Designated Sites and Structures. 4. The proposal furthers affordable housing goals by providing units established as priority through the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and provides a desirable mix of affordable unit types, economic levels, and lifestyles (e.g. singles, seniors, families, etc.). A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. - 48- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Housing Board has reviewed the proposed development and has indicated that the thirteen (13) affordable housing units that are proposed for the site meet the Housing Guideline requirements. Additionally, the Housing Board felt that the overall mitigation concept, including the proposed units on the Smuggler Racquet Club property and the AABC property is acceotable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The proposal minimizes impacts on public infrastructure by incorporating innovative, energy-saving techniques. I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES, IF GSHP WERE USED ON THE STREET AS WELL AS THE LODGE. The Applicant is proposing to use GSHP technology to heat and cool the lodge. The energy to be saved by heating and cooling the lodge through GSHP technology is proposed to offset the energy that will be needed to snowmelt the road using traditional boiler technology. The City's Environmental Health Department would like the Applicant to use GSHP technology to also snowmelt the street. STAFF FINDING: 6. The proposal minimizes construction impacts to the extent practicable both during and after construction. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. The Applicant did not address this criterion in the application, and thus Staff does not have enough information to evaluate the aoolication's comoliance with this standard. 7. The proposal maxImizes potential public transit usage and minimizes reliance on the automobile. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The proposed location of the lodge is in close proximity to the Commercial Core and the base of As en Mountain. Additionall ,the A licant has ro osed a shuttle for ests. 8. The proposal exceeds minimum requirements of the Efficient Building Code or for LEEDS certification, as applicable. A recommendation from the Building Department shall be considered for this standard. - 49- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. The Applicant has proposed to use GSHP technology to heat and cool the lodge structure in order offset the energy requirements for using traditional boilers to operate the snowmelt that is being proposed in South Aspen Street. The Building Department and Dan Richardson of the City's Environmental Health Department requested that the Applicant offset all of the C02 emissions from the snowmelt in the construction and design of the lodge's mechanical systems. Additionally, Dan Richardson suggested that the Applicant design the lodge to exceed the 2006 International Energy Code requirements by 50%. Staff feels that if met, the above re uirements will ensure that this ro' ect is of exce tional environmental ualit . 9. The proposal promotes sustainability of the local economy. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff feels that the project does promote a sustainable local economy adding lodges rooms to the City's inventory that had been decreasing over the last decade. Additionally, this proposal refurbishes the area around the west side of the base of Aspen Mountain and functionally expands the ski able terrain, which will likely attract more visitors. 10. The proposal represents a desirable site plan and an architectural design solution. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Staff does believe that the proposal provides for a desirable site plan and architectural design. The scale and massing of the proposed building has been reduced throughout and the Applicant has inte rated the buildin into S. As en Street's streetsca e. II. The proposed development is compatible with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area and the purpose of the underlying zone district. - 50- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of 1950's era ski lodges, the preserved, original ski chairlift and ski club building, a modern, second-homeowner oriented condominium, a small affordable housing development, one older single-family home, several larger and newer single-family homes, and three 1970's era condominium structures housing a mix of locals and second homeowners. The subject site contains an eighteen unit apartment complex that is geared towards local residents, a parking lot, open space and one single-family home. While there has been some recent new development in the vicinity, the area largely represents the Aspen of another era of twenty, thirty and even fifty years ago. In terms of land uses, the proposed lodge conforms well to the character of the surrounding development. The lodge proposes short term accommodations located towards the ski mountain side, adjacent to the two lodges across South Aspen Street, and residential-in-character, fractional units oriented on the lower end of the site adjacent to the residential condominiums and single family residences. Staff finds that the revised development plan is generally consistent with the character of the existing land uses in terms of bulk, mass, and height. Given the relatively large size of the proposed structure, there will no doubt be a change to the immediate neighborhood, as most of the existing structures are smaller in size and height comparisons. Most of the surrounding structures are smaller, however, because they are situated on much smaller lots. The Lodge site is over 104,000 sq. ft., while the Lift One and Timber Ridge Condominiums sit on approximately 28,000 and 14,000 sq. ft. lots, respectively. Although the proposed lodge is large, it essentially consists of two smaller buildings connected by a bridge, but physically separated by a street. When considering the proposed lodge in comparison to the other condominium projects to the north, the footprint for the portion of the structure on Parcel I is not greatly out of character with these structures (the difference in size between the two is more in terms of height). Furthermore, if you consider the "surrounding area" to also be the larger base area of the ski mountain in general, the project is generally consistent in mass, scale, and height with the St. Regis Hotel, the Grand Hyatt, the Residences at Little Nell that is under construction, and the Little Nell Hotel. 12. The project complies with all other provisions of the Land Use Code and has obtained all necessary approvals from the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council, as applicable. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. If City Council approves the dimensional requirements being proposed in the PUD and accepts the proposed mitigation plan, the development is compliant with the provisions of the land use code and will have obtained all necessary actions from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. - 51 - Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: Replacement of Demolished Units through MF Replacement Program The replacement of demolished multi-family residential units shall be exempt from the provisions of this Growth Management Section if the requirements of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program are met. (See Chapter 26.530 - Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program.) Replacement units shall not be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments or Development Ceiling Levels established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. The development of additional residential units, beyond those merely being replaced, shall be subject to this Chapter. Also see Reconstruction Limitations, Section 26.470.070. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES As was discussed in the staff memorandum, the Applicant has proposed to meet the resident multi-family replacement program requirements on the site by constructing the sixteen (16) affordable housing units. The Applicant is not proposing to develop more free market residential units in the hotel than the are demolishin in the Mine Dum A artments. - 52- Exhibit "A" Staff Findings: Conditional Use for Restaurant and Commercial Parking Facility When considering a development application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether all of the following standards are met, as applicable. A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone district in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this title; and STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff does believe that it is appropriate to have a restaurant use an accessory use in a lodge that is to be located within the lodging zone district. Moreover, there has been a restaurant at the top of South Aspen Street for quite some time in the Skier's Chalet (recently closed). Staff feels that allowing for a restaurant to be accessory to the hotel use on the site will enhance the apres ski options for visitors and locals alike. In evaluating the request to lease parking spaces to the general public and to neighbors of the project, Staff feels that the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on-street parking pressure in the area that has been building over the years due to the lack of on-site parking that has been provided in many of the older condo developments in the vicinity. B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES. Once again, Staff does believe that it is appropriate to have a restaurant use an accessory use in a lodge that is to be located within the lodging zone district. There has been a restaurant at the top of South Aspen Street for quite some time in the Skier's Chalet (recently closed). Staff feels that allowing for a restaurant to be accessory to the hotel use on the site will enhance the apres ski oplions for visitors and locals alike and compliment the hotel use. In evaluating the request to lease parking spaces to the general public and to neighbors of the project, Staff feels that the commercial parking use will alleviate some of the on-street parking pressure in the area that has been building over the years due to the lack of on-site parking that has been rovided in man of the older condo develo ments in the vicinit . C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and - 53- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff feels that the proposed development has plenty of parking, trash, and delivery service to accommodate the accessory restaurant use without providing a visual or circulation impact. Additionally, Staff believes that the commercial parking that is proposed within the parking garage will not be visible or impact the circulation in the immediate area if South Aspen Street is allowed to be snowmelted. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. Staff feels that there are sufficient public facilities to accommodate the proposed restaurant and commercial narkinu uses within the lodue. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and STAFF FINDING: T DOES IT COMPLY? I YES. If City Council accepts the Applicant's proposed employee housing mitigation plan, this criterion is met. - 54- Exhibit" A" Staff Findings: 8040 GreenIine Review No development shall be permitted at, above, or one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes the site is suitable for development. However, Staff does have concerns about the stability of the hillside above the proposed project related to the significant excavation that would have to occur to accommodate the development. Staff has required significant soil stability mitigation measures that include a hillside movement monitoring system. Staff believes that the proposal satisfies this criterion with the conditions of approval that are proposed in the attached ordinance. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects oh water pollution. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff has proposed a condition of approval requiring that a drainage plan be provided as part of the building permit application that demonstrates that the project will not increase the historic rate of drainage off the site. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff has required that the Applicant be required to pay the applicable air quality fee that was recent! ado ted to ensure miti ation for the increased vehicle tri s enerated b the lod e. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed redevelopment and associated reconstruction of S. Aspen Street respects the existing topography of the site and does not try to flatten it. Staff feels that the proposal a ro riatel ste s down the hill with the to 0 ra h . - 55- 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Applicant has proposed extensive landscaping to mitigate for the regrading and loss of landscaping that will occur on the site. The loss of vegetation will be mitigated by the planting of street trees and rovidin extensive landsca in throu hout the site. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Staff feels that the development will be tucked away and will not be significantly visible from outside of the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant's design allows for views of Shadow Mountain from South Aspen Street at certain vantage points. The proposal also contains a significant amount of open space between the Juan Street affordable housing com lex and the ro osed develo ment for a buffer. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? IYES As was discussed in the previous response, Staff feels that the proposed lodge would be tucked away and not very visible outside of the immediate neighborhood. Significant massing changes were required during the conceptual review that reduced the lodge's visiWlity from the public realm north of Durant Avenue. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES All necessary utilities can serve the proposed development. The City utility agencies were consulted and recommended necessary improvements for the lodge to be served with all the necessarv utilities. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The Applicant has proposed to reconstruct and snowmelt South Aspen Street to make it safe to accommodated the nronosed development. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. - 56- STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposal and indicated that they have adequate ingress and egress to serve the property. Additionally, the lodge is to contain sprinkler systems meeting the Fire Marshall's requirements and standpipes. Finally, the Applicant is required to put together a Ian to be reviewed and a roved b the Fire Marshall for fi htin fires in the arkin ara e. II. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55-2000, S 7) STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE The Parks/RecreationlTrails Plan in the AACP does not speak to this property. Therefore, this criterion is not a licable to this a lication. - 57- ORDINANCE NO.5 (SERIES OF 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, GMQS APPROVAL FOR A MUL TI- YEAR ALLOTMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, FINAL TIMESHARE, SUBDIVISION, AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION FOR "THE LODGE AT ASPEN MOUNTAIN" DEVELOPMENT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BLOCK 6 EAMES ADDITION AND LOTS 7-20, BLOCK 11 OF THE EAMES ADDITION AND A SMALL METES AND BOUNDS TRIANGULARLY SHAPED LOT, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ParcelID: 2735-131-23-001 (Mine Dump Apartments) 2735-131-13-001 (Parcel with the Single-Family Residence) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, requesting approval of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Planned Unit Development, Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Growth Management Reviews, Conditional Use, 8040 Greenline Review, and Condominiumization to construct a lodge containing eighty (80) hotel rooms, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units, and accessory facilities; and, WHEREAS, City Council granted Conceptual PUD and Conceptual Timeshare approval pursuant to City Council Resolution 69, Series of2005 on November 28,2005; and, WHEREAS, the parcels subject to the application consist of a total of 104,518 square feet and is zoned Lodge with Planned Unit Development Overlay (L/PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department solicited and received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Sti'eets, Housing, Environmental Health, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Board forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council to approve the proposed affordable housing mitigation and replacement units for the project at their meeting held on November 15, 2006; and, WHEREAS, during duly noticed public hearings that were opened on December 5, 2006, and continued to January 16 and then to February 6, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 03, Series of 2007, by a four to zero (4-0) vote, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final PUD, Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Condominiumization, and Multi- The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading Year & Affordable Housing Outside the City Limits Growth Management Reviews, and approved the remaining Growth Management Reviews, Conditional Use, and 8040 Greenline, in order to allow the construction of a lodge consisting of eighty (80) lodge rooms, twenty-one (21) timeshare lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, and sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units; and, WHEREAS, The Council finds that the applicable development review standards are met by the proposal, provided that the conditions established herein are complied with. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: The City Council hereby approves The Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Planned Unit Development, Final Timeshare, Subdivision, Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing Outside the City Limits, Growth Management Review for Multi- Year Allotments, and Condominiumization to construct a lodge containing eight (80) hotel rooms, twenty-one (21) fractional lodge units, four (4) free-market residential units, sixteen (16) on-site affordable housing units, and accessory facilities, including 264 parking spaces, with the conditions contained herein. Section 1: Subdivision Plat. PUD Plans and Al!reements The Applicants shall record a Subdivision Plat and Subdivision Agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480 within 180 days of approval. Additionally, a Final PUD Plan shall be recorded in the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of the final approval and shall include the following: a. A final subdivision plat meeting the requirements of the City Engineer and showing easements, encroachment agreements, and licenses with the reception numbers for physical improvements and location of utility pedestals. b. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. c. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. d. A final grading and drainage plan. e. A final utility and public infrastructure plan. Section 2: BuiIdinl! Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded City Council Ordinance and P&Z Resolution. The Lodge At Aspen Mounlain, 2nd Reading 2 b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. Evidence that a tree removal permit has been attained pursuant to the requirements of the City Parks Department (and Section 12, below). The tree removal permit shall be accompanied by a detailed landscape plan indicating which trees are to be removed and new plantings proposed on the site. e. A drainage plan including an erosion control plan and snow storage runoff 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. f. A final construction management plan pursuant to the requirements described in Section 4 of this ordinance. g. An excavation/stabilization plan prepared by a licensed Engineer. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements The following table outlines the approved dimensions of this PUD: . Dimensional Re irement Minimum Lot Size Side Yard Setback* 104,518 Sq. Ft. (total of both arcels and vacated areas) Multi-Family- I bedroom per 1,000 square feet oflot area. Lod e- No Re uirement Parcel 1- 2.8 Parcel 2- 0.6 Parcel 1- East Side Yard-7.4 West Side Yard- 106.2' Parcel 2- North Side Yard- 0.5' South Side Yard- 8 .0 Parcel 1- 13.6 Parcel 2- 1.0 55' maximum, in accordance with the Height Plan of the recorded PUD Plans 16.2% (15,991 s uare feet) Minimum Lot Areal Dwelling Front Yard Setback* Rear Yard Setback* Allowable Building Height The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 3 Allowable FAR 1.87:1 174,975 s uare feet Off-Street Parkin 264 Parkin S aces * Setbacks noted in this table are the minimum approved. The Final PUD plans shall depict and show measurements of all the primary face walls of the structures for front, rear and side yard setbacks. Section 4: Construction Manal!:ement Plan The Lodge At Aspen Mountain Construction Management Plan (CMP), dated February 6, 2007, and prepared by Swinerton Builders shall be included as part of this approval and shall be implemented by the applicants and carried out throughout the project. Prior . to issuance of a building permit, the CMP shall be reviewed by the City's Construction Management Officer and the City Engineer for completeness and applicability and found to be acceptable to attain the City's construction management goals. The CMP shall be amended to include provisions for increasing the level of road maintenance (provided by the developer) during winter construction time. Such provisions and minor amendments to the CMP as found necessary shall be approved by the City Engineer. As part of the CMP, the developer shall agree to require all dump trucks hauling to and from the site to cover their loads and meet the emission requirements of the Colorado Smoking Vehicle Law. Any regulations regarding construction management that may be adopted by the City of Aspen prior to application for a building permit for this project shall be applicable. A temporary encroachment license is required for use of the City right of way for construction purposes. The Applicant shall not be allowed to close South Aspen Street during construction except for reconstruction of the street. Street closure of South Aspen Street concurrent with significant public events like World Cup shall be avoided to the greatest extent possible. The Applicant shall provide phone contact information of the on-site project management to neighboring properties (Lift One Condominiums, the Timber Ridge Condominiums, the Shadow Mountain Condominiums, and the South Point Condominiums) and post such information on a sign at the construction site in full public view so that concerns about the development may be made directly to the construction management personnel. Section 5: Pre-Construction Meetinl!: The Applicant shall arrange with the Community Development case planner to conduct a pre-construction meeting with the City Community Development Staff prior to submittal of a building permit application. This meeting shall include the applicant, the general contractor, the architect of the construction drawings, the project planner, Community Development Engineer, a representative of the City Building Department, City Construction Management Officer, and the Community Development Department's case planner. The Lodge At Aspen Mounlain, 2nd Reading 4 Section 6: Fire Access and Mitil!:ation The bridge over Juan Street shall be at least sixteen and a half feet above Juan Street to allow for the passage of emergency vehicles under the structure. The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system within the entire building structure as required by the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required fire sprinkler system. The Applicant's design team shall meet with the Fire Marshall to formulate a plan for fighting fires in the below grade parking garage structures prior to building permit submittal. Section 7: Water & Electric Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Holy Cross and City of Aspen Electric Department Standards and 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. The Applicant shall also enter into a water service agreement with the City and complete a common service line agreement for the residential units. Each residential unit shall have an individual water meter. Section 8: Storm Water/Drainal!:e Plan The Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Drainage Plan prior to Building Permit submittal, that meets with the approval ofthe City Engineer. Section 9: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. No "clear water" connections (roof, foundation, perimeter drains) to ACSD lines shall be allowed. Oil and sand separators meeting the ACSD's requirements shall be installed in each of the parking garages. The driveway entrance drains shall drain to drywells and elevator shaft drains shall drain through an oil and sand separator. One tap to the main sanitary line is allowed for each of the buildings within the development. No soil nails shall be allowed in the public right of way above ACSD main sewer lines. The Applicants shall enter into a shared service line agreement with ACSD. Glycol and snowmelt shall have containment areas approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Section 10: Soil Stabilization The Applicant shall install inclinometers and conduct bi-monthly monitoring for a minimum of one seasonal cycle before the issuance of a No. 1 building permit. The number and location of the inclinometers shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to installation. If any slope movement is identified by the bi-monthly monitoring, the project will not be allowed to exacerbate the historic rate of slope movement during or after construction. If the historic rate of movement is exacerbated during the construction process, the City will stop work on the project and require the Applicant to make such improvements that are necessary to reduce the slope movement back to historic rates. If the inclinometers determine that there is a historic rate of slope movement, the design shall exhibit a global stability meeting the AASHTO requirements, which implies a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. The Lodge At Aspen Mounlain, 2nd Reading 5 In preparing soil stability reports for the property, a soil bearing grid with no more than 100 feet between test locations shall be used under the building's footprint. In areas outside of the building's footprint, test locations shall not exceed 500 feet apart. The depth of soil borings must exceed the elevation of the lowest footer by twenty (20) feet. Prior to the recordation of the Subdivision/PUD plans and documents, the Applicant shall develop a mutually acceptable agreement with the Shadow Mountain Homeowner's Association reo slope stability provisions. Section 11: Reconstruction of South Aspen Street The Applicant shall reconstruct and install snowmelt infrastructure into South Aspen Street for that part south of Durant A venue per the plans included in the final PUD application. The Applicant shall form an improvement district to fund the reconstruction of the road. In the case that the Lift One Lodge (proposed on the east side of S. Aspen Street) is approved for construction, the improvements district will include the owners of the Lift One Lodge and the owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. If the Lift One Lodge is not approved, the improvement district shall only include the owners of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The energy to operate the snowmelt system in South Aspen Street and the maintenance of the snowmelt system are the responsibility of the Applicant. The Applicant shall develop a road maintenance alternative to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall and Streets Department Superintendent in the instance that the snowmelt system was to break during the winter. The reconstruction of South Aspen Street shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the lodge. Section 12: Landscaping The proposed landscaping in the public right of way shall meet the Parks Department standards for location, spacing, species, planting specifications, irrigation and other applicable standards. Sidewalks shall be designed and built in a manner that reduces the impact to existing trees and roots systems. All sidewalks located within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be built on grade in a manner that allows for the sub-grade prep and sidewalk to float over the roots preventing any excavation into the soil. All work in these protection zones is to be accomplished without machines, but by handwork only. An approved tree permit will be required before any demolition or significant property changes take place. The tree permit must be approved prior to submission of the building permit. Mitigation for tree removals will be paid cash in lieu or on site. The applicant shall consult with the Deputy Director of the Parks Department in order to discuss how tree mitigation will be handled and coordinated with Lift One, if necessary. Section 13: Replacement of Lift IA The Applicant has represented that they will provide four million dollars ($4,000,000) towards the replacement of Lift IA with a new lift. Such representation is hereby incorporated into this approval as a condition. The new lift shall be operational prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the Lodge At Aspen Mountain. The Lodge At Aspen Mounlain, 2nd Reading 6 Section 14: EnerlIT Conservation The Applicant has made representations committing to the following energy goals. Such goals are hereby included as conditions of approval. To use thirty percent less energy than the average measured energy use of comparable type properties in the area for the base data (See note A). a) To "true up," on an annual basis (sun setting in 20 years), the actual energy consumption ofthe property, and purchase local renewable energy or carbon offsets as necessary to cover any shortfall (See note B). The Applicant proposes a cap on the shortfall penalty, to be negotiated. b) If actual energy use in any given year is less than the target, a credit would accrue to the project, which could be used for sale or trade for other projects, or carried forward for credit in future years. c) To offset 100% of C02e emissions from any and all snowmelt installed in the public right of way directly associated with the Lodge At Aspen Mountain (See note B) . Note A: All measurements to be combined electric and natural gas consumption, including snowmelt, pools, spas, and garages. For the purpose of identifying offsets, energy use shall be converted to pounds of C02e using City of Aspen conversion factors. . Note B: Purchase of offsets to be accomplished thru a variety of means, in order of preference: Energy or carbon-saving project(s), equal in C02e reductions to the excess C02e emissions from the Lodge At Aspen Mountain (and verified by CORE), directly funded and managed by the Lodge At Aspen Mountain or its agents, Purchase of local energy or carbon offsets through a local market (CORE or others, approved by the City of Aspen and verified by CORE, as available), or, if the first two options are not possible with City of Aspen approval, Purchase of energy or carbon offsets through a public market, with minimum criteria for the quality, additionality, and durability of offsets. The Applicant shall, on an annual basis (sun setting in 20 years), identify and implement ways to improve overall energy performance of the development in order to minimize offsets. Such analysis shall be provided to the City's Canary Initiative Manager for review. Section 15: Off-Street Parkin!!: and the Provision of Bicvcles The Applicant shall construct a total of 264 parking spaces within the two (2) underground garages. 121 of the parking spaces are required parking (16 spaces shall be designated for The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 7 the affordable housing units) and 143 of the parking spaces maybe leased or sold to off-site tenants. The 50 on-street parking spaces that will be lost in the reconfiguration of South Aspen Street are to be replaced as public parking in a parking garage to be constructed by the proposed Lift One Lodge owners if their project is approved and built. In the event that the proposed Lift One Lodge is not approved or is approved but completed later than the Lodge at Aspen, 50 of the 143 excess parking spaces to be built in the Lodge at Aspen shall be available for public parking to replace the lost 50 on-street parking spaces. This requirement shall be in place until such time as the Lift One Lodge's parking garage has obtained a Certificate of Occupancy or some other option is proposed and found acceptable by the City Council. A fleet of ten (10) bicycles shall be provided as part of the hotel and fractional ownership operations and shall be made available to the customers without charge and stored in a covered area. Section 16: EmpIovee Housinl!: Mitigation The Applicant shall provide sixteen (16) Category 2 affordable housing units on the site. These units shall be comprised of fourteen (14) studios and two (2) I-bedroom units to satisfY the Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program requirements for the demolition of the Mine Dump Apartments and shall provide housing credit for 21 full-time employee equivalents (FTEs). In total, the proposed development requires 94.5 FTEs of affordable housing mitigation. The 73.5 FTEs that are not mitigated on-site may be mitigated off-site with up to forty (40) percent of these 73.5 FTEs being allowed to be mitigated outside of the City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Applicant shall have constructed, deed-restricted, and received certificates of occupancy on all of the off-site units being used to satisfY the affordable housing requirements prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the Lodge At Aspen Mountain. The existing Mine Dumps unit tenants (tenants at the time of the demolition) will be provided a right of first refusal for the purchase of a unit at the off-site AH mitigation at either Smuggler AH Project or Aspen Area Business Center project associated with The Lodge At Aspen Mountain. Tenants will need to meet the qualification requirements of APCHA. The on-site affordable housing units shall be in compliance with APCHA'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 goveming 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 one 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. In the event the affordable housing units are not rented in compliance with the rental requirements of the Housing Authority's rental requirements, the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority has the right to place tenants in the affordable housing units. The units may be deed-restricted as rental units, but the units shall become ownership units at such time as The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 8 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. Section 17: Park Development Impact Fees Park Develovment Imvact Fees shall be assessed at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fees. The Park Development Impact Fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 18: School Land Dedication Fees School Land Dedication Fees shall be assessed on the proposal at the time of building permit issuance pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School Lands Dedication, because subdivision approval is required for the development of the multi-family residential units per the definition of subdivision in the land use code. The school lands dedication fees shall be calculated by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer using the fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. Section 19: Impact Fees All impact fees in effect at the time of building permit application submittal shall be applicable and be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 20 Transportation Manal!:ement The Applicant shall implement a transportation management plan aimed at reducing vehicle trips for both guests and employees through the use of such strategies as hotel shuttle service, bus passes for employees, carpool program, etc. Such plan shall meet with the approval of the Transportation Department finding that the plan puts reasonable measures in place to encourage alternatives to the use of the car. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to determine an appropriate traffic and parking plan for Juan Street that is found acceptable to the City Engineer. Section 21: Exterior Lil!:htinl!: All exterior lighting shall meet the City's Lighting Code Requirements pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting. The Applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan as part of the building permit submittal. Section 22: Food Service Facilities Food service plans meeting the requirements of the City of Aspen EnvironnIental Health Department shall be submitted and approved prior to serving food and prior to obtaining a Colorado Food Service License for any of the commercial space that is to be used as restaurant space. An oil and grease interceptor approved by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall be installed in any space that is to be used as a restaurant. The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 9 Section 23: Portion of Dean Street Vacation The Applicants for the Lodge At Aspen Mountain shall attain an official vacation of a portion of the Dean Street right of way from the City Council for that portion of Dean Street that has been presented as part of this PUD application. This PUD approval, while not the official approval for the street vacation, acknowledges that the vacation is an important component to the development of the subject property and provides benefits to the neighbors. Section 24 The Applicant has represented that they will append to the operational program of The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, the six (6) items identified in the "Selected Community Benefits Exhibit", as follows: a.) one dollar ($1.00) per occupied room night will be donated to local charities every year, b.) discounted room nights, meeting space, spa services and food/beverage will be provided during seasonal periods, c.) vocational hospitality training programs for Aspen High School students will be provided, d.) full time employees will be given paid time off to work on local charity causes, e.) a national/global marketing campaign will be put in place to promote Aspen as a destination (beyond the hotel advertising that will be conducted), and f.) support will be provided to World Cup Events. Section 25 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 development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 26: 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 27: 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. The Lodge At Aspen Mounlain, 2nd Reading 10 Section 28: A public hearing on this ordinance was held on March 12, 2007 and continued to March 26, April 9, and then to May 14, 2007 and then to June 25, 2007 and then to July 23, 2007 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 26th day of February, 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on this _ day of ,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney The Lodge At Aspen Mountain, 2nd Reading 11 JA-A fn:>v' .-&..ut ~le. CoI'Z.f<> lOr 11<<.. e (..c- H. .H'" aLLAN 0 & ART.. .:iti!i Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr. Phone 970-925-3476 Fax (800) 840-9360 aferguson@hollandhart.com www.westemwaterlaw.com May 10, 2007 John Worcester, Esq. City Attorney, City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lodge at Aspen Mountain Dear John: As you are aware, this office represents Aspen Land Fund II in connection with the proposed Lodge at Aspen Mountain project. Over the course of the past several weeks, we saw on television that the City Council is exploring different methods to implement its desire to create and maintain hotel and lodge rooms that will be available as such into the future. We also understand that there are possible interpretations of C.R.S. Section 38-33.3-106(2) that may constrain and prohibit the City from imposing a requirement through the form of law, ordinance or regulation on a condominium or cooperative that would have the effect of discriminating among units based on forms of ownership of the same. In our view, this statute does not, on its face, preclude a landowner from voluntarily placing covenants on its property that restrict its use, character, or ownership in the future. Correspondingly, in response to this area of interest and desire on the part of the City Council, Aspen Land Fund II agrees to voluntarily record covenants in the form of a deed restriction on 80 hotel units in the Lodge at Aspen Mountain that would restrict those rooms to hotel and lodge room use only in connection with the operation of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain, under one ownership for the reasonable useful life of the Lodge at Aspen Mountain facility which period will be designated to be 35 years. Only a portion of the project will be made subject to a condominium map and declaration, and the balance of rooms will be held under one, unified ownership with uses strictly limited to lodge and hotel type operations. This covenant would be placed upon the property at the time of approval of the application for the project. This voluntary covenant is being made in recognition that Aspen Land Fund II may receive a benefit from the City Council in the form of an approval of the project. Correspondingly, this commitment to place this covenant on those units is being made to induce City Council to acknowledge that this voluntary covenant is a public benefit that furthers the goals and policies of the City in regard to the long term existence and operation of hotel and lodge rooms in the City. Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law i'blJF (970) 925-3476 (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com 600 East Main Street Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611-1991 ''''" BUBo" Boi" B"id" Ch,y,""' Colm,do 5p,;og; D,"y" D,"YO' Tech Coote, )"k;oo Hol, 5EKki~hit D'CJ ;~' HOLLAND&HART. ... ") ,6;' John Worcester, Esq. May 10, 2007 Page 2 Please have this letter placed in the public record on this file and the offer of this commitment presented to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to call if you wish to discuss this commitment. Since' y yours "h"~i?~ a______ of Holland & Hart LLP ABF cc: John Sarpa Arthur C. Daily, Esq. Leaves Page I of I Art Daily From: Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr. Sent: Monday, May 07,20079:26 AM To: REGroup Subject: Colo only - statutory question A provision ofCCIOA (Sec. 38-33.3-106(2)) states: "In condominiums and cooperatives, no zoning, subdivision, or other real estate use law, ordinance, or regulation may prohibit the condominium or cooperative form of ownership or impose any requirement upon a condominium or cooperative whic it would no impose upon a physically identical development under a different form of ownership." I must say that this is really not very clear to me! The City Attorney in Aspen thinks that this means that the city cannot restrict lodge or hotel rooms from changing ownership. Weare voluntarily agreeing to restrict such rooms to those uses but he thinks that there could be a challenge to this based on public policy. The subject rooms are not in a common interest community and I argued that the statute didn't apply since it was part of CCIOA. He thinks it applies in general to the City's ability to deal with the lodge/hotel rooms. He is willing to accept the voluntary deed restriction/covenant on the subject units but is concerned about it withstanding judicial scrutiny. Has anyone dealt with this provision and have any enlightenment for me? Thanks, Boots Boots Ferguson Partner Holland & Hart LLP 600 E. Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone 970.925.3476 Fax 970.925.9367 E-mail: alerg!Js_on@lI()lIandharL~om HOLLA N D& HART ..... CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error; then please delete this a-mail. Thank you. :-.:J 5113/2007 From: Chris Bendon Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:47 PM To: Joyce Allgaier Subject: fIN: The Lodge at Aspen Mtn. Please add comment to record. Cheers, Chris Sendon, AICP From: Mick Ireland Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:03 PM To: Chris Bendon Subject: fIN: The Lodge at Aspen Mtn. Please add comment to record. Mick From: cablackwell [mailto:cablackwell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:45 AM To: Mick Ireland Subject: The Lodge at Aspen Mtn. Prom: cablackwelI <cablackwell@gmail.com> Date: Jul 5,20073:02 PM Subject: The Lodge at Aspen Mtn. To: MickrqlcLaspen.co.us Dear Mayor Ireland, We were horrified to read in the paper that the proposed Lodge at Aspen Mountain. "would be 100% bigger than what zoning regulations allow for that neighborhood." How can such a variance be granted? We have owned a townhouse at 124 E. Durant Avenue for over 25 years and are appalled at what is happening at our end oftown. The Limelite project is so large it not only dwarfs the buildings in the vicinity, but blocks the view of the mountain from town. We think the Dancing Bear will not be much better. Living through the demolition and rebuilding of these properties has been extremely noisy, dirty and stressful. The trucks roll by non-stop. We can't imagine what it will be like if the "100% overbuilt project" is approved. The paper said that "public comment, mostly from neighboring homeowners, once again strongly favored the project". We don't believe that is true. Yes, the Shadow Mountain E'ttki"..t K Lodge supports the project, but that is because they will be granted free use of the health spa and free underground parking. There are many, many people in the town who do not wish to see such a gigantic facility erected. We have been remiss about making our feelings known. Would you kindly suggest some ways in which we and our neighbors can communicate our displeasure with this development? We understand that something will be built, but it could be appropriate to the site and still be profitable for the developers. Thank you for your time and input. Sincerely, Anne and Clarence Blackwell VI" b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director THRU: Chris Bendon, Director of Community Development DATE OF MEMO: June 15, 2007 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2007 (cont. from July 9,2007) RE: Dean Street Right-of-Way Vacation (parcels 3 & 4 ofBIock 4, Eames Addition) Public Hearing for Second Reading of Ordinance No.24, Series of 2007 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The request before City Council is to vacate a portion of the Dean Street right-of-way that borders both the Timber Ridge Condominiums and the proposed Lodge At Aspen Mountain PUD. The area of focus is shown highlighted in pink in Exhibit A. The City Council has jurisdiction over the vacation of any public right-of-way and the process is formalized by the adoption of an ordinance following a public hearing. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Portions of Dean Street (in this vicinity and further east) have in the past, through vacation or court action, reverted to private ownership and are shown in green in Exhibit A in the immediate area of the subject right-of-way. First reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2007 was conducted on May 29, 2007. BACKGROUND: The area under consideration for vacation is land that City Council has discussed as part of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal. This pink area shown in Exhibit A would be vacated and revert to ownership to Timber Ridge Condominiums. Normally when right-of-way vacations are approved, the subject land is split down the middle, with adjoining properties each taking ownership of half of the area. In this case, the Lodge At Aspen Mountain will allow for "their share" to be transferred over to Timber Ridge. The site plan for the Lodge At Aspen Mountain plans for the use of the proposed vacated area to be parking and landscaping for the Timber Ridge, who historically, have used this portion of Dean Street. DISCUSSION: This yacation proposal has been discussed as part of the evaluation of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal and has thus far not been an issue of City Council in terms of the land use planning for the area. The subject vacation area is not proposed for actual development as part of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain's development scenario, but the Page 1 of3 vacation has been coupled by the applicant in their application as a way of clarifying the bigger picture for the vicinity. A concern that has been raised regarding this area has been by the Trainor's Landing Homeowner's Association. Timber Ridge Condominium Association supports the vacation. (See letters in Exhibit B.) Trainor's Landing would like to see the subject right-of-way remain public. This area has been and continues to be used primarily by the Timber Ridge owners and visitors for over 35 years. On occasion, this Dean Street parking area is used by the public when attending special events in the area. The Timber Ridge Homeowner's Association have entered into an agreement with the Lodge At Aspen Mountain and Lift 1 Condos to pursue this right-of-way vacation. All three of these parties are in favor of the vacation. The Lodge At Aspen Mountain proposal adds public parking to the revised South Garmisch Street and Juan Street streetscape designs to accommodate spaces lost or rearranged by the development. The timing of the Dean Street yacation is such that it would be linked to the PUD development proposal of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain review process. This 2nd Reading public hearing is being timed to coordinate with the fmal 2nd Reading public hearings of the Lodge At Aspen Mountain. Such second reading would start with the June 25th City Council meeting, the date to which the Lodge project has been continued. From this point on the two hearings (Lodge and vacation) would track together. The Engineering Department has no objection to the action of yacating this subject section of Dean Street. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There are no financial impacts to the City of Aspen that would go along with the yacation of the subject portion of Dean Street. Not vacating the right- of-way and taking on maintenance could have cost for additional operation costs of the Street Department. The City of Aspen has not maintained this right-of-way and through the years, as the Timber Ridge Homeowner's Association has purchased gravel, graded the parking, provided snowplowing, and enforced parking themselves for parking. This has been a benefit to the City of Aspen by not having the responsibility to maintain this area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Parking already exists on this portion of Dean Street with a permeable surface of dirt and gravel. Nine parking spaces currently exist and Timber Ridge does not intend to expand the parking area or reconfigure the lot. Options for reconfiguration or changes are limited due to large trees that delineate the usable area. The existing landscaping (about 25 feet along the north side of the right-of-way, adjacent to the Timber Ridge building) would be kept in place. At this time, there is no proposal for the parking area to be paved causing the need for storm water planning for the water collected on an impervious surface. In some ways, paving would serve to cut down on the existing dust and silt run off from the dirt/gravel surface. Page 2 00 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the vacation of the subject right-of-way of Dean Street. The land area does not contain public utilities and the area has for decades been out of public use other than sporadic parking associated with public eyents. The Timber Ridge Condominium (100 Dean Street) identifies its frontage as Dean Street, where its front door is located. It seems appropriate to allow the property to revert to private ownership under these circumstances and allow for continued parking use. AL TERNA TIVES: If City Council does not want to approve the Dean Street vacation, the City could hold onto this property, allow public use and take on responsibility for maintenance, which comes with operational costs. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.24, Series of 2007, upon second reading, vacating a portion of the Dean Street right-of-way as described in the ordinance." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Lift One Boundary Adjustment Plat (showing proposed vacation areas) Letters from 1.) Trainor's Landing Homeowner's Association (Denis Murray, 3/26/07) and 2.) Timber Ridge Condominium Association (David Ellis, 3/20/07) . Page 3 00 ORDINANCE NO. 24 (Series of 2007) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO VACATE A PORTION OF DEAN STREET IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen Land Fund II, LLC c/o Centurion Partners, LLC has petitioned the City of Aspen to vacate a portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets between Blocks 4 and 6, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the right-of-ways or portions thereof proposed to be vacated are located entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Right-of-Way Vacation Plat and legal description, appended hereto as Exhibit A has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and City Engineer and they have made a determination that the exhibit complies in all respects with the City's Public Rights-of-ways Vacation Policies and the land proposed to be vacated is eligible for vacation pursuant to said policies; and WHEREAS, the proposed vacation will not leave any land adjoining the same without a means of access over an established public right-of-way connecting such lands to an established public street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets, described as Parcel 3 and Parcel 4, between Blocks 4 and 6, Eames Addition to the City of Aspen, and depicted on Ord. No. 24, Series of 2007, Page 1 Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is vacated subject to the conditions set forth below. Section 2. That the petitioners file a final street vacation map, suitable for recordation, with the Community Development Department within 90 days of final approval of the vacation. Section 3. That ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section 43-2-302. C.R.S. Section 4. That the City Clerk be and hereby 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 5. That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to make all corrections necessary to the Official Map of the City of Aspen. Section 6. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances Ord. No. 24, Series of 2007, Page 2 amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on June 25, 2007, 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 29th day of May, 2007. Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 23rd day of July 2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Ord. No. 24, Series of 2007, Page 3 Timber Ridge Condominium Association 100 East Dean Street, 2F Aspen, CO 81611 March 20, 2007 Aspen City Council 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Submission Public Hearing Dear Mayor and Council Members: This letter is being submitted for the March 26 continued public hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to supplement oral co=ents made at the initial March 12, 2007 public hearing. Over th~ last several years John Sarpa and the Lodge design team have worked with Timber Ridge to address owners' concerns about views, setbacks, parking and landsCaping. These efforts have resulted in substantial inIprovements to the project and a reduction in the inIpacts. The Timber Ridge Condominium Association supports the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Submission, as modified, which incorporates the conditions of conceptual approval adopted by Council. Specific conditions of approval releyant to TinIber Ridge include 1) preservation of view planes through the current architecturaf massing and roof lines, 2) a site plan that provides for no east-west overlap between the multi-story portion of the Lodge and the Timber Ridge building and 3) the vacation of the Dean S1. right of way. In conclusion the TinIber Ridge Condominium Association urges Council to approve the Lodge at Aspen Mountain Final Submission as presented in the current ordinance and incorporate the vacation of the Dean Street right of way. Yours truly, );;;>~~ David Ellis, President Timber Ridge Condominium Association bch\b\o\- "& 3/26/07 City of Aspen City Council Members and Mayor Cit'j Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen Co.81611 Dear Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council Members, 1bis letter is on behalf of the Trainor's Landing Homeowners Association and the R.O. residents of the Barbee Family PUD.We would like to voice our concerns in regard to the proposed Lodge at Aspen Mountain and the negative impacts the proposed Lodge will have on our neighborhood. Weare apposed to the elimination of as many as 25 on street parking spaces in the three block area of Juan, Garniish, and Deane Streets directly adjacent to our subdivision. These spaces represent a large portion of the available on street parking in the B parking zone where we reside. We oppose the vacation of Deane Street as proposed by this new development We do not believe it is integral to the project and will not adversely affect the project in any way if the vacation is denied.. Along with our request for the Council to deny the vacation of Deane Street we are asking that the developer provide an improved intersection at the comer of Durant and Garmish Streets. We hope to slow traffic and eliminate the confusion that is already occurring at this intersection. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Penis Murray President Trainor's Landing Homeowners Association J-/J~ ( \ MEMORANDUM ~1'lc TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: June 14,2007 MEETING DATE: July 23, 2007 RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Public Hearing (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD - Resolution No. 53 , Series 2007 - (Parcel 2737- 074-11-800) ApPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Land Fund II, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates. LOCATION: 1000 Matchless Drive, Commonly known as the Smuggler Racquet Club. The property is legally described as SE 1.l of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Tract A Aspen Township Addition. CURRENT ZONING & USE Not zoned in the City; used as a Racquet Club with a structure used as a residence. Zoned R-15 in County PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING: I. Affordable Housing, AH/PUD; 2. Recreation Club, RR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends Approval of the Conceptual PUD. A site visit has been scheduled for noon on Monday June 25. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The P&Z recommended approval of the Conceptual PUD. PHOTO OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Photo of racquet club portion to be redeveloped Page I of 10 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Aspen Land Fund (ALF) is requesting Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the creation of affordable housing on the Smuggler Racquet Club site and for the redevelopment of the tennis club. The proposed affordable housing is part of the mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Any approval of this Affordable Housing proposal should be linked to the Lodge project approval. Council Members should have received a copy of the Original and Revised Applications (Exhibits D and E) in a previous packet. Please bring these to the hearing, as no new copies will be distributed. If you did not receive a copy of these Exhibits and need one, please contact Jessica Garrow in the Community Development office. BACKGROUND: The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund LLC, has requested the approvals necessary to subdivide the existing Smuggler Racquet Club site, to redevelop the existing Smuggler Racquet Club in its current location, and to develop an AH-PUD on the upper portion of the lot (the portion closest to Park Circle). The affordable housing proposal will help fulfill the Applicant's required mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The proposal deals with a parcel that is not zoned in the City. It was annexed into the City in the 1950s with the Hughes Addition, but the parcel never received zoning. Because of this, it has been assumed until recently that this lot is located in Pitkin County. The parcel is zoned R-15 in the county, and includes the Smuggler Racquet Club and a small cabin that is currently used as a residence. This cabin was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at their January 10, 2007 meeting at which time the Commission recommended the cabin be designated. The minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit G. A more detailed discussion ofthe cabin is contained in the "Discussion" section below. DISCUSSION: This Staff memo outlines all Land Use Approvals that will be required. At this time, the Applicant is only requesting approval of a Conceptual PUD. All other land use requests and requirements will be addressed with the Final PUD. Staff and the Applicant will outline all required reviews in more detail at Second Reading than is presented here. The memo refers to Lot I and Lot 2. In attached Exhibit E, Lot I is outlined in green and Lot 2 is outlined in pink. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to redevelop the site: · Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the Applicant will be requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration (These reviews will be concurrent with Final PUD Review.): · final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); Page 2 of 10 · Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot I for the Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); · Rezoning to AH/PUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); · Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); · Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to 26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); · Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); · Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); · Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); · Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); PROJECT AND SITE SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes subdividing the property into two parcels: Lot I and Lot 2. Lot I would be developed as 100% Affordable Housing, and Lot 2 would be redeveloped as a Racquet Club and would include one (I) Affordable Housing unit as well as indoor courts. Lot I would be rezoned to AH/PUD, while Lot 2 would be rezoned to Rural Residential (RR) with a PUD overlay. The dimensional tables below outline the existing lot's dimensions, requirements for the proposed underlying zoning, as well as the dimensions the Applicant proposes on the site. Attached as Exhibit D is a proposed site plan - the portion outlined in green is referred to here as Lot I, and the portion to be redeveloped as tennis courts (Lot 2) is outlined in pink. Page 3 oflO The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of the lot. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler). Proposed Units 28 units comprised of: I Studio unit (the existing cabin) 13 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft. 8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft. 6 3-bedroom units at 1,500 sq. ft. Maximum allowable density (determined by fathering parcel) 500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2- bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units Determined through PUD Page 4 of 10 In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part of the Final PUD approval. Page 5 of 10 Proposed Program 5 outdoor racquetball courts 2 indoor racquetball courts I Affordable Housing unit None listed for non- residential uses on a lot. External floor area ratio 16,283 sq. ft. Residential Uses are the same asR-15: Lot size greater than 50,000 sq. ft.: for a Single Family Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq, ft, in lot area; for a Duplex or Two Detached Dwellings, 7,020 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area Page 6 of 10 The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property (outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district. The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this issue to be fully resolved at the time of Pinal PUD approval. PROPOSED ZONING: The Applicant has proposed Affordable Housing PUD (AH/PUD) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning for the two (2) proposed lots. Staff is currently determining if these are the most appropriate zoning classifications for the proposed uses. This is a topic that will be discussed in detail at the Final PUD review. Exhibit P outlines the existing zoning on surrounding parcels. LOT 1 SITE DESIGN: The Applicant has worked with Staff to refine the proposed site plan. The Applicant made some changes to the modulation of the Affordable Housing units in response to Staff comments. Staff requested the Applicant enlarge windows located on the side elevations of the three (3) buildings. This is a detail that can be finalized during the Final PUD approval. Staff previously expressed a concern regarding the relation of the new buildings to the historic cabin. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the location of the cabin at their March 6th meeting, and requested the applicant examine its location in order to create a more flexible site design. Based on the discussions with Staff and the HPC, the Applicant has proposed a revised site plan that maintains the cabin's existing location. Rather than framing the cabin's location by surrounding it with structures, the Applicant has proposed using landscaping to help create a more prominent location for the cabin. This provides an opportunity for a tot lot, or some other form of landscaped amenity for the development. Staff has requested a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as part of the Final PUD application to ensure the cabin is appropriately framed. Staff is supportive of this direction and recommends approval of the proposed site plan. Staff has also expressed concerns related to the paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing buildings, stating that the walkways could be consolidated. Staff maintains its concern with these paths, but agrees with the Applicant that this is an issue that can be addressed as part of the detailed landscaping plan submitted with the Final PUD application. Access to Lot I is an issue that will be further addressed in the Final PUD. Because of mine shafts located on proposed Lot I, the exact access point off of Park Circle had no been determined. The Applicant will conduct further studies of the site and work with the Engineering Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the most appropriate access point. Further, the location of a future bus stop along Park Circle will be addressed as part ofthe Pinal PUD Application. LOT 2 SITE DESIGN: As with Lot I, Staff would like to see the mass on Lot 2 broken up. Staff is concerned with the mass on Lot 2 and recommends it be broken up. Staff believes the original design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet, Exhibit D) is more suited for this scale of development and that with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actual is or that is can be given its use. While the development on Lot I should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area, the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required size of the building. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed support for the proposed design seen Page 7 of 10 in Exhibit E. Further, the Applicant has stated that the original design is much more expensive than the proposed design. While Staffis sympathetic to these concerns, Staff maintains the position that the building should be differentiated from its surroundings through the use of different materials and a different style. Staff would like some direction from Council regarding this design and material use. HISTORIC CABIN ON LOT 1: In January, the Historic Preservation Commission approved designation of a cabin located on Lot I, adjacent to Park Circle. The designation will be finalized with Final PUD approvals. The HPC required the cabin remain in its current location. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt leaving the cabin in its existing location hindered the site plan and requested Staff to return to HPC and ask if they would be willing to reconsider their decision to prohibit the movement ofthe cabin. Based on this direction, Staff asked if the HPC would be willing to reconsider their recommendation against moving the cabin. The HPC indicated they would be willing to re-examine the cabin's location if a proposed site plan met the HPC Design Guidelines. The minutes from this meeting are provided as Exhibit H. The Applicant decided to move forward with the existing cabin location in the Conceptual PUD, but has submitted an application to the HPC requesting the cabin be moved 20 to 30 feet from its existing location to make room for a park area. This request was heard at HPC's June 13,2007 meeting. At that meeting, the HPC granted approval for the relocation of the cabin, with a number of conditions. These include HPC, Staff, and HPC monitor retaining purview over the facades adjacent to the cabin and the design of the play area. The Applicant will be required to work with Staff and the HPC monitor between Conceptual approval and Final approval to ensure the development proposal meets all requirements in the HPC Resolution (See Exhibit I). PARKING: The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns about the original parking proposed, stating that there were too few spaces being provided. The original application provided thirty-eight (38) spaces (one space per unit) when fifty-eight (58) spaces (one space per bedroom) is the code requirement because the site is outside the Infill area. Staff expressed support for the thirty-eight (38) spaces because of the proximity to the bus line. The Applicant examined the parking provided on site based on comments received from the Planning and Zoning Commission and has provided fifty (50) parking spaces. Seven (7) of these spaces are "double loading," and therefore count as one (I) space toward the on-site parking requirement. The amount of parking provided on-site that meets the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of the Land Use Code (26.515) is equal to forty-four (44) spaces. The Applicant also made some changes to the housing mix on-site, which has reduced the parking requirement to one (1) space per bedroom (rather than 2 spaces per unit). Therefore, the parking requirement is as follows: 1 Studio Unit = I Space 13 I-Bedroom Units = 13 Spaces 8 2-Bedroom Units = 16 Spaces 6 3-Bedroom Units = 12 Spaces Total = 42 Spaces The parking will be formally established via Special Review at the time of Final PUD approval. A condition of approval has been included that requires a minimum of forty- four (44) spaces be provided for the Affordable Housing Units on Lot 1. Staff finds that the proposed parking provides the appropriate number of spaces for the development. The double-stall spaces can accommodate two (2) Page 8 of 10 vehicles, but only count as one (I) space according to the Land Use Code. All parking spaces are proposed to be assigned to individual units. This will be determined as part of the Special Review. The Applicant has proposed the double-stall spaces be assigned to the two-bedroom or three-bedroom units in order to achieve the highest functionality. The parking on Lot 2 (the Racquet Club) will include thirty-eight (38) spaces to serve the affordable housing unit and the club members. This parking area is located off of Matchless Drive, and will include a landscape buffer. A detailed landscaping plan will be provided as part of the final PUD Application. CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: The Development Review Committee has reviewed this conceptual PUD, as has the Housing Office. These comments are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Conditions of approval based on these comments will be in the Final PUD Resolution and Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Health Department has reviewed this application as part of the Development Review Committee. These comments have been attached in Exhibit B. The Environmental Health Department has determined that the most significant air quality impact from this project results from vehicle emissions. They calculate that the development will generate 241 additional trips per day, for a total of34 pounds ofPM-1O per day. The Environmental Health Department states in comments attached in Exhibit B that payment of the City's Air Quality Impact Fee at the time of building permit will mitigate these impacts. The Applicant, however, is not subject to these fees as they were instituted after the Application was submitted. further, the Environmental Health Department has recommended a connection to existing RFT A stops as a way to encourage use of alternative transportation options. This option was also raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is an issue that requires further consultation with the Parking and Streets Department as well as RFTA, and will be better addressed as part of the Final PUD approvals. Section II of the attached Ordinance requires that a bus stop be considered and addressed as part of the Final PUD Application. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the application receive Conceptual PUD approval. Staff feels the parking changes made to the plan address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the design changes to Lot I address Staff concerns. Staff is also supportive of addressing the framing of the cabin and the consolidation and landscaping internal sidewalks as part of the detailed landscaping plan in the final PUD Application. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution No. 53, Series of2007, approving the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENTS: EXHffiIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHffiIT B - DRC Comments EXHffiIT C - Housing Office Comments EXHffiIT D - Application dated July 18, 2006 (bound- provided on June 25th, 2007) EXHffiIT E - Revised Application dated March 22, 2007 (bound- provided on June 25th, 2007) EXHffiIT F - Map of Surrounding Zoning EXHffiIT G - January 10, 2007 HPC Minutes - Cabin Designation EXHffiIT H - March 13, 2007 HPC Minutes - Request to Hear Cabin Relocation EXHIBIT I - June 13, 2007 HPC Resolution approving Cabin Relocation EXHIBIT J - Planning and Zoning Commission Memo dated March 6, 2007 EXHffiIT K - Planning and Zoning Commission Memo dated April 3, 2007 EXHffiIT L - Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 23, Series 2006 EXHffiIT M - Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes, March 6, 2007 and April 3, 2007 EXHffiIT N -Letter from Vince Galluccio dated July 10, 2007 Page 10 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 53 (SERIES OF 2007) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD AT 1000 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of a Conceptual PUD Development for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club and the development of affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 202,717 sq. ft., is zoned as R- 15 in the County, but does not have existing zoning in the City; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Conceptual PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, . WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3rd, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5- 0) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 25th, 2007, continued to July 9, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved Resolution No. _, Series 2007, by a _ to _ L----1 vote, approving with conditions a Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club Site located at 1000 Matchless Drive, City of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 of6 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 a Conceptual PUD for the development of affordable housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club at 1000 Matchless Drive, City of Aspen, subject to the Conditions contained herein. Section 2: Final PUD Application The Final Application shall include a detailed Landscaping Plan showing the location of proposed trees and other landscaping improvements, and a preliminary Construction Management Plan for review. The Applicant shall also work with the Engineering Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the best access off of Park Circle. This location shall be reflected in plans submitted with the Final PUD Application. Section 3: Historic Preservation The City Council shall consider historic designation of the cabin located on the upper bench near Park Circle, pursuant to HPC Resolution 1, Series 2007, concurrently with their consideration of the Final PUD approval. The cabin is subject to regulations in Section 26.415 of the Land Use Code. The Final PUD Application shall include the cabin relocation and shall be consistent with the conditions of approval in HPC Resolution 24, Series 2007, passed on June 13, 2007. HPC, Staff, and monitor shall retain purview over all facades facing the cabin, pursuant to HPC Resolution 24, Series 2007. The Applicant shall work with staff and monitor to determine the landscaping around the cabin, and the facades of the new development that face the cabin prior to or concurrently with the Final PUD Review. Section 4: Landscapine: Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from the Parks Department. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg 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 hislher designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. The Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to select specific species to be planted on-site. As part of the Final PUD approval, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to determine the appropriate location of street trees along Park Circle. This requires adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings). The parkway strip shall be a minimum of a 5-foot strip. Page 2 of6 Section 5: Fire Mitie:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. Section 6: Water Department Requirements 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. Each building shall have its own water connection with individual metering for each unit and for each common use. An 8-inch looped connection from the existing water line on Matchless Dr. to the existing line on Park Circle to serve the property is required. Hydrants will be required along this connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards. A single connection per building with individual metering for each unit and for each common use is required. Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. This shall be addressed in the Final PUD application. Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. 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. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is permitted for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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. All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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. Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line Page 3 of6 extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language. Glycol heating and snowmelt 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. Section 8: Mine Drainae:e Prior to submittal of a Final PUD Application, the Applicant shall investigate the potential for increases of flow from stored mine drainage. This shall include the potential for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly Gibson/Smuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Documentation shall be provided as part of the Final PUD Application. The size of the easement area for mine drainage and any underground collection or pipe conveyance of the mine drainage shall consider the historic quantity of discharge and the anticipated flows. Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft shall be provided with the Final PUD Application. Section 9: Smue:e:ler Mine Remediation The Applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on the Fathering Parcel shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: I) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots 1 and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. Page 4 of6 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 10: Affordable Housine: Affordable housing is provided on this site as part of the mitigation requirements for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Twenty-eight (28) units shall be provided for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain mitigation on Lot 1. One (I) Affordable Housing unit shall be provided as part of the Smuggler Racquet Club redevelopment on Lot 2. Affordable Housing units on Lot 1 shall be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system by APCHA. The Affordable Housing unit on Lot 2 shall be "rental." Deed restriction for all units shall be recorded at the time of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The twenty-eight (28) units will be broken into one (I) studio unit, thirteen (13) one- bedroom units, eight (8) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three-bedroom units. The categories shall be determined in cooperation with APCHA. Section 11: Parkine: and Transit The Final PUD Application shall designate areas for snow storage in all parking areas, and shall indicate the location of an access easement from Park Circle to Lot I. To the extent the access easement providing access to Lot 1 from Park Circle eliminates Smuggler Trail Head parking, the Final PUD Application shall address how overflow parking from the Smuggler hiking trail will be accommodated. The Final PUD Application shall address the potential for a bus stop along Park Circle near the entrance to the proposed development. The number of parking spaces shall be established by Special Review at Final PUD approval, and at a minimum shall include thirty-eight (38) parking spaces for the Racquet Club parcel on Lot 2 and forty-four (44) spaces for the Affordable Housing units on Lot 1. Section 12: 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 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 conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion Page 5 of6 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 resolution shall be held on the 25th day of June, 2007, continued to July 9, 2007, 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. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of _,2007. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John P. Worcester, City Attorney G: IcitylJessica ICaseslSmuggler Racquet ClublCouncillFirst ReadingIResolution6.25 _ Smuggler. doc Page 6 of6 EXHIBIT A - CONCEPTUAL PUD Pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.445.100, All development proposed within a PUD, unless eligible for minor review or determined eligible for a consolidated review, shall be reviewed for Conceptual approval by the Commission and Council and then reviewed for Pinal approval by the Commission and Council. At the Conceptual level, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The development meets a number of AACP goals, including development occurring within the Urban Growth Boundary, the development of a significant number of affordable housing units within the city, the proximity to existing transit routes, and the promotion of recreational facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed redevelopment of the racquet club is consistent with the existing club on the site. The proposed affordable housing is consistent with the adjacent properties, which include a number of affordable and free-market multi-family residential projects. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The parcel currently has some development on site. The property is within the boundaries of the former Smuggler Superfund site. The parcel has gone through remediation and will follow the adopted Institutional Controls. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Growth Management Review will occur with the Final PUD review. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The Applicant has proposed zoning the parcel to Rural Residential (RR) for the Racquet Club redevelopment, and AH/PUD for the affordable housing development. Staff finds that these proposed zone districts are appropriate at this time, and match the existing character of uses on the site and in the area. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page I 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. The site is included in the former Smuggler Superfund site. The Applicant will abide by all Institutional Controls in place, and has developed a site phm based on known hazards on-site. This will be refined in the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. The parcel is proposed to be subdivided based on existing topographical features. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. No open space is currently proposed on-site. Staff recommends the Applicant look at ways to consolidate internal building access points to help create more opportunities for open space. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. The Applicant will provide parking for each affordable housing unit. The parking will need to go through a Special Review at final PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met, b. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. No joint parking is proposed. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 2 The site is located along a bus route and will have access to RFT A. Staff finds this criterion to be met. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. The site is located along a bus route and will have access to RFTA. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be reduced. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be reduced. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. The Applicant is not proposing the maximum density be increased. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Proposed Lot 1 includes a historic cabin that is believed to have been an Assayer's Office associated with the Smuggler Mine. The Applicant has received approval from HPC to designate the structure - this will be finalized as part of the Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 3 The parcel is not large enough to enable the preservation of large tracts of land while accommodating the proposed land uses. Smaller areas of open space are provided on each proposed Lot. In addition the lots are in close proximity to other areas of public space, including Molly Gibson Park, and the Smuggler trail area. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. The Applicant has revised the site plan to ensure the affordable housing units address the street, as is required in the Residential design Standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. All proposed access points include appropriate emergency vehicle access. A snow removal plan will be addressed as part of the Pinal PUD. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. The racquet club complies with all ADA requirements. The affordable housing units will have appropriate pedestrian access to Park A venue; this will be addressed as part of an easement in the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. The Water Department has evaluated the potential runoff and drainage on site. The site has a number of special considerations due to its mining history. New pipes may be required on site. The Applicant will address these concerns with the Water Department in the Final PUD application. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. The racquet club redevelopment will allow for appropriate prograrnnJatic functions. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 4 The Applicant provided a draft landscaping plan as part of the original Conceptual application. An updated version will be provided as part of the Final PUD Application. 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will ensure landscaping is consistent with adjacent land. 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. The cabin located on proposed Lot I will be designated at part of the Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. The Applicant will provide a final landscape plan in with the Final PUD. This will ensure existing landscaping is preserved or mitigated for if it is to be removed. E. Architectural Character. 1. It 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 based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development The Architectural Character will be addressed at Final PUD. The Applicant has made improvements to the architecture and site layout since the original application. The affordable housing units appropriately address the street, and include street-oriented entrances. Staff will evaluate the design as part of the Final PUD, but find that it is moving in the right direction since the original application. F. Lighting. 1. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 5 The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. A more detailed plan will be provided as part ofthe Final PUD. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application. 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. The Water, Sanitation, and Electric Departments reviewed this application and determined there is adequate service for this development. This will be addressed in greater detail at Final PUD. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. At this time no adverse impacts are anticipated. This will be addressed in greater detail at Final PUD. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. This criterion will be addressed at Final PUD when a finalized site plan and associated materials are available for City Departments to review. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 6 L Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1&2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structurt:, 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. The redevelopment of the racquet club will use the same access as is currently enjoyed by the club. Staff finds this criterion to be met for this portion of the application. The affordable housing units do not have direct access to Park Avenue. An easement agreement will need to be worked out with the City during Final PUD review. 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. The redevelopment of the racquet club will use the same access as is currently enjoyed by the club. Staff finds this criterion to be met for this portion of the application. The affordable housing units do not have direct access to Park Avenue. An easement agreement will need to be worked out with the City during Final PUD review. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. The proposed development will not result in any changes to the existing Trail easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. The proposed development is along a corridor with existing RFT A service. As part of the Final PUD a more developed transportation plan with be established, with the possibility of a new RFT A bus stop adjacent to the affordable housing units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 7 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. Access to the affordable housing units will be achieved through an access easement over city owned property. This is an issue that will be addressed at the Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. The streets within the PUD are not gated and do not include any entryway expressions. Staff finds this criterion to be met. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. This will be dealt with at Final PUD. Staff finds this criterion does not apply at Conceptual. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: Alex Evonitz, Com. Dev. Engineer Date: September 13, 2006 Re: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and Affordable Housing Development The Development Review Committee (DRC) has been asked to review the proposed Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and construction of affordable housing units along Park Circle at the September 13, 2006 meeting. The DRC has compiled the following comments: Attendees; Alex Evonitz. Com. Dev. Eng.; Jessica Garrow, City Planner; Aaron Reed, Engineering; Phil Overeynder, Public Works; Todd Grange. City Zoning; Denis Murray, City Building; Ed VanWalraven, AFPD; Stephen Ellsperman, City Parks; John Sarpa, Centurion Partners, LLC; Sunny Vann, Vann Assoc.; K. Weil, Poss Architecture. Building Department - Denis Murray; . Two exists are required from the lower tennis courts. . All exits from the racquet club need to be sized for the structures being used for assembly. . The project will be subject to review based on the current IBC. . Efficient building review will be applied to the structures on the project. . Based on the plans included the AHU's seem appropriate. . Curb and gutter review needs further review when more details are available. Fire Protection District - Ed VanWalraven; . Sprinklers for life safety are required. . Alarm systems need to be included in the project. Engineering Department - Aaron Reed; . There have been significant neighbor issues in the project area. A big effort will need to be undertaken to keep the public informed during the review and construction phases of any project in this area. Parks - Steve Ellsperman; · Landscape plan is very important for consistency with the surroundings. Vegetation lists are available from the Parks Office. . Erosion control measures need to be best management practices. Page I of8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD . Tree Removal: An approved tree permit is required for any future tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and 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. 8, 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 (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence . Landscapina and Sidewalk landscaped area: Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. . Parks would like to assist in species selection, possible recommendations: Ash, Maples, Fruitless Crabapples or Box Elders. . Plant street trees14' to 15' centers. . This requires adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air. water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings). . The parkway strip should be a minimum of a 5-foot strip. . Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. . It appears from the plans that plantings are to close to the proposed structures. . Overflow parking from the Smuggler hiking trail lot is currently an issue and needs to be addressed adjacent to this project. Community Development Engineer - Alex Evonitz; . The normal requirements for permit application will be required. . Excavation shoring will likely be necessary to protect adjacent structures and landscaping and utilities. . Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft need to be provided. This would be preferred before the time of building permits application if possible. . The project site is large enough that consideration to providing onsite detention is preferred verses wet well development. . Preferred access to the AHU portion of the project would be directly across from Nicholas Lane. 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. Page 2 of 8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD . 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. . Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. . One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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. . 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 main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement are required. Both are ACSD Board of Director's action items. . Applicant will be required to deposit funds with the district for construction costs, engineering fees, construction observation fees, and fees to clean and televise the new main sewer line extension into the project. . The Applicant will be required to pay 40% of the estimated tap fees for the anticipated building stubouts prior to building permit. . Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language. . Glycol heating and snowmelt 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. The district will be able to respond with more specific comments and requirements once detailed building and utility plans are available. Housing Office - No Attendance Parking - No Attendance Asset Management - No Attendance Zoning - Todd Grange; Page30f8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD . Please confirm that the storage units for the AHU's are sized correctly. · Need to confirm that no food service will be provided at the racquet club facility. · Whether or not FAR calc's apply for the indoor tennis courts needs to be researched. Environmental Health - Jannette Murison; . AIR QUALITY: "It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code 13.08J 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 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 density of a PUD may be reduced if the proposed development will have a pernicious [negative] effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. . The major air quality impact is the emissions resulting from the traffic generated by this project. Using standard Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Rates, this development will generate 241 additional trips per day, and 34 pounds of PM-1 0 per day. Thus the size of this development will have a pernicious (negative) effect on the air quality if signilicanl mitigation measure were not implemented, · To 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 that the following PM-lO mitigation measures be implemented: . Pay the City of Aspen's Air Quality Impact Fee (if in place by building permit submittal). . Other recommended measures include: Provide off-site car storage to account for the additional spaces (if required by City Council), . Sell the units with only one parking space per unit, . Add sidewalk along property to connect to RFTA bus stop, · Active participation in the City's Transportation Options Program (TOP) by the Homeowner's Association, and . Provide covered and secure bike storage. . An alternative for mitigation is that the applicant: Contribute to RFTA for additional buses and service (cash in lieu). 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: . 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 Page 4 of8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD demolition can proceed. If asbestos is present, a licensed asbestos removal contractor must remove it. . ENGINE IDLING: The applicant is reminded for the construction phase of the project that per municipal code section 13.08.110 it is unlawful for any person to idle or permit the idling of the motor of any stationary motor vehicle for a prolonged or unreasonable period of time determined herein to be five (5) minutes or more within anyone (1) hour period of time. . 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 1 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 implernent adequate dust control rneasures. . 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 frorn 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. . 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. A construction noise suppression plan must be submitted to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department if the construction of this project will create noise greater than 80 decibels. . TRASH STORAGE AREA: The applicant should make sure that the trash storage area has adequate wildlife protection. We recommend recvclinq containers be present wherever trash compactors or dumpsters are Page 5 of8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD 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. . A total of at least 20-27* square feet of the utility/trash service area is recommended for recycling facilities. . One 90-gallon toter = 2"x2.5" (5sq. ft.). Need one for each: co-mingled. office paper, newspaper = 15sq. ft. Cardboard - At minimum could use a toter = 5sq. It and at most need a cardboard dumpster = 12sq.ft (3"x4"). Can have required space reduced in a review if can prove use of a cardboard shelf = Osq.ft . FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES: Section 10-401 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Sanitation of Food Service Establishments in the State of Colorado requires a review of plans and specifications by this Department. The Department shall be consulted before preparation of plans and specifications. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District must be contacted for their recommendation on the proper size of the grease trap. Restaurant grills are regulated by the City of Aspen and the applicant should contact this Department to be it is in compliance . The applicant should be aware that approval of both plans and specifications is required before the building permit is approved. A minimum of two weeks is necessary for the Environmental Health Department to review and approve plans. Also. final approval from this Department is necessary before opening for business and prior to issuance of a Colorado Food Service License. The applicant's floor plans indicate a kitchen. A business plan and menu must be submitted to the Aspen Environmental Health Department prior to the Building Permit Submittal to determine if their food service meets the licensing requirements of the State. Public Works / Water / Electric - Phil Overeynder; . The process for provision of water service differs substantially between areas that are within the City corporate boundaries and outside the City limits. I previously understood that the subject property was in the County and wished to receive City water service through an extra-territorial water service agreement. This understanding was based on the City zoning maps, which showed the property in the County. It is also supported by a "Contract for Water Service" executed in July. 1966, providing for extension of water service to the Tennis Club as a user outside of the City of Aspen. The application includes evidence that requests a determination by the City that the property was annexed in 1950. If this position is accepted. water service can be accommodated without a water service agreement. If it is determined that the property was not previously annexed, a water service agreement (enacted Page 60f8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD through an ordinance in compliance with the Aspen City Charter) will be required before extension of water service to the proposed development. Alternately, the property could go through the annexation process. In either of the latter cases, different conditions and costs for connection to the water system would apply in the event that the property is not currently annexed to the City. . Jay Hammond's letter (Exhibit 2 of the application) correctly states the requirements for the water line extension to provide potable water service to the property. In summary an 8-inch looped connection from the existing line on Matchless Dr. to the existing line on Park Circle would be required to serve the property is required. Hydrants would be required along this connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards. . The water service requirements for the individual proposed buildings is also correctly stated in Exhibit 2. In summary, a single connection per building with individual metering required for each unit and for each common use (mechanical room, etc.) would satisfy Aspen Water Department standards. Irrigation Waler . The Aspen Water Department owns the rights to the Anthony Well and would like to pursue the option of providing untreated water for irrigation of the proposed common landscaped area with this water. The existing well, located on an adjoining parcel, is presently in the process of being abandoned, but Aspen will retain the water rights. If the developer selects this option, it is anticipated that a new well would be drilled at the owner's expense and Aspen would lease the water rights under a raw water lease agreement under terms available to raw water system users. Reduced tap fees as well as reduced monthly operating costs may make this option economically attractive relative to irrigation with potable water. streets . Designated areas for snow storage need to be delineated for each of the proposed parking areas. No removal of snow into the public right of way will be permitted. Mine Drainage Concerns . Page 5 of the application states that additional investigations will be conducted regarding the impact of sub-surface mine workings on the proposed development. These investigations should include the potential for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly Gibson/Smuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Mine water may (now or in the future) be building up in storage at higher elevations as a result of developing blockages at historic drainage points and stored water could be discharged instantaneously and under pressure through the Molly Gibson Mine Shaft on the property. Page 70f8 Exhibit B, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD . The adequacy of sizing of the easement area and any underground collection or pipe conveyance of the mine drainage should consider not only the historic quantity of discharge, but the maximum anticipated flow from the mine Page 8 of8 Exhibit C, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD MEMORANDUM TO: Jessica Garrow FROM: Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager - Housing DATE: October 4, 2006 RE: SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD Parcel ID No. 2737-074-11-800 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval for the development of a deed-restricted affordable housing project and a new tennis facility on the Smuggler Racquet Club property. BACKGROUND: The proposed development is a 100% deed-restricted affordable housing project that will be constructed on an essentially vacant portion of the project site and the current Smuggler Racquet Club will be demolished and replaced with a new clubhouse and courts and an upgraded tennis facility. The affordable housing units are to be used as partial mitigation for the applicant's proposed Aspen Mountain Lodge project that is adjacent to South Aspen Street near the base of Aspen Mountain. The applicant is proposing to rezone Lot I to AHlPUD. This zone district allows for a free-market component, but the applicant is proposing no such component. The lot will contain six separate two-story structures containing a total of 32 employee-housing units. Four of the structures will each contain four I-bedroom units and two 2-bedroom units. The remaining structures will each contain four 3-bedroom units. The resulting employee housing unit mix will be as follows: 16 8 8 I-bedrooms 2-bedrooms 3-bedrooms 725 net livable square feet 1,053 net livable square feet 1,166 net livable square feet The minimum square footages establishing categories is stated below: Unit Type Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Single-Family Detached Categories I & 2 Square Feet 400 600 850 1,000 1,100 Categories 3 & 4 Square Feet 500 700 950 1,200 1,400 Categories 5 & 6 Square Feet 600 800 1,000 1,300 1,700 Category 7 Square Feet 700 900 1,100 1,400 1,900 Page lof3 Exhibit C, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD The units will be condominiumized and sold to qualified purchasers. The applicant states that the categories will be determined in cooperation with APCHA as part of the conceptual PUD review process. Staff would recommend the following: One-Bedrooms Two-Bedrooms Three-Bedrooms 10 at Category 2 4 at Category 3 2 at Category 2 6 at Category 3 4 at Category 4 2 at Category 3 4 at Category 4 Although the three~bedrooms are 34 square feet smaller than the minimum square footage allowed as stated in the Guidelines, due to the location of the project and the additional storage, the units can be 20% less than the minimum requirements. Staff would still recommend most of the units as Category 3 and Category 4. Each unit will contain a kitchen, ample closet space, a washer and dryer, an outdoor deck or on-grade patio, and an external storage area. Parking for the employee housing units will be provided in an internal surface parking lot. A total of 38 spaces are being proposed which equates to one space per unit. The requirement is 56 spaces, or one space per bedroom. A variation will be requested in the number of required parking spaces. Lot 2 will contain a new clubhouse, reconfigured tennis courts (with two of the courts located in an enclosed structure). The new structure will contain a new office, locker rooms, multi-purpose, living and storage rooms, a small workout area and laundry facility, and a two-bedroom employee- housing unit for a on-site manager. The Racquet Club is a non-profit entity that is not subject to growth management. As stated in the Pre-Application Conference Summary, the proposal requires a growth management review for the development of the employee housing. The applicant is proposing to zone Lot 2 as Rural Residential for the proposed tennis court parcel. This specific unit will be approximately 1,152 square feet of net livable area and deed-restricted to Category 4 income and occupancy guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: The Housing Board approved the application with the recommended categories as stated above and with the following conditions; however, during final plat approval, the Board would be willing to readdress the categories if so requested by the applicant: I. At least one parking space should be allocated and reserved for each unit. 2. The deed-restriction shall be recorded at the time of recordation of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy, along with the Manager's rental unit on Lot 2. 3. APCHA or the applicant shall structure a deed restriction for the unit located on Lot 2 such that 1/lOth of I percent of that specific unit is deed restricted in perpetuity to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority; or the applicant may propose any other means that the Housing Authority determines acceptable. Page 2 of3 Exhibit C, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptial PUD 4. All units located on Lot I shall be sold through the lottery system by APCHA. 5. This project of 32 units will mitigate for a total of 70 FTE's, broken down as follows, for the partial mitigation requirement for the development of the Aspen Mountain Lodge project: 16 One-Bedrooms 8 Two-Bedrooms 8 Three-Bedrooms 10 X 1.75 employees = 28 FTE's 8 X 2.25 employees = 18 FTE's 8 X 3 employees = 24 FTE's Page 3 of3 IEXhibit G, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2007 airperson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m Com . 'oners in attendance: Brian McNellis, Michael Hoff! and Sarah Broughton. used was Alison Agley. Staff present: Guthrie, His . c Preservation Officer Sara A Istoric Preservation Planner Kath Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Sarah ed to approve Nov. 15th minute, carried 4-0. nificate of no negative effect issued for mechanical- Aspen Mtn. Lo All 1000 Matchless Dr. (Smuggler Racquet Club) Landmark Designation, Relocation, Minor Development, Public Hearing Proof of publication - Exhibit I John Sarpa, Centurion Partners Bill Poss, Poss Architects Sara stated that the applicant is proposing to redevelop a portion of the Smuggle Racquet Club property into affordable housing. The cabin is a small gabled roof cabin and it sits along Park Circle. Staffhas looked at the size and location and it is identical to the historic photographs. The applicant proposes to designate the cabin and relocate it 25 feet to the west into the center of a newly created lot with generous setbacks. There will be a generous grassy area around the cabin. Staff believes that the cabin is part of the Smuggler mine which was listed on the National Register in 1987. The location of the cabin was on the 1904 Sanborn map. The cabin has had a couple alterations, two small additions and some exterior material changes. It is in its original location and still has the original gabled roof form. Staff finds that the cabin complies with criterion A & B and recommends designation. Relocation: One of the most important features of the cabin is that it sits in its original location. Staff recommends that the cabin stay in that location. John Sarpa said this is an opportunity for his group and the City. A previous Mayor of Aspen deeded the parcel to Aspen. We are building a project Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G Page I IEXhibit G, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 called the Lodge at Aspen Mtn. which is in its final review process. This project is an integral part of it. We need to house about 100 people for that project. The projected housing project will house about 70 people. The Housing Authority loved the original design. We presented the proposal to the Community Development Dept. and they didn't like the original plan so we redesigned the plan. The idea is to have the entire project reflect the Smuggler mine and what the little cabin is all about. The racquet club is near the site and we had to be sensitive to their view planes. The housing is basically along the road and trailer courts. We had thought moving the cabin would be permissible. By moving it 25 feet to the west doesn't make an impact on the historic district or the Smuggler mine. We are to balance a couple of community interests, affordable housing and historic preservation. If we can move it the building will have a 40 foot buffer and if not the buffer will only be 15 feet. Moving it will have a much larger setback. To take one building and build the affordable housing around it makes a unique project. We feel the cabin should be habitable. Bill Poss said they originally had a garden type layout and Chris Bendon asked us to make a more of a street presence. Chris did not want the gated community look. The mine is some 100 feet away and up on the hill and by moving the cabin 25 feet and designating it will protect it from fire threats and the close construction of the units. We need to lift the building in order to rehabilitate it and put a foundation under it. In creating a street scene there is a parcel of land between the road and us which is owned by Sam Brown. There will be front and back entrances and some of the parking will enter from the rear of the units. Michael inquired about the use of the building. Amy said the Sanborn map indicates that it was used as an office. The majority of the other buildings are gone. Bill pointed out that there were two railroads that serviced town back then, The Rio Grand and Midland. The Midland came into the Holden Marolt smelter and the Smuggler mine had its own smelter to separate the ore and ship it and the railroad came across their own bridge and up to the properly. Brian asked the applicant to explain the configuration ofthe new buildings. Bill said they are townhouses, up and down units. There are some two and three bedrooms. The modules will be stacked with some units up and some down. Brian said each of the units is connected into one building. Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G Page 2 IEXhibit G, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 2007 Sarah asked the applicant if they looked at keeping the cabin in its existing location. John Sarpa said they did but it is too close given what is all around the area. Amy asked ifthey looked at turning the closest unit ninety degrees. Bill said then we loose the street presence. Chris Bendon said they wanted the residents on the street. Jeffrey asked if they looked at moving the vehicular access closer to the historical building and maintain the clearance of the well. Bill said they do not own the area along the road. Amy pointed out that maybe there is a way to orient the program slightly to comply with the Planning & Zoning issues. Chairperson, Jeffrey Halferty opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. John Sarpa said we are here to try and designate a building. We went through three or four staff designs and we are trying to combine affordable housing requirements with historic preservation. We are here voluntarily. Brian pointed out that the greatest historical integrity ofthe cabin is its location. Given the context to the Smuggler mine we need to maintain its location. The applicants plan is very clear; putting the cabin in the center of the square actually does celebrate the building in the configuration proposed. He is not sure every configuration has been exhausted and he is conflicted with the street presence. Sarah said she would vote in favor of moving the building. There is a lot of opportunity for the site plan that we are not seeing here. Moving the building so that it has more open space helps keep it visually exposed. Michael said as he read the memo, he thought it would be appropriate to keep the cabin in its original position. Listening to the applicants comments this structure does not relate to anything. Everything has been removed around 1900. Moving it 25 feet is not meaningful. Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G Page 3 IEXhibit G, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERV A nON COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2007 Jeffrey said the voluntary commitment is commendable. Maybe there is an opportunity on the site plan to make the cabin a more visual piece. Maybe there is the possibility to add onto the building with square footage. The site plan seems very generic. There needs to be some relationship to the historic resource that begins to relate to the modulars. Because there is nothing left at the mine site doesn't give us the right to remove that structure. We need to preserve the structure in its original location especially when there is flexibility of a quarter of an acre in that location. The preservation of the cabin and designation is commendable but maybe there can be one more site plan reviewed to look at all of the pieces. John Sarpa said they need to keep moving on the project whatever the outcome. MOTION: Michael moved to approve Resolution #1, 2007 with the following additional conditions: I. Details of the relocation andfoundation to be presented to staff and monitor. 2. 10 feet of buffer should be included on all sides of the structures. Motion carried 4-0. Roll call vote: Brian, yes; Michael, yes; Sarah, yes; Jeffrey, yes. John Worcester said the resolution should include meets and bounds before it is signed. Smuggler Racquet Club Exhibit G Page 4 IEXhibit H, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 erson, Jeffrey Halferty called the meeting to order at 5:0 .m. Comnn . ers in attendance: Alison Agley, Brian McN . s, Michael Hoffman and Broughton. Staff present: IstOriC Preservation Officer Sara , 'storic Preservation Planner y Strickland, . Deputy City Clerk Jim True, Special Counse MOT/! : Sarah moved to approve January 24th, Feb. 14th and minutes; second by Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Sara said at the P&Z meeting they reviewed the Smuggler affordable housing case. P&Z is asking HPC to reconsider your position on relocating the historic cabin. Jessica Garrow, planner said at the HPC meeting, January 10Ib the Smuggier Racquet Club representatives came in for designation of the cabin on the site adjacent to Park Circle. HPC recommended designation and leaving the cabin in its existing location. At the conceptual level for P&Z they requested staff ask HPC if they are interested in reconsidering your decision of retaining the cabin in its existing location. They have concerns that the cabin in its existing location is impacting the site plan and they would like to give the representatives some flexibility to the site and see what other solutions they come up with. Amy pointed out that HPC has criteria for relocation and one of them has to be that it is the best preservation solution. Jeffrey said until we see a new application or plan that conforms to our guidelines he is not wavering on his decision. Jeffrey pointed out that the only time we ever let historic buildings leave their sites is to make them better viewed by the public. They have plenty of room on the site to do what they want to do. We would reconsider but it has to be demonstrated that the plan is a better preservation effort for the cabin. Michael said he is willing to reconsider but needs more evidence that the cabin existed in its current location. Sara said she presented maps that I IEXhibit H, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 14. 2007 indicated it was the same form and same measurements. Ifit does come back maybe we can see if the interior was used as an office. Sarah said her concern is that HPC was presented a sparse site plan and the applicant said they did not have much time and needed to move forward. We were backed into a solution where we were throwing out an arbitrary setback number for the historic resource. Sarah said if the new proposal meets our guidelines and the historic resource can be better utilized on a better site plan she is all for seeing it. Brian said he feels there is always a solution to a landscape design especially with that much space. Jeffrey said we would reconsider but we would like to see an excellent demonstration on preservation as well as the design of the site plan. Amy said staff brought the proposal to the HPC trying to be reasonable with the applicant to say that we are just going to defme a small piece of the property instead of the two acres. Reviewing the entire parcel seemed to be going over our boundaries. That has put us in an awkward position having such a limited area to review. Jeffrey said the applicant needs to demonstrate that they have a better spot and the guidelines need to apply. Jim True said he was at the meeting and if Jessica goes back to the applicant and indicates that HPC will review a different proposal if it complies with the guidelines everyone will be on the same page. It is his understanding that the applicant is looking for some leeway. 4 E. BLEEKER STREET - MAJOR DEVELOPME CONCE - DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, V CES PH Dave Rybak, architect Sara said in terms of the desi C ha that the rear elevation be broken up into modul the proposal tonight is a bay window and the garage has shifted away from the alley towards est. The garage w in compliance with the five foot setback that was ht up e public comments. In terms of relocation the applicant is trying to 2 Exhibit I, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING RELOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 MATCHLESS DRIVE, THE SOUTHEAST Y. OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TRACT A, ASPEN TOWNSHIP ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 24, SERIES OF 2007 PARCEL ID: 2737-074-00-018. WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen Land Fund II, represented by Kim Weil ofPoss Architecture and Planning, request approval for relocation of the property located at 1000 Matchless Drive, the Southeast 'I. of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Tract A, Aspen Township Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado. WHEREAS, for approval of relocation, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine, per Section 26.415.090.C of the Municipal Code, it must be demonstrated that the application meets anyone of the following criteria: I. It is considered a non-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionallv. for approval to relocate all of the followinl!: criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation; and 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. WHEREAS, Sara Adams, in her HPC staffreport dated June 13,2007, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards were, and recommended approval with conditions; and Page lof3 Exhibit I, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 13, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and recommended approval by a vote of 3 to I. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves the request to relocate the property located at 1000 Matchless Drive, the Southeast Y. of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Tract A, Aspen Township Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado, thirty (30) feet to the west and five (5) feet south with the following conditions: I. The cabin will maintain the same orientation toward Smuggler Mountain in its new location. 2. Staff and monitor will approve the facades of the new development, including materials, details, scale and form, that face the cabin- Block A, south elevation; and Block B, west elevation- as indicated on the application, in perpetuity. 3. Staff and monitor will approve the landscaping around the cabin and entire play area, including equipment, hardscape, materials, benches, lighting. 4. The applicant will post an interpretive marker on the property that will be approved by staff and monitor, and will explain the historic significance of the cabin and its connection to the Smuggler Mine. 5. A rehabilitation plan for the cabin will be submitted to staff and monitor prior to the approval of the Final PUD by City Council. 6. A structural report demonstrating that the building can be moved and/or information about how the house will be stabilized from the house mover must be submitted with the building permit application. The applicant must provide information as to whether or not the existing floor structure will be maintained and the pro's and con's of the decision for review and approval by staff and monitor. 7. A bond or letter of credit in the amount of $30,000 to insure the safe relocation of the structure must be submitted with the building permit application. 8. A relocation plan detailing how and where the building will be stored and protected during construction must be submitted with the building permit application. 9. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 10. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit to relocate the cabin. II. The General Contractor and/or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit to rehabilitate the cabin. 12. The play area is passive in use- no active play structures. 13. Conditions #2, 3, and 5 will be reviewed by Staff and monitor and the HPC board will be informed ofthe outcome. 14. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. Page 2 of3 Exhibit I, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1000 Matchless Drive. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of June, 2007. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Special Counsel Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Jeffrey Halferty, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Page 3 of3 Exhibit J, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD - Resolution No. 32 , Series 2006 - Public Hearinl!: (Parcel 2737-074-11-800) DATE: March 6, 2007 ApPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Land Fund II, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates. LOCATION: 1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly known as the Smuggler Racquet Club. The property is legally described as SE Y. of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Tract A Aspen Township Addition. CURRENT ZONING & USE Not zoned in the City; used as a Racquet Club with a structure used as a residence. Zoned R-15 in County PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING: I. Affordable Housing, AH/PUD; 2. Recreation Club, RR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends Approval of the Conceptual PUD. A site visit has been scheduled for noon on Tuesday March 6th, 2007. SUMMARY: Photo of proposed affordable housing area Page I of8 Exhibit J, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD HEARING AND MEMO NOTES: New Commission members have received the original application with this Staff memo. All other Commissioners should have received the original application in an earlier packet; if you need a new one, please contact Jessica Garrow. This Staff memo outlines all Land Use Approvals that will be required. At this time, the Applicant is only requesting approval of a conceptual PUD. All other land use requests and requirements will be addressed with the Final PUD. Staff and the Applicant will outline all required reviews in more detail than is presented here, at the March 6th meeting. The memo refers to Lot I and Lot 2. In attached Exhibit D Lot I is outlined in green and Lot 2 is outlined in pink. The Applicant has proposed zoning for these parcels. Staff will determine if these zoning categories are appropriate at the time of Final PUD. For now, Staff is satisfied that the proposed zoning is appropriate for the proposed Land Uses. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: . Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration: . Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot I for the Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Rezoning to AH/PUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310 (Citv Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to 26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); Page 2 of8 Exhibit J, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD . Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 ifit is zoned to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Community Development Director makes this determination). PROJECT AND SITE SUMMARY: The Applicant, Aspen Land Fund LLC, has requested the approvals necessary to subdivide the existing Smuggler Racquet Club site, to redevelop the existing Smuggler Racquet Club in its current location, and to develop an AH-PUD on the upper portion of the lot (the portion closest to Park Circle). The affordable housing proposal will help fulfill the Applicant's required mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. The proposal deals with a parcel that is not zoned in the City. It was annexed into the City in the 1950s with the Hughes Addition, but the parcel never received zoning. Because of this, it has been assumed until recently that this lot is located in Pitkin County. The parcel is zoned R-15 in the county, and includes the Smuggler Racquet Club and a small cabin that is currently used as a residence. This cabin was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission at their January 10, 2007 meeting at which time the Commission recommended the cabin be designated. The minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit I. The Applicant proposes subdividing the property into two parcels: Lot I and Lot 2. Lot I would be developed as 100% Affordable Housing, and Lot 2 would be redeveloped as a Racquet Club and would include one (I) Affordable Housing unit as well as indoor courts. Lot I would be rezoned to AH/PUD, while Lot 2 would be rezoned to Rural Residential (RR) with a PUD overlay. The dimensional tables below outline the existing lot's dimensions, requirements for the proposed underlying zoning, as well as the dimensions the Applicant proposes on the site. Attached as Exhibit D is a proposed site plan - the portion outlined in green is referred to here as Lot 1, and the portion to be redeveloped as racquet courts (Lot 2) is outlined in pink. Page 3 of 8 ExhibitJ, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of the lot, outlined in red on the first page in Exhibit D. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler). These conditions have a direct effect on site planning in the proposed lots. Proposed Units 32 units comprised of: 16 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft. 8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft. 8 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft. Maximum allowable density (determined by fathering parcel) 500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2- bedroom units; 1,500 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units Determined through PUD Page 4 of8 ExhibitJ, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part of the Final PUD approval. Proposed Program 5 outdoor racquetball courts 2 indoor racquetball courts I Affordable Housing unit None listed for non- residential uses on a lot. External floor area ratio 16,283 sq. ft. Residential Uses are the same as R-15: Lot size greater than 50,000 sq. ft.: for a Single Family Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq, ft, in lot area; for a Duplex or Two Detached Dwellings, 7,020 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional I 00 sq. ft. in lot area Page 5 of 8 ExhibitJ, uet Club Conceptual PUD The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property (outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district. The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has discussed the site design with the Applicant, and the Applicant has made changes to the design based on these conversations; see Exhibit D and the original application packet. In January, the Historic Preservation Commission approved designation of a cabin located on Lot I, adjacent to Park Circle. The designation will be finalized with Final PUD approvals. The HPC required the cabin remain in its current location. Staff feels that the Affordable Housing design attached in Exhibit D appropriately addresses the street, but that it does not relate to the cabin. Staff would like to see the buildings open up to the cabin. The current configuration of buildings A and B on Lot I fail to relate to the historic resource and physically isolate the cabin. Development on Lot I has the opportunity to utilize the cabin in a creative manner. In its current configuration, however, the site plan fails to utilize the cabin and diminishes its presence. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission require the Applicant address these concerns in the Final PUD Application. The architectural design on the Affordable Housing units on Lot I is an area where Staff continues to have concerns. Staff finds that the design is moving in the right direction, but that more can be done by the time of Final PUD Application. In the current design Staff finds the buildings overwhelm the site and the cabin. Staff recommends the buildings be broken up into smaller modules that reflect the context of the site. Lot I includes a number of paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing buildings. Staff feels these could be consolidated to create a more user friendly site and to create the possibility for more community and green space on the site. As with Lot I, Staff would like to see the mass on Lot 2 broken up. Staff prefers the original racquet club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its unique architecture. While the development on Lot I should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area, the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required size of the building. Stafffeels the original design is more suited for this scale of development and that with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actual is or that is can be given its use. The Applicant has proposed AH/PUD and RR zoning for the two (2) proposed lots. Staff is currently determining if these are the most appropriate zoning classifications for the proposed uses. This is a topic that will be discussed in detail at the Final PUD review. Exhibit E outlines the existing zoning on surrounding parcels. Access to Lot I is an issue that will be further addressed in the Final PUD. Because of mine shafts located on proposed Lot I, the exact access point off of Park Circle had not been determined. The Page 6 of8 ExhibitJ, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Applicant will conduct further studies of the site and work with the Engineering Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the most appropriate access point. The Development Review Committee has reviewed this conceptual PUD, as has the Housing Office. These comments are attached as Exhibits B and C respectively. Conditions of approval based on these comments will be in the Final PUD Resolution and Ordinance. Attached as Exhibit F is a map of the former Smuggler Superfund site and the areas that have been remediated. This parcel was included in the Smuggler superfund site, and appears to have been remediated. However, all development on the parcel will comply with the Institutional Controls currently in place. Details of this process are outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the Applicant's original submittal. The Applicant has provided a letter dealing with alleged regrading that has occurred onsite. Smuggler Mobile Home Park resident Vincent Galluccio provided Staff with a number of materials regarding fill being placed on proposed Lot I by; attached as Exhibit G. This information was provided to the Applicant who has researched the matter and has responded with the letter attached as Exhibit H. Staff is convinced by the survey information provided by the Applicant that the existing parcel has not changed significantly in height, and that the proposed heights on Lot I are under the proposed zoning height limits and in compliance with the agreement between the county and the Smuggler Mobile Home park stating that all development will be measured from the height prior to any fill being placed on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Overall, Staff finds this application should receive Conceptual PUD approval. Architectural issues will need to be resolved before Final PUD approval. Staff is comfortable with the direction the architecture is headed and feels this, as well as other technical issues, can be resolved at Final PUD approval. Staff recommends the Commission approve Resolution 32, Series of 2006, recommending to City Council the approval of a conceptual PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, recommending the Aspen City Council approve the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT D - DRC Comments EXHIBIT C - Housing Office Comments EXHIBIT D - Revised Plans Application EXHIBIT E - Map of Surrounding Zoning EXHIBIT F - Map of Smuggler Superfund Site EXHIBIT G - Information from Vincent Galluccio provided to Staff regarding alleged fill on proposed Lot I EXHIBIT H - Letter from Applicant addressing regrading on the site EXHIBIT 1- Minutes from the HPC January 10, 2007 meeting Page 70f8 ExhibitJ, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Page80f8 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Planner RE: Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD (1000 Matchless Drive) - Conceptual PUD - Resolution No. 32 , Series 2006 - Public HearinI! (parcel 2737-074-11-800) DATE: April 3, 2007 (Continued from March 6, 2007) ApPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Land Fund II, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, ofVann Associates. LOCATION: 1000 Matchless Drive., Commonly known as the Smuggler Racquet Club. The property is legally described as SE Y. of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Tract A Aspen Township Addition. CURRENT ZONING & USE Not zoned in the City; used as a Racquet Club with a structure used as a residence. Zoned R -15 in County PROPOSED LAND USE & ZONING: I. Affordable Housing, AH/PUD; 2. Recreation Club, RR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends Approval of the Conceptual PUD. SUMMARY: Photo of racquet club ortion to be redevelo ed Page I of7 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to redevelop the site: . Conceptual PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authoritv after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Additionally, the Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals at Final PUD consideration: . Final PUD approval for the construction of Affordable Housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Subdivision approval for the division of the existing parcel into two lots; Lot I for the Affordable Housing development, and Lot 2 for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Rezoning to AH/PUD on Lot I and Rural Residential (RR) on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission); . Growth Management Review for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Growth Management Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club - because this portion of the project does not fall into specified Growth Management categories, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to determine the Employee Generation Review pursuant to 26.470.050 Al (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Conditional Use Review to allow for a Recreation Club use on the parcel proposed to be zoned as Rural Residential pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.425 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Special Review for parking on Lot 2 pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.430 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Residential Design Standards Variances for the construction of Affordable Housing pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.410 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Commercial Design Standards Review for the redevelopment of the Racquet Club pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.412 (the Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority); . Administrative Determination for the construction of Affordable Housing on Lot 2 if it is zoned to Rural Residential, pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.306 (the Community Development Director makes this determination). Page 2 of7 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD PROJECT UPDATES SINCE MARCH 6.2007 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING The Applicant has made a number of changes to the site plan on Lot I based on comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff. These changes are outlined below. Also included in this Staff memo are the revised dimensional requirements proposed for the PUD. Parkin!! The Applicant has examined the parking provided on site and has provided fifty (50) parking spaces. Seven (7) of these spaces are 'double loading," and therefore count as one (I) space toward the on-site parking requirement. The amount of parking provided on-site that meets the requirements of the Off- Street Parking section of the Land Use Code (26.515) is equal to forty-four (44) spaces. The Applicant also made some changes to the housing mix on-site, which has reduced the parking requirement to one (I) space per bedroom (rather than 2 spaces per unit). Therefore, the parking requirement is as follows: I Studio Unit = I Space 13 I-Bedroom Units = 13 Spaces 8 2-Bedroom Units = 16 Spaces 6 3-Bedroom Units = 18 Spaces Total = 48 Spaces The parking will be formally established via Special Review at the time of Final PUD approval. A condition of approval has been included that requires a minimum of forty-four (44) spaces be provided for the Affordable Housing Units on Lot I. Staff finds that the proposed parking provides the appropriate number of spaces for the development. The double-stall spaces can accommodate two (2) vehicles, but only count as one (I) space according to the Land Use Code. All parking spaces are proposed to be assigned to individual units. This will be determined as part of the Special Review. The Applicant has proposed the double-stall spaces be assigned to the two.-bedroom or three-bedroom units in order to achieve the highest functionality. Historic Cabin Considerations Staff attended the March 13, 2007 Historic Preservation Commission's meeting to discuss the Planning and Zoning Commission's comments regarding the cabin on Lot I. Staff asked if the HPC would be willing to reconsider their recommendation against moving the cabin. The HPC indicated they would be willing to re-examine the cabin's location if a proposed site plan met the HPC Design Guidelines. The minutes from this meeting are provided as Exhibit D. Following the HPC meeting, the Applicant and Staff discussed options related to review of the cabin. The Applicant revised the site plan, and determined that moving the cabin to a different location on the site was not viable, and therefore decided to move forward with the current Planning and Zoning Commission Review. Site Desi!!n for Lot 1 The Applicant has worked with Staff to further refine the proposed site plan. The Applicant made some changes to the modulation of the Affordable Housing units in response to Staff comments. Staff requested the Applicant enlarge windows located on the side elevations of the three (3) buildings. This is a detail that can be finalized during the Final PUD approval. Staff previously expressed a concern regarding the relation of Page 3 of7 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD the new buildings to the historic cabin. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the location of the cabin at their March 6th meeting, and requested the applicant examine its location. Based on the discussions with Staff and the HPC, the Applicant has proposed a revised site plan that maintains the cabin's existing location. Rather than framing the cabin's location by surrounding it with structures, the Applicant has proposed using landscaping to help provide a prominent location for the cabin. This creates an opportunity for a tot lot, or some other form of landscaped amenity for the development. Staff has requested a detailed landscaping plan be submitted as part of the Final PUD application to ensure the cabin is appropriately framed. Staff is supportive of this direction and recommends approval of the proposed site plan. Staff also expressed concerns related to the paved entrances to the different Affordable Housing buildings, stating that the walkways could be consolidated. Staff maintains its concern with these paths, but agrees with the Applicant that this is an issue that can be addressed as part of the detailed landscaping plan submitted with the Final PUD application. Miscellaneous Comments: Staff continues to have concerns related to the design of the racquet club redevelopment, and prefers the original racquet club design (see pages 27 - 34 in the original application packet) because of its unique architecture. While the development on Lot I should fit in with the architectural vernacular of the surrounding area, the racquet club has the opportunity to be different in style while still reflecting the use and required size of the building. Staff feels the original design is more suited for this scale of development and that with the new design the building is trying to look smaller than it actually is or that is can be given its use. Revised Dimensional Tables: The fathering parcel is in the general shape of a square. There is a notch along the Western boarder of the lot. Additionally, the lot is not directly adjacent to Park Circle. The intervening parcels are owned by Sam Brown (Centennial) and the City (parking for Smuggler). Proposed Units 28 units comprised of: I Studio unit (the existing cabin) Page 4 of7 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD 13 I-bedroom units at 500 sq. ft. 8 2-bedroom units at 1,000 sq. ft. 6 3-bedroom units at 1,500 s . ft. Maximum allowable density (determined by fathering parcel) 500 sq. ft. for I-bedroom units; 1,000 sq. ft. for 2- bedroom units; 1.500 sq. ft. for 3-bedroom units Determined through PUD In order to access Lot I, an easement over one of the intervening parcels is required. The Applicant proposes this easement over the City owned parcel. The exact access point will be determined as part of the Final PUD approval. Proposed Program 5 outdoor racquetball courts 2 indoor racquetball courts I Affordable Housing unit Page 5 of7 External floor area ratio 16,283 sq. ft. None listed for non- residential uses on a lot. Residential Uses are the same as R-15: Lot size greater than 50,000 sq. ft.: for a Single Family Residence, 6,600 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq, ft, in lot area; for a Duplex or Two Detached Dwellings, 7,020 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 3 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area The zero (0) foot setback on the Western portion of the site is a result of the notch in the property (outlined in red on the first page of Exhibit D). This notch, and the zero foot setback, extend for twenty (20) feet. All other areas include setbacks exceeding code minimums for the RR zone district. The Applicant proposes a PUD overlay on Lot 2 because of the zero (0) foot setback. The Applicant is currently working with that property owner to determine if the piece of land can be purchased. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the zero (0) foot setback at this time, and anticipates this issue to be fully resolved at the time of Final PUD approval. RECQMMENDATION: Page 6 of7 Exhibit K, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Staff recommends the application receive Conceptual PUD approval. Staff feels the parking changes made to the plan address concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the design changes to Lot 1 address Staff concerns. Staff is also supportive of addressing the framing of the cabin and the consolidation and landscaping internal sidewalks as part of the detailed landscaping plan in the Final PUD Application. Staff recommends the Commission approve Ordinance _, Series of 2007, approving a conceptual PUD on the Smuggler Racquet Club property. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Oridnance No. _, Series of2007, approving the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD." A TT ACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - PUD Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B - Revised Plans EXHIBIT C - Letter from Sunny Vann. Dated March 22, 2007 EXHIBIT D - HPC Minutes from March 14, 2007 Page 70f7 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING WITH CONDITIONS THE APPROVAL OF THE SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD AT 1000 MATCHLESS DRIVE, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2737-182-02204 Resolution #32-06 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Aspen Land Fund II, LLC, represented by Vann Associates, requesting approval of a Conceptual PUD Development for the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club and the development of affordable housing; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 202,717 sq. ft., is zoned as R- 15 in the County, but does not have existing zoning in the City; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445, the City Council may approve a Conceptual PUD, during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 6th, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened and continued the public hearing to April 3'd, 2006; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 3'd, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 32, Series of 2006, by a five to zero (5- 0) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the Smuggler Racquet Club; 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 has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 of6 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends the Aspen City Council approve a Conceptual PUD for the development of affordable housing and the redevelopment of the Smuggler Racquet Club at 1000 Matchless Drive, City of Aspen, subject to the Conditions contained herein. Section 2: Final PUD Application The Final Application shall include a detailed Landscaping Plan showing the location of proposed trees and other landscaping improvements, and a preliminary Construction Management Plan for review. The Applicant shall also work with the Engineering Department and the Community Development Engineer to determine the best access off of Park Circle. This location shall be reflected in plans submitted with the Final PUD Application. Section 3: Historic Preservation The City Council shall consider historic designation of the cabin located on the upper bench near Park Circle, pursuant to HPC Resolution 1, Series 2007, concurrently with their consideration of the Final PUD approval. The cabin is subject to regulations in Section 26.415 of the Land Use Code. Section 4: Landscapinl!: Prior to the removal of any trees, the Applicant shall receive a tree removal permit from the Parks Department. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg 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 (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence Landscaping in the public right of way will be subject to landscaping in the ROW requirements. The Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to select specific species to be planted on-site. As part of the Final PUD approval, the Applicant shall work with the Parks Department to determine the appropriate location of street trees along Park Circle. This requires adequate irrigation pressure and coverage, improvements to the soil profiles of the ROW (amending the current soils to improve air, water filtration and increase longevity of the new plantings). The parkway strip shall be a minimum of a 5-foot strip. Page 2 of6 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Section 5: Fire Mitil!:ation The Applicant shall install a fire sprinkler system and alarm system that meets the requirements of the Fire Marshall. The water service line shall be sized appropriately to accommodate the required Fire Sprinkler System. Section 6: Water Department Requirements 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. Each building shall have its own water connection with individual metering for each unit and for each common use. An 8-inch looped connection from the existing water line on Matchless Dr. to the existing line on Park Circle to serve the property is required. Hydrants will be required along this connection in accordance with the recommended placement of the Fire Marshall and in accordance with spacing requirements contained in the Aspen Water System standards. A single connection per building with individual metering for each unit and for each common use is required. Surface water flows across the site will need special attention. Including but not limited to adjudicated irrigation rights, mine runoff and storm runoff. This shall be addressed in the Final PUD application. Section 7: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules and regulations. 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. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is permitted for each building. Shared service line agreements may 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. All ACSD fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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. Page 3 of6 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD Where main sanitary sewer lines are required to serve this new development or the existing publicly owned sewer system requires modification or adjustment, a line extension request and collection system agreement are required. Easements for main sewer lines to be dedicated to the district for future ownership and maintenance shall be dedicated and conveyed to the district using standard district form and language. Glycol heating and snowmelt 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. Section 8: Mine Drainal!:e Prior to submittal of a Final PUD Application, the Applicant shall investigate the potential for increases of flow from stored mine drainage. This shall include the potential for substantial increases of flow from stored mine drainage in the Molly Gibson/Smuggler/Cowenhoven Tunnel system. Documentation shall be provided as part of the Final PUD Application. The size of the easement area for mine drainage and any underground collection or pipe conveyance of the mine drainage shall consider the historic quantity of discharge and the anticipated flows. Details of the current and anticipated condition of the mineshaft shall be provided with the Final PUD Application. Section 9: Smul!:l!:ler Mine Remediation The Applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 regarding the handling of any contaminated soils within the former Smuggler Superfund Site prior to any excavation on and/or prior to the application for building permits on both lots. All soils on the Fathering Parcel shall be considered contaminated unless determined otherwise through testing that adheres to the protocols that were established by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. If, pursuant to said testing protocols, the soils are found to be uncontaminated, the following requirements shall not apply. However, to the extent that any contaminants are discovered, the following requirements shall apply: 1) All contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be transported to the Pitkin County Landfill and disposed of at the Smuggler repository. Any disturbed soil or material that is to be temporarily stored above ground or remain on site shall be securely contained on and covered with a non-permeable tarp or other protected barrier approved by the Environmental Health Department so as to prevent leaching of contaminated material onto or into the surface soil and to prevent windblown dust from disturbed dirt. 2) The owner and general contractor of any development on Lots I and 2 of the South and Gibson Subdivision shall submit a letter to the City of Aspen Environmental Health Department stating that they have read, understood, and will comply with the regulations for handling contaminated soils within the Page 4 of6 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD former Smuggler Superfund Site as set forth in Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994 prior to any excavation and/or issuance of building permits for the property. 3) The owner shall complete a Soil Removal Permit and Affidavit for excavation prior to any excavation or disturbance of dirt and prior to any issuance of building permits for the properties. Section 10: Affordable Housinl!: Affordable housing is provided on this site as part of the mitigation requirements for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Twenty-eight (28) units shall be provided for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain mitigation on Lot 1. One (1) Affordable Housing unit shall be provided as part of the Smuggler Racquet Club redevelopment on Lot 2. Affordable Housing units on Lot I shall be "for sale" and sold through the lottery system by APCHA. The Affordable Housing unit on Lot 2 shall be "rental." Deed restriction for all units shall be recorded at the time of the Condo Plat and prior to Certificate of Occupancy. The twenty-eight (28) units will be broken into one (1) studio unit, thirteen (13) one- bedroom units, eight (8) two-bedroom units, and six (6) three-bedroom units. The categories shall be determined in cooperation with APCHA. Section 11: Parkinl!: and Transit The Final PUD Application shall designate areas for snow storage in all parking areas, and shall indicate the location of an access easement from Park Circle to Lot 1. To the extent the access easement providing access to Lot 1 from Park Circle eliminates Smuggler Trail Head parking, the Final PUD Application shall address how overflow parking from the Smuggler hiking trail will be accommodated. The Final PUD Application shall address the potential for a bus stop along Park Circle near the entrance to the proposed development. The number of parking spaces shall be established by Special Review at Final PUD approval, and at a minimum shall include thirty-eight (38) parking spaces for the Racquet Club parcel on Lot 2 and forty-four (44) spaces for the Affordable Housing units on Lot 1. Section 12: 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 13: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or Page 5 of6 Exhibit L, Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 3rd day of April, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Ruth Kruger, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk F:\Smuggler Racquet Club\P&Z\SmugglerPZ Reso_03 06 07.doc Page 6of6 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes - March 06. 2007 uth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning Commission in Sr Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Dylan Johns was excused from th rst and thir 'terns on the agenda; Brian Speck was excused. LJ Erspam , avid Guthrie, Eli th Atkins, Steve Skadron, John Rowland and Ru ger were present. Staff in ndance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Jo Allgaier and Jessica Garrow, Community elopment; Jackie Lothian, D City Clerk. Dylan Johns was conflic Redevelopment. nd Jim True as Special Counsel. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger welcomed the new mem and Cooper Street Pier MINUTE MOr: Liz Atkins moved to approve the minutes from February 2dh; onded by Steve Skadron, APPROVED. David Guthrie and L.l Erspamer abstai Public Hearing: COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for Cooper Street. MOTION' David Guthrie moved to continue the hearing to April Jrd; Liz Atkins seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. Continued Public Hearing: SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD. Jessica Garrow said the applicant was Aspen Land Fund II, LLC represented by John Sarpa, Sunny Vann and Kim Weil. John Moore of the Smuggler Racquet Club was also present. Garrow stated this was a detailed proposal and a complicated site; there was a site visit earlier. Garrow said that there was county zoning ofRl5 on this property; it was annexed into the city in the 1950s with the Hughes addition but never rezoned to city zoning. There were approximately 4.6 acres, including the cabin near Park Circle and the Racquet Club off of Matchless Drive; the applicant submitted the proposal in July 2006 proposing subdivision to develop affordable housing mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain on the top part ofthe parcel and redevelop the Racquet Club in the existing location. The applicant proposed to 2 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I Aspen Planninl! & Zonine: Commission Meetine: Minutes - March 06. 2007 dedicate the cabin historic, which would be final at Council; the minutes from the HPC Meeting were attached. Garrow said the broader pictur~ of this site was subdivision of the parcel into 3 lots; rezoning of Lot 1 to AH PUD, Rural Residential for the Racquet Club and Historic Preservation for the cabin. A conditional use approval will be needed to accommodate some ofthe uses on the racquet club site. There will be a Growth Management Review for the Affordable housing and the Racquet Club site to determine the employee generation. A Special Review will be need for parking on both sites; Residential Design Standard Review for the Affordable Housing; Commercial Design Review for the Club redevelopment and an administrative determination to allow for the affordable housing unit on the racquet club parcel. Garrow utilized a map (exhibit B) to delineate the lots with different colors. There were 32 affordable housing units; 16 one bedroom units, 8 two bedrooms and 8 three bedroom units. There were 15 foot setbacks near building A, 10 foot setbacks near building C and side setbacks of 5 feet. Garrow said there were 35 parking spaces proposed for the affordable housing units with 1 space assigned to each unit; special review was needed for parking because it was located outside the Aspen Infill area so that the requirement was 56 spaces. Garrow said that staff felt that the design could do a better job relating to the cabin through the use of inflection and materials that differentiate the new development from the historic resource; staff would like to see the site opened up. Staff also wanted to see the circulation simplified to buildings A and C. Garrow said that Lot 2 (Racquet Club) was 2.97 acres including 2 indoor racquet courts, club facilities, an affordable housing unit for the manager and 5 outdoor courts. The setbacks include 20 feet along the West portion; there was a notch (20' by 50') owned by someone else (according to John Moore the racquet club will purchase this piece); along Lot 1 there was a 25 foot setback. Garrow said that there were 38 proposed parking spaces on Lot 2; 2 for the affordable housing unit and the rest for the club. Garrow said staff would like the building broken up more. Staff recommended approval ofthe conceptual. Ruth Kruger asked how we got from the first application design. Garrow replied that was part of the first conversations staff had with the applicant dealing with the way that the housing addressed the street, staff wanted a more pedestrian friendly design. Staff will address the sidewalk and an additional bus stop. Sunny Vann said the problem arises from the residential design standards; when this project was originally designed there was approval in the county for the type of units in the first plan; the property does not abut the street and was not on a high 3 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUDI Aspen Plannine: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetine: Minutes - March 06. 2007 pedestrian corner and the primary views were toward Aspen Mountain. Vann said that staff asked to meet with the applicant regarding the first design and the new design included the majority of units that abut the street. Vann said the historic preservation officer wanted the cabin preserved. John Sarpa introduced John Moore, Kim Weil and Sunny Vann. Sarpa said they evolved to the current plan for staff support. Sarpa said that ALF approached John Moore to purchase part of the land for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain housing mitigation. Sarpa noted they were in a partnership with Smuggler Racquet Club. Sarpa said that this was an extension of Smuggler Mine and the cabin drives a lot; HPC review was first and designated that the cabin historic. Sarpa said there was an old mine shaft located on the site; they hired HP Geotech and will stay away from the shaft with buildings. Weil said that HP recommended 50 feet away with all but one building. Vann stated that it was not an open mine but there were boulders pushed into it with top soil on the top during the superfund reclamation; they were told that they could drive over it. Sarpa noted they also have hired Tom Dunlop who was knowledgeable about the site. John Moore said the courts building was sunk down 10 feet to comply with the height requirements. Bill Lipsey, architect, said with the 2 indoor tennis courts the building starts out at 120 feet by 120 feet with the clubhouse and affordable unit it came out with a simple gable structure to accommodate the uses. Lipsey said the I story structures were subordinate to the big structure; one side had the clubhouse and the other an affordable housing unit. Weil stated with the influences ofthe cabin and the mine there were no places to have any more street presence for the affordable housing; there was simple design for the buildings. Weil said there were balconies, porches and the common element of the rusty metal roofs like the tennis building. Weil said the cabin would stand on its own and the architecture of the affordable units would be their own architecture. John Rowland said that he like the playfulness of the balconies. Weil replied that the balconies move at different elevations. Liz Atkins asked why staff wanted the street presence on the uphill side when the view was that way. Garrow replied that staffwas taking a long term view of development in this area of town and the entrances were still off of the parking area; there was a street presence. 4 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I Aspen Planninl!: & Zonine: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007 David Guthrie asked if the slope reduction was based upon the old topo or the new topo. Sarpa said they were using the most current survey information and they have reviewed it with staff. Weil said that there was a field topo from Sopris Engineering in the packet. Vann said there was far more land area to accommodate the density than was needed. Guthrie voiced concern for the placement of the new bus stop and the decision would be at final. Guthrie said there was parking heading in on Matchless. Weil responded there was a grade change and a bit of a berm. Vann said there was a landscaping plan and at final there would be a comprehensive landscape plan submitted and reviewed with parks. Guthrie said that parking was a huge concern in this area. Atkins said that she had issues with parking. Steve Skadron asked why so much was happening at final in this case. Garrow replied part of it was the unique circumstances of the lot without zoning; the proposed zoning requires conditional uses. Skadron voiced concern for the bus stop also. Skadron asked the applicant's responsibility with the racquet club was. Sarpa replied that they approached the Smuggler Racquet Club to purchase part of the parcel for the mitigation for the Lodge at Aspen Mountain. Skadron asked who the Smuggler Racquet Club was. Moore replied it was 105 members with an equity club that you buy into with annual dues; it was a non-profit 501C7. Moore said it was laid back and the membership was limited; there were some social functions, brunches and pot luck dinners. Skadron asked how busy the club was. Moore said that the nets would be up in May and weather permitting people would book the courts. Skadron asked why this application came in as one rather than two separate applications. Garrow replied that it was one parcel. Vann said that they originally thought that it was in the county; council likes to see the big picture to see how everything works together and not parts of the puzzle. Vann said the projects were sufficiently interrelated that it made sense to process as one application. John Rowland asked for a summary of the HPC process. Garrow responded that the historic maps were reviewed by the historic preservation officer who determined the materials used on the cabin were historic as part of the old Smuggler mine used as an assayers office. Sarpa said the cabin has to be disassembled, a foundation built and reassembled; HPC said that it had to go back in the place exactly where the cabin sits now. Liz Atkins asked if the outdoor tennis courts had lights and if they anticipated using the indoor courts at night. Moore replied there were no lights for the outdoor courts and do not anticipate any lights; conceivably the indoor courts will be used at night, they can put a limit on but he did not think there would be any activity after IOpm. 5 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I Aspen Plannin2 & Zonin2 Commission Meetin2 Minutes - March 06. 2007 LJ Erspamer asked if this was a 100% affordable housing project. Vann and Sarpa replied 100% with no free market component on this site. Erspamer agreed that this was a pedestrian area; he asked who would be involved in placing sidewalks. Vann replied that they would cooperate with staff and engineering on sidewalks, street lights and a RFTA bus stop. Erspamer asked where the snow storage would be located. Vann replied that the fmal Pun would have designated snow storage areas. Erspamer asked if they were aware of the traffic count on the Spruce and Park corner. Vann said that Park Circle was adequate to carry the number of cars and engineering did not require anything from this applicant. Erspamer asked where they will park because 50% of the parking on Race Street was taken away. Liz Atkins asked why they needed 38 parking spaces for 7 tennis courts. Moore answered they have 8 or 9 functions a year and a tournament in the summer; they will use those parking spaces. Ruth Kruger asked what the categories were and if the affordable housing units were for sale or rental units. Vann replied they were all for sale units and the exact categories would be in accordance with APCHA prior to final approval. Kruger asked how many spaces would be eliminated on Park Circle. Vann responded none would be taken away as part of this project. Public Comments: Vince Galluccio, public submitted a letter and drawings into the record. Galluccio asked the commission to look at the plan and said that the cabin could be moved. John Rowland stated that he was perplexed with the cabin not being moved. This was a great piece of property for employee housing. Atkins said that she was concerned about the views; there were great views from that parcel and the parking should not separate the views. Kruger stated there were guidelines and regulations. David Guthrie said that the Park Circle should not be an artery to Smuggler; there was the whole point of design guidelines that this was part of the community. Guthrie asked if they need to make findings and objective standards for projects. Kruger said this was a great location for more affordable housing in town. Kruger voiced concern for the project being under-parked; she said that parking should be addressed at conceptual and that parking for this project should be more than 35 6 IEXhibit M, Smuggler Conceptual PUD I Asoen Planninl!: & Zonine: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes - March 06. 2007 spaces. The commissioners supported more parking on the site. Skadron was not as concerned about the parking. The commission supported requesting HPC take another look at the placement of the cabin. MOTION: Elizabeth Atkins moved to continue the hearingfor the Smuggler Racquet Club to AprilJrd; seconded by LJ Erspamer. All infavor, APPROVED. IC HEARING: ISIS THEAT WTH MANAGEMENT Ruth Kruger opened the ISIS tre Growth M ent. Only 3 members could remain until 7:30pm. MOTION: Elizabeth Atki ed to continu Isis Theatre Growth Management hear:' 0 ursday, March lfh at noon is' Cities Meeting Room; 'ed by LJ Erspamer. All infavor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 7:04 p.m. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007 th Kruger opened the regular Planning and Zoning in the Sister Cities at 4: with Erspamer, Brian Speck, John Rowland, and David Guthrie pres . Dylan Johns an eve Skadron were excused. Jim True, Special Counsel a staff in attendance we . Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community velopment and Jackie Lothian, De City Clerk. t night was disturbing because of ok exception to that remark and said rded the updated schedule for the Co mendments to Council. R ger stated that the P&Z Commissioners wou meet as often as necess to get things into a position where the Council can act in time frame t the business can get done. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/617): SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB CONCEPTUAL PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club. Jessica Garrow stated there were a few changes form the March 6th meeting and an update from HPC regarding the cabin location. Garrow said the site plan changed on the lot closest to Park Circle where the affordable housing will be developed and the number of units has been decreased and the number of parking spaces was increased. There were 44 spaces proposed spaces on site with spaces #31 - 44 as double stall spaces (stacked parking) and the land use code counts those spaces as I instead of2. The Applicant proposed assigning parking spaces to individual units. This would be done in Special Review during the final review. Kim Weil, architect, said that because 1 space was handicap there were actually 43 spaces on site counting the double loaded spaces as one each. Garrow said that HPC was willing to look at the cabin with a more significant site plan and landscaping plan that framed the cabin, which would help reduce the prominence of the cabin. Garrow stated that there was a change to the resolution in Section 2 the 3rd line down that a required detailed curb and gutter plan but staff did not feel that this lot was adjacent to Park Circle and this lot would be addressed in the Development Review Committee. 2 . '_'~A,"-"""__'_"."""'._W_~-'-_'~" ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007 John Sarpa, applicant, said there Racquet Club members present. Sarpa said the building evolved from the first. Kim Weil, architect, utilized a site plan and renderings of the club to show where the affordable housing would be set back and where the Racquet Club was located. Weil said this tennis club was a non- profit and their big events every year were pot lucks; the Racquet Club Members were cost conscious about the redevelopment of the club. Weil said the club architecture kept with the mining heritage. Weil provided a 3-dimensional drawing showing the club, tennis courts and housing unit; the architecture used rusted metal. LJ Erspamer asked the height on the club building. Weil replied 28 feet and 33 to the ridge; they were going down 10 to 12 feet. John Rowland asked ifthe design intent was zero eaves. Weil responded yes, minimal. David Guthrie asked ifthe glazing was glass. Weil answered it would be some type of product to cut down on the glare. No public comments on the Racquet Club portion. John Sarpa stated they dropped affordable housing units to accommodate more parking spaces. Kruger asked how many units were in the new plan. Weil replied 48 bedrooms including the cabin. Sarpa said that they would go to APCHA with the new plan. Weil said they added inflection to building A, which resulted in the unit count going down; there was a story dropped from the middle of the building. Garrow stated that staff requested enlarging the windows in the bedrooms once they get to final to provide more light into the bedrooms. Sarpa said that the windows were kept high because they were bedrooms. Erspamer asked ifthere would be guest parking. Weil said there would be no more than 2 spaces assigned per unit so there would be parking available. Guthrie asked about the landscaping for the parking. Weil said this was conceptual and they have not modified the landscaping yet but they will. John Rowland asked if there was historical significance to the fence that goes around the cabin. Kruger said that when they were on site it was pointed out that 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 3. 2007 the cabin was the only historic portion of the site excluding the piece that was added onto the cabin. No public comments on the affordable housing portion. The commissioners supported the conceptual application. Joyce Allgaier asked if there would be covenants for the use of parking. Sarpa responded that would be covered with the covenants. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #32, series of 2007. recommending the City Council approve the Smuggler Racquet Club Conceptual PUD with parking addressed in the covenants and the amendment to Section 2; seconded by John Rowland. Roll call: Erspamer, yes; Guthrie, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger. yes; APPROVED 5-0. UTE AVENUE 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW RESIDENTIAL DES ST RDS VARIANCE and PUD AMENDMENT Ruth Krug opened the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue. Jessica ow provided the n ice to Jim True. Jessica Garrow provided a revised esolution with the addition . green and deletion in red. Garrow explained the re ired reviews were Residential D secondary mass; 8040 Gree 'ne and 2 PUD amendme Garrow said the 8040 Greenline R iew was re red for any development proposed within 100 feet of the 8040 vatio. This was for rock fall dangers and avalanche dangers that have been approp' ely addressed and there were enough utilities to service any development th goe n these properties and the design of the buildings blend in with the mo in charac recognizing that these buildings will be visible to lower elevatio as well as variou ountains around town. Staff and the referral city agencies ave reviewed this 8040 Ii cation to make sure those toxic soils, rock fal d avalanche dangers have bee dealt with. The referral agencies and s f felt that all the criteria have been m with the exception of one. Garrow sa' that staff felt Criteria #7 has not been met, 'ch was located in Exhibit B in e packet. Garrow said that when this development ent through the original D in August oflast year with council some massing con Is were put into ce to ensure the mass was minimized and the applicant has limi the width d height of the structures. There were two single family free-market re . ences proposed on Lots I and 2, which were limited to 5,040 square feet in t riginal PUD. Garrow said that secondary mass has not been met and that does not 4 Page I of2 Joyce Allgaier From: Chris Bendon Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:44 PM To: Joyce Allgaier Subject: FW: SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB HOUSING land fill history Cheers, Chris Bendon, AICP From: Mick Ireland Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:04 PM To: 'vincgal@peoplepc.com' Cc: Chris Bendon Subject: RE: SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB HOUSING land fill history Chris B: Please add to record. Mick From: vincgal@peoplepc.com [mailto:vincgal@peoplepc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:38 AM To: Mick Ireland Subject: SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB HOUSING land fill history MICK. thanks for letting me speak at last nights meeting, i apologize if i got too rude to anybody, i'm not good at cool. professional, detached, jack wanted to know fill history of land, thought you might be interested also, vince galluccio jack, here is a brief summary of the fill work done on the land where the proposed affordable housing is to be constructed: 1985: about 3 feet offill on part(about 25%) of land. patsy newbury(building inspector) and collette penne(county commissioner) said land can't be built on because it was part of open space requirement for centennial. 6/19/1990: about 375 yards of fill dumped along top of berm next to me, about 70 feet by 30 feet in area. resulting in about a 4 foot increase in the height of berm, i called county, and they issued stop order, 11/19/90: about 15 to 20 more truckloads were dumped. don swales had gotten a permit acording to tom newland(county engineer), middle of land higher by about 5 or 6 feet. 12/4/93: saw more dumping, joanna schaffner said they had no permit. elevation now about 7 to 8 feet higher in middle, 12/6/93: joanna schaffner issued stop work order. 2/14/94: memorandum from joanna schaffner with copy to county attorney(tim whitsitt) delivered by certified mail to smuggler racquet club member ms annelise parker stating that the height of any proposed structure will be calculated from the grade that existed before the fill operations began, county topo of 1979 would be controlling informaton, they were also warned that any further fill operations without permits would result in action by the county attorney. i have pictures and the letters on file. copies were made by jessica garrow in planning, since this housing propject is a pud. height limits can be whatever city wants, if a free market housing project{which is not a pUd) is submitted. then i think the height limitations would have a strong negative effect on the value of the land, thanks again for the interest, vince galluccio 7/17/2007 E~,^ ,'-i + N