Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20080811CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 11, 2008 5:00 P.M. Call to Order Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Outstanding Employee Bonus Awards IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Mayor's Comments b) Councilmembers' Comments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters maybe adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #73, 2008 -Contract Toyota Highlander Police Equipment b) Minutes -July 28, 2008 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #21, 2008 -Subdivision - 332 Main P.H. 8/25 b) Ordinance #22, 2008 -Code Amendment -Residential/Multi-family Replacement P.H. 9/22 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #20, 2008 -Historic Designation and Subdivision 612 W. Francis b) Resolution #74, 2008 -Aspen Walk 404/414 Park Avenue Conceptual PUD IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting August 25, 2008 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. THE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN POLICE DEP?.R7'il4ENr July 29, 2008 Richard Pryor 506 East Main St. #102 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Richard, Congratulations! I'm writing to let you know of your selection to receive a City of Aspen Outstanding Employee Awazd for the first quarter of 2008. Please plan on attending the Aug. 11, 2008 City Council meeting for the formal presentation of this award. The employees of the Aspen Police Department nominated you for this award because of your commitment to the department, which has pulled us all through the difficulties of being short-staffed, a challenging transition between administrations, and a lengthy period of seven months where you were the only person doing the jobs of both assistant chiefs, and the chief! You consistently worked extra hours, maintained a positive and upbeat attitude, strived fo communicate with departmental staff regarding concerns during transitional periods, focused on hiring more patrol staff, and still were able to work on special projects and departmental goals. Richard, there aze many employees of the department who believe that you pulled the department through this difficult period, through your leadership, positive attitude, cleaz communication, work ethic, and vision. Addifionally, your innovative thinking has lead us through the process of selecting cutting-edge technology, such as the Toyota Hybrid patrol caz program, and laptop technologies that represent the future of police work in Aspen. Because of your hazd work, the Police Department has very high morale,. and continues to provide excellent customer service, as evidenced by the excellent reviews from the public via our comment cazd system. Congratulations, again, and thank you for all you have done on behalf of the City of Aspen. We are proud to serve with you an-d~to provide ou with this recognition. ~~~C"fit Asst. of : ~ a nsuegra and Bill Linn Representing the ff of the Aspen Police Deparhnent July 28, ZOOS THE CITY OF ASPEN To: John Krueger, Director of Transportation Re: Outstanding Employee Award Deaz John: Congratulations! It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been selected to receive a City of Aspen Outstanding Employee Awazd for the third quarter of 2008. Please plan to attend the August 11 City Council meeting to formally receive your awazd. You are receiving this award in recognition of your work on the expanded Brush Creek Pazk and Ride and the new Mazoon Creek Bridge: two facilities of great value to our region. Since 2002, you have acted as project manager for the Brush Creek Pazk & Ride expansion, creating 192 additional parking spaces. You managed all aspects of the project, from initial permitting to irrigation issues. A 1200 space facility now serves as a transit/carpool station and a special event pazking venue for activities as lazge as the X Games. Since 2005, you have also acted as in-house project manager for the construction of the new Mazoon Creek Bridge. You have been involved in all facets of construction from securing matching funding to ensuring that trail users and bus riders experienced minimal inconvenience. A modem and safe bridge structure is now operational. By developing partnerships, you moved these projects along as quickly and inexpensively as possible. You saved over $600,000 at Brush Creek by strategically partnering with the Base Village project to trade temporary parking access for construction materials. In addition, your coordination with CDOT and its bridge contractors ensured that potential problems were averted before delays or cost overruns resulted. During your tenure, you have been involved in several additional system improvements including the construction of the Main Street transit lane, the purchase of hybrid buses, the implementation of free bus service between Aspen and Snowmass and the Hwy 82 transit lanes currently under construction. Your efforts epitomize the City's declaration of values. Again, congratulations and thank you for your efforts on behalf of Aspen residents and visitors. The City of Aspen is proud to recognize you with this outstanding employee bonus award. Lynn Rumbaugh Randy Ready Transportation Programs Manager Assistant City Manager July 28, 2008 Tom Froberg City of Aspen Recreation Department Deaz Tom; Congratulations! It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been selected to receive a City of Aspen Outstanding Employee Awazd for the second quarter of 2008. Please plan on attending the August 11`" City Council. meeting to formally receive your award. You are receiving this awazd in recognition of your exceptional efforts on behalf of the Recreation Depaztment for repairing the retaining wall on the roof at the Red.Brick gym. Due to the heavy snow fall this past winter, the red brick roof sustained severe damage, causing continual flooding in,the main lobby, front office and fuse box at the Red Brick. Thanks to your masonry expertise, you were able to repair the damage, saving the department over $4,900 from the contractor's estimate. You accomplished this is a timely manner in addition to your daily responsibilities. Thanks to your initiative in completing this project to avoid further damage and to assure the safety of patrons at the Red Brick. The City of Aspen is proud to recognize you with this outstanding employee bonus award. Sincerely, Tim Anderson, Recreation Director THE CITY OF ASPEN Susan Arenella Operations Manager, Recreation ISO SOUTH GALENA STREET ~ ASPEN, COLORADO SSbn-]9~S ~ PHONE 970.92O.S000 ~ FA% 97O.9ZO.SS97 www. aspmgovcom ' ~ v,;,,wn nn Receded Pace. - AGENDA ADDITION AUGUST 11, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bentley Henderson DATE OF MEMO: August 11, 2008 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2008 RE: Roof /Deck repair at 705 & 707 Cemetery Lane REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Verbal approval for the repair of the 2"d story decks at 705 and 707 Cemetery Lane. BACKGROUND: Over the course of the winter the City experienced significant roof damage to structures across all spectrums of the city facilities. Two units that received significant damage were the City owned duplexes on Cemetery Lane. The units in question aze the homes of Steve Barwick, (705 Cemetery Lane) and John Worcester (707 Cemetery Lane). Each of the units referenced above have 2"d story decks that are over living space below. Staff recently let a contract for destructive analysis of the units, both cases revealed a need for significant repairs. It was our intent to only expose as much of the sub-structure as necessary to make a determination as to necessary repairs and bring that analysis back with a contract at your August 25a' meeting. Following the investigation, it became evident that the work was extensive and that any delay in making the necessary repairs would be detrimental to the buildings and their inhabitants. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is requesting verbal authorization to move forward with the repair to the units with the caveat that a contract be before the City council at your next meeting. At this point we have proposals in hand for the demolition, remediation, and reconstruction at just over $36,000. These monies are in the departmental budget and will ultimately become part of a lazger remedial roofing effort that you will be seeing shortly as a part of the FaI12008 Supplemental Budget request. Page 1 of 1 „- via MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Linn THRU: Richard Pryor DATE OF MEMO: July 31, 2008 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2008 RE: Outfitting of Toyota Highlander Hybrid patrol cars REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Funding the removal of police equipment from the retired Volvo police cazs and the reinstallation of said equipment into the new Toyota Highlander Hybrid cars, with the cost projected at $45,014.16. The service life anticipated for this installation is five years. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the experimental purchase of a single Toyota Highlander Hybrid. Approval of the purchase of 10 Toyota Highlander Hybrid police cars. DISCUSSION: All equipment currently in use in the Volvo police cars is relatively new, having been replaced 3 years ago. We anticipate this equipment remains in serviceable condition, and therefore will reinstall it in the new cars. Av-Tech is the only upfitter in Colorado that has completed police equipment installation on the Toyota Highlander hybrid vehicle. Av-Tech is the sole certified installer for our video recorder system, which is one integral component in the overall installation. A competitive bid from a non-certified installer was only about $1001ess per vehicle than Av-Tech. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This equipment will allow us to get these hybrid police vehicles into service. Doing so will immediately lower our fuel consumption /carbon footprint. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Upfitting of the police patrol cars is bid at $4,761.68 per vehicle. Administrative vehicles are bid at 4,391.52. The total cost for upfitting the police cazs with police equipment is $45,014.16, which is within the amount budgeted. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of the contract is recommended. Page 1 of 2 ALTERNATIVES: An alternative bid was entered that was within $100 per vehicle by a competitive company, Wireless Advanced Communications, though Wireless Advanced is not a certified installer of the video recording equipment used by the Aspen Police Department. Wireless Advanced has never upfitted police equipment on the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, therefore would require additional time to learn the vehicle, it's systems, and do the installation. Page 2 of 2 PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution #~"''~ approving the police vehicle equipment installation contract between the City of Aspen and Av-Tech Electronics Inc., of Golden, Colorado." RESOLUTION # ~3 (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND AV-TECH ELECTRONIC INC. SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING PROVIDING AND INSTALLATION POLICE EQUIPMENT IN TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VEHICLES 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 AV-Tech Electronic Inc., 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 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and AV-Tech Electronic Inc. regarding providing and installation police equipment in Toyota Highlander vehicles 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: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held August 11, 2008. 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 AV-TECH ELECTRONIC INC., ("Professional"). For and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scone of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. Completion. Professional shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all work pursuant to this agreement shall be completed no later than September 15, 2008. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit "B" appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed $45,014.16. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this 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 pay or 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 PS1-971.doc Page 1 drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepazed 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 the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault ofthe 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 ofthe Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused PS1-971.doc Page 2 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 FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease -each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($I,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 requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. PS 1-971.doc Page 3 (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insur- ance, 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 azising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits aze in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terruinated 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 Govenunental 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. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. PS 1-971.doc Page 4 11. Comnleteness of Agreement. [t 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 personsand/or addresses listed below or mailed by certified mail refum receipt requested, to: City Professional: City Manager City of Aspen AV-Tech Electronics Inc. 130 South Galena Street 12851 West 43~ Drive, Unit 1 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Denver, CO 80403 13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98, pertaining to non-discrimination in employment. 14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regazd whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 15. Execution of Agreement by City. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens -CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101. a. Pu ose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work PS1-971.doc Page 5 under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. b. Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. c. By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. d. Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional PS1-971.doc Page 6 shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law,(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-] O 1 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. PSI-971.doc Page 7 17. 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) [f any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a writing signed by the parties. (d) This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. fN 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. [SIGNAI'[JRES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] ATTESTED BY: CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: By: Title: PSI-971.doc Page 8 Date: PROFES//SIGNAL: WITNESSED BY: l/~ ~ _ By: C~uc/~ G ~o~~.., S L~~~ ~ - Date: ~~• ~ ~ ~ a ° o PS 1-971.doc Page 9 EXHIBIT "A" to Professional Services Agreement Scope of Work AV-Tech Electronics Inc. will provide and install the materials listed in Exhibit A, in ten (]0) separate City of Aspen 2008 Highlander vehicles. The Scope is slightly different for the patrol cars than the administration cars and is labeled appropriately. PSI-971.doc Page 10 SKMSsEbRbbG9d0e d): M ~ PRICE QUOTE $~ • n ~ ~ n ~ I ~ 25= i58 arwae amoar wror xxm 1~1 WBSTI3RD D87VE OM71 6O1.DPT1r CO 80Aa3 ~lYl~. ~s m (/~~rAl)wQ-~ wrnaiaoi _\ (3~2W-0113 j103)2041620-PAX WTs cavwwwEHaaa~oa~. S6E. Wh Bte 1~ .apm ca na+ c.src lyTs ~naEwwE«cniaaEnr sOeE tAVa eMhn +~anco ue~i cwllrPA e4yNR fAA fw 1N m~ Ww Ya4Tel1 1FIJOMYB rxr. vrvsrE~ aaer uA 1VO. rrE ra~wc.c.a.imms uar -xosrywwpwv~menro~ a~nw vaw vwa wro e~*au. , ceucw. ur+naert,~iwen sEEw mt~uorn wis OK61LEwwn Rfla rNW.aNw.PtnmAwrtAHif.M^RIIR, IPoICRVAUU PEwros sEr iaoo EncM aoeom mavo m~roStEE~w&fawa~narv 81RICIB[W avr lIX0 EAQI ffi.MO AM wara+aww¢ mnucsrtsw M~omu.aanmuvWUwn~oa x ~ nr. uw evr m.w iem u+rErawGE~ utwE an +ww Eatll asco aw iw~e*aw-mw« wns arc +ma EFp ano as antEr4xmucrv wavE an>Ewxe rs~m:~ ~ ~mE EApI asao aEa wueee>mawsewwaxE+ swwc vac Imo EeCM vom ~»ro woe.4warclenm.*maamr va.m vac aaoe Eaw aeeo +aao au>~*cwa~ PS1-971.doc Page it ~L~t~/~( ktiwf~~l~l~s ~IYii. 12851 WFST A3RD ARIYE UNiT i GOLDEN, CO e0a03 {303) 280A313 (303) 289-1426 • FAX 6Wie: City W AaF£N PDLNE DEPT. SOBE.Mtln Sb 102 AIP.~,co amn CodeTa NiaNNPrtar Pe86 2 PWGE QUOTE owwaar mmeaT axror~ avaooa CleWdrcNYWe t0A8PI00t 6ipTee CITY aC ABPFN P0.K:E DEPT. 608 E. MeM Sto 102 Aspcrl ~ 81811 CatlmsPA. 81~VN F.Ol6 Tame M! Oa WMdMe IN8lAL. NEi 80LNY8 aenlal~r PLMAttl0a OlAaed Iai Ptlos !®olaa W441D WIA 4.800 EACH e.800 iBA0 WATBPPPCCF W Ne~CiDRKit ~KTC4STdd AN 1000 EACII iB WD i5A0 CUSTDM BPACKET CDaidA MDUNTFCIPCENCCM MJ CENTE0.CON.~tE alOfT!,ll$TpA AVf 1.000 EACN ]00.000 OOOOD CUSTOM BPACKET DueVm detlegbinduR, Mai'straaot. Motile Yiam OpY We0mmsnera dnmev ta8p.uc ca Mac zaao EACH awE eao HICCUP ADDT&M BAttERY Fdt MTAati MJD M081LE VI910N •PG98p 1Q00 EACH 1)5000 ITB.W aeyamyb9Nte bt49 CM t00D FACH 91:10 A150 3WAnarsohrol8 8flltTWSTOM AYT 1.000 EACH M,d00 90La CUBTdNBRAUIEf MDUNT WHTRUCN YAULT EOFCO hYla 1.W0 EACH 890000 )30.00 ViSTPlItA tNKNE93 WITH iBAMPFU9E PEAR CoetlNeO PS1-971.doc Page 12 _ PRICE QUOTE ~ ~ ~ agaro.~g as.~gw~ ELECTRONICS INC , . ~,.,.@ 12851 WEST 43RD DRIVE ~ 10.r~P1~' UNIT I GOLDEN,CO 88403 (303j 288.0313 (3tl3j 289-1420-FAX lotlTa s4Ta CRYOFASPEN POLICE DEPT. GNOFASM:NPoLICE DEPT, 600 E. NeN Sm102 SERE. lgNn SMTOt AWN4~ 81811 Ai00n, W Stgii COlglgl Ta RSMNPyN bmclarRA. WbNA FAA. Taws Og'Ni4NNpm MSTALL NET 90 MYS N! lmN4W~ RI00rtLgIg 014~W tgi P0m lnNg[ INSTALLIOT AYT 1.000 FAC11 0D2000 L4.b nV•TEdt WSTALLMT PRONTFYI9E KR, WIREHMNESS, POU nnEaR f.ogg EAp1 z.eug.agg zegeag weaRCHnRCE ansaanwsT' vgro EAQ1 Tng.egg aeg.eo MISCANTERW4 MSTALL THSgIK>TEfEFLECTg iNETOTPI PRICETO STRW THE WLW)AKD IRANSFERALL E W MMENT INTO f M~ NE%' NK.N Vu16ER. R ~NCtVDE3 Att W MINA LN Be1TTERr SITUP WITH SOLOENgOANOKSO NEW g1KLBN1 PlpN1 RIPA'EH. CuaYama Sieaoava (1fN NNONaT: 9,511 gg Lan Obmlgrc: 0.W FMIfu.. 0.00 SNeo for aW ONee TObt IS]a.g8 nV.tECXGbcromics,irc trig metre IWdefrcugdmx i~ebM<mmo„n'vi~m iwJmW ka u0nn~m wegm MOw iw0,tlw,uNwM01p roaNOU proLrwkNe0. nY-ISCNSbeewin,br. NIn rtyiwmtk fw U~catkavnet+tw=a1„'wul~*e«N?~Tbw~~turcpenimm~pyY mim~a.mim. Tam: N6M6yeG®urroee4eY,wkndMn6oq®fied. V~VI%vtlavt fwmvdl~xillhetlngedw belcncee T+e d*. lktu,ww Mo,Nnm.<mume.R reeer mewwOwNlox.vuu~umaw.~ux+aimwe2A4rw~+~tvg Ta. Naociuwu ~ caaevuNn 50bY+Nmwse. 9pxuldaWvttnWaakd xwk emwMenmW. WawYt '17115 QUOTE EXPIRES AF'T'ER 90 DAYS :! PS1-971.doc Page 13 Pqe ~E,.~T.>x~~v~,~: PRICL QUOTE t !4 a+rr9.e.e wmow DrONDes 9fW100B INC ~LIwC~"Fi4NICS , . ,~ 12853 WEST 43RD DRIVE 0i°'a 10'~P100t IINR3 GOt.D1iN,C0 80403 ' (303) 288-0333 (303) 289-36}Ai - RAX µTa BMFTa attarFASrExrwcE Derr. anaFA9PFN POLICE ter. E88EMW 8M t01 W8B. 1.4N Se 1C1 ANM. GO 81611 AyNn, CD 818fY pNAnTa Rk11sN Pryor OulawP.0. Bp-1fiA FA8 AIXAN 9tlTALL 'ilea NEi 16 DAYS MI BwNaeea WeWLYr OHeitl W Idlr Am6W AspM Patloe D+fAA18MA UqA -X~W TqW NiBNadalNYbiOD) SIflIP VDLVD JfC90 AND Ni9TALL OR0.l LYOHi8. CQJCQA, ~91REN SPEA86i. PgDM UNI i& M08CE VISION, PFAR TALON,MOHI, FU91 W tlR AND CHMDER MULKVADLT QeaT blNbauTavR (V1114ab maexk P8400S5 SET 1.000 EAfn DIF.000 AIS.00 P84W 9TEE4 PUBN BUMPER 94A' M80V ANf - T000 EACH t0.9B0 1888 ANTENNACA&E U9i81W ANf iC00 EPCN 4,500 A80 E BRACKET SM'tRL18( OVJ092 AN! tOW FACN 9®0 fie3 ANTEIE%dIMTFP WAVEANTENNA R9R15W-y RFl 1lMO EM]i 3090 886 RFUBJDt AM lAF ORIAF' CONM 99CN!~C WRL 4W6 EACH b00p 11600 wff-0.WAYLLEPR9TN08EOM.Y W441D WNL 4.006 EADN A.60D 1900 WATERPROOFCONNECTORKIT wazD WNL 9aoB EApr awB ie.BB WATEPoNOOFCONNECTORKIT BPffT-CU8TDIA AVt 1006 EACH T5000 18.00 4YISTOM BRACKET CaMn~led PS1-971.doc Page 14 SSar/a,l 8): ~ ^ ~r ELECT'F2C1NlGS, I~+IC. 12851 W&ST43RD DRIV& TIPITC i GOLDEN,CO 86493 (?288-9313 (303) 289.1A20 -PAX Etl6Ta CITY OF ASPEN PdJCE DEPT. W6E. M1N sM t9z Apvy co ate5t asrs4tt PYIwN Pryv PRICE QUOTE „~~ ~~ EW1O06 ~~ ,~,~, ~ra CTY of ASPEN POIICEOFnr. 506EIMS19e t@ Ttaan oo start z pYawPW. Q6PNA FAA. T1R TM ApM61 4WTNl NET W pAV3 MI91 tE6N6er Pteh/Ue C9i1M IYi P1ls A9Wt CU8TG1 M1nJNT PoPC6NCOM W CENTERCWd90l.E BPo(i{A29T(k9 AVT 1.000 FACH 300.OW 300.00 CUSTgA SPACKET Cutar~La#etb rmnrc.9e6rr robe, forme VatlA ~VAtO yskmeM.nlMeted.OO,n9w C9 M9C 2W0 FP.W 3109 E~ HICCUP App PEPA EATTEPY FCF lxYA 91t MN1 M0811EVYSgN 'PC680 - 1M111rbMNre t.WO PTCN iTb.QW 13&00 2/N0 CM TQW EA/'N 47500 1190 mtl AltpmbnNS BPKT.CUSTCM AK 5.000 FACN M.006 10.00 CUSTOM BRAIXEi MGUNTFpP TRUCK VAULT EpiW 110/B LOW EACH 23OA'p0 230.00 INSfA1LFR NARNE33 KnSN t38AW N% PEAP W9TAlWT Avi LOW Ef.CN W3.9W 503.90 AV~TECH 6i&TALL NIT FRONT FLSE NIT, VflR3 k4 V Y1663, POU Anepa LAernclwtc~ L9W FACN z661Wp xe64,W cammree PS1-971.doc Page 15 f.. ssr~ saP~~m ay- YRICE QUOTE aroerwm9r. wmoro aaaorc aarzooa { ~+~p~~ ~.~ l 1 ~~~~ ... _ .. 2 i [Sf~tw ~ ~ 12951 WEST;3RD ARIVE ~'~~"` 10'~P100t DNIT 1 GOLDEN, CO 89403 (SIi3)298-0313 (903) 289-1420 • FAX stliia B1pTa crtvaf AsPeN Pd.lce DEPT. dttauxai valtF cEPr. W6E. su ec¢ s99e. wn sd iaz AsEae D6 e+9Y, Aspat P~ erorY a,Yrra PaxwNPryor GbnaP.O. ~T4A fA6 Tana 1N1 anew NIBIFJ.L NET 390AYS IOe NaiMf NWAW ddsad Uqt P4es NwLL MISCMATN6T 1 W0 EACN ~~ `~'~ NgSCMATEpW.IN9TALL tYAO G WTE N~tW ES wENq`IIwG AU. EGUIiMIEMT FRDM iii ~L VG ML TPAN9F EPED INiO wrditru~ew ~~9anrcr SiE~~-..._-____..___.._...-_.._.__...~ IkU nv.TCCN nwo-aow.~m..rn gum imn.9swry3roct twwn~wawaut auxarmwaarey vi,vgwe dYwi~w,ilwim.mwadnlhYmm~PmuwFCmO. AY-T~tSYUwka.Imkm ragxaipm fo- Jw w4tim d ^TN<PIN° a W P+a a Pella U'K faa DC'1104w NPl~wlwl rc wniw Swalc Na]04ve Dam ixo'sv No-,n4naxrwnecalfiM r-vm iaawprwa6viYM~A+aMm W.~oupR.dw. wrl«,s aa~eeum„mm.lumlm+owpna»imau.mmm~rc,.na«ni mnmxNw.~scc raaxtmsm. ,uunx a»m ¢..meewia~we.yadiwaw &~~Fr~aw.uw~ww~mmae~G, aeOa THIS QUOTE EXPHiFS AFT&R90 DAXS !! ~7c5 ~(o. O ~i f waoma: a,wtu les D4mPC 0.90 fitlQlS 0.00 MbTax 20D pFrTeht 40BL4 PS1-971.doc Page 16 EXHIBIT "B" to Professional Services Agreement Rate Schedule AV-Tech Electronics Inc. will provide and install the materials for ten (]0) 2008 Highlander vehicles listed in Exhibit A for a sum not to exceed $45,014.16. PS1-971.doc Page 17 Vll~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director VUY"' FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance #~, Series of 2008, 332 W. Main Street, Subdivision DATE: August 11, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: Alice Brien. REPRESENTATIVE: John Muir Architects. LOCATION: 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the West '/z of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING B[ USE MU, Mixed Use, including office space and a one bedroom free market unit. PROPOSED LAND USE: MU, Mixed Use, including office space, one 2 bedroom free market unit and one 3 bedroom free market unit. SUMMARY: The subject property is a designated Landmark, located in the Main Street Historic District. HPC approvals have been granted for restoration work and construction of a new addition that replaces one existing residential unit and adds another. P&Z and Council review is required because the development of a new multi-family dwelling unit is included in the definition of Subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for Subdivision. P&Z will review this item on August 5, 2008 and their recommendation will be presented to City Council at First Reading. The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from City Council: • Subdivision for the creation of amulti-family dwelling unit, pursuant to the definition of Subdivision and Municipal Code Section 26.480.030.A.3. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). BACKGROUND: The subject property is a Queen Anne home built in 1889. It was converted to a mixed use building, containing commercial and residential space, many years ago. The applicant has received HPC approval to demolish and replace anon-historic addition at the back of the building. An existing one bedroom unit will be removed, triggering residential multi-family housing replacement, as the regulations existed when this project entered into the review process (2005). The Code requires no less than 50% of the existing unit's bedrooms and net livable area must be mitigated in the form of Affordable Housing; however, when the calculation results in a fraction of a unit (as is the case here), a cash in lieu payment may be provided. According to the Housing Guidelines, a 1 bedroom unit has been determined to house the equivalent of 1.75 employees. The owner of the 332 W. Main site must mitigate for Yz of 1 bedroom, or 1.75 x 50%= 0.875. While the Land Use Code does not specifically state the category for mitigation, the Housing Office averages the payment-in-lieu fee of Categories 2 and 3, and the average is currently $214,833. Mitigation is $214,833 x 0.875= $187,979, to be finally calculated and paid at time of building permit. Because this project involves the creation of an additional unit, above and beyond the one that currently exists, Subdivision is triggered, as is the need for a Growth Management allocation. A new unit on a landmark site is eligible for a one time Administrative exemption from Growth Management pursuant to Section 26.470.040.B.3 (This is the code citation in effect at the time of application. The same exemption is now located at Section 26.470.060.4.c.) SUBDIVISION: The Applicant is requesting approval from City Council regarding Subdivision. The Subdivision section lists actions which aze exempt from review as follows (emphasis added by Staff). Based on this language, the application is not exempt from review: 26.480.030.A.3, Anyroved Subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of this chapter, except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which aze intended or designed to be re-subdivided into smaller lots, condominium units, or multi-family dwellings. The Land Use Code defines multi-family dwellings as including one or more units located within an office, retail, or service commercial building. The applicant is creating a new multi- family residential unit, therefore review is required. 2 Subdivision regulations state that City Council is the final review authority on this application, after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. A draft Subdivision Plat is attached. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. (See Exhibit A for findings.) Staff recommends approval of the project. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance #iZ~, Series of 2008, Subdivision at 332 W. Main Street on First Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B- Application 3 Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findine The AACP supports the preservation and viable use of historic structures. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The property is located in the Mixed Use zone district, where commercial and residential uses are intended to co-exist. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding The proposed Subdivision will not impact the future development of the surrounding area, which is a designated historic district. The project is almost 1,000 square feet below the allowable FAR. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Findine The proposed Subdivision meets the applicable review standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. 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 of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Findin>; The subject lot is a standard historic townsite lot, with no unusual natural hazards present. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Finding The layout of the Subdivision is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. 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) if the following conditions have been met: Staff Findin¢ The project does not involve the development of new parcels, streets, or other infrastructure not already in place. The applicant has not applied for condominiumization to sepazate ownership of units. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding The applicant is required to provide mitigation as described in the memo. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding The applicant will have to provide School Land Dedication fees as applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growtb management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Staff Findine Growth Management Allocations and Exemptions are in place. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5 ORDINANCE # ~-l (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 332 W. MAIN STREET, LOT K AND THE WEST'/: OF LOT L, BLOCK 44, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the applicant, Alice Brien, owner, represented by John Muir Architects, requested Subdivision approval for the property located at 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the West %z of Lot L, Block 44„ City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Subdivision and states that an application must first be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, who makes a recommendation to City Council as to whether the application meets the review criteria; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application for Subdivision, found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and made a recommendation to Council that the land use request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan, by a vote of _-_; and, WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to City Council dated August 11, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby approves the subdivision request to create a new multi- family dwelling unit at 332 W. Main Street, Lot K and the West '/z of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 2: Plat and Agreement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council provides final approval of the subdivision request. Section 3: Buildin¢ Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. Section 4: Affordable Housin¢, Cash-in-lieu Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.530.040 Housing Replacement Requirements, in effect at the time of this application, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu to mitigate the demolition and replacement of an existing residential multi-family housing unit. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. Section 5: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to issuance of any building permit that triggers this fee. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the mazket value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 6: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, if any Park Development Impact Fee is applicable, the fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 7: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8:Existine Liti¢ation This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9: Public Hearine A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the _ day of , 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was 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 11th day of August, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of _, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney ~. M p July 1$, 2008 Amy Guthrie, Senior Planner Community Development, Historic Preservation 130 S. Galena Street Aspen; CO .81611 John Muir John Muir, Architect 201. Main Street, Suite 304 Carbondale, CO 81623 ' Tele: (970) 429-2758 ~ Fax: (970)920-5439 ' Tele: (970) 704-9750 Fax: (970) 704-0287 Dear Amy, On behalf of Alice Brien, I would like to conclude the application requirements for Subdivision Review for. Pazcel # 2735-124-41-007, located on Lot K & West % of Lot L, Block 44, City and Town site of Aspen, 332 West Main Street, Aspen. In addition to this letter, please fmd the additional 11 copies (12 totall of the application as well as the electronic version (CD) of the requirements and the payment covering the application znd review fee. To reiterate the project summary, with. all previous HPC Conceptual & Final approvals and variances in place, the demolition and new construcfion would primazily occur North of the line of the original historic structure as interpreted by HPC. The demolition includes removing one- (1) bedroom, 459 net sf rental unit and constructing two new free mazket units in its place as described by previous approvals and plans provided in the Subdivision Review application binder. Please contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, i John Muir; NCARB, AIA ' , 201 Main Street, Suite 304, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 704-9760 Fax (970) 704-0287 E-Mail: ,jma a~sopris.net ~. ~~~ #T ri } ~ .~ , •" ~ ~"~° g ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION '' ~aECT: Name: Main Street Project Location: 332 W. Main Street, Lot K & West''/z of Lot L, Block 44, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 2735-124-41-007 APPLICANT: Name: Alice Brien Address: 332 W. Main Street- As en, CO 81611 Phone #: (970) 544-1902 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: John Muir Architects Address: 201 Main Street, Suite 304- Cazbondale, CO 81623 Phone #: (970) 704-9750 i zrr: ur nrrt,t~a nuN: ~piease cnecx au mat appty~: ~ ^ GMQS Exemption ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Temporary Use ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ TexUMap Amendment r] Special Review ® Subdivision ^ Conceptual SPA ,~ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exempfion (includes ^ Final SPA (& SPA Mazgin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane ^ Commercial Design Review ^ Lot Split ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ^ Residential Design Variance ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Other: ^ Conditional Use EXISTING CONDTTIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) Existing historic, mixed-use structure possesses both preliminary and fmal HPC approvals to remove non-historic portion And modify small portion of the historic structure into new proposal (see below) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) add two free market units attached to North end of historic structure, incorporating a small portion of the existing historic Structure into one of the free market units. Refer to plans and Resolution No. 23, series of 2007 for specific information. Have you attacnea the io1loWingf N'EES ll11E: $ ® Pre-Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #3, Dunensional Requirements Fornt ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards I~ 3-D Model for large project plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the aplicaton. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model Your pre-applicafion conference summary Rill indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. ATTACHMENT3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Main Street Project Applicant: Alice Brien Location: 332 W. Main Street, Lot K & the West''/2 of Lot L, Block 44, City of Aspen Zone District: MU Lot Size: 45'-0" x 100'-0" Lot Area: 4500 sf (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mazk, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the defmifion of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: _2421_Proposed: no change. Number of residential units: Existing:_I Proposed: 2 Number of bedrooms: Existing.•_I Proposed: 5i Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):_18.6%_(494/2651)_ DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing.•(seeplans) Allowable: !seeplans~ Proposed: (seeplansj_ Principal bldg. height: Existing: _24'-6" Allowable:_ 32' Proposed:_24'-2"_ Access. bldg. height: Existing: _na Allowable: ,na Proposed.•~ na, On-Sitepazking: Existing: 1 Required: Proposed: 2_ Site coverage: Existing: _41.3 ,Required: Proposed: _50.1, %OpenSpaee: Existing: _58.7 Required: Proposed: _49.9_ Front Setback: Existing.• 23.18' Required: _IO' Proposed:_n ° change_ Rear Setback: Existing: _7.24' Required.• _S' Proposed: _0_ CombinedF/R: Existing: _30.42' Required: 15' Proposed: _ 23.18'_ Side Setback: Existing.• _4.35' Required: S' Proposed: no change_ Side Setback: Existing: S.5' Required.• _5' Proposed:_ 5' Combined Sides: Existing: _9.85' Required:_ IO' Proposed:_ 9.46'_ Distance Between Existing na Required: na Proposed: _na_ Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Existin~East elevation (3`d street facade extends over setback by 65' or 7 13/16" Variations requested: v~~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MEMO DATE: MEETING DATE Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council Chris Bendon, Community Development Director I 1 ~A1fln August 4, 2008 August 11, 2008 RE: Land Use Code Amendments - Multi-Family Replacement Program First Reading of Ordinance No. Series of 2008. Second Reading scheduled for September 22°d SUMMARY: Community Development staff is proposing amendments to the City's Multi-Family Sousing Replacement Program to reinstate exemptions from the Program that were previously available to homeowners. Since the 1970s, the City of Aspen has attempted to regulate the loss of free-market housing that housed local working residents.. The Multi-Family Replacement Program as we know it today originated in 1988 through Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 after City Council and City Planning Staff became concerned that the demolition of existing free-market residential dwelling units was resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The program regulates the combination and demolition of multi-family dwelling units and is triggered any time construction, remodeling, or demolition results in the loss of amulti-family unit. The program is one of the main reasons older multi-family buildings remain in Aspen's housing stock. There a few exemptions from this long-standing program that, in staffs opinion, were inadvertently dropped from the code. Staff is proposing to reinstate these exemptions. With respect to the defmitions, staff views these as "clean-ups" of existing language as it has been interpreted and applied in the past.. Staff is supportive of these amendments, believing they comply with the criteria for code amendment. Prior to 2007, a homeowner could obtain an exemption from the Multi-Family Replacement requirements if they could prove that the multi-family dwelling unit(s) they wish to eliminate were never occupied by local worker. The language was vague with respect to the procedure and necessary documentation and staff would typically request an occupancy history of the units involved. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption for "tourist units." The previous code also included exemption language that stated "Any RMF housing unit which is ordered demolished by a public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter:' This exemption was unintentionally omitted from the revised code section in 2007. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption. An exemption for "bandit units" has been applied through interpretation but has never been codified. This exemption stated that if a bandit unitt was demolished, it was not subject to the provisions of the multi-family replacement program because it was never a legal multi-family unit. Staff has proposed language to codify this exemption. Staff is recommending adoption of the proposed amendments upon first reading. Second reading is scheduled for September 22"d. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these code amendments at a recent public hearing. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Staff is requesting the following from City Council: • Determination if application to amend code text meets Standazds of Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310.040 Standards of Review. STAFF COMMENTS: The enclosed Ordinance demonstrates code changes by using ~s#~ik2tlxeughs-to delineate removed code text and green underline to denote new code text. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance upon first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE~: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 2Z ,Series of 2008, upon fast reading." ' A Bandit Unit is defined as, "A dwelling unit or other structure developed or used in violation of the land use or building regulations in effect at the time of its constrvction." ORDINANCE No.LZ' (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.470.040.5 -DEMOLITION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND SECTION 26.104.100 - DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the requirements and restrictions on the redevelopment ofmulti-family housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with. conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections Section 26.470.040.5 - Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Section 26.104.100 -Definitions, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.575.020 -Calculations and Measurements; 26.575.040.- Yards., as described herein, by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that these amendments further and aze necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed teat amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed al] applicable standazds and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. ,Series of 2008. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code aze delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Tea'rc? .b r,,..,,,~~ '~,--~~-~.~a, . Text beine added to the code is green with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A5PEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.470.040.5 -Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing, which section describes the provisions for redeveloping Multi-family Residential Dwelling Units, shall be amended as follows: 26.470.040.5 -Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market-rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which aze now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goa]s will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting, and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen azea businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition, or conversion of existing multi-family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion, or redevelopment of multi-family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements: (See definition of Demolition.) Ordinance No. _, Series of 2008. 1 Requirements for Combining, Demolishine Converting or Redevelonine Free-Mazket Multi-Family Housing Units: Only one of the following two options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting, or redeveloping afree-market multi-family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One Hundred Percent Replacement In the event of the demolition of free-mazket multi-family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one-hundred (100) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 -Affordable Housing. When this one-hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-mazket residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-mazket units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 -Expansion of Free-Market Residential Units within aMulti-Family or Mixed-Use Development. b. Fijty .Percent Replacement In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing and replacement of less than one-hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and the Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 -Affordable Housing. When this fifty (50) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 -Expansion of Free- Mazket Residential Units within aMulti-Family or Mixed-Use Project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the pazcel. Free-mazket units in excess of the total number originally on the pazcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 -New Free-Mazket Residential Units within aMulti-Family or Mixed-Use Project. 2 Requirements for Demolishing Affordable Multi-Family Housin¢ Units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units Ordinance No. ,Series of 2008. shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Plannine and Zonine Commission may require the affordable housine deed restriction on the affected units be brou hg t into compliance with the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 3. Fractional Unit Requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. -Provision of Required Affordable Housing via aCash-in-Lieu Payment 4. Location Requirement. Multi-family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on-site would be in conflict with the pazcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off-site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timin¢ Requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or off-site. 6. Redevelopment Agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for non-compliance. The City of Aspen may require a bond or other financial instrument insurine compliance with the agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the Citv Attorne~The agreement shall be recorded prior to application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth Management Allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transft;rable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Location Requirement. 8 Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures • and requirements of this Section the followine types of development involvine Multi-Family Housing Units An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from conformance with any other provisions of this Title• Ordinance No. _, Series of 2008. a. The replacement of Multi-Family Housing Units after non-willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similaz event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Communitv Development Director may reauire documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building_was in-fact non-willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Communitv Develonment Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement r_eguirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility: to conform to zoning design standards or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 - NonconfotmitiesJ Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi-Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life health safety or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non- working residents. The Communitv Development Director may reauire occupancy records leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management and buildin cg odes. d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as "Bandit Units") Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current reauirements of this Title including zoning growth management and building_codes Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Section 26.104.100 - Defmitions, which section defines the meaning of terms used in the Ciiy of Aspen Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: Demolition. To raze, disassemble, teaz down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof azea above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see Section 26.575.020(E), Measurement of demolition. Demolition shall also include the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi- family or mixed-use building, emits conversion to nonresidential use, or any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between Multi-Family Housing units independent of Ordinance No. _, Series of 2008. whether or not such action is undertaken to combine or rebuild the units or for env other Purpose:; ~L°" °'°~ °~~~«~•'° a°•••°/°*'~•-. (See Chapter 26.530, Residential multi-family replacement program.) T.. ,.//:« A n~......~.... u..~;o., ~l.°~ °f ..t°...J°.7 ...7 . °.] ..L°ls° L' L e ~ r ~~ f Dwelling, detached residential. A residential structure consisting of a single dwelling with open yazds on all sides, excluding mobile homes. Also known as aSingle-Family Home or a Single-Family Residence. Dwelling, duplex. A residential building on a single lot or parcel comprised of two (2) °"°°''- attached Dwelling Units in either anover-and-under or side-by-side configuration having a common unpierced above-grade wall of at least one (1) story in height and ten (10) feet in length, or a common unpierced walUceiling as applicable. Each unit in the duplex shall contain no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the duplex structure. Dwelling, multi family. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Ddwelling Uanits, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, ~itk-that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One (1) or more Ddwelling Utrnits located within aMixed-Use =~ree, '' ' ' building shall also be considered amulti-family dwelling. The term "multi-family dwelling" also includes properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures consisting of three (3) or more Ddetached Residential a "°'..~U~tnits where permitted by the Zone District. Dwelling unit. .A. cY:.ute'.; ,,:te.c'r;e ........... ....n';in,~~TA structure or portion thereof- intended and used as a shelter in which a person or people reside and sleep which contains a kitchen and bathroom and which ar-~is designed for or used as an individual residence. Also known as a Dwelling. Bedroom. A portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, and may have access to a bathroom. ~~a -°L~°L -~°~*° rr.,:F --- 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 is for any reason held invalid or unconsritutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall Ordinance No. _, Series of 2008. be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22"d day of September, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Counci] Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the l la' day of August, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. _, Series of 2008. v ~ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer~~ RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #20, Series of 2008, 600 W. Francis Street and 612 W. Francis Street, Subdivision and Landmazk Designation- PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 11, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: Jack and Marisa Silverman REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning LLC. LOCATION: 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6, Medium Density Residential with two single family residences. PROPOSED LAND USE: R-6, Medium Density Residential with two single family residences. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets the criteria for Subdivision and Landmazk Designation. Landmark was supported by HPC by a 6 to 0 vote. P&Z recommend subdivision to Council by a vote of 3to2. 600 W. Francis Street 612 W. Francis Street LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from City Council. • Subdivision for the relocation of an existing shazed property line 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). • Landmark Desi ng ation for the designation of the entire 12,000 squaze foot azea, under Land Use Code Section 26.415. (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission). SUBDIVISION REVIEW: The subject properties are two adjacent 6,000 squaze foot lots; 600 and 612 W. Francis Street. 600 W. Francis contains a Pan Abode home constructed in 1956. 612 W. Francis contains a home built in 1996. The parcels are in the same ownership and the owner is voluntazily applying for landmark designation of the entire 12,000 square foot area in order to apply for a Subdivision that takes advantage of the smaller minimum lot size requirement for landmazked parcels (3,000 squaze foot minimum for landmazks vs. 6,000 square foot minimum for non-landmazks.) The goal of the Applicant is to reconfigure the property so that the more recently built house is on a 3,000 square foot lot and the Pan Abode is on a 9,000 square foot lot. The platting that the applicant desires was the configuration of the properties prior to a past Subdivision approval requested in 2000. STAFF COMMENTS' The Applicant is requesting approval from City Council regarding Subdivision, for the relocation of the existing property line dividing two abutting properties, 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. In reviewing the subdivision application, Staff believes that the proposal meets the applicable subdivision review standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.480.050, Review Standazds. Those criteria along with the staff findings are attached as "Exhibit A." At this time, the applicant is not proposing any new development on the parcel. Landmazk designation and Subdivision will not increase the Floor Area that would currently be allowed in total on 600 and 612 W. Francis Street, except for the possibility of a 500 squaze foot Floor Area bonus if awarded by HPC for future restoration efforts. Landmark Designation, whether or not the lot line is relocated, does create the potential for an additional dwelling unit adjacent to the Pan Abode, but that unit would have to be accommodated within the same Floor Area that would be allowed for the single family houses that currently exist. Including the full 12,000 square foot area in the landmark designation gives the owner the incentive they need to volunteer designation, locks in 612 W. Francis in its current size, allows HPC full design review over the parcels in perpetuity, and, if full build out is pursued in the future, creates the opportunity to have 3 smaller scaled homes instead of 2 lazger ones. 2 Table 1: Existin develo ment ri hts for each property; 600 and 612 W. Francis Street Lot Size 6,000 square feet Allowable Density per Lot 1 single family unit Allowable Floor Area per Lot 3,240 square feet n,,t ~,UA~t~./ I Table 2: Development Rights with Landmazk D gnation of 600 W. Francis and 612 W. Francis, plus subdivision (the proposal before P& 600 W. Francis (Pan Abode) 612 W. Francis Lot size 9,000 square feet 3,000 square feet Allowable density 2 single family units 1 single family unit Allowable Floor Area per Lot 4,080, plus potential 500 sq. ft. FAR bonus 2,400 square feet LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 26.415.030B. Criteria. To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. 1. The property was constructed at least forty (30) years prior to the year in which the application for designation is being made and the property possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and association and is related to one or more of the following: a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history, b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented, c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. Staff Response: The application describes the house at 600 W. Francis as a Pan Abode that was owned for approximately 40 yeazs by the Jones family; Whipple Van Ness Jones having been the creator of Aspen Highlands Ski Area. It has been used throughout it's history (even now) as a rental for tourists and "ski bums." This is typical of the Pan Abode building type as it was quick to build, affordable, and appropriate to the scale of the community when small vacation homes and worker housing began to be needed. Pan Abodes appear to have been quite common in Aspen from the 1950's to early 1970's an are an important illustration of how the community first handled some of the housing and lodging pressures that are still challenging today. Staff finds that criteria A is met. In addition, we find that criteria C is met because the house is a physically a classic example of the Rustic Style. Within the historic context paper that has been developed for Aspen's Rustic architecture, there are specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect significance. Typical characteristics of the Rustic Style are "log construction, stone foundation, small paned windows, overhanging roof, stone chimney, and battered walls." To be eligible for historic designation, Aspen's examples of Rustic Style azchitecture should have the following distinctive characteristics: • Hand built structures that aze constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. Later examples include machine cut logs. • The buildings aze usually single story, with aloes-pitched gable roof. • True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the irregularities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these details, though without the chinking. • Window openings are spare and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. • Building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. • The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends are often infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. • The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. 600 W. Francis Street has a central element that was built first, and two wings on each end, also of Pan Abode manufacture and built in 1957 and 1969. The Pan Abode material is unaltered, inside and outside, and original window forms are intact. A stone chimney is present. There has been a modification to the entry, and the building has been painted. Staff did not include this building on Ordinance #48 because of our initial misconception about the history of the bookend additions. The building is somewhat difficult to view because of heavy vegetation, however it is on a corner lot, allowing three sides of the structure to have some public visibility. The paint can easily be removed in the future, as has been done with several other Pan Abodes in town. In terms of the architectural integrity scoring that is part of the landmark designation process, staff scores this house at 86 out of 100 points, which exceeds the required threshold. We support landmazk designation and the reconfiguration of the lot to its original condition, with the Pan Abode on 9,000 squaze feet and the new house on 3,000 squaze feet. The designation will apply to the entire site, so HPC will have purview over all of the development, new and old. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the project is consistent with the goals of the AACP as well as the applicable review standards in the City Land Use Code. Staff recommends approval of the project. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to adopt Ordinance No.20, Series of 2008, Subdivision and Historic Designation of 600/612 W. Francis Street." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #20, Series of 2008 Exhibit A- Subdivision Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B- Integrity Scoring form Exhibit C- Aspen's 20`h Century Architecture: Rustic Style Exhibit D- Planning and Zoning Commission minutes Exhibit E- Application ORDINANCE #20 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND HISTORIC DESIGNATION FOR 600 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND 612 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the applicant, Jack and Marisa Silverman, owners, represented by Haas Land Planning LLC, requested Subdivision and Historic Designation for the property located at 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silvenman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen.; and WHEREAS, Section 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Subdivision and states that an application must first be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, who makes a recommendation to City Council as to whether the application meets the review criteria; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code establishes the process for Designation and states that an application for listing on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures shall be approved if City Council, after a recommendation from HPC, determines sufficient evidence exists that the property meets the criteria; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report to City Council dated July 28, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards had been met, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on June 25, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application for Historic Designation and found the application was consistent with the review standards and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0; and WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on July 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the application for Subdivision, found that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and made a recommendation to Council that the land use request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan, by a vote of 3-2; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1• Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Aspen City Council hereby recommends approval of the subdivision request to relocate a lot line between two abutting properties, located at 600 W. Francis Street, Lots Rand S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. The result is that 600 W. Francis will be a 9,000 squaze foot lot and 612 W. Francis will be a 3,000 squaze foot lot. Section 2: Plat and Aereement The Applicant shall record a subdivision plat and agreement that meets the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.480, Subdivision, within 180 days of approval if City Council provides final approval of the subdivision request. Section 3: BuildinH Permit Aaalication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final Ordinance and recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. Section 4: School Lands Dedication Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.630, School lands dedication, the Applicant shall pay afee-in-lieu of land dedication prior to issuance of any building permit that triggers this fee. The City of Aspen Community Development Department shall calculate the amount due using the calculation methodology and fee schedule in affect at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant shall provide the mazket value of the land including site improvements, but excluding the value of structures on the site. Section 5: Park Development Impact Fee Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, if any Pazk Development Impact Fee is applicable, the fee shall be assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 6: Historic Designation Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 600 W. Francis Street, Lots R and S, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen and 612 W. Francis Street, Lots P and Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen. Section 7: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8: Exisnne Lineation This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9: Public Hearine A public hearing on the ordinance was scheduled on the 11th day of August, 2008, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was 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 28th day of July, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of _, 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A SUBDIVISION REVIEW Section 26.480.050 of the City Land Use Code provides that development applications for Subdivision must comply with the following standazds and requirements. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding The AACP supports the designation of resources that are associated with Aspen's 20`" century history. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Staff Finding The Subdivision returns the property to the configuration it was in for many yeazs. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the historic character of the West End. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Staff Finding The proposed Subdivision will result in more public input (through public hearings and HPC review) on any future development of this site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. Staff Finding The proposed Subdivision meets the applicable review standazds. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Suitability of land for subdivision. 1. 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 of the residents in the proposed subdivision. Staff Finding The subject lot is a standard West End site, with no unusual natural hazards present. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Spatial pattern efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. Staff Findine The layout of the Subdivision is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion to be met. C. Improvements. 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) if the following conditions have been met: Staff Finding No development is proposed at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Affordable housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. Staff Finding No demolition is proposed and no multi-family units exist on the site, therefore the Replacement Housing program is not applicable. If any future development is proposed, affordable housing must be provided per the standards of the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Staff Finding No development is proposed at this time. Future development will have to provide School Land Dedication fees as applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Growth Management Approval. Subdivision approval may only be granted to applications for which all growth management development allotments have been granted or growth management exemptions have been obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.470. Subdivision approval may be granted to create a parcel(s) zoned Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development (AH-PUD) without first obtaining growth management approvals if the newly created parcel(s) is required to obtain such growth management approvals prior to development through a legal instrument acceptable to the City Attorney. (Ord. No. 44-2001, § 2) Staff Finding No development is proposed at this time. Future development will have to receive Growth Management Allocations or Exemptions as applicable. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~c ~, t ~o t -t" INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT- RUSTIC, 600 W. Francis Street Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. • LOCATION LOCATION /S THE PLACE WHERE THE H/STORK PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED OR THE PLACE WHERE THE HISTOR/C EVENT OCCURRED. 5 -The structure is in its original location. 3 -The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 0 -The structure has been moved to a location that is dissimilar to its original site. TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 5) STAFF SCORE: 5 • DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10 -The original plan form, based on authenticating documentation, is still intact. 6 -The plan form has been altered, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 -Alterations and/or additions to the building are such that the original form of the structure is obscured. STAFF SCORE: S. There are two early, intact additions to the building, by the original manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of rustic architecture. There appeazs to be a new entry room added, therefore some points have been deducted. ROOF FORM 10 -The original roof form is unaltered. 6 -Additions have been made that alter roof form that would meet the current design guidelines. 0 -Alterations to the roof have been made that obscure its original form. STAFF SCORE: 8. There are two eazly, intact additions to the building, by the original manufacturer. Staff finds that these occurred during the "period of significance" for this type of rustic architecture. The entry addition does de-emphasize the long horizontal emphasis of the roof line somewhat, therefore some points were deducted. The entry is however easily reversible. SCALE 5 -The original scale and proportions of the building aze intact. 3 -The building has been expanded but the scale of the original portion is intact and the addition would meet the design guidelines. 0 -The scale of the building has been negatively affected by additions or alterations. STAFF SCORE: 5. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10-The original door and window pattern are intact. 8- Some of the doors and windows aze new but the original openings aze intact. 4- More than 50% of the doors or windows have been added and/or the original opening sizes have been altered. 0- Most of the original door and window openings have been altered. STAFF SCORE: 8. The only apparent alteration is at the front door. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES/SPARE QUALITY OF THE DESIGN 10-The form and features that define the Rustic style aze intact. There is an overall sense of simplicity. Window and door openings and decorative features are spaze. 5- There aze minor alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic style. 0- There have been major alterations to the form and features that define the Rustic style. STAFF SCORE: 10. The simple nature of the Pan Abode style is intact. TOTAL POINTS (wtnxirvturvt of 45) = 39 • SETTING Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 5- The physical surroundings aze similar to that found when the structure was originally constructed. 3-There aze minor modifications to the physical surroundings. 0- The physical surroundings detract from the historic chazacter of the building. STAFF SCORE: 5. There is heavy, mature vegetation on the site, some of which was probably installed azound the time the house was built. An irrigation ditch runs along the 6`h Street side. TOTAL POINTS (mnxtmurvt of 5) = 5 • MATERIALS Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. EXTERIOR SURFACES 15-The original exterior wall materials (log, wood siding, and stone) and the decorative trim materials are intact 10- There have been minor changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and the decorative trim materials, but the changes have been made in a manner that conforms with the design guidelines. 5- There have been major changes to the original combination of exterior wall materials and the decorative trim materials. 0- All exterior materials have been removed or replaced. STAFF SCORE: 15. There are no apparent alterations. DOORS AND WINDOWS 10-All or most of the original doors and windows units are intact. 5- Some of the original door and window units have been replaced but the new units would meet the design guidelines. 0- Most of the original door and window units have been replaced with units that would not meet design guidelines. STAFF SCORE: 5. The front door, and possibly some window units have been replaced, but opening sizes appear to be original. TOTAL POINTS (rvtnxtMUM of 25) = 20 • WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. DETAILING AND ORNAMENTATION/HAND-BUILT CHARACTER OR IMITATION OFHAND-BUILT CHARACTER 15-The original detailing is intact. The building is built from locally available materials and exhibits evidence of handwork, or is attempting to do so if mass produced. 0-There have been some alterations of loss of the original detailing or handwork character. 5- Detailing is discernible such that it contributes to an understanding of its stylistic category. 0- New detailing has been added that confuses the character of the original structure. 0- The detailing is gone. STAFF SCORE: 15. There are no apparent alterations. FINISHES & COLOR SCHEME 5- The natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style are intact 3- There have been minor alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style. 2- There have been substantial alterations to the natural finishes and color scheme that define the Rustic style. STAFF SCORE: 2. The building has been painted, which is reversible. TOTAL POINTS (mnxrMUm of 20)=17 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS= 100 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR DESIGNATION= 75 POINTS TOTAL STAFF SCORE: 86 Note: Each area of the integrity analysis includes a description of the circumstances that might be found and a point assignment. However the reviewer may choose another number within the point range to more accurately reflect the specific property. ~~l~l ~G ASPEN'S 20TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: RUSTIC STYLE BUILDINGS The Rustic Style of azchitecture was symbolic of eazly 20'" century attitudes that embraced not only the mythology of the "hardy outdoor life of American pioneers"~ in the western United States, but also, to an extent, the larger dream of Manifest Destiny. There was embedded within the style a desire to live up to the spirit of adventure and rugged determinism of those who had ventured West. Though heavily steeped in western legend, the Rustic Style's roots actually lay in the simple pioneer cabin, and in the vacation homes of the Adirondack Mountains which were built in the late 1800's. As eazly as 1916, however, with the founding of the National Park Service, the style became a cornerstone of the NPS's belief that "buildings should blend in with their natural surroundings" 2 and that "natural settings could influence architecture."s The majority of entryways, information centers, and guest lodges that were built in the Pazks throughout the country in the first decades of the 20`h century were log and stone buildings constructed in what came to be known as the "National Parks Service Rustic" style. "The high point in the development of this `rustic' design ethic occurred in the late twenties and spread throughout the nation during the work-relief programs of the Depression."4 ~. Hand-in-hand with the growth of the National Pazks Service was the development of resort azeas throughout the Rocky Mountain States, and Rustic Style buildings, which ranged in size from small cabins to substantial lodges, were constructed in Colorado starting in 1905.5 Eazly examples of the buildings can be found in burgeoning tourism and vacation spots such as Grand Lake, Thomasville, Woodland and Estes Parks. Rustic style "represented an early 20`h century movement in American architecture It was picturesque, romantic architecture that recalled the American past."6 In Aspen, Colorado, Rustic Style cabins used as lodges and residences, began to be built in the 1930's, though the tourism industry was still in its infancy. The Waterman Cabins, built in 1937, and once located at the corner of 7`h and Hallam Streets, have since been demolished, but were one of Aspen's first group of small tourist cottages. The Swiss Chalets (now L'Auberge, and suffering from the ' Carley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style Comes Home" 2 Rocky Mountain National Pazk, Home Page, Historic Buildings ' Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmazks in the Landscape, 17 Harrison, Laura Soulliere, Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmazk Theme Study, 1 s Colorado Historical Society Home Page 6 Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge" Grand Lake Lodge, built in 1925 Sumers Lodge, a vacation home in Glenwood Springs, built in 1935 "chalet" misnomer- as they are, indeed, in the rustic style) are located at 435 W. Main Street, and were built during roughly the same period. Prescient, and perhaps with a nod to the automobile's growing influence in American society, a motor court configuration at the Chalets allowed guests to drive right up to the individual units. Single family residences in Aspen employed the Rustic Style as well. _.,~;~ 300 W. Main Street, residence built in 1944. WPA Bell tower, built in the 1930'5 and shown here after Swiss Chalets, 435 W. Main Street, built circa r9~n•.~ Also in the 1930'5, a WPA sponsored structure that was used as a bell tower was constructed at the present location of the town fire station on East Hopkins Avenue. It fell under the supervision of the National Park Service, who managed the WPA program and the design of all its projects. The Pazk Service's architectural philosophy was summarized at the time in a volume entitled "Park and Recreation Structures,"which stated that, "Successfully handled, (rustic) is a style which, through the use of native materials in proper scale, and through the avoidance of rigid, straight lines, and oversophistication, gives the feeling of having been executed by pioneer craftsmen with limited hand tools. It thus achieves sympathy with natural surroundings and with the past."' its relocation ro Paepcke After the Second World War, looking to the past- and in Parkin 1954. Ir was particulaz, the American past- was the result of a nation turning reconstructed in 1990. inwards, and away from foreign battlefields. The romance and heightened idealization of the West, and the appeal of the rugged individualist's lifestyle, was evidenced by the popularity of television shows like "The Lone Ranger" and "Davy Crockett", and further, by the proliferation of Western movies (many of which were produced as a result of the McCarthy Era effect on post-war Hollywood productions). The American public acculturized the West's ideals, and the Rustic Style even found its way into children's toys like "Lincoln Logs." ' Harrison, 8 2 The American landscape was transformed in the 1940's. The unpazalleled growth and prosperity of the United States (spurred on in part by the GI Bill), and the "baby boom" that began- and didn't slow down- until the late 1960's, brought with it success, comfort, and a blossoming middle class. Americans were enjoying greater financial freedom, along with increased leisure time, and they were looking for adventure. They looked West. Falling gasoline prices, the construction of cross-country highway systems, and a young, flourishing automotive industry (by-products of the post-war economic climate), "gave greater numbers of people the means to travel, and previously inaccessible places were more easily reached."s Vacationing and tourism became the hallmark of the American lifestyle, and the West held a particulaz interest for a people with newfound freedom, and the desire for adventure. "To Americans the West is their refuge, the home of the `last best place."9 Vacation homes, hunting lodges, dude ranches, and tourist-related facilities began to increase in number after the War, many built in the Rustic Style, which was perfect for the "frontier spirit"10 of the new American tourist. Aspen was the ideal destination for the "new American tourist." Purple mountains majesty aside, it had a growing reputation as a ski town- a sport that was gaining increasing popularity. And as people ventured out west to vacation in the late 1940's and early 1950's, they were looking for what so many had sought before them: the spirit of adventure, romance, and ruggedness. Yet what Aspen offered, even then, was so much more. It became an "azchetype for the beginning of tourism in the post-World War II American West."~~ The effort to create a cultural and artistic haven, and yeaz-round resort town that offered "good opportunities for combining work, play, and culture,"12 only added to the town's uniqueness, as a "post-war consumer culture and the nation-wide growth of tourism, combined with the beginning of the ski industry, meant that people no longer had to belong to an elite club or live in a mountain town in order to ski.i13 Rustic Style buildings continued to be constructed in town during this period, including Deep Powder Lodge (circa late 1940's/early 1950's), at 410 S. Aspen Street, and The Hickory House (initially christened The Silver Chicken) at 735 W. Main Street, which was built in 1950. At the time, it was one of the few restaurants operating in town, and the original sign, located on the west side of the building, reads "restaurant," and is lettered to look like logs, harmonizing the theme of the structure down to the last rustic detail. a Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Bazeains -Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West, 202 Rothman, 14 10 Carley ~~ Rothman, 207 12 Rothman , 213 "Gilbert, Anne M., Re-Creation through Recreation• Aspen Skiing from 1870 to 1970, 46 3 Deep Powder Lodge, 4/0 S. Aspen Street, built circa lnte 1940'.c/enrly 1950'.c There was no shortage of young male labor during the period these buildings were constructed, and the materials were readily available locally. Small cabins could be erected during a summer, readying them for the new American tourist seeking the "Western adventure." Between 1940 and 1959, the number of full-time residents in Aspen increased by 1000, and "by 1959 at least 200 part-time residents joined the year-round crowd.i14 As Aspen's amenities began to attract a larger, more influential and wealthy group of second homeowners (including some of Hollywood's brightest stazs), the city began to transform itself into a premiere, year round resort, and many people "chose to move to or build vacation homes in Aspen."15 For some, a second home built in the Rustic Style was a natural choice, and things were moving fast: "A gala opening of the lifts and reopening of the Jerome was held in January, 1947, and people poured in from all over the country. A boom was on, and every tax title was gone at the court house. If you wanted a lot or a house in Aspen, you could no longer step around to the county commissioners and make an offer of a hundred dollars or so on some abandoned property. You went to a swank new real estate office and paid through the teeth, several thousand dollars. Aspen had been bought up in a twinkling, and by a strange assortment of people- artists, writers, and movie actors who wanted to get away from city life, wealthy sportsmen who wanted a fishing and hunting lodge, mid-westerners who wanted a summer mountain cottage, eastern couples who wanted to try their hand at ranching, and ski cranks who wanted to start a business, any sort of business, to be close to Aspen's slopes."16 In part, as demand and mechanization quickly began to replace the handmade in many aspects of American life, log cabin kits that could be ordered by catalog, delivered by train or truck, and then assembled on site gained in populazity. The kits were another version of mail order houses that were popular during the depression era, lazgely due to their affordability. Following the lead of Seazs, Roebuck, & Co. and Montgomery Ward (who sold hundreds of thousands of homes during the Depression), other companies began selling different styles of kit houses, including Pan Abode (established in 1952), a 2/I west Hopkins Srreet,a Pan abode built i» manufacturer that specialized in log cabins. After tgsF 1950, Rustic Style buildings in Aspen were more commonly machine-made kit log structures than hand-built, but they still reflected the same American West iconography. Materials in these later buildings simulated log construction and referenced the particular visual details of the original log structures. Examples of kit log structures built as second homes during this period are found at 211 W. Hopkins and 765 Meadows. The kits were also used for quick-to- build housing to fill the growing needs of the ski resort workforce, many of whom could not '" Rothman, 223 15 Gilbert, 72 "Bancroft, Carolyn, Famous Asoen 4 qualify for traditional mortgages, due to the part time nature of their jobs, and therefore relied on affordable construction methods. Eligibility Considerations There are specific physical features that a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the historic context. Typical chazacteristics of the Rustic Style aze "log construction, stone foundation, small paned windows, overhanging roof, stone chimney, and battered walls."~~ To be eligible for historic designation, Aspen's examples of Rustic Style azchitecture should have the following distinctive chazacteristics: • Hand built structures that aze constructed out of locally available materials, usually log; stone may be incorporated at the base, or in the form of a fireplace and chimney. Later examples include machine cut logs. • The buildings are usually single story, with aloes-pitched gable roof. • True log construction with overlapping log ends, coped and stacked. Logs may be dressed and flattened for stacking or may be in rough form. Chinking infills the itregulazities between the logs either way. Machine made buildings mimic these details, though without the chinking. • Window openings are spaze and usually horizontally proportioned, wood trim is used to finish out the window openings. • Building plans are simple rectangulaz forms, with smaller additive elements. • The roof springs from the log wall, and gable ends aze often infilled with standard framing. This may be a small triangle or a second level of living space. • The emphasis is on hand-made materials and the details stem from the use of the materials, otherwise the detail and decoration is minimal. Though Pan Abode structures aze still being manufactured today, which poses a greater challenge in determining the end date for the Rustic Style period, changes in the type of accommodations and facilities that were desired for both tourists and homeowners began to evidence themselves in Aspen in the eazly 1970's. As land became more valuable, the era of the small vacation cabin came to an end, and custom-built homes were faz more common, as were condominiums. Aspen's 1973 Growth Management plan, a reaction to the magnitude of change and development that the town was experiencing, recognized the need to preserve the quality of life that many felt Aspen was losing due to its popularity. Second homes began displacing permanent residents, and in fact, the City passed a controversial ordinance in order to stem the loss of resident-occupied housing. Concurrently, modest lodges were being replaced with higher-end accomodations. These trends were noted again in 1986, when, according to the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plans, it was found that the number of second homes had significantly increased, and that the size of these second homes was particularly large compared to traditional residences in the city. The shifts in Aspen's development pattern suggest that it would be "Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture 1e Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993 5 appropriate to establish the end of the period of historic significance, which is a term used to define the time span during which the style gained architectural, historical, or geographical importance, for simple, small scale, Rustic Style buildings as roughly 1970. With regazd to Pan Abode structures, of which there is a relatively large collection remaining in town, a finding of historic significance must go beyond the basic characteristics of the building as an example of a kit house, and demonstrate a connection between a specific structure and the local story of vacation home construction and ski industry related housing, lodging, or facilities. The Castle Creek Cabins/Waterman Cabins, once located at 7`" and Hallam Streets Sunset Cabins, once located near 7`" and Main Streets 7 Deep Powder Lodge Bibliography Aspen Area Community Plan, 1993, Aspen, Colorado Bancroft, Cazolyn, Famous Aspen Carley, Rachel, "Cabin Fever: Rustic Style comes Home" September 1998, www.uniquerustique.com/history Colorado Historical Society Home Page, Guide to Colorado Architecture, www.coloraohistorv- oahp.org/ ug ides Directory of Colorado State Register Properties, www.coloradohistorv-oahp.or¢/publications Gilbert, Anne M. Re-Creation through Recreation: Aspen Skiine from 1870 to 1970, 1995. Aspen Historical Society, Aspen, Colorado Harrison, Laura Soulliere, Architecture in the Parks: A National Historic Landmazk Theme Studv, National Pazk Service, Department of the Interior, November 1986 http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online books/harrison Kaiser, Harvey H., Landmarks in the Landscape, California: Chronicle Books, 1997. Rocky Mountain National Park, Home Page, Historic Buildings http://www.nps. aov/romo/resources/history/historic.html Rothman, Hal K., Devil's Bazgains -Tourism in the Twentieth-Century American West, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1998. Throop, E. Gail, "Rustic Architecture: Period Design in the Columbia River Gorge", 1995. CRM Volume 18, Number 5, http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/18-5/18-5-4.pdf. ~~ ~,~- i~ ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES - JULY 15, 2008 Erspamer asked if P&Z was the final approval on this application. Phelan replied that the Planning & Zoning Commission was the final approval. No public Comments. MOTION.• Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #22, series of 2008 with the changes to page 2 of the resolution deleting and replacing with Growth Management, the Planned Unit Amendment and Commercial Design Review to enclose two outdoor seating areas at 411 S Monarch on the Dancing Bear Lodge in Section 1 #1 and amending the date on page 3 to the 1 S`h of July and adding the condition of sliding windows that have the capability to open entirely on both the south and east enclosure. Seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Gibbs, yes; Wampler, yes; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ~~ 612 W FRANCIS. SUBDIVISION REVIEW LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 612 West Francis. Jim True reviewed the public notice. Amy Guthrie explained this was a subdivision review for two adjacent properties and utilized a map to show the properties; in the year 2000 there were two houses a 1996 house on a 6,000 square foot lot and a Pan Abode on a 6,000 square foot lot. Guthrie said that landmarks were allowed to have minimum lots of 3,000 square feet. Guthrie said there was no increase in FAR one property would be allowed 2400 square feet and whether or not they do the subdivision landmarks are allowed to have a second unit on the site but do not receive more FAR. Mike Wampler asked the most that could be built on this piece of land finding every bonus possible. Guthrie responded that as it stands today each lot is allowed 3,240 square feet of floor area. Guthrie said that there were exemptions of a 250 square foot single stall garage, a portion of a basement is not counted, porches are not counted and that is not affected by the landmark designation; it still will be calculated the same way. Guthrie said there was a possibility of a bonus for restoration work. LJ Erspamer asked if TDRs could be added to the site. Guthrie replied that a TDR cannot land on a designated site but they could sell some of their rights to TDRs. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES - JULY 15, 2008 Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated this was a simple request without a developer mind set. Haas said the only change is that whatever happens on this property is subject to HPC review. Wampler asked how it was a good deal for the city. Haas said right now the Pan Abode could be torn down without review and by making it a landmark it would have to go through the HPC guidelines. Haas said that the existing house furthest to the west goes onto a 3,000 square foot lot, which it was originally built on, is built out with a zero expansion potential and remains conforming and the 9,000 square foot lot where the only expansion potential is the same that was there originally that it could be used for another dwelling but all of it becomes subject to HPC review. Haas said that it puts restrictions on the property that currently don't exist, which most property owners aren't willing to do and these owners want the space the way it used to be. Brian Speck asked if the house was for sale. Haas said that it is for sale and they are giving up 3,000 square feet of the lot. Stan Gibbs asked if this house were built today would it be conforming and if it does not require any variances. Haas replied it does not require any variances and meets all the setback requirements. LJ Erspamer asked the zoning was changed and the lot lines were changed why is it changing back. Haas replied before it was 2 owners Doremus family owned the comer property and the Silverrrtan's owned the house on the 3,000 square foot lot and the Doremus'agreed to sell lot to the Silverman's. Marisa Silverman stated they bought the middle lot first and then bought the Pan Abode. Erspamer asked about any easements being needed and if there was subgrade space involved. Haas replied that there were no easements. Phelan responded the subgrade did not change. Public Comments: 1. Jack Wilke said that he lived at 626 West Francis and asked how the lots might be split into 2 or 31ots. Haas answered there was 12,000 square feet and it was being split into a 3,000 and 9,000 square foot lots. Haas said that the 9,000 square foot lot could not be further subdivided; the zoning would allow another house but there were no plans to do that. Haas said under the city's growth management rules a 9,000 square foot landmarked lot could have 2 homes. Wilke stated that he had no objection but commented that he was frustrated about the over-sized houses built in the immediate neighborhood and resented the 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES - JULY 15.2008 application of the incentives. Wilke said that he was frustrated by the historic process that allows these houses to get bigger. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #024, series of 2008, recommending City Council approve the proposed subdivision at 600/612 West Francis contingent on the landmark designation; seconded by Dina Bloom. Roll call vote: Wampler, no; Speck, no; Gibbs, yes; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, yes. APPROVED 3-2. PUBLIC /01/08): LJ Erspamer opened a continued public heari .Jennifer Phelan noted this was the second in a se ' s of 4 hearings on the A en Valley Hospital master an; the hospital was re odeling and expanding t facilities. Phelan stated t fight the focus was o conceptual planned unit evelopment; employee hou 'ng; site improve ents and noise analysis f the flight for life helicopt PI}~lan said that employee h sing and employee genera ' n were typically andled at final. Phelan ted that the hospital was c sidered an essential pub 'c facility and each opera 'on was to be analyzed for ployee needs. Volume fluctuation at certai imes of the year (season )for the number of em oyees needed at certain mes of the year for the d rmination of employee neration. Support servic at the hospital did not fl tuate seasonally like ho ekeeping. Phelan said other point of consider 'on was decompression, ich some of the main exp sion and renovation of a building was to meet a current design standa s for hospital operation . Plan said proposed wa 7,000 squaze feet of ical office space; 12,400 square feet of that wa et leasable space, spac considered to generate employees. The applicant use xed use zone district t etermine the employee gene ion rate for the me ' al office space at 3.7 p 1,000 squaze feet ofnet leas a area. Phelan co nted that another issue as that of credits for afforda a housing; there will ave to be more work d e of this issue. The hospital ought the Beam nt Inn to address affor le housing needs proactive and asked if this cou be used as credit. Ph said this was a bit of a thr old question: does P Z think the applicant ould receive credit for the a 'sting employee hou ' g. Staff requested mor information of the medical fice space; the num~r of offices and why at number was needed; em yee generation for al and the 6 ~~i~~ ~ HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC Apri13, 2008 Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen Historic Preservation Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Application for 600/612 W. Francis (Lots 1 and 2 of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split, City and Townsite of Aspen). Dear Amy: Please consider this letter and the attached draft plat to constitute a formal request for historic landmark designation and re-subdivision of the 600/612 W. Francis properties. 612 W. Francis is legally described as Lots P and Q Block 21, of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split (Parcel Identification Numbers 2735-124-09-007). 600 W. Francis is legally described as Lots R and S, Block 21, of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split (PID #2735-124-09-009). They are in the Medium- Density Residential (R-6) zone district, and are located on the north side of West Francis Street between North Fifth and Sixth Streets. A vicinity map showing the approximate location of the subject property is provided be]ow. rwwn~cs~ ei Y~ d i m o~w'me ~ . . S,. ~ .a•w.a wn. g 54 ! .,a .Q n: ~ +E p ~' # wcww m a P Wrypn,A n _ k ~ a S ~ ~:~ a M 4 r 5l 2 ~.. ay _ .. [ 9 °^sa Q W u~ •~•R ~ In ~~ AM R ~^•eF 9 S'~ ~ n ~ q ~ ` s^e wMTMOnv I~ az • . ~.' ~. "§....F~h44e ~r 4 ~ OMi n ' #F e l 6 c . rtu 0 600/612 W. Francis St. Vicinity Map • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 ASPEN, COLORADO 8761 1 • PHONE (970) 925-7879 FAX: (970) 925-7395 Lots P and Q (612 West Francis Street) are improved with a 2 to 2'/z story, bluish-gray, stucco house. The house is rectangular in shape (19.75' wide x 74.75' long), has vaulted spaces, and the first floor (on the West Francis frontage) is sunken below natural grade, at "garden level." Along the alley, the house is two stories tall with a two car garage at ground level. The Pan Abode house on Lots R and S (600 West Francis Street) is oriented in anortheast-southwest direction, facing the corner of West Francis and North Fifth Streets. The house has a footprint of roughly 2,085 square feet in a predominantly rectilinear form, plus an approximately 60 square foot shed attached to its West Francis Street frontage. While the house does not have a garage, an approximately 9 foot wide concrete driveway enters the property diagonally from North Fifth Street, as does a similarly oriented walkway to the front porch. What amounts to the side and rear yards of the house, based on its orientation, are fenced in and there is a wood deck extending from the central portion of the rear of the house. The subject properties are located in the West End neighborhood, which contains a highly ec]ectic mix of architectural styles, house sizes, and building orientations. The subject block alone contains a multitude of architectural styles ranging from pan abodes to typical 1970's suburban houses, and from mountain chalets to contemporary designs. The block contains very new homes, homes of average age, and fairly old homes. The structures on the block range in height from 1 story to 2'/z stories. Almost all of the houses on both sides of the block take vehicular access from West Francis Street (not the alley), with head-in parking along the north side of the street and parallel parking along the south side. Both sides of West Francis Street contain a mature mix of large coniferous and deciduous trees. The houses on the corner lots tend to orient toward the cross streets (4'h and 5~ Streets) This application is submitted by Jack and Marisa Silverman (hereinafter jointly referred to as "the applicant"), the owners of both properties, pursuant to Sections 26.415.030, 26.470.060, and 26.480 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code'). The required Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements forms, as well as a copy of the Pre-Application Conference Summary completed by Amy Guthrie (Aspen Historic Preservation Planner), are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Proof of the applicant's ownership is provided in Exhibit 2, and authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC, to represent the owners is provided in Exhibit 3. Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000, is attached as Exhibit 4. An Improvement Survey Map showing the existing condition of the property is provided as Exhibit 5, and a draft Subdivision Plat is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Finally, an executed City of Aspen Fee Agreement and a list of mailing addresses of record for all owners of property within a Silverman Itistoric Application Page 2 three-hundred foot radius of the subject properties are provided as Exhibits 7 and 8, respectively. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require additional information and/or clarification. Upon request, Haas Land Planning, LLC, will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the review. The Proposal 612 W. Francis Street originally consisted only of Lot P, a 3,000 square foot lot, while Lots Q R, and S were one 9,000 square foot lot (600 W. Francis St.). In October of 2000, the Aspen City Council granted approval for a subdivision exemption for a lot split on the properties which dissolved the lot line between Lot P and Lots Q R, and S, and replaced it with a lot line between Lots P-Q and Lots R-S, resulting in two (2) 6,000 square foot lots. This became known as the Doremus/Silverman lot split (see Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000 attached to this application). Now both lots are owned by Jack and Marisa Silverman who desire to return the properties tc their pre-2000 ccrui~ara cn. However, if the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split was simply vacated, Lot P would become a non- conforming lot unless designated historic. The applicant is therefore requesting that the lot lines between Lots P-Q and Lots R-S be eliminated, creating one 12,000 square foot parcel. Simultaneously, the applicant proposes that the entire 12,000 square foot parcel be designated a historic landmark. Once the parcel is considered a historic landmark, the property can then be subdivided back to its pre-2000 configuration of one 3,000 square foot lot (612 W. Francis, Lot P), and one 9,000 square foot lot (600 W. Francis, Lots Q R, and S). This would conform to the R-6 Dimensional requirements since the minimum lot size for a historic landmark parcel is 3,000 square feet. No actual development or alterations to existing structures are proposed as part of this application. The applicant merely seeks to designate the property as historic, and return it to its original configuration via subdivision. While the applicant currently has no plans to do so, it is understood that once the property is returned to its original configuration, the right to build a separate, detached home on the 9,000 square foot parcel would exist. This home would share a total of 4,080 square feet of allowable floor area with the existing Pan Abode. Silverman Historic Application Page 3 Review Requirements Based on the elements of the proposal outlined in the foregoing, this application has been prepared (in the order addressed below) pursuant to the following Sections of the Land Use Code: 1) Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic Properties; 2) Section 26.480.050, Subdivision Review Standards. Sec. 26.415.030. Designation of historic properties. The designation of properties to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures (the Inventory) is intended to provide a systematic public process to determine what buildings, areas and features of the historic built environment are of value to the community. The Inventory was established by City Council to formally recognize those districts, buildings, structures, sites and objects Iocated in the City that have special significance to the United States, Colorado or Aspen history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or culture. Section 26.415.030.0 of the Code, states that property owners may file an application for designation of a property to the Inventory. Under Section 26.415.035(A) of the Code, the Community Development Director is charged with reviewing the subject property and making a preliminary determination as to whether it should be considered for inclusion on the Inventory. This decision is based on the criteria of Section 26.415.30.B.2 as follows: 1. The property or district is deemed significant as a representation of Aspen's 20t" century history, zvas constructed in whole or in part more than thirty (30) years prior to the year in zohich application for designation is being made, possesses sufficient integrity of location, setting, design, materials, zvorkmanship, and association and is related fo one or more of the fallowing: a. An event, pattern, or trend that has made a significant contribution to local, state, regional or national history,• or b. People whose specific contributions to local, state, regional or national history is deemed important and can be identified and documented; or, c. A physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman or design philosophy that is deemed important. The "Pan Abode' on Lots R and S was built in 1956 and represents the rustic style of architecture that was symbolic of the early and mid-20th century. According to an article entitled "Aspens 20th Century Architecture' as found on Silverman Historic Application Page 4 the City of Aspen Historic Preservation's website, rustic style buildings started being built in Aspen in the 1930's. The rustic style was thought to give the feeling of having been built by the pioneers and blend well with the natural surroundings. The typical characteristics of the rustic style include log construction, stone foundations, small paned windows, overhanging roofs, stone chimneys, and battered walls. After World War II, the heightened idealization of the West as a place of adventure and freedom brought more and more people to the region for vacation. Many vacation homes, hunting lodges, and tourist-related facilities in the rustic style started to increase in number in the Aspen area. The article goes on to state that in the 1950's, mechanization began to replace the handmade in many aspects of American life, including home building. At that time, Pan Abode, a manufacturer specializing in log cabins, started selling kit homes that simulated log construction and referenced the details of original log structures. These quick-to-build homes began to fill the growing needs of the ski resort workforce. In order to be eligible far historic designation i. p '~~ ~yt `: AS en, a rusu~ Si a2 home should be single story, log construction, with aloes-pitched gable roof, small window openings and minimal detail or decoration. The building plans are simple rectangular forms, with smaller additive elements. The roof will customarily spring from the log wall, and gable ends are often in-filled with standard framing. Further, in order to be considered historically significant, a Pan Abode home should go beyond the basic characteristics of an example of a kit house, and should demonstrate a connection between the structure and the Iota] story of vacation home construction and ski industry related housing, lodging or facilities. This particular pan abode was originally built fifty-two (52) years ago, in 1956. In the 1960s this home was owned by Mrs. Vivienne Jones, who was married to Whipple Van Ness "Whip" Jones, the founder, developer and original operator of the Aspen Highlands ski area. This home stayed in Mrs. Jones' family until 2001, when it was sold to the applicant. Throughout the 1980s, this home was rented out to "ski bums' during the ski season (according to Jeanne Doremus, daughter-in-law of Vivienne Jones). Since this pan abode home is more than fifty (50) years old, has been connected to ski industry related housing, and is a representative example of the rustic style architecture, the applicant respectfully requests that this entire property be granted historic landmark designation. Silverman Historic Application Page 5 B. Subdivision Approval The purpose of Section 26.480, Subdivision, of the Code includes ensuring "the proper distribution of development" and encouraging "the well-planned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision." This purpose is forwarded by and achieved with the proposal made herein. The review standards applicable to subdivision applications are contained in Section 26.480.050 of the Code. The standards are provided below in italics, with each followed by a response demonstrating consistency and/or compliance therewith, as applicable. A. General Requirements 1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the AACP. The applicant seeks to landmark the entire 12,000 square foot property and simultaneously subdivide the property back t0 ItS Orlglndl COnflgLratinn, Tha A ASP caelrc to preserve historically significant buildings and the contribution they make to the character of the town. 2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. The proposed subdivision is located in a neighborhood of single-family and duplex residences, and is consistent with the character of the area. It will have no affect on existing character. 3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect future development of surrounding areas. Nothing will change other than the location of a lot line and a guarantee that an historic pan abode will be preserved. 4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. As provided throughout this application, the proposed project is and will be incompliance with all applicable requirements of the Code. Silverman Historic Application Page 6 B. Suitability of land for subdivision Z. 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 zc~ill be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not located on land considered unsuitable for development. The site is already developed. The property contains existing development that is not and has not been subject to geologic or other hazards. The proposed project will not be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents. 2. 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. The proposed subdivision is already developed. The applicant is merely seeking to reconfigure the lot lines that existed prior to the Silverman/Doremus Lot Split, which occurred in Gctobcr of 2000. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided far the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special reviezl~ (See Chapter 26.430) if the following [omitted] conditions are met: The proposed subdivision has already complied with the improvements set forth in Chapter 26.580. The improvements that are applicable to this property were set forth in 2000 when the lot split was approved. Those conditions have since been satisfied. In the event that any variances from the engineering design standards become necessary in the future, special review approval would then be sought. The Applicant will enter into a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) with the City binding the subdivision to any conditions placed on the development order. This will be done concurrently with the preparation and recordation of the Final Subdivision Plat. The Final Subdivision Plat will be prepared by a Colorado licensed surveyor and will meet the requirements of the Land Use Code. All required elements of the SIA will be provided for review by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. The SIA will rep]ace the existing subdivision exemption agreement currently affecting the subject lots. Silverznan Historic Application Page 7 D. Affordable housing. Chapter 26.520, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program, is not applicable since no multi-family dwellings will be demolished. Similarly, Chapter 26.470, Grozoth Managemenf Quota System, is not applicable since no new dwelling units are being proposed with this subdivision. Should the applicant ever decide to build an additional dwelling unit on the 9,000 square foot lot, such is allowed subject to administrative review in accordance with Section 26.470.060(1) of the Code. E. School land dedication. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in-lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. There are no plans for any additional residential units in the subdivision at this time. Should any ever be developed, the SIA will require payment of this fee, as applicable. F. Grozoth Management ApproUal This section of the subdivision regulations requires that a growth management allotment be granted or a growth management exemption be obtained for subdivision approval to be granted. This proposed "subdivision' is merely seeking to move the lot line over. There are currently two parcels, and there will be two parcels when the subdivision is granted. The property is already developed with one home on each lot. No new lots or homes are being proposed at this time; therefore, no GMQS implications result. It is hoped that the provided information and responses prove helpful in the review of this application. If you should have any questions or desire any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Truly yours, Haas Land Planning, LLC Mitc aas, AICP Owner/ Manager Silverman Historic Application Page 8 Attachments: Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms; Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 2: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 3: Authorization for Haas Land PIanning, LLC Exhibit 4: Ordinance No. 49, Series 2000 Exhibit 5: Improvement Survey Map (Existing Conditions) Exhibit 6: Draft/Proposed Subdivision Exemption Plat Exhibit 7: Executed City of Aspen Application Fee Agreement Exhibit 8: Mailing addresses of record for all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject properties Silverman Historic Application Page 9 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: EXHIBIT ~~ Name: ~ (' Laa/ n Location: ~p ~a, W. I ~ J C t Indicate street address, lot block number, le al descri tion where a ro riate) ParcellD # (REQUIRED) 'd S- - ~j REPRESENTATIVE' Name: rr~I~~S ~9 ~~NNi~ ~~.-l. Address: (d.~ I ll.~ ~Sp . SU 1 Phone#: 1~11~~QaFJ~~'CV! I~-~~-~~~J/~T1hll_; ~+1~1QQS C~t1~OD__~ -+' PROJECT: Name: SILV~(zf ~ ~N~ 1~GS( f}! S/~JUB~~ IVIS Address: (cOO~~ ~ a ~. /~/1)~},q ~ AlIpEA1 (L~y v' ~ ()C Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ^ Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Special Review ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Final Historic Development ^ Design Review Appeal ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Minor Historic Devt. ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Historic Demolition ^ GMQS Exemption ~ Subdivision - t~ Historic Designation ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Temporary Use ^ Other: ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc_) one u ~ nn LOTS P ~ f~ Po y n (,~I E t LSE ~n l ~,nT ~ ? s~~, ,S PROPOSAL: (descriution of nrooosed buildings. uses. modifications. etc.l Y Qnd ©NE q , 00o S~ ~A~CF ~ Low C~ -S ) Have you attached the following? ~ FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary [Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ,[~ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form L,~ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an eleMronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. ATTACHMENT2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM ~E E sU~~~y Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~~~ Proposed: lJ~f} 2 Pro osed.• Z. Number ofresidentia] units: Existing: p ~ Numberofbedrooms: Existing: Proposed: /~/d etG~N(F Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): Q ~o DIMENSIONS: F1_oor ?rea: Principal bldg. height: Access. bldg. height: On-Site parking: Site coverage: Open Space: Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing Allowable: (pProposed.~/lltl ('/FA?VSF Allowable:_a_~ ~ Proposed:_nly (j-)~/(~ F} Allowable: N p Proposed: ~ '{ Required: Proposed: /1/' ~E Required: l/ /-~ Proposed: Required: 1~Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments: ~e l1/ot/ I nAro~02/~'l !TIES ~~ /~TTAc.HFt~ ~e Fe,ren.,4C'~'~C~tCIT~ Variations requested: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area maybe reduced for areas within [he high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) 1F, ~ 1H1 1I 1~ 11 ~ ~ SCALE o s to Is ~ ~/ v ®/ PLANTEIP / ~~T P CST Q AREA 3.000 •/- SOFT. ~ AREA - 3.000 •/- SOFT. 3C J Y ~7 PAT10 ElEV-06. S' IAT10 ENCROACHMENT LICENSE FOR CONCRETE PAD 13.2' x 27' 2.4' Ka ElM:ROAd 1.4" RU ~~ Nr~oAa ~~• ' \ y01x:~NA •~ Y STORY HOUSE ~4 R~EBAI ROIP W OACHMENT L I CENSE FGU •x• oN roP STONE WALL 0.8'x30' of s of •ul NI LA 'PROP COR' SSG E 0 GS' FROY COR GRAVEL PARKING 11r~sT GRAVEL PARKING ~~PA a FRANCIS o.s• oNro LOT 0 ~t ~7'A ~. _ ALL ENCROeCHMENTS ON LOT 0 REMOVED ET N0. 4 RERAR YELION CAI -1612D NC' ao ~~ IS' NIT COK ~Y O \__ I I aroar Noon NoosE ($rw:11 OsrMoLtSMEV~ i ~0r R CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 PROJECT: 600/612 W. Francis REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER: Jack Silverman TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision, Historic Landmark Designation DATE: 1/18/2008 DESCRIPTION: 600 W. Francis Street, once a 9,000 square foot pazcel, was the subject of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split in 2000, which resulted in the westernmost 3,000 squaze feet of 600 W. Francis being transferred to 612 W. Francis, at the time a legal non-conforming 3,000 squaze foot lot. One family now owns both sites and would like to return the properties to their pre-2000 configuration. The Doremus/Silverman Lot Split cannot simply be vacated because doing so would make 612 W. Francis non- conforming again. The Doremus/Silverman Lot Split can be undone through a new subdivision that meets zone district regulations. The application for subdivision should describe the following sequential actions; (1) eliminate any lot line between 600 and 612 W. Francis, so that the whole parcel will qualify for landmark designation (the landmazk eligible building being the Pan Abode on the east portion of the pazcel), (2) complete designation, (3) finalize a subdivision plat to make 600 W. Francis a 9,000 square foot lot and 612 W. Francis a 3,000 square foo± lot. This will be allowable because the minimum lot size for historic landmark parcels is 3,000 squaze feet. The three actions can be scheduled simultaneously. 600 W. Francis and 612 W. Francis already contain single family homes. As a result of the proposed designation, 600 W. Francis would, under current regulations, be eligtble to deve]op an additional detached free market dwelling unit in the future if desired, exempt from the Growth Management Quota System under Section 26.470.060.1. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.030 Designation of Historic Properties 26.470.60 Administrative Applications (Growth Management) 26.480 Subdivision Review by: Staff for complete application; HPC for recommendation on Historic Landmark Designation; P&Z for recommendation on Subdivision; City Council decision on Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision. Public Hearing: Yes at all hearings before HPC, P&Z and City Council (except First Reading of Ordinance at Council.) Planning Fees: $2,940.00 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour). Engineering: $212 Minor Review fee. Total Deposit: $3,152.00 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number ofthe representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application. 5. Completed dimensional requirements form. 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2" x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proofofownership. 9. Site Improvement Survey. 10. Proposed site plan. 11. Proposed floor plan. 12. Proposed elevation plan. 13. A written description ofthe proposal and a written explanation ofhow a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 14. List of adjacent properly owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 15 Copies of prior approvals. 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. iir Copies of the complete application packet for Landmazk resignation. 20 Copies of the complete application packet for Subdivision. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application is then referred to applicable referral agencies. The Applicant is then assigned a public hearing date by Staff and Staffwrites a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews application and makes a recommendation to City Council on requests. Ciry Council makes final determination in [he form of an ordinance. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. JUN. 6.2000 9:28AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE ~ COMMITMENT FOR TIT'L.E INSURANCE SCHEDULE A i 1. Etfecfive Date: May 9, 2000 at 8.30 AM Case No. PC~'11B55PR i i 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: I{ (a) ALTA Owners Poicy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 Premiums O.O~p Proposed Insured; Rate: (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.0 Premium$ 0. Proposed Insured: Rate: RE-ISS E Tax Certifipt~: $10.00 3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate w interest in the land described or referred td in t~is Comrtllimenf ii at ~e effective date hereat vesttd irr: l ,TACK E. SiL'v"ERi1ilAiv 4, The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of State of COLORADO and is desuibed as folbws: LOT P, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN PITKSN COI7N21 ZII'LE, INC. 601 E HOPKiNS AsraN, co. a16u 970-9?5-1766 970'925.6527FAX ASIIHOR(ZED gGEN7 S~tredulg A~G.1 This Commitment is Invalid unless the Insuring Provisions and Schedules A and B are attached. JUN. 6. 20f)0 4:29AM PiTKIN COUNTY TITLE ~ NO. 1780 P. ;/5 SCHIDULE B -SECTION Z REQUIREMENTS The following are the. requirements ro be complied with; ITEM (a) Payment ro or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the ivllj consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest ro be Insured must be executed and duty filed for record to-wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PIJRP®SES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE. RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY- THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBYAGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELL ALL INFORMATK)N CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. .JUN. 6.20(10 9:29AM PITKIN COUNTY TITLE ! N0. 1780 P.S/~ I i SCFIEDTJLE B SECTION 2 E7{CEPiIONS The policy or policies to be issued will rontain exceptions to the foibwing unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company; 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easemerrts, rwt shown by the pubfic records, 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, any fads which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disGose and which are not shown by the pubic records. 4. Any Tien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hensatter famished, imposed by law and nat shown by the public records. 5, Defects, liens, enwmbrances, adverse claims or other matters, R any, created, first appearing In the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof Dut prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or Interest of mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or Nor any other special taxing district. 7. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 283 providing as follows: 'That no tide shall be hereby acquired ro any mine of gold, silver, dnnabar or copper or to any valid mining Gaim or possession held under existing laws". 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Affordable Housing •Impact Fee Deferral Agreement recorded April 27, 1995 in book Ti9 at Page 460_ 9. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set feat! in Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Improvement Agreement recorded August 7; 1996 as Reception No_ 395057 10 r>«~e or?mst from ~ .IACK F Rfl \rFRMAhr Tn thg public Tnlstee of the County of For the use of NORVVES? !dIORTGAGE, 1NG- Original Amount :5940000 Dated ~ April 29, 199$ Recorded :May 5, 1999 Reception No. :416493 11. Deed of Trust from :.iAGK E. $i~VeRfJWN To the Public Trustee of the Coun of For the use of : NOR:NEST SANK CO~ORADC, R!. A. Original Amount :5500000 Dated :June 2, ?998 Recorded ;September 22, 1998 Reception No. :422216 JUN. 6.2000, 9:29AM PITKIN COUNTY, TITLE ~ N0. 1790 P.5,~5 ADDIITONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Polity to be issued, if arty shall contain the following items En addition TA the ones set forth above: (t) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section t. (2) Water rights, claims or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POUCY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER} Pursuant to Inswance Regulation t39=2; NOTE: Each title entity sha!! notify in writing every prcv=peMive insured in an owner's ti*.k insurance poltry for a single family residence (including a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that the entity's general requirements for the deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating tb unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the insured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' andlor Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company, Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements m be specified by the Company upon request, Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owner's policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwitlrstandingfhe foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or materialmens lien coverage: NOTE: If the Comparry conducts the owners or loan dosing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage'. Pursuant to Senate BiA 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122); (a) The Subject Real Property may be boated in a Specal Taxing District: (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form the County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent; {c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of Courrty Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate wiR be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the cempany prior to the issuance of the Trtse Pdicy ant'rdpated by fhls Commitrnent This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B~ection 2 Me Insuring Provisbns and Schedules Commitrnent No. PCT77855PR A and B are attached. U I~ S m _m m V W ace= a J ~W Nov m~ a'~ WARRANTY T1A5 DEED, Made this 2nd dry of January, 2001 betwscn Doremua Pamily Limited Partnerabip, L. L.L.P. of the •Cmnty of Pitkdn a^d Smm of ColoMo, grmmc, and Jack Silverman ~ rp,oD whose kgd addreaak 612 Weet Francis Street, Aapea, CO 81611 of Um Cmmry of Pi[kia aril Stale of Colorado, grmker: WTTNBSS,16ar dle grantor for snd k~onsideration oC the sum of Ten Dollars 010.00) and other good and valuable coneiderationa ~~' the iaxipt and mf8eimry of which it hem6y aclmowkAged, hu grmted, bmg®ned. s°Id and wo~eyed, and by dove pesmm doai gran6 bargain, sell, wnvryatd omfinnwtothe grarlhea, the'vhein and enigua former. nothr kmucy is twnlrnmbat iaJoiot Icoancy, all the rnl pmputy, rogethtt with improw:mmts, if soy, situate, Tying snd bciog in the County of Pitkln end Smk of Colorado, described n follows: Lot Q, Block 21, Doremus/Silverman Subdivision Exemption/Lot Split, according to the Plat recorded January 2, 2001 in Plat Book 55 xt Page 52, City and Townsite of Aspen. I I'llll I'lll'llll' I'll'I'I'II IIII "If'I III "I'~ II'I I"I /B022~ 01/03/2001 03:0W WD DRV[S SILVI 1 of T R 10.00 D 110.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO eko krrowo by aaed and numberm b10 Weat Prancis, Aspen, CO 81611 TOGETHER widr e8 avd aivguim fire hereditavxofs and .ppuknanecc Nnewm belonging, a k mywku y~ C.a..:_ing sad she rcvmtim and rmeralom, remeluder sod remainder. rmk, lssuea end profin therw[, cud ail the umk, fight, title. inrmral, claim and rksnerd whauaevsr of ale grmtar, eidmr {n law or equity, of, k and m tlrc abo,s bmgairrrd premisrs, wiN 0e hmedilemenn and appunenaocra. TD HAVE AND TO HOLD the said prmrisa above bargained and desrnbed, with r6eappuncmrcea, mm the grmkes, Ihdrheira end amigm former. And the grmtor, fur himself hies berm and person) represenmUwa, don conrrmt, gram. Mrgain aril agree m aM with thegrsmen, tlwuhc'ue aM avigns, Ilulat the time of the eruealin8 ~ delivery afihrseplaents, he uwrdl ae'vedofthe pmmiw ebee mnvryrd, hm goad, ewe, perfect. ebsoluk snd indcfrasibk wmre of inherilarce, k law, in fee simple, ud hu good dghL fill poxes cud lawful mllarity to gaol, bsrgain, u8 and eonvry the same in mamwraud imrn afdeseid, and thm the sameam frceard char from JI torrod and dhv grams, bargains, rake, ikon, rues, aeenarmtau, mcumbraoxs end rtasktimu of wherever Idnd m mmm aoesq except and eubj act to [hose matters set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. The gnutar s1m0 and wdl WARRANT AND Ii~REVER DEPPND the above-bargained premises in the quid end peaceable posansionof the grantees, their hairs and auigm, ageiost VI and every person or perwrrr lawfully claiming the whole or my pad Ihmeoi The aiogulm number shell imlude tl>e plmel, the piurd file ringular and des ure of my grader shill h appiiuble to dl genderr. Pl WfINFSS WHBRFAP fire 8rmmr hu cxecuted this deed on the desk ad forty above. 57ATE OP COIDRADO u. County of Pitkin By: Doramua Management, Ltd., General P t ~~ Bv: / .Qf6a.~.~ ~tP,IYU~~ J6adrre Doremue, YreaiBen[ The foregoing irawrrwut wn adnmwledgcd baton rrc fib ~ dry of January, by Jeanne Doremve as President of Doremue Management, L[d., Gen Dorenme Pamily Limited P ship, L.L .L.P., s Colorado limited limited partnership. ~g'CINq ~q wuraa my had ald o(fidd sail. Q`.••-••••. L/ V~`i~~Tgl~l:s ~Comml ios espims w+.yw ~O d''v ..AUBL~C{. ^O 9 • p~ .....+ro.• C _- 3RiteDmmcines0fRkxeot3 of .L.P. W Tamnrssmu Fryims llAi/tllfB __.- _ Ns. 921A. Rer. d-HS, WAMAMrYD fa l,W Twwl anafwd PuWnaiq, IDs) Waac a, 4ma, CO a03D3 -(10)1 D93.3t0D-691 U h - H'Ji J~Nb- EXHIBIT A To WARRANTY DEED 1. General taxes and assessments For 2001 and subsequent years. 2. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 a Page 283 providing as follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws". 3. Easements, rights-of--way and all matters disclosed on Lot Split Plat of the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split recorded January 2, 2001 in Plat Book 55 at Page 52. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations set forth in Subdivision Exemption Agreement for the Doremus/Silverman Lot Split recorded January 2, 2001, as Reception No. 450164. 5. Encroachments and atl matters as disclosed by Survey of Aspen Survey Engineers dated March 29, 2000 as Job No. 15221 A. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Revocable Encroachment License recorded December 27, 2000 as Reception No. 449975. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters set forth in Ordinance No. 49, Series of 2000, of the Aspen City Council, recorded January 2, 2001 as Reception No. 450163. 2748764_1.DOC I IIIIII IIIII "III' IIIIII IIIII III) IIIIII III IIIII IIII ~~'~ 460224 01/03/2001 03:04P WD DpVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 10.00 D 110.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Retum to: ART DAILY HOLLAND 8 HART 600 E. MAIN ASPEN, CO 81611 _ CITY OF ASPEN CfTY OF ASPEN?} ~ - EXEMPT PROM WR13iT 17CEMPT FROM HRETT DAT REF NO. OATS REr. *. L~'~5` ~ tFllvf G~iy~; 8CV(- ~1f~J SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Made June 14, 2004 between JACK SILVERMAN of the County of PITKIN and State of CO, of the first part, GRANTOR and MARISA SILVERMAN whose legal address is: 612 WEST FRANCIS, ASPEN, CO 81611 of the County of PITKIN State of CO, of the second part, GRANTEE WITNESSETH, That the said parties of Me first part, for antl in consideration of the sum of Ten dollars and other good and valuable consitleragons, to the said parties of Me first part, in hand paid Dy the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and wnfirm unto the said parties of the second part, its successors and assigns forever, all the following described lots or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of PITKI N and State of COLORADO, to wit: LOTS R & S, BLOCK 21, DOREMUS/SILVERMAN SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION/LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat recorded January 2, 2001 in Plat Book 55 at Page 52. Together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances there-unto belonging, w in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim antl demand whatsoever, of the said parties of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditamenls and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said parties of the second part, i[s successors and assigns forever. And the said parties of the first part for themselves, their heirs antl assigns do crovenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with [he said parties of the second part, their successors and assigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of said parties of Ne second part, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully dalming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, by through or under the said parties of the first part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the frst part have hereunto set [heir hand(s) and seal(s). ('~ JACK SILVERMAN 9 STATE OF iJloVft n~ IB II~I III ~I II I I II I II II I (~ 06 ' I , III fI, 'I I I 6 00{ 02 0 !P $$ sILVIN DPVIS VITKIN COUNLY LO COUNTY OF I7r ~~Y I /~ 1 0 0.00 0 0.00 14t~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of J is Ise , 2004 By: JACK SILVERMAN WITNESS my hand and official seal my commission expires: Brandi L-Jepson !Notary Public PCT17964L My CommissionEKpires+l22r2oo5 601 E. Hopkins Aspan, C0 87611 __ - _ __ 3 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Block 21, Lots P, Q R & S (600/612 W. Francis St,) (I'ID#s 2735-124-09-007 and 2735-124-09-009) Request for Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Approval To whom it may concern: As owner of the above referenced properties, we hereby authorise Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to act as our designated and authorized representatives for the preparation, submittal, and processing of an application for the approvals listed above, as well as, any subsequent applications associated therewith. HLP is also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Aspen City Council. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose address and telephone number are included with the application. Yours truly, ~-~ J k~Silverm(an '7 / l :~ , c risa Sil~rma 612 W. Francis St. Aspen, CO 81611 ORDINANCE No. 49, SERIES 2000 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION LOT SPLIT FOR LOTS P, Q, R, AND S OF BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel 1D (Lot P): 2735-124-00-007 Parcel ID (Lots Q, R, and S): 2735-124-09-009 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an applicaton from co-applicants, Jack Silverman and the Doremus Family Limited Partnership, LLLP, represented by Mitch Haas, for a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 in the City and Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.480.040(B), the Aspen City Council, in accordance with the procedures, standazds, and limitations of this Chapter, shall by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for '~ a Subdivision Exemption Lot Spiit, after recommendation by the Community Development Department, pursuant to Section 26.480.040(B)(4); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the application for a Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S of Block 21 City and Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado in the R-6 zone district and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of pubic health, safety, and welfaze. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I'T ORDAINED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: r Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Subdivision Exemption Lot Split for Lots P, Q, R, and S of flock 21 City and { 11111! liii11i11i1111111III! 11111 IIIIIi III 111111111III{ 450263 01/@2/2001 03:01P ORDINANC DRVIS SILVI 1 of 3 R 1+1,0@ D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~~FW ~IRd /~ Townsite of Aspen, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, is approved with the following conditions: 1. That the co-applicants agree to demolish the existing house on Lot Q within 180 days of approval by City Council after recordation of the plat; 2. That the applicants remove the "No Pazking" sign located on West Francis Street side of the subject properties; 3. At present, there aze parking and fencing encroachments into the publicrights-of- way on West Francis Street, 5th Street, and the Alley for Block 21. The applicant must either 1) remove the encroachments or 2) obtain a Temporary Revocable Encroachment License from the City Engineering Department allowing these encroachments to exist prior to the recording of the final plat; 4. That all demolition of the existing building needs to occur from the alley side of the lot. In addition, the applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during demolition; 5. If, in the future, the applicants wish to remove trees located along the property line, approval from ~e City Parks Department based upon the free removal permit ,P-~- process is required; 6. That the neighboring owners both must end the use of the pazking area on West Francis Street. This is to alleviate the potential damage to the existing street trees. The applicants shall replace the gravel area with natural landscaping as required by the Pazks Departrnent; 7. That the applicant shalt submit and record a subdivision plat which meets the terms of chapter 26.480, and conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code, in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder afrer approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals; 8. That the applicant shall record the subdivision exemption agreement in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the agreement within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause; and 9. That the applicant agrees that this subdivision exemption lot split resulting in two 6,000 square foot lots contains a maximum potential build out not to exceed two (2) principal dwelling units. This lot split effectively eliminates a development right for Lots Q, R, and S; and 11"~I~'IIII ~~III' I~II'I'll' ~tll' III~~I III'lll~ II'I I'~1 4'!0163 01/@2/2001 03:01P ORDINRNC DRVIS SILYI 2 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.0@ N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO u ~ ~ Yryi ~1-I~H .~-_. 10. Any future development on the newly created lots shall be required to mitigate for their impact pursuant to Chapter 26.470 Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) as required. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and sha[I aot affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this I Oa' day of October, 2000. . a. ~, '.,. City Clerk r4~1 ~ ~t Apa ,o'~'~,.' FINAT.'L`Y, adopted, passed and approved this 23a' day of October, 2000. Attest: .` r.i, ty ~\, ath n S.'I ch Qi Clerk :. , ~:,.. `+'; ~//)),pp~p1ro~ a ~fo.form: /IN"i Rachel Richards, ayor John Worcestor, City Attorney Ct\My Documents\Currcnt Cases\Lot SIpiADorcmusSilvcrmanlSilvermanDoremusLotSptitMemo.doc Illlllllllllilill111111111111111111111111 iilli illillll X50183 01/02/2003 03:03P ORDINgNC ORVIS SILVI 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 N 0.0@ PITKIN COUNTY CO EXHIBIT CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Jack and Marisa Silverman (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Historic Landmark Designation and Subdivision Approval (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be beneSted by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agees it will be bene5ted through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agee that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information [o the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of$ 3,152* which is for 12 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director APPLIC T By: Date: ~-Z!o•OFS Bi-Gng Address and Telephone Number: Required ~tSPE.U, W 8C6!/ 925- ~s~z-- *:$2,940=Planning Flat Fee; and $212=Minor Review Fee b EXHIBIT 9~ 323 N FIFTH ST LLC 555 KATIE PARK LN SNOWMASS, CO 81654 609 CORPORATION PO BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 81612 ADELMAN KENNETH L TRUST 4018 N 27TH ST ARLINGTON, VA 22207 BEATON CHRISTINA NESLUND BEATON GLENN K 19 HUNTWICK LN CHERRY HILLLS VILLAGE, CO 80113 BOW EN-STANLEY PAMELA 2934 1/2 N BEVERLY GLEN CIR #482 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 DEROSA THOMAS J PO BOX 410 BROOKLANDVILLE, MD 21022 HALLAM SIX LLC 4430 ARAPAHO STE 110 BOULDER, CO 80303 KAFRISSEN ARTHUR & CAROLE F 310 N 6TH ASPEN, CO 81611 KOEHLER DAVID R TRUST LAyySON MICHELLE R C/0 WELLS FARGO BANK ATTN DEBBIE 522 W FRANCIS ST BERG ASPEN CO 81611 PO BOX 13519 , BLAICH ROBERT I & JANET S 319 N FOURTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BURROWS ANNE W 505 N 5TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DEVONSHIRE CORPORATION 6100 N PENNSYLVANIA OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112 IGLEHART JAMES P 610 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 KASCHJEFFERY C 68 RONAN RD FORT SHERIDAN, IL -60010-2065 BLANK ROBERT S & NANCY L C10 WHITCOMB PARTNERS 375 PARK AVE RM 3800 NEW YORK, NY 10152 COOK ROBERT C & MARSHA N 621 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HALL CHARLES L PO BOX 1819 ASPEN, CO 61612 JOY WILLIAM N PO BOX 10195 DEPT 571 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 KEY R BRILL & ELIZABETH R C/O KEY MEDIA 720 E HYMAN #301 ASPEN, CO 81611 LEVINE THEODORE A LIV TRUST 50% 425E 58TH ST #25H NEW YORK, NY 10022 ARLINGTON, TX 76094 LICHTIN HAROLD 3110 EDWARDS MILL RD # 200 RALEIGH, NC 27612 LOWREY JAMES E JR TRUSTEE 5518 SAUVE LANE HOUSTON, TX 77056 MACNAUGHTON DUNCAN TRUST 1288 ALA MOANA BLVD STE 208 HONOLULU, HI 96814-4206 MAGGOS LAURA P 317 NORTH 4TH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MARGERUM AMY L 622 WEST SMUGGLER ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTIN JAMES R 1998 OPRT 620 MARKET ST #300 KNOXVILLE, TN 37902 MCCAUSLAND LINDA MCCULLOUGH ANDREW JR MCLEAN CHARLES M PO BOX 1584 3939 DEL MONTE DR PO BOX 11687 ASPEN, CO 81612 HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612 MG DUPLEX LlC MILLER CYNTHIA L MULLEN MICHAEL 825 WEST NORTH ST 610 W SMUGGLER ST 8411 PRESTON RD #730 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1263 DALLAS, TX 75225 NEW WEISMAN FAMILY LP NIEBUR DEWAYNE E & JO ANNE OXLEY DEBBY M 50% 2418 EMERALD TR 721 W FRANCIS 1300 WILLIAMS TOWER I MINNETONKA, MN 55305-1910 ASPEN, CO 81611 TULSA, OK 74103 OXLEY JOHN C TRUSTEE 50% PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC PENINSULA LLC 1437 S BOULDER AVE #770 C/O SALLY TISCHER 729 NASKEAG RD TULSA, OK 74119 2471 VALLEJO ST BROOKLIN, ME 04616-3316 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 POPE WILLIAM H PORTER HOUSE STAKE LLC RA7EK EDWARD G 540 W SMUGGLER 1111 RACE ST PHA 3 LIMITED PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80206 COLOMBUS, OH 43230 RITCHIE ROBERT ROHATYN NICOLAS STEIT ROSENBERG PHILLIP I 701 W FRANCIS ST GREENBERG-ROHATYN~IEANNE 68 RONAN RD ASPEN, CO 81611 12 E 94TH ST HIGHWOOD, IL 60040 NEW YORK, NY SHAFROTH ASPEN HOUSE LLC SHAFROTH JOHN F SHELBY LLC 1902 POPLAR AVE 3901 E BELLEVIEW AVE 1201 WILLIAMS ST #A BOULDER, CO 80304 LITTLETON, CO 80121 DENVER, CO 80218 STANLEY GAINES B & VICKIE C SWANSON LUCIA LIV TRUST 50% TISCHLER SALLY l 3915 LEMMON AVE #200 425E 58TH ST #25-H 2471 VALLEJO ST DALLAS, TX 75219 NEW YORK, NY 10022 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123.4638 VERLEGER PHILIP K JR & MARGARET B WARDROP INDIA CUTLER WARE NINA COULTER 615 W FRANCIS ST 105 WOODSFORD SO 34 CLERMONT LN ASPEN, CO 81611 LONDON UK W 148DT, ST LOUIS, MO 63124 WEISS JEFFREY L 8 JILL WEST SMUGGLER LLC WILKE JOHN H 8 BONNIE K TRUTE 36 RUSTED LANE 2318 SILVER PALM PL 626 W FRANCIS GREENWICH, CT 06830 NAPLES, FL 34105-3043 ASPEN, CO 81611 WOGRN WENDY 533 W FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 V~~~b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Aspen Walk (404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle) -Conceptual Planned Unit Development -Resolution No.}~, Series 2008 -Public Hearine MEETING DATE: August 11, 2008 APPLICANT /OWNER: PFG Aspen Walk, LLC (404 Pazk Avenue) and Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (414 Park Circle) REPRESENTATIVE: Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. LOCATION: Lot 3, Sunny Park Subdivision and Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision commonly known as 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle, respectively. CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the residential multi-family (R/MF) zone district with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay. 404 Park Ave. contains 14 free- market dwelling units while 414 Pazk Circle contains 11 affordable housing dwelling units. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicants are requesting to develop a residential multi-family building containing sub-grade pazking,24 affordable housing units and 14 free-mazket residential housing units. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Conceptual PUD approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council require the Applicants to revise their plans prior to a final PUD Application. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the City Council Photo of 414 Pazk Avenue Photo of 404 Park Circle GENERAL BACKGROUND This application was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on both April 15, 2008 and May 20, 2008 for a recommendation of Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. As a result of the hearings conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 14 (Series of 2008) was passed by a four to two (4-2) vote (Exhibit B). The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution made a recommendation of conceptual PUD approval. Changes were made to the proposed building between the two hearings and the parameters of the current proposal are included in this memo. Changes from the original application to what Council is reviewing include: Redesigned Gazage Entry. The garage entry has been relocated further north, away from the intersection and closer to the shazed property line with the Tailings Condominiums. Lowering of the Overall Height. The building height has been lowered by sinking the building further into the ground. Modified North Side of Buildin¢. The Applicant has relocated the parking gazage access to the north side of the building and provided an outdoor deck above the garage entry for use by the affordable housing residents. Due to this new design, approximately 2/3rds of the building wall is now located further from the commonly shared property line with the Tailings Condominiums. Reduction in Floor Area. In the initial application provided to the Community Development department, the applicant requested a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.56:1 (51,040 sq. fl.). Additional redesign (including greater circulation efficiencies and lowering of the building) has reduced the size. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicants are requesting the following land use approval from the City Council to redevelop the site: • Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD for the development of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). Conceptual PUD review before the City Council is the second step in a four step review process. Once heard by the Commission, the City Council reviews the application and recommendations of the Commission at a public heazing. If approved by City Council, the Applicant may then make an application for Final PUD review before the Planning and Zoning Commission (step three). City Council will then consider the Final PUD application as the fourth and final step in the review. Additional land use approvals necessary for this project, that can be consolidated with the Final PUD application include, amongst others: Growth Management Review for the Demolition or Replacement of Multi-family Housing, Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing, and Subdivision Review. 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicants, PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) have requested approval to demolish two existing buildings located at 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3, Sunny Pazk Subdivision) and 414 Pazk Circle (Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision). 404 Park Avenue is a 17,550 sq. ft. lot that contains fourteen (14) free-market residential multi- family dwelling units in one building. 414 Park Circle is a 15,224 sq. ft. lot containing eleven (11) deed restricted residential multi-family affordable housing units in one building. Combined, both lots contain 32,774 squaze feet and twenty-five (25) dwelling units. The Applicants would like to redevelop the two (2) lots with a new multi-family building containing twenty-four (24) affordable housing unit and fourteen (14) free market residential dwelling units for a total of thirty-eight (38) units. The properties are located in the Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district with a PUD Overlay. The site is sloped with a distinct upper and lower bench demarcated by an existing retaining wall between the two lots; the new building (some of which is below grade) as shown in Figure 1, is proposed to contain: 1) A sub-grade parking gazage for the dwelling units. Vehicular access to the property and the garage will be from Pazk Circle on the northern end of the property adjacent to the Tailings Condominiums. The garage will provide a total of fifty-three (53) spaces; twenty-five (25) for the affordable housing units and twenty-eight (28) for the free-market residential units. 2) The next level is above and below grade (gazden level) and contains four (4) free- market residential units and ten (10) affordable housing units. 3) The third level is above grade on all sides and contains five (5) free market residential dwelling units and seven (7) affordable housing units. 4) The fourth level contains five (5) free-market residential dwelling units and seven (7) affordable housing units. Figure 1: Buildin Section of the Proposal ew. -- -a -- -- ~-.< ------------- -----~ - ~i - ~ M _- -- - ----- .. __ .. =~ ._ © ._ e~°-s~~ Dimensional Requirements: As mentioned previously, the existing development includes eleven (11) affordable housing units with a total of 5,624 sq. ft. of net livable azea and fourteen (14) free-market residential units with a total of 9,424 sq. ft. of net livable azea. The redevelopment would provide twenty- four (24) affordable housing units at 16,127 sq. ft. of net livable area and fourteen (14) free mazket units at 33,239 sq. fr. of net livable azea. Table 1, below, outlines the proposed dimensional requirements for the project. The highlighted cells aze the proposed standazds that exceed permitted requirements for the underlying zone district. Table 1: Comnazison of Pronosed vs. Required Dimensional Requirements 1}iet-ensional - ]]f~ensional Underlyin dent~~~ Zone Requirement moments -~- ~. ~,erra < d14 Park ~-- . ~~--=~ ..~ ~ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= et ~~ _ ~, _ ~ Minimum Lot 17,550 sq. ft. 15,224 sq. fr. 6,000 sq. fr. Size 32,774 sq. ft. Minimum Lot X91 Feet 60 Feet Width Minimum Lot N/A No requirement for multi-family dwellings Area/Dwelling Minimum Front 5 Feet 5 Feet Yazd Setback Minimum 0 Feet 3.33 Feet Alternative Front (Comer lots aze required to provide one front yard Yard Setback meeting the minimum setback and one at 1/3 the = required front yard setback) Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet Yazd Setback Minimum Reaz 5 Feet 5 Feet Yard Setback Maximum Height 32 Feet, with the exception 32 Feet of elevator shafts Floor Area Ratio LL l_4~ .t or 46,725 sq; t•T: 1.25: 1 or 40,968 sq. fr (FAR) Minimum Off- ~` s Free-Market Residential: 5* Street Parking Free-1VIarfo~:a1r 28 - Affordable Housing; Residential: 30* Affordatz~Housat~ Ttesid nf~ 5 spaces __ Notes: * An applicant is allowed to maintain an existing deficit in parking when a property is redeveloped; however, the proposed redevelopment includes fifteen (15) new affordable housing dwelling units that are required to meet the off-street parking standards. An in-depth review of the parking is provided later in the memo. 4 The proposal presented before the Council is to demolish the existing affordable housing units at 414 Park Circle (Lot 5) and the free-market units at 404 Park Ave. (Lot 3). There are two different types of mitigation provided for the demolition of the existing affordable housing and free-market residential units. The following two sections aze divided to address each type of mitigation provided. Demolition or Replacement of Affordable Housing Any existing affordable housing is required to be replaced when demolition occurs. The number, size and type of units can be changed; however, the minimum number of employees previously housed is required to be housed in the redevelopment. Table 2 shows that 16.75 employees are currently housed at 414 Park Circle (Lot 5) in the eleven (I 1) affordable housing units (eight (8) studios and three (3) two-bedroom units). With the proposed redevelopment, 16.75 employees will be housed in three (3) studios, one (1) one-bedroom and five (5) two-bedroom units for a total of nine (9) units as shown in Table 3, below. The currently existing 5,624 sq. ft, of net livable area will be increased by 677 square feet. The existing affordable housing units are Category 1, considered "low-income level" in the Employee Housing Guidelines and will be replaced with a mix of Category 2 (lower moderate-income level) and Category 4 (middle- income level) units. Table 2: Existine Affordable Housine - Emnlovees Housed TTalt~ype ` Unit Count )~iulsToyee§ lYe~ Iavable "' Bedro®~ts Housed Area Provided scuaio 8 0 ?* 8 (8 x ].25) 1 bedroom 0 0 0 0 2 bedroom 3 6.75 ?* 6 (3 x 2.25) Totals I1 16.75 5,624* 14 Note: * Only a total net livable azea was provided by the Applicants for the existing units. 5 Table 3: Proposed Replacement Affordable Housing for the Existing Affordable Units Unit Type Unit Count Employees 'Net Livable Bedrooms Housed Area Provided studio 3 3.75 1,209 3 (3 x 1.25) 3@403 1 bedroom 1 1.75 600 1 1 @600 2 bedroom 5 11.25 4,250 10 (5 x 2.25) 5@850 Totals 9 16.75 6,059 14 Demolition or Replacement of Multi-Family Housing: For approximately twenty-seven yeazs, the City has required a certain amount of affordable housing to be developed when existing free-market multi-family residential dwelling units aze demolished. The basis for this requirement was the observation that as existing multi-family units (which had often served as housing for local working residents) were demolished and replaced, the new units no longer housed local working residents. The latest modification to this requirement occurred as result of the moratorium in 2006 and became effective in June of 2007 (Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2007). For afree-market residential multi-family project that is demolished, a developer has two mitigation options. The redevelopment proposed by the Applicants is through the 100% replacement option. One option is to replace one hundred percent (100%) of the units (as well as bedrooms and net livable area) of the previously existing building as Resident Occupied (RO) affordable housing; the remaining development on the site may be free-market as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units that previously existed. A second option is to replace fifty percent (50%) of the existing units (as well as bedrooms and net livable area) of the previously existing building as Category 4 affordable housing; the remaining development on the site may be free-market as long as there is no increase in the number of free-mazket residential units that previously existed. Additional mitigation (for the 50% replacement option) is required when the net livable area is increased from what previously existed. The existing free-market building contains fourteen (14) free-market residential units, twenty- five (25) bedrooms and 9,424 sq. ft. of net livable area (as outlined in Table 5). One hundred percent of the previous amount of units, bedrooms, and net livable area is required to be developed as affordable housing. Table 4, below, shows the proposed affordable housing to meet the 100% mitigation requirement. As submitted, the new affordable housing units will exceed the number of units (15 vs. 14), and the net livable area (10,068 sq. ft. vs. 9,424 sq. ft.) required to be replaced as mitigation due to the demolition; however, the Applicants aze not replacing the required number of affordable housing bedrooms (21 vs. 25 required). The units will be deed restricted a mix of Category 2 and 4. Table 4: Proposed Affordable Housin Miti ation for the Free-Mazket Units Unit Type Unit Count Employees Net Livable Bedr~ms Housed Area studio 2 2.5 810 2 (2 x 1.25) 2@405 1 bedroom 8 14 4,820 8 (8 x 1.75) 2@605 2@603 2@602 2@600 2 bedroom 4 9 3,418 8 (4 x 2.25) 3@856 1 @850 3 bedroom 1 3 1,020 3 Totals 15 28.5 10,068 21 Table 5: Existin¢ and Proposed Free-Market Residential Component UntType~ -Exrs ~ wm" ling Existing ` Proposed . $rc-posed IfroPosed Net Units No.bf Net Livable Units No. of Livable Area Bedrooms Area Bedrooms studio 4 4 ?* 0 0 0 1 bedroom 2 2 ?* 2 2 3998 2@1,999 2 bedroom 6 12 ?* 9 18 22,038 1 @2,366 1 @2,424 1 @2,450 2@2,441 2@2,493 2@2465 3 bedroom 1 3 ?* 3 9 7203 2@2,405 1 @,393 4 bedroom 1 4 ?* 0 0 0 Totals 14 25 9,424* 14 29 33,239 Notes: *Only a total net livable azea was provided by the Applicants for the existing units. Affordable housing units required for mitigation aze to be provided on the lot where the demolition occurs rather than on a different lot, unless the developer can show that on-site replacement would be an inappropriate solution. For example, in the past three years there have been three developments required to meet this program which have generated eight (8) affordable housing units out of fourteen (14) redeveloped units. Each of these three developments met their mitigation requirements on site. The proposal before the City Council is somewhat different in that Lot 3, rather than being redeveloped with the required affordable housing mitigation and free-market units on it, is being proposed to be considered one site (merged) with Lot 5 and the new affordable housing units provided to satisfy the multi-family replacement requirements (one hundred percent replacement) are situated on the affordable housing lot. StafT comment: The proposed nine (9) replacement units for the existing eleven (11) affordable housing units meets the land use code requirements. The affordable housing mitigation required for the existing free market residential units: 100% replacement of the number of existing units, bedrooms and net livable area is not met. The proposed units are short four (4) bedrooms. Additionally, the land use code requires that "each (affordable housing) unit be designed such that the finished floor level of fifty (SO) percent or more of the unit's Net Livable Area is at or above Natural or Finished Grade whichever is higher. " As shown in the elevations in Exhibit F, part of the finished floor of the affordable housing units located on the ground floor will be below Natural or Finished Grade. As such they will not meet the design requirement. Pazkin¢: With regard to the off-street pazking, following is a table to explain the pazking requirement for the project. As mentioned under "Notes" for Table 1, an existing deficit is allowed to be maintained when a property is redeveloped; however, this deficit is only for the previously existing number of units and any new units aze required to meet the off-street pazking standards unless granted a variation in the requirement. In a PUD, the minimum off-street parking requirement can be established as part of the Final PUD. The Applicant proposes a parking allowance of twenty-five (251 spaces for twenty-four (241 affordable housing units which is five (51 less than what is required. Table 6 outlines the parking requirements of the project. Currently, only ten (10) spaces aze provided for the eleven (11) affordable housing units and five (5) spaces for the fourteen (14) free-market residential dwelling units. Each lot provides fewer parking spaces than the existing units require. The redeveloped dwelling units may maintain the original deficit in their parking and provide only ten (10) spaces for the affordable housing units and five (5) spaces for the free- market residential units; however; the new affordable housing units provided as mitigation for the demolition of the free-market units are required to be provided twenty (20) spaces. As Table 6 illustrates, based on the proposed allocation of spaces towards either affordable housing units or free market residential units, the required off-street parking for the affordable housing units is short five (5) parking spaces. 8 STAFF COMMENTS' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Both lots currently have a PUD overlay on them. Any development (or redevelopment) is required to be reviewed and approved prior to development being allowed to commence. The purpose of a PUD, as noted in the Land Use Code "is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan. B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater vaziety in the type and character of the development, and a greater compatibility with existing and future land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the underlying zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and man-made features of historic, cultural, or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives." A PUD allows variation in the site's dimensional requirements to encourage flexibility and innovation, but does not allow variation in the permitted uses of the site. The Applicants aze requesting to vary the allowable maximum floor area for the site, minimum setbacks and minimum off-street pazking spaces for the affordable housing component of the project. Specifically, the Applicants are requesting the following dimensional standards be approved for the project: 1) An Allowable Floor Area Ratio (FART of 1.42:1 or 46,725. of floor area rather than the 1.25 or 40,968 sq. ft. permitted for an increase of 5,757 sq. ft. 2) A Minimum Setback of zero feet, at this point in time is requested if a land swap with the city does not occur. Additionally, the Applicant will need to either request a zero feet setback along the shazed property line between the two lots to accommodate the new building or through subdivision review, eliminate the common lot line. 3) An Off-Street Parkins minimum for the Affordable Housing component of twenty-five spaces. The intention of Conceptual Review is to discuss the initial threshold issues relating to a large development proposal, and to evaluate the suitability of a development project on a particular parcel of land. The review enables P&Z, Council, staff, and the public to review proposed land uses, use mixes, access and infrastructure issues, and other threshold issues at a basic level before a full fledged development proposal is brought forward. By identifying the issues at Conceptual Review, the Applicants are able to address them as part of the Final PUD Application when more specificity in unit counts, site design, architecture, and other land use issues (such as new zoning, growth management, etc.) aze addressed. The Conceptual Review also allows for initial identification of questions and concerns relating to development on any given pazcel. In this case, the Conceptual Review allows P&Z, Council, staff, and the public the opportunity to identify threshold issues relating to appropriate mass and scale, the appropriate amount of parking, and give the applicant direction on architectural and design chazacteristics as well as site planning. Lots 3 and 5 within the Sunny Park Subdivision already include a PUD Overlay, so this application would amend the PUD to establish dimensional requirements for this proposal. The dimensional requirements that are requested to be varied from the underlying zoning are the Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and Minimum Off-Street Pazking as noted previously. Staff is supportive of affordable housing development within Aspen and recognizes the importance and need for it within the community; however, staff also recognizes that the Aspen Area Community Plan notes that "housing should be compatible with the scale and chazacter of the community" as well as "preserve and enhance our sense of community" with infill projects. It also states under the Housing section of the AACP that "each potential affordable housing site has an optimum development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the physical character of the land and character of the neighborhood." Finally, "Housing policy should emphasize the development of neighborhoods and community, not just units." All development projects need to be sensitive to the scale and chazacter of the neighborhood that it is to be located within. Housing needs to be livable, not just developed with a maximum number of units. Although staff recognizes the mission of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority and the benefit it sees in adding fifteen (15) additional units to their inventory and 'The Applicants are requesting a 619 sq. ft. land swap with the city to accommodate part of Midland Avenue that is located on 404 Park Avenue (Lot 3). The area the Applicants would gain is located along Pazk Avenue where the property line is concave in shape. 10 redeveloping eleven (11) of their units at no cost to the organization, the overall impacts to the neighborhood should not be ignored. Staff does have serious concerns about this PUD proposal. Currently, there is very little off-street parking available in the neighborhood. With each affordable housing unit being provided essentially one space per unit, overflow can be expected to impact the existing on-street parking currently available. The Applicants have made some revisions to the proposal through their review by the Planning and Zoning Commission but staff feels the changes still do not result in a project that fits with the scale and character of the neighborhood. By proposing to merge both lots into one parcel, the massing of the development is proposed as one building rather than broken into two modules, as would be the case if the lots are not merged. Staff believes the requested dimensional vaziations are not appropriate in the setting of the neighborhood. Finally, the architecture proposed (heavy timber with stone) could be in any mountain community and has the feel of a lodge rather than a neighborhood residential project. Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes that although the neighborhood is somewhat eclectic in its style, the new building should reflect the type of project it is (residential) and continue to develop opportunities to fit better with the surrounding context. As noted earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to make a recommendation of approval for the projects as it is cun•ently presented. Staff, however, recommends the following changes to the proposal: • Reducing the floor area of the proposal. • Reducing the mass of the structure by either developing multiple buildings on the site or breaking up the mass of the structure. • Provision of 100% of the off-street pazking required for the affordable housing units. The resolution included with this is written in the affirmative, approving the Conceptual PUD as presented. If Council agrees with all of part of staff's previous recommendation, the resolution will need to be amended accordingly. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: The City Engineer, Fire Mazshal, Water Department, Aspen Sanitation District and the Parks Department have all reviewed the proposed application and their requirements have been included as conditions of approval when appropriate. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. ~ Series of 2008, approving with conditions, the Conceptual PUD for Aspen Walk." CITY MANAGER 11 ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A -Review Criteria EXHIBIT B -P&Z Resolution No. 14 (Series of 2008) EXHIBIT C - P&Z minutes: April 15, 2008 and May 20, 2008 Exx[s[T D -Public comment from Nina Merzbach dated May 15, 2008 and Mike McCollum/Shael Johnson dated May 20, 2008 EXHIBIT E -Supplemental Memo dated May 7, 2008 from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. EXHBIT F -Supplemental Renderings updated July 24, 2008 EXHIBIT G-Application 12 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-074-04-705 2737-0741-04-701 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted to consider both lots as one site to be redeveloped with amulti-family structure containing twenty-five (25) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standards meet the underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district with the exception of Maximum Height, Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and Minimum Off-Street Parking; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen -Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the proposed changes of the project and design which included fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units and twenty-four (24) affordable housing units and recommended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by a four to two (4-2) vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be reviewed by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, Planning and Zoning Commission and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on August 11, 2008, the City Council opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and, WHEREAS, on August 11, 2008, the City Council at a public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the project and design which included fourteen (14) mazket rate dwelling units and twenty-four (24) affordable housing units and approved the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by a to L-~ vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval, granted by City Council, shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review as well as additional relevant land use review approval pursuant to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Council finds that the development review standards for Conceptual PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen City Council approves the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the project known as Aspen Walk, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission and City Council, allowing for the development of amulti-family structure containing twenty- four (24) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) mazket rate units. Additionally, the Final PUD may be submitted with the following dimensional standazds as requested in the application: • The Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 46,725 sq. ft. or a Floor Area Ratio of 1.42:1. • The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator shafts) feet as outlined in the application. • The Minimum Off-Street Pazking standazd for the affordable housing units shall be 25 spaces for the 24 affordable housing units. • The Minimum Alternative Front Yard Setback shall be 0 feet as outlined in the application or as accomplished through a land swap with the City of Aspen with respect to right-of--way. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: Page 2 of 4 a. An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review as well as associated land use review approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. Section 2: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Clazification and code compliance on the shared property line, exiting from the basement garage, exiting from the market rate units, existing from each story, elevator openings, accessible parking spaces, accessible entries, and the 2003 Efficient Building Program is required. Section 3: Engineering Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standazds published by the Engineering Department. Resolution of the proposed land swap (approximately 618 sq. ft. of public right of way for a certain amount of private property) shall be resolved prior to Final PUD application. Storm water drainage fees may be applicable to this development proposal. Section 4: Affordable Housing Provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide 100% replacement for the existing free market units and the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. Section 5: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. Section 8: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 9: Exterior Lighting Page 3 of 4 All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 10: School Lands Dedication and Imnact Fees The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building permit issuance. Section 11: Parks A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Final layout of the plantings within the public right-of--way require Pazk Department approval and shall meet the comments from the Pazks Department during the Development Review Committee meeting. Section 12: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on August 1 I, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A Chapter 26.445, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.445.050. Review Criteria conceptual, final, consolidated and minor PUD. A development application for conceptual, final, consolidated, conceptual and final or minor PUD shall comply with the following standazds and requirements. Due to the limited issues associated with conceptual reviews and properties eligible for minor PUD review, certain standards shall not be applied as noted. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standazds and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. A. General requirements. I. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff believes that a number of the goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan are met, but that the Applicant does not go faz enough in meeting some elements of the AACP. The proposed development contributes to the overall goals of the comprehensive plan by locating development within the Urban Growth Boundary, improves transit options by installing sidewalks, is located neaz public transit, and adds affordable housing units to the City's inventory; however, a deeper review of the AACP notes a philosophy that, at this time, the project does not achieve. Development of Affordable Housing is an important component of the AACP and is contained within its own focus section within the AACP. In addition to Housing, a number of other topics: Managing Growth; Transportation; Economic Sustainability; Pazks, Open Space & the Environment; Historic Preservation; Design Quality; and Arts, Culture and Education are highlighted by their own focus sections. Under the Housing section, the intent is to "create an affordable housing environment that is appropriately scaled and distributed throughout existing and new neighborhoods....and respects our overall community concerns, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan." Further in the Housing section, the Philosophy part of the section notes that "Each project should endeavor to further that mix (of income ranges and types of people) and to avoid segregation of economic and social classes by project." The sub-section also emphasizes that "housing should be compatible with the scale and character of the community..." as well as "preserve and enhance our sense of community" with regazd to infill projects. Finally, the Housing section of the AACP notes that "each potential affordable housing site has an optimum development potential" and "site planning should be driven by the physical character of the land and character of the neighborhood." Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 1 of 11 The Applicant is providing 100% of the required Affordable Housing for the demolition and replacement of the existing fourteen free-mazket residential units (with the exception of the required bedroom count), which is an important step in helping the community meet the Affordable Housing goals outlined in the AACP; however, the scale of the proposed project is out of context with the neighborhood. Overall, Staff does not find this guideline to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development is out of scale with the character of the azea. The neighborhood consists of a variety of single-family and multi-family homes, and while the proposal is for multi-family units, the monolithic scale of the project (since the lots aze combined) is not in character with the neighborhood. This neighborhood is comprised of lots that have individual structures on them which do not tend to overwhelm the neighborhood. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 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. Not Applicable. The Applicant will be required to make a Growth Management Application as part of the Final PUD. Under the current proposal, the application will require growth management approval for the demolition of the existing multi-family dwelling units and the development of affordable housing. 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 PUD development plans establish dimensional requirements for all properties in a PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 2 of I 1 1 ~~1~ EntiYc JE~~ - ~ Minimum Lot 17,550 s . ft. 15,224 s . ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Size 32,774 sq. ft. Minimum Lot +/- 91 Feet 60 Feet Width Minimum Lot N/A No requirement for multi-family dwellings Area/Dwellin Minimum Front 5 Feet 5 Feet Yazd Setback Minimum 0 Feet 3.33 Feet Alternative Front (Corner lots are required to provide one front yard Yard Setback meeting the minimum setback and one at 1/3 the re uired front yazd setback) Minimum Side 5 Feet 5 Feet Yard Setback Minimum Reaz 5 Feet 5 Feet Yard Setback Maximum Height 32 Feet, xvith the exception 32 Feet (for a pazcel density equal to or greater than of elevator shafts one unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area 32,774/35 =936.4) Floor Area Ratio 1.42:1 or 46,725 sq. ft. 1.25: 1 or 40,968 sq. ft. (FAR) (for a parcel density equal to or greater than one unit per 1,500 sq. ft. of lot area) Minimum Off- 53 spaces Residential -Multi-Family outside Aspen Infill Street Parking Free-Market Residential: 28 Area: Lesser of one space per bedroom or two spaces spaces per unit Affordable Housing Free-Market Residential 5* Resideital: 25 s aces Affordable Housin Residential 30* Notes: * An applicant is allowed to maintain an existing deficit in pazking when a property is redeveloped; however, the proposed redevelopment includes fourteen (15) new affordable housing dwelling units that aze required to meet the off-street parking standards. 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. The existing property has minimal set back requirements from the property lines. A five (5) foot setback is required and should be maintained. These are minimal setbacks for the existing development pattern. The height variation is substantial for an area comprised of mostly 1.5 to 2.5 story buildings. The Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 3 of 11 increase in floor area requested appears to be out of scale with the surrounding existing development. Finally, the deficit in parking, as outlined in the memo, will add to an already congested neighborhood. b. Natural or man-made hazards. No known hazards exist on the lot. 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 [andforms. Most of the development proposed is within areas of the site that have already been impacted by development. 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. Staff recognizes that there is limited existing on-street parking in the neighborhood. Staff believes that under-parking the affordable housing component of the project will intensify the on-street parking issues as spillover will occur. Staff does not find this criterion met at this time. 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. Limited undeveloped space is currently proposed on-site. Staff recommends the Applicant look at ways to opportunities for open space. Further, Staff encourages the Applicant to examine different site planning techniques to break up the mass and height of the building. Staff does not find 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. 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. Exhibit A - PUD Review Criteria Page 4 of I I d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff recognizes that there aze currently off-street pazking constraints in the neighborhood. Although transit and walking is an option, parking of vehicles needs to be realistically accommodated. Staff does not believe that the current amount of parking for the affordable housing component is enough. Staff does not support the current pazking proposal. 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. Adequate public facilities exist and will be upgraded at the owner's expense. Staff finds this criterion to be not applicable. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mudjlow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. At this time, Staff does not find that and significant natural hazards on the site that would necessitate a density reduction. For the most part, the proposed development is located in areas of the site that currently contains development. Staff does not believe the proposal will involve a pernicious impact on the site's natural watershed. 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. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 5 of 11 a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a speciftc 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 mitigaterL c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Notes: a. Lot sizes for individual lots within a PUD may be established at a higher or lower rate than specified in the underlying Zone District as long as, on average, the entire PUD conforms to the maximum density provisions of the respective Zone District or as otherwise established as the maximum allowable density pursuant to a final PUD Development Plan. b. The approved dimensional requirements for a[[ lots within the PUD are required to be reflected in the final PUD development plans. While the Applicant proposes establishing the FAR for the project, no increase in the maximum density is proposed. 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. There are no significant natural or manmade features on the site. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. The two sites are currently proposed to be redeveloped as one and the development would increase footprint on the ground; however there aze no significant view planes, or open spaces adjacent to the property that should be considered as part of the redevelopment. 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. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 6 of 11 The proposed building is generally oriented towazds the public streets. The building provides a number of decks along the street to contribute towazds visual interest; however, entries aze somewhat discreet and could be developed to create a greater street presence. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. The City of Aspen Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposal, and has noted that additional detailed drawings will be required to show fire department access to the lower parking areas. Further, all structures will be required to include fire sprinkler systems, and fire alarm systems. Staff finds this criterion to be met at a conceptual level. S. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. According to the Application, the project will comply with all applicable requirements. This has been included as a condition in the Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Site drainage is accommodated jor the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. According to a letter submitted by the Applicant's engineer, site drainage will be handled with some drainage improvements (drywells) to maintain historic runoff. 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. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility ojthe 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: 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 has provided some conceptual landscaping on the site plan in the original application and with some of the perspectives. A number of new plantings Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 7 of 11 are proposed. A final landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final PUD application, which will ensure landscaping is consistent with adjacent land. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. There are no significant and man-made features that require preservation. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 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. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Architectural Character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. The architecture proposed (heavy timber with stone) could be in any mountain community and has the feel of a lodge rather than a neighborhood residential project. Aspen's "design history ranges from Victorian to Bauhaus, from 50's "ski instructor" to postmodern, to contemporary." Staff believes the architecture should reflect the type of project it is (residential) and opportunities to fit better with the surrounding context. Staff believes the architecture should go further in relating to the residential feel of the neighborhood. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 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- orless-intensive mechanical systems. The proposed site plan utilizes photovoltaic power but additional information on natural heating and cooling is not discussed. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. The Applicant must submit a detailed plan for snow removal and storage as part of the final application. Staff finds this criterion to not be addressed in the application but will be required to be addressed at final application. F. Lighting. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 8 of 11 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. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. The PUD will comply with all lighting regulations in place. Amore detailed plan will be provided as part of the 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: 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. There are no common spaces proposed as part of this application. 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. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 9 of 1 I 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 aze 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 aze available for City Departments to review. I. Access and Circulation. (Only standards 1 &2 apply to Minor PUD applications) The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff believes that all structures and uses have appropriate access to a public street. The application proposes to install sidewalks along the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 believes the level of parking for the provided for the affordable housing will create overflow into the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff does find this criterion met. 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 require any trail easements. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 10 of 11 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 Applicant has agreed to provide sidewalks along the property but there aze no specific trails or paths that aze required. Staff finds this criterion to be met. S. 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. There are no internal streets proposed as part of this 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. There are no gates or guazd posts proposed as part of this PUD. 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. No phasing is proposed as part of this development. Exhibit A -PUD Review Criteria Page 1 I of 11 RESOLUTION N0. 14 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ASPEN WALK, COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 404 PARK AVENUE AND 414 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3 AND 5, SUNNY PARK SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Parcel ID: 2737-074-04-705 2737-0741-04-701 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from PFG Aspen Walk, LLC and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority represented by Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates, Inc., requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Conceptual Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD); and. WHEREAS, an application was submitted to consider both lots as one site to be redeveloped with amulti-family structure containing twenty-five (25) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) market rate dwelling units; and WHEREAS, the application requested that the PUD's dimensional standazds meet the underlying zone district standards of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district with the exception of Maximum Height, Maximum Allowable Floor Area, Minimum Setback and Minimum Off-Street Parking; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire Protection District, and Parks Department as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, Conceptual PUD approval may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to May 20, 2008; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on Aspen Walk, reviewed the proposed changes of the project and design which included fourteen (14) mazket rate dwelling units and twenty-four (24) affordable housing units and r commended City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development application by al~ouY to} Vb (~-~1 vote, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, Conceptual PUD approval, if granted by City Council, shall only grant the ability for the applicant to submit a Final PUD and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review as well as additional relevant ]and use review approval pursuant to the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development review standazds for Conceptual PUD have been met, as long as certain conditions are implemented. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the project known as Aspen Walk, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section is The approval is subject to the following conditions: The Final PUD application shall reflect and demonstrate compliance with the findings of the Commission, allowing for the development of amulti-family structure containing twenty- four (24) affordable housing units and fourteen (14) market rate units. Additionally, the Final PUD may be submitted with the following dimensional standards as requested in the application: • The Maximum Allowable Floor Area shall be no greater than 46,725 sq. ft. or a Floor Area Ratio of 1.42:1. • The Maximum Allowable Height shall be no greater than 32 (excepting elevator shafts) feet as outlined in the application. • The Minimum Off-Street Parking standard for the affordable housing units shall be 25 spaces for the 24 units. • The Minimum Alternative Front Yard Setback shall be 0 feet as outlined in the application or as accomplished through a land swap with the City of Aspen with respect to right-of--way. 2. The Final PUD application shall include: a. An application for Final PUD application and the proposed development is further subject to Final PUD review as well as associated land use review approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code. Apre-application conference with a member of the Community Development Department is required prior to submitting an application. b. Delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. Section 2: Building The final design shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Clarification and code compliance on the shared property line, exiting from the basement garage, exiting from the mazket rate units, existing from each story, elevator openings, accessible parking spaces, accessible entries, and the 2003 Efficient Building Program is required. Section 3: Engineering Page 2 of 4 Final design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering Department. Resolution of the proposed land swap (approximately 618 sq. ft. of public right of way for a certain amount of private property) shall be resolved prior to Final PUD application. Storm water drainage fees maybe applicable to this development proposal. Section 4: Affordable Housing Provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide 100% replacement for the existing free market units and the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. Section 5: Fire Mitieation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6: Public Works The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Utility placement and design shall meet adopted City of Aspen standards. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Section 8: Environmental Health The state of Colorado mandates specific mitigation requirements with regard to asbestos. Additionally, code requirements to be aware of when filing a building permit include: a prohibition on engine idling, regulation of fireplaces, fugitive dust requirements, noise abatement and pool designs. Section 9: Exterior Liehtine All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 10: School Lands Dedication and Imaact Fees The Applicant shall pay all impact fees and the school lands dedication assessed at the time of building permit application submittal and paid at building pemtit issuance. Section ]l: Parks A formal vegetation protection plan shall be required with building permit application. Final layout of the plantings within the public right-of--way require Park Department approval and shall meet the comments from the Pazks Department during the Development Review Committee meeting. Section 12: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended Page 3 of 4 as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 13: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regulaz meeting on May 20, 2008. APPROVED AS TO P G AND ZONING COMMISSION: e im True, Assistant City Attorney pam ,Chair ATTEST: J ie L.othia ,Deputy City Clerk Page 4 of 4 .k. ~, // ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL IS 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer were present. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Court Clerk. MINUTES MOTION.• CI~Weiss moved to approve the minutes from April l ~` with corrections to pages S, 8, 10 and 11; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor approved 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST LJ Erspamer was conflicted on 300 Nicholas Lane. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 300 NICHOLAS (CENTENNIALI GMOS REVIEW Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan noted that this hearing was continued to today's date because of some legal issues and the applicant needed BOCC consent to develop the two lots; that consent has not been received so this item will be taken off of the agenda and withdrawn at this time. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/01/08): 404 PARK AVEJ414 PARK CIRCLE (ASPENWALK) CONCEPTUAL PUD LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jim True said the notice had to be provided to his office within 24 hours of the hearing. The notice was received. Jennifer Phelan stated the application before the conunission was for a conceptual planned unit development to redevelop 404 Park Avenue and 414 Pazk Circle with a structure containing free-market and affordable housing units. There were 4 steps for the application the review process; details of the project being proposed; sketch up and staff recommendation. The 2 properties 404 Park Avenue and 4l4 Park Circle are located in the Residential Multifamily Zone District and both lots have a planned unit development overlay. A site specific development plan is required for the planned unit development to be approved. Phelan said there was the review process; conceptual planned unit development; final planned unit development proposal and City Council to consider the final planned unit proposal based on the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Phelan said there were 2 lots with an existing building on each lot; there were 14 free-market residential units on 404 Park Avenue and on 414 Pazk Circle there 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 were 11 existing affordable housing units in a multifamily building. Phelan noted that currently there was not enough parking for the existing number of units and the existing affordable units were category 1 rentals. The proposal before the commission was to combine the 21ots into 1 lot and create 1 planned redevelopment with a single structure that contains 14 free-market units and 25 affordable housing units. The affordable housing units were for sale units with a mix of category 2 and 4; there were 54 parking space proposed; 30 for the free- market component and 24 for the affordable housing units. Some of the parking was below grade and some at finished grade. Phelan said that the building at a conceptual level meets many of the underlying zone district standards; there were variances requested through the planned unit development. Phelan said that there were minimum setbacks; the applicant is suggesting a possible land swap of approximately 600 + square feet to accommodate the structure; part of Midland Avenue is located on this property. Phelan said that the applicant was requesting a height variance; 32 feet was the height limit and the applicant requested 42 feet at the entrance to the parking area for about 25 feet in length. Phelan said there was a request to allow an increase in the floor area of the project for the entire site; floor area was based on a sliding scale for this zone district. Based on the density of this project 840 square feet of lot area the applicant is allowed a 1.25 to 1 ratio for floor area so the lot is approximately 33,000 square feet which would be 40,968 square feet allowed; the applicant was asking for 1.5 to 1 which is 49,161 square feet. There was a parking deficit for the affordable housing units. Phelan said under the multifamily replacement program there were two options 100% replacement of affordable housing units, bedrooms and existing net livable area and the remaining development on the site can be free-market units with no requirement for mitigation; the second option was 50% replacement. Jessica Garrow presented the sketch up of the project; the two parcels were in a darker color. Jennifer Phelan provided the neighborhood developments with lot sizes, building floor areas and heights. Phelan said the scale of the project was not right for the neighborhood; staff recommends the applicant revise the application to reduce the floor area, reduce the mass of the structure, reconsideration ofoff-street parking and reduce the height of the structure. Stan Clauson introduced Tom McCabe, executive director of the Nousing Authority and there were representatives from the architectural company. Clauson utilized the sketch up to clarify some of the questions from the site visit; the height 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 of the existing buildings. There was a 3 story building at 34 feet and a 1 story element and to the back was a 2 story element at 24 feet. Clauson said at 414 Park Circle the existing heights were 28 to 26 feet and the Tailings Condo was 34 feet. Clauson submitted exhibit F, a letter dated April 15, 2008 and exhibit G I 1"x17" drawings. Clauson provided the history of the parcels and developed goals and objectives to share with the Housing Authority. Clauson stated that the free- marketnumber of units at 14 has remained the same and the affordable housing units were now at 25. Clauson said that this project was driven by the code. Clauson stated that if the land swap would happen then they would have a 3.3 foot setback. Clauson said the sub-grade parking would provide 53 parking spaces with 39 residential units and everyone would get a parking space and additionally there were other parking spaces that could be allocated; this was an improvement over the existing conditions. Clauson said they were looking at a LEED certified building; the materials were stone and wood siding. Clauson said that if they broke the building up with a courtyard in the middle they would not meet the code. Tom McCabe stated the partnership presents the Housing Authority with a unique opportunity; at the 414 Park Circle existing property there were 11 category 1 rental units. McCabe said that APCHA did not have the resources to re-develop this property; he said governments, non-profits and private entities could partner with APCHA on housing. McCabe noted APCHA will get out of the business of managing this property but the Housing Authority would still qualify the Affordable Housing owners. McCabe said they were proud of this project with the partnership. Cliff Weiss asked why was the Housing Board preferring the for sale units versus rental units. McCabe replied that if they were presented with a large rental project housing would expand the maintenance and property management departments to encompass that and with the proper economies it would pencil out. McCabe this existing 11 unit building requires a lot of maintenance and the Aspen Area Community Plan requests workers buy into the community with more security in the for sale property than a rental property. McCabe said Housing rules require residents in rental properties to qualify every year; the for sale units provide a better benefit to the community. Weiss asked who didn't get the parking space with 24 spaces for 25 units. Clauson responded that there would be a space for every unit. Jim DeFrancia asked what the permitted FAR was and what was the applicant seeking. Jennifer Phelan replied the permitted FAR was 1.25 to 1 at 40,900 square feet and they requested 1.5 to 1. DeFrancia asked what the permitted height was and what was the applicant seeking. Phelan responded that the permitted height 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 was 32 feet and the applicant asked for 42 feet in one place. Clauson said that it was less than 25 feet across because of more articulation and at finish grade where it dips in it was probably 43 feet. Michael Wampler asked where the proceeds from the affordable housing sales went. McCabe answered that the sales commission went to the Housing fund and the rest went to the developer. Stan Gibbs asked if the elevator towers were 40 some feet. Jennifer Phelan replied that it would be good to site them in a planned unit development overlay because they would be memorialized; there were certain allowances in building heights such as chimneys, antennas, mechanical, ect., which could exceed the height limit by no greater than 10 feet. Gibbs said it appears the affordable housing was isolated or separated from the free-market and asked if there were any design options looked at where it was integrated. Clauson responded they were asked by the Housing Authority to cluster the affordable housing together and there would be two separate associations one for the affordable housing and one for the free- market. McCabe said that if they were truly integrated it caused more problems. Weiss said there were Jacuzzis and all kinds of things on the rooftops of the free- market; he asked if the elevators were going to the rooftops. Clauson replied they were. Wampler said the current council was adamant about height limits; he asked if the parking entrance was lowered on the property could it allow for that portion of the building to come down. Brain Speck asked where the trash was located; in the garage and where did fire trucks go. Clauson replied that fire trucks wouldn't need to go into the garage. LJ Erspamer asked if solar panels were exempt for the height requirements. Jennifer Phelan answered they were not because solar panels could be 5 feet above the height limit. Clauson said the roof had features in it to conceal the solar panels. Erspamer asked when his group closed on this property. Clauson said the ownership group that originally proposed this sold the project to the current ownership group. Public Comments: 1. Jay Maytin said that he was an HPC Commissioner and lived in the Tailings; this was a 50,000 square foot building and he had big concerns. Mayon said this was 21ots and the project was making this into 1 lot taking out the setbacks, which creates more mass instead of breaking up the massing by using 2 buildings. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15 2008 Maytin said it was curious that the architect decided to build the largest mass and longest linear lines on the highest part of the property. Maytin said that the mass of the project itself did not fit the neighborhood. Maytin said that he was for the re-development of this property but would ask the Commission to continue for more study. 2. Tom Lester stated the biggest concern was the proximity and privacy that they would lose at the Tailings and the protection of their view. Lester said that something had to done about the disarray of the current building. Lester voiced concem for traffic coming out of that azea where the proposed gazage access was located with traffic and buses coming down that hill. 3. Nina Merzbach also a Tailings resident stated that she opposed the height and mass of the proposed project and it was out of character with the neighborhood. Merzbach said this proposed building will cause their building to be in the shadow, take away the views of Aspen Mountain and reduce the market value of their condos. 4. Matt Lilleberg said that he live in the 401 Victorian; he supported the project but had concem for the infrastructure, traffic and pedestrian traffic. 5. Ron Erickson said that he was on the Housing Board and this project was something that was wanted under the Aspen Area Community Plan; 414 brings employees downtown, no cost to the city (it's apublic/private partnership) and it has so many problems that no one in the area wants to build it. Erickson suggested compromises when it comes to density, bulk, height; they will be able to house 25 families. Erickson said this project has been in the works for 2 years. MOTION.• Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the hearing until 7:15pm seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, approved. Clauson responded saying there was a process to combine the two lots into one. Clauson said that rooftop decks do not calculate into the square footage. Clauson said that infrastructure was very important and the city of Aspen has a plan that would extend sidewalks up to Smuggler Mountain Road, which was a very important area. LJ Erspamer asked if there were requirements in the code to protect views. Jennifer Phelan replied these views were not protected and the only view planes that were protected were in the downtown core. Phelan said that PUDs were allowed on any size lot with public benefit. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008 Erspamer asked if any commissioners wanted to see story poles. Mike Wampler said that he would. Stan Gibbs said that he would like to see them on the Tailings side. Brian Speck said that he would like to see one by the Tailings. Jim DeFrancia encouraged the applicant to have flexibility in options; there was a clear staff report that does not advocate the application as submitted. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue to 7:30 pm seconded by Mike Wampler, all in favor, approved. Cliff Weiss stated this was a large scale building and he liked it. Weiss said that he was bothered by just a few things and felt for the Tailings just up from this project and saw a few decorative things could be re-considered to help them not be in their face essentially. Weiss objected to the elevators because of their size and that there were 4 of them; he was bothered by the amount of rooftop development. Weiss said without those stone structures the building would appear smaller. Jim DeFrancia stated that there were variances of about 30% on height and 20% on the floor area and he requested that staff provide the basis for their objection and what they think is appropriate. DeFrancia said he also wanted to hear from the applicant and there should be a clear public benefit for the variance to be granted. LJ Erspamer said that he would like to see a story pole on the corner. Erspamer said the street and traffic were problems at the corner where the garage entrance was located; the height was a problem and the FAR. Stan Gibbs said overall the project had a tremendous amount of benefits especially in the affordable housing. Gibbs said that something should go forward and the question was what should go forward. Gibbs said there was concern for the mass of the building from the Tailings and would like to see more work on that. Gibbs understood the overall height of the building but it wasn't to scale in the neighborhood. MOTION.• Cliff Weiss moved to continue this hearing on Aspenwalk to May 20`" seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, approved. Adjourned. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Jim DeFrancia, Dina Bloom, Michael Wampler, Stan Gibbs, Cliff Weiss and LJ Erspamer were present. Brian Speck was absent. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Travis Goggins, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk; Jim True, Special Counsel. LJ Erspamer noted that he and Stan would be gone for the next meeting, June 3`~ Chris Bendon provided a brief update on the Lift One Master Plan; the group of 28 members met once a week broken up into 4 groups. Bendon said that the mission and goals will be established through goal buckets; history, accessibility, vitality and sustainability blend together and help the thought process along with the dynamic of resort and community. Bendon said the dynamic of the group was good. Motion: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from May 6`~ with the corrections as stated by Stan Gibbs; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 404 PARK AVENUE/414 PARK CIRCLE ASPENWALK CONCEPTUAL PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing 404 Park Avenue/414 Park Circle, Aspenwalk. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a conceptual PUD to demolish both existing buildings on the property on 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle that has an APCHA owned building on it. Phelan utilized sketch-up to illustrate the project. Phelan noted there was one less unit in the proposal; there were 24 affordable housing units being proposed rather than 25; there were 14 free-market units being proposed. The garage was modified and rotated further north with 25 affordable housing spaces and 28 for the 14 free market units. The applicant worked on lowering the height of the building and the height was compliant at 32 feet, which was achievable by the relocation of the parking garage and lowering the building into the ground a bit. Phelan said the structure was set back from the shared property line from the Tailings Condominium to the north; above the garage access was a proposed deck for the use of the residents of the affordable housing units. The location of the elevator shafts were pulled back and the overall floor area proposed has been reduced just 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 under 43,000 square feet of floor area, the initial proposal had just over 51,000 square feet. Phelan said that this project had great benefit with the Housing Authority getting additional inventory for free. Phelan said the massing of this project was still too big and needs to be broken up more and the floor area is too big for the site and the neighborhood. Michael Wampler asked where the 7,000 square feet went. Jennifer Phelan replied the sinking of the building reduced some of the exposed wall area on the first floor so that has reduced some of the floor area calculation. Cliff Weiss asked if the one big box were two boxes could they still have underground parking under the two buildings. Phelan responded the applicant talked about the elimination of lot lines to be able to do this project. Dina Bloom asked to go over the parking issue. Phelan answered the parking requirement for this part of town was either one parking space per bedroom or maximum of two spaces per unit; there was a provision that when a property got redeveloped the applicant can cant' forward a deficit in parking spaces. Phelan said that they were not carrying over the deficit for the free market units with regards to parking; they are carrying a deficit over for the 11 existing parking spaces for the affordable housing units but you can't have a deficit for the new units. LJ Erspamer asked if P&Z had the authority to give a variance. Jennifer Phelan replied that the units had to be 50% above grade. Stan Clauson responded that no unit is more than 50% subgrade; that is permitted in the code so there was no variance required. Stan Clauson said that there was safe pedestrian circulation by providing infrastructure that currently did not exist; this project will make a leap forward in solving the current parking deficit that's on the property. Clauson said that combing the properties allows for an efficient use of the properties. Clauson stated the Smuggler Mountain Apartments which is also referred to as 414 Park Circle contains 11 rental units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and they do not have the funding source for some immediately necessary repairs; these 11 rental units have 10 on site parking spaces, which generate a parking deficit. Clauson said that 404 Park Avenue, which is privately rented right now as free market units but represents 3 buildings with a variety of sizes of units with 5 on site parking spaces; these 3 buildings were also in need of repair. Clauson said that the current on site parking had a deficit of 21 spaces for the free market and affordable housing; the land use code says that you can carry forward a deficit and 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 the proposal generates a deficit of 10 spaces. Clauson stated the proposed underground parking garage would provide 25 spaces for the 24 affordable housing units and 28 gazage parking spaces for the free market units, which is a tremendous improvement in parking. Clauson stated the bulk and massing for this project was of concern with the staff and Cliff asked if there could be two buildings with a garage underneath them both and Clauson stated there could be two buildings but it will not work for this project. Clauson stated this was the RMF zone district, the most dense zone district for housing; there were different formulas for the 100% replacement program for the free market and the affordable housing. Clauson said the intention is that this redevelopment will be 100% replacement and there is no room for two separate buildings on the site; they have provided for a substantial amount of green space. Clauson said the floor area ratio is at 1.42 to 1 and the square footage is at 46,723. Clauson said they will not need a front setback variance because it would be an even exchange in property square footage with the City of Aspen with a quit claim deed. Clauson said the only variance needed would be in the floor area ratio but allowed in this zone district. Clauson said the garage entrance was moved up farther on Park Circle and utilized sketch up to show the project. Ken O'Bryan, Architect for the project, stated that in pulling back the building 26 feet back from the Tailings (36 feet off the property line) and the building was dropped down 4 feet minimum. O'Bryan said if they opened up the stairwells that would provide reliefs that could be open and would create a negative space that would help to open up the building. Michael Wampler asked about added expenses opening up the hallways to the outside elements. O'Bryan responded that the hallways as planned now had insulation anyway for acoustic reasons; he said that the trade-off would be that they would have to put exterior siding on it. Clauson proposed changes to the resolution on page 2 and 3; amend the square footage to 46,725, the floor area ratio 1.42:1; the 3`d bullet 24 units and the 4"' bullet added to the end of it , or as accomplished through a land swap with the City of Aspen with respect to right-of--way. Clauson added to page 3 Section 4: Affordable Housing a provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide 100% replacement for the existing free market units and the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 Phelan said the number of employees housed had to remain the same in the affordable housing replacement program; the free market replacement was chosen by the applicant to replace 100% of the number of units, 100% of the net leasable space and 100% of the number of bedrooms. Jim DeFrancia said there was a deficit of 10 spaces with the garage providing 53 spaces. Clauson stated that was correct. DeFrancia asked of the 11 existing affordable housing units owned by APCHA would be replaced at no cost to the government. Clauson replied that was correct. DeFrancia said the only variance that they were seeking was the FAR. Clauson replied that was correct. Weiss asked why with Ken's opening up of the stairways why they were seeking 46,725 square feet. Clauson responded that Ken's idea would be an improvement in floor area but the specific nature of that improvement he can't represent at this point. Dina Bloom asked how the community deck came about. Clauson replied that it was an outgrowth of the redesign of the garage entry that covered the drive. Bloom asked for clarification on the subgrade issue for the affordable housing at 50%. Phelan responded the standard for the affordable housing was that 50% of the finished floor area of a unit needs to be at or above finish or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive. Phelan said this was a review at final with the growth management review. Weiss asked if the affordable housing was 50% of the square footage has to be above ground. Phelan responded that it was the net livable area; the finished floor. Phelan said this code amendment came about because affordable housing could be put subgrade; the council did not feel that units below grade were very livable so that's where the 50% above grade came from. Clauson stated that he's put in 2 projects since this code amendment and one was at garden level; another one had 'h of the unit above grade and''/z of the unit below grade. Clauson said that was what was happening here at garden level. Stan Gibbs asked if half of the floor could not be below grade and the other half had to be above the natural grade; that doesn't mean walls half above grade don't mean finished floor. Gibbs said the revised proposal goes from 51,000 down to 46,000; just not as far as what P&Z wanted. Gibbs asked the total floor area of the free market units was and the affordable housing was. Clauson replied the free market total is 33,239 and the affordable housing total is 16,127. Phelan stated that was the calculation of net livable area; inhabitable living spaces that excludes garages. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 Erspamer asked if they met all of the setbacks. Kevin O'Bryan, architect, replied that they did. Jim True stated that the code was clear "each unit provided shall be designed such the finished floor level of fifty percent or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher". Jennifer Phelan said the intent was to require fifty percent of a unit's net livable area be at or above grade. Phelan said if it were a two story apartment or unit you could do one floor above grade and one floor below. Tom McCabe said as a partner in the project specific to this discussion (finished floor grade) he was on Council when this change was made; he said the idea was for half of the unit to be above grade not half of the floor and you can mix and match that so that we talked in terms of volume but they said area, which gets at the same thing. McCabe said so if half of your unit was above grade and half was below grade that was what they were looking for; some sunlight and it's more like a garden apartment concept, but they did not get that specific. Weiss asked if all of the rooms had light would that satisfy your original intent. McCabe replied that was right. Public Comments: 1. Jennifer Phelan entered into the record a letter from Shael Johnson and Mike McCollum; they were concerned for the parking provided and did not feel that it was adequate. 2. Jay Maytin lived at the Tailings; he showed a rendition from Nina Merzbach, which was done prior to this latest rendition of this project. Maytin said his wife does not agree with the mass and scale and he did not believe the mass and scale was in the character of the neighborhood. Maytin said that a zero lot line would be required between the two properties (the two lots) and there was a required setback between the two lots, which would need a variance. Maytin said that when a building gets sunk into the ground the FAR is reduced but the actual livable square footage of the building is calculated in a different way because some of the building is subgrade; he said the sinking helps out his personal situation. Maytin pointed out that housing was important but it should not be the deciding fact for this property. Maytin asked P&Z not to allow the FAR variance, the lot line variance to protect the scale and mass of this property, honor the neighbors that have spoken and follow the staff recommendations. Maytin said that this APCHA property was a gold mine and was sure that there was a way to fmance renovation of that building. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 3. Mary Ellen Sheridan said that she was the property manager of 404 Park Avenue and agreed that this building was an eyesore; she said that this was a mixed character neighborhood. 4. Roger Moyer asked how many parking spaces were they requesting that were not on site now. Phelan replied that the existing 14 free market units should have 22 spaces and they have 5 according to what the design specs are so there is a deficit of 17 right now. Phelan stated the redevelopment would actually require 26 spaces but they are proposing 28 so they were satisfying their requirement for the free market. Phelan said the there was a deficit of 4 spaces currently for the affordable housing. Moyer said that if you have so many bedrooms and so many people in units that every person will have a car; there was not adequate parking in the entire neighborhood. Moyer cited examples of neighbors having more than one car. 5. Shael Johnson agreed with what Roger Moyer said about the parking. Johnson said one of the things that she liked about the neighborhood was that the streets were not to code and there weren't curbs and gutters because it adds some of the charm. 6. Marsha Goshorn said that she was on the housing board and one of the things that will change with this were the 2 current building that were there have so many people crammed into those units and there will be actually fewer people on site with the new development. Goshorn said there would be 24 new affordable units that would not cost one dime of public subsidy. Goshorn said that the new development would actually clean up the neighborhood. 7. Mike McCollum asked where the overflow parking goes. McCollum agreed with Roger Moyer about the huge problem with parking. Stan Gibbs asked staff to respond to the parking issue; he asked if 39 units and 53 spaces are adequate according to the code. Jennifer Phelan replied the way that she did the calculations was that they were short 5 parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Phelan explained that an applicant was allowed to carry over a shortfall of parking; cunrently there were 11 affordable housing units that would require 14 spaces with 10 provided with a deficit of 4. Phelan said in the redevelopment they are providing 25 spaces for 24 units. Jim DeFrancia asked as presently configured how many parking spaces are there on site and off site. Phelan responded currently there are 15 parking spaces. DeFrancia said if this project were to advance there would be 53 spaces. DeFrancia asked how many units exist today and how many will exist with the new project. Phelan replied 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 there were 25 units existing and there were 38 proposed. Stan Clauson said that clearly shows how much the situation is being corrected and addressed by the provision of an entire floor of parking. Clauson said that there were requesting a subdivision which essentially creates a unified property and there are no internal setbacks in a unifed property. Cliff Weiss said the free market units were roughly 2500 square feet and asked who would buy these units. Clauson replied it was unclear from a market standpoint. Weiss asked why the parking spaces were not reapportioned for the affordable housing units because the free market units would probably not need as many spaces for second home owners, which would satisfy a lot of the neighbors concerns. Gibbs asked if P&Z would be voting on a subdivision. Phelan answered the subdivision would be part of the final PUD application; it would be a recommendation from the planning commission to city council. DeFrancia said that we have to accept change; he said the public benefit was the affordable housing at no public cost. DeFrancia said that he was supportive of the project. Erspamer said all too often we don't listen to the neighborhoods; the setbacks were met with the combining of the lots. Erspamer said that the size of the building was too big. MOTION.• Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Weiss stated that he has been in favor of this infill housing and private/public projects. Weiss said that he can not oppose something like this and the applicant has followed the suggestions of this commission. Weiss said there were probably better ways to mitigate the parking, the mass and scale and since this was conceptual he could live with this. Weiss said that if this satisfies what housing put in place with no dark bedrooms then he will go with the project. Dina Bloom said that the employee housing was great. Stan Gibbs said that with this discussion of the 50% floor area it was not clear and he would like to continue this hearing for that clarification on floor area. Gibbs said that if that building has to be raised up or the units reconfigured to provide 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 more above grade area then the FAR would change as well and he wanted to know the affect of that number as well. Clauson stated that if it was necessary to have a finished floor 50% above grade then they would just organize those units vertically. Jim True stated that he met with the City Attorney, John Worcester, and Stan Clauson about the exchange that they talked about and the City Attorney was of the opinion that as a vacation of aright-of--way it can't be done as an exchange, it was really a different type of process. True said it was different than a land exchange; it's a vacation process. Erspamer stated that the portion of the resolution should be amended to state "it's a process to be formulated by an agreement between the city attorney and the applicant." MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the conceptual Resolution #1, Aspenwalk, with the changes as described by the applicant and a correction to the affordable housing count, and a clarification to the process of vacation. Seconded by Cliff Weiss; roll call vote.• Wampler, yes; Bloom, yes; Gibbs, no; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, no. APPROVED 4-1. Discussion: Gibbs stated the applicant has been very responsive to P&Z and the neighbors to reduce the mass and scale of the building toward the Tailings; he agreed with Mr. DeFrancia about the parking that it will actually result in a parking benefit overall with a parking enforcement issue. Gibbs said that he wanted to see the affordable housing built but had a hard time with the current wording being based on something that we don't really know. Erspamer stated that he went along with the staff recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT LANDING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON LANDMARKS LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on TDRs. Jennifer Phelan presented the request for the code amendment and stated as part of the lazger moratorium code amendment a year ago a TDR was allowed to be severed from a historic property and landed elsewhere. Phelan said the existing program (up to this point) was that you severed 250 square foot increments from a historic property and landed them as 250 square feet of floor area on certain multifamily and mixed use projects within the city. Phelan said to create additional landing sites and potential opportunity towazds this transferable development right program to work the code changes allowed these units that were capped at certain sizes (for example a unit could be only 2,000 square feet of net livable area) the purchase of a TDR allowed 9 ~~t~ET `~ Jennifer Phelan From: nina@ninja-design.com Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:22 AM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: letter & attachement for P&Z mtg 5-20-08 Attachments: Nina-Roofline-Composite_07_10.5T-mq.pdf May 15, 2008 Dear Planning and Zoning of Aspen, Aspenwalk, the proposed development at 404/414 Park Circle, has taken several attempts at seducing the neighbors of Park Circle, as well as the P&Z members. We feel that, at the Tailings, the developers have not been truthful about the full impact of their future development to their neighbors. This project is not only out of scale with the neighborhood, but it is wrong in terms of height, scale and mass. The developers have been comparing this building to that of Centennial?s. When Centennial was built, nearly 25 years ago, it was a development in reference only to itself and to Hunter Creek. Both properties at the time, were insular and groundbreaking in their scale and mission of providing the shere number of employee units to the Aspen employee housing force. However, it is not fair to compare Centennial to this neighborhood of Park Circle/Avenue, since it is an established Aspen residential neighborhood of smaller condo buildings and single family homes. We, at The Tailings, find it ironic that when the City of Aspen develops property in this Park Ave/Circle neighborhood it is in scale to the neighborhood character as well as sensitive to the density impacts; ie. Snyder Park, Williams Ranch, Midland Park. These aforementioned City developments have adequately provided for parking, and density suitability within their neighborhood environments. Snyder Park, has built 25 units on nearly 4 acres. It has an open space perimeter which ensures its view plane of Aspen Mountain. Quite forward thinking of Aspen?s Planning Department at the time, don?t you think? Midland Park has a portion of the Aspen Walk?s site, enduring that an open space be maintained there. The developers, Aspenwalk, along with the Aspen Housing Authority, have proposed a development that exceeds all limits allowed within city limits, 39 units 51,000 square feet of living spaces, 65 bedrooms on a mere 3/4 of an acre. The Variances asked for by the developers would grossly exceed building standards in Aspen, let alone our quaint neighborhood. The Aspenwalk development does not need to have affordable housing units which exceed free market square footage, such as 940 square feet for a two bedroom unit. These could easily be scaled back a good 25 percent. The 10,000 square foot variance should not be approved. The additional ten feet of height variances should not be approved. This development is already far over what is appropriate for the neighborhood. In essence, the new building does not need to eclipse the view from the Tailings and go so close to the property line. The new building could easily replace all current employee housing as well fit neatly into the neighborhood?s character. No variances on height or square footage should even be considered in this neighborhood. Another real issue is that the new Aspen walk development is built so near to the property lines of the Tailing?s building that is severely impedes our quality of life. Personally, If I had known that a builing would be built so close to our building, none of us would have invested our life savings into such a venture. Nearly 15 years ago, I was desparate to stay in Aspen. I had already established a growing business in Aspen and the only missing link was housing. I had already struggled to stay afloat in Aspen for nearly six years at that point. I applied for numerous Affordable housing 1 lotteries. The best of my lottery result was second. The worst was one hundred seventeen. This was in the West Hopkins Affordable Housing Project. I do fully understand the importance of Affordable Housing in Aspen. I understand the Aspen Community Plan. I however, do not agree that the Aspen Walk?s proposal as such complies with any part of this plan. Since, I had been in town since 1987 and had not bought a unit in town. I tried to buy employee housing. There was not enough stock at the time, I fell victim to this statistic. I then saved like mad. Three years later, after five attempts at employee housing, I bought my Tailings unit in 1996.It was ?free market? and I was very proud that I was ableto achieve this within the Aspen market. I find it severely ironic that now my biggest asset will be significantly impacted by the building being built directly in front of our property, 39 units, 25 of which are affordable housing In the last 14 years, my serenity has been provided by the view of Aspen Mountain and Shadow Mountain, as well as the suitable set-back of the neighboring building. Could the new building not take advantage of the natural slope of thes ite? By repositioning the bulk of the building, much of the Tailing?s view could be preserved. A greater set back, as well as the building being rebuilt two story at the Northside, then going tree stories as the grade drops down. This would be appreciated by the Tailings neighbors greatly. As you can plainly witness in the ?Before and After? attachment and poster, the view from the Tailings is completed eclipsed by the new building next door. This is not only not necessary, it is a great burden for our homeowners was it drastically impedes our property values and qualtity of life. The other neighbors on Park Circle (ie, 407, 415, 425 mainly) have a set back ?naturally? provide by Park Circle, the road. At the Tailings, being directly affected to the North, with no road to divide us, we are most severely impacted by the monstrosity of Aspenwalk?s scale, height and massing. This development has already given the ?free Market? Southeast and South side of the property much needed open space. On the Tailing?s, North side of the property, the ?employee Housing Wing? has been dumped. It is lot line to lot line. It is separated to the Free Market Wing in an obvious class distinction sort of way. To the South, there is room to breathe, views, and plenty of parking. On the Northern end of the property; there are height variances asked for so that it can be over-built, squeezed in density, over-built for the neighborhood. There will not be enough parking spaces for these units. Only one space per two bedroom unit. This is a joke. There is already a serious lack of parking spaces in the neighborhood. The Hunter Creek Bus already screams down the Park Circle hill, careening into parked cars at the corner. Then the only entrance to this development will put an additional 65+ cars onto this dangerous corner? This is not only poor city planning, it is reckless endangerment for the neighbors attempting to drive safely in this area. In essence, this proposed development is wrong for the site, out of scale for the neighborhood and should not be approved as such. Please take into consideration its neighbors directly affected to the Northside, The Tailings. We are real people whose only real assets, are our condos, which will be forever eclipsed by the unnecessary monstrosity being built next door. The city needs its employees to be housed in town, yet it does not need to grant variances and green lights to developers who grossly impact an existing neighborhood?s charm and character. Thank you very much for your consideration of this important issue. Nina Merzbach 424 Park Circle, Townhouse 2, Aspen, CO. 81611. 2 ~E EQFZE & ~4FT'ER View As Seen from The Tailings Building Current view from the Tailings Building towards Aspen Mountain. View from the Tailings Building AFTER Aspenwalk has been built. MIxEMcCoLLUiu SHAEL JOHNSON P.O. Box9136 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 20, 2008 City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen, Colorado Re: Aspen Walk Proposed Development Deaz City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission We aze homeowners at the Midland Park Condominiums, which is private property located next to the proposed Aspen Walk development. From the May 20, 2008, memo to the P&Z from Jennifer Phelan, it our my understanding that the current proposal of the developers calls for 53 off-street gazage parking spaces - 25 for the affordable housing units and 28 for the free-market units. We have lived at Midland Park since 1987 and, in our opinion, considering that pazking in the neighborhood is already a problem, 53 off-street parking spaces for a project of this size and in this neighborhood is completely inadequate. There are a proposed 35 bedrooms of affordable housing. 53 pazking spaces for 35 bedrooms is inadequate itself, not even taking into consideration the pazking needs that the free- market units will generate. With some homeowners owning more than one vehicle and guests visiting with vehicles, along with service people, and people storing vehicles on the street (which is a big problem already), if this minimal amount ofoff-street pazking is approved, it will greatly exacerbate a public parking problem that already exists and will extend well into the surrounding neighborhood. Where will guests pazk? Where will service vehicles be parked? Where will unit owners of Aspen Walk park when the 53 spaces aze full? This is a crucial issue in connection with this development. The Midland Park Homeowner Association regulations will not allow Aspen Walk overflow parking on its property. Due to the narrow streets in the neighborhood, which add to its historic character and charm, additional street parking is an unacceptable solution because street parking already causes problems, especially in the winter. I would urge those of you who may not have yet visited the site to please take a look and try to imagine the negative pazking impacts on the surrounding neighbors by this project as proposed. As we have stated above, public parking is already a problem in the neighborhood. Whatever the final recommendations or approvals aze by the P&Z regazding this proposed development, please do not recommend or approve anything less than that the developers provide absolutely the most off-street parking spaces that are allowed to be required. Very truly yours, f,~.~~Z~l~~~/ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATESiNc lands to pe arcbitectu re. planning.reso rt design yiz North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado ea6u t. 97ofga52;a; f.g7o/gao~i6z8 InFO~scaplanning.com wwwscaplanning.com 7 May 2008 Jennifer Phelan, AICP Deputy Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen. CO 81611 Re: Revisions to Aspen Walk Project Submittal for PB.Z Revtew Dear Jennifer: We are pleased to provide you with revised plans for Aspen Walk, which we believe are responsive to concerns expressed by Planning B~ Zoning Commission members and some abutters. This letter is intended to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning Commission, and details some of the changes. Please bear in mind the at this conceptual submittal level, some minor changes may continue to occur as the affordable housing unit mix is optimized ahd as building code considerations are further reviewed. Here are the key changes: 1. The sub grade garage hqs been redesigned and fhe entrance re-located. The entrance fo the garage has been moved further north along Park Circle to the properly line abutting the Tailings Condominium. This has allowed a full redesign of the parking garage, which provides 53 vehicle spaces including one space for all affordable housing units and considerably more storage for all residential units. Re-locating fhe garage entry at a further distance from the Park Avenue, Gibson, and Park Circle intersection will also minimize any potential congestion issues. 2. The building has been set back from the adjacent property on the north. Because of the relocation of the garage entry, the building has been pulled back approximately 20 feet from the adjacent failings Condominium at the front portion of the structure. This will open up views from the abutting property and create a greater sense of openness. 3. The bulidtng has been lowered approximately 4 feet of the north property line and throughout the projec}. Redesign of the parking garage has permitted a general lowering of the building, particularly at the north elevation, where it has been lowered approximately four feet. Relocation of the parking garage entry has eliminated the one area of non-conformance with the height restrictions. The building is now completely conforming to the height requirements of the zone district, and .~~ . ``# ~ ~r '~ ~ Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP 7 May 2008 Page 2 of 3 ,, l ~ ~' considerably lower where comment had been made regarding the impact on -' ': ;'~„ °' ~ the Tailings condominium. '>, . , "' ~ 4. There has been a general reduction in the reques}ed floor area and the floor area ratio. Owing to the lowering of the building and some internal redesign for greater efficiencies, the overall floor area has been reduced to 43,001 SF from the initial requested floor area of 51,040 SF. This reduction of overall floor area brings the building quite close to the permitted 40,968 SF permitted in the zone dislrict for projects of This density. We believe that the small additional Increment of floor area being requested is consistent with a project providing such a substantial benefit in affordable housing. The floor area ratio is currently 1.31:1 and we would note that the RMF zone disfrict does permit a floor area of 1.5:1 for an even denser project, while the applicable floor area ratio is 1.25:1 for a project of Phis more appropriate density, 5. Certain design elements have been modified fo create a lighter, less massive appearance. The elevator shads accessing the roof deck of the building have been relocated to a less visible location more to the rear of the building and have been changed to use lighter, thinner materials. The stone base of the building has been lightened to create a lighter appearance. The building has been divided into three sections stepping down with the grade, as opposed to two sections stepping down in the earlier design. Roof balustrades have been made more transparent and lowered where they appear of the edge of the building, creating a lower overall appearance. Any higher screening for roof decks has been set further into the roof area. 6. A recreation deck has been added for the affordable housing. Covering the entry to the garage, a recreation deck has been added to the first Ievet above grade on the north and east elevation. This deck will be accessible as a common area for the affordable housing units. 7. The affordable housing unit mix has been redesigned to be completely conforming to current codes. Staff had noted a discrepancy in the number of bedrooms provided in the affordable housing unit mix as not fully meeting the required mitigation. The intention of this project is 1o fully meet the required 100% mitigation for the replacement of the existing 14 free market units at 404 Park Avenue and the replacement of affordable housing at 414 Park Circle. Two code sections have somewhat different requirements For this replacement. For the existing 14 free market units, 100h of the unit count, bedrooms, and floor area are being replaced. This requires 14 units, 25 bedrooms, and 9,190 SF of replacement housing. For the replacement of the 11 affordable housing units, an employee housing equivalent for 16.75 employees is required. We believe that the current i '~ ~- `,` ~, -: ,, ^~a '~~,. Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP 7 May 2008 Page 3 of 3 proposed mix meets both these requirements, and will continue to review the housing mix with staff and our joint venture partner, the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authoriiy to ensure that the mix meets all requirements and provides an optimal mix of unit types and categories. The current category average is well below Category 3. We believe that these improvements represent a considerable enhancement of a project which already provided considerable community benefits, and look forward to presenting the revisions at the P&Z continued hearing scheduled for 20 May 2008. Please let me know if I can provide any additional material for your review. Ve truly yours, Stan Clawson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Cc: Tom McCabe, Executive Director, APCHA Project Owners